Skip to main content

tv   Planning Commission  SFGTV  April 29, 2022 8:00pm-1:01am PDT

8:00 pm
calling in remotely arts call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute the volumeon your televisionor computer . for those in the chamber we request you silenced any mobile devicesduring theseproceedings . at this time i like to take role . commission president tanner . [roll call] >> thank you commissioners, first on youragenda is items proposed for continuance. item one case 21-00698 ,south bend avenue .cost for conditional use authorization proposed for indefinite continuance and further commissioners under your discretionary review calendar
8:01 pm
items 15 for case number 2016 00320 drp at 460 vallejo stree . a discretionary review is proposed for continuance may 26 2022. i have no other items proposed for continuance so we should open up public comment for members of the public, please line up on the screen at the side of theroom or come forward . members of the public calling in please press star 3. seeing no requests from any member of the public. >> just theitems i called . >> there are no members of the public requesting to speak, public comment is closedand those items proposed to be continued are before you
8:02 pm
commissioners . >> commissionerimperial. >> moved to continue all items as proposed .>> second. >> on the motionto continue items, commissioner release . [roll call] so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 70 and we will placethis on your consent calendar . all matters listed under the consent calendar are considered to beroutine by the planning commission . there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission or public so requests in which event the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as aseparate item . into case 2016-004823 cua ems
8:03 pm
at 744 harrison street, a large authorization of conditional use in item 3 case number 2022, at 1548 california street a conditional use authorization. this is your opportunity to pull up either item 2 orthree off consent .people calling in can press star 3 and for those members of thepublic in the chambers you may come forward . when you hear yourline has been undiluted is your indication to begin speaking . >>. >> speaker: i live at 1590 sacramento street which is sacramento and market. i have questions for the person proposing to add this to his visitors.
8:04 pm
>> i'm going to interrupt you for a moment. you're speaking to 1548 california street, at this time where asking members of the public who want this matter heard to requested peopleoff consent so i assume that's what you're asking . >> would be my request, i'm so sorry. >> i know it can be confusing. we willtake this all of consent and havingheard at the end of today's agenda >> thank you so much . >> that's fine . >> very good . >>. >> speaker: my name is tom, i live at 1590 two of the intersection of sacramento and market. i don't understand what the term meanspulled off consent . >> the previous speaker requested item 3 for the project at 1548 california street the, the request is that
8:05 pm
this matter be heard thus being pulled off consent. consent means it would be heard. it would not necessarily be a case presentation or public comment, it would just be considered by the commission on their consent calendar at this time item 3 will be heard at the end of today's agenda . >> when will be ideal to voice my disagreements with passing this modification of their liquor license? >> when we call item 3 at the end of today's agenda so it will be alittle time before we get to it . but as soon as we get through all theregularly scheduled business , we will take up item 3. >> on the website it says this afternoon's meeting is from 1 pm until 6 pm so is that around 6 pm?
8:06 pm
>> there actually is no end time. if need be we can go until late in the into the evening but i do not suspect it will be that case today but youwill have to wait .>> it could possibly waiting for hours. >> it is likely you will be waitingfor hours but you can follow it by streaming us live for watching it . >> i like to see if commissioners agree we can pick up the item for that it can be dispensedwith and move on to regular agenda . if anybody objectsto that . >> i amokay with that . >> wonderful idea. >> thank you sir. we will take up as the first item after we finished we will bein the regular calendar . >> very good commissioners. we will call item 3 off consent and having heard first on a regularcalendar . >> commissioner tanner is there
8:07 pm
any concern ... of the woman we asked to take it off consent that it would be the end of agenda is she still available? >> she was still on the call when we said that sohopefully she nowunderstands there is another request to speak . >> thank you. >>go-ahead collar . >> you so much. thank you for the courtesy . >> so clearly she is aware. any other member would like to takeitem to off consent ? seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, your consent calendar is now before you, item 3 now. >> moved to approve item to. >> second. >> on that motion to approve
8:08 pm
item 2 onyour consent calendar ,commissioner ruiz .[roll call vote] >> so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 70. and that will place us under commission matters item for consideration of adopting draft minutes for april 14 2022. members of the public this is your opportunity toaddress the commission on the minutes by pressing á3 or coming forward . seeing no requests tospeak public comment is closed and the minutes are now before you . >> commissioner koppel. >> moved to approve the minute . >> on the motionto adopt the
8:09 pm
minutes commissioner ruiz . [roll call vote] >> so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously into zero placing us on item 5 commission comments and questions. >> i want to pause this moment to do our land acknowledgment before we hear from the rest of you on items that may be on your mind. the planning commission knowledge is we are on the unseeded ancestral home loan homeland of the ramaytush ohlone original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. inaccordance with their tradition the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded lost or forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of thisplace as well as for all people who reside in their territory .
8:10 pm
as guests we recognize we benefit fromliving and working on their traditional homeland . we wish to pay our respects by analogy ancestors of the community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people . iwant to thank youfor taking the time to do that with me today and also on an unrelated planning note congratulations to the warriors on their recent win . very exciting stuff . any other commissioners care to say any comments or questions ? seeing none i think we are closed for that matter. >> very good commissioners. let's move on to item 6 four case number 2021 00997 crv for remote hearings. again we are requesting you adopt a resolution that would allow us to conduct our hearings remotely in the event noneof us can appear in person in city hall . appearing a week early because we are canceling next week's. members of the public this is your opportunity toaddress the commission for their resolution
8:11 pm
considering remote hearings . pressá3 or come forward . >> speaker: good afternoon commissioners. i feel that with the hybrid meetings starting to go back to where you were before the pandemic with the time, i think some of the adrs you have given the requester the five minutes. i don't know, i can't tell. i just hope that at some point even if we're still hybrid that you please go back to the regular time as i said. i think three minutes or public comment whether it'sgeneral or otherwise is really good . i know as long as we're wearing the masks i'll say it's really hard to talk fast wearing a mask. so please consider that and thank you very much. >> last call for public comment on item 6. seeing no other requests to speak public comment is closed and the resolution for remote hearingsis now before you
8:12 pm
commissioners . >> i want to take an opportunity to thank again secretary and staff for helping us run these hearings and also to sfgov tv and others. it's great to see so many of you in person and to continually be enjoyed online by other members of the public giving their testimony. certainly we can open the floor if commissioners have feedback or ways to improve the hearing but i think we've been doing quite well, moresurprisingly than we would have imagined if we asked ourselves two years ago how they would be going so just to staff and open the floor for any comments or motions . >> commissioner koppel . >> moved to approve. >> thankyou commissioners. >> second . >>upon the motion to adopt resolution to allow remote hearings . [roll call vote] that motion
8:13 pm
passes unanimously 720 placing us underdepartment matters . i have 74 announcement. >> speaker: good afternoon. a couple items, one i wanted to recognize joe, he celebrating his 20th year with the plannin department. i think 10 years here at the commission , how long since you started here? >> i've officially been secretarysince 2012 . >> so half his career with the commission. i also wanted to note other news with our ground play program which is our effort to do you tounderutilized public spaces multijurisdictional or multi agency . community space playland which you may know which is out on the third. it's a formal school district site that has been used for open space and there's a garden
8:14 pm
there. it's been successful with a six-year run but it's closing. it's turned into housing but we did also open the three plaza which is the corner of harris and 60, a formerrailroad right-of-way which was converted to open space so that's good news . i wanted to i sent you an email earlier forwarding the controller's monthly board on recovery and i think these are posted on the controller's website as well but continues to show where we're kind of in recovery mode but it's slow going as you can imagine . you've heard here about 35 percent of its pre-pandemic level vacancies are still fairly high 20 percent. we're seeing some uptake and
8:15 pm
hotel occupancy, i think it's at 50+ percent but significantlylower than it was pre-pandemic. so i'll continue to forward those to the controller's office and that's all i have . >> thank you director.if there are no other items we ca move on . >> did the city giveyou anything for 20 years ? did you get up in >> you just get a pat on the back and a kick in the. [bleep] . [laughter] >>commissioners, item 8, review of pastevents . i have no report . >> thank you jonas.good afternoon commissioners. audrey maloney for erin starr who is out today. land use committee had a full agenda this week which included presentations from the controller's office, planning department and transport regarding the intermediate
8:16 pm
length occupancy program. the office presented the results of their study which was mandated by the original ordinance. planning department provided updates on application volume and enforcement considerations and transport provided an update on how ilo's have impacted their work . the supervisor noticed a need to prioritize enforcement and rent control units which are prohibited from being classified as transcends. sex venues were included to incorporate all the commissions modifications so those were hurt this monday for the second time and approved as a committee report . and third we have our three different now five different for plex proposals so if you'll just bear with me here ican go into as much or little detail as you'd like . i'll take my cues from you if you'd like to hear more detail on any of these areas but when the hearing first convened the ordinance was as follows. supervisor mandelman's
8:17 pm
ordinance with proposed without an affordability requirement. hehad amended hisordinance to include the commissions recommended modifications, not all that many . if you'd like me to go over what those were unhappy to . great. and then beyond what the commission recommended that he incorporated he had previously included just specifically calling out in the legislation that all demolished units must be replaced requiring any over the basedensity to be rent-controlled and creating a new zoning district called for each 2d and resulting all of the rh one parcels currently to that new zoning district . some of these amendments were requested or introduced by a supervisor melgar which supervisor period mandelman was happy to incorporate. he did not amend his ordinance
8:18 pm
further but both supervisor mar and preston suggested additional amendments. supervisor preston had one main proposed amendment and that was to include a requirement that all projects seeking to utilize this density exception must have owned the property for at least five years prior to filing the application. and supervisor mark recorded a host of amendments.they provided affordability requirements the layout is own ordinance and another situatio where i'm happy to go into detail if you'd like . okay, great. so supervisor mar proposed requiring all units to be affordable at 100 percent of a and i, prohibiting short-term rentals of the unit, adding minimum unit sizes for dwelling units that match the minimum. requiring that to receive the density bonus the owner must sign an affidavit stating they will reside in one of the units
8:19 pm
for at least five years post-construction, requiring the planning department to produce an annual report on racial equity goals and outcomes and requiring the rent board to maintain a list of addressesand base units built through these projects and publish them on their website annually . so supervisor madeline was not supportive of the ordinances which is where we ended up with five new ordinances, there are five total so what they did instead was implicated his original ordinance with his previous amendments. one of the duplicated files now incorporates supervisor preston's requirements and the other implicated file contains all of supervisor mars package of amendments so wehave to other ordinances to discuss , that's supervisor safai and supervisor mar'soriginal
8:20 pm
ordinance . those were heard on monday. you are these ordinances earlier this year and recommended disapproval of both and as a refresher supervisor mar's ordinance proposes four units only when the ordinances above the base density would be offered at 100 percent of ami. supervisor safai's ordinance is similar except his requirement is less. so at the hearing supervisor safai introduced additional amendments to his ordinance. i'm going to read these because i wanted to note these require referral for your consideration so i'll read through them but if you'd like a more in-depth presentation on any of these amendmentsi'm happy to do so. just let me know today if that's possible otherwise we will go forward with leaving the commissions right .the amendments that the supervisor introduced to his ordinance are allowing projects to pay and in
8:21 pm
blue fee instead of building their affordable unit requirements on site. that would be based on the average size of the total number of units up to 740square feet maximum . allowing up to six units on corner lots through this program and exempting eligible projects from 317 conditional use authorization so long as the property is not a historic resource. again i will leaveit to you as to whether you would like a more in-depth presentation on this amendment . >> i have a question. would any of those amendments have to be especially it sounds like it will still need to come back to the planning commissio for reconsideration . is that what i'm hearing? >> just supervisor safai's amendments.all of them were already part of your consideration under his original ordinance . the difference is that if supervisor mar's amendments become part of supervisor mandelman's ordinance it will require a two thirds vote
8:22 pm
because those amendments were the content of what you disapproved back in february of thisyear . >> because that's the trip located in france they now have correct, one of the trip locatedordinances . >> that would have to come back if it gets traction. >> that would not have to come back but it would have to get a two thirds majority vote and supervisor safai's ordinance which does have anaffordability requirements because he's making these new amendments , some of which are expanding the ordinances and loosening the regulations and restrictions, that's what needs to come back if you would like . >> i do have a question. how is this going toaffect the housingelement ? now that it's on track . >> it would have an effect on what our plan is and what we need to rezone for because we did consider allowing for six
8:23 pm
units on corner lots as part of the proposed rezoning so if it happens in advance and that it just shifts the need to rezone for those parts in thebase . >> so we will still be in the timeline. >> yes. >> it's just kind of how it's listed. >> so with those amendments that the supervisor requested to his ordinance the committee did agree to adopt those amendments into hisordinance and continue it to the call of the chair .that was what the supervisor requested as he knows that at this time his ordinance doesn't have support but he believes as the requirements of the housing element become more of a reality that there could be an appetite in the future to move his ordinance forward. supervisor mar didnot propose any amendments to his ordinance
8:24 pm
. after all of the new amendments were introduced and the file was replicated the committee members turned to discussion andquestions. all the committee memberswere interested in the feasibility study conducted by century urban which was included in your case packet . and it was shown even without affordability requirements , a single-family home and rebuilding 3 to 4 units on a lotwas not likely to be financially feasible in most scenarios . the committee members were critical of the timing of the study, and methodology and its message. improviser mar and preston asked questions about the decision to disprove supervisor mar and safai ordinances. supervisor preston disagreed with the consistency, supervisor peskin questioned the feasibility study and that feasibility study in question was provided as an exhibit in all case packets for supervisor mar and safai ordinances.
8:25 pm
after staff responded chair track team passed the department with conducting further analysis which would examine the implications for homeowners, the affordability craft created under supervisor safai ordinances and potential financing mechanisms to close those gaps. so essentially tosummarize everything that happened . the supervisor mandelman ordinance was located. one containingsupervisor mar's ordinance, another containing supervisor preston's . those were continued till may 9 at the land use committee and supervisor safai's ordinance with his new amendments would continue to the call of the chair and supervisor mar's ordinance which had no new amendments was continued to the call of the chair and that was land-use and that the full board mark designation of the theater passed its second read and adult venues passed its first read soif you have
8:26 pm
questions or would like to hear supervisor safai amendments as a full presentation let me know . >> okay commissioners. seeing no additional questions from commissioners we can move on to general public comment at this time. members may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member may address the commission forup to three minutes and when the number of speakers exceeds the 50 minute limit general comments may be moved to the end of the agenda .through the chairyou each have two minutes . >> good afternoon again, in part one of the comments i submitted on the 26, there's a timeline of the history of demolition and i left off .
8:27 pm
in 2020 and i should have added in 2021 the admission by the department that noe valley is the epicenter of demolitions and the length of that to the 2012 article from sf weekly is a good tandem to that because it basically discussed the concept of the creation of the fact that demolitions dressed up and disguised as alteration . i want to discuss this article from sf weekly in the context of what 2022 but there's not enough time but obviously the article raises all kinds of questions about the culture coming of the greatrecession after 317 was approved up until today . de facto and tantamount are the same. in part two of my comments submitted this morning despite the omission of the epicenter or the fact that demolition there's a handwritten staff note from march 2009 about
8:28 pm
adjusting thedemo caps which the commission is empowered to do under section 317 .the power should have been adjusted at least twice if notthree times . so here's my point. since for the draft housing element of zoning should and will occur within the next three years. the caps need to be adjusted in the interim and please ask the city attorney about adjusting them twice if not three times. for the reasons i wrote in my june10, 2019 letter which you also bound to stay in part one . i made a hard copy of that article from sf weekly in case someone on thecommission doesn't want to go to the link and there is .you very much, happy day. this is for the minutes, 148 words . >> last call for public comment. come forward a requestá3.
8:29 pm
okay, seeing no additional requests to speak we can move on to your regular calendar. item 3 was pulled off consent and will take upthat matter now or case 22 . 00116 at 1548 california stree . this is a conditional use authorization . >> department staff here on behalf of kurt wilson who is out of the office today. the case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to establish approximately 150 accessory liquor store use in an existing bar use also known as soda pop at 1548 california street. the parcel located within the pulled street conditional use authorization is required to admit any change of use of a motor store in local street. the proposed accessory liquor use will operate in conjunction with existing bar use located
8:30 pm
on the ground floor and will serve thegeneral public within the districts permissible powers of operation . there will be no proposed expansion building on local or cases of prophesy. use does not propose to take window. the project will be established in a three-story mixed-use building on the north side of california street between both street andhas been occupied by a bar. which has been in operation since 2012 and will continue to operate within the proposed liquor store accessory use. this bottle shop will have a very limited selection and focus on handcrafted san francisco and california spirits manufactured by micro distilleries.this department has received four letters of support from surrounding neighbors . the department has found in project to be consistent with the balance of theplant and necessary and desirable and recommends its approval . this concludes our presentation . the project sponsor team has
8:31 pm
prepared a presentation and just so you know our staff have a copy of yourpresentation they can share whenever you're ready . >> go-ahead. >> the presentation itself i think consists of three pictures ifwe want to hold those up . >> youhave five minutes .>> president tanner, commissioners, i'm here today with ben lyman who is a president of bitter badger which is part of the tonic beverage group. i've represented these guys for at least 12 years and they had more than 10 restaurants and bars in san francisco. very successful and i say i represent a lot of these bars and restaurants. theseguys have been extremely nonproblematic meeting zero problems . with 10 locations. this place is struggling. it'snear trader joe's on california street but mister lyman himself is active in the
8:32 pm
community . he's the executive director of the discover polk committee benefit districts and he's also theboard chair of the aquarium. 39 which is a 501(c)(3) . he's going to explain a little bit of what's goingon but this is a very small storefront, 15 feet wide . there's about 1200 square feet with a mezzanine in the front for storage and anotherthousand on ground-level we're talking 120 feet. this in addition to a type xlviii license . it is an add-on accessory use and he will explain exactly why he wants to do it but again, extremely small space in the very front and itwill be very nonproblematic . note airline bottles, no single beers, no nothing. mister lyman. >> thank you forhaving me president tanner and members of
8:33 pm
the commission .the space here is absolutely tiny and it is tiny by law because we have to have a separate path of entry forabc law so it's important to pointout we will never be able to expand past this space . it's so small and i heard the colors and understand there's always concern when you're adding liquor use .i'd offer to anybody if theywere to come and look at what we're doing is almost laughable and then you're asking why would we even do this ? the reason we want to do this is first of all i'm a small business advocate in san francisco and we want to promote local brands. the only thing we're going to carry our craft local brands. were going to have enough for maybe one case it's thiswide and one cooler for a local beer and maybe local lines. that's literally all we can fit in this area . i love local manufacturing especially. a bunch of my friends own
8:34 pm
breweries so we're excited about it. the second reason is to coronavirus we were doing virtual cocktail classes to corporate teams right out around the bay area. in california we were unable to sendalcohol outside of the state of california so it's local . we saw that as a viable business and want to continue it. unfortunately a california legislator put an end to that for bars. there's no open site so this tiny type xxi accessory use would allow us to continue to do that and finally we were destroyed by covid. encore karaoke is out of business. multiple neighbors are boarded up. i run the discover polk district and polk is doing all right. we're kind of the middle area. the area on california street between us and hide has become quiet and our business is suffering so we're trying to add atiny little use here .
8:35 pm
hopefully very unthreatening use that will also maybe bring some life back into the space and promote local brands. i'd be happy to answer any questions you have but those are all of the ideas we have going forward . >> they were projected onto the screen. >> the pictures we had will show how small spaces. the bar is narrow so when you walk in that will go to the left when you walk in and i don't know if we were facing here but you'd be facing north in that case then there's just this area we can set up a little counter and have a tiny 21 accessory one more thing. we're not selling out of the windowfor anybody who's worried . not going to be sellingout of the window you have to come inside and purchase endorse . >> back include your presentation. >> it does.
8:36 pm
>> we should go to public comment this is your opportunity to address the commission . forthose in the chambers please come forward . for those calling in remotely press star 3. when you line has been unused that isyour indication tobegin speaking . you have two minutes . >> thank you for the opportunity and consideration. my last name is jean. i have lived at 1590 sacramento street for 14 years. that's atthe corner of sacramento and larkin . i have some problems with the presentation and the plans that have been presented. what is the commitment? is there a legal commitment and obligation by the owners to limit the product that's being
8:37 pm
sold to the craft breweries or to just beer or wine? what concerned me was the presenter mentioned that he was conducting this and conducting virtualonline cocktail classes . cocktailclasses and beer and wine to me don't mix . so as well meaning as their initial plans are to just feature local craft beers which is a great idea, what is the restriction on themto keep their word ? i don't see the constraints within the licensefor which there applying . they also indicated that the store will be accessed through the soda pop, is there any way of screening the customer who's going to come in to this little
8:38 pm
hundred 20 foot area. as he pointed out, it's gotten really difficult on california street in light of covid and we all hope including other local businesses very close by carry all kinds of spirits with a full liquor license. >> thank you ma'am, that's you time . >> thankyou . >> my name is tom carlino and i tolive at 1590 sacramento street at the intersection of sacramento and larkin . i've lived here since 2004. i've lived in the city since january 1990. i know in this neighborhood afterclosing hours , 2 am that neighborhood is suggested to up
8:39 pm
to an hour of meandering drunks making raucous noises trying to find their cars, getting into fisticuffs and generally awakening people at two and three in the morning. to add to exiting drunks from open and operating bars to give them the ability to carry out more alcohol with them as they rolled through the neighborhood would be further disruptive to the health and welfare and instability of the neighborhoo . also i want to emphasize there are many other stores that predominantly sell groceries to individuals and families but also sell liquor wine and beer and a few of these are family-owned small businesses that rely on their liquor sales to for them the 80+ percent of their stores sale of groceries.
8:40 pm
and these are open before trader joe's opens in the morning and after trader joe's closes at night. so if you need something for breakfast the next morning and trader joe's is closed these individual family-owned stores which are small businesses which also sufferfrom the last two years of covid are struggling to survive . and the corner market at my intersection has been doing these things before i moved here in 2004. it is operated by a single family and their relatives. and they have struggled to stay alive supplying predominantly groceries to the neighborhood . and they close well before midnight so they're not fueling already drunken bar patrons that wander intothe neighborhood . >> last call for public comment
8:41 pm
on this item, pressá3 or come forward. public comment is closed and this matter is taken back. go ahead. >> speaker: i'm just an ss native. i'm in support of the dispensary and i'm inclined to support other dispensary. >> we are nottaking up the dispensary right now but you can call back later when we do . public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. >> if i could have a question for you. we've heardconcerns from one of the callers about operations and noise and things like that that can happenfrom late-night . explain a little bit more about how the car currently operates and howthis would augment that . >> we've been there for 10
8:42 pm
years , more than that. we are known as very responsible neighbors and we tried to really interact constantly with our neighbors. one of the things i to share with anybody and i'll put it on my front door is i have mycell phone that we hand out to anybody who has concerns or issues . and whenever something happens i respond in real-time. my business partner and i keep our phones on all the time which is asource of friction with my wife but it's something we have to do we feel . so we have a guard carded efficient security on thursday friday and saturday nightat our establishment . those are the only nights where the numbers add up enough to justify the cost of security butthey're extremely professional . i also own other businesses and it's one company that does everything. icontract with them to do my security also. we are , we police indoors and outdoors and we understand our
8:43 pm
list liquor license is the most precious thing we have. it's pretty much the only asset we have is a business that would ever be able to save us in horrible situation and issues around that directly affects our liquor license so we have to be very careful and we're known for its. we have no intentions onselling to go alcohol to somebody was visibly inebriated . we're not trying to sell as much as possible. this is a way to feature local brands. i want to mention they did mention the grocery store on larkin and sacramento. i had extensive conversations there very much in opposition of this when i explainedwhat was going on he was laughing . and he withdrew any concerns he had so i think that's importan . >> you have questions? >> i really don't see this as a big issue.
8:44 pm
i see the 250 square feet as a liquor store use, i think it's not designed for commercial or massive retail so i don't know, other commissioners? >> i'm supportive of this. >> we sent a number of times and we need to give our local businesses the tools they need to stay in businessand limit those vacant storefronts . and i'll make a motion to approve. >> second. >> there is a white request to speak. should we allow that person? you have to minutes. >> this is tom toledo again. >> you've already spoken, i'm sorry. if you've already spoken you
8:45 pm
don't get 2 public comment sections. there isa motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with condition . commissioner ruiz. [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0.that will place us back under our regular calendar . first item number nine case number 2022 00447 crv. for the sb nine objectives design standards this is for your consideration and request to adopt and amend . >> good afternooncommissioners. trent green, staff architect . please allow me to present the
8:46 pm
architecture portion of the design standards . i'm joined by david winslow in person as well as bridget hicks virtually who willbe available for questions afterwards . so as a very brief recap sb nine allows sponsors or homeowners to develop 2 units on a single family property. it also allows them to divide the lotinto two and build two on each persona portion of that .the state requires the review of these projects be done ministerial he . but they do givelocal governments the ability to create their own standards to implement them . so if you recall back in january we presented acomplete set of design standards including site design and architecture . the site design portion was adopted. however the architecture portion because of some concern by the architecture community was overly restrictive was not
8:47 pm
adopted but we are directed to work further with the architecture community to develop a set of standards that essays objectives as well as concerns of the architecture community. so over the past few months we've worked with them collaboratively on a few different working sessions to arrive at a new set of standards. they look very similar but there's some key differences in them. >> can we have apresentation on the laptop ? i'll briefly scroll through the portion that's been adopted already. so this is site design and it essentially looks at how buildings are cited on the property as well as our overall maps. it was the bulk of the document . and it looks at the lot and
8:48 pm
non-lot split scenarios. and then before we move on to look at the architecture portion we are proposing one very minor modification to the site design portion of the standards and this was to clarify the height of buildings in the rear property and in a lot split scenario. so it's still limited to 20 feet but we're adding, you can see what's highlighted here is 20 feet for all lots measured using methodology expressed in 260 81c of the planning code. this clarified at no point will the building go you 20 feet from gray so that includes upslope and lock down sloping lots .we felt that was important toinclude in the revised document . then looking at the architecture portion, these
8:49 pm
include materials, windows and entries as wepresented previously . so first one, sustainable durable materials. previously the architecture committee had some help that what we were proposing was overly restrictive in terms of materials so we loosened that to allow for more options and allow for more creativity in the design which is what we're hoping that these standards will help achieve overall. so for example the metal panels or something we included previously. just for the fact that we thought maybe they're not appropriate for every circumstance but we felt that having that freedom to propose high quality materials was important . and then i think i passed.
8:50 pm
okay. the second one was for windows. we got great feedback and previously we proposed the windows be recessedthree inches from primary building fagade . the architecture community and this was primarily to create a shadow line and to provide articulation on thefagade . we got feedback that there's other waysto achieve that . so if you project a window three inches from the fagade for example that would have the same effect. or for example during a sunshade around the window would also create that shadow line. we've added these options into the standards to allow for more flexibility and freedom. and then finally incorporating
8:51 pm
prominent entries. we're mostly in agreement on this one and the primary objectives were to really give the entry the appropriate prominence on the fagade as a main feature of the building. so to achievethat we suggested that they be either recessed three feet or raised three feet from the sidewalk . but there was some concern that in some instances, recessing o raising the entry may have an impact on the billing program. for example on narrow streets or outings . we did provide an exception to allow for a canopy over the entry to achieve a similar level of prominencebut not require the entry to be recessed or raised up . so this was very brief. that's all the standards. we previously moved the landscapeportion into the site design . i think these sort of meet the
8:52 pm
objectives the city originally had to allow a little more freedom for architecture and addressing the concerns of the architecture community and i'll say it was a very productive collaboration and something we hope to continue in future efforts to reach out and hopefully in the future we will have more time to do outreach to the public and so forth so this is a shortened timeline. that concludes the presentation and where available for questions. >> we should go topublic comment. members if you're in the room please come forward . line up on the screen screen inside the room and for those calling press star 3. you will each have twominutes . >> speaker: it's georgia. i sent in a comment and i do think the guidelines are really quite good given the constraints of sb nine.
8:53 pm
i do think the residential design guidelines are objective. this is the topic, used to be three dollars so my only other points are these . that excavations i think given the proliferation of major excavations into the hillside or below grade that the design, the major design dwelling spaces you need to have some sort of objectivestandards . the rest is the huge issue and it seems practical for the planning department to deal with this to create viable and legal designs within major excavations and not wait for the issue to, at ddi. i have personal experience with that. in terms of soundness in the past in section 317 soundness was only an issue raised by a developer orowner . due towhatever the conditions were . but in your proposed objective
8:54 pm
standards on page 21 to allow the use of virgin redwood. there's a lot of houses that will be toward down or made a virgin redwood so it's something to check the standards to think about in terms of hitting read oflosing counthousing , visible financially successful . and i sent you a list of the sb nine projects and also i was looking at this copy. i found an email from mary gallagher and she raised an interesting pointin 2017 . she said maybe we should look at the rear facing and that's an interesting point especially if you do a lot split.if you have been windows on the back of the house behind it would indicate all these houses now have these nanowalls. it's something to consider because it's an issue . that's it thank youand i hope you look at the list of sb nine projects i sent .
8:55 pm
>> my name ischristopher roach and i'm speaking as chair of the san francisco public policy and advocacy committee. our committee generally supports policies like sb nine and their implementation as one of the ways we can promote density and provide more housing opportunities to those current and future residents . the planningdepartment to develop these standards in a timely manner to clarify how sb nine is implemented in san francisco and truly appreciate that apartments inclusion of architects in the process and the commission encourages this for them to work with us on providing architectural controls . we were able to work collaboratively with the department staff and provide
8:56 pm
our expertise and advice resulting inwhat we all agree is an improved set of architectural controls and revised objective standards. wetherefore supports adoption of these objective standards but would like to continue to work with the department on revisions and refinement . for example we strongly disagree with the provision of side yard setbacks that were added in thelast . we understand the commissions concerns for privacy but as practitioners we know that this will result in less privacy and inadequate dimensions to produce a quality second unit . this is but one example of why it's important to consult as we implement projects under these policies and why the ai sf is launching a design competition to stretch these guidelines an produce prototypes that will demonstrate how they might implemented in the various particular telegraphic and neighborhood context in san francisco . our intent is for outcomes to demonstrate the viability and
8:57 pm
to propose any changes to these objective standards that are necessary in the future to produce well-designed architecture and great neighborhoods. thank you very much. >> afternoon commissioners. this is jerry from architects. i want to thank the planning staff for adopting some ofthese aspects . we really like these changes and hope this matrix can be applied more broadly to other projects in the future. one small quibble is with the residential entry proposed one. where the billing is to be constructed in the rear are obviously cannot face directly inthe public right-of-way . i know we can seek waivers from some of these guidelines but i would hope issueslike these can bemade more clear going forward . thank you for your time . >> good afternoon commissioners. this is left, i'm the general
8:58 pm
of a small firm committee and of course the work that will be done under sb nine would have an effect on the constituencies that belongs to the small firm. my family ended up buying the mission back in the middle of the 70s and had a rear yard cottage and over many years i've lived in the rear yard calling cottage. just currently a family sold the unit. it was 525 square feet and had two small bedrooms and the bedroom wall along one side of the lot was a full 25 footwith with a three foot setback in the back . from myexperience of living there , it's absolutely necessary to get rid of the idea of these four side yard setbacks because it reduces the width of the year rear yard and
8:59 pm
only seven feet will have a significant impact on the feasibility of being able to build these units and have them contribute to reducing the impact of the housingshortage that we're experiencing . a 13 foot rear yard means that most you're going to be able to achieve a single bedroom unit and the revenue and impact of the cost to building that doesn't make any sense. there would be no windows on the side yard so you wouldn't be impeding on anybody's privacy because once those sides hit the property lines we can do openings anyway. so really your windows will be opening forth the rear midlife or towards the front unit on the side. i think that just needs to be reconsidered. it's a big impact to what is feasible for these units.
9:00 pm
>> my name is ross levy, i'm the past chair of the public policy committee. i wanted to briefly come back and support the comments some of my colleagues have made. we appreciated the time and energy planning has spent with us in crafting more complete and more easy to applyobjective standards . i am very much concerned about the side yard setbacks that both of my colleagues have discussed because it does compromise our ability to make usable space and useful space which is certainly an important part of the housing we are trying to create and i did want to reiterate that aia is in the process of creating a design competition and i come forward with best practices and strong concepts and we hope that perhaps these maybe included in later versions of the objective
9:01 pm
standards as it evolves over time. i know the evolution of these standards has been somewhat time compressed so we hope maybe something that penny considered a living document and improved upon as were able todevelop ideas more clearly . you foryour time . >> my name is karen curtis, i'm a practitioner and former member ofthe public policy commission . a lot of my colleagues have noted the side yard does create an issue and i want to get to it from theperspective of the adjacent neighbor .it actually would make their privacy less because more likely that forfoot setback would have a window in it . and also as your building these units you will get to units
9:02 pm
that can only hold one bedroom. one of my other colleagues has pointed out and we like these multi-units to be able to serve families but we appreciate the time and the commission and planning department have given us and we look forward to seeing what the competition has tooffer and maybe we can take some more good ideas to make our city livable for all people . >> last call for public commen . seeing noadditional requests to speak from any member of the public . public comment isclosed and this matter is now before you commissioners . >> i want to thank staff for keeping time and thank you for the architects who help revise anddraft these guidelines . i see that vice president moore would like to speak's it's actually a major step forward
9:03 pm
for what we saw and discussed infebruary . i'm delighted to say that what i see as supportive ofthat objective . the standards aregeneric and restrictive and i think they will help to prevent the worst . i am very very happy to see that the department conducted a change with the aia. i think the aia and all its members are volunteering their time and it reminds me when they frequently interactwith the staff to create remarkable documents . i am very interested to hear mister roach indicating that the design competitionfor later this year would serve as a stress test . to really create standards
9:04 pm
work. that would shed some light on before free. i'd like to bring it into the discussion of exiting bedrooms and fire safety. i assume that would be able to attend the design. there are two areas where i would like to see a little bit more discussion. one is the windows facing the street having guidelines. i believe that windows on all sides of the building should be treated as ifthey're facing the street . since we are creating significantly more proximity to buildings on the front and from the side and from the rear i believe that all windows should be designed to the quality standards we expect on street facing windows. i myself live in the rear of the building and see a very
9:05 pm
mixed picture with the windows facing the back of the open space. they're the same kind of windows facing the street but in some cases i see very cheap emergence of windows being installed and i find that kind of discriminatory because most peoplehappen to live in the rear of buildings . the second point i'd like to raise is being clear about how we measure the rear of the property. we've referenced using existing planning code standards. i'm not sure if mister green in his comments can say whether or not that has been expressedin the document here today . what's important is to recognize what's existing and
9:06 pm
where in the setting of buildings. thank you to everybody for the wonderful operation and thank you to the aia for suggesting this as you move into your competition . >> thank you vice president moore. i would support the idea of all windows not having a high quality design and in particular thinking about if there's rear buildings if they are under separate ownership at some point in the future or depending how the lot can be split or not i justthink it would make sense to have all the windows have similar quality so i'd be supportive of that . i didhave a question about the rights-of-way and entries facing the right-of-way . just thinking about again we're anticipating rear yard dwelling units as well and how we want to think about those entries for if there is a kind of a entrance with that then be the
9:07 pm
entrythat would then be prominent or can we describe what your thoughts are around that ? >> in termsof the entries for the rear property .>> i think maybe the way that it's currently stated it just says that entries to multiple units shall directly face public right-of-way and i wonder if just having the sentence be that brief could create some confusion in that there's multiple units on the site ones in the rear i guess maybe it faces the public right-of-way in some regards but it's not directly adjacent to or directly from the public right-of-way so i wonder if there's a way to express that more specifically and then how your thinking about what's being said here. imagining only in the casewhere there's two units continuous in the same building or is it anticipating the rear yard building as well . >> it is intended to be for the front property . we could clarify that. >> just getting more specific. i heard a caller indicate may be some confusion and maybe the
9:08 pm
question about the height minimum if you could explain how we're measuring the 20feet if it's consistent with how it is measured for other departments or if it would be distinct from the way we're measuring height . >> it's currently as used in the code for the section that i referenced here but this section onlyapplies to upslope lots but we're saying it will apply for all lots so slow and downslope . no instance with the building go about20 feet upgrade relative to the slope . >> maybe vice president that will answer your question and if not i'll allow you to come back. and my last comment, we had several callers talk about before side yard and the challenge that complete with having to smaller units . i can certainly hear thati think i still stand by having a four foot setback i love you from other commissioners on . any othercommissioner comments
9:09 pm
? >> the only point i was going to bring up was similar to what had been discussed. when units especially 80 use our towards the back of the ground floor the entrances to those are not parallel to the street frontage. and a lot of them are perpendicular. i was only mentioning that one portion and would like to see that clarified.>> i think perhaps clarifications around the way the front entry, prominent entryis worded to be a little bit more universal to the different scenarios . >> otherwise i would move the adoption of these. >> second. >> second.
9:10 pm
>> if there's nothing further commissioners there's a motion that's been seconded to adopt the amendments to the objectiv design standards . >> can i ask quickly would that be also having the windows to be high quality all the way around or just theamendment to the entryway ? >> i didn't quite agree with that. the reason is because the windows are going to very. staff has always pushed for the frontage to do certain things and i can accept that in light of what it does to the urban designof the city . >> i do want to know isee commissionerdiamond and commissioner moore have their names in the queue . commissioner diamond . >> thank you. i also wantto thank the staff for working so closely together . likely it's a sign of many requests we will make going
9:11 pm
forward as we are moving into the world of objective standards so i'm very happy to see this first step. i share commissioner moore's concern and desire to have the windows on all sides meet the standards.they're going to have these houses in close proximity to each other and the rear yard house will be looking at the rear windows of the front yard house and viceversa and i feel like they should all be held to the same standards . and also the side will be in close proximity so i would support applying that standard to all windows and i am not in favor of eliminating thefour foot setback .it will provide a little bit of breathing room between neighbors as the increased density and while i'm all in favor of increasing density i want to do it in a way that causes the least
9:12 pm
amount of disruption with neighbors and that little bit of setback andseparation seems extremely important . >> commissioner moore. >> thank you commissioner diamond for vocalizing what i feel. >> strongly about and basically i'm in support of everything you justsaid. again , if there's any compelling reasons that the stress test design competition shows why we might be offered as an option i would like for the time being to order a standard and with the windows i couldn't be more clear being literally victimized by the rear windows and facing the open space. i think we need to start changing that so the rear windows have the same quality across the way as the facing units are and i'm not supporting the front back social scale here.
9:13 pm
>> i don't see any other requests forcomments . >> good. if there's nothing further there's a motion that's been seconded to adopt the proposed amendments . on that motion commissioner ruiz .[roll call vote] >> the motion in front of us is not theone that requires sustained standard for windows on all sides . >> my understanding is that's correct the motion is to adopt the amendment as presented by staff . >> only with changes. [roll call vote] those suggestedchanges are not part of this motion . and commissionpresident tanner . so moved commissioners, that motion passes 14 3 with commissionersdiamond, more and
9:14 pm
better voting against . commissioners, that will put us on item 10. for case number 2018 004047. for the 20 21,000 and inventory report and housing balance report. this is an informational presentation .
9:15 pm
>> ... >>. [inaudible]
9:16 pm
9:17 pm
>> ... unmuted. [inaudible] >> sorry about that. first time we have that commissioner in prison. i'm a senior housing planner with our community equity team and i'm going to be presenting our recent housing trends for 2021 as found in our housing inventory andhousing balance report . there we go. great, so these reports are prepared by our data and analytics team, our data analysis team and but they also
9:18 pm
hold many housing policy implications for us and provide important information in our housing policyconversations . so my housing inventory has been done for over 40 years, 50 years. and has been published continuously each year and attracts production trends, affordable housing, market rate housing, different housing of different types and location housing is added and the housing balance report has been required since 2015 and basically looks at the composition of housing that's produced over time by different districts in terms of affordable housing, market rate housing and loss ofprotected units like residential . i wanted to acknowledge the work that underlies all the switches fromour data and analytics team . we have a new interim manager. his last name is lost.
9:19 pm
then wanted to thank john baldric and hernandez gomez. for all their work on these reports . so the highlights. we had a pretty big housing productionyear which might be a little unexpected given the general economic slowdown last year . we had 4006 and 33 units had. that was one of the three highestyears of the last two decades . so continuing trends of higher housing production. economic slowdown is shown a little more clearly however in the units that have been permittedor authorized for construction so only a little over 2000 units authorized . and then in terms of units filed we have 7817 some of the increase actually. but is primarily being driven by large projects such as
9:20 pm
jonestown andwill get to that in a minute . affordable housing production was up a lot. more than doubled from the prior year so we have almost 1500 units of affordable housing produced in addition there are preservation activities going on but this was about a third of all housing production . and then most new housing continue to be added in larger multi family buildings over 20 units or more. however there was a significant number of adu's 75 four accessory dwellingunits . the lines on this graph are showing in blue the total number of units produced so again you can see that we've hit close to our recent high this year. then in white is the number of units being produced for new construction so the difference is essentially that where also addingunits through alterations
9:21 pm
and additions to existing buildings . so in terms of our authorizations or our units permitted, you can see where actually in kind of a downward trend. and that while the bay area has started to recover the bay area shown in lines above in blue, san francisco has continued to drop a bit. and we've gone from making as much as 18 to 20 percent of all permits issued in the bay area down to about 10 percentlast year so we are diverging a little bit from the rest of the bay area . again, the units entitled meeting approved by planning but not yet permitted there's been kindof a low for the last four years and last year was not an exception . so that's the line in white at the bottom of the graph. in blue is showing units filed with planning so these are things coming in applying for
9:22 pm
approval and there's been a big jump this year to a level we haven't seen in a while. that is being primarily driven by large projects forexample jonestown is well over 2000 units . those arewhat's driving that big jump . again on affordable housing production has risen substantially this year we are at about 1500 units of affordable housingproduced . this is more than double the prior year and the recent average has been about 25 percent of all units produced per year affordable and this year we were 32 or last year we were at 32 percent . and then the biggest groupings of affordable housing produced have beenvery low , about 580 units and about 528 units of low income housing so those would be serving people below 50 percent of area median income and below 80percent of
9:23 pm
area median effectively . so despite the big increase in affordable housing produced, we are still falling short of our targets. the regional housing needs allocation targets for the city and for both very low and low income housing you can see where around 50 percent and in fact for very low income affordable units are commenting is below 50 percent. and we know that our arena for the next cycle for the new housing elementswill be 2 to 3 times these amounts . it definitely implies going to need to do a fair not more if we wantto come close to reaching those targets . in terms of where, what type of housing is being built you can see the vast majority of the
9:24 pm
housing is in buildings of 20 units or more . over 4000 units. so that continues to be the housing that we are producing. it's interesting that most numerous time is between 2 to 4 units so that's probably a significant number contributed to that. but also implying there is some room there foradditions of buildings of that type . so in terms of where housing, housing continues to be heavily concentrated in certain zoning districts and certain parts of the city. our commercial and mixed-use districts are overwhelming contributors to where we are buildinghousing that's primarily because that's where multi family housing is allowed . you can see that in our residential district only about 21 percent of housing has been built there and then about
9:25 pm
seven percent of new housing wasadded in our h1 and part h 2 . that would be these areas cover about60 percent of our residential land . 78 percent of all new units added have been added in just three of our planning district . the mission downtown and south of market. ourplanning districts are not exactly neighborhoods as we normally think of them . so love for example includes dogpatch, mission bay . however the broad trend is pretty clear that a handful of neighborhoods are aware the overwhelming majority of new housing is builtand that goes for market rate and affordable . this is from the housing balance report and it shows cumulatively over time that the balance between affordable housing, loss of protected units for exampleunits under
9:26 pm
rent control relative to new housing production . and you can really see in the column all the way to the right at the places that are losing rent control units for example through condo conversion and the places that have very little new affordable housing added have the worst housing balance over time. you can also see in the column next to the left, on the right that affordable housing, excuse me. the column just to the right and second column to the right. the units permitted new affordable units permitted that our affordable housing productionis concentrated in just a few supervisor districts . district 6 and district 10. so what can we draw from the huge range of data that our data team compiles in these two
9:27 pm
reports? some big takeaways are that housing production continues to be robust but the outlook based off of permits last year is seems ourproduction will drop in the next couple of years . also seeing new housing heavily concentrated in just a few areas in building types. and as we look ahead and think about the implications for the housing elements for our future arena going to see that we're really going to need to step up across a range ofareas , affordable housing funding, working on lower cost and of course as director hillis mentioned at the beginning a lot of this is contingenton a continuing recovery in our economy . that'skind of the overall picture . thank you so much and i'm happy to take questions and resolute is here aswell to answer any
9:28 pm
specific data related questions .>> if that concludes we should open uppublic comment. members of the public , for those in the chambers please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. for those calling in remotely press star 3. don't jump up all at once. seeing no requests to speak from any member of the public public comment is closed and this matter is now before you this is not an action item, just information . >> i want staff for all the hard work thatgoes into compiling this report . i think sometimes we maybe forget how lucky we are to have such a great in-house team that can analyze the data and publish it and we've beendoing it for decades . just that historical information we have many cities would be envious of having this
9:29 pm
dataand analytic capacity so thank you for all your work . it's so good that there's not much to say. i don't know what our commissioners will have to say but i'm in all of it and i want to thank you for pointing out think what conclusions we can draw and what this does need about the future . i think we should be excited about all the affordable housing and housing production that has occurred but i think it puts the fine points on what we think about our housing elements and the spread of the zoning so that we don't end up with just a few neighborhoods and two supervisors having all the housing production including all ofthe affordable housing production . that is why the state of california is so focused on affirmative housing to make sure affordable housing and other housing types are built across the city in neighborhoods that have access to a variety of resources and not just concentratedin certain parts of our city . i hope we can keep this in mind
9:30 pm
when the housing element comes back and be thoughtful about how to plan for the future and of course continue to work on our affordable housing productions we receive we got 170 percent of our moderate created so that's great and it's a good effort but when we look at our affordable housing, or the three percent meeting our goalsso think about thinking about how we close the gap on those policy areas is where my mind and the ends up going . i want staff for a fantastic robust work and call on commissioner fung. >> two points. somewhat as questions but also as a comment. one is and i probably understand why you categorized 80 as part of the affordable units category. but i would ask staff to follow. as adu's continue to take off thenumbers are increasing
9:31 pm
substantially . in fact there are now probably exceeding the inclusionary number of uses affordable and given the fact that there's some monkeying around with the greater density and lower density areas, where there making it so difficult we're likely to see such production in those 2 to 4 unit areas. the staff think that they would continue to assign all adu numbers to the affordable category or is there perhaps some way to differentiate? because not all our affordable. >> thank you for the question.
9:32 pm
so the guidance from the state is that the classification as units to a particular affordability have to be based on some kind of research and the regional planning agencies have offered some analysis on how can be counted towards the process by income level. and what they come up with is approximately an estimate of 90 percent of those units counted at moderate income and 10 percent counted as above moderate. i think for now that's what will follow we could certainly do additional research on our end to look at the rents in adu's overtime and see how we think those units should be counted andclassified . >> there is some thought there. >> they'recertainly not being
9:33 pm
counted at low or very low . >> my last point would be i think it would make sense to also include in this report a tracking of the extensionsthat are being asked for . we have one for a relatively small project today but given the cycle, the economic cycles it's likely that this cycle will show more extensions coming up. and if that's the case, the pipeline then is heavily affected by those executives and we might as well know what that number is. is that something we can do easily western mark. >> actually, yes we can track that. it hasn't been part of district for but we can consider including those. we have extracted the list of
9:34 pm
projects that have been impacted and have been extended. it hasn't been part ofthe report but we can provide that information but we need to review that . so far it's a relatively short handful of projects that need an extension . >> you. >> i want to say that idea. in particular i think the commission has interest in understanding projects that get approved understanding where they are some of that's in the mind of the developerand what they're planning to do but certainly they're more interested inknowing more about it . i have a question about the units in protected status . if you could explain about if there's anything unique you think that's happening that were losing those units or if it's typical this year in terms of the losses in previous years? or if it's anything sticks out in that regard?
9:35 pm
>> we don't have a formation of assets. we see these numbers but that we track these numbers based on the report, we can see the different types of losses. we track that based on the information that we get from dvi. >> you next, commissioner moore. >> i have a quick question. i have a question about the housing production line april 20, 2021 being on a downward trend. and i'm wondering how you are dealing with the project that was approved, some of them quite a while back, almost 10 years. others more recently. i wonder if we can add significant largenumbers into
9:36 pm
the treasure island , balboa and the large public project which occupies the majority of homeowners on venison's market . the power they being factored intowhat you're presenting today ? >> i don't think they show up much in this data unless for example in the units authorized if those developments have pulled permits for some of the units that are going to be constructed then they would show up there they would have been i think , i'm not sure if all of the projects on market or vanness but the large development agreements youmentioned would have been entitled years before so they would have entered , they would have been filed and titles before the picture or the snapshot in the time that this window is providingor that this report is providing . so i don't think they would be
9:37 pm
trapped here again unless building permits have been at fault. >> it's difficult for us standing on the outside these projects are very large and i know there's a certain amount of activity on treasure island but it's more in comparison to what ultimately intended. it would be good to have somewhat of a category to see a gradual or takedown by reporting how many of them have been realized and how their giving themselves up to be accountable. >> if i can add commissioner, we didn't present this today but our pipeline report which we reduce quarterly kind of does that break down and shows where some of the large projects are and it's a hard broad brush to say where they are. some like you said are moving like treasure island has done infrastructure work and is
9:38 pm
starting to produce units. the plumbers union on market is producing units and is very active.they are in different places in this process and i think the pipeline report gets at what you're asking for in detail and calls of those individuallarge-scale projects . >> basically it's a landmark project elected to san francisco housing i like to see a cross reference in this particular report. this morning i read that to 70 where we have a lot of housing is reassessing the situation so those kind of things are alarming particularly because we are waiting for the big wave to basically set in. they spent a lot of time approving this project and their hanging out in a critical time for these projects to be realized. >> to the extent any of these
9:39 pm
projects, that anyone project by itself if it's pausing is troubling but then if we see a trend that's something we want to understandis their policy solution, is there something the city can aid to unlock the units and havethem be realized . i would agree there is just concern . we have a lot ofhope for this project and it's making sure we're not in the way to the extent the city can be supportive of the windows . commissioner diamond. >> i want to thank the staff for the report. the data was presented in a way that was easy to understand and i truly appreciate the work that goes into compiling that but i do want to add my voice to the chorus of concerns about the best way to track what we all hear about and read about. it's hard to get our arms around which is entitled projects whether they are
9:40 pm
through development agreements or simply have that three year requirement. where they have been entitled that either haven't picked up the site permit yet or have picked up the site permit that are sitting without moving forward. and having looked at the pipeline report this morning it was hard for me to read that and get my arms around what the status is.it may be don't currently produce a report and the data doesn't lend itself to producing that kind of number but i still feel like we need some mechanism for understanding that for precisely the reason commissioner tanner mentioned which is is there something we have any control over and could help move these projects along or is it really just sitting around and we need to understand that too because that's how we think of our approvals going forward.
9:41 pm
i think directors this is a question for you about what's the best way for us to get our arms around this ? >> i think you're right. it's giving you more detail on what's in the pipeline because you're looking for projects that have been entitled and are told pulled building permits but that have not started construction in breaking down those numbers more for you as well as where some more major multi-phase projects are in the process.so we can come back to you and take a crack at it. we want to work with justin's office and oewd to give you more detail in some of those projects, like how long they've beensitting either with building permits and not moving forward or how long they've
9:42 pm
been entitled . i think as james said we don't have a lot of projects that have back for extensions of their entitlements but i think we're early on in this downturn and they extended everything for a year because of covid. we can come back and give you more specifics and detail and age those projects that are yet under constructionbecause as you see from the pipeline report there's about 70,000 units in the pipeline . 20 of those have just applied, have not yet received entitlements and only 4000 are under construction so that remainder sits in those buckets of either entitled and not permitted or permitted and not under construction so let us take a crack at giving you mor info on those ,that kind of bucket of projects . >> that would be very helpful. i want to point out some of this may not lend itself to
9:43 pm
great numbers. we can have projects and there are rumors of projects we've entitled where the developer might have had the option on the property once it got entitled and choosing not to go forward or putting the property backto the owner is in this current construction environment the pro forma is don't cancel . it's this very high level of anxiety i think about trying to understand exactly where we are and our numbers reports made up get us there and it may be a narrative report from you after you talk with a number of the developers so we can better understand the context that we're facing going forward. incase there's things we might want to do differently . so thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you commissioners for
9:44 pm
all your comments and i agree with the majority of all your comments actually but i have a question for the staff in terms of pertaining to president tanner's question about units removed and it sounds like all this data is coming from the dbi. is there a way that if the rental registry is available we can layer that in terms of understanding why these are being removed? >> i'm not sure that we have that level of detail but we can explore that further to see if we can extract that informatio . >> i think whether there is 4200 or, that was over an eight-year period i think they generally fall into three buckets . you approve a demo which aren't many and then condo conversions
9:45 pm
which probably make up the bulk of this number but we can work with dvi to get youdetails . >> i want to note the context. >> something like that would be helpful to understand what the meeting is happening and what's occurring in the house. even those categorieswould need more detail. that would be helpful . >> the information we get from dvi is supported where it's completed. the information we have in planning work through all of that. that's a different tool butwe can look into that . >> just to point you to the housing balance report itself which is in your packets there are tables in the report which actually detail the sources of some of the units removed from protection including condo
9:46 pm
conversion so the total of those i believe is table8 so you can find that in your packets . >> iappreciate it . idon't see any other hands from commissioners . but again i want to thank you so muchfor your brilliant work. we appreciate it and we will see you again for other items . thank you. >> there is a very late request for public comment, should we take that color? >> sure. >> good afternoon commissioners, corey reflects on behalf of thehousing action coalition . a little delay of that 30 seconds between my tablet watching andcalling in thank you for taking my comments . i want to extend our appreciation to staff. i always love diving intothese reports and it gives us a good understanding of what's going on out there .
9:47 pm
i'm a little pessimistic in the sense that we have our highest housing production year in a long time and it's again falling short of the mayor's executive directives , four or 5000 new homes every year. and i really never get the opportunity to speak after your comments and i think it's interesting for a couple of reasons. for one were talking to a number of these developers asking what's the deal with this project and ready universally construct costs have increased by 250 percent since 2010 and it's just difficult to get things to work financially right now. i realize the city as a whole consistently says we want to build more housing yet we attacked new housing as if it were a surplus, not a shortage. the stated goal is one thing but frankly the way the numbers work tell a different story and a different intent and when we look at these actions per unit
9:48 pm
in san francisco it is much higher than any other city. so if we actually do want to create the financial incentive , one of the ways is to reduce fees which pay for things that we want. it's all good stuff, that's not the issue. if there's no value to be captured because we're not getting the housing it's not going to get built then we got nothing. thank you for taking my calls, i appreciate it . >> if there's nothing further we can move on to your next item. number 11 for case number 2020 00118 1660 schachter avenue. it's a conditional use authorization.
9:49 pm
>> good afternoon commissioners. claire feeney, planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to 209.1,303 and 317 to allow for the demolition of existing single-story ingle family dwelling unit and construction of a three 40 residential building at 1660 schachter avenue . the project includes demolition of existing hundred 20 square-foot one-bedroom single-family home and construction of a new restorin 4344 square foot residential building containing two dwelling units and two parking spaces . the proposed units will be 1800
9:50 pm
square feet and has three bedrooms and the other will be 1700 square feet and have to bedrooms each with visible open space and common spaceprojects are coleco compliant. theyhosted an application meeting which nobody attended . the site is within the jurisdiction of the bayview hunterspoint . csu was contacted and declined to have it go before the full committee . there's been no prominent board member of the project, there was one opposition questioning the legality of the project. the department finds the project is consistent with the bayview hunters point area plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will demolish an existing undersizeddwelling unit and replace it with two new family size dwelling units . the site is immediately adjacent to a major corridor and there are many facilities and schools in thearea making this an ideal location for family housing . the department finds the project necessary, desirable and compatible and not to be
9:51 pm
judgmental to persons or adjacent properties. this concludes staff presentationthe project sponsor has prepared a presentation and we are ready to answer any questions . >> thank you project sponsor you have a five minute presentation . >> good afternoon commissioners,thank you for your time . wayne lee here, architect and also applicant of the project. i'm going to keep the presentation short. one slide showing you the context of the location but as staff mentioned is located in bayview district 10 area. i will say 50 feet from east to the major public corridor. right now the existing condition is single-family -500
9:52 pm
square feet. it's underutilized so what we're proposing is where not going crazy but just to propose 2 units sold one increase. we've been working hard with planning and staff especially with the design team on the privacy and also the entry design for the last two years and hopefully you guys will approve it today. i'm here toanswer any questions you may have . >> that includesproject sponsors presentation. members of the public in the chambers please come forward and line up on the screen . colors three please press star 3. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> i'm happy to see a project
9:53 pm
like thiscome forward . i'd really like to point out to the commission this is a thoroughly prepared of norms, easy to understand and i'm in full support of it because it shows a modest yet very effective degree of intensification moving into unit sizes that indeed had actually 2 units because the existing building is so small that it's in a silo so i'm in full support of what's in front of us and unless there are other commissionercomments i would suggest approve this project with conditions . >> i'll second that as well is just thank the project sponsor for doing what we like to see, increasing the units of housing. >> i would add my voice to that in terms of it's interesting we talk about for plexus and whether their viable and even
9:54 pm
though they may not be viable on alarge scale , rents do work and are happening so we're easy where happy to see this project sothoughtfully executed. i see no other hands . >> we did receive alate request to speak . >> sure. let's hear it. >> i'm calling to support the project at 618 arcadia street. this project checks all the boxes. >> i think your year for the nextproject. this is not the octavia street project yet . >> oh. >> just hold that thought. >> thank you for catching that commission president tanner. seeing no further requests to speak there's a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions . commissioner ruiz. [roll call vote] commissioners
9:55 pm
that motion passes unanimously 70 and that will place us on item 12 for case numbers 2020 04414. property at 618 through 630 octavia street. this is a conditional use authorization . >> are we good to go? >> good afternoon president tanner and membersof the commission .charles winchell
9:56 pm
planning department staff. before i begin i'd like to advise you that yesterday a revised plan through the commissionsecretary . the changes were limited to exterior materials at the site elevation of the proposed building. the notation on sheet for, to notations on sheet 24, 2 notations on sheet 26 and notation on sheet 31 were inadvertently added to the plans by the project sponsor team but are now corrected from standing metal to ceramic brains. >>. [please stand by]
9:57 pm
the project contains four units consistent with bill 330 also includes ground floor retail. the project would merge the two lots to create one approximately 9,451 square foot
9:58 pm
lot and the conditional use authorizations to allow the .75 spaces. below market rate units. seven of the units are provided at 80% a.m.i. under state law. it should be noted that the inclusionary requirements only require six units to be constructed on site in combination with any affordable housing fees. providing below market rate units on site the project seeks
9:59 pm
a concession to provide ten additional spaces that would offset the cost to construct the affordable housing units. i'd like to clarify that state density bonus law can waive requirements, however, it does not wave process. the commission does not have discretion to modify the conditional use. for a total of 30 spaces. again, due to state law, the commission may not modify or deny the c.u. for 30 total spaces. the project sponsor team has shown in this instance and particular excavating conditions providing the ten additional spaces will offset the cost to construct the affordable units and this is
10:00 pm
submitted under h. prequalified economic consultants or in agreement with the data and parking sales figures provided. the department finds that the project in combination with state density bonus law is on balance consistent were the market and objectives and policies of the general plan. the project 25% of the units will be below market rate with the remainder up to 130% a.m.i.. the project will also provide four replacement units for the units being demolished pursuant to senate bill 330 and the department recommends that the
10:01 pm
commission approve the project subject to conditions of approval provided in your draft motion and with the corrected plans addressing the previously mentioned exterior material corrections. these are plans dated with today's date. thank you. >> secretary: very good. if that concludes staff's presentation, we should allow the project sponsor for a 5-minute presentation. >> can we have 10 minutes so we can give more on the architecture. >> i think 5 minutes will be fine and if you have additional questions, we can follow up. >> okay. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. so this is a state density bonus project bringing rather
10:02 pm
typical waivers, height rear yards and concessions in the parking requirement. as a concession, under state law, the parking must in actual cost savings. the project sponsor has done quite a bit of outreach. we have 487 individual petitions and letters. you also have several organizations including hack, chamber of commerce, residential building association and the project provides 40 units. in addition the code also requires that on the bonus units which is about $1 million here. 70% of the units are two and three bedroom units well in excess of the 40% requirement with an average size of 1,230 square feet. these units will be marketed to
10:03 pm
families. the parking requirements do vary they're also practical differences between location and unit types. in & the project sponsors experience and other projects availability of parking space is a key factor when families look for other units to buy. one way in which we can encourage families is by providing housing with the amenities they need. many families rely on private cars to transport their kids to school, day care, appointments and so forth and transit is not always an option especially if you have multiple kids in different schools. to kind of keep this a little bit in perspective. so that's a total of 30 spaces on a site that currently
10:04 pm
contains required for the existing building. we're demolishing four units being replaced by building units and we're building a total of 40 units. without stating the obvious, every single project like this is part of the housing solution. it's also a great example in our opinion of an infill opportunity on a currently underutilized site. we need more housing, we also need well-designed family housing which we believe architects have designed here. our full team is here available including a few people online. but i'm going to turn it over who's going to talk a little bit about the architecture and if we can have the overhead, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'll be quick here, but we're very excited about this project primarily because, one, it's in the hayes valley district which is a primary area for housing.
10:05 pm
second, the architecture in the district has changed dramatically. and new contemporary buildings and we've taken that idea and combined it together where we're including sort of the historical bay windows and the base capital and middle of the building into our design. so we're very excited about the design as well. the section of the building shows the parking below grade, utilities below grade. we have a significant amount of retail. and units as you stack up. what's also interesting is we have two ground floor units. and then as you go up the building, we have six units the average of 1,200 square feet except for the one bedrooms and we've also included light wells on both sides of the building
10:06 pm
to create air and light. on the top floor, we set back the front of the building to 75' to allow for a common open space for all the residents to utilize with two units on the back. and this is a little bit about the architecture of the building. as you can see, we've done a combination of the bay windows, the setbacks at the top, and then utilizing the rain screen ceramic tile as the finished material for the exterior. we've also added some detailing to pick up a little bit on the historical nature and characteristics of the neighborhood. as you can see, we didn't try to cram a bunch of units on the facade, but two great units with each of them having a significant amount of bay windows and open space. so we're very excited about the lay-outs. 80% of the ground floor is active use and then here you have a final version of that exterior. we're open to any questions you may have.
10:07 pm
thank you very much. >> secretary: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. those persons in the chambers, please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jason henderson. i'm the chair of the transportation and planning committee. this is a horrible precedent for this city to have the state density bonus being used to pit affordable housing against green mobility and sustainable transportation. this is a mess. and we urge you to deny this conditional use and we also urge you to be talking to the state legislature about fixing this because this is going to be an avalanche throughout the city. this ten additional parking spaces is in your findings and the findings in your packet in,
10:08 pm
you know, pages 10 and 11 in your findings. there are three areas where there's parking does not comply with city planning. this is a transit rich walkable, bikable neighborhood. of they're selling it on that and then they're saying that families are going to have to drive all over the place. it's completely contradictory. there's a huge pent up demand for families to live in the city. the reason why they do not is because of the cost of housing because they can't get units with two and three bedrooms that are affordable for families with children. i know a lot of people that would live car-free in haze valley with children. if you look at those lucky enough to be able to do that, you can see the cargo bikeses all over san francisco now especially in haze valley, electric cargo bikes. so, again, this is a horrible precedent and there are a lot of projects coming into the pipeline that are going to seek to abuse this and you're going
10:09 pm
to be setting the precedent. so please deny this c.u., please reach out to the state delegation. you know, have your staff work with the state delegation. it probably doesn't take much to do this and thank you and good luck on your deliberations. good afternoon, commissioners. i'd like to add my parents raised my sister and i in the neighborhood without the need of a car. so 618 octavia is the first project that demonstrates the loophole. that allows for the developers to have more parking and it's essential for the viability of the project. i'm really alarmed by this and i'm super opposed to the notion of holding onsite b.m.r.s
10:10 pm
hostage. having houses tethered that would be sold at $120,000 a stall, that doesn't advance the city's goal of vision zer shgz 0, housing first. we're approving more parking in the neighborhood that has born the brunt of the freeway. it's a slippery slope as you know, and if you approve this, it sets the precedence for an avalanche across the city. i ask the commission to direct the team to work with and listen to the consensus and resubmit the project for review. thank you. >> director hillus, commissioners, i'm an over 20 year resident of haze valley. those of you who have worked with haze valley know we have been so pro-housing, we have welcomed affordable housing especially.
10:11 pm
we always advocate with developers for affordable onsite housing. we have built housing and haze valley neighborhood association has always been the strongest advocate for livable housing in our community. as such, this project came to us and we embraced it for bringing 40 units to a lot that's currently underutilized. and the one thing that we brought up at the very onset was the parking issue. so i agree with that, the comments made by the previous two speakers, this is a precedent-setting thing. there is a gap in the loophole in the state thing, state law and your ability to work with our legislators to fill that. it's absolutely critical. your ruling on a first case like this is critical. given that this is a highly desirable neighborhood, the
10:12 pm
affordability issue or the financial need issue is truly questionable. you know, we're talking about an 85' tall building on a block that makes that four stories taller than anything else around it. there's no question this is a very desirable neighborhood where selling penthouse apartments is going to give them many opportunities to make money on this process. $120,000 parking stalls in exsays of .5 is unreasonable, completely inconsistent with the neighborhood and we urge your support on this. please look at requesting a light shadow study. you're near parks. thank you. >> hi. my name is richard johnson. i'm with a group called h.v.
10:13 pm
safe and i have a long history in the haze valley and with the prior three people that have spoked. i have worked on this issue from a long-term perspective. that's to say, we've been looking at .5 in the neighborhood for a long time. what i see is they build them to 3.5. but in reality, they're not holding to those numbers. so the cars are coming. so we're not really winning the argument of we need to have, you know, this fixed point and the reason we're not reaching it is because we're not doing the transit. as a transit rider, when we started market octavia and
10:14 pm
rich, you were probably with me. and we have one bus line that runs through our neighborhood. and for me, it's like they're going up and above what is being required, but as a long-term resident, i have to say with bringing in families, i live in a big apartment building in our neighborhood. it's a mixture -- it's an odd proporia of high buildings and low buildings, but my concern is that they may be going beyond what we'd like to see. i do agree with what has been said about the slippery slope. sometime when you're looking down, you might be able to slide a little, but then if the greater benefit is more community and especially family housing, i think we need to take those issues into account and as someone who's worked to rebuild the parks, work the schools, it's a community thing. so it's a twofold. to me, it seems more transit.
10:15 pm
thank you. >> secretary: okay. seeing no one else in the chambers lined up to speak, we've got a number of callers. again, when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: hi. i'm on the board association. i'm also on the transportation planning committee. i'm very supportive of the project itself, but i do have concerns about the parking. i'm really happy for us to be getting the extra density and the extra height in affordable housing, but i do agree with some of the previous speakers that exceeding the .5 spaces per unit doesn't make sense. i live at 400 grove which is a six-year-old condo building on the same block as this project. our building as 34 units, and we have .5 spaces per unit.
10:16 pm
the entire building sold out before it was even done. so i don't think -- and also our [ indiscernible ] has never been full. it's typically 50% to 75% full. i also want to point out this building's going to be across the street from the trader joe's grocery store and it's also going to be between the 5 fullton and [ indiscernible ] 20 bus line. this walk score transit score of 100 and a bike score of 99. using that to add parking seems to go against the spirit of the whole thing. i'm not supportive of the .7. thanks a lot. >> caller: hello. my family has lived in the bay area for decades.
10:17 pm
i'm calling to support the project at 615630 octavia street. it's 25% affordability and the parking ratio is less than 1:1. please approve this project. thank you. >> caller: hi. i'm emily win. i live in berkeley. san francisco must build more housing that's affordable, sustainable and allows families to stay in sf. this project is transit oriented and mostly multi-bedroom apartments. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is rachel williams.
10:18 pm
i am calling in support of this project. it is just the perfect example of underutilized lots in san francisco. the surface parking lot should be converted into much needed family housing. please approve this project today. thank you. >> secretary: go ahead, caller. again, when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. okay. we'll take the next caller. >> caller: hi. my name's nicole. i'm a long time bay area resident and a mother of two
10:19 pm
small children. i'm in support of this project. demolishing the four plex and adding the much needed housing seems like a no-brainer in that regard. thanks. >> caller: hi. my name is sam smith. i support the project. san francisco needs more housing. please approve this project. thanks. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is marie and i've lived in the east bay for several years and i would commute every day to downtown san francisco. i experience many unpleasant situations while commuting on bart. i recently got married and planned on starting a family
10:20 pm
soon. public transportation is not safe or convenient for families and if you want families in the city, you need to understand that we need cars. so please approve this project. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. my name is daniel. my wife and i left the city recently because we were looking for a bigger place with parking. it was extremely difficult to find a decent size apartment with parking in the city. we've just had a baby and having a car is absolutely essential. i can't imagine what we'd do in emergencies without cars. i am not getting on a muni to go to doctors office. so if you want to reduce parking, without doing so, please approve additional parking. thank you.
10:21 pm
>> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is marta. i live at the corner of oak street and golf street and i'm six months pregnant and parking in the neighborhood has become a total nightmare. despite all of the [ indiscernible ] to eliminate all parking. please approve this project. thank you in advance. >> caller: hi. my name's danny. this project should be approved because it is a space density bonus project and [ indiscernible ] housing accountability act. please approve the project today. thank you for your time. >> caller: hi there. my name is david crockman. i live in haze valley just a few blocks from this project. i walk by the project site all the time and i'm calling in strong support of the project. overall, i think this project
10:22 pm
is is not adding that much parking. it's adding ten parking spaces to the neighborhood in exchange for 40 new units which seems like the ratio is much less. the building right now there's one parking spot for every unit. this is less than that when you consider the net new parking is even less. i think it's worth thinking of the alternative here with every reason to think that this will not be built and the people who otherwise live in that housing would just be driving into the city from other parts of the bay area. if anything, i think having this parking in the city, having people who probably won't be using their car most of the time is going to reduce traffic in the bay area. i'm also not so worried about traffic in hayes valley because if you look at where this building is, it's right off of fulton street. and anywhere in the city is not going to be driving in the walkable part of hayes valley. it's not going to make our neighborhood less walkable at all. that's just not a concern for me given where this project is.
10:23 pm
folks are opposing this based on parking, but they're not offering you any evidence that the project would be viable without the parking. you have evidence in front of you it wouldn't be viable without the parking and so i think folks oppose today this housing the burden is on them to say why they disagree with this analysis and all they're saying is they have a hunch. that's not good enough. if they want to deny the project, that's going to add to the cost of future development make it further into this spiral where developers have higher costs, increase in the cost of housing for everyone. i think you should really take this deal, accept this affordable housing and building that has less parking in hayes valley. so we can have families and a more walkable hayes valley. thank you. >> caller: hi. hello? >> secretary: yes. go ahead. >> caller: hi. i'm for this project.
10:24 pm
i like that they're family size. and thank you very much. that is all. >> caller: good evening commissioners. my name is jose carlos. and i live on gulf street. to be honest, the truth is that we have eliminated significant parking spaces and now i have to go around the block looking for parking an average of 20 minutes per day which in the end that generates more traffic. to be honest, i'm okay with that because i listen to a podcast and i can wait 20 minutes. but we're expecting a baby this coming august and i'm not sure
10:25 pm
that he's going to be able to wait for that much time. so pleased to approve this project and give more parking spaces to familieses. thank you so much. >> caller: hi. this is paco. i live in franklin a few blocks away from where this project is going to be. i'm in support of this project. i do own a car but my building doesn't have any parking and parking is starting to be a bit of of a scarce commodity in the neighborhood. i spend a good chunk of my day or longer than i would like to circling our block trying to find parking every day. i commute to the financial district every day and sometimes the east bay. so i also like how this project is made for large family units.
10:26 pm
there's a lot of, you know, single-unit dwellers in this neighborhood and i think it would be nice to have larger families. i'm in support of this project. thank you. >> caller: hi there. my name is tim wallace. i live right around the corner. i'm a renter, i've been in the neighborhood for about ten years and i strongly support this project. i think we're in an absolute emergency on housing. we are way behind on building enough housing and the city is completely unaffordable to the middle class and that's a much bigger problem than whatever plus or minus .2 parking spots which we've heard some good points on that. but i support the project because i think that we need more housing and we need it fast. thank you. >> caller: hello. my name is andrew james. i'm in support of this project.
10:27 pm
families in the city [ indiscernible ] at a low rate and we need to stop it. the way to attract more housing [ indiscernible ] as they would expect in other neighborhoods in the city. this includes parking. this allows for a small number of additional parking spaces and the proposal to be approved. [ indiscernible ] in the east bay will help alleviate issues -- it's god for them and the neighborhood. i encourage this project. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm calling in support of this project. i live in hayes valley and want to mention that parking here is a huge issue. we have 20 cars parking inside the lot on a daily basis and those cars will now need to find a place on the street. on top of that, we have another
10:28 pm
20 becoming a night mayor. they should allow 1:1. please approve this project. thank you. >> caller: hi. my name is heather. i live near this project with my husband. i am a realtor and i have many clients and friends that are family able to stay in the city. we have a limited number of single-family homes here in san francisco and so single-family homes are becoming more and more attainable for young families. increasingly, these families are looking for located condominiums. this project would be a benefit to our city and contribute to much-needed housing. additionally, i'd like to speak to the parking issue at hand. as a mother of two young children, two years old and five years old, i can say there's a real need for parking as a parent. we want our kids to experience the best that the city has to offer, so on any given week,
10:29 pm
our family goes to preschool, to soccer, to gymnastics on filmore street to church in the mission district. our normal flow of family life [ indiscernible ] and having two young kids, i definitely need a safe place to load them into a car and a garage with parking would provide that for us. i'm in support of this project itself parking as it stands. thank you. >> caller: hello. my name is mary and i have a 5-month grandson and i'm living with my daughter and my son-in-law and when they go to school and work i pick up my
10:30 pm
son. so i already go -- and the family in this city [ indiscernible ] so approve this project and don't -- my daughter and husband [ indiscernible ] >> caller: hi. my name's warren. i'm a san francisco resident and i've seen a bunch of friends leaving the city as soon as they start a family. so i think this project kind of solves that problem right away. i've heard a lot about the parking spaces but you don't
10:31 pm
need to buy a parking spot if you're a resident in this project. there's been a lot of callers that are in support of more parking so i don't think that should be a blocker. so i think we need more housing and we need families to be able to stay in san francisco. so i hope this gets approved today. thank you. >> caller: hi. my name is alana, i'm a real estate agent in this city and i'm calling in support of the project. it has become increasingly hard to find family sized united in the city. parking is a must for most of my clients with small children. the majority of the projects being two bedrooms plus. thank you. >> caller: hi commissioners. my name is matt.
10:32 pm
i live in the valley. i'm calling in support of the project. san francisco needs more housing. as we know that's an issue. in particular family-oriented housing. i think this project should be approved today. and it's a state density bonus project and i believe that it should be approved and because it's family oriented units. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm calling in support of the octavia project. san francisco really needs more housing units, especially family units and parking and i don't see why we need to approve this. this should be approved as soon as possible. thank you.
10:33 pm
>> caller: good afternoon commissioners. i like this project so much this has so many good things going for it we need to make better use of funny little parking lots. but to grant sexes parking in this location is dreadful and i understand that the state density bonus obliges us to grant incentives of concessions in which case this concession is contrary to findings that the city has made in terms of hazards from excess parking. environmental problems and safety problems. it may be and i don't doubt that your excellent staff have worked with city council to examine what kind of latitude the city has and it may be determined we don't have a way out. if that's the case, we really need to be working with our
10:34 pm
state legislators to patch that goal. the density bonus is wonderful when it allows developers to put less parking in order to add more housing. it's not at all to be adding more parking and that neighborhood does not need more cars roaming around in it. please deny the c.u. for the bonus. keep working on it. thank you. >> caller: hello commissioners. having parking was key for me to buy my place. it's only reasonable that they ask for additional parking space to fit the families they're targeting. we need more housing. please approve this project.
10:35 pm
>> caller: hello commissioners, my name is jason and i work in the area and parking has been very difficult to find here every day i come to work. if we all will gladly welcome more parking in the neighborhood. thank you. >> caller: hello. hi. i'm calling from walnut creek to support the project. i moved here because it was impossible to afford a place in san francisco for me and my wife where we used to work. and make a lot more money than the average. the population in our society is lowering and we need more housing that's why we need a law housing is more important. instead, this is what's happening here. so, if we can have a little
10:36 pm
less parking and we can do it with a developer quickly, great. otherwise, this shouldn't be a show stopper and the argument about how much little parking is a deal, it seems i don't know if those motivation are really that honest. anyway, i thank you and i support this project. >> caller: hi. my name is jetson and i live a couple blocks away from 618 octavia. but the living here for over six years, some colleagues who support this project, the state of california especially san francisco is in a huge affordable housing crisis. we have a shortage of 700,000 affordable homes in the next 50 years. so i do agree with my neighbors that there's no need for parking at all at this
10:37 pm
particular site. my building has no car parking at all and a need to drive at all. i think this is a necessary evil to contribute to a much most important goal which is housing issues. so, yes, i strongly support this project. thank you. >> caller: this is sue hester. i'm talking to the planning commission, the planning commission has had a policy to have plans. and when the air plans should develop by the community over a period of years and may struggle with balancing housing and parking and transit and everything else, you have to take their advice seriously. there was a real concentration about balancing parking and housing. wanting to build a lot more housing was the thing that was guiding the plan.
10:38 pm
the state density bonus is a statewide law and it is not perfect. people from the community are asking for an opportunity to deal with a state legislature. you should use that opportunity now because this project is not perfect at all. there was a project a couple years ago, about seven years ago the planning commission. it's one up street of market and van ness. that was a project that has former parking in excess of what the plan allowed. they were allowed to get more parking. they were allowed to get a lot more height and they have had two extensions already and there's been another one coming through the planning commission soon. you have not got a perfect balance of housing and parking
10:39 pm
in the city. it's worth spending some time on to resolve this project. resolve this problem regarding this project. thank you very much. >> caller: hello. please approve this project from my point of view, it takes a few extra minutes for people who use cars. i happen to own a car myself and i've noticed thanks to working from home during the pandemic, i hardly put any miles on the car when it's just
10:40 pm
sitting there and i hope this project will welcome more families who want to live in the city. i do wish that the project had more bicycle parking, but i don't fault it for innovating with a stackable parking lot. . thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sean keefen with the residential builder's association. this is a classic case of how challenging housing can be in san francisco. you've got a good neighborhood group and a responsible builder. the neighborhood group has an obligation to do what they feel would be socially responsible. they're doing what they they have a narrow objective. their job is to ask for exactions. investor who is took a chance and invested in our challenging
10:41 pm
housing puzzle despite the risks associated with development in san francisco. so, very shortly, this item will be in the commission's hands and the purpose of this department, the purpose of this commission is to establish goals and policies regarding the production of the healthy amount of housing each year. so to achieve this, the department, this commission needs to balance a variety of factors and policies to achieve the healthy amount of housing. let's go back a little to the past two or three years. there has been a definite slow down in the number of new applications. there is a definite slow down in the number of new approvals and a substantial if not a stop of new starts for housing units. the impact of higher and rising construction costs have made new development almost impossible. the big joke is projects get
10:42 pm
approveded on thursday and then they're up for sale on a monday. and this is happening because the projects can't attract the necessary capital needed to fund these deals. there simply isn't enough profit to reward the financial list of building in this town. i'd like to remind this commission of a common phrase used during rezoning discussions. new and higher exactions are added. now, today, value -- >> secretary: thank you. that is your time. >> caller: thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing coalition speaking in support of the project. this is a project we got to review twice most recently in march 2022 and excited about the opportunity. when i think about san francisco's long-term vision,
10:43 pm
taking the current four units on the site right now, demoing it, getting 40 new homes. 10% on side below market rate housing. ground floor mixed use, i think this is really a model for what we want to be building going forward. additionally, we cosponsored a petition in support of the project with san francisco unity and i know that's been sharing with you. the last time i saw and i just want to read some of their comments because as many of you know it's difficult. in full support of the project which allows more units to the city that will make for a better street feel. steven alexander supports the project. joseph is a lower neighbor and
10:44 pm
supports it. the skyrocketing cost of housing is undercutting what's great. what is great about san francisco the city needs housing especially below market rate housing. this is the exact type of mix in densing all over the city. we're in a housing crisis. every new bit of housing helps when you've got family. housing as well, that's really going to make a difference. at the end of the day, we just talked about how difficult it is to get projects to pencil. there's a financial reality -- >> secretary: thank you. that is your time. >> caller: thank you very much. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i'm calling in support of this project. as a proud tenant in a rent
10:45 pm
controlled parking who lives car-free like myself, i'm absolutely sympathetic to concerns. the only way that san francisco can take new housing viable without additional parking if we continue to invest in world class transit. ment new housing projects in manhattan are financially viable without parking. san francisco doesn't have time for new housing until we get [ indiscernible ] . building more housing closer to jobs and therefore potentially reducing vehicle miles traveled on net. in a project where car-free space is liable. i hope that all the commentors in the coming months and years to fight for dense housing on parking infrastructure.
10:46 pm
>> caller: good afternoon. my name is angela. is our mandate according to the housing accountability act. please approve this project today. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm very excited about what this will offer to families. we're actually in a housing crisis and a development that's focused on family living. the plans appear very desirable and the retail space is encouraging to small business operators. please do not be dissuaded by those taking issue with the proposed parking ratio until we have a superior transit program
10:47 pm
in place. it's simply unrealistic to expect households and families to give up their primary means of transportation. as you heard from the other previous callers, we're in a parking crisis in hayes valley. this should not be exas per rated further. the pros clearly outweigh the cons here. please grant this conditional use. thank you. >> caller: hi. the parking has become a big challenge in the neighborhood. and the project will offer more cars looking for parking by providing onto ground spaces. please approve it. thanks. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. my name is donavan goodman.
10:48 pm
i'm a resident of district two and i'm a lead with northern neighbors prohousing advocacy group. one of the best spaces we have housing in and particularly excited about the ability for more people who live in this neighborhood. before moving to san francisco, a very city where and hayes valley one of these walkable urban neighborhoods that reminds me. must be super excited about this being built for so many people. thank you.
10:49 pm
>> secretary: go ahead, caller. okay. >> caller: sorry about that my name is joe segura. just as many people seem to want more parking units. we need more housing. this makes more room in the city and i support this project. >> secretary: okay. last call for public comment. you need to step forward if you're in the chambers or press star three if you're calling. >> when you hear your line has
10:50 pm
been unmuted. >> caller: hi. my name is jenny. i was forced to move down to the peninsula. i have two sons and running errands for my family was impossible in the city especially when you're trying to return home and look for street parking. i believe it's the only way to improve the well being of the city and to encourage more families to stay. i am always adding another 15 to 20 minutes to my commute when i come into the city for work and i always wonder how many additional unnecessary drivers there are circling around neighborhoods and emitting more park pollutants. i am in favor to add ten more parking spaces and approve the parking as is. make the city more family-oriented and to reduce emissions by avoiding unnecessary circling in the neighborhood to find street
10:51 pm
parking. thank you. >> secretary: okay. commissioners, seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed and this item is now before you. >> commissioner: thank you. i want to thank the project sponsor and all the staff who came in to city hall and all the caller who is participating online. what strikes me about this project is that it in some ways in thinking about the caller are thinking about it could frame parking and housing and in particular families and family sized and family style housing against parking and against other values that we have in san francisco. and i think i can certainly understand the perspectives of everybody who shared their comments about the project. i think when i think about it, you know, we are still in a transition period i feel thieklike in the united states where we are wanting to go towards fewer cars, more walking, more biking, more
10:52 pm
transit oriented ways to get around the city, but we're not where we want to be yet and also acknowledge that every family doesn't need a car to get around there. many families who live car-free by choice and who make life work without a vehicle. it's not a 1:1. definitely if you have kids, you need a car, but i think many of us experience the ease of getting a car can be fast sometimes if you have young kids. even with a car can be way faster to get from one part of the city to another than taking transit. particularly if you have to transfer from one bus to another. i think for me, where i land is that the benefit of the project which is very well-designed. 10 below market units. bringing housing to a really great part of the city to me outweigh the modest increase as ten additional parking spaces
10:53 pm
and in particular with the parking being in, it's not the most easy to access your car and folks will still have to think twice if they want to hop in their vehicle or if they can walk, bike, or take transit and most families can meet their needs in the neighborhood but with our schools being where they are, you're not necessarily going to a day care school. right around where you live. it may be necessary for families and other types of households and other vehicles. if it makes the project work, that's a benefit to the city overall. i'm supportive of this project today, commissioners and would like to hear what other folks are thinking. commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, president tanner. i do have a question. what happens if the unbundled
10:54 pm
parking is not sold. from what i'm understanding is that the parking is necessary in order to sell the units. >> it is unbundled. that's required by the code. nobody has to buy a parking space what happens to the financial feasibility or identifiable, the reduction of cost and that you submitted to the planning commission. >> right. if you're not selling some of the parking spaces, obviously then that financial mathematical equation will change a little bit. we do believe that those parking spaces will be sold yes. it does change the equation a little bit. so i guess what i would say in
10:55 pm
the cost savings, we really submitted data for the additional cost. there are many indirect cost impacts for not having the parking i do have a question transportation element or transit element in our general plan. how does sb330 conduct or any language when it comes to transportation elements. >> i'm sorry. i'm not sure i understand the question. you're asking what?
10:56 pm
>>. >> commissioner imperial: i guess my question is does the state policy super cede the transit policy element of the city? does it include any kind of language when it comes to the transit policy of the city? >> i'm having some difficulty. sb 330 does not that i'm aware of. it's certainly i can look into for you, but i'm not aware of -- >> commissioner imperial: okay. >> secretary: kristin, i'm sorry. we're having some technical difficulties hearing you. kristin, if you can hear me, your -- >> i'm going to move this a little and see if that -- >> president: i think it may be better if you're off video. >> secretary: i was just going to say if you kill your video
10:57 pm
feed, we might get audio. there you go. now try again. >> all right. let's try that. can you hear me any better? >> it's much better. yes. >> okay. whether or not parking can be included as a concession or incentive. i'm not sure what my concern here is that if the parking spaces are not sold, then it affects the calculation of the identifiable reduction of cost and and there are to look at
10:58 pm
their assumption and the spaces that are valued and in the market for parking. i think it's fairly clear that the parking, additional parking would add to the feasibility, but i get this is obviously a tension between our code and how we've changed it over the last decade in reduction in parking requirement and getting rid of parking minimums you
10:59 pm
know, we struggled with this as well, i think the state density bonus rules are fairly clear and ms. connor's on the line too if there are specific questions that would allow for this as a concession, but we get that, you know, there's a tension between that. >> commissioner imperial: yeah i think this is a matter of debate or a matter of debate for the state legislation itself especially, you know, we have a transit policy element here in san francisco. it doesn't really have that whether it closes the loophole. the state legislation doesn't have that and what it does it directly and only links between the reduction cost between affordable housing limits and it depends on how the market is going to address how it's going to be sold. that is how i'm seeing this is how it's linked to the state
11:00 pm
density bonus and at the same time our own transit policy element that we have i think the developer would have to eat the loss. just as if they built the units and they weren't sold, they would have to eat that cost. i don't know if you want to respond to a somewhat of a worse case scenario but understanding if the parking spots don't sell, i imagine the building would be constructed by the time you'd realize that. can you speak to that. we have currently.
11:01 pm
$40,000. for this equation to not work we would need to sell the parking at $20,000 which is half of what currently b.m.r. parking is valueded at. by the mayor office of housing if that is the case, then basically we're in a much different situation than i wouldn't want to get in. >> we won't forecast the negativity. >> commissioner imperial: we're basing it on the projection and the transit
11:02 pm
policy at least i can remember it partly will depend on where projects are proposed and the context there. >> i just wanted to make a couple of comments. so the state density identifiable and actual cost reductions to the argument that was provided by the sponsor stated that the additional parking spaces only slightly increased the construction cost and that revenue from these spaces would offset the cost of
11:03 pm
being able to provide that affordable housing. it is something that we did review this analysis and we really did hear the objection from the community. now, in response, we sought to verify the analysis and requested the review bio consultant while we understand the objection from the neighborhood, it's incredibly limited in our discretion to deny an incentive. of i think we've really had to grapple the lack of incentive. as projects seek incentives from code provisions including height. ground floor ceiling height, but we really must comply with state law. i do want to stress it should be noted that this project is considered to be code compliant even with the requested waivers and incentives and concessions. >> president: thank you very much. i see vice president moore.
11:04 pm
>> commissioner: i would like to ask the question why there is no car share being provided here. a measure that in many of our project has upset the kind of casual need for cars. the quality of this neighborhood has risen out of strongly monitored and stewarded implementation of the octavia plan and i think the community at large 15 years later, people were part of the original creation of this plan are still speaking up to uphold what has guided the implementation of many other projects. my question is why does this project does not avail itself.
11:05 pm
>> that's why we're asking for the additional ten spaces versus car spare spaces. >> commissioner: okay. does the staff on the really clear mandate as we're moving into a different program environment regarding the challenges it poses for us. state density project by the very nature asking for extensions and concessions in areas that are very difficult when it comes to equity and when it comes to deliverability for all and i'm asking staff, have you considered adding the
11:06 pm
requirement for car share spaces at a lower rate than what's currently suggested? >> president: i don't know if the project planner or that would be more directed to you. maybe we look at through t.d.m. >> commissioner: this is a question for the planning staff. >> president: yeah. i'm not sure who's going to address it and how we would update our policy when car share spaces are required. >> commissioner: this is a policy question for anybody on staff. perhaps ms. connor or anybody might of thought about it. we need to find a way to follow state law and interpret our own tools. >> sure. i'm happy to address the question from the commissioner. department staff. so in short, the car share requirement is a hard code requirement. so we don't generally have a lot of policies layered on top
11:07 pm
of that. so it usually gets triggered based on the number of parking spaces or the number of dwelling units that are being providing. so it applies to the larger scale projects so 50 units or more or if they're providing 25 off street parking spaces. i do know in the past, past commissions have added a car share space or requested. it's usually with the consent of the applicant and also when we can kind of accomplish a clear between the provided parking and the car share. i'm still wondering whether or not the accounting of these extra parking spaces are
11:08 pm
needed. it's not totally clear to me: i just like to ask questions. i'm curious as to what questions other commissioners are thinking. have there been any shadow study to make sure we're not negatively affecting any open spaces. that may be affected by the height of this building. there was no effect on any parks of planning code section 295. >> commissioner: could you identify yourself. i do not see you and i have only a picture of who is speaking. would you mind identifying. >> so sorry. yes. project planner. >> commissioner: thank you so much. i did not see any mention of the study in the packet. that said, i think the project provides an interesting and well design units, the numbers
11:09 pm
of units. it's just a little bit of a concern to me, but the issue of parking and policy behind it would be an issue again. i'll refer it to as commissioners hopefully weigh in on the subject. >> if i can add, commissioner moore on the calculation. of it's a fairly straight forward calculation. while we got a consultant to look at that analysis to commissioner imperial's point, there's not much additional construction cost in there -- there's value to that parking. so it's a fairly, they were having to go down another level to excavate. there's some limit to this. so if you do have to go further down to excavate, that's going to be a much additional cost and probably even that math wouldn't work out. but in this case, they're doing it in that space that already exists. there's some additional construction costs.
11:10 pm
that's why the math is pretty straight forward on the bonus calculation. >> commissioner: thank you for that additional comment. >> commissioner diamond: a question for the project sponsor on a different topic. where are the laundry facilities? >> each unit has a stack washer drier. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so the actual washer drier. >> president: is it a hook-up? >> no. an actual washer drier. >> commissioner diamond: okay. do you have any objection if we indicate in the approval that we have done recently in other projects that the project will have a community laundry room or in-unit hook-ups. it's up to you if you want to provide the washer driers. do we have any objection to
11:11 pm
that kind of condition? >> we don't. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so on the parking question, i want to align myself with commissioner tanner's question at the beginning which is that's a trade off. we have a very strong transit first policy, but the realities of the current market and the desire to provide family housing, the need for financing, you know, on this particular project state density bonus loss put me in the camp. i've been willing to approve the project with the parking concession. with that, although i'd still like to hear from the other commissioners, i will move to approve the project with the condition i just suggested with the requirement for either community laundry room or in-room hook-ups in each unit.
11:12 pm
>> commissioner: second. and i'll call on commissioner ruiz. >> commissioner: thank you. i wanted to align myself with commissioner moore's comments and also state that i didn't see the exhibit in my packet as well that references the financial break down as to a reason why the project sponsor sees additional 10 units. i would feel i need that in order to go forward. and i also want to say, you know, there's already 20 units allowed permitted for this project and i really hear the comments expressed by some of the residents that have concerns that this will set a precedent where we will see other potential developers come to the commission and say they need a concession for additional parking because of
11:13 pm
feasibility. and if we're a city that's pushing for transit first policies, i really think we need to make decisions based on those values where we want more of a balance of housing and encouraging residents to use public transit. i understand we also need to increase our public transit infrastructure and there are things we need to address in that realm, but i would not be supportive of moving forward with approving the conditional use for the parking spaces. i'm supportive of everything else, but, yeah, i just want to say that i'm not comfortable moving forward and approving this project with those additional parking spaces. >> president: thank you, commissioner ruiz. maybe on the question of the analysis. i did see that in my packet, but i don't know if other commissioners were missing
11:14 pm
that. >> it should be in there. i think it's the last item on the packet. if we can walk through it again, i think it's a fairly simple. i guess, they could get to this parking level with the c.u., we would likely recommend denial of that and stick with the half to one. i think that's why they went forward with kind of getting at this through the density bar. it is the first one you're seeing, but we looked at it and it's certainly under state law concession that's available to them. so we can walk through the calculation again because the construction costs are not that significant to accommodate these and they're doing them through stackers, it's fairly straight forward. >> president: i would just say for commissioners ruiz and moore, for me, it's the last three pages of the packet and i just used the online one that has the analysis there and i think mr. ancho might run through with that briefly for us to make sure we're on the
11:15 pm
same page. >> yeah.' can you highlight those three pages. i'm not sure. >> president: for mine. >> commissioner: it's actually two letters from the project sponsors council. it's the one following all of the letters of support that they had. >> president: yeah. >> commissioner: that had the exhibits that showed the construction costs. >> yeah, there's a letter and then 138 and then again, the last three pages are the actual
11:16 pm
math. it would snow 230,000 more dollars to provide their own spaces. however, they provided support documentation from real estate agents and market professionals outside of the kaiser marsden report that the department requested and both of those align that the spaces in total are going to net $1.2 million. so there's a clear cost reduction to provide affordable housing units. >> president: great. i think that is a great
11:17 pm
summary. i would just remind commissioners certainly can understand this is a whole your nose and we have the state density bonus, but again the law is clear in this matter in regards to where parking can fall in terms of a concession waiver that's requested. i'm going to call on vice president moore. >> one second. i question my ability to judge this project independently as the commissioner with experience having seen planning earlier plans and this project seriously questioning not seriously questioning the future of the liability of all larger area plans and the future of san francisco. this is basically opening up an element that which we are
11:18 pm
starting to undermind what has guided the implementation of many projects who all want more parking, but reminding ourselves of the necessity to consider transit first. and it's difficult to see it move forward. i think now dribbling out additional parking to certain projects which we have denied puts me in a situation that i cannot support. >> president: i don't see any more comments from commissioners. i think we're ready to vote.
11:19 pm
>> secretary: very good. there has been a motion to second this as amended to include a specific condition for community laundry or individual hook-ups. on that motion, [roll call] that motion passes 4-3 with commissioners ruiz, imperial and moore against. commissioners that will place us on item 13 for case number 2021-010898cua 1017 divisadero street. >> president: i know we have been waiting a long time for this, i'm just going to propose a 5-minute break. so let's come back in 5 minutes so folks can get
11:20 pm
>> thank you, everyone, welcome back to the san francisco planning commission regular hearing for thursday, april 28th, 2022. we left off on item 13 for case number 2021-010898cua and for the property at 1017 this is a conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners, laura, planning department staff. there are two conditional use authorization request before you today for this site. one to remove a laundromat use and two, to establish a cannabis retail use. within the da directing. pursuant to inter using, change of use or demolition of laundromat condition approval. the nct zoning district is a
11:21 pm
linear commercial directing between haight and it's an important public transit corridor and thorough way street. this directing has a dense mixed use character consisting of two to four-storey buildings with residential units pov and groundfloor story commercial uses. the district provides convenience goods and services to the surrounding neighborhoods for wider markets. the subject property is developed with a two-storey mixed use building, containing one commercial space and a vacant residential unit above. the commercial space was last occupied by a laundromat has been vacant since 2018. the surrounding properties are rh3, rm-3 and rm-3 and the sfpd northern district police station is five blocks to the east on fill more street. the closest cannabis retailer is located at 1328 grove street and
11:22 pm
two additional sites have been approved for cannabis use but neither is in operation currently. da visa dare owe business hoursr weekdays from 8:30 to 10:00 p.m. and saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on site cannabis consumption is not proposed or permitted per the draft motion. as noted in the executive summary, sponsor conducted outreach under the office of cannabis good neighbor policy which includes providing a mailed notice to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site and conduct on-line outreach meetings. this applicant conducted two,
11:23 pm
one on april 31st, 2021 and a september on september 21st, 2021. staff received 22 public comments in support of the project and two comments they cited concerns security, this is 16 tenants and the apartment building at the corner of golden gate avenue. no public comments were received about the changes of use, new legislation passed by the board of supervisors on november 21st, 2021, added a
11:24 pm
requirement for the cu and there are lan dough mats in a facility and the subject site was laundromat doing business as everyday cleaners and seized operation 2018 and has been vacant since. currently there are two laundromats and staff recommend approval of the conditional use authorization and the project meets all applicable planning code for the change of use from a laundromat to establish the cannabis retail use. the proposed use will compliment the goods and services currently available and contribute to the economic fatality by occupying the vacant storefront. this concludes my presentation and i will be available to answer any questions and the
11:25 pm
project sponsor is here to address the commission. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor. you have a five-minute presentation. >> can i pull up our presentation on this? >> yes, if it's loaded, yes. >> how do you switch this?
11:26 pm
>> good afternoon, planning commission i'm an attorney and i represent the project applicant of city sfllc i'm here this afternoon with alex and it says city and sf llc's c.e.o. and we have our project architect here bannia architects. in the interest of time, i'll move fairly quickly through our presentation.
11:27 pm
so, as stated by the planner this project is located at 1072 divisadero for retail cannabis dispensary both adult and medical use under prop 64. the applicant is 100% sf equity-owned business. he is the sole member of this llc and he is a verified equity owner with the sf office of cannabis. we proposed nine employees ours of operation and the planners already gone over and i would like to introduce alex and he wanted to speak on his background as an equity
11:28 pm
applicants. >> could you please verify the address you said 1071 divisadero and the packet in front of us is 1017 divisadero is the address. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> my name is alex and i am the c.e.o. and founder of city and ff lli thank you for the opportunity to present here in front of the planning commission. a little bit about my background briefly, i was born and raised in sf and received a bachelor street and came back to the bay area and got my certificate and my goal with the city and dispense tree is to provide high cannabis products and access to members of my community as well as job opportunities. while creating a positive economic impact in the immediate
11:29 pm
area. being born and raised in a neighborhood i have a certain understanding and connection with this place and the sf equity program has granted an opportunity to run a business here in the neighborhood where black people and people of color were arrested and for cannabis related offenses. this is also where my father owned two restaurants on divisadero street and i'm a second generation business owner and i care deeply about the area while conducting a public outreach we received overwhelming support and including 22 signed letters of support and of course, there were some concerns expressed about local crime and security and i like to state that i still live in the area and as a father, security is of the utmost importance to me. as outlined in our security plan in good neighbor policy. we believe security presence will have a duel effect. effect a, secure the store and effect b, would be a safer community. research shows that crime
11:30 pm
deceases in areas where there are security presence and putting in active business where there's been a vacant space for three years now, i hope to contribute to the much needed revitalization of the neighborhood and i yield my time. thank you. >> does that conclude your -- >> no, i just wanted to talk in the interest of time, since we have a limited a time i want to hit 202.12 findings and if there's extra time, we can talk about the security features of the dispensary. i wanted to go over the fact that there are two laundromats located within 600 feet so it won't convert -- converting this from laundromat to dispense tree will not impact those accessing laundromat services in that area. with regard to 202.12b, there
11:31 pm
were four laundromat removal projects approved by planning since july 19th and with regard to the essential needs of lower-income residents, cannabis was declared and our dispense tree plans to adopt a compassionate use program under sb34 which will provide fro medicine to qualified low income patients and as to the fourth point, 202.12d, the project is located in a sense track of 10.4% which is below the 14% poverty level. >> that is your time. >> thank you. >> we urge to you approve this project. >> the commissioners may ask you for additional clarifying questions. >> sure. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to address the by by coming for and lining up
11:32 pm
on the screen side of the room and those calling in remotely press star 3. come on up, sir. >> you have two minutes. >> all right. good afternoon, president tanner good afternoon commissioners. i'm a licensed cpa in the state of california. previously i was a tax auditor and tax accountant for the state of california and now i'm a owner of a cpa firm. many of my clients are based in the western edition and i was born and raised in the western edition so i seen firsthand at how many businesses have left because gentrification, i believe this will provide -- it's a viable business and will provide a lot of opportunities for this business to thrive and grow. it's also going to provide
11:33 pm
entrepreneurship opportunities for poem in this area. i think a lot of san franciscane able to contribute to the and preserve the identity of san francisco and help promote the racial equity and social equity in this city. thank you. >> it would be a great opportunity for him. i am born and raised in san francisco in the western district and i'm supporting him today so would you guys please grant him this opportunity because this is a opportunity for equity applicants to move
11:34 pm
forward in keep going to have opportunities for the community so support him in this opportunity, please. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm from the south bay san jose area and i came this way to support this journey and one thing that i do in the cannabis industry, i'm in the tech sales industry and with cannabis and from vertically integrated companies and what i've also seen in my territory in the bay area, especially in san francisco, was kind of like the loss of the culture during the pandemic and especially in the downtown area and over all san francisco. i truly believe that with alex's contribution of his own neighborhood, being a great role model in his neighborhood and
11:35 pm
also emphasizing the whole entrepreneurship about opening potential will he this project will also spark more attention of that type of positivity and to also move forward with great aspects to give back to the community as well. so, please approve. thank you. >> i'm here also in support of the city and dispensary and we just had a big 4/20. so, you know, this is the culture and it's here today. if any of you are stew arts of history, when they realized alcohol, that got rid of a lot of crime. right. so, you know, let's make equity more than just a word. let's make equity, an action. because when you don't do that,
11:36 pm
then you make words like equity, diversity, and multi cultural, you make those bad words. [laughter] there's stigma, right. when i came in here right, you have to drop things in the metal detector and the deputies, they frowning until they saw this. then he wants to be my best friend, right. we got to get past those out-dated perceptions that limit our city and then you know, his family-owned businesses here, so, you know, supporting this you are continuing on the legacy of san francisco business and now we're in the culture of equity. he is a college great watt and it's a great example to people
11:37 pm
in the urban community right and one of my things is trying to connect urban community with people like you. so we feel like female like you are cool too and we're not afraid to talk to you and so with that, thank you for giving me my time to speak and please support the cannabis dispensary and obsidian means healing. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is deffen wilson and i'm going to speak rapidly. first and foremost thank you for your service, i could not do what you do, 20 minutes i was checked out. so again my name is devon wilson and i'm born and raised here in san francisco and i say that with proud entitlement, specifically the fill more district, i'm a proud in a tism i asked the commission to a post opening of this new project of sitting in and i heard the concerns of the residents and i want to remind everyone we're on the cusp of recovering from
11:38 pm
covid. it with bring more value to this city and most importantly to the neighborhood. where small businesses struggle. i also heard concerns about noise and security. that won't be an issue due to the rules and regulations that will be implemented for consumer to buy their products and leave. the amount of generational wealth that will spawn from this approval will change lives and generations to come. what is the city like my brother there said, it's about healing. more specifically, it's a rare crystal that is only found in places where there are active volcanos and its purpose, soul purpose that is used to drive away negativity. keep that in the back of your minds. lastly, that is who alex is to me. rare, authentic, proud, and he is one of the few bridges or one of the few ones who can bridge the gap between youth and adults in this community.
11:39 pm
he is highly respected and he is positive and has always walked to the beat of his own drum so for that that reason alone and the benefits of his products, is why i'm standing before you today asking for your approval i talked to alex often and at owned of every conversation he reminds me we have to top talking about it and show them, the youth, that it's possible. thank you. >> i'm going to be brief. i work for department of public-health for the city here and i've lived in this city for almost 18 years and we need more businesses ran by people from the city. not people who just came here five years ago to make a buck. we need people from the city. urban people from the city and
11:40 pm
we need minor fee- minority-ownd businesses. much of what these people said were true. he is a good bridge between the youth of this community because that's where he is from and between other people in this society that maybe don't have that connection. to just answer to any opposition, this man loves this community and he will not let safety or danger be an issue. this man will not let his opportunity turn into that so, that is the benefit of being from the area. you love the community. you are not going to see it be filled with vandals or people harassing people trying to come in or go or to harass families. we need people that care and alex cares. thank you for your time. please, approve this.
11:41 pm
>> hello, my name is luna and i'm a social worker for about 15 years. including in san francisco. i just wanted to say that i fully approve. you know, what a powerful representation to see someone from the community, not only for kids in the neighborhood, but also adults, you know. so, that's all i want to say, thank you. any other member of the public in the chambers wishing to submit their testimony? come forward, ma'am.
11:42 pm
put them right there. put them right there. >> sfgov, can you go to the overhead, please. >> sorry, i'm nervous. i am a mother of an infant child. i've lived in this unit in this building with many bow loved neighborhoods and we're all very close for the last eight years. my concern is three-fold.
11:43 pm
first, we actually didn't know that we could even appeal based on the laundromat but the laundromat was actively used and no going to even the 600 feet is actually hard for a lot of us because we have to carry our lawn degree and there's elderly people in the building and disabled people in the building. with a baby it's particularly hard and we actually, the laundromat closed because the rent has hiked and the laundromat didn't want to leave and they also did driveway drivy cleaning. they're very valued not just by our building but all the buildings in the area and sorry. this is showing patterns of noise in the building. i am a documentary filmmaker, cinematographer to i'm sensitive the way sound waves travel. our building is very old. the walls are transparent as are
11:44 pm
the windows. we rely on a mediterranean cross breeze to cool our apartments in the evening which is important for my baby girl to sleep. noise transmits from the sidewalk in particular this enter trance up to our windows and we can hear everything in the streets. we're concerned that there will be pedestrian traffic and automobile traffic. [please stand by]
11:45 pm
11:46 pm
11:47 pm
11:48 pm
11:49 pm
11:50 pm
11:51 pm
11:52 pm
francisco an ideal place to be. thank you. >> clerk: okay. final last call. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you. >> president tanner: thank you, and thank the -- one more? one more. >> clerk: well, i mean, who knows. >> president tanner: buzzer beater? here we go. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> hi. thank you for taking my call. my name is yuri, and i'm calling to oppose this project. i am a resident at the apartment complex right next to the property, and i've been living here almost ten years.
11:53 pm
i have concerns about the impact [indiscernible] and also the laundromat that used to be on that site, and now that it's [indiscernible], carry loads of laundry. i find it [indiscernible] particularly families and replacing it with [indiscernible] so i oppose this project. thank you. >> clerk: i'm not going to say
11:54 pm
public comment is closed. i'll just say right now, there are no more callers. >> president tanner: i just want to thank the staff and the applicant for bringing this project forward. i hope i'll join with other commissioners in part of your success story? san francisco and hope that you have the best of luck on your project. this is a very thorough application, very thoughtfully done. we had a ton of applications during the first part of the pandemic, and almost all was dispensaries. i love that this dispensary is from a native who came back, and i want to call on commissioner moore, who has her hand raised. >> vice president moore: [indiscernible] on the contrary, i found the presentation, as president tanner said, very convincing.
11:55 pm
i'm pleased to see a local who experienced and knows the neighborhood and i hope that you'll ultimately help bring the concerns that the adjoining neighbors in the residential area had, and that is watching the parking and all the things that good neighbors would require. i'll make a motion to approve and support with conditions. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> vice president moore: i'd also like to comment on the meaning of obsidian how it was cleaner of city smog. >> yeah, just a couple more comments.
11:56 pm
first when the cannabis dispensaries were coming in, there would be hundreds of people opposing them, and over the years, it's gone to show that they can help cleanup and get some more eyes on the street for the local neighborhood and community, and it's a really big deal to me when a city kid sticks around and gets a shot in his own part of town, so full support. >> president tanner: absolutely. i do just want to briefly address some concerns from callers and the person that's here in person. i hope that you can work with alex and if there are any concerns, they can be addressed. we hope that it is a busy spot, but we hope that doesn't produce noise from the customers that are coming and going. i know you described challenges that would really be beyond the
11:57 pm
responsibility of what he would have, but alex, we hope that you'll take that under advisement and monitor the building and be a part of the community like you already are, so with that, i believe we're ready to vote. >> clerk: indeed, we are. there's been a motion that's been seconded to approve the application with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners, that'll place us on your final item on today's calendar under your discretionary review calendar for item 14, case number
11:58 pm
2021-009729-drp at 43 norfolk street. this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael christiansen, department staff. >> president tanner: just want to give a moment for folks to file out and then we'll get started. all right. i think we're ready to get started. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. michael christianen, department staff -- christiansen, department staff. before you is a discretionary
11:59 pm
review of 2021.0813.6389 for the change of an existing one-story warehouse structure to cannabis retail. the site is within the west soma mixed use general zoning district, western soma mixed use district, and the area is compromised -- comprised of a mix of general scale uses and small housing stack. the discretionary review requester was received by fung lao. in the request for discretionary review -- it's always nice to see happy small business owners. the requests identify two issues with the proposed project. first, they identified that the project has not been reviewed
12:00 am
by the americans with disability act. this was not in error. that occurs with d.b.i.s review of the permit. the permit will be reviewed for a.d.a. compliance. second, the [indiscernible] families do reside throughout the city, but the specific context of western soma within the leather cultural district already contains a high concentration of industrial and night uses and staff does not note any items that are inconsistent with the proposed use. staff recommends that the commission does not take d.r. and approve as proposed. this concludes staff presentation. >> clerk: thank you. is the d.r. requester here?
12:01 am
>> i'm not sure. >> president tanner: no, he's not here. >> clerk: okay. project sponsor. you have three minutes. >> i'll make it short and sweet. tonight, i just respectfully ask the commission adopts the planning department recommendation and go ahead and approve this project, and if you have any questions, feel free to reach out. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. public comment? any member of the public wish to speak at this time? if you're calling in, you need to press star, three, and if you're in the chambers, please come forward. seeing no requests to speak from any member -- i take that back. okay, caller. you have one minute. >> hi. my name is angela white, and i wanted to make a comment in
12:02 am
support of this 43 norfolk dispensary. i just wanted to say that [indiscernible] so thank you. >> clerk: thank you. last call for public comment. seeing no one in the attendee box and no one else in the chambers, this matter is now before you, commissioners. oh, would you like to rebut? you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> president tanner: okay. commissioners, i hope we have a motion to not take d.r. and
12:03 am
approve. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yes, since the d.r. requester is not here, and we cannot hear his side, so i would take the planning department's recommendation and not take d.r. and approve. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion and second to not take d.r. and approve -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. sorry to waste your time. second week in a row. >> president tanner: i know. thank you, commissioners. we are adjourned. >> clerk: thank you.
12:04 am
12:05 am
12:06 am
12:07 am
12:08 am
12:09 am
12:10 am
12:11 am
12:12 am
12:13 am
12:14 am
12:15 am
12:16 am
12:17 am
12:18 am
12:19 am
12:20 am
12:21 am
12:22 am
12:23 am
>> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciousness.
12:24 am
i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community. >> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin twist. i wanted to open a truck to son
12:25 am
nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent. >> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the grill. >> i am the owner. it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in businesses so they can really use this as a launching off
12:26 am
point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived in bayview. she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be unoccupied. it was used as a dump.
12:27 am
to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department. >> working with the joint venture partners we got resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid. you have the t train. you have a lot of new business.
12:28 am
i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and passionate about what they do, and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive. >> all right. it is time to eat, people.
12:29 am
12:30 am
>> good morning, san francisco. give yourselves a hand for being out here at 4:45. i am a native san franciscan and once again, you hearty, crazy folks have come together to honor the memories of san franciscans who survived being tossed from their beds 116 years ago this morning at 5:12 or 5:11 or 5:13 depending on which native tells the tale. and 116 years ago, powerful seismic waves roared across a prosperous city of san francisco. and experts today estimate the colossal earthquake was around 7.9 on the modern magnitude scale. by the end of the first day, there were 26 aftershocks and
12:31 am
would succumb to a raging inferno that showed no mercy to the bewildered citizens for 74 hours. the following year is a brief timeline events that they faced and i would like to give you a moment by moment description of what happened to the city and the citizens on this morning 116 years ago. later, i will introduce to you some of the fellow san franciscans who work every day to be survivors of the inevitable next big one. wednesday, april 18, 1906, 5:12 a.m. a great fore shock is felt throughout the san francisco bay area. some 20 to 25 second later, san francisco residents are awakened by a tremor 45 to 60 seconds long measuring 7.9 on that modern magnitude scale. the first casualties from the massive quake occur when low
12:32 am
rent tenements in the south of market district collapse. hundreds are killed as the liquefied ground swallows the homes and added the death toll as collapsed structures immediately catch fire and prevent rescue attempts and fire chief is fatally wounded during the earthquake and would die four days later on a spire tower of the california hotel collapsed onto the fire station home. and due to severe earthquake damage, telephone and telegraph communication within the city is impossible. a few messages are sent around the world via the pacific cable before that line, too, fails. 6:00 a.m., san francisco mayor eugene schmitz is unaware of the severity of the quake and he leaves the safety of his home and heads downtown and sees the
12:33 am
enormous scale of that disaster and are available to report to the mayor at the hall of justice and some 1700 soldiers come to the aid of both residents and firefighters. 8:14 a.m., a mayor aftershock strikes and causes many of the damaged buildings still standing to collapse. throughout the day, the city suffers 26 aftershocks. each one slowing the already overstretched rescue effort. fires rage and spread through the city and are not stopped until 74 hours later. many of san francisco's finest buildings collapse under the fire storms. firefighters begin dynamiting buildings to create fire breaks. it is now the afternoon and is 1:00 p.m. that day. the temporary hospital setup outside city hall is abandoned due to the impending fire break. the sick and injured are forced to evacuate to temporary camps throughout the city and in parks on the edge of town. 3:00 p.m., mayor appoints a city
12:34 am
of 350 comprised of the citizens businessmen and hearing reports of looting, the mayor orders a shoot to kill and the evening is now 8:00 p.m., hopes of saving downtown are dashed as a new blaze breaks out and shifting winds push the fires toward the heart of the city. 9:00 p.m., firefighters make a stand at union square on powell street, but the fire breaches the line and continues relentlessly up knob hill. the california governor arrives to assess the damage and declares the day a bank holiday. the three main newspapers of san francisco borrow the presses of an oakland paper to print a special joint edition. 6:00 p.m., responding to wireless telegraph message, the u.s.s. chicago arrives to help in the relief efforts. the great fire reached van ness
12:35 am
avenue which is 125 feet wide. mayor finally agrees to let the army create a massive fire break in the hopes it can stop the raging inferno. this decision means abandoning dozen of city blocks, many filled with mansions, to the fire. the rich spectators who spent the day watching the fire finally realize their homes won't be saved an will soon burn. friday, april 20, 1906 at 5:00 a.m., the fire break ativan ness finally holds and the westward progression is halted. mayor schmitz makes a battle and rescue 20,000 refugees, an unprecedented evacuation by sea. saturday, april 21, 1906, and 7:15 a.m. and after all flames were extinguished, the mayor declares the fire over. sunday, april 22, 1906, cable cars begin running on market street.
12:36 am
and now april 18, 2022. present day. today, no one knows when the next great quake will come. but san francisco is doomed to relive the horrific events of 1906 because the san andreaa fault never rests. it may strike tomorrow or not for 100 year, but it might just strike as the city sleeps tonight. all right. kind of scary. it really is, but good morning once again, everybody. we gather today on the 116th anniversary of the great earthquake and fire to remember those who were lost. every year since the 20s, the hearty san franciscans survived and just as we were doing so today. several years ago once all of the actual survivors had passed, we pledged to be here and as carl nolte summed it up
12:37 am
specifically and with the applause for that and in a few moments we will hear from esteemed san franciscans including london breed, and mayor willie brown and the sheriff and deputy department of emergency management executive director mary ellen harrell. as you know, covid kept us from commemorating officially in the last few years. and we were caught up with the honorary survivors for the last three years. dave eberly, give dave a nice hand. he is a terrific guy that does so much work on this. lieutenant jonathan baxter, atomic pio of the san francisco fire department. and former chief, fire chief, joann hayes white is probably here. give her a nice hand. besides the 3,000 lives lost in
12:38 am
1906, we like to dedicate today's ceremony to the friend and colleague ron ross. ron was founder of the san francisco history association who passed away on february 2. he was a moving force and continuing the traditions of never forgetting our rich history here in his adopted san francisco. although ron is gone, i can feel the new yorker spirit with us on this stage this morning. we are also dedicating today to charlotte schultz, the city of san francisco and state of california, chief of property coal. charlotte was better known as the ambassador of san francisco. let's give her a hand in ab stensia. and she was responsible for putting them on the map. charlotte, you, too, are missed but your spirit lives on during so many great civic events like this one. and lastly we like to acknowledge a little known group
12:39 am
of commemoration events over the past i don't know how many years but the guardians of the city and give the guardians of the city a nice hand, folks. they are a nonprofit organization charged with the preservation of stewardship and all emergency service history and includes the fire department and the sheriff's department and e.m.s. for the city and county of san francisco. and all this on and gather the last 12 years. give dave a hand. great guy. we would be remiss if we forgot to mention and the housekeeper doing this even longer and told me 34 years and so long you can't remember when he started. and thank you for decades of maintaining this important position of housekeeper, everybody. how we doing?
12:40 am
we have a few great local celebrities and dignitaries to bring up the first, one of my favorites, and i love spro deucing him and is always fun because he says, san francisco, which i enjoy and love introducing him. known as the mayor from 1996 to 2004 and personified and please welcome former mayor, the honorable mayor willie lewis brown jr. you can take it off if you want. >> i will. i i am not that tall. >> 34 years ago, roaming around late nights as i usually do and still do, i ran this guy lee housekeeper. i thought that was a phony name
12:41 am
or descriptive. however, he said to me, you are looking for votes, and i said, yes, i am looking for votes. if you can put water in a fountain on third, kearney and market, you will get my vote and my support. first of all, i didn't think he was a voter anyway, but i wanted to amuse him and there is no question of whatever you said about that fountain, it will be fixed. and lo and behold, our own public works department along with the emergency service people actually made it work and it still worked. this is a symbol, literally a symbol of how san francisco can really recover. and i'm going to tell you that i have been here year in and year out since being elected mayor of the city. no longer mayor of the city, but i have been here all 34 years.
12:42 am
i will continue to come back as often as i can because this is really the spirit of the city. and what i love is this early in the morning, to show up to commemorate how the resurrection of the city occurred and how you represent literally the blood linkage to the people who caused the city to come back. when they talked about -- who would have been able to direct everything during the quake, and then fire chief sullivan is just amazing how quickly everybody else came together without his great leadership for the purpose of trying to save our city and save our city did. i would urge every one of you to
12:43 am
read the column on sunday. it is a very good one because for the first time, you now know that san francisco had some of everybody then as it does today and making the city what it is. and i am just delighted that at some point you asked me to be your mayor. you didn't pay me much. but then i may not be worth much. all right. thank you very much. and welcome. >> thank you. it is always an event when willie is here, isn't it? >> one more time for willie brown now. come on now. i love this. i get to say this just handed to me and you know who is here today? the grand nephew of mayor eugene schimtz is here today. right here? here he is. a nice hand for joe right here. grand nephew of eugene schmitz.
12:44 am
wow. i feel like ed sullivan, for crying out loud. anybody else out there? great. and now it is time to introduce someone i have never been able to introduce and an honor for me, he is our fire chief. she hasn't even been in office that long and active in the street crisis response team and worked on firefighter safety, disaster preparedness and is really well equipped to talk about what we're talking about today. would you welcome the fire chief janine nicholson. >> nice to see you. >> and greetings and salutations to everyone. so fies nice to see you and the fabulous outfits. i wear the same thing every year. we are resilient and the san francisco fire department is ready for anything that comes our way whether it be fires, whether it be medical calls, whether it be earthquakes.
12:45 am
we are here for you and it is just a pleasure to be here, to celebrate our 1906 rising from the ashes. and if need be, we will do it again because we are resilient san francisco. thank you. >> thank you, chief. pleasure to meet you here. gosh, we got lots of dignitaries. the next gentleman, five years and counting after 27 years in los angeles selected to lead us after a national search and i am glad we have him. welcome our police chief bill scott, everybody. i am a fan. >> thank you. >> good morning, everybody. good morning, everybody! all right. thank you, thank you. this is great to be back. to be back here. no rain, great weather, and i want to echo what i call the fire chief my pilot because i am
12:46 am
her wingman. i wanted to echo what she said about the resiliency of the city and it goes back years and every time we have a challenge, we show the world what the city is made of. i want to say thank you to my public safety partners, fire department, and the sheriff and his team. we have deputy chief here and this is a great city and we show the world how we do it. resilience is san francisco. thank you and good morning. >> thank you, chief. a professional model there. okay, good. this is good. we have more folks here that are really in part of what we are talking about this morning. the next gentleman at 37 and first asian american sheriff in california history and a lowell high school grad and a calguy. wow. can you play offensive tackle, choef? we need a couple of those guys.
12:47 am
would you welcome sheriff paul miamoto. right here? >> good morning, everybody. just really quick note. i wouldn't want to dismiss my past other than saying i am not actually a cal graduate. i am a davis graduate like our mayor who is about to come up, too. i want to say and echo what the chiefs have all said. we are here for your and will always been and always will be. one thing i want to point out is we can use your help. all of us in public safety have a need to fill the ranks and get more people interested in serving the community in the capacity as a firefighter, police officer, or deputy sheriff. i would ask for all of you to ask all of your friend, family, loved ones and continue the service in public safety and ask the family and friends to consider a career in public service as well. and we are here now to celebrate
12:48 am
and i know there is other people coming up. thank you very much for being here and thank you for celebrating what resilience san francisco is. >> terrific, all right. thank you very much, sheriff. now, this is really where the rubber meets the road. this lady has been here since only 2018 and she has 25 years experience in emergency management, which is what we're talking about. my pleasure to welcome from the department of emergency management, the director mary ellen carol. >> take your time, too. >> all right. good morning, everyone. every year we come here and i have been here since 2018, but only in this job since then. and every year we come here to honor what happened in the city, to remember our resilience and also remember that we live in
12:49 am
earthquake country. and we have to be prepared for whatever is going to happen again. and one of -- we have emerged or are emerging from the pandemic and the pandemic proved that san francisco is a global leader in emergency response under the leadership of the mayor. we took the right actions early and at the right time. and here we are again rising from the different kind of ashes. it is an incredible honor of my life to be in the city and work for the mayor and to lead all of us through what was unimaginable probably in our lifetime. and no matter what happens next in san francisco, we know we can get through and we now have hundreds, actually thousands of city employees who worked as the disaster service workers who now
12:50 am
understand what it is to stand up and respond to an emergency. i am more confident than ever that no matter what befalls us in the city, we will be okay and we will rise. >> thank you very much. >> coup of quick introductions and now give emperor norton a hand. where is he hanging out? and lily is making an appearance and lola. i don't know where she is from and nice hearing from those three. >> good morning. lotta crabtree is here. i knew you were counting on that one, too. and my pleasure to introduce the current mayor and the pride of high school and also in the
12:51 am
sorority called delta theta sigma. i wanted a few more things to say. mayor london breed. >> thank you. and thank you to everyone who is joining us very early in the morning. in san francisco we take having seriously. i want to acknowledge all the people who came dressed about 1906 including the ladies and gentlemen of decades of fashion who dressed me and we take money having seriously. san francisco is an amazing city and the challenges they have faced and this global pandemic,
12:52 am
something none of us could have ever anticipated and i am grateful to represent the extraordinary and resilient city. we made that to shut down the city and it was unimaginable to take the serious steps, but guess what? it paid off. san francisco was really the envy of the pandemic because our first responders, and the emergency management and police and fire departments and others and city employees stepped up as disaster service workers, but more importantly, just like in the 1906 earthquake, we came together. we came together to look out for one another and to support one another. we got tired every now and then and tired of zoom and the different meetings and ultimately what we saw is one of
12:53 am
the lowest death rates in the country, although we are one of the densest cities. one of the highest vaccination rates. we are seeing our city re-open and come alive again and we are stepping up and putting back the pieces just like we did during 1906. this city, 80% of it burned. over 3,000 people lost their lives. and i know there were probably people who were discouraged and felt, what do we do now? i also know there were more people who stepped up and said let's rebuild. let's make san francisco better than it's ever been before and as a result, we came back. earthquake safety buildings and other changes. we learn from that earthquake what to do to make san francisco more strong and resilient than ever before. and those same lessons continue to carry us to this very day.
12:54 am
i want to thank the first responders of the city and all the extraordinary work they do and chief nicholson, chief scott, mary ellen carol and the cardians of the city and thank you to many of the historians and the people who continue to come here tom and time again to keep this alive and to make sure that although we may not have anyone still alive from the 1906 earthquake, this is a city that will still remember. remember the path and what makes san francisco so extraordinary and so amazing and as probably everyone is thinking today, a reminder of how when we are down, we are not out. and we continue to rise stronger than ever before. thank you, all, so much for being here this morning. >> nice job. mayor london nicole breed. that is her middle name. give her a nice hand. she is the mayor, for crying out loud. yes, yes. i got it.
12:55 am
thank you. i know what i am doing. okay, good. this year's fountain wreath is dedicated to ron ross and charlotte shut schultz and the memories of san franciscans who died 116 years ago and those who lived to rebuild san francisco from the ashes. now it is awfully close. i have another minute. let's talk among ourselves. i am just kidding. even though maybe we are a minute or two, maybe less than two minutes, it is time for a moment of silence to remember those who perished and those who survived to rebuild san francisco. a moment of silence starting now.
12:56 am
[siren] they figured it out perfectly. a nice hand for the fire department here today. they do a great job. so i want to thank you, ladies and gentlemen. and now it has been the tradition that i am told dates back to the earliest of commemorations to sing one of two official songs for the 1936mgm motion picture san francisco. and forever associated with both our fair city and the 1906 great earthquake and fire. here so lead us is lily hitchcock. and the executive director of the human rights commission. come on up. time far little singing.
12:57 am
>> it is a pleasure. >> you got the words? everybody remembers this is my 48th year of coming. and carl nolte and thank you for the beautiful column, carl. mayor, you look extraordinary. really, beautiful job. everybody ready? let's do it. it only takes a tiny corner of this great big world to find a place we love. my home upon the hill. i still love you still. i've been away but now i'm back
12:58 am
to tell you. san francisco, open your golden gate. we'll let no stranger wait outside your door. san francisco, here is your wondering one. saying i'll wonder no more. other places only make me love you best. tell me you're the heart of all the golden west. san francisco, i'm coming home again. i'm coming home to go wandering no more. here is to ron, ross, and charlotte. >> thank you. a nice hand of applause for lily
12:59 am
and cheryl. that wrap it up for the commemoration of the 1906 great earthquake and fire. give yourself a nice round of applause, please. it was nice having you here. and if you are so inclined, make your way to the golden hydrant at 28th street and church street with the annual guilding of the fire hydrant that saved the mission district take place here. thanks for being here. thanks very much. we will see you next year. the regular meetings of the commission of community investment and infrastructure
1:00 am
for tuesday frequently 19, 2022. welcome the public who are strolling or listen to us live. the and the staff participating. following the guidelines by local officials the members of commission are meeting remote to ensure the safety of everyone including the public. thank you you will for joining us. madam contact. first item. >> roll call. american members respond when i call. commissioner bracket. >> commissioner scott. >>.. >> vice chair rosales. >> present. >> commissioner bracket and bustos are absent. the next is item 2

91 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on