tv Planning Commission SFGTV June 10, 2022 8:00pm-1:01am PDT
>> it's great to see all these projects coming to completion. we're all grateful for your team's hard work and i really appreciate you coming on the show, mr. tumlin. thank you for the time you've given us today. >> my pleasure. thanks for having me. >> and that's it for this episode. for sfgov tv i'm chris manors. thanks for watching. >> okay, good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hybrid hearing for thursday, june 9, 2022 . in person and remote hybrid hearings require everyone's attention and most of all our
patients. if you're joining us remotely and are not speaking please commute your microphone. to enable participation sfgov.org is streaming the searing life and we will receive public comments for eachitem on today's agenda or opportunities to speak are available by calling 415-655-0001 . answering access to 2491 857 6550. we will take public comment in the chambers first and then on the remote access line. speak clearly and slowlyand if you care to state your name for the record . each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chinaindicating your time is almost up. when time is reached i will indicate the next person may speak . for those persons calling in to
submit their testimony when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to please press star three to be added to the queue. when you hear a line has been unmuted that is your cue to begin speaking. the clearly andslowly and release mute the volume on your television or computer. for those persons attending in person please line up on the screen . and if you all might silence any mobile devices during these proceedings. and at this time i'd like to take role. commission president tanner. [rollcall] first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance and case number 2021 07 drp and 79 through 81 homestead street a discretionary review proposed for continuance to june 30
2022. i have no other items proposed to be continued today some members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on the continuance calendar for thosepersons in the chamber please come forward . if you're calling in press star 3. okay. bless you. seeing no other requests to speak, public comment is close . and the continuancecalendar is now before you commissioners . >> commissioner imperial. >> moved to continue the itemas proposed . >> second. >> on thatmotion to continue item one as proposed, commissioner ruiz .[roll call vote] so movedcommissioners,
that motion passes unanimously . 7 to 0. that will place us under commission matters for item 2, consideration of adoption of minutesfor may 19 and may 26 2022. members this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes . again those persons in the chamber please come forward. persons calling in press star 3. you may request to speak from any member ofthe public comment is closed and minutes are now before you commissioners . >> moved to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes commissioner ruiz. [roll call vote] so moved
commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 70 placing us on item3, commission comments and questions . >> will do our land announcements . i think we're finding our rhythm with this, this is a good place for it. the planning commission acknowledges we are on the unseeded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone. as stewards of this land and in accordance with their tradition they had never exceeded, lost or forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of this place as well asfor all people who reside in their traditional territory . as guests we recognize the benefit fromliving and working on their homeland .we wish to pay our respects by announcing ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming theirsovereign rights as first people thank you for that i want to wish everybody a happy prime
month . looking very much forward to the parade later this month and lots of events happening through the city and want to remind folks that today there's an open house in the bayview about the station. you have that information session a few weeks ago to address the location of the train station so that will be 5:30 to 7 at the bayview opera house . with that i seecommissioner moore as her hand up . >> i wanted to commend the department and everybody who participated . for the remarkable equity in action program held last tuesday. i saw commissionerimperial's name ,many of you may have been there, there were lots of people attending . this meeting will be recorded and i strongly recommend everybody tune intothis recording . it will allow directors from seattle and philadelphia which get different problems than ours, planning staff were
remarkable, even a remarkable session and i hope there will be a follow-up from one year to the other situation. andagain, thank you . >> president: thank you. i don't see any other hands from any commissioners. >> very good commissioners. in that case we can go on to item 4, 2021-009977crv for remote hearings. this is resolution for your consideration in the event none of the commissionerscan attend in person to continue the meeting remotely . we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission on remote hearings. again thosepersons in the
chamber please come forward. for those calling in remotely you need to press star 3. when yourline has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking . no persons are requesting to speak at this time. public comment is closed and the item is now before you . >>. >> president: i do not see any reason we would not pass this given we are in our second highest surge in san francisco in terms of positive tests though hopefully we can stay healthy and well. i don't know if there's any other comments commissioners have about the conduction of these hybrid hearings. i think it's been going well and i want to command staff for making them work and sfgov tv for all their diligence and members of the public today. thismay be one of the polar housemeetings we had so thank you for showing up and making it more interesting or commissioners . it's nice to see faces here in the chamber . with that i will call on
commissioner imperial and i se commissioner koppel also has his namein the queue . >> i moved to adopt the resolution for remote hearing . >> second. >> thank you commissioners and on that motion to adopt the resolution for remote hearings , commissioner ruiz .[roll call vote] so moved commissioners, that item passes unanimously 7 to 0 and that will place us under matters for announcements. >> good afternoon commissioners. i want to announce you may note sperry gives up the government awards every year, they're in their 41st year of doing it but a lot of this year's awards had to do with the city's response to covid and the pandemic so we were recognized around our work but obviously there are folks
from planning across the city who work on shared spaces so i wanted them to know that was called out specifically as part of the good government awards. thanks, that's all i have . >> item 6 review of past events of the board of supervisors board of appeals. >> erin star, manager of legislativeaffairs . this week we consider supervisor peskin's proposal that they could relate in the commercial districtdue to a fire. you for this item onmay 12 as a content item and voted to approve the ordinance . the committee voted unanimously to approve the ordinance as a committee report . next supervisor peskin's ordinance that would create a
group housing special used district which prohibits housing and that chinatown and tenderloin communities. planning commission for this item on february 10 and with modifications.the first was to revise the proposed fce to student housing 100 percent affordable housing projects and second was to exclude the single room occupancy aspect from specific legislation with the intent to continue legislation in the future. along with group housing . during that hearing the committee community incorporated two changes to exempt affordable housing from the suv by student housing will still be prohibited thesecond was to examine single room occupancy hotel units required by the conversion ordinance . during this week there were seven callers to support the ordinance citing the need for affordable family housing as opposed to market right sro's including cdc, tenderloin people's congress, cnbc existing tenants.
at the end of public comment that committee voted to send the items awhole or with a positive recommendation for june 14 . last but not least the committee took up supervisor mandelman's ordinance to allow for plexus on six units on corner lots in our districts. if certain conditions are met . there have been ordinances pending that were sponsored by supervisormandelman and one bite supervisor mar but the one heard by land-use was the only one moving forward . supervisor safai's is still pending. this requires property owners to have been owned by the applicant for five years prior to the application or be owned by a related air of the owner to be eligible for the program. to be eligible for condo conversion and properties where a full demolitionexisting use will occur the applicantmust
continue to live at the property for three years as the velvet . the amended ordinance requires all those units to the rent control . supervisor mar introduced a reporting requirement and under supervisor mar's requirement that apartment is required to address the demographics of the applicants to the participants of the program all amendments were adopted and the ordinance was unanimously recommended to the cold war and is scheduled to appear on june 14 . and then finally at the board this week the initiation landmark designation for taylor street which was sponsored by supervisor preston was adopted and supervisor peskin's ordinance that extends the tim that it can reopen north beach passagefor streets andthat's all i have for you today . >> . >> president: thank you . >> is there areport from the court of appeals ? >> the court of appeals did not meet last night. >> if there are no questions or comments we can then move on to
the general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interestwithin the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items . your opportunity to address the commission will beafforded when the item is reached . each member may address the commission for up to three minutes and when the number of speakers exceedthe 15 minute limit general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda . >> charge, for you we will give you three. >> speaker: i did send you an email about that sale of the entitlement in noe valley but i'm going to talk about 80 146. some examples of what might be affected. would it affect the fourplex legislation? was the story properties no
longer qualify under sb nine or with a tenant, could the neighbors have filed against 2417 green to protect the cox house fromthe speculative development next-door ? could they have a hearing to enforce projects like san benito allen avenue or 950 lumbar or hawkins or 79 crackpots 44118 21st streetfor 403 21 street or the illegal section 8 housing in the bayview ? with the dr have been filed and would commission removed the fourthfloor to make it more evenly numbered units ? could the boardreveal and enforce planning directives ? the board ofsupervisors , could dvi have directors series or abatementappeals ? what would be the powersof the zoning administrator ? with it mandate and necessitate a tactile merger with reduction in planning staff? how will the flat policy and merger requirementswork ? what would be the rules and demolition ? look again at the urban
feasibility study concerning sb nine before the six flex and your own study particularly page 14. how would 81 946 is law interact with the haa? it's supposed to be a housing committee on the 13th. everyone says it needs to be tightened, it was tightened when it was first introduced in february 2021. just referring to one-bedroom single-family home this now refers toadded space . whatdoes added space me? that's the big question . thank you very much . >> good afternoon commissioners, president tanner. i've been with his land-use coalition about what to bring up to your attention the need for better capturing of the
motion that this commission passes .i think it's really benefits the public and benefits any community that has issues with the uncertain development. it captures the motion because oftentimes there are nuances so the one thing that's come to our attention and we have actually sent a question to mister young is with respect to this motion went through a few months ago regarding vicksburg street. that was a rent-controlled building that was being converted to three units and i believe that this commission voted to approve the project with the condition that should the owners decide to sell these units it should fall under the jurisdiction of director fullerton number seven which has these restrictions which is the local implementation of 330 and the city of san francisco.
so i understand that there are variations , local variations. that's why each locality takes the state law and comes up with its ownimplementation that gets actually approved by the board of supervisors . so those are slight distinctions between what is the list and the text of sb 330 or california government code 600 33), something to that effect because our implementation actually does have the distinct requirements for replacement of rent-controlled units and one of them is the restricting the units should they come up for sale or deed restricting them for rental to agree with the income level of the previous tenant. so when we tooka look at the motion , it didn't include that
succinctly. it only said the replacement units when they come up shall comply with those provisions o sb 330 . and that is a truncated versio . i would really really urge this commission to have better capturing of the motion and i know the director, you've always been very forthcoming and responsive to the public and community when they ask questions about some of these issues . i'dappreciate it if you could get back to us on that . my email didn't include you but i appreciate you president tanner. same with you commissioner imperial because he did say the deed restriction should be succinctly included. >> we did receive that request and we will look into it.
there are no other members in the chamber wish to address the commission undergeneral public comment. when you hear your item has been unmuted that is your cue to begin speaking . >> speaker: i am speaking on my own behalf on sb nine. sb nine is based on reaganomics andtrickle-down housing . however since yesterday at the summit of the americas president biden stated and i quote, trickle-down economics does not work. a link was to the commission's secretary this morning. sb nine highlights the oversized role we have big texts for the silicon valley leadership group plate in sacramento. if committee analysis can be consulted which is heavily funded by the initiative and affiliated with facebook meta.
more than 240 cities out of a total of 482 of these in the state found this position of opposition to sb nine as did tsn. off the record many legislators were concerned that they voted for sb9 out of concern for retaliation san francisco is a charter city , not a general city and as such maintainsjurisdiction over land-use issues . however sb9 claims it applies to charter cities. this is the subject of legal challenge to sb9. i'd urge the city to join the lawsuit along with a lawsuit against sb 10 and a lawsuit against acd for its methodology. thank you.
>>. >> speaker: myname is francisco dacosta . as we are open, we are making you have an invocation to the first people. i would request to you to find out who are really the first people of san francisco. we had a planning director and it's in writing in your general managers plan as to who are the first peoples of san francisco. i think this is important because this land that use it
on every square inch of it was stolen. and the least you can do is honor the first people whose land it is. the mock maloney. having said that, the grand jury has report which i hope you're planning commissioners have read. hunter spawned neighborhood shipyard is contaminated . and hunters point naval shipyard which is prone to flooding should be mitigated, updated to residential standards. the san francisco planning commission has flailed failed
san franciscans. it is simply wrong when depleted uranium was tested to build houses and homes. as many as 30,000 homes. your sick way of understanding are not incorporating contamination and pollution is simply wrong. i'm used to attending meetings on a regular basis.i hear from you from time to time. do the right thing.the first people of san francisco are the ohlone. thank you very much.
>> this is to master and i'm asking the planning commission to have a request report of what happened to the board. on a project involving the rental. this is 1145 street and it went to theboard . and at that hearing, it didn't ever come to the planning commission but when staff administered and signed off on the units on what was pardon me, the planning department had a rental housing project. that kind of fell apart because the developer changed to condos in the middle of the dahlia project that had already designated the persons that were going to beinvolved in the rental housing .
it was such a controversial hearing. it was continued to july 27 at the board of appeals. this is highly unusual and involves both pmi units and rental housing and projects that change from rental housing to confirm. this is an issue i think is a big issue not only for the planning commission but for the planning department. please ask for a report on what is going on on 1140 pulled in the transition to condos for rental housing involving basically knocking out the bmr tenants. the process of dh oia issue for greeting potential, people that
are qualified for bmr units is not administered by the planning department, it's administered by the mayor's office which isrelevant . that's the first item on your calendar. between the planning department and the mayor's office. but please don't go much further on this case without being informed about what is going on at the board of appeals on the planning department decision. on 1145. thank you very much. >> last call for general publi comment .
seeing none general public comment is closed. and we can move on commissioners to your regular calendar case may 22 -00296 pca for the affordable housing cod enforcement . thisis an informational presentation . >> that afternoon president tanner. corey t, zoning administrator. as you recall two weeks ago you heard proposed red legislation that would allow the zoning administrator to delegate certain affordable housing enforcement cases to the mayor's office on housing and community development and part of that ordinance would also require that two departments enter into amemorandum of understanding to nail down the details of that . you had requested to have that draft mou brought back to the commission for review and an opportunity to provide comment
so that draft was provided to commissioners lastweek for this hearing today. it's not that long.hope you had a chance to take a look at it . i'll quickly go over some of the key points and primarily the point for today was just to see if you have any comments or questions on the draft mou. what this ordinance does or intends to do is create an actual framework in the code and to this mou to document what we're alreadydoing but in a moreefficient and structured way . as we said , mo already assist us heavily on these cases and for all intents and purposes are the lead on some of the cases that involve late stage affordable housing issues. the mou also because the planning code does assign the law of enforcement to the zoning administrator, even though the mou creates specific enforcement types that will be delegated to moh, allows the va
to not delegate any particular case and to provide in writing to moh notice of that decision. a lot of the meat of this is in the queue and day. the actuality itself was the outline of what's happening. the exhibit itself actually is an attempt by the two departments to catalog all of the types of affordable housing enforcement cases we've experienced in the past. there is a recognition that's not going to capture every single one. there may be new types of cases in the future and the mou trance clarified that when that happens we will make adecision as to which agency is the most appropriate and finally as
drafted this would require that it be updated and revisited every 2years . so those are the key points without going into each and every type of case exhibit a . instead of doing that i figured it would make more sense to see if atthis point any commissioners have any questions or comments on the mou . >> is a very concise document so combat license on that. brevity is the root of a lot of our conversations and iwould ask if there's any comments or questions on the mou . >> at this time we will take public comment. again persons in the chamber please come for those calling in remotely press áthree. see no requests to speakpublic comment is closed and the item is for you . >> i spoke too soon. there is a request to speak. very good. go ahead collar. >> i would ask commissioner to
ask for two please explain how the current situation at the board of appeals on the bmi you which is not, it needs to be explained how would this case which is at the board of appeals on an interpretation by a land-use department approval which encases his switching types from rental housing to condos. be handled under this agreement. ask him please. >> thank you commissioner. >> i appreciate the comment to the public earlier about the board of appeals however this item is on housing enforcement
and i'd like to focus on that. i really think we can rebut but in terms of these items, i'm happy to see this and just in terms of the language i am satisfactory in terms of the language for the zoning administrator shall reserve the right to not delegate his cases. that there are regular meetings and these can be examined every two years however only thing on this would be as of this is the first time perhaps for the first year and one year and then re-examine every two years. in terms of exhibit a, there are i believe and i guess because of the language of the zoning administrator decide not to delegate but i do believe that there should be some collaboration with the planning
in this. but however i would reserve that for theadministrators to do that. so thank you for this . >> i did have one question. it's a little bit in the weeds but in the table there's one violation which is illegally rentingthe bmr's short-term rental another one is illegally rentingit . is it generally illegally rented ? then it's mohcd but is it a rental specifically for the office being more in the planning office . >> the distinction there is if you're doing short-term rental it's also a violation of the demonstrated code on the short-term rental provisions so plans more planning and if it scales to be elite situation whereas if the bmr is existing and they tentative out especially within that tenant turnover than they lease it to someone who's not qualified to
lease and that's purely just a lease up and moderate situation that would handle. and i should reference we do have staff available remotely as well. >> thank you for being in the line. i think the vice president. >> i have a question for mister t and i know it is that where exactlythat would fall . i think the real question if i understood it is who decides on the developer who has an entitlement for affordable rental units switching to salient when the building is already built and who would step in to monitor that? >> just to briefly address 1145 and this context, not the
entire thing. the procedures manual states in that case when you are going to switch tenures that that's done through a letter of determination so that's what happens to that project and my letter of determination was appealed to the court of appeals and it wasn't an enforcement case. as you know the code and procedures manual to allow for affordable housing compliance to be changed over different parts of its life either reconstruction during construction and post construction and there's a different process for each one for that one specifically that wasn't anenforcement case so it doesn't fall under the purview .that was a letter of determination. >> that also would not change. >> that methodology for how we can document how that change in tenure will occur and what the requirements would be are called out in the procedures
manual that that'sdone through the mod so that's not really affected by this mou . >>. [inaudible] that would be extremely important because they have people on the list and all of a sudden everything changes. it's a coincidence of conflict falling between your authority and the responsibility of what the mayor's office is delivering. >> if i could that for a moment, the legislation that passed last december and into the code if that situation happens today that has to come back to the planning commission now . going forward that didn't apply to 1145 holt street but going into thefuture if that happens for projects that would have to come back to the planning commission . >> thank you.
>> president: i don't see any other commissioners who want to comment thank you for writing this, i really appreciate. >> item 84 case number 2019 2955 mission street is a conditional use authorization. >>. >> good afternoon president tanner and commissioners, planning department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 303 and 317 to demolish a mixed-use building and construct a six-story building with 18 residential units and one commercial unit located on a through lot within the mission street transit zoning district and split between the 65 feet and 40 height andbulk districts .
the project would utilize the individually requested state density bonus law and is requesting waivers . rearguard-dwellingunit exposure . the project does is not requesting any concessions or incentives . in more detail the proposal would demolish the two-story proximally 2900 square foot building containing one owner occupied residential units in one vacant commercial unit and when would construct a new six-story 65 foot tall mixed-use building with approximately 18,283 square feet of residential use for a total of 18 dwelling units and 1020 square feet of ground floor commercial use . the project would provide 18 13 class to bicycle parking spaces. no offstreet parking is proposed. of the 18 proposed dwelling units to will be proprietor's portable on-site 80 percent of area median income to garner a
possible 24 and a half percent density bonus and one concession or incentives. however the project will increase residential density by eight percent and that tension before will not seek an incentive. the additional eight percent and residential density is obtained through waivers which allow the billing to provide a 15 foot you rearguard lower than what's required by action 134 another waiver from the dwelling unit exposure requirements of planning code section 140 will allow 11 of the 18 units to save on to the 15 foot wide wide back alley louder than 25 foot public way or code compliance rearguard finally because the subject property is split with a 65 foot height limit at the approximate front half of the lot facing onto mission street and a 40 foot limit at the rear portion facing lilac alley the project has requested a waiver outlined in section 252 60 two continue the 65 foot building height into the area of the lot covered by a 40 ex-. the sponsor team has teamed up
with community outreach efforts with neighbors and mission groups. i like to read a correction into the record of the staff report invited that failed to mention the pre-application meeting required by the planning department which was conducted by the project sponsor team in february 2020 as part of an overall summary of kennedy outreach that had occurred to date at this meeting neighbors expressed concern about blockage of life and property line windows revise motion will be updated to include this meeting in the public outreach section. the department received written correspondence and phone calls from theory individuals in oppositionbefore staff report was published . opposition was centered on the overall scale ofthe project as the proposed building would rise stories on a block containing 2 to 3 story buildings . accordingly correspondence expressed concerns. in addition to the three individuals already mentioned one community group these mission improvement associatio
question that apartments shadow analysis and expressed concern about blockage to neighboring solar panels in the letter . yesterday evening the department received another letter from the labor of the project site stated commission and city at large already have a surplus of market rate units that are vacant and expressed fears more market rate projects will increase their ranks. converselyat the time your staff reports were published department received four letters in support of the project . since publication the department has received an additional 15 letters of supportneighbors and other individuals to primarily cite the need for more housing in the city . the fact the project provides range of unit sizes at both market and below-market rates and desire for greater acquisition and foot traffic on this portion of mission street . the project sponsorteam has worked with and met with members of the cultural district throughout the development and design phases since 2019 .
in february of this year the sponsor team presented the designs of the land use committee and incorporated their feedback by providing a more activated and human scale experience with colorful bulkhead tiles and a retractable awning by reviewing possible areas for expression on property line laws by agreeing to coordinate with kia quattro with regard to contracts after construction including subsidy programs for local commercial tenants. as a final note on the development of the project design sponsor team requested an application meeting with the department of building inspection held in 2021 to ensure any outstanding issues related to like safety and rescue related to the two proposed basement level dwelling units were addressed prior to planning commission review of the project. planning department staff also attended the application meetings . as a result the project was revised to include a horizontal
exit additional two-way mitigation system was added at the basement level. doors and windows at units 03 were revised to come into compliance with like safety standards and the private balconies at the rear first and second floors were reduced to provide at least three feet of clearance between near guardrails and inside space of therear yard retaining wall. the pre-application letter was providedin your packets today . i want to read one more clarification into the record. on page 68 of the staff report i neglected to fill in a row in the land use table which captures the total number of dwelling units on the site . that row is titled dwelling units total and it should read as 117 and 18 from left to right and i had it as 000 which is not correct and i have a correction here for your reference if you'd like to see it . the department finds the project is consistent and objectives of the general plan although the project would
demolish one residential unit the proposal will provide 18 new units including two new below-market rate units for ownership and a mixed-use area is ample public transportation options which is the goal for the city. thedepartment recommends approval with conditions as provided in the staff report. the property owner josh crandall an architect david sternberg will follow with the presentation and we're all available to answer any questions . mister sternberg provided plans which were just sent out to you. >> five minutes for your presentation . >> my name is joshcrandall and i'm the owner of 2965 mission . thank you president tanner and commissioners for hearing our presentation today and considering our proposed project at2955 mission . i've been aresident for more than 20 years in this part of the neighborhood and i must say that i love it . i have celebrated many giant world series wins on the blocks
of 24th street and mission with thousands of revelers and i hope to be celebrating a dobbs win very shortly. my fingers are crossed. on my way here i was also the 515th bicyclist on valencia street.i know the neighborhood very well. i respected and i am looking forward to being an active participant in sustaining the unique character that the mission and our neighborhood
i've been acommunity organizer for years now and i raised concerns about some things that haven't been mentioned and it may have been crossed over . and it may impact the parking around the adjacent blocks. it's a quality of life issue for any inhabitants of lilac, mission street, etc. there are already concerned about privacy and the use of lilac allie and i can't see how expanding the height and making such a large again, so many market rate units at that are going to help the situation here within this particular block. we also find that we don't believe the mbs concerns about raising rents for businesses as well as for renters in the area only because it's with a high
percentage still of market rate housing. we believe that there's not a shortage of housing but rather a shortage of affordable low income housing and those are conditions that should be imposed for more affordable low income housing.if we are to suspect that all the waivers that are being pushed through are going to not exacerbate the community the way these waivers create for, we do have to make sure that this helps the community of the mission of both low income communities that have been there and for those just again bringing in more people saying that they're going to make this area more diverse but really it's going to negatively impact the lives of a lot of people in the community that the owner claims that he respects. so if we respect our community what we want to see is one, affordable low income housing and also more outreach and more
consideration and more time allotted to assess completely the effects that this kind of development which we shouldn't have in the mission is having on our community . you very much. >> good afternoon planning commissioners. i am with department of the cultural district. we have been working with mister crandall the last couple of months on this building. and in particular with the architecture guidelines that were created by quattro to mitigate a lot of the residence coming into the neighborhood that don't fit thecharacter . it's more of a design with the art placement that has to reflect the local culture of the district.
i do want to mention and i hope i believe that these guidelines are enforceable and i hope the planning commissioners are submitted with the guidelines for quattro. we have an mou on the table with mistercrandall and we're in good faith . we do have concerns about the number of projects like this on mission street. it's in the cultural district and we're afraid of gentrification and it's a 10 story building across the street from this one and we are i think another three letters are starting to move forward along mission street so that's a big concern for us. we don't feel we have a lot of control with these streamlines from the states so all we have is architecture guidelines for the community to have any say.
thank you. >> hellocommissioners, and a community member . i feel new construction might be detrimental to theimmediate neighborhood . the entire missing district which is directly across mission street from the proposed projectwill also be impacted . however there's construction everywhere in this area including the demolition at 26 mission all of which would bring more congestion. we don't need more market rate housing, we need more affordable housing. there should be 100 percent affordable low income housing for example the state density. there are other ways than to build more market ratehousing
and in 2018 san francisco , only nine percent of housing and rents in the mission have increased by 40 percent since 2017. it's imperative this trend be reversed. between 1990 and 2015 the number of rents burdened households in san francisco includes 38,000 including more market rate housing with a decrease in this number. san francisco housing between 2020 the number ofaffordable housing has decreased by 44 percent . that's 44 percent . how can we justify? the project is also going to result in many environmental impacts especially. [inaudible]. these emissions will generate also causing harm. these emissions are unknown
cause of cancer. in addition noise from construction and increased wind affects around the building will alsohave negative environmental impacts . these are some of the environmental harmswhich will also cause traffic and parking conditions for more than 40 new residents . greenhouse gas emissions due to concrete equipment will impact the environment. the energies used for the larger buildingwill contribute to greenhouse gases there are more than 40,000 vacant housing units in san francisco . there is nothousing shortage , there's a shortage of affordable housing. instead of creating more housing we need more affordable housing. the project offers only two units andaffordable housing prices. this project would be another step towards gentrification of the mission . as if this project is going to
go through, commercial ground-floor unit and another 17 residential units in affordable housing. thank you. >>. >> goodafternoon presidents, commissioners. president of the mission district and i reside on street . as of this project that you see here as a history which the surrounding building is a due to three-story building. now do we need an 18 dwelling unit or just with two affordable housing?that is the question. i reside on and parking is always an issue. we have one hour parking and i have a garage however there are times where people do block my garage.my garage does reside on lilac andthere's heavy
traffic . cars that are constantly blocking my driveway where i have to rely on other means of transportation . what will this do to lilac as well? what will this do to put traffic and when you put it 18 units there's going to be at least 4 to 5 people living in the unit.if not maybe more, maybe less but the problem is we need to have that many units in one building andespecially across the street , are we gentrifying the neighborhood? i do agree that we do need real affordable housing within the mission.now, the school that is across the street, the preschool, my son attended tha . this is really hard to drop off kids when you have nowhere to park or there's construction going on. when you have children at hand with liability for them because of construction going on right across the street they do have net times . they do go outside and what prevents them from enjoying
life because of the pandemic they been inside for two years. i'm just concerned a lot about what's going to happen with our neighborhood considering that i have been here born and raised inthe mission. i am a mission native . you for hearing my concerns. >> thank you for this opportunity to comment. my nameis alexander, i'm a renter at the adjacent property .the san francisco regional housing made clear there is impacts to affordable housing and units including these low market rate units. the city has an obligation under state law to construct a potential number of new units within the next almost the next decade and approval of this project helps show the city is in the space and will prevent
state administeredcompetencies . the park community helps produce transportation emissions and adds health effects with from cars which are substantial. as they commented on the negative impact of emissions but the reality is cars are of substantial source of emissions and allowing more people to live in aproperty that lowers zero emission transit reduce those emissions . including things like sound from cars for example. the increasing the number of people who live in our transit also helpsintrude transit ridership which improves service . or to a cycle that the budget commission should support. the construction of additional housing of any sort will have positive effects on housing
affordability and the portfolio delays the start of this project denies all the benefits we've just described so i've heard the commission to allow the project to go forward. thank you for your time . >> good afternoon my name is robert quinn and i live in district 5 . i'd like to comment on san francisco'supcoming housing development . the reason why we have so many projects coming to the mission is due to the rates and classist prior housing elements the city has limited and city standard practices dating back to the 1550s and even the 40s. i would urge the planning commission to pass sf planning for stronger measures to increase the potential number of sites on the west side for
housing especially affordable housing through its developments pressures on the east side. so i asked the commission to further fair housing. i'm not commenting on this the civic proposal but i'd like to point out that the reason why this proposal is coming to this particular location in the mission is due to racist and classist planning practices in the past. we can dobetter in our next housing element . >> good afternoon commissioners. i am a member of san francisco tenants union. i'm asking you to respect the voices of the community members who are asking you for affordable housing . there's been so much displacement in the mission district of people from their homes that we need affordable housing.
they're telling you this so you should listen to them and maybe concurrent, encourage the developers to work with the residents to up the number of affordable units. thank you. >> last call for public comment. persons in the chambers need to come forward and those calling remotely need to press star 3. public comment is closed. before we or you start deliberating i wanted to address mister dressler's assertion that this project is not properly before you. i didn't catch the specific law that he is citing but he's suggesting there was some modification to the plan and this project and the plans were not available to the public 72
hours in advance when in fact the project and case report and plans were all published and made available to the public one week in advance by thursday and there have been no changes to those plans today. so i'm not sure what his assertion is but having said that there we have had in practice many times where plans and projects to change at the last minute before you. i have asked the city attorney's office to look into this matter but i am of the opinion that even in that case projects are properly before you because the overwhelming project has been advertised as available to the public and lightermodifications to that do not make it improperly in front of you . so anyway. >> i think mister driver was suggesting these were amended plans and these are not amended plans that we have today. with that i would request missioners to raise their hands if they havecomments or
questions on this project commissioner imperial . >> thank you. one particular commentthat caught my attention was whether regarding the occupied units . i guess do we have record in terms of how long the owner lived in this unit and whether thesubject of sp 330 .>> thank you for the question. i may allow mister crandall to see how long he has owned the property but as far as sp 330 is concerned as the eight which was adopted january 1 of this year clarifies that the replacement applies to single-family dwelling units when the project is submitted after 2022. so the previous rules of sp 330 applied to the project when it was, when sb 30 was received by the department and in this case
i believe it was 18 20/20 so at that time sp 330 and our overarching state housing legislation did not require replacement of owner occupied single-family units. >> did you want mister crandall to his occupancy ? >> sure. >> the residential unit has been occupied since we own the property. that's been more thanthree years . it was taken for multiple year prior to that . >> commissioner. >> i have a question for the project sponsor. just so you can lay out in more detail what you are agreeing to with regarding their mo you so
you feel those details are consenting to the overall culture of the mission district neighborhood. >> who from thesponsor project team would like to answer . >> thank you for the question. we have been working with quattro for a while now talking about how thebuilding integrates into the neighborhood . some of the components that we've been talking about specifically include the wheel fagade on lilac alley which is one of the artistic mural alleys in san francisco. so that's one area we like to contribute in space to include our site for that purpose. we've also been talking to them about using red and blue tile
on the commercial bulkhead to reflect the style found down on 23rdand 24th street on the mission . we've discussed the use of horizontal planking on the bay windows to integrate with the design of buildings in the neighborhood as well. we are furthermore discussing the possibility of working with local artists to do some work on the south and possibly north walls of the building and all that is to detract other attackers from tagging the space. we are also in discussions about working with them to talk
to a broker who might be able to match us with small businesses who would be interested in renting the commercial unit and finally we are preparing the fagade on mission to have a retractable awning that would also be appropriate for some businesses and whether a commercial tenants would like that on it or not would be up to the tenant the means of operating one is certainly there and possible. two other things david. >> you may approachthe microphone otherwise we can hear you . >> can you still do. they asked for a clause in the lease about all the public affairs that happen to that tenants would know about that and in the foreground and they
also have offered which sounds great they have affordable subsidies for potential tenants also of course josh is completely open to that. >> i think it's called the better cornersprogram . >> we will continue to work with them and we look forward to doing what we can. >> is it okay, i can see the horizontal blinking in the bay windows. i don't see it entirely reflected in the rendering. i don't know if that would be done after the approval but i'm wonderingwhy that design . >> that rendering is expensive so it was prepared long ago. we do plan on incorporating that for sure so i apologize for not catchingit's all . >> you have anyother questions
? >> i heard the comments about the school and surrounding area and wondering if the project sponsor has been engaging with the schools to mitigate some of the constructionnoise and concerns public commenters made . >> i have not yet spoken with the principal of the school but we will conform to all construction mitigation requirements as we agreed to planning department. >> thank you. my last comment is just generally about our department centering around race and equity and the concerns around gentrification and what we've seen in the mission district over the past few years with arrests rising with the
valencia street corridor. we have a project that is abiding by our planning process but in my opinion it's really centered around race and equity since there's no discussion in the planning packet about race in equity so i was wondering if director willis can what is it we are doing as a department to center race in equity when it comes to housing development and either insensitive communities or in the quattro latino cultural district. >> as we will hear later focused on the eir, that's part of our housing element and we're looking at how the city has built and what we can do both in prior resource
neighborhoods as well as what strategies we can do like you mentioned.and we're also as part of that a social equity analysis we're talking about part two of our planning work. so while we don't, and that's going to help us develop the tools to look at things project by project which has you know is difficult. so we're trying to address this broadly as a housing element to we then have the tools to look at anaddress on a project by project basis . >> sorry, was there a staff member thatwould speak . >> deputy director of current planning. to give a more context toward your concern i might articulate
a little bit more of the work we've been doing as afollow-up towards the mission action plans . and keep in mind when the 20/20 plan went into place, the department helps to basically adjust process towards doing development interviews, trying to ensure that unity conversations regarding these projects are well in advance as to the older kind of ways that we used to do these things.so i think it's if concerns are well noted and that we're very mindful that newer projects that might comply towards the laws also need a balance among the concerns that the community is having and trying to foster strong interaction between the sponsors and community. it's ultimately like what we're striving for particularly within the mission and a lot of our neighborhoods.
>> as we are all figuring out how we apply every resolution and i know and mo you is going above and beyond the least we could do is it echoes what we finalized before we move forward to approve the project so my preference would be to ensure that that's set in stone. before voting on a project, we will leave it at that. >> thank youcommissioner release . project sponsor i know we had calle veinticuatro on the phone. i heard it's fine today. can you the timing of the mou so we understand the coordination or what we are waiting for today to have mou assigned today. >> we wrote a letter stating what we would be willing to do
after meeting with calle veinticuatro. a few months ago prior to when this hearing was originally scheduled . we recently heard from calle veinticuatro that they like to do this mou and we have been workingdiligently to do that the last weekand a half, maybe a week . >> is that what you're saying . >> we are tightening works. all of i believe and i believe that eric might be on the phone but i believe that all of the material issues are agreed to. and we are hoping to sign this morning. but we just haven't heard back on our final red line with their legal counsel yet .>> is there a way to hear from mister willis was on the line? >> if mister willis can pressáthree and i can unmute
them. >> if you're there mister arguelo. i don't see him raising his hand so maybe he's dropped off. thankyou for that response . >> it is my intention to sign the mou with calle veinticuatro and work collaboratively with them tofacilitate their desires and needs .so i do plan on doing that. >> thank you very much, vice president. >> i like to acknowledge this project for making noticeable efforts to design in context, design and cultural social context however there so many layers to that that they are far away from embracing all that's necessary . this has led to the alley artistic murals and the building of contextual relevance in themission for in our . and the issue of displacement,
gentrification, etc. isn't addressed and there's no project yet we've had because ultimately there are no number of pmr's which will basically not give us the satisfaction we need or to create affordable market rates which are necessary and absolutely critical for the mission to survive moving forward. i'd like to ask mister stenberg for a number of questions and that is the ability in context. would you mind stepping up to the microphone sothat i could run a couple of questions before you ? >> sure, david sternberg here. >> i'm not sure if you can see me. i cankind of see you . >> i can see younow .
>> i would like to ask you i appreciate manyaspects of what you're doing in this building . and even the sheer size, here i have concerns about are the two different units and the oversized full-size unit on the top. the lower two units and basement are 10 feet below and their 10 feet away from the sidewalks to face the building. and it crossed my mind that by making the top unit or floor excessively large you are sacrificing to more equitably size units. would yourespond to that question ? >> i hear you. i just wanted to address that.
the units, the two units below below grade in essence are no different than many on grade units that are against property line walls. so this is an urban situation so we felt that that would be acceptable. first of all, and then second of all in regards to the upper penthouse unit i think a lot of buildings i used number of buildings have a special penthouse. and so we designed it and that form but i also wanted to go back to, that's what i asked of the drawings we have also provided i wish i had a magnifying glass but we provided huge assortment of unit types to help with the affordability. we have six studios. we have 41 bedroom one bath
units and we have 42 bedroom one bath. and three 2 bedroom 2 bath and then the 13+ on the mezzanine so again, we are just trying to provide a huge assortment so that people could afford more variety in the building. >> that is a report i think that's correctabout the project but it still does not answer my question . i am concerned that these two basic units are you facing. there affordably low-grade and even on the small alley is facing there will be most often in the shade because the morning sun barely reaches them
and then it does as the sun moves south and west it will be totally and shadow. my concern was that them being on and out also that potentially people will use this into those lower terraces and potentially create creating something which is not necessarily contributing towards policy environment. otherwise i only don't have any problems with the project. again many of the social racial equity issues that commissioner ruiz was reminding us of candy responded to and i think it will take a lot more time for any of us to excessively intervene in that discussion unless we change our rules on how many affordable units are being required in any project i appreciate the work on behalf of this.
>> additionally to respond to the units at the rear, we originally had parking access from the alley which is whatever 80 percent of the frontages on the alley anyway. and the staff we fought and fought. staff would not allow parking. and they insisted they wanted what you know, our ground-floor and units. they wanted units accessible from thealley. they didn't want to see a garage . so we made units on the ground floor. josh crandall the owner would have far prefer to havea parking . >> understand the dilemma but thank you forreminding us of what you went through . >> you have any other question ? >> i do not, thank you. >> commissioner koppel.
>> reminder that considering the high amounts of units that are proposed here it's very tastefully done to impact the neighborhood as well as possible and i am in support. >> thank you very much, commissioner . >> i do appreciate this project even though this is a state and city bonus project. compared to other projects we've seen i think it's well-designed as well. and in terms of the state density bonus andbmr units , we see that mou's tend to be the way to mitigate the impacts and hopefully the effect of state density bonus . i guess it's more my question for us in hearing the planning commission because we've seen
many mou and there are some mou's that get assigned and then come back to us because as project sponsor wants to change especially when it comes to bmr units. so i guess my question gets more to how do we monitor these mou's that are being implemented and the projects are going to be changed. i think there are some community benefits that perhaps weshould look into as part of the racial social equity that is my comment . >> just on the mou you can acknowledge that mou and someof the items in it. we requested that we continue to work with the project sponsor to incorporate . >> i want to make that clear because thankyou . >> i think in particular as were trying to think about the future that's certainly a topic we could look at. how does this commission support mou's and what kind of causes are appropriate to be
referenced. we don't want to certainly be the arbiters of private agreement completely but maybe we can backup those agreements and in particular seems like some of the notes arearound the tile, the awning fixture . those are the ones that stuck out to me perhaps as being most and some of them are incorporated as having the rear entryway and the fagade there. i'm not sure if there are others that would bear connecting to the planning sid . >> the north fagade. >> i think art even on the other walls are what i understood as well unless and until a neighborhood building is constructed. i want to pick up on commissioner koppel! i think that this is a very well-designed project and could have been larger but it's been mitigated to i think be more conceptual with the neighborhood so i want to thank
the project sponsor in that regard. i did have onequestion about the basement units, ground-floor units . certainly it could be a challenge to thefolks who live there given any security or access . have you given thought to a two bedroom unit to have a family-friendly unit that has access to an outdoor play area and maybe swap the two studios for a two bedroom elsewhere west andmark i don't know if that can be facilitated . there are stairwells or things that are complicating the situation . >> that could be done.i suspect i'd have to look at it . however, our thought was if two units, that's a fairly large outdoor space. there will be a fence between so each of those units benefit from a large outdoor yard whereas if you have a two-bedroom unit is what just one unit benefits from the. the other thing to surprisingly
enough, there are anumber of people that don't want son . they like it in the shade and like a cool. >> certainly it's not so much about the sun as the department trying to incur family-friendly housing and having outdoor space as part of that so whoever makes amotion here maybethey might want to incorporate that and if not it's best to let it lie . six of one, halfa dozen of the other . i want to see vice president moore and commissioner diamond . >> it would be fair to make a motion to improve these conditions including aspects although we are not also approving theou . we are encouraging the one to be realized as thepresenters did . moved to approve. >> second. >> commissionerdiamond . >> thank you, my only comment is on us104 . >> sorry commissioner diamond,
you are quiet. that's better. >> but only comment is you have 104 which is the nested bedroom which i'm happy to hear that the sliding door will be glass but when i look at that guest bedroom and that sliding glass door it's very far away from any natural source of light and i wonder if you would be open to working with the planning department to see if there are any refinements to allow more lightinto that room so it doesn't have that dark unlivable bedroom ? >> we can look at that for sur . >> commissioner moore, are you open to adding that to the list of theissues we can look at with the planning department ? >> i do not necessarily support
those being used by a two-bedroom single-family. i would say that's a sufficient side oftwo independent outdoor spaces are enough for the purpose that they're going to be dedicated . >> i don't see another hand so i think we have a motion that is including looking at the nested bedroom . >> what was that? >> i believe the motion was to add in supporting elements of the mou and then to look under unit 104. >> can you repeat that. >> if you can add the nested bedroom. your mic is notonly think . >> deputy circuit city attorney i think the motion was and if it wasn't should be phrased as
the mou can be recited as part of the finding that not as a condition of approval but i'm not sure ifthat is the way it was rephrased . >> thank you for your assistance. >> in the commissioners there is , i didnot hear . >> i think commissioner koppel and imperial seconded. >> in that case commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to approvethe project as proposed . adding findings recognizing the mou as well as encouraging the sponsor to look at the nested bedroom unit on the groundfloor . on that motion, commissioner ruiz. [roll call vote] so moved
commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and we will place this on item 9 four case 2021- 1866 see you a 256-2250 on the streets, a conditional use authorization . >> secretary, somebody has a television on in the backgroun . i hear a voice in the background if it's possible if we could turn that off. >> i believe we've identified the culprit and wecommuted them . >> good afternoon commissioner , planning department staff. the project at 250 allman street is requesting
conditional use authorization for aresidential merger . the existing building is a three-story structure with three residential flats and the second floor flat is proposed for removal with the first and third floor each of which are approximately half of the second floor area. the removal is also considered as part of the commissions adopted residential flatpolicy . theproject includes the conversion of the existing accessory structure at the rear to accessory dwelling units . the ebu isproposed pursuant to the california government code and cannot be altered or denied as meets the requirements of the government code . by housingprices act of 2019 requires this project create a many units as it proposes to remove . the second floor residential flat will be replaced by the ou . the applicant stated purpose for the merger request is provided additionalspace for their families will have outgrown the existing unit . the edu will provide an equivalent number of bedrooms the second floor flat and
include universal design principles and accessibility features which are not present in any of the existing on-site units. the departments received five comments in support of this project allfrom nearby neighbors who set the increase occupant capacity on property and edu at the rear as reasons for their support . the apartment recommend approval of the request for conditional use while the removal of residentialunits and residential mergers are generally not supported the creation of family size housing is cited in the plan as an extenuating factor . additionally the general plan cites the loss of housing units as a concert or residential mergers and this project will develop a request unit offsetting the loss for this project . the project increases the total number of bedrooms on the property as well as total residential square footage thereby providing ability to house an increased number of people while density remained static the potential for
arkansas on-site is in conformity with the housing objectives. onbalance department finds the project to be compatible with the general plan and necessary recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i look forward to any questions . >> you have five minutes. >>. [inaudible] good afternoon
commissioners. my name is serena calhoun, it's been allow since i've been there is a lot of new faces. i only recognize a couple of you. for those of you that don't know me my specialty is adu's. our focus is creating housing so it's ironic i am here before you with a removal of the dwelling unit but we did offset with a adu and for me this is a unique andspecial circumstance. these families very much live
in aunique way that i think shows to the city there is no one-size-fits-all kind of housing approach . so the property is on, a three unit building . it's owned by one couple upstairs and one couple in the middle, they are brother and sister with their spouses and now for total children. they very much operate with the back doors open and kidscoming and goingand running up and down and they have been renting out the ground-floor unit which is no longer tenant occupied . the tenants voluntarily moved out . i'll just buzz you through a quick presentation. many have seen this in the drawings but the primary dwelling is in the front and i'll tellyou when we started this we looked at a lot of other alternatives like a vertical addition and horizontal addition to the side because there was no place to the rear yard . ultimately there needs to change dramatically. these are each two bedroom one bath units and they got between
them were children and to couples. so as outlined also i mentioned i kind ofhighlighted in an orange color here there is one bedroom is technically not bedroom . it is unsafe for occupation . there's no fire department access to that space so that was the driving force towards some of our designs is that area needs to be reconfigured in away that someone's child is living there in the event something could happen . although we are eliminating the middle unit two of them occupy the top two units sowe've always mentally but of this as an elimination of the ground-floor . more slightly subterranean units versus the wife in the middle unit suffers from migraines having a darker space is critical for her. i mentioned in the earlier presentation some people don't want the bright sunlight factor in we did put an internal stair in to create a secondary exit for these units which is anotherelement we lost some square footage to gain . there is a large side driveway
you can see here. i'm just going to show this is the access to where the adu will go and the reason i'm going to talk about the adu is a funky and unique unit. my specialty is adu and i find people like to rent the unit that is kind of unique and not sort of standard cookie-cutter. we would like to have a little rough connection between these two structures in the back but planning says we can't have it. there's a variance because it's a rear yard structure. ialso say that there's a proposal to make a adu rearguard factor that can be taller : two stories so there's a possibility in the future we might consider makingthis a smaller footprint with two stories but for now , until the state runs its process and approves for the increased height we propose a ground-level for the accessible unit again one of their considerations is aging
parents, the two of them obviously share a family so havingthat an elderly parent could move into the in the future would be desirable . i just want to show you that although there funky are nice faces. the building on the left with the veterans is quite large and has a vaulted ceiling and part of the carport on the right which would be where the living rooms are is that they use it currently as an outdoor living room. you can see the movie screen set up so they really do utilize the yard space and anybody that were to live in this back structure whether it's part of their family or an outside member of the public renting would have a very nice outdoor space, very quiet unit. nobody stompingaround upstairs or downstairs like there would be inthe current conditions . i'm available for questions . i hope you can support our project and several of my clients are here if you have any specific questions that
concludes the sponsor presentation and we should open up public comments this is your opportunity to address the commission . again those in the chambers please come forward our line up on the screen and those calling in remotely press star 3. >> speaker: my name is jerry dressler. theallman street project is very straightforward . there are four addresses on the allman street and planning departmentpin. three of the addresses are for the three bedroom units . the fourth address 246 80 allman street is for a shed converted into habitable space in 2010 . you have a copy of the 2010 building permit and the site plan that shows up all back in the auxiliary unit orshed . the new plan that was handed out today shows the adu. the adu was not labeled under plans available to the public. one more instance of gainingthe
process . the proposal to reduce the four housing units to three housing units by eliminating a 1521 square-foot three bedroom rental should not be approved. the planning commission as a firm policy of denying unit mergers because they reduce the scarce resource, existing housing. furthermore replacing a 1521 square-foot rental unit with a 650 square foot adu will result in anet 871 square-foot reduction in scarce rental space . i don't see a compelling reason to violate the planning commissions established policy and approve the proposed unit merger. resist the project for the planning commission violates the well-established president . it appears that 2010 shed building permit was never
finalized. so we have an illegal housing unit that should be addressed . the planning department should work with dvi and legalize the illegal allman street fourth housingunit. thank you very much . >> land-use coalition.i just want to bring up your attention many problems that exist this project ismister traveler noted , removing a unit in a city that is supposedly having housing prices and housing shortage is not astated policy of the planning department . every week, every thursday here if any project comes before you do approve it cause of the stated goal of meeting the arena obligations so this is very disjointed to allow a
merger of 1500 square-foot family size units as the assigned planner mentioned the general plan policy calls for site units so i don't believe that replacing 1500 square-foot family size units with 650 square foot so-called adu is one-to-one comparable. also i just want to bring up another thing and that's the flat policy that a few years ago the planning department reported that it's falling. in other words a few years ago you stated you would not approve of removing a flat and having it be replaced with a studio or a adu at the garage level. one last thing. a adu is not the same as a flat. adu's are not sellable.
if you and the city have a mission of meeting its housing shortage and availability particularly to theyoung people , i guess my heart should go to the millennial's you want to purchase from, you're not doing any favors to othermillennial's who want to purchase homes . so adu is not one-to-one comparable to a flat adu cannot be sold and we are going to be losing one unit of four units undirected. so we're reducing it to three. and in the past and a project that comes before you that approval justification has been housing shortage. so i just want to remind you that if we had a housing shortage we should continue using that logic to disapprove this project. thank you very much.
>> senior additional members of the public wishing to speak going to go remotewhen you line has been a muted that is your indication to begin speaking .>> this is an out, member of san francisco tenants union and raised in equity planning coalition. i'm referring to planning commission resolution number 224 which was just cited in the description of this project. and this is a policy that requires mandatory discussion. that's your discussion of two determine whether conserving and improving the existing housing staff is critical to san francisco's long-term housing strategy. so this is a policy that was adopted in 2017 and it applies directly to this project.
you've got three flats. you're going to take away one and you're going to put in a adu. that's not equivalent and that does not serve the family. and you know, i'm sorry. you've got to abide by the policy. thank you. >> last call for public commen . seeing no additional request to speak to missioners public comment isclosed and this item is before you . >> while i'm waiting for other commissioners to get in the queue i want to ask theproject sponsor our second question . did you and your clients discussedeliminating the garage
parking space to enlarge the size of the adu ? >> we did already part one part in there and four kids, bicycles, tools there is a need for them to have the storage space for us when we look at it although it is compact it is a two bedroom one bath unit. also addressed it's not an illegal unit. burgess had her office in there so there's a bathroom but she felt for events planning business in the rear structure soit is in fact not forward unit . >> will hear what the other commissioners say and both are empathetic for the needs of families to grow because it's so expensive but when she lives somewhere that's probably wher you're going to live forever . but i also
structure in the rear yard is 2468. there's no evidencefor us that , it was never approved to be a unit. it's always to our knowledge on the records been an accessory structure which as the sponsor said home office type ofuse. we don't have any concerns about the legal unit aspect of it . >> i guess just the way i see this project because again the way it's in our packet that this is three units where one unit is going to be removed and then replaced by a state density adu. this is how grading it is. so i am hostile in terms of the four units or addresses in the sf planning information. >> i'm not sure i understood.
>> i'm just trying to clarify. >> therefore addresses on the property right now the independent structure at the back was assigned an address. at the if this project were to move forward at the conclusion the sponsors would have to work with i believe dvi is ultimately responsible. they would have to work with them to consolidate and make sure that adu has a proper address and remove that from the building, whichever i believe it's 248 would be the unit removed . >> in terms of the because this came up the last two hearings that we had. in terms of the residential flat policy. i think that's also when what's being undermined here is a residential flat policy and i think we should address or try to assess in terms of the check it's a residential flat policy
and this is going to be replaced by an edu.i see the adu as a separate entity and i'm seeing only the structure itself but then we find out that this is for addresses so i guess my question for us, for all of us in terms of the residential flat policy in terms of implementation this are how are we doing this in terms of the state density or replacement even if there are layers of loss that perhaps a city attorney could give us more enlightenment in terms of the residential flat policy and the state. >> so the residential flat policy generally applies when you're keeping the same number of units while making smaller,
taking a two flat building and putting asmaller unit behind so you still have two units but the second one is not a flat. that's only a policy . i think we expressed the desire to work with the commission to codify. it would be helpful to have that codified but in this case it's actually less about the residential flat policy so you're taking three units in the main building and i think what we found to be a mitigating factor is the addition of the 80 you. so in essence still giving three units but you are removing a unit in the main building so let's the flat policy applies and more looking to see you for a removal of the unit which i think frankly if they were just doing that is not having you would have disapproval recommended issue. >> to the extent some of the issues you mentioned president tanner as well the addition
kept us to recommend approval. >> and the residential fall as i understand it please correct me is when it comes to the merger. this is the structure of the merger so just to clarify. >> the residential flat policy is usually exclusive from the merger issue . was developed in the context of when you were not merging but the residential flat policy wa acknowledging our flat policy is the great starter for families . you've got exposure from the front and back. these are light filled spaces that have family living spaces as well as a small number of bedrooms and recognizing that policy istreated . this wasthe genesis for the creation of a flat policy . generally speaking when you have a program that meets
conditional use we don't typically make somebody also see the mandatory dr that's required by the flat removal policy but we want to make sure we're still talking about these issues when we're bringing forward so what's before you is a proper merger read the complete loss of a unit because we do treat mergers for building not her parcel like the whole lot.because this one building is going from 3 to 2 where bringing it before you ask the merger even though the property is 3 to 3 is appropriate to be talking about the quality of that third unit going from a flat and these are perfectly appropriate units with regards tosize, number of units and in the context of a flat removal . >>. [please stand by]
are they on the same entitlement, how are they linked together? >> so i can address that. so, the adu is part of the project. so it's -- that would be a significant change for it to not be built if they were to receive approval for the merger. we would bring it back to you. we also have conditioned this. there is a condition in the packet that says if this were
approved, you must build the adu and your design principles is included in the condition. it's another layer if they want to modify something, they need to come to us to make sure it complies. even though we can't control it, we're requiring it be built in the project is approved. >> does staff have any other feedback on the adu, design? >> there was a long discussion at the very beginning of this project about the best way to convert that structure into an adu. it was originally unclear if it was even possible. after a lot of feedback with our adu team and the city attorneys, it was settled this was the only way it could be converted. so i mean the concerns are obvious in relation to the size of the units and that walkway between the living area and the
bedrooms. so it was really just for us taking in the entire project as a whole and weighing pros and cons. correct. in this case, it's a detached adu. for those you have to provide setbacks generally, unless it's an existing structure. so the issue with enlarging it or covering that walkway would be you then trigger the setback requirements which would be a significant reduction in building volume because there is currently no setbacks. so it's balancing. >> how are we calling it an adu, if it's not connected? >> that would be a technical question i don't know the answer to. it's a building code question frankly. >> it just seems, conceptually,
part of my challenge, i'm open to approving it, but the challenge is we're not able to make proposed changes as city maybe to the covering and then i personally would love to see the garage space become part of the adu and that could be the trade-off the family could make, they're deciding to have a larger adu and not have storage space outdoors. but the way this kind of is all connected together, it seems like we don't have the ability to get that feedback. but the walkway open seems quite odd to me and kind of a mutation of state law. i don't know how else to say it. i appreciate you answering the question. >> commissioner fung: i accept the staff's analysis and am prepared to move the granting of the conditional use. >> president tanner: i believe
-- is that a motion. i see commissioner moore and commissioner diamond. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to keep the discussion open and to reflect further on this project. i believe that this particular adu is not under the commission's jurisdiction for approval authority and the nature in which the architect describes the adu, that the family had an idea of potentially doing that, leaving somewhat open at which point this adu may or may not come to be realized even if it was described as part of the condition. however, if that is 10 years later and the it has occurred, i think the effectiveness of having another unit in time is a moot point. and i believe that i am more gravitating towards looking at these as two independent, one of which is not ours, merging of
the units. merging of three family sized units into two goes much counter to decisions we have made -- this commission has made on a two-flat building, i think it was a year and a half ago, where we ultimately decided to deny it. it was a family, growing family, at the similar arguments to what we heard today. and ultimately, we decided, no, because retaining family sized units in the 1500 square foot range is exactly what we need not to only maintain affordable housing stock, but also following in this particular case our -- we are -- if we can approve the merger, we're
redensifying should we have jurisdiction over the adu. i believe the flat policy is clear and obligate us to retain and support it, and particularly avoid mergers. there are -- on the policy where units could be modified because of the exiting stairs or other conditions, but this is not the case here. and i will not be able to support it and i strongly urge us to get further clarification on what it is to look at a state adu program in conjunction with a project that falls under the jurisdiction of the planning commission. >> president tanner: thank you. commissioner diamond. sorry, one moment. did you want to respond to something? >> i just wanted to clarify for everyone that we absolutely do have control or could control the timing and the insurance --
assurance that the adu is built if that is part of the commission's concern. and how we do that, if the commissioner was to approve the merger, what we would say is we would not sign off on that building permit for the merger in the front until the adu permit, the back has been issued. so we do definitely have controls over the timing and issuance of the merger and we can hold that up until the adu is built. so there definitely are controls in place that we can guarantee that the permit is issued. >> and that's standard practice? >> yeah, when there are contingent permits, that is a typical thing. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. that was going to be my question. i am in support of this project. i think we need to work hard and creatively in order to keep growing families in the city. and i'm fine with the solution they have proposed.
while i would vastly prefer that the adu was more equivalent in size to the unit we're losing, i do note and i want to comment on this, that they are creating an acceptable unit. and that is a big add to our housing stock. it's really inappropriate for older adults to have a unit designed to be fully accessible. on balance is what is putting me in supporting the project. especially because it will end up with more bedrooms overall than it had previously. the one concern i had i didn't think we had assurance that the adu would be built in the same time first-time frame -- time frame. when i looked at provision 6, i didn't see timing. do we need to change the language of the condition to do what you're suggesting? >> it certainly would add more meat to it and i would encourage if that's a priority, we can
amend that condition of approval to mandate that the issuance of the adu permit precede the issuance of the dwelling unit permit. >> well, then i would second the motion that was made by commissioner fung, if he's willing to allow that to be amended as proposed? >> i think he agreed to that. he's agreed to that and i think commissioner koppel already seconded. >> commissioner diamond: okay, never mind. are you both okay with amending the motion to have that condition stated as suggested? >> commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: yeah. >> president tanner: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: i appreciate what other commissioners say in regards to having the adu in -- if when -- if this merger is approved,
however, as my comment in here, is again in terms of the residential policy and the merger on this that we are actually increasing the size which is -- which, you know, about 2000 square feet -- averaging 2000 square feet for two units and only one of the unit i believe will be subject to the sb330. so in terms of balancing what we're getting out in this in the city is that we have merged into two units into big size and only one is complied to sb330. so in that sense, i will not support this project. >> president tanner: thank you, commissioner. i did also want to note, i think there was a member of the public who gave comment that the adu is not labeled in the plan.
i did download the plan and the packet, the case report, i saw that the adu is labeled on page 26. if the member of the public needs to refer to those plans, you can find it there. we're ready to vote. >> jonas: there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions to require that the issuance of the merger permit be held until the adu permit has been issued. on that motion? >> commissioner ruiz: no. >> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: no. >> president tanner: aye. that motion passes 4-3, with ruiz, imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us under the discretionary review calendar. for item 10, case number 2020-.
45 crag month avenue. this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners. trent green, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2020-0923.477 for the construction of a rear horizontal addition and four-story addition to a residence. the historic resource status is
category c. there are no historic resources present. the d.r. requesters of 49 cragmont avenue, adjacent neighbors to the south of the proposed project requester, are concerned that the proposed addition is incompatible with the scale of the existing buildings on the street and will obscure views in the backyard and reduce home values. their proposed alternatives are to disapprove the four-story addition. waive the requirement for 45 cragmont to move the chimney and indemnify the owners for accidents related to the chimney height arriving from the approval of the four-story addition. and require seismic and impact analysis to adjacent homes. to date, the department has received eight letters in support of the d.r. request. we have received one letter in
support of the project. the planning department's review of this confirms support for the proposal as it pertains to the code. the project to expand horizontally to align with the rear walls of the adjacent building and add a four-story addition, which is set back 28 inches from the wall. it is negligibly visible from the street. a roof deck is also proposed at the front setback of the fourth floor, which is set back five feet from all building edges to minimize privacy impacts. it is worth reminding that views from private properties are not protected, nor is the potential reduction of value for planning department evaluation.
nor is the chimney a planning issue. staff does not see the project disrupting the pattern or scale of buildings at the street or rear, nor cutting off access to mid block open space. therefore, staff recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. this concludes the department's presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> jonas: very good. d.r. requester, you have five minutes. >> can i move this laptop up to the lectern? >> jonas: no, you cannot, but you can use the mic that is there.
can you see the slides? >> jonas: sf gov, can you go to the slides. can now, yeah. >> actually i have five handouts of the slides if that works. thank you, president tanner, vice president moore and honorable commissioners for allowing me to speak today. i'd like to go through basically what's at stake here and basically how 45 cragmont and their vertical addition is not in scale with what we have on cragmont avenue. it's a street on golden gate heights. a small curvy one block street indicated on the red line on the map. it's likened to 11th avenue. it's a close-knit block where neighbors know one another.
i really have come to like our neighborhood. the d.r. requesters, myself, my wife, owners of 49 cragmont, 1125 square foot home. the d.r. requesters have lived there since 1999. we raised an sfusd daughter who is off to college this fall. we have warm relations with all the neighbors. we expressed concerns of the fourth floor to owners at a february 27, 2022 meeting. they directed us to their architect who initially brushed us off with our earlier concerns about height. other neighbors also experienced the same treatment from the architects. we're also surprised by the unwillingness to compromise on the fourth floor addition given
our 23 years as neighbors. this is a photograph from 1948 of cragmont avenue zoomed in from outside lands and also superimposed with the current google map. you can see it's a pre-war building built in 1939, one of the first homes on the west side of cragmont and predates 45 cragmont. this project at 45 cragmont is really a fourth-floor addition. the drawings submitted to the planning commission or the planning department are wrong. they refer to this as a third floor addition. no other home on cragmont has a fourth floor. cragmont avenue mostly has two-story homes with the exception of four buildings that have three stories, including 45 cragmont.
also in the plans, there was some mistakes on this drawing where it referred to the second floor twice and really doesn't address that fourth floor. part of this might be some mistakes, you know, possibly from obfuscation. i will highlight this table in terms of the building square footage where it lists ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor in the table. it's really first, second, third and fourth floor. the fourth floors the vertical addition. my dear 45 cragmont neighbors deserve to expand their home. right now it's a 1500 square foot building. it's similar in size to ours. with the rear only addition, it comes out to 2724 square feet. really a good house in san francisco. it's a three-bedroom, two and a
half bath house. with the fourth floor addition, it becomes 3362 square feet. a monstrous type of structure on our block. it's a three bedroom, two and a half bath with a pent room and a one bath. again, the drawings are wrong to refer to this as a third floor addition. again, the fourth floor is extraordinary and exceptional use for vertical. the second living room, 638 square feet. currently there are three-story
homes, 33, 37, 14. all of -- 41. all of them have expanded to the rear. there are no pent rooms. and we can see the comparable square footage, 2011 to 2500, 2468 there. i would like to point out that the -- [bell ringing] that the ceqa and d.r. analysis says it's not visible from street. >> jonas: thank you, sir, that is your time. project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> is it possible to -- >> jonas: yes, s.f. gov, can you go to the overhead, please? >> thank you. hi, commissioners, president tanner. architect.
just a couple quick clarifications, we've reached out to the neighbors. we had one phone call. that was it. we had a long conversation. city architects have offered to do a mediation. the neighbors did not participate, did not return any phone calls. this building is, in fact, a three-story building over basement. it qualifies as a basement at lower ground. the overhead that i put before you actually shows our potential height here. and in gray what would be allowed. so, we're proposing a relatively modest and lower than what would be allowed addition to this house. this couple has lived in the house for a long time. it's been a family house. and so, they're very aware of the neighborhood and what's
appropriate. i just want to point out quickly a couple of things. as the city architect stated, this conforms to zones guidelines and the city is supporting this proposal. the -- the images that some of the -- that the d.a. applicant that sent around don't actually represent the actual height and or bulk of the building as presented. that's really my only comments on this. i'm happy to answer any questions. it sort of speaks for itself, i think. >> jonas: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. you need to step forward if you're in the chamber, or press star 3. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes. >> hi, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is robert buckman.
i live in district 5. i think this is a waste of discretionary review. this is a waste of staff time. this is waste of city money to spend actual people hours on mediating disputes between rich neighbors. i looked up the property value of all the houses, both the appellant and pretty much everybody involved. this is 1.7, 1.8, $2 million plus houses. san francisco will have a housing next year to produce 82,000 new homes. we are not going to do that if we continue to accept arguments like this. san francisco cannot function as the world's biggest h.o.a. by mediating squabbles like this.
the planning commission should write legislation to eliminate -- or actually advocate to eliminate the discretionary review from the city charter. this is a complete waste of time. you should do more to prevent it from happening in the future. thank you. >> jonas: last call for public comment. go ahead, caller, when you hear the line is unmuted, that is your indication. >> hi, my name is mary and i live at 65 cragmont which is about five houses down. and we've -- me and my husband have lived there for 20 years. we're opposed to the fourth florida addition, so we are not opposed to the horizontal addition. when you look at our block, all of the houses are two stories
except for four buildings that are three stories, because they have a garage unit and then two floors of living space above it. and so this new proposal is saying that they want to put an additional floor on top of that, but i also know that about two years ago there was a house on our block that was originally one story high and they applied to have two stories and they were denied because they said that having that second story would be out of character with the neighborhood. so i don't really understand why this fourth floor would be approved. i also think that by having this fourth floor, it really impacts the house next door, because it steals all the light going from that side of the house. and it just makes it feel like -- they don't have light in those rooms.
it feels like they're in a basement. and it's a very unappealing way to have to live when you've been living there for 20 years. when we bought our home, they didn't cost $2 million. we don't have $2 million to go somewhere else. when i bought my house, i bought it for $600,000. then i'm looking at being able to invest and i can't even invest. i would never be able to buy in this area again. [bell ringing] >> this is jonathan. i just -- i want to clarify something that robert pointed which is -- which is to reduce the amount of time spent arguing in front of the planning commission. the planning commission, i mean, the charter actually delegates
to the planning commission the authority to -- give to the planning committee the authority to approve all projects, all permits and also to delegate to the planning department. now when the board of supervisors has opinions about what should be conditional use or discretionary review, but those are recommendations. the planning commission has the authority over what it wants to delegate. so the planning commission, even without the board of supervisors, could decide, hey, we don't want to listen to discretionary review if they meet some conditions. so, i encourage the planning commission to think of policies what -- how they want to spend their time and how they want to delegate to the planning department, even things that the
planning code says are discretionary review. they can be discretionary review by a ministerial -- [indiscernible] -- thank you. >> jonas: final last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, d.r. requester, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> designs are fourth floor addition. the drawings are wrong. they marketed a notice as a third floor addition rather than a fourth floor. this is wrong and feels deceptive. mr. wins lowe acknowledges this as a fourth floor but they never made the architect makes changes. many neighbors were unaware this was a fourth floor until pointed out. a 2700 square foot is perfect
for san francisco. we have no objections to a horizontal addition, just the vertical. the fourth floor pent room caused nine neighbors to come forward to oppose. there are at least eight more neighbors i've spoken with who have expressed the same concern and wanted to oppose, but did not want to go on record. so at least 17 on our block. again, the fourth floor plan does not fit the character of the block with two-story homes. it will be the tallest building on the block and blocks light for 49 cragmont. again, i have no objections for the horizontal addition. >> jonas: project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you want it? >> when we were designing this project, we did take into account the neighbors, the
amount of light, the applicant is to the south of us. so, there is -- he has adequate light. we set back our upper story over 20 feet from the front of the building, so that it is invisible from the street below. and allows for outdoor space on that upper floor which is important. the usable space in the backyard as you saw from the site section is quite steep. so it allows our clients some outdoor use. again, this is a three-story over a basement when you look at the site section. so the characterization's not quite correct. happy to answer any questions. >> jonas: with that, commissioners, this matter is now before you. >> president tanner: thank you. thank you, project sponsor and the d.r. requester.
i do not see any extraordinary circumstances surrounding this project and i would support the staff recommendation to not take d.r. and approve the project. if there is a motion in that regard? >> commissioner koppel: so moved. >> second. >> jonas: commissioner ruiz was requesting to speak. >> president tanner: sorry, i don't see your name. >> commissioner ruiz: i was going to do what commissioner koppel did and state that i don't feel this project is out of scale with the neighborhood. very wealthy area and i agree with the public commenter that it's questionable that we as commissioners spend time on neighbor on neighbor. >> thank you, commissioner ruiz. on that motion then, to not take the d.r. project as proposed. >> commissioner ruiz: aye.
>> commissioner diamond: aye. >> commissioner fung: aye. >> commissioner imperial: aye. >> commissioner koppel: aye. >> commissioner moore: aye. >> president tanner: aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. 7-0. will place this under your special calendar for item 11, case number 2019016230 for the housing element 2022 update environmental impact report. this is the draft environmental impact report hearing. please note that public comment for this draft eir is from april 20, 2022 until 5:00 p.m. tuesday june 21, 2022. >> president tanner: thank you, mr. secretary. before we get fired up, let's take a short break so commissioners can get some stretching of their legs. if there are callers on the line, raise your hands now, so
we can see how many folks are anticipated to speak. there are not a lot of people in the chamber. we'll adjourn for five minutes, commissioner imperial says. welcome back to the planning commission hybrid hearing for june 9, 2022. commissioners, we left off under the special calendar, item 11, 2019 for the housing element 2022 update environment impact report. this is the draft e.i.r. >> commissioners, before we jump into the e.i.r., again this is focused on getting comments to the draft e.i.r., i want to let you know where we are. we submitted our draft housing element, the most recent to the
state on may 10th. we're meeting with them next week to get initial comments. so we'll report back to you on that. we're expecting official comments from the state on our draft in mid august. so, that's when we'll actually have their official comments to provide you with. we continue to refine our analysis on housing capacity and constraints and the state has expressed particular interest in that. but you saw that at the last iteration of the housing element, but we're updating that as we go along. we're briefing board members on where we are with the draft. and we're in the midst of preparing the racial and social equity analysis which i talked about earlier. so just some highlights on where we are in the process. >> president tanner: thank you. commissioners, i'm lisa gibson, environmental review officer and i'd like to introduce this item
which is the draft environmental impact report, or draft e.i.r. for the housing element 2022 update. we're here to receive comments from the commissioners and public on the draft e.i.r. the planning department published the draft e.i.r. on april 20, 2022. the purpose of the document is to inform decision-makers and the public about the impacts of the proposed housing element 2022 update and to identify mitigation measures and alternatives that would prevent or lessen significant environmental damage. the document is the culmination of two years of analysis conducted by an outstanding team of planning department staff and environmental consultants with the generous assistance of other san francisco departments and agencies. if we could show the slide show. there -- we have a slide that shows the major contributors of this effort.
>> well, if we're going to pause, i apologize. i was remiss in affording commissioner ruiz the opportunity to be recused. >> commissioner ruiz: sorry, i wasn't sure to insert myself. because of my work with the housing element prior to me being on the commission, i will have to recuse myself for this item. >> president tanner: thank you, commissioner ruiz. >> all right, shall i continue? >> jonas: yes. >> don't we move a motion. >> move on that, yeah. >> jonas: well, we can make it official with a motion, but my understanding because of the decision and advice of the city attorney, we don't necessarily need one because i don't think the commission has the option to reinstate her in this particular
case. >> city attorney, do you want to confirm, is that accurate? >> that is correct. and also she recused herself from an earlier related item and i believe at that time stated that she would be recusing herself from all housing element-related items before the commission. >> president tanner: thank you. so motion is not necessary. thank you for that. >> jonas: right. >> so the slide that we're showing now acknowledges the team of outstanding folks that have contributed to this effort in the chambers of today are core members of the e.i.r. team, including liz, alaina and chris, ryan is unfortunately is out sick. i'm going to turn things over to liz, senior planner with the planning department. >> thanks, lisa.
good afternoon,ing president tanner and commissioners. my name is liz white. planning equity division has brought the housing element 2022 update to this commission multiple times, so this will be a quick recap. the housing element would establish goals, policies and actions to address existing and future housing needs. including regional housing targets for san francisco. the housing element would adopt policies designed to improve affordability and advance race and social equity. the housing element would accommodate 150,000 new housing units by 2050 or 5,000 units per year for 30 years. the housing element does not include specific planning code amendments, zoning changes, development projects or other implementing measures. now i'll begin discussing the
housing elements update review. the housing element e.i.r. evaluates the affects on the environment that could occur from adoption of the housing element 2022 update or the proposed action. the e.i.r. analysis is at a programmatic level because of the timing of the individual projects that will implement the proposed action are unknown. the e.i.r. evaluates the impacts of implementation of the proposed action in 20250, compared to the impacts of the existing housing element policies. this is called the 2050 environmental baseline and these are guided by the adopted 2014 housing element. as discussed in the e.i.r. chapter 4 for comparing and assessing update with the existing conditions as opposed to the baseline, could mislead
the public and decision-makers that there would be no or few changes to existing conditions from continued development and you the 2014 housing element. and that all impacts from future 2050 development are the result of the housing update rather than being attributable to developments that could occur under the existing 2014 housing element. these conclusions would be incorrect and substance overstatement. this diagram, figure 2-12, from the draft e.i.r. shows the relationship between the 2050 environmental baselined on the housing element 2022 update. under the 2050 environmental baseline, approximately 102,000 new units are projected in san francisco by 2050. whereas 150,000 new units are projected under the housing element 2022 update by 2050.
while the housing element 2022 update would result in approximately 150,000 more housing units when compared to the 2015 baseline, a commonality is the planning department's pipeline projects. as previously presented in published, the proposed draft policies of the update seek to change the geographic distribution of where housing growth will occur in the city under existing policies. the housing element endeavors to shift an increased share of the future housing growth to transit corridors and low density residential districts within well-resourced areas. which are primarily in the western and northern parts of san francisco. as shown here in the draft e.i.r. figure 2-7, the proposed action promotes small and mid rise multi-family development through possible height
increases along transit corridors. and through modifying density limits in low density areas shown here in yellow. this map, figure 2-6 from the draft e.i.r. shows the projected growth in housing units between 2020 and 2050 under the existing housing element, or the 2050 environmental baseline. under the 2050 environmental baseline, the majority of units are projected in the eastern half of the city, shown as the darker yellow. many of these units are part of pipeline projects or housing projects that are under construction, have been approved or are in progress building permits, are entitled or currently undergoing review at the planning department. examples of larger pipeline projects are power station, mission rock and reservoir. this map figure 2-10 in the draft e.i.r. shows the projected
growth in housing units between 2020 and 2050 under the housing element 2022 update. the housing element 2022 update would result in approximately 50,000 more housing units in san francisco by 2050 than under the 2050 environmental baseline. you'll see there continues to be growth in the eastern part of san francisco, but that more growth is projected in the northern and western parts of the city. this slide is presented for informational purposes to help context allize the changes by 2050. the e.i.r. evaluates impacts of the proposed action compared to the 2050 environmental baseline. this map, figure 2-11, shows the projected change in housing unit location by 2050 under the proposed action as compared to the 2050 environmental baseline.
in general, as shown here in orange, future actions consistent with the proposed housing element update, would shift increased share over the city's future housing growth to transit corridors and low density residential districts within well-resourced areas. now let's discuss the proposed action significant impacts. projects implementing the housing element 2022 update would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to utilities and service systems, winds, noise, transportation, cultural resources, built environment, air quality and shadow. the housing element 2022 update would also have significant impacts to archeological, tribal and paleontology resources, but these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation.
the e.i.r. identifies feasible mitigation to avoid or reduce significant impacts for many of these topic areas, however, even with mitigation, the impacts shown on this slide would remain significant and unavoidable. the e.i.r. identifies approximately 31 mitigation measures. too many to list here, but we'll give a few examples. future actions consistent with the proposed action, such as new buildings that could potentially result in significant wind impacts, must be shaped to limit wind speed. however, the massing and design of future development is currently unknown and there are uncertainties regarding individual development projects receiving approvals for wind measures in public rights of way. therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable with mitigation. another example is noise. noise construction mitigation in
next, let's review the alternatives evaluated. that would avoid significance impact of the project. under existing housing policies. the east side alternative increases development on the east side and development on the west side. similar to the 2022 update that helps to build environment historic resources. by revising policy language and reduce incompatibility but
would not change the height. the eir includes an analysis of 2050 approved in october of 2021 and land use housing strategy for the planned bay area. it's approximately 80,000 housing units by 2050 in san francisco. this growth would be concentrated in the northeast, mission, downtown, south bay shore, richmond and planning districts. additional legal related to the alternative discussion, the housing element issued on may 19th, 2022, to correct text with associated maps with the figures in chapter six. this is available on planning's website and the thex will be corrected. copies were distributed to you and we have copies available on the table to the left for
members of the public. finally, let's go over the schedule and how to comment on the draft eir. introductory into 2023. the close of the 60-day draft period was originally noticeed as june 20th. however, it's the juneteenth holiday. therefore it will close on the following day the next major milestone is early january 2023 and then we return to this commission for the certification hearing at the end of january 2023. comments on the draft eir can be submitted in writing or verbally in today's hearing. you may write to elizabeth white, san francisco planning department, 49 south van ness suite 1400 san francisco
california. or you may submit your comments at sfgov.org. comments received today at this planning commission hearing and comments received in writing will be responded to in a responses to comments document. comments should be directed towards the eir rather than the merits of the housing element update. i would like to note that the historic preservation commission held a hearing last week on june 1st to consider their comments on the draft eir. the hpc provided a letter summarizing their comments. this letter was forwarded electrically to the commission and we have distributed hard copies today. their comments generally stated they found resources to be adequate and accurate and that the preservation alternative is adequate. the housing element eir team thanks you for your time. we are available for any
questions you may have. we do have a court reporter here today to record your comments. for members of the public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record. questions on the comments on the adequacy and accuratery will be directed to the eir document. >> thank you. if that concludes staff's report, we should open up public comment. through the chair, each member of the public. >> president: i just wanted to make sure i do see two speakers in the speaking queue. did you need to share something
now. we'll. >> caller: georgia shootis here. that's fine. i'd like to understand how this would work with the draft of the policy and action number 2060 which would get rid of use for demolition. the twenty-thousand one hundred fifty-one is the no change alternative. there are a lot of things in there that i don't think were ever fully implemented. certain policies. policy 2.2 i mean, that's something we've seen for seven years.
the residential development history. it says the 70's down zoning was due to worry of residents. and there's no mention of all the changes that happened in the last 10 years as you know. 72% chance of an earth quake is mentioned in here. what are the rebuilding plans if there's something truly catastrophic in these next 30 years. how will ownership and occupancy records facilitate rebuilding and the seismic slope and hazard zone, that was changed from 20% to 25%. that's on page 4.1, 162. i think the 20%'s more prudent.
that's it. take care. >> secretary: all right. we're going to go to our remote callers. when you link here that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. i'm a volunteer with the northern neighbors and a resident of district two. i would like to understand better why we did not study higher growth alternatives as environmentally superior in the environmental reports. from my perspective, it fails to recognize the statewide and regional environment benefits alternative. the housing crisis we have in the bay area is also environmental. we had the highest share of super commuters due to this housing crisis and if we built that housing in sf, outside of
future development. on the other hand, there's current water rationing which is expected to become mandatory. the city has been identified as an urban heat island. even currently, the city is underprotected by its emergency fire fighting water system from cad strofk fires. new methodology used by to be
a personal perspective. my family and my community has been directly impacted by displacement. the destruction of our community by the redevelopment agency. nobody has cared about the environmental impact at that time. the draft environmental impact report failed to study the impact of gentrification and displacement. the proposed answers were not to displace the potential numbers of existing people or housing units. necessitate the destruction of replacement housing. yet, the housing element
cycles, thousands and, the new housing element contains strategies that specifically call for demolition of existing houses and it's developed for affordable housing, community services, small businesses and open spaces. thank you. >> caller: hello. this is anesthesia yovanopolis and we're of the race and
coalition planning we urge you to evaluate the impacts of policies that encourage demolition, displacement, and private speculative development will have on our communities and the environment. coalition and visions and works for san francisco that empowers marginalized communities. seniors and people with disabilities to determine our futures. the draft eir referenced this planning intention to have housing element 22 be san francisco's first that centers racial and social equity. multiple times it says this, but it's failed to study any project alternative that centers on and prioritizes racial and social equity. all the projects alternatives that have been studied are market-based strategies and none propose to build
affordable housing first. its not mentioned in no project alternative that our current housing element has resulted in an expanded over relies heavily on strategies for demolition of existing housing which will displace a number of tenants. it fails to study the environmental impacts of gentrification and displacement and the impact ch 2 falsely states the proposed action would not displace substantial number of existing people or housing units demonstrating the destruction of displacement. >> clerk: i'm sorry.
that's your time. >> caller: good afternoon. i live in district five and i'm a volunteer with sf san francisco speaking for myself. this draft eir is not a realistic eir for instance, san francisco's goal is provided to accommodate 82,000 new housing units, not 50,000 and the draft eir says that the no alternative action here in the no-action alternative is an alternative and not discussing impacts there. additionally, the goal of 150,000 new units does not --
it is not a pace at which san francisco's goals for cycle. san francisco is required to build 10,000 to accommodate 10,000 new housing units. none of the alternatives are realistic and the city has not adequately planned for enough housing units to meet rina. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. these policies encourage demolition, displacement and private speculative development. which will have an impact on our most vulnerable communities and the department.
the eir makes multiple references to planning and having this be san francisco's first. the report is inadequate and alternative that prioritizes racial and social equity. the report fails to mention that the current housing element results in market housing. any significant function of housing. market rate housing overwhelming, but it fails to discuss an alternative approach that would reverse the policy that favors the market. it's implementing policies that privilege those who have been historically disadvantaged. and to people of color who have been ignored for far too long. this eir grossly underestimates environmental impacts that will be caused by the policies. this eir building affordable housing in the first and eliminate strategies that
courage displacement. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon commissioners. the coalition urges this planning commission to thoroughly evaluate and private sector development will have on the communities and the environment. vision and works for new political economic and social systems prioritized in the health stability and aspirations of our people of color and low income communities and places the needs of people over developers' desire for profit. the eir makes references having this be san francisco's first housing element social and racial equity. the deir fails a project alternative and sensors and prioritizes racial and social equity. the deir shows.
impact page two states that the proposed action would not displace the numbers of the existing people or housing units necessitating the construction of the replacement housing. however, during the current housing cycle, more than 4,200 units have been demolished and this new housing unit calls for demolition of existing housing. this is efficient and it grossly underestimates environmental impacts that will be caused by the policy recommended by the housing element by not truly having the housing and social equity. the deir must set alternatives that prioritizes building affordable housing first, many strategies and encourage displacement ensure there are public lands developed for affordable housing, community services, small businesses and
public open spaces. thank you. >> caller: hi. good afternoon commissioners. race and equity and planning coalition. the rep coalition and visions and workforce san francisco with diverse communities and equitable access to many opportunities. makes the eir this planning housing element. however, as many have mentioned none of the projects alternatives actually do get us there. in studying the no projects alternative, there's no mention of the fact that the current housing element has resulted in a wild overproduction of unaffordable market rate housing. however, there's mention that market rate housing provided benefits, but does not study an
alternative that would benefit people in low-income communities. the eir must build affordable housing first. eliminate strategies that encourage displacement and ensure that our public lands are developed for affordable housing, supportive housing, community services, small businesses and public open spaces. thank you for your time. >> caller: this is sue hester. the eir with the measure which we have been underproducing housing for low-income people, working class people. instead, the hire incentives is to apply, approve, and build luxury housing and that housing can't accommodate workers.
workers in san francisco in hotels and regional district need housing. if you're not housed in san francisco, can afford or housing that can afford to buy. they and effects transportation, waste, air pollution, all these things they're trying to step down. instead, we're going to worsen them because the developers like to say we want to build housing and they don't really build housing. we have a trickle down theory of housing. if you build luxury housing, maybe you'll get trickle down housing elsewhere. we have a lot of unequal provisions of sousing.
those of us who live in the eastern part of the city know that we have mixed committees and they're being pushed out by gentrification in our neighborhoods. second issue. you have already -- we had -- pardon me. we should have a few more days to comment. the planning for this eir is dated may 19th. i said, hm may 19th, that's 20 days before the [ indiscernible ] . and so that was mailed out on the 31st and so -- >> secretary: ms. hester, that is your time. thank you. >> caller: okay. >> caller: commissioners, i had spoken to ya'll earlier. my name is san francisco cystco
decosta and i've been following this issue for 40 years. the last three housing elements report defective. in short, i'm not going to go into except to speak to you and any layman would understand. you the planning department are supposed to focus on quality of life issues. the quality of life issues is concerning san francisco. our city has gone to the hogs. when it comes to clean water, you the planning department don't know what the hell is happening. the two frequences have hundreds of notices of violations. ya'll don't have a clue of what's happening. and the previous speakers have
spoken. ya'll keep buying. ya'll keep building market rate housing because you're in the pocket of the developers. in other words, your fostering corruption. now, when you look at rental housing or affordable housing, thousands of those units were demolishes or intentions made by their academic of the university. ya'll don't know what the hell i'm talking about. first and you initially the planning department, it took us 18 years, but we lost the housing. the army builds thousands of housing, affordable housing the city -- >> secretary: thank you, sir.
that is your time. >> caller: yeah. a meezly two minutes. >> caller: hi. i'm calling from downtown san francisco. realistically, we've heard a lot of comments about not wanting to build mousing, but it's well-established that not building housing and not opening up new housing is only going to benefit speculators and investors and it doesn't help people who want to live here. we know san francisco's a desirable city. we know if you want to live like they do in china where you have to have a permit, we need to build housing. we heard people talk about comments about luxury housing. what is luxury housing? quite honestly, it's a small apartment with no outdoor space
and you've got a refrigerator and maybe a washer drier. that doesn't sound luxury to me. the reason it's called luxury housing is because of the average cost to build it in san francisco. but that cost comes in from cost of construction. when you hear people talk about the developers, they're talking about union construction folks and you can make a living wage. we're also talking a lot about a policy and requirements set up by san francisco planning which raised those costs when it takes three to five years to get something permitted, that drives up the cost of housing. if we really want to push for affordable housing, planning needs to take these impacts into account as well because the longer it takes, the more roadblocks we put up. we increase the cost.
the policies recommended by this house and government, eir must study an alternative that proposes building affordable housing first and the needs strategies that discourage emplacements, ensure our public lands develop affordable housing, supportive housing, community services,small business and public open space. thank you for your time . >> hello commissioners. the rates of social equity organizations recover most of the points and 500 pages, what do you think? the idea that we can build 5000 units a year in san francisco is ridiculous and has never happened.
and it will not happen without funding so the alternative to the proposed project must be explored further. especially want to say that building supportable housing and i need here, affordable to people who are earning or have income of 20 to 80 percent of ami which is about half of our city once what's built first. it is a proven fact that trickle-down housing does not work . we know from study market rate housing every hundred units that are built need 30 units of affordable housing just to support those hundred units of market-based housing assuming of course those are actually occupied as opposed to merely
investment properties. what'sto be said about this but it's not workable . it's partly not workable because you have chosen not to back the arena goals which are ridiculous . thankyou . >> final last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speakcommissioners public comment is closed and the matter is now before you . >>. >> president: i do see commissioner koppel and more in the queue from a bit ago they may not have meant to speak but i do want togive them the opportunity and i see commissioner diamond has also adjourned. do you have something to add ? >> i just want to possibly recuse commissioner ruiz but great work. i'm alwaysimpressed with the environmental review permit
work . >> my name is up for previous consideration . >> iq, commissionerdiamond . >> i had a number of very specific comments on the draft order. although i wanted to start by complementing staffon a very detailed look at a very complicated subject . with kind of an exhaustive review of the disclosure process that i thought it was extremely helpful in decision-making so these are just a few comments on areas that i thought warranted some response from the apartment. so there are a half-dozen of them.the first would be trey eir states in several places that one possible distribution of housing development came up with zoning changes that are
somewhat different than what's shown in the action. in particular, while several of the major commercial corridors are appropriately raised by eight, i previously stated in this hearing i disagree with the policy of increasing the residential streets to 85. that's roughly the equivalent of adding 4 to 6 stories of height on top of the addition to the 2 to 3 story housing stock on the streets. it makes a great deal of sense to me to increase the height when it's on the side streets to 55 feet or in some cases 65 feet and i think raising the height on the side streets to 85 feet unnecessarily disruptive and too massive a shift in character so consequently we're not making the decision today of the recommended zone changes or rate changes but i wanted to make sure the eir was broad enough to cover proposed
rezoning to any changes that maintain or increase 85 feet along the commercial strip but to step down the proposed 85 zone on those residential side streets to 65 or 55. and it's necessary that unit lost by that height decrease should be moved elsewhere on the west side like for example increasing commercial corridors to a higher than 65 feet. some of the corridors are only 65 feet and maybe those to be raised at 85 feet and some of the side streets that are only a 40 feet condensed rate of 55 for those that are 55 can be raised to 65 feet so it's really a concern to make sure that the draft is broad enough to cover zone changes that are not exactly what is proposed but are in character that they ship around some of that density and height. second, and its related and
that is that none of the simulations show what development would look like for residential side street height increases where maybe 55, 65 or 85 the most of the shops there are long-distance use or are just down the commercial streets and i think it would be helpful to add a simulation that better shows what happens on somany of our site streets with these rate increases . third is what it is way too soon to do anything other than speculate i'm curious what point or when or how we go about recognizing that what we're seeing as a result of the pandemic may not be something we necessarily think will recover what money is we may not need as much office downtown as we plan for and some of that space may instead
be developed orredeveloped with residential space .how if and when might that fundamental shift of space downtown and substitute forit . i just thinking about what you're proposing you're on the west side and i recognize it's still very speculative but how does that potential change over the next few years are thinking aboutreviewing on the west side ? fourth point is as we increase density on the west side where going to be losing backyards, increasing shading on the schoolyard while at the same time increasing demand for recreationalfacilities on the west side such as grounds and athletic fields . page 4.1 108 says that although the recommendation all facilities on the left side are larger and far more abundant that the increase in demand as a result of the future
development consistent with the housing development update exceeds the existing capacities of these recreational facilities. the draft eir goes on to state six of the 66 round new recreational facilities are on the left side . that draft eir sites broad policies about park and rec reducing physical degradation but i'm having a hard time based on the information we provided so far following the conclusion of no physical degradation might it be intense to propose increase in use than the proposed action. there's only six of 66 new parts and facilities areplanned for the west side . i'd like to see a lot more supportive information that gets to the eir's conclusion on this point. the point is the focus of this eir is appropriately just on
the housing element. how do we as the planning department and commission ensure the infrastructure needed to serve the initial housing on the west side keep space and i particularly am worried about rate capacity upgrades in particular. it would be helpful to know what coordination happens among the various city departments to ensure that timelines for studying, funding and developing infrastructure is to keep up with the development of the housing rates that we are proposing that's being studied in the draft eir and on six 43 it would be helpful if you could confirm that the mitigation policy pointed out in a preservation alternative is not materially impair the significance of historic resourcesand districts . not just to the ingleside arena but apply generally to the entire west side.
so thank you for taking a look at those comments. >> thank you commissioner diamond. commissioner imperial. >> i put on my closet first. this eir is quite voluminous and there are a lot actually to look through and one thing that i did note is even though it is very comprehensive andvery detailed , in all of the environmental eir, i am looking to the significance unavoidable impacts essentially looking to that first. especially when and one thing
is what commissioner diamond touched on is the issue on the transportation circulation and service systems and those are the two things we are where mitigation is not even feasible moret on that and i suspect that is something that is adequately addressed or perhaps i would like to hear more in terms of whether mitigation or the policies that we will have or the city's plan to do on this. and in other, as to what other public comments were mentioned about the environmental impact on the militia it sounds like this is covered under other areas of noise andvibration, airquality , wind and shadows. however , i think the way we look into this in the
environmental impact aspect is which is already by itself but is kind of fails to connect into what we're always looking at on racial and social equity. when you're looking into this area we really look into the environmental impact but in the way of how we correlate to the racial and social impact i see that we have in table 6.8 there is a project how the alternatives are being met on this but however it's also not adequately i would say explain in terms of the racial social equity so those are my initial comments and i'd like to hear what other commissioners say. >> thankscommissioner imperial, commissioner more .>> we are sharing similar concerns and i support commissioner diamond
and this great list of questions and with what has been said so far the primary objective i would like to see better highlighted in our direct area is not just the fact that they need more development of any kind but a clear emphasis to protection of low and moderate income housing. that falls somewhat by the wayside, the numbers are overwhelming but in the knowledge meant of the fact that we have fallen behind not only since 2514 but even before that i think it is time for us to drive forward and create a clearer understanding of what it takes to meet our housing obligations and how they are addressing thesignificant deficiencies in affordable housing . and all for dealing with the housing element we need to be
clearer in how we address that . and that includes listing implementationtools that seek to achieve better balance . one of the issues as i look at land scarcity as market rate housing novels up land and gets to opportunities for affordable housing i'd like to see the efr address the issue of loss during sealevel rise and costs associated with sealevel rise particularly in the parts of the city that are redoing this look at the potential shift into commissioner diamond where less upper development may create more room for adaptive reuse and the financial district with and i'd like to have a clearer understanding of how downtown is threatened and
how we bring that into the creation of looking ahead to 2050 by which sealevel rise will have overtaken unnoticeable toll on areas that we are currently considering for development. and i've found the discussion that the public as well orthe commissioners that it's interesting . i do believe that we need to take a closer look not only at treatment but also of drinking water and the ability that one of the colleges spokeabout . this is only the beginning of california's returning to conditions with an increase in temperature. i think the availability of drinking water will be critica . together with that i think we need to look at other acts and how weather can affect some
elements of infrastructure that are reduction of electricity and create cleaner electricity and providing the issue of transportation . those are my comments for the moment. the argument is through the document is veryhard to read . the size of the maps and how printed material loses its ability to distinguish between the current being, i wish there would be a better way for people to compare alternatives including understanding where changes within the city of her. it is the scale of the maps and the terms by which a lot of the details are probably verywell thought . and by those people.
i would agree with commissioner diamond on the stimulation and what the impacts are as for section 41 two attend impact, almost theundesirable impacts . or printing them a larger scal . otherwise, thank you and this is the document that requires more timefor us to understand . >> i don't see any other hands. i'll just all the things the commissioners said part of what's coming to my mind is how much this is thinking about what it means to grow as the city and the significant numbers that this cycle is talking about.
it's really unprecedented for us in the space ofwhat seemed like a lot of calamities but at the same time climate change, drought . the loss of population that our city has had the changing shift of jobs. i think we keep feeling like maybe where in this interim where we don't know what's going to happen and that entrance keeps stretching on and on. so it feels a little bit difficult to plan and yes, i think we're doing a good job of thinking about these big systems, transportation, water, aging water and to me there's an environmental impact and that to me is a call to action so what are we going to do and mitigate that, how are we going to fill what we need and that's not just the underground infrastructure butthe people infrastructure, the parks, the open space . things that are not environmental. schools, libraries that will be impacted by the population growth they're planning for and of course this is the 20/50 time period. for some members of thepublic
writing and i think that was confusing . just a lot of comments like were not planning for the right amount of housing and maybe there's work we cando to communicate what and why we're using the 2050 baseline . a lot of emails are saying we're not planning for the muni cycle and maybe that's not what's happeningbut that's what's being perceived by the public. so it's easy for them to understand that timeline . those are all my comments and i don't know ifthere's anything the departmenwants to add . >> i have one more comment if i may . >> go ahead . >> i had written, i would like to have a comment one more time on the numbers that were used. again the state already challenged the numbers and in addition to that i'd like to see a reflection on why san francisco is reporting 6.3 drop in population within the last
year. those are all things that affect our tools and i think it is the incredible magnitude of numbers that we're dealing with where i would like to see the challenge both by the state on or the noted drop in populatio . >> thank you, doctor hill are wegoing to add a comment ? >> i wanted to thank commissioner kern who has been instrumental. he's been quiet here today but yes, i've been quiet too. he's led the charge on the ep side in putting together this document. so he looks too youngso i'm jealous that he is and we will miss him . it's not till july he will be around but probably not. i wanted to thank him for his work . >> thank you for your service on housing element and the many other projects you worked with and i want to thankyou for your service. it's a little bit early but i
just want to celebrate . >> i don't have any remarks prepared asa iq and it's been quite an experience . >> iq. >> i do see a very very late request for public comment, should we take that color. >> we will go tothe caller . >> i just wanted to say thank you. i know you're retiring but i want to say that because of the in terms of this eir i know it's a lot of work for your department. i just want to say that thank you and even though our comments are here and we expect more but the efforts are actually appreciated. >> i think it's good work. it makes us want to know the eir and about what you've written. let's take that comment. >> sorry for the lateness.
my name is gwen harada, i'm a committee organizer and i want to thank the planning departmentfor their long effort on the regularly engaging japan town . i'm concerned that the draft exists and impact japan town. japan townis a city cultural district . and without their resource vetting, especially given the debilitating comments i worry about the state of our community. i support the need but the eir includes proposals that overburden . in particular 2.7 is offered
five times in heightlimits from the current 68 . the housing elementreport in january .it could pose ... [inaudible] which will exert significant action. [inaudible] ... i'm wondering how this priority will align with the portal. if the house ... [inaudible] would that be on assets, after the world war ii and new development.
>> can be that the caller no because we're planning. >> i was going to suggest to the caller and i'mgoing to interrupt you because your time is up . if you're able to hear us your comments were very very choppy. youhad a very bad connection so i encourage you tosubmit your comments in writing via email . >> that would be great . >> and yet another laterequest . >> my name is bruce . i'm with cares community land trust here in san francisco and where a member organization of the planningcoalition . the rep coalition and care cot urges planning commission to thoroughly evaluate the impacts of policies that encourage the demolition and private space needed that the element will have on our communities and on
the environment. we envision work for san francisco that in historically marginalizedcommunities , low income and no income residents and people with disability to determine their future . as eir made all multiple references to planning, the intention of having this be san francisco's first housing element, however the eir is sufficient because it fails the project alternative that centers and prioritizesrace and social equity . the dr fails to study the environmental impacts of gentrification and impact speech to states that proposed action will have substantial numbers of housing units assess theconstruction of affordable housing . during the current housing element cycle thousands of
minutes have been demolished and this new housing development callsfor demolition of existing housing . this new eir is sufficient and that grossly underestimates the environmental impacts that would be felt as recommended by this housing element. by not truly centering housing elements on racial and social equity this housing element will cause displacement on a scale that urban renewal will look quaint. if we don't prioritize affordable housing first ... >> you have reached your time. >> supported housing communities ... >> type user, that is your time. thank you commissioners, that concludes the public comment portion. >> president: did you have an
>> my name is kathy mccall. i'm director of san francisco national cemetery here on the presidio of san francisco. this was designated as the first national cemetery on the west coast in 1884.however its history dates back to the 1850s along with the us army presence on the presidio itself. we have 26,300 gravesites that we maintain and thereare 32,000 individuals buried in this cemetery . the veterans who are buried here span all the war period going back to what we call the indian war, spanish-american war, world war i to korea, vietnam and then as recent as operation iraqifreedom . we have 39 medal of honor
recipients. more than 400 buffalo soldiers buried here who are the african-americansoldiers who served with the ninth and 10th calvary . there's so many veterans buried here, each withtheir own unique history and contribution . one of those individuals is all equipment prior. that's not her real name, that's her stage name and she was an actor during the civil war and while she was working she was approached by sympathizers who offered her a sum of money to cost jefferson davis on stage she did this but she recorded it to a union marshall . she was fired for doing this which made her a sweetheart to the local confederates and made her a good spy for the union. she gave information to the
union until late 1863 when she was found out in order to be hung by confederate general braxton bragg of the union troops the town . no longer any good she even wrote a book. she was given the honorary rank of major president lincoln and her inscription reads union spy. >> memorial day is a day of respect and morning for our veterans who have given their all five presidential proclamation it became a national holiday to beobserved on the last monday of the month of may . originally memorial day was called decoration day during the civil war to recognize the veterans whogave their lives . memorial day and veterans day getconfused because it involves veterans .veterans day is on november 11 is a day to honor our veterans who are still alive while at the same time we
pay respect to those who have passed but memorial day is a day to show our respect to what was said and honor ourveterans who have passed on . >> lieutenant john david miley was a graduate of the united states military academy atwest point in 1887 . he was commissioned as a second lieutenant with the fifth artillery regiment with the outbreak of the spanish-american war in 1898 he was assigned an aide-de-camp to major general william shatner, khmer and commander of the expedition to cuba.he was highly trusted and when the general staff fell lieutenant miley was designed to coordinate the attack on san juan hill in his place and would ultimately be the one to give the order that led to the charge of lieutenant colonel theodore roosevelt and the roughriders .
a few days later he served as one of the commissioners who negotiated the spanish surrender of santiago july 17. in 1904 miley in san francisco wasnamed in his honor.we know that today as san francisco va medical center . >> as a young man i grew up in south san francisco right next door to the national cemetery so when i became a cub scout we used to go over there in the 50s and decorate the gravesthat were there. when i got out of the service i stepped right back into it . went out with the boy scouts and put up the flags every year and eventually ended up being a scout at golden gate cemetery for many years. one day a gentleman walked upto me with a uniform of colonel retired . he grabbed me, i wasin uniform and says i need your help . from that day on i worked with
cardinal sullivan doing military funerals and formed a group called the volunteers of america who brought in other veterans to perform military service and the closing of all the bases we got military personnel to do all the funerals. to this day i've done over 7000 funeral services and with my group we supplement the military, all branches. i'm honoring a fellow comrade was given his or her life in service to this country. and the way ilook at it , the last thing the family and friends will remember about that individual is the final service we give to them. so we have to do a perfect job. so that they go home with good memories. >> our nation flies the united states flag at half staff by
presidentialproclamation as a symbol of mourning . also in va national cemetery flags are flown at half staff on the days we haveburials . is lowered to half staff before the first burial takes place and ray is back to full staff after the last arial has been completed . on memorial day weekend we have hundreds of scouts veterans and volunteers who come out and placed individual gravesite flags on every grave throughout the cemetery transformation from when they begin to when they conclude and to have that coupled with our memorial day ceremony is very moving and suchappointment reminder of the cost of our freedom . it's a reminderto us not to take that for granted , to be truly grateful for the price is paid not only by those who given their lives but those will have served our country and still pay the price today
in one way or another and it's so meaningful to be to work in the national cemetery and see the history around us and to know this is such an integral part of our nation's past and present. >> >> everything we do in the tenderloin, we urban outfit. here, this gives us an opportunity to collaborate with other agencies and we become familiar with how other agencies operate and allow us to be more flexible and get
better at what we depo in the line of work in this task. >> sometimes you go down and it's hard to get up. so we see ourselves as providing an opportunity for the unhoused to get up. and so i really believe that when they come here and they've said it, this right here is absolutely needed. you can't ask for nothing better. >> the tenderloin is the stuff that ain't on the list of remedies, liked the spiritual connection to recovery and why would i? why would i recover? what have i got to live for? things like that. and sharing the stories. like i was homeless and just the team. and some people need that extra connection on why they can change their life or how they could. >> we have a lot of guests that will come in and say i would like -- you know, i need help with shelter, food, and primary care doctor. and so here, that's three rooms down the hall.
so if you book them, they get all of their needs taken care of in one go. this is an opportunity for us here in the tenderloin to come together, try out these ideas to see if we can put -- get -- connect people to services in a >> chinatown battleground is something i have always wanted to do because we have never had the chinese americans in the military. our history goes back all the way to 1861 to afghanistan. the exhibition is two-parts. one is a visual history which is told through the banners. then basically what i wanted to do was make sure that people understood that every one of these objects tell a story.
for example, my uncle was one of two chinese american pilots during world war ii. they come planed they were giving baggy men's coveralls to wear. we have a veteran of the war. now what is notable is that he is the first and only chinese american prisoner of war. we have the met kit. that was the only thing he has for water, rice and soup. he carried for over four and a half years in captivity as prisoner of war. this exhibition is a first base undertaking. also important and i want to
take away the big picture that the chinese americans have been involved in united states military since the civil war, over 150 years. we have given service to the country, blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice for a long time. our story of chinese americans are part of the mainstream. chinese american history is american history that is the take away i want to come off with, especially the younger generation. .♪
♪ this project is another ♪ ♪ collective win affordable ♪ ♪ housing for the mission and ♪ ♪ san francisco.♪ ♪ to me this project is all ♪ ♪ about building community ♪ ♪ through advocacy, capacity ♪ ♪ building and partnership.♪ ♪ it is a combination of this ♪ ♪ housing development along ♪ ♪ with the park next to us ♪ ♪ that is making me a little ♪ ♪ bit nostalgic because the ♪ ♪ roots of this project are ♪ ♪ longhard-fought winsfor the ♪ ♪ mission .♪ ♪ by the mission .♪ ♪ for they led the effort in ♪ ♪ creating the park and then ♪ ♪ led on the affordable ♪ ♪ housingside of things .♪ ♪ for many of us back in 1999, ♪ ♪ 2000 with the creation of ♪ ♪ the mission outside♪ ♪ displacement coalition .♪ ♪ which fought the first wave ♪ ♪ of displacement resulting ♪
♪ from the tech boom.♪ ♪ at that time, those efforts ♪ ♪ included carlos romero, eric ♪ ♪ estrada, antonio diaz and ♪ ♪ ana maria loyola among ♪ ♪ others.♪ ♪ back then, i was a district ♪ ♪ 9 supervisor andwillie brown ♪ ♪ was mayor .♪ ♪ it has been that ♪ ♪ long-standing advocacy as in ♪ ♪ part led to the creation of ♪ ♪ this and othersimilar ♪ ♪ projects in our neighborhood ♪ ♪ .♪ ♪ however this project story ♪ ♪ is also very much about ♪ ♪ having the technical ♪ ♪ capacity to make thisproject ♪ ♪ and other similar projects a ♪ ♪ reality .♪ ♪ with a focus on housing ♪ ♪ latino families, providing ♪ ♪ permanent space to ♪ ♪ organizations serving latino ♪
♪ children and youth and the ♪ ♪ art which speaks to the ♪ ♪ issues of ourcommunity ♪ ♪ created by artists in our ♪ ♪ community and from our ♪ ♪ community ♪ ♪ this project verymuch feels ♪ ♪ like it belongs in the ♪ ♪ mission .♪ ♪ it is the mission .♪ ♪ it is projects like this ♪ ♪ that showcase what a ♪ ♪ difference it makes to have ♪ ♪ the technical capacity to ♪ ♪ develop affordable housing ♪ ♪ by our organizations led by ♪ ♪ people of color for people ♪ ♪ of color.♪ ♪ let me say that again♪ ♪ organizations led by people ♪ ♪ of color focused on people ♪ ♪ of color .♪ ♪ and mehta we know despite ♪ ♪ all the efforts and work ♪ ♪ this project was possible ♪ ♪ through a strong partnership♪ ♪ , in particular iwant to ♪ ♪ highlight the partnership of ♪ ♪ chinatown community ♪ ♪ development center which has ♪ ♪ been invaluable in creating ♪ ♪ this project .♪
♪ [applause] through malcolm ♪ ♪ young specifically partnered ♪ ♪ with mehta intentionally to ♪ ♪ leverage the extensive ♪ ♪ developerexperience to help ♪ ♪ mehta grow a track record as ♪ ♪ an affordable housing ♪ ♪ developer .♪ ♪ paying it forward mehta is ♪ ♪ working to help other ♪ ♪ organizations and in the ♪ ♪ country by the way to ♪ ♪ develop their own capacity ♪ ♪ and track record as ♪ ♪ up-and-comingaffordable ♪ ♪ housing developers .♪ ♪ fast forward 20 years later, ♪ ♪ given the collective ♪ ♪ advocacy efforts building ♪ ♪ meda's technical capacity ♪ ♪ and port partnerships, we ♪ ♪ now have 126 units ♪ ♪ affordable housing project ♪ ♪ with commercial space ♪ ♪ providing prominent ♪ ♪ locations to four of our ♪ ♪ long-standing many partners, ♪ ♪ sitting in front of a ♪ ♪ beautiful park.♪ ♪ [applause] this is how to ♪
♪ build a community in the♪ ♪ mission.♪ ♪ this feels like the mission ♪ ♪ .♪ ♪ so i will end my statement ♪ ♪ by sharing my gratitude to ♪ ♪ all of us who have ♪ ♪ contributed to making this ♪ ♪ project happen.♪ ♪ start with speaker pelosi, ♪ ♪ to secure a $2 million ♪ ♪ appropriation that will help ♪ ♪ out unity partners carry out ♪ ♪ their statements.♪ ♪ and there's mayor breed ♪ ♪ whose administration has ♪ ♪ been key in assuring the ♪ ♪ affordable housing in the ♪ ♪ mission insan francisco ♪ ♪ remains a top priority .♪ ♪ us that provided the ♪ ♪ financing for this project ♪ ♪ and has been a strong ♪ ♪ partner at meda for over 20 ♪ ♪ years, about 12 years ago ♪ ♪ they financed possibility ♪ ♪ when noone else would do it ♪ ♪ .♪ ♪ again see cdc for your ♪ ♪ partnership.♪
♪ i still want to thank the ♪ ♪ meda board of directors ♪ ♪ that's provided guidance and ♪ ♪ support as we became ♪ ♪ affordable housing ♪ ♪ developers over the last ♪ ♪ eight years and they trusted ♪ ♪ we would know what we were ♪ ♪ doing and we were going to ♪ ♪ take care of their ♪ ♪ organization let the tail ♪ ♪ wag the dog.♪ ♪ but i also must thank our ♪ ♪ meda staff.♪ ♪ so for me, working with them ♪ ♪ i've seen the remarkable ♪ ♪ abilityfor them to be ♪ ♪ audacious by adapting and ♪ ♪ fitting to meet the needs of ♪ ♪ our community at any moment ♪ ♪ .♪ ♪ during covid, after covid.♪ ♪ our next speaker has worked ♪ ♪ so veryhard to make this ♪ ♪ project happen .♪ ♪ you very much caroline.♪ ♪ [applause] ♪
♪ >> thank you lewis.♪ ♪ good afternoon.♪ ♪ welcome.♪ ♪ the encinitas.♪ ♪ as i look around this ♪ ♪ amazing building and i don't ♪ ♪ think i really fully ♪ ♪ conceptualized how amazing ♪ ♪ it is the way we ♪ ♪ conceptualized one word ♪ ♪ comes to mind.community.♪ ♪ the communities that brought ♪ ♪ this from a large parking ♪ ♪ lot and fought so hard to ♪ ♪ make it into affordable ♪ ♪ housing and a part.♪ ♪ our community members who ♪ ♪ nowcall the building home .♪ ♪ 126 households.♪ ♪ and the community anchors♪ ♪ that now have permanent ♪ ♪ homes in the mission .♪ ♪ we welcome all of you to ♪ ♪ your new home in the heart ♪ ♪ of themission .♪ ♪ [applause] ♪ ♪ >> when we first♪
♪ conceptualized this building ♪ ♪ as i housing opportunity♪ ♪ facing the park we were a ♪ ♪ neighborhood in transition .♪ ♪ our families were fighting ♪ ♪ for their roots in the ♪ ♪ mission .♪ ♪ wewanted 20/60 ♪ ♪ cannot just be the fight but ♪ ♪ be the future for our ♪ ♪ families .♪ ♪ from our 125+ homes we ♪ ♪ intentionally established 29 ♪ ♪ homes for transition age ♪ ♪ youth for the future of our ♪ ♪ community.♪ ♪ and an additional 89 for our ♪ ♪ families two and three ♪ ♪ bedroom homes so that they ♪ ♪ could have the space that ♪ ♪ they needed and deserved.♪ ♪ and if the pandemic has ♪ ♪ taught us anything that ♪ ♪ space isreally important.♪ ♪ housing is health .casa ♪ ♪ adelante is the future of ♪ ♪ energy.♪ ♪ as the.♪ ♪ first fossil fuel free large ♪ ♪ all electricaffordable ♪ ♪ housing building in san ♪ ♪ francisco .♪ ♪ [applause] today is the day ♪ ♪ for celebration and ♪
♪ gratitude.♪ ♪ we're celebrating obviously ♪ ♪ all of us are here to ♪ ♪ celebrate the trend of ♪ ♪ displacement for latinos in ♪ ♪ the mission♪ ♪ immigrants and ♪ ♪ community-based ♪ ♪ organizations can now say .♪ ♪ we're also offeringgratitude ♪ ♪ to our mayan elders, our ♪ ♪ community members .our ♪ ♪ residents.♪ ♪ elaine e, r deputy director ♪ ♪ of community real estate who ♪ ♪ was our team and partners ♪ ♪ from chinatown led the ♪ ♪ development of the building ♪ ♪ from our proposal that we ♪ ♪ put in front of mohcd to ♪ ♪ what you see today.♪ ♪ larkin street youth center ♪ ♪ forproviding on-site ♪ ♪ programs , our architects ♪ ♪ and why a studio.♪ ♪ our contractor robert ♪ ♪ kobayashi and our funders ♪ ♪ we'll get to hear from in a ♪
♪ bit.♪ ♪ i want to offer a tribute to ♪ ♪ the late artist yolanda ♪ ♪ lopez.♪ ♪ with herlegacy celebrated on ♪ ♪ the north wall of this ♪ ♪ policy i hope you guys get ♪ ♪ to turn around and see it on ♪ ♪ the other side.♪ ♪ it was designed by talented ♪ ♪ your list .♪ ♪ the four walls now the ♪ ♪ towering portrait of yolanda ♪ ♪ whose art focused on the ♪ ♪ experiences of mexican ♪ ♪ american and working-class ♪ ♪ women and she challenged ♪ ♪ ethnic stereotypes featuring ♪ ♪ the blackpanthers and ♪ ♪ slogans from our past social ♪ ♪ justice movement .♪ ♪ she represented our past and ♪ ♪ future.♪ ♪ this is truly been a ♪ ♪ collective achievement and ♪ ♪ meda looks forwardto ♪ ♪ continuing to build with ♪ ♪ you.♪ ♪ you .♪
♪ >> good afternoon everyone.♪ ♪ and you be okay?♪ ♪ good.♪ ♪ my name is also the ds and i ♪ ♪ am honored to be at this ♪ ♪ grand opening or casa ♪ ♪ adelante.♪ ♪ this day and this place is ♪ ♪ very special as luis ♪ ♪ mentioned we are here ♪ ♪ because of community ♪ ♪ organizing and community ♪ ♪ planning led by community ♪ ♪ members, artists, small ♪ ♪ businesses and ♪ ♪ community-based ♪ ♪ organizations in 2000.♪ ♪ over 20 years ago to make ♪ ♪ this a reality.♪ ♪ and i'm grateful to see the ♪ ♪ seeds of the vision of the ♪ ♪ people's plan.♪ ♪ meda and any other ♪ ♪ organizations organized ♪ ♪ outside the coalition.♪ ♪ it's all electric 100 ♪
♪ percent affordable housing ♪ ♪ building right next door to ♪ ♪ thisbeautiful park and ♪ ♪ guarded .♪ ♪ truly a community asset and ♪ ♪ a win environmental and ♪ ♪ climate justice and i also ♪ ♪ want to say that this is ♪ ♪ here because of a commitment ♪ ♪ to build a better ♪ ♪ neighborhood for the same ♪ ♪ neighbors.that community ♪ ♪ leaders such as our ♪ ♪ assembly.♪ ♪ maria out perez who are here ♪ ♪ today.and we honor their ♪ ♪ work and i invitethem to ♪ ♪ come up and say a few words ♪ ♪ .♪ ♪ [applause] [applause] ♪ ♪ >>.♪
♪ >>.♪ ♪ [speaking spanish] ... ♪ ♪ [speaking spanish] ♪ ♪ [applause] ♪ ♪ >> she is a very ♪ ♪ inspirational speaker so i ♪ ♪ don't know if i can catch ♪ ♪ all that but she said this ♪ ♪ isn't just going to be on we ♪ ♪ will have for this year, we ♪ ♪ willbe celebrating every ♪ ♪ year .♪ ♪ to have housing where we can ♪ ♪ live and support that we♪ ♪ continue organizing .♪ ♪ that's important for the ♪ ♪ mayor to be here not just to ♪ ♪ cut theribbon but to work ♪ ♪ with us to make things like ♪ ♪ this happen .♪ ♪ >>.♪ ♪ [speaking spanish] so thank ♪ ♪ you and may you continue ♪
♪ working hand-in-hand with ♪ ♪ all the politicians and♪ ♪ everyone else .♪ ♪ >>.♪ ♪ [speaking spanish] ♪ ♪ >>.♪ ♪ [speaking spanish] maria is ♪ ♪ very emotional about seeing ♪ ♪ this project come to life.♪ ♪ it's very moving and yes, we♪ ♪ can win .♪ ♪ [applause] so in closing i ♪ ♪ just want to offer an ♪ ♪ invitation to all the ♪ ♪ partners, lenders, ♪
♪ decision-makers that are ♪ ♪ here with us today.♪ ♪ to continue tocollaborate ♪ ♪ with us .♪ ♪ and to work and invest in ♪ ♪ community rooted solutions ♪ ♪ because as the companyarose ♪ ♪ have been saying we can win ♪ ♪ .[applause] ♪ ♪ >> good afternoon.♪ ♪ good afternoon.♪ ♪ thank you.♪ ♪ my name is michelle, i'm ♪ ♪ proud to introduce myself as ♪ ♪ executive director.♪ ♪ shout out to every artist in ♪ ♪ the room.♪ ♪ every arts organizer, every ♪ ♪ cultural leader.♪ ♪ shout out to you.♪ ♪ let's give itup for all the ♪ ♪ artists in this space .♪
♪ i have all of three minutes ♪ ♪ here tothank all the people ♪ ♪ that have made this happen .♪ ♪ 25 years ago i was 19, 20 ♪ ♪ years old.♪ ♪ my first open mic wasin that ♪ ♪ green building across the ♪ ♪ street 25 years ago .♪ ♪ if it were not for the work ♪ ♪ of christie johnson, meda, ♪ ♪ the office of economic♪ ♪ workforce development, the♪ ♪ office of mayor london ♪ ♪ breathe, we would not be ♪ ♪ here so i want to pay the ♪ ♪ first of all to christie .♪ ♪ yes ♪ ♪ let's celebrate, yes.♪ ♪ i also want to thank our ♪ ♪ partners .♪ ♪ there are four arts ♪ ♪ organizations, community ♪ ♪ building youth organizations ♪ ♪ that are here.♪ ♪ we are so proud and honored ♪ ♪ that meda, chinatown edc and ♪ ♪ city of san francisco is ♪ ♪ honoring youth and cultural ♪ ♪ leaders that are established ♪ ♪ in this community.♪
♪ yes?♪ ♪ i'm not sure.♪ ♪ yes.♪ ♪ i promise i'm going to get ♪ ♪ off in 2 seconds but i must ♪ ♪ say this.♪ ♪ you speak and first ♪ ♪ exposures, the director is ♪ ♪ righthere.♪ ♪ i just wanted to say hi eric ♪ ♪ .♪ ♪ you may be here together in ♪ ♪ this moment because we ♪ ♪ believe in a young person's ♪ ♪ ability to change the world ♪ ♪ throughtheir words .♪ ♪ there wonder, their♪ ♪ imagination .♪ ♪ 25 years ago youth speak was ♪ ♪ founded on the social and ♪ ♪ cultural imperative that ♪ ♪ says we must seekout the ♪ ♪ voices , the texts and the ♪ ♪ narrative of solidarity and ♪ ♪ love.♪ ♪ yes?♪ ♪ especially when our stories ♪ ♪ have beenexcluded from the ♪ ♪ dominant american narrative, ♪ ♪ yes ?♪ ♪ this is a part of that ♪ ♪ larger story♪ ♪ so i'm going to stop talking ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ you're welcome .♪ ♪ i am so excited to introduce ♪
♪ the money who to me ♪ ♪ represents our vision both ♪ ♪ at sf and youth speaks.♪ ♪ miss zoe corrado.♪ ♪ zoe is a 17-year-old, can i♪ ♪ read it ?♪ ♪ 17-year-old spoken word poet ♪ ♪ and musician.♪ ♪ she is also the alamedayouth ♪ ♪ poet laureate .♪ ♪ the inaugural youth poet ♪ ♪ laureate of alameda county ♪ ♪ andserved on our youth ♪ ♪ advisory board .♪ ♪ please put your hands ♪ ♪ together in bringing up zoe ♪ ♪ dorado.♪ ♪ [applause] ♪ ♪ >>.♪ ♪ >> hey everyone.♪ ♪ i wrote this poem about a ♪ ♪ year ago so let's see, ♪ ♪ perpetual violence that has ♪ ♪ happened in the past few ♪ ♪ weeks i thought would be ♪ ♪ important to hear this poem ♪ ♪ and share it with you today♪
♪ so this is called we briefed ♪ ♪ .♪ ♪ lola slips murmur out of ♪ ♪ morningbreath .♪ ♪ reuse out her skeleton and ♪ ♪ her mother's voice sits.♪ ♪ yes but also because isn't ♪ ♪ thishow you wake ?♪ ♪ you think of the body from ♪ ♪ sleep through the bodies of ♪ ♪ her hallway.♪ ♪ she asks if i do want to ♪ ♪ wake up at 7:30 and maybe ♪ ♪ since i stopped going to ♪ ♪ church years ago.♪ ♪ so now lola lisle wheaties ♪ ♪ alone at half mast as i ♪ ♪ caught myself asking her to ♪ ♪ stay home stay home because ♪ ♪ streets somewhat sometimes ♪ ♪ carry brett.♪ ♪ maybe it's always been like ♪ ♪ this lying in wait because ♪ ♪ he cries 164 percent since a ♪ ♪ year ago says 283 percent ♪ ♪ since yesterday.♪ ♪ an 80-year-old asian man was♪ ♪ attacked there by a group of ♪ ♪ black and brown boys .♪
♪ one year more than me ♪ ♪ another one year with my ♪ ♪ little sister.♪ ♪ we were 11 and 17.♪ ♪ since watched it all happen ♪ ♪ through a screen.♪ ♪ the one i hold in my hand ♪ ♪ who grew so many days until ♪ ♪ i down the dirt so i tried ♪ ♪ to dig out the dogma axes to ♪ ♪ the bone marrow of our blood ♪ ♪ is another way of saying ♪ ♪ this is another way of ♪ ♪ saying violencebetween ♪ ♪ communities of color begins♪ ♪ with this .♪ ♪ we begin with peter lang , a ♪ ♪ cop shop.♪ ♪ a 29-year-old latin american ♪ ♪ or when a filipino american ♪ ♪ was walking near times ♪ ♪ square and was attacked by ♪ ♪ brandon elliott a security ♪ ♪ guard walking alongside the ♪ ♪ lobby to close the door.♪ ♪ another form of violence in ♪ ♪ which we pledge our bodies ♪ ♪ inside our own diaphragms so ♪ ♪ we can hold our shoulders ♪ ♪ in, down.♪
♪ because we didn't breathe ♪ ♪ the same air as that sister ♪ ♪ did because we didn't carry ♪ ♪ aweapon in our mouse , ♪ ♪ typing it in strategically ♪ ♪ and then call the neighbors ♪ ♪ other.♪ ♪ call country and continent a ♪ ♪ disease.♪ ♪ creep across each other's ♪ ♪ backboneand asked how it got ♪ ♪ there.♪ ♪ america , my♪ ♪ immunocompromised country .♪ ♪ will you cross a ♪ ♪ bloodstained anatomy and ♪ ♪ look, see what we all need.♪ ♪ you evoke the soilin my ♪ ♪ lowest garland .♪ ♪ so the seeds and also under ♪ ♪ that blackberries blackand ♪ ♪ brown bodies .♪ ♪ the ones that wound ♪ ♪ themselves through the break ♪ ♪ of arms and legs for what ♪ ♪ you grow and i say our ♪ ♪ histories are intertwined ♪ ♪ but i mean that we weave the♪ ♪ same air .♪ ♪ the kind that countries ♪
♪ claiming other countries, ♪ ♪ the wide kind that white ♪ ♪ supremacy likes also, the ♪ ♪ kind that circulated a ♪ ♪ filipino american war when ♪ ♪ black american soldiers ♪ ♪ chose to fightalongside ♪ ♪ filipinos .♪ ♪ the kind of uproots ♪ ♪ colonialism who called ♪ ♪ ethnicstudies in 1965 during ♪ ♪ the deliberations right .♪ ♪ how the list isn't finished ♪ ♪ yet and wego to the streets ♪ ♪ when one of us calls .♪ ♪ how we hold ourselves gently ♪ ♪ but alsohold ourselves ♪ ♪ accountable and the same for ♪ ♪ those around us .♪ ♪ which is another way of ♪ ♪ saying this country needs to ♪ ♪ call itself out and call ♪ ♪ himself in the country ♪ ♪ willing to share the same ♪ ♪ breath.♪ ♪ to read the same air.♪ ♪ placing our hands to chest ♪ ♪ and belly.♪ ♪ keep the other way.♪ ♪ to face that type of ♪ ♪ otherness instead of our ♪ ♪ name.♪ ♪ we allies the names of black ♪ ♪ and asianamerican activists, ♪
♪ to audrey lord .♪ ♪ glenn, miriam.♪ ♪ pay homage to my teachers ♪ ♪ and bus drivers who helped ♪ ♪ and healthcare workers like ♪ ♪ my mom.♪ ♪ our singular exhale in.♪ ♪ the union of filipino and ♪ ♪ mexican immigrants passing ♪ ♪ on a singular bus ♪ ♪ celebrating, still alive.♪ ♪ filled up waking up in the ♪ ♪ morning.♪ ♪ still her body aching, our ♪ ♪ bodies aching and tired.♪ ♪ what is work without ♪ ♪ movement?♪ ♪ not the willingness to ♪ ♪ attach, receive andpass on .♪ ♪ not us breathing ourselves ♪ ♪ in.♪ ♪ my instinct.♪ ♪ thank you.♪ ♪ [applause] ♪
♪ >> how do i follow that?♪ ♪ that was beautiful.that ♪ ♪ was beautiful.♪ ♪ thank you.♪ ♪ thank you.♪ ♪ good afternoon everyone.♪ ♪ my name is sherry and i'm ♪ ♪ one of the residents here at ♪ ♪ 2060..♪ ♪ i've been here for a little ♪ ♪ bit lessthan a year and i'm ♪ ♪ here to speak about my , ♪ ♪ there is.♪ ♪ i want to say that first and ♪ ♪ foremost i am grateful.♪ ♪ i am absolutely grateful for ♪ ♪ the experience to be able to ♪
♪ live in a community in which ♪ ♪ i can actually grow roots♪ ♪ here not have the fear of ♪ ♪ being upgraded .♪ ♪ and so i'm grateful to all ♪ ♪ of you who've gotten ♪ ♪ together andhave made this ♪ ♪ happen .♪ ♪ [applause] so the beautiful ♪ ♪ thing about being here is ♪ ♪ what i've experienced is ♪ ♪ this is a reflection of my ♪ ♪ own culture.♪ ♪ i am biracial, filipino and ♪ ♪ black american and i have a ♪ ♪ son who is six years old and ♪ ♪ he's.. so i call him my ♪ ♪ future baby.♪ ♪ truly he is a reflection of ♪ ♪ this community and i'm so ♪ ♪ grateful to be raised around♪ ♪ children who look like him .♪ ♪ and who he can actually ♪ ♪ relate to.♪ ♪ again we are here andwhere ♪ ♪ rooted and he had grow up ♪
♪ with them and not have this ♪ ♪ fear of making friends and ♪ ♪ then leaving .♪ ♪ i'm also an entrepreneur so ♪ ♪ this building has been ♪ ♪ giving me the opportunity to ♪ ♪ continue running my own ♪ ♪ company where i've been able ♪ ♪ to own my own time and the ♪ ♪ one thing i do understand is ♪ ♪ everything starts with an ♪ ♪ idea and it starts with a ♪ ♪ unique idea and in order for ♪ ♪ you to be successful in that ♪ ♪ idea you need five things.♪ ♪ you needtime.♪ ♪ you need support . you need energy, resources and funds and you need that division so everyone can see and follow and align themselves with what this community is. we all have a mission that's our call to duty. what do we need need to do to make this happen and it has to be instilled in values in which we can all come together and have a gut check.
when you havethis type of community where you have differentcultures coming together with different economic backgrounds, there is somewhat of an explosion that happens . so everyone has to get to know one another . i have to know what works for meand i think that we are forced to understand one another in this type of capacity . i'm so grateful that i also see there's also community organizations here because i do have a creative myself i connect to the essence of who they are and i really am about the grand experience. i do consulting anddesign work. it is really about how you want to feel when you get there . i think that's what it's about andif any of you do energy work like i do , you're going to manifest how you feel so if you want to feel safe youhave to surround yourself with people who are safe . if you want to feel like that you have security, you have to
make sure that you're surrounded by people have that same type of understanding. but i think the one thing that starts every one off the starting line is the way you think and your philosophy. you have to be on that same page in order to nurture one another so i'm grateful for the organizations thatare here . i'm excited for my sons to be exposed to that type of energy. i want to get too much time what i'm grateful forthe part. it's so nice to have that as in our front yard . that's what i call it. that's our cart. and i love that it's open to the community because my son makes friends every day. new friends every day so it's beautiful. i've also been able to support the surrounding organizations and companies. that live and run their businesses so for me it's about
how i feel if i'm going to spend my resources so they make me feel like i'm a part of the family as well so i'm going to invest in their success and they add to the community here . one thing i do know is when you launcha brand is that you have to manage it and that has to be based off of what are the benefits , how do we all processed on the amicable culture of the community and i think he to this community is that we have so many different cultures coming together in which we can learn from one another and to this community and right now we're kind of a blank slate in a way so we're waiting for that to happen and so that's kind of where i am right now is definitely the management of it. i love how clean it is and i love for them to keep this budget to be able to keep it clean like this.it's awesome, right? and as far as like safety and
security i hope that's also a priority here because the community i would hate for something to happen to my neighbors . because we all kind of look out for each other and that's what's running to the businesses aroundhere is looking out for each other so would hope we would create a community of safety and security . andconvenience for everyone . so thank you again to everyone who made this possible . ijust want to let you know that the work that you put in has made a huge difference . [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is now, young chinatown community development center. you know, i had a written speech. it was on my phone. forget it, i'm not going to
bother. you can't follow zoe dorado with a written speech so i'm going to speak from myheart . this has been a heavy weekfor us so i'm grateful to be here . just yesterday we had a fire in one of our buildings. we had a stabbing. fatality in front of another and sometimes it makes you question how hard this work is. how challenging day-to-day can be. but coming to a moment like this,seeing this building, seeing the residence here , seeing the leaders here reminds me of why we do this and why we struggle through the hard parts of this work to makethe great part-time . i want to thank course all the partners have been here today . i have made thishappen . i do of course want to get a special shout out to our team chinatown. whitney and kim back there, the way your hands. i was going to call youguys up but i forgot to read my speech
. thank you so much to the hard work ofthe chinatown team . due to the partnership with meda. thank you meda for choosing us to be yourpartners, frankly and i want to make three points . i was trying to be inspirational but ican't after all these incrediblespeakers . one , i find it amazing that this building is not a hold to residents but home to a bunch of community-basedorganizations . because to me housing at the very top level is a place of stability . it's a place to make whole. it's a place to rest and a place to find shelter away from all the hard things in the world but when we care for buildings, when we care for residents and our communities the residence can do miraculous things and get back and i think they can get back by becoming theleaders , the future leaders forcommunities like the mission
. they can be the next hillary ronan, the next london breeze. that i think is going to be the gift of this building back to this community so iwanted to acknowledge that. that housing is not just housing . it's a place to grow leadership if we do it right and we need to do it right. the second point i want to make is that this relationship that we have with meda i deeply cherish. and i've come to cherish it even more in this moment where we have so much tension and he is in our communities, within our communities, withinour city . the fact that we can sit down with the mission-based organization. do something so special to, physically build a building together means in many ways we are married to this and it means when we have issues with each other we have to talk. we have to work it out. we have to go home at night and
have dinner. we have to talk, we have to work it out and i hope and i want that relationship to extend beyond this organization but also into our communities andmake this a bridge or communities like chinatown, like mission share so much in common , we are working folks, we're in a way where housing, we the places where in his really really for me incredibly gratifying that we can be part of meda's journey to become an anchor for this community to build housing, to control its assets and fulfill this vision of my talk lead cc and i want topoint at eric because i know you share that vision and that's why i love you . don't know if you talk about it publicly but when we talk behind closed doors eric knows that's where he wants to go and he wants his city to go and i
think that's exactly where we need to go . sothank you meda for letting us be a part of that . the last thing i also want to say is that chinatown cdc is. we're going to be in this buildinga little bit and continue to property management and provide resident services but i want to be clear about our intention . this is a building run by the mission and it is our intention mohcd, when you guys are ready and of course meda when you're ready our intention to make sure this building becomes meda's so in mission-based organization can run a mission-based building and we canjust be a friend at that point . so luis the entire community, iq for letting us be a part of this. this is an inspiring moment i needed this and i'm so glad i can be here today . [applause]
>> good afternoon everybody. my name is hillary ronen and i'm the lucky one that gets to be the supervisor of this district and i thought i was goingto be lucky going after malcolm . then they have to give this amazing inspiring speech. you guys havereally the anti-here . i just want to say that we've gotten so lucky. i feel madame mayor that we're always in the mission doing these groundbreaking's and it is the best by far part of our jobs. really nothing brings us more happiness and much more joy and more of a sense of accomplishment but i have to say this building is even extra special. i don't know about all of you but when i write down all. and i see your gorgeous
beautiful face staring down at me all that difficult stuff malcolm was talking about just sheds away and i remember how they had this vision for this space where they wanted part because there wasn't enough green and open space on the side of the mission and how they wanted affordable housing with community-based organizations on the ground floor. maria was there, miriam was there and antonio was there. so much of their families and it was just a dream. to now see the reality, see the kids playing and seeing this marriage between two noxious affordable housing developers but community-based affordable housing developers . it's just like's the load and reminds us that we're going to be okay. at times are tough, they seem
to be getting taller and tougher but when we got each other's backs and we work together that were going to be okay and we can makedreams a reality . congratulations . thank you forproducing this building . that makes me feelbetter every time i nearest thanks for all your inspiration . congratulations. >> good afternoon everyone. i'm withu.s. bank community development corporation . like malcolm i had written statements i was going to share with you ridof a lot of numbers . things to do and all that but i really can't. i was inspired by your work. the 20 years that you've been fighting for this project . i'm honored to be here. i'm also here to let you know that behind the stereotypical bankers there is a lot of
people who truly care about what we do. it's not about the numbers, about change. it's about changing people's lives about changing neighborhoods. about asking forwhat you want whenyour voices are not heard . but we hear you . we truly are you. i've worked with an organization with 600+ people atthis point fordedicated to making the world a better place . numbers matter . we're still dangerous,however it's the human story . it'syour stories . it's your poem that was so touching especially during this time . whether it be local or state or international, your poem really touched a nerve and i thankyou for that . i'm going to take your stories. the end of the day we sell a story. the numbers are there but it's
the story that makes the difference. thank you very much for letting usbe here . i really appreciate it. it's an amazing project. both meda, i really appreciate. [applause] >> good afternoon. i'm the executive director of the california council and i am so excited to be withyou here today . one of the distinct privileges i have within my organization is in partnership with housing and community development leaving the affordable housing sustainablekennedys program which one of the funding streams help make this project a reality today . and our core mission and my organization is to create a lead, thriving communities and said to support that
self-determined goal and when i look around today i see help and i see a community thathas come together to make an incredible project come to life so congratulations to all of you . one of the things i think is so important about the affordable housing sustainable communities program and where we are today is that intersection of affordable housing, equity goals and climate change. we all know that we need to be creating a community-based that gives people sustainability, both in terms of their daily lives but also our ability to live on this earth. so the goal of this program is to buildtogether all these elements in a way that's holistic , that builds upon one another and gives us better community spaces for our future and that can be hard and one of the things that is important about making this come together is when you have partners that are willing towork together to think about solutions and come up with ideas and ways to make it happen . this is an exciting year for us
or the affordable housing sustainable community program is in our last funding round we awarded over $800 million to aroundthe state to project like this. in the governor's budget , he proposed another $1.5 billion for projects that create show that housing is climate solutions and that by bridging these two together we can solve some of our most pressing challenges and address the needs in a way that is meaningful and sustainable. so i guess my asked to you all is as more of these applicants and programs and partnerships for to be able to re-create what you have here and webring them here to show you how you've done it ? can we use this as a project show how you can do 100 percent electric, large projects, use san francisco in a way that meets all the needs of the community is what you've done your is game changing and it's something we can replicate acrossthe state . ireally appreciate being able
to joinyou here today . thank you . >> afternoon. we're almost done. thank you very much. first let me talk briefly to some of the people. [speaking spanish] it is great to be here. you got not one buttwo members of the administration , meaning myself and we are here to demonstrate that for the state of california, this partnership
is so important. this partnership with the city of san francisco who is doing a terrific job in prioritizing affordable housing. mayor, your administration has been fast in prioritizing affordable housing.the partnership with meda, chinatown tec and the state government. it's very important. and we have in sacramento historic investments at the moment in affordable housing. for the last couple of years we've been doing is we've been entering that we at first that we choose what the state priority is to create more affordable housing and then we harmonized those priorities across the dozens of multi family housingrental production programs that there are . and this project here exemplifies it, embodies so well those priorities. let me mention three. first deeply affordable.
when i hear that the units will serve individuals and families that earn between 30 and 60 percent of the area median income that is essential. because housing for people with very low income is the housing that has been under produced most in the state of california for many years we have to ensure that housing that is deeply affordable, it costs more money but it's worth it. it's absolutely worth it. the second priority is fair housing. to ensure that we have inclusive projects, inclusive communities of opportunity and malcolm you and i don't agree on everything but i've been learning a lot from you when we know that we have to invest more affordable housing not just in the more affluent areas
in the more well resourced areas because we know a lot of affordable housing in the state of california has been created in areas of concentrated poverty but it is just as important to continue to build affordable housing in stead of government in neighborhoods and communities where you protect and retain the cultural heritage .where people in good and bad times that were living through stick around and they want to stay in this community so fair housing is essential the third lynn explained so well. the connection between warehousing is being built and the ability to have a cleaner air. less pollution. that is a factor of where we build on the proximity to restaurants and the things that matter mostproximity . get them out of the car. walk to a job, to the school,
to theplaces they need . this project is such a great example of the kinds of things the state government is prioritizing in a time where we havehistoric levels of investment . we need to maximize those resource andcontinued to create the housing . and with that let me bring to the stage the biggest champion ofaffordable housing in the city of sanfrancisco, arguably one of the biggest champions of affordable housing in california , mayor of london breed . [applause] >> first of all thank you gustavoand let me say this . don't tell the governor this but you are my favorite person insacramento . and he's my favorite person in sacramento because he understands why a project like
this is so important to the people of san francisco and ha been very supportive of the work that we do . because it doestake a village. in fact , these projects that started as a supervisor ronen mentioned we've been a number of these groundbreaking's in the mission and these projects started when i was on the board of supervisors and you were working for the supervisor of this district and this community rallied and came together with data. also experience about what was happening specifically in the mission. i want to see change. wanted the city to invest and at that time mayor lee made a $50 million investment to begin the process of analyzing this district and looking for properties . this was a parking lot and other sites were in the places that we were able to purchase.
and to work together to come up with the resources to make sure we made theinvestments . those resources involve money from the city that we couldn't do it alone and get itdone this past in bureaucratic years. we wouldn't be here right now . and the fact is we came together. we worked with thestate . we worked with the speaker of the house who was an important part of this project in particular and others in the mission . as of today, this is a 649 unit that we've been able to open in the mission community so far. with more to calm. and i wish it was a lot faster. but here's thething and what i remember when i started on the board of supervisors as well . there was a lot of push for more housing opportunities but
what i remembered in the fillmore and what happened to the community i grew up with there is all this housing was built but we weren't always able to get into the housing was built in our community . that's why this community joins me in fighting for neighborhood preference. so that we can make sure that when we tell the community we're going to build housing that there's a real opportunity for the people who actually live here to have access to these units. that was so much more important to me than anything else. a commitment tothe community and because of that we have neighborhood preference with this project . we want to end youth homelessness and shirley adams is here and i'm so glad that we have used speaks that do extraordinary work for young people and our goal in the city is to do everything we can to end youthhomelessness so
housing for transitional aged youth in this project as well this is a dream . this is what's possible when we come together. this is what's possible when we work hard to do extraordinary things. can youimagine being a kid , hanging out in this courtyard. and i don't know if kids still play hopscotch andjumping jacks and all that stuff weused to play. maybe video gamesbut they need to beoutside anyway . but playing in this courtyard , yelling up to the window, , i'm going to go to the park . heading up the store to the park to enjoy their neighborhoods and to grow up talking about these experiences . this is the dream. it's so much more than housing. it's a community. filled with community-based organizations who been doing extraordinary work.filled with meda and ccc who believe
in affordable housing for people in san francisco of all ages. this is an extraordinary project and i'm so happy to be here today and so proud to represent the city in this way. now it's time to do what we've all been waitingfor even though everybody's already moved in . covid put us in this situation so we don't want to miss out on these milestones even though we couldn't stop people from moving in needed thesehousing units right now so here we are , ready to cut theribbon . are you ready? supervisor ronen are you ready? yes, let's do this!>> four, three, two,one . [cheering]
them in a way that they can understand that touches their heart and makes them feel powerful with simple actions to take every day. ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ >> i was born and raised in the desert of palm springs, california. my dad was the rabbi in the community there. what i got from watching my father on stage talking to the community was learning how to be in the public. and learning how to do public speaking and i remember the first time i got up to give my first school assembly, i felt my dad over my shoulder saying pause for drama, deliver your words. when i was a kid, i wanted to be
a teacher. and then when i got into high school, i decided i wanted to get into advertising and do graphic art and taglines and stuff like that. by the time i was in college, i decided i wanted to be a decorator. but as i did more work, i realized working my way up meant a lot of physical labor. i only had so much energy to work with for the rest of my life and i could use that energy towards making a lot of money, helping someone else make a lot of money or doing something meaningful. i found the nonprofit working to save the rainforest was looking for volunteers. i went, volunteered and my life changed. suddenly everything i was doing had meaning. stuffing envelopes had meaning, faxing out requests had meaning. i eventually moved up to san francisco to work out of the office here, given a lot of
assembly through los angeles county and then came up here and doing assemblies to kids about rainforest. one of my jobs was to teach about recycle, teaching students to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost, i'm teaching them they have the power, and that motivates them. it was satisfying for me to work with for the department of environment to create a message that gets to the heart of the issue. the san francisco department of environment is the only agency that has a full time educational team, we go into the schools to help teach children how to protect nature and the environment. we realized we needed animal mascot to spark excitement with the students. the city during the gold rush days, the phoenix became part of the city feel and i love the
symbolism of the phoenix, about transformation and the message that the theme of the phoenix provides, we all have the power to transform our world for the better. we have to provide teachers with curriculum online, our curriculum is in two different languages and whether it's lesson plans or student fact sheets, teachers can use them and we've had great feedback. we have helped public and private schools in san francisco increase their waste use and students are working hard to sort waste at the end of the lunch and understand the power of reusing, reducing, recycling and composting. >> great job. >> i've been with the department for 15 years and an
environmental educator for more than 23 years and i'm grateful for the work that i get to do, especially on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. i try to use my voice as intentionally as possible to support, i think of my grandmother who had a positive attitude and looked at things positively. try to do that as well in my work and with my words to be an uplifting force for myself and others. think of entering the job force as a treasure hunt. you can only go to your next clue and more will be revealed. follow your instincts, listen to your gut, follow your heart, do what makes you happy and pragmatic and see where it takes you and get to the next place. trust if you want to do good in this world, thattttttttttttttt.♪
♪ >> my name is luis granados.♪ ♪ thank you for gathering to ♪ ♪ celebrate the grand opening ♪ ♪ of casa de lancet, 2060..♪ ♪ this project is another ♪ ♪ collective win affordable ♪ ♪ housing for the mission and ♪ ♪ san francisco.♪ ♪ to me this project is all ♪ ♪ about building community ♪ ♪ through advocacy, capacity ♪ ♪ building and partnership.