Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for

Thursday, February 12, 2026.

When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the

screen side of the room or to your right.

Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you

you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up.

When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up

and take the next person queued to speak.

There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left

and watch your time tick down.

Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record.

I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings.

And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate

any disruption or outbursts of any kind.

I'd like to take roll.

Commission President Campbell?

Here.

Commission Vice President Moore?

Here.

Commissioner Braun?

Here.

Commissioner Imperial?

Here.

Commissioner McGarry?

Present.

Commissioner So?

Present.

And Commissioner Williams?

Here.

Thank you, Commissioners.

First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

Item 1, case number 2023-009469 DRP at 77 Broad Street,

discretionary review is proposed for continuance to March 19, 2026.

Item 2, case number 2024-005242 CUA at 2089 Engle Street,

conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to March 26, 2026.

I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission.

their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance you need to come

forward seeing none public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is

now before you commissioners

Commissioner Braun move to continue items as proposed second thank you

commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed Commissioner McGarry

Yes.

Commissioner So.

Yes.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell.

Aye.

So move, Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0, placing us under Commission matters for Item 3, the

Land Acknowledgement.

The Commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatusha

Lonely.

Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions,

the Ramatushal Ohlone have never ceded, lost or forgotten their responsibilities

as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland.

We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging their ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramitusha Loni community

and by affirming their sovereign rights as First People.

Item 4, consideration of adoption draft minutes for January 22nd and January 29th of 2026.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on their minutes.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your minutes are now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to make a motion or to continue the minutes to give the Secretary,

Commissioner Secretary, a chance to capture the full public comment of Zachary Friel,

Teresa Dublas, Kristen Evans, and also the response from Director Phillips.

This is for which set of minutes?

This is for the 29th.

For which item, Commissioner Williams?

It's a general public comment.

Towards the bottom there.

Zachary.

Zachary, Teresa's, and Christian's?

Yes, and also the response, because there was a response from Director Phillips.

Okay, very good.

I'll second.

We can continue that one week out to February 8th, excuse me, 19th.

But what about the January 22nd minutes?

January 22nd is fine.

Are fine?

Okay.

Yeah.

So maybe a motion to continue and adopt?

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to continue and adopt the January 22nd.

Yeah, January 22nd.

Do you mind tell us why?

Just wanted the record to reflect the statements that were made,

public statements, that's all.

So it's in the minutes, yeah.

There was just one line, and I didn't really think it captured everything,

the importance of what was stated, so.

Yeah.

Okay, I have a motion to continue the minutes for the 29th to February 19th and adopt the

minutes for the 22nd.

On that motion, Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Soh?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell?

Aye.

So move, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0.

Item 5, commission comments and questions.

I'll get us started.

I have two things I want to talk about.

One is acknowledgement of a letter the commission received from Supervisor Chen on February 5th.

She was really highlighting concerns around how the city is not meeting our BMR housing unit obligations under RENA,

looking for more, you know, clarity, asking us to really follow up on that to make sure we're

complying specifically around city funding, state funding, that we're increasing our land banking

strategies. Director Phillips and I and the staff have talked a bit about that, but I'd love for

for you maybe to share with everyone what we've discussed and bring everyone up to speed on what

we're doing next, if you don't mind. Not at all. Thank you, President Campbell. Yes. In response

to both the conversation that we had at the dais last week, as well as Supervisor Chen's

correspondence to kind of urging the same that we've talked about, wanted to let you all know

how we're proceeding. So we'll be drafting a memo response to you all to show the city's current

production data on housing, focusing on affordable housing, but housing overall as well in detail.

That'll take us about two weeks, so I just want to make sure you guys understand the timeline of

that. So hopefully before the end of the month, you will have that memo in front of you. The other

thing we'd like to do, and I apologize for the time this is going to take, is schedule a full

hearing in late March or so to discuss the overall production scene, as well as funding and other

tools that we can use to move forward and advance affordable housing production.

We need that extra time for a couple of reasons.

One, interagency coordination across MocD, OEWD, and OCII, who also produces significant

affordable housing.

They're all on slightly different timelines in terms of their reporting structures.

Also, we work regularly with MocD, but getting full data on production, particularly on

preservation, acquisition, and rehabs takes a little bit of a deeper dive, so we want

to make sure we get that picture as well.

So we'll be looking at that.

And then MoCD and OCII's annual reports both come out in March,

so that we want to make sure what we're showing to you aligns

with that public information so there aren't any discrepancies

or confusions.

The other thing to note, and we've talked about this a little bit

here together, there's a whole lot of work going underway

on funding tools.

We do have our committee that's meeting regularly,

as requested by Commissioner Williams and as required under the housing element.

OEWD is also currently midstream on examining an EIFD and other funding tools for affordable housing,

so we're hopeful that their work will be complete when we come back to you in March

so we can present on that as well.

And so we just want to make sure we have all the things there.

So that's our plan moving forward.

Please let me know if you have any comments or questions on that.

I have a quick question.

In reporting, there is a theory and then there is a practice.

The theory is we are looking positive into units being approved,

but I think where the rubber hits the road is when we have first occupancy

or permits taken out which verify that the buildings are under construction.

Can we get to that subtlety in reporting?

Absolutely. That would be our time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Imperial?

Thank you.

I just also want to thank Director Phillips for the follow-up.

And in terms of the hearing that will be, or informational hearing that will be on March,

will that also include, I understand that the financing tool will be presented,

and that would also include the land banking strategy, I would?

We can share as much as we know and have information from all our partner agencies.

in terms of land banking, that was something that was addressed significantly in the memo that we submitted to you all in the fall,

the affordable housing sites and acquisition strategy.

So I probably, I think a lot of what we'll be covering is already covered in that memo.

I don't think much has changed, but happy to add that to this discussion.

Yeah, yeah.

Totally, I understand.

And I think the financing tools will really be helpful in all of those aspects of rehabbing and also land banking.

So I'm looking forward to it.

And, again, thank you for bringing this up.

Thanks.

Commissioner Williams.

Yeah, I just wanted to thank you to Director Phillips for highlighting this issue around affordable housing.

it's an important issue

and so it's comforting to see that

the planning department is understanding

the need

and so I just want to appreciate that.

Thank you.

Vice President Moore.

I'd like to do a shout out to Supervisor Chen.

It is really good to hear that we are all resonating

around the same issues.

It's not just us talking here, approving or looking at projects, but getting the full support from the Board of Supervisors to really help us make this happen.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, and we will look forward to seeing that.

I know everybody would like this speedier, but I think a quality report out that's comprehensive and accurate is really appreciated, so thank you for that.

The other thing I wanted to just shine a light on, and it's something I distributed amongst the fellow commissioners,

But really for the public's awareness, and maybe there's some action we want to take as a commission, is around a competition that actually was focused on single-stair architectural design.

And they just announced the winners.

And I think it's really exciting and interesting.

I know it's something that's come up here at the commission before, and I know there's been talk about that.

But this competition really showcased innovative single-stair residential building design.

And it looked at three cities, San Francisco being one of them.

It also looked at Austin and Portland.

And it was a neat competition because, obviously, all three cities have very different building codes or different jurisdictions.

But as you know, in San Francisco, anything above three stories requires two exits.

And when we're trying to infill projects, it really starts to take up a lot of real estate.

And it really becomes much more challenging.

It also just puts a lot of constraints on those kind of mid-rise, missing middle housing projects.

I know this is more of a building department code life safety thing, but it actually does impact, I think, our city from a planning perspective as we think about the family zoning rolling out and imagining these infill projects coming to life.

these buildings that have single stair solutions. You can fit more units in them. There's

better ventilation, better daylighting, quicker and more economical construction techniques. So

I wanted to, if we're allowed to do this, I'd love to include a link to the outcome

of the competition and a shout out to David Baker Architects, who won first prize in that

there were some really innovative and beautiful design solutions. I also just think, I know there's

activity in Sacramento

on this topic and we've talked about

it here for San Francisco.

I don't know if there's something we can do

as a commission to

discuss and get our support

behind it to help

in any way. I just think this would be such a game

changer for really

realizing more development

of this scale

projects in San Francisco.

Just putting that out there as a

topic that I'm passionate about. I think there's some

other commissioners that are as well. Vice President Moore? Talking about passionate.

When we reviewed the Objective Design Guidelines in June 2024, I actually brought that subject up

and pointed to practitioners in California, Mr. Palazoidis in Pasadena, Mr. Salomon in San

Francisco, including David Baker, who are really the people who have for many, many years

postulated that as a challenge to what ultimately is the jurisdiction of the fire department.

Portland has challenged their fire departments who actually thought the same way we usually do,

and they have broken through and realized quite a few single access to their buildings.

and I think perhaps we can learn with them, but I would definitely support President Campbell's idea for this commission to actually create an objective statement.

We did the same thing when we talked about equity, and that became a very strong leading principle.

As we're looking at housing large and small all the way up to six stories, I think we should take the lead and postulate it as an objective for us to identify buildings and sites where that particular technique would definitely help designing in context because it creates more suitable buildings fitting into a neighborhood context in San Francisco, including the savings and everything else that comes with it.

We'll be looking for the building trades to support us on that,

and I think we should take the bull by the horn and make that step.

Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to department matters.

Item 6, director's announcements.

Thank you, commissioners.

Maybe I'll just add on to your encouragement and excitement about single stare.

I think the commission's support on that is already understood, but more would be welcome.

And it's a little bit of a thorny issue.

There is, AB 130 at the state level has put, it's a state bill that basically froze building

codes at the end of last year.

And so it prevents a little bit of a regulatory hurdle that we're examining how we could further some building changes like that with that in place.

So just note that's a work in progress that we'll be thinking about.

And it involves a lot of partnership with our partners at DBI and certainly in the fire department.

So we're looking forward to having that conversation.

But your support is welcome.

Um, one of the, there's a number of, um, post family zoning plan housing efforts that our, um, community planning team and, and our current planning team will be undertaking over the next year to try to facilitate construction under the family zoning plan.

Um, I think commissioner Moore, what you just talked about, uh, you know, is exactly an example that we are hoping to pursue there, including some pre-approved design under the neighborhood design standards that would help show people how they can build the kind of housing we want to see there.

And if we can get past the regulatory hurdle of single stair and include that in those designs, I think that would be a really exciting way to move forward.

Another thing I'll note, and just because we've talked about this regularly, we are continuing on our path of the first phase of integration with DBI and the permit center.

We've had some really great conversations with our pending new colleagues over the next couple weeks.

And one area of real excitement for me is kind of a consolidated IT and data team,

so that rather than working with three separate data teams, one at the permit center, one at DBI,

and one within the planning department, we are all working together.

This has significant alignment with the OpenGov launch, which Liz is going to go into in a minute.

We're really excited about that.

And it also has real alignment, I think, towards addressing our budget crisis.

One of the pieces of advice that we're getting from the mayor's office as we try to tackle this $400 million deficit is technology investment guidance, right?

How do we ensure that our technology contracts and our technology work across departments are not duplicated?

We're not spending more money across them.

And I think what we found in working together just over the last couple weeks with staff from those various departments that will be staff under one department as of early March is that there's a whole lot of alignment there that in working together rather than in silos will help not only work better, but work more cost effectively with regard to technology contracts.

So just wanted to note that.

And then Liz, talk to us about Permit-SF.

Yes, really excited to do so.

As you probably saw on the mayor's Instagram and press release this morning, tomorrow is our official launch of our new Permit SF online portal.

This online portal, this is the first phase of contemporary online permitting in San Francisco.

It's crazy to say that this is the first, but better late than never.

We started small because we wanted to make sure we did it right and we executed well and could actually deliver.

So what's being delivered starting tomorrow is three primary buckets.

The first on construction permitting are window doors and siding replacement permits.

We chose those in large part because, A, they're relatively simple workflows.

It's not like building a new skyscraper.

But they're also really impactful and have a high volume for homeowners in San Francisco.

So this is something especially where the customer type who may only come to the city once or twice in their life will likely come in to replace windows or repair siding on their home.

So we felt like this was a really good one to impact folks who don't do this kind of thing for a living but might only need to come down to the city once.

So those are going live tomorrow.

fire department alarms and sprinklers, which are helpful for our economic recovery, especially as

we're hoping to lease up buildings downtown and people are doing renovations of those buildings.

And then the third category is sort of the first phase of a front door for special event permitting.

So historically, folks have no idea where to start if they want to host a special event in

the city, and they often have to talk disparately to a bunch of different agencies. And this front

door is a way for folks to give us just an idea of what they want to do and on what date and then

we really guide them of okay you're going to need to talk to mta rec park p you know public works

etc and tell them you know is this event going to be feasible on that date is it already booked

and then walk them through with all of the different permits they'll need to file our goal

is that the phase two will then be a consolidated portal to actually submit those permits but this

first phase was at least to give sort of the the advice piece that right now is really disparate

and disjointed. So those are going live tomorrow. This week has been our soft launch. As part of

our soft launch, we are actually soft launching real permits. We have some beta testers that

we've been working with on the customer side. And exciting news, I actually just got a Teams chat

about a half hour ago that we issued our first real permit in the system today from one of those

beta testers. So it works is the punchline. We're really excited about that. As soon as we know that

there's stability in the system. We've got a lot, what we call sort of hyper care going on right now.

And through the next few weeks, we're going to turn to what's next. And we're going to continue

moving forward until all of the permits and land use entitlements across the city are all

integrated into one system, inclusive of planning. We will likely go towards the end because we

already have a contemporary-ish system, whereas some of our sister agencies are on really,

really old legacy systems that are at the end of their life. But we're going to be focused,

again small business and small homeowners first really making sure that those project types cradle

to grave are in the area in one online system and then expand from there so we're really excited if

anyone wants a walk through i'm happy to do some demos and walk folks through um but tomorrow live

anyone can start filing permits from the pleasure of their own home rather than coming down to the

permit center for those scopes congratulations just to close the loop on that i think liz really

captured at the end with the focus on residential homeowners and small businesses.

I think you can really see the equity work that you all have pushed us infusing this

effort and how we're rolling that out and really addressing the folks that have been

most disadvantaged by our permit system from the get-go.

Commissioner Sow.

This is exciting, exciting time.

alignment with streamlining everything and consolidate everything.

I just have a few questions in terms of

remember back then you mentioned that

now we are starting to charge applicants

in the beginning of the applications. So would this

be the same with these building permits when they apply? They would

get charged with the fees right off the bat before

it's approved? So what you're talking about is for planning applications. So this for,

we instituted a new fee in January for folks who are just filing a planning application,

not a building permit. The fees for building permits are unchanged as part of this rollout.

That's great. And also with this amazing kind of streamlining everything and some things were

more efficient and more transparent. How many days are you thinking about we can save in terms of,

you know, like it's a regular mom and pop shop or a regular single family home, how many days they

are looking into getting their permit approved? So I'd say for this first phase, there's probably

less time savings for the customer because these were traditionally over-the-counter permits.

And so we're going to commit to that same turnaround time. Technically, they were sort

of a two-day performance metric for the city for over-the-counter permits, and we're maintaining

that. I think the real savings for this first tranche of permits is these are often applicants

who have to take time off work to come down or find child care or pay, you know, 30-some bucks

to park across the street if they're not near transit and spending their whole day there,

let alone if they have to come back. If they weren't, you know, coming to the office with

the adequate information to, you know, maybe they didn't know enough information about their window

replacements because they're just a homeowner and they don't know that they need to know all these

different things. In our new online system, it's really going to be a series of guided dynamic

questions. So if somebody says windows, it'll link up with our GIS system that'll automatically know

is it historic or not. The applicant's not going to need to know that. And based on those questions,

they'll be asked the appropriate questions based on our policies and regulations. So I think the

real-time savings is being able to do it from the comfort of your home when it's convenient for you.

Maybe that's a Sunday night when your kids are asleep and not having to take time out of your

life to get down to the city. Because we know it's not convenient for everyone in the city to get down

to the permit center location. Ultimately, when we get to larger scopes of work, I think we will

see some real-time savings. I will say one of the improvements that I'm really excited about with

this because we're able to be really nuanced in the way we ask questions and the connections with

all of our different GIS and robust information that the city already has, we're able to route

to different agencies precisely. So meaning the way it was before, there would often be broad

categories of this is a window, it has to go to the building department. In reality, there's only

a small subset that requires a building department, the need for a building department review. There

are some cases where there is no need for, you know, it's a single family home, it's a replacement

in kind, it's not near a property line, building department doesn't actually technically need to

review those. So we've been able to use that logic for the most efficient use of staff time

and for the customer's time. But so I think that's a time savings yet to see and realize,

but we know, for example, building department engineer time is often the place where people

experience backlogs on other projects. And so if we can save some time by not routing them things

that they unnecessarily, you know, that they don't need to see, hopefully that means that other

projects can move more quickly because there'll be more staff capacity to work on those. So those

are the upstream or downstream, I should say, impacts that we're excited to see. Fantastic.

Thank you. Commissioner Braun. Really, I just want to say thank you for the enormous effort that

you, Ms. Wadi, and all the staff have put into this across different agencies. It's a really

exciting step forward and kind of high time that we get to this point. I'm hoping the rollout is

very smooth. I'm looking forward to it expanding to more permitting activity. And I'm also excited

by the prospect that this probably will encourage more people to actually do this check when they're

doing work and actually pull a permit instead of seeing how opaque the process looks to them and

just saying, I'm just going to replace that window and move on with my day. So, you know, it's great

that this is sort of meeting people where they're at in a much better way. And I thank you.

Absolutely. And that actually prompted one thought that I just want to share. The other

really exciting thing about this is the transparency component and the audit trail.

Every click is tracked in this system. And I think that's really great for bringing renewed trust

into the permitting process for our customers and citizens, knowing that everything that we do and

every action that we take and every communication. There's basically a Slack channel built in. So

when you communicate with an applicant, hey, it's faster. You can have real-time communication,

but it's also memorialized in perpetuity on that record. And so it's really great to know this was

the why. This is why it was approved. This was the communication. This was the information. This

was what was modified on what date, at what time. And so anyhow, really excited to have that be a

sort of a pillar of this new system moving forward. Vice President Moore. I have a technical

question, if I may. We have a lot of multifamily homes in San Francisco, many of them renter

occupied, others owner occupied. And for those two particular building types, there are different

rules. The renter occupied building, even if somebody would want to have their windows replaced,

they cannot just show up and get a permit

because it is a landlord's decision to do so.

And on the flip side of that is the condominium

where the windows as a whole are owned by the ownership,

the board, but not by the owners themselves.

Which means if somebody is a condominium owner

and he really wants new windows,

can he show up and get a permit?

In reality, he can't

because he has to first have an architectural application

approved that that window fits into the totality of the building they're living in?

Is the system capable of discerning that level of detail?

In the past, it wasn't.

So the system certainly has the checks built in and asks the prompting questions of sort

of what role are you playing on the application?

Are you a homeowner?

Are you a contractor architect?

And based on those questions, it's either going to ask for different information, different

attestations, or validation of it like a contractor license number.

So those things are automated.

I think to your question of the nuance of if it's a condo and you are a listed owner, will we prevent you from filing a permit because you don't have the condo association?

I don't believe that's logic that we built into that.

I think, you know, we're looking at it from a strict property ownership versus CCNRs, but it's certainly something I can bring back to the team.

Again, we want to make sure we're staying in the space of our regulatory space rather than civil kind of rules.

I don't know if, you know, I don't personally know enough about CCNRs to know whether that's a carte blanche across every single condo association or whether it varies from condo to condo.

But it's something we can certainly ask the vendor in terms of best practices for condo buildings.

I think it would be a good question looking forward because there are architects who have dutifully gotten their permits without realizing that the particular window was not owned by the owner but by the building at large.

So they did everything, got the permit, and only when they came to the board and saying, I'm going to start construction, they're saying we didn't go through the proper process.

So there is a very big, dark, gray area where owners, not knowing better, do the right things, but they're doing it wrong.

So it's a complicated question.

The nice thing with this system, we can certainly ask a prompting question under property ownership of, is this a condo?

If yes, do you have approval from the condo association?

And, you know, maybe we don't require proof, but we're asking that leading question, and it's on them to swear yes.

That would be a great question.

Thank you.

Is that it?

Is that it?

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, I love this and echoing everybody's thanks.

I think the more frictionless we can make this, the better.

I'm excited to track the data and see if we see an uptick in permit applications as a result, right?

If you build it, they will come, right?

So it would be interesting to kind of see how that impacts permitting.

Okay.

I think that's it for directors' comments.

Okay.

Thank you.

Very good.

Item seven, review of past week's events at the Board of Supervisors.

There is no report from the Board of Appeals and the Historic Preservation Commission.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Audrey Merloni, Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs.

We have a couple of weeks to cover of happenings at the Board and the Land Use Committee.

Going back two meetings ago to the Land Use Committee hearing of February 2nd, the committee considered the land swap ordinance.

That ordinance would convert two portions of unbuilt streets along Noriega and Moraga into RH2 zoned parcels and rezone a set of parcels along Kensington Way from RH1 to open space.

You heard this item on October 9th of last year and voted unanimously to approve it.

There were a number of public commenters at the Land Use Committee hearing.

The majority were residents of the area proposed for the rezoning around Kensington who were in favor of the ordinance because it would protect the vulnerable hillside.

Several residents also spoke in opposition to the ordinance as they believed the agreement was a bad deal for the city.

The committee did ultimately vote unanimously to approve the ordinance, and it has since also had its first read at the full board.

and then over the course of the last two sessions at the full board the permitted parking parking

and driveways ordinance and the code corrections ordinance both passed their first and second reads

and the alcohol sales in movie theaters ordinance passed its first read moving on to appeals the

board was very busy with appeals the last two weeks at their february 3rd hearing they had

three appeals first was the appeal of a subdivision map for a 100 affordable housing project for

Seniors at 3333 Mission Street. The project is utilizing SB 35 to build 70 units of housing

along with some tenant amenities. The project itself is approved. Therefore, the only avenue

for the appellants was to appeal the proposed new parcels. The appellants opposed the subdivision

because it would result in the reduction of a private park. Ultimately, though, the board

denied the appeal and upheld the subdivision. Next up was an appeal of the CEQA certification

for the airport. The proposed project would implement the RADP, which involves a long-range

plan to guide SFO's development. Commissioners, you heard this item on November 20th and voted

to certify the final EIR. That appeal was also denied and the final EIR was upheld.

And lastly, at the board's February 3rd meeting, there was an appeal of a conditional use

authorization for a change of use from a public parking garage to fleet charging and private

parking garage uses at 825 Sansom Street. You heard this item on November 13th of last year

and voted unanimously to approve the conditional use authorization. Prior to the hearing, the project

sponsor informed the city they were no longer pursuing the project, and so as such, the supervisors

voted with the appellant to disapprove the conditional use authorization. Moving on to the

appeals at the board this week. There were two appeals, both for the project at 350 Amber Drive.

The appeals were a CEQA and conditional use authorization appeal of a project that would

install a new 104-foot-tall wireless pole and the accompanying equipment. The appellants opposed the

project citing impacts to views and wildlife and argued that the project sponsor did not

sufficiently prove a true need for better wireless coverage. Commissioners, you heard this item on

September 25th, you voted 4 to 3 to approve the conditional use authorization. The board voted to

uphold the CEQA determination. When it came to the conditional use appeal, President Mandelman

worked with planning and the city attorney to craft a set of conditions of approval that would

control for noise, tree replacement, and fire safety. These conditions are mostly already

standard, or they are not currently applicable to the proposed project. For instance, the project

does not currently propose tree removal.

However, the amendments were adopted

to try to assure the appellants

that all proper procedures would be followed

when it comes to the installation

and operation of the wireless pole.

The conditional use was ultimately approved

with these additional conditions,

and the appeal was denied.

And that concludes my report,

but as always, I'm available for questions.

Thanks.

If there are no immediate questions,

the Historic Preservation Commission

did not meet yesterday, but they did meet a week ago

where they considered the proposed department budget

and work program that will be before you shortly.

And they also reviewed and commented

on the Freedom West 2.0 project at 710 Macalester Street,

which you will also have the opportunity

to review and comment later this afternoon.

Commissioners, that'll place us under general public comment.

At this time, members of the public may address the commission

on items of interest to the public.

that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission accept agenda items with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting

When the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda

Journalist can you raise it a little bit because of my voice

Raise what?

I'm sorry.

The sound.

I'm not sure I have that capability, but let me see if I can.

Go ahead.

Patricia Boye, Marina Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants in Planning Association for the Vitsadero,

representing more than 22 neighborhood and merchants associations.

I want to introduce myself.

I'm back.

And my background.

The Transamerica building was my project.

BART was my project.

The panel boards for your lighting was my project.

Excuse me, can you listen to me, please?

And I've been in a restaurant, retail.

I've had security clearance and had major hospitality in the city.

and I have transportation background as well.

And I want to tell you that I am back.

I'm back almost full time after a bad reaction to a COVID shot.

I want to, I can give you some historical input into some things that are happening.

I like some of the ideas that are happening, but I want to caution you on some of your plans.

One of the things I'm seeing is I told everybody about 555 Folsom

and to watch this thing about metal windows where they're doing it again on other buildings.

And when we're doing this integration of departments,

I think we better take a look at that.

My organizations have two policies.

We're not an organization of eight.

If something's controversial, we literally

go out and take votes.

And I would like to tell you more of my background.

I have fought for integrative housing

because I believe that the affordable housing issue

is written incorrectly.

Our children that are coming out of college

don't have a place to live.

And 3333 California is a perfect example.

And I just wanted to tell you that if you want to know anything,

you can call me the background.

I've got the history.

I've been in this building for 40 years.

And I would like to be able to participate.

One of my big things I did was I got the Department

of Public Works not to dig up our streets every 15 minutes.

And it's supposed to be once every five years

unless it's an emergency.

I'm not an NIMBY.

I'm not a YIMBY.

I don't believe in people utilizing those words

because I think they are politically inspired instead of economically.

Thank you, Ms. Loy.

Thank you.

Welcome back.

Next speaker.

Last call for general public comment.

Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

We can move on to your regular calendar, Commissioners.

Item 8, case number 2025-012172CRV.

for fiscal years 2026 through 2028 proposed department budget and work program.

This is for your consideration to adopt.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Deborah Landis, Deputy Director of Administration with the Planning Department.

As Jonas just mentioned, today we are here with a resolution for you

to hopefully support the submission of our budget to the Mayor's Office.

We were here on January 22nd with an informational session for you.

And so what we have proposed today is to review what we went over on the 22nd

and then to take a look at the changes that have happened since then.

So the two big changes are that we finally got a general fund reduction target from the mayor's office,

and that was $880,000.

and we've also incorporated the transfer of function as to the discussion earlier about

integrating various departments. The budgetary term for that is transfer of function with other

departments coming into ours. So I'm going to change it up a little bit. I know that many of

you have seen me here for the last 10 years always giving this presentation. So today I am

for the first time in 10 years, giving the opportunity to someone else to have the pleasure

of getting the hopefully unanimous yes, which I believe we can get to.

And I am here with any questions, as Bianca and the director are as well, I'm sure.

I don't want to speak for you, but I am speaking for you.

So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Bianca Chu.

And please be kind.

This is her first ever presentation.

Thank you, Deborah.

Good afternoon, Commissioners, Bianca Chu, Planning Department staff.

Today I'll be presenting the department's proposed fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2028 budget

and the updates reflected in the memo you received.

I will start with the revenue and expenditure projections as they were presented at the last hearing on January 22nd,

followed by the updated projections that incorporate additional information that the department has received.

This slide shows the revenue budget based on the assumptions we had when the proposed budget was first developed.

Fee revenue is generally stable over the two years.

Grant revenue drops compared to last year, mainly because we had an unusually strong grant year.

That said, we are continuing work under the HUD-ProHousing Grant and pursuing funding for the Coastal Adaptation Plan.

Expenditure recovery remains relatively stable.

The increase in general fund support reflects rising salary and benefit costs tied to labor agreements and scheduled wage increases.

This slide shows expenditures based on those original assumptions.

Salary and fringe continue to make up the majority of the budget,

about three quarters of total spending over the two years.

Overhead is centrally loaded by the controller's office and will likely change as budget development continues.

Non-personnel services and materials and supplies remain generally stable.

Project spending declines as certain grant-funded efforts wind down since those costs are tied to available grant funding.

We're also requesting funding to replace our COSAN storage system.

It supports critical IT infrastructure and has been out of support since 2018.

We requested it last year, but it wasn't funded.

Interdepartmental services reflect expected service levels with partner agencies

and assume approximately $1 million in rent savings from vacating space on the 14th floor of 49th South Bend S.

This slide shows the updated revenue based on the new information received after the

original proposal.

Since the last hearing, the mayor announced the permitting consolidation effort.

As part of the initial phase, about 40 staff from DBI and the Permit Center will transfer

into planning, and those transfers are reflected in the updated numbers here.

The increased interdepartmental expenditure recovery is tied to those transferred staff.

This costs are offset through work orders, which is why revenue increases on this slide.

The general fund support now reflects the department's reduction target of $880,000.

This slide shows the updated expenditure budget.

Salary and fringe increase due to the transfer of the 40 staff from DBI and the permit center.

That adds roughly $10 million in the budget year and slightly more in the out year.

Those costs are fully offset through work orders, so there's no net general fund impact

from the transfer.

To meet general fund reduction target, we're eliminating vacant positions and assuming

rent savings from reducing space at 49 South Bendis.

Overall the department's core services remain intact.

we're asking the Commission to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the proposed budget and with that that concludes our presentation

Thank you

We should open up public comment members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the Commission on this item

Again, you need to come forward

Last call

Public comment is closed and this matters now before you commissioners

Commissioner Braun.

Thank you for the budget update.

It's nice to have some clarity since the last time we heard the preliminary budget numbers on the 22nd.

A lot has changed in just a few weeks, so this is pretty significant.

The updated numbers in the budget are really just the budget numbers.

It's not like we've received or I imagine there would have been time anyway to pull together more information about where positions might be getting cut that are vacant.

And I'm curious if there's anything more to say about the nature of the vacant positions that are being cut or if that's too in the weeds today to get an answer.

I'd love to see that once the budget is finalized, which I know comes through a much more lengthy process once this gets submitted.

I can address that briefly, Commissioner Braun, just noting that we've been incredibly cautious in filling positions that I've noted to you before as vacancies come to us.

There have not been many of the filled positions that have become vacant that we're needing to cut.

The vacant position cuts are actually pretty minor, in part because as a revenue department, our general fund, you know, $8 million last year, $10 million this year, doesn't require a whole ton of cuts.

So we're relatively stable on staff.

The one thing I would caution, and there are, you know, the positions that are cut here, we can come back to you with more detail, but they are positions that have not been filled in several years.

They are not recent vacancies.

It is worth noting that we're still holding many vacancies that are not being cut from our budget, but that are not being filled.

And that is, you know, that is us being cautious so that we don't have to do cuts or firings later on.

It does impact our work.

You know, Ms. Wadi and I were just discussing some of the recent resignations in current planning that we're not able to fill this time, and we're trying to cover more with less just so we preserve that safety.

but the counterpoint of not having very many actual vacancies cut also means

that we're not filling many vacancies too we're hopeful to hold those so that

we can fill them when we're in a better budget time I see thank you for the

explanation I appreciate it and I'll actually make a motion to approve the

budget. Second. Commissioner So. I think that this is a really clean presentation. Thank

you. Congratulations, Bianca, for your first one. And I would second this budget. I just

kind of want to summarize what my understanding of it's such a challenging times, right? I'm

seeing our revenue gain by reducing our well we gain a little bit more by not

what your expenditure recovery means like we scale back from our office space

so then we can pay the salary fringes increase because we got more people

coming in from a different department. Maybe Commissioner Soh to address that,

and Deborah, sorry I didn't mean to jump from it to you, I'll just address this

part quickly. The revenue growth that you, sorry, the cost growth that you see in

salaries in that line is actually, it's actually fewer people, but because of the

mandated and labor negotiated and agreed to increases in salaries, that cost goes

up so it actually costs us more for the same amount of people that's one of the

functions that you see there but you also are correct that one of our key

strategies and and I think we've just about completed it this week has been

vacating one of our three floors so that we can sublease that space and gain

revenue all right thank you because all right that's that's good I am it's good

that our department had that level of flexibility knowing seeing that we're

getting lesser support from general fund so from what you're proposed so thank

you for doing all the hard work I'm I'm complete with my comments okay

commissioners if there's nothing further there is a motion that has been seconded

to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion Commissioner McGarry

Aye.

Commissioner Soh?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell?

Aye.

So move, Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0, placing us on item 9 for case number 2020-006887ENV for the Freedom West 2.0 project at 710 McAllister Street.

This is the draft environmental impact report.

Please note that comments will be accepted verbally at the hearing or in writing at the planning department until 5 p.m. February 27, 2026.

excuse me good afternoon commissioners i'm lisa gibson environmental review officer and before

we get started with the presentation i just wanted to briefly note that this is a presentation and an

item that is for uh receiving comments on the draft environmental impact report and you may

recall that staff and the project sponsor presented on the proposed development agreement to you in

July of 2024. So that presentation previously occurred and they will be coming before you again

in April to give an update on the project overall. Thank you.

Great. Good afternoon, President Campbell and Planning Commissioners. I'm Megan Kalpin,

Planning Department staff and Environmental Coordinator for the Freedom West 2.0 project,

or the proposed project. Joining me today are my colleagues from the Environmental Planning

and Community Planning Divisions, and members of the project sponsor team are also present.

Thank you so much. The item before you today is a public hearing on the Freedom West 2.0 project

Draft Environmental Impact Report, or Draft EIR. The purpose of today's hearing is to take public

comments on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the draft EIR, pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and San Francisco's local procedures for implementing

CEQA. No approval action on this document is requested at this time. The draft EIR was published

on January 13, 2026. The 45-day public review period began on that day and will continue until

5 p.m. on February 27, 2026. I will now provide a brief overview of the existing project site.

The project site includes the existing Freedom West Homes Corporation covering approximately

10 acres across two city blocks in the Western Edition. The site borders the Hayes Valley

neighborhood to the south and is within the market and Octavia area plan boundaries. The project site

is bounded by Golden Gate Avenue to the north, Goff Street to the east, Fulton Street to the south,

and Laguna Street to the west and is bisected by Macalester Street. The project site encompasses

the majority of these two blocks. The project site is currently developed with 20 two and three-story

residential buildings and two multi-purpose buildings. The buildings range in height from

10 to 35 feet tall. The site also contains seven surface parking lots and landscaped common open

spaces. There are 382 existing co-op housing units at the Freedom West complex.

The project site is located within an RTO residential transit oriented zoning district

and a 40 and 50 X height and bulk district. Across the street to the north are two city blocks

of public open space, and the surrounding land uses include recreational, residential,

commercial, and institutional uses, including the Bethel AME Church,

which is near the northwest corner of the site.

The project site was included in the 1964 San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's Western Edition

Redevelopment Area A2, a 277-acre area that encompassed 62 blocks that was home to approximately

13,000 residents, 63% of whom were people of color.

In 1966, the neighboring Bethel AME Church and its pastor, Reverend J. Ostell Hall, sponsored

the construction of the Freedom West Homes, a moderate cost co-op housing development

where each resident owned a share of the corporation that entitled them to occupy a residential

unit.

Construction occurred in two phases between 1973 and 1975, and some of the original residents

are still shareholders today.

Next, I will provide an overview of the proposed project as analyzed in the draft EIR.

The Freedom West Homes Corporation and its shareholders, the occupants of the co-op housing,

have engaged McFarland Partners, the project sponsor, to undertake the proposed project,

which would demolish all of the existing buildings on the project site and construct 15 new buildings,

ranging in height from 85 feet to 335 feet tall.

The proposed development includes replacement co-op housing for existing shareholders,

additional residential units, a hotel, commercial, and community-serving cultural, institutional,

and educational uses, as well as associated car and bicycle parking and freight loading.

The project also proposes connecting Octavia Street to the public realm as a privately owned

public open space and shared street. Additionally, the project would include a mix of common usable

open space for residents and open space for child care.

As part of the project's approvals, the project site would be rezoned from residential transit oriented to a new special use district to establish specific land use controls for the project and to incorporate the design standards and guidelines to govern future development.

This would include amendments to the zoning map and the height and bulk map.

This slide shows different bird's eye renderings of the project as proposed, looking east towards downtown and looking northwest.

the draft eir also analyzed a land use variant to allow flexibility in the development program

the land use variant would include the same building massing and land uses as a proposed

project but it would allow flexibility for up to 150 hotel rooms to be located on either

parcel SEA or parcel SEC, but not on both parcels, rather than only on parcel SEC as

assumed under the proposed project.

The proposed project would be constructed in three overlapping development phases,

each with sub-phases.

Full build-out of the proposed project is expected to occur approximately seven years

after project entitlement, assuming overlapping development phases.

The preliminary construction schedule assumes late 2026 as the start of construction and early 2034 as the end of construction.

The project includes a proposed relocation plan that would allow any of the existing co-op residents who are required to move during construction of Phase 1 to be temporarily relocated either to vacant existing co-op units on the Southern Block or to comparable housing within San Francisco at no additional cost to the shareholders.

The project sponsor would provide any required rent subsidies and moving expense costs.

Temporarily relocated shareholders would maintain their co-op shareholder status and would have

guaranteed right to return to the newly constructed Building Northwest Co-op replacement co-op

units upon completion.

So based on that project description, we analyzed what the environmental effects would be.

And the department's analysis found that the proposed project and the land use variant would have significant unavoidable environmental effects.

Mitigation measures have been identified to lessen these impacts.

However, the draft EIR did conclude that these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is why we prepared an EIR.

And those are for historic architectural resources, noise and vibration, air quality, and wind.

The draft EIR also concluded that four topic areas had less than significant with mitigation

impacts for cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, paleontological resources, and

construction vibration.

Those mitigation measures identified to mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level

are shown on the screen.

To address the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project pursuant to CEQA, the

draft EIR analyzed four feasible alternatives to the proposed project.

The no project alternative, a full preservation alternative, a partial preservation alternative

one, and a partial preservation alternative two.

The alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives for the EIR analysis and would

avoid or reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified by the proposed project.

In comparison to the proposed project, alternative B would avoid significant and unavoidable project

and cumulative level impacts related to historic architectural resources and criteria air

pollutants. So while still partially or fully meeting all of the project objectives, therefore

it was identified as the environmentally superior alternative.

Okay, we are currently in the 45-day comment period of the draft EIR.

As part of that process, we're conducting this public hearing today on the adequacy and accuracy of the draft EIR for members of the public and commissioners to share their comments.

We anticipate publication of the response to comments document in summer 2026, followed by an EIR certification shortly after and the project approvals after that.

For members of the public that wish to speak, please state your name clearly for the record.

We have a court reporter joining remotely today to record your comments.

When it's your turn, please state your name and spelling, and we ask that you speak slowly

and clearly so the court reporter can make accurate transcription of today's proceedings

for the response to comments document.

If you are a speaker today, a member of the public, and you would like to receive a response

to comments document, please provide your either email or mailing address to me at the

contact information on the slide, or I can take it later today.

Staff is not here to answer questions.

We are transcribing all of the comments and questions today to be responded to in writing

in the response to comments document.

And that document will respond to all relevant verbal comments received today and any written

comments received during the public comment period.

as well as any revisions to the draft EIR as appropriate.

Those who are interested in commenting may speak today

or contact me at the contact information on the slide

at the Planning Department or cpc.freedomwesteir at sfgov.org

by 5 p.m. on February 27, 2026.

Unless the commissioners have comments,

I respectfully suggest that the public hearing on this item be open.

Thank you.

Indeed, with that, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this draft environmental impact report, only on the accuracy and adequacy of the impact report, not the project itself, please.

Come on up.

Good afternoon, Madam President and Commissioners.

My name is Rudy Gonzalez, the Secretary-Treasurer of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

and while I would love to tell you about all the amazing discussions we've had with McFarland

partners and some of the community leadership that I see in the room, I'm going to focus on

your draft EIR for this particular meeting. We convened our in-house team at the Building

Trades Council and reviewed all 200 plus pages of this. It was a quite lengthy process internally

for us, but we believe from an environmental standpoint, this is a thorough CEQA document.

It identifies the significant impacts.

We recognize that there are multiple options and alternatives and proposals for feasible mitigation.

We think that the document and the studies included in it were transparent about those impacts that do remain significant and otherwise unavoidable, particularly around the historic resources that were identified.

We think that the level of disclosure that was rendered here is important.

It's thorough.

And we think you can make an informed decision once the period closes.

I want to emphasize something critical about implementation of the EIR or of this project.

The contractors that our council works with are not new to these requirements.

They are industry leaders with long track records of delivering complex urban projects here in the city under relatively strict environmental standards.

and our contractor community routinely implement construction noise control plans found in this document,

vibration monitoring programs, air quality compliance measures, and site-specific safety and wind mitigation requirements.

For our members and our contractor base, those are not theoretical commitments.

Those are daily operational realities on projects across the city.

So when the EIR calls for quiet equipment, noise monitoring, vibration thresholds, et cetera,

Those are things our contractors know how to execute, and they understand this regulatory environment.

Overall, I just want to say that I think CEQA is about disclosure.

CEQA is about mitigation.

We think this draft EIR accomplishes those important steps.

The next step, obviously, for you as a regulatory body is disciplined evaluation and implementation.

We're confident that the teams involved in this project have the expertise and experience

to carry out the mitigation measures highlighted in the report in a responsible and professional

manners. We support certification of the draft EIR at the appropriate time and moving the project

forward with strong enforcement of those mitigation efforts identified. I know you're also going to

hear some concerns, and I see my sister Cynthia Gomez is here from Unite Here Local 2, and I hope

you take her comments seriously. I know that the overall project team is going to need to sit down

and discuss concerns there, and we'll be watching those talks closely.

But for now, we think the EIR is adequate and identifies the appropriate mitigations that can be taken.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I want to take this opportunity to remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices.

If you don't know how to silence them, please turn them off.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Cynthia Gomez, research analyst, Unite Here Local 2.

It's spelled G-O-M-E-Z for court reporters.

So a few points on environmental questions related to who's going to work in this hotel.

Fewer than 50% of our members who work in SF can afford to live here.

That member was at 60% 10 years ago.

At this rate, by 2035, when the hotel would be projected to open, we might be looking at 40%.

Local 2 members tend to earn higher wages than their non-union counterparts,

and if they can't afford this city, how could the workers of this proposed hotel hope to do so

if they were also non-union?

Add to that, San Francisco's far behind its needs for housing that's affordable at this bracket,

and so by the sponsor's numbers, you're talking 138 new employees competing for this tiny slice.

Connected.

Zero parking spaces are proposed for those 138 employees or apparently for hotel guests.

So I've just said how most of these people will not live in San Francisco.

They may live in excerpts such as Stockton or Sacramento where BART is also not an option.

Or they'll have shift times that don't allow them to take BART.

They will have to drive.

And they will be clogging up neighborhood streets looking for parking.

Or they will pay what right now is $375 a month at the closest 24-hour monthly parking lot.

that's 10% of their gross wage at $23.75 an hour, which is your typical non-union hospitality wage.

10%. So either clogging up streets or 10% of their pay. It's also worth noting that currently,

unless I'm misreading the document, there are exactly five bicycle spaces proposed for the hotel,

which again does not support commuting, even for those workers who can afford somehow to live

in the city. So these remarks are about future matters that will be before you, which have to

do with the conditional use authorization that all hotels will secure, and that's what I'm confining

my remarks to. There's also going to be a question that you'll face when it's time for this hotel to

get its approvals about the market demand for this kind of hotel. Since the application was submitted,

the hotel market, as you all know, has changed significantly. This proposed location is not near

demand drivers such as Moscone, places marketed to tourists such as Fisherman's Wharf or the

downtown office corps, and the question of the demand for this kind of hotel, the impact on

the ability to hire local employees, and all kinds of other conditional use matters will be before you,

and they'll be matters that we're priming you now to be listening for and thinking about

when this project is up for its final approvals. Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michelle Brown.

Do you need me to spell it?

Okay.

I was born and raised at Freedom West, and I now serve on our board's development subcommittee.

This project means everything to me and my neighbors.

We've participated in dozens of community meetings, shaped guiding principles with the Institute for the Future, and voted overwhelmingly to move forward together.

The EIR you're reviewing is accurate and complete.

The environmental analysis was thorough and thoughtful.

The range of alternatives is reasonable, and the mitigation measures will protect our neighborhood and our environment.

Freedom West raised me, and now I'm fighting to ensure that it can raise the next generation and generations to come.

Please certify the EIR and keep us moving toward approval so we can start building our future.

Thank you very much for your time today.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Maddie Scott, and I'm the board president and longtime resident of Freedom West.

I've lived there over 50 years, and I raised my children there.

And they went to school in this neighborhood, so this means a lot to me.

I've watched my community survive urban renewal, which was urban removal,

economic pressures and deferred maintenance crisis, etc.

Freedom West 2.0 represents our path forward.

developed through 40-plus community meetings and approved by a supermajority of our shareholders.

The ERR before you is accurate and complete,

and a tremendous amount of time and thought went into this environmental analysis.

It includes a thorough examination of projects' impacts and a reasonable range of alternatives.

Most importantly, all impacts will be mitigated with strong measures to protect the environment and our neighbors.

We've done our part leading an inclusive community process.

Freedom West 2.0 was developed through a community-led process.

We conducted 40-plus community meetings with residents and individuals,

roundtables which culminated in a co-op member vote.

A supermajority of shareholders approved the project,

including a comprehensive relocation plan.

Working with the Institute for the Future,

co-op members develop a guiding principles that shaped our RFP to

development partners. Legacy First and McFarland partners, our chosen development

partners, are committed to these guiding principles. The main one being that every

shareholder and good standing can move back to Freedom West 2.0. Now we need the

city to keep this moving. We need to get this project approved, start construction

on our new co-op building, and write the chapter in our the next chapter in our

community's history. A thousand low-income families are counting on us and

we can't afford any more delays. This is reparations. This is justice for a

community that have been heavily destroyed, 800 businesses lost, and the majority of

my folks pushed out of this city. So I hope that you will definitely approve

this plan so that we move forward, being a beautiful, diverse city that we are here

in San Francisco in the city of San Francis.

We thank you for your support.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Richard O'Neill.

I live at 724 McAllister Street, Freedom West,

homes, as you may know it.

I'm born and raised in San Francisco,

and I've been here in Freedom West since 1976, still

to this day. I'm a member of the Board of Directors for over seven years. Everything

you heard today is a part of the integrity and high value that Freedom West holds

core to its essence and that's honesty and transparency. So if we gave you an EIR

report, it is true. It is accurate and there's no falsehood or misleading

statements in it. That is our essence, that is our core. 300 plus families

agreed together to reshape their community. The first time in my history in

San Francisco have I seen a co-op do such a thing. Yes, it's been a true learning

experience. We're not developers. We're not in the agency of building, but that

core value of honesty and integrity is what we're specialized in. So anyone that

partner with, we put through a fine sift to make sure they are the best, that they are

accurately in alignment with our core values.

And I say that to say today, you heard my neighbors speak, you heard people of the community

speak.

But when this is over, we want to hear you speak and hopefully you align yourself with

us with integrity and honesty and true value to see a community lead itself.

Not be pushed, not be overshadowed or cast into a dark area where our voices

haven't been heard for so many years when Octavia Freeway went over our

community and no help or no thought of development or growth was possible.

Well look at us today. We stand before you in a position of many years of work.

this was not last week this is many years of finding the right group of

people so we could be successful in the city of San Francisco thank you for your

time

Patricia boy I'm in favor of this but I'm hearing something that I heard 30 years

20, 30 years ago. We're going to displace them and bring them back. And it didn't

happen. We need to have in this legislation a clause that says how you

are going to mitigate the protection of the people who were misplaced and make

sure that they get place back.

The Fillmore Center, there are 60 families

that were made a promise similar to this,

and they didn't get it.

So be sure to protect this group.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Alex Landsberg, Research and Advocacy Director with the Electrical Industry.

I want to associate myself with Mr. Gonzalez's remarks, but I want to add something that I didn't see in the Environmental Impact Report.

One of the things that I don't think has really been considered is the fact that redeveloping or at least replacing, upgrading these 300 units into modern construction is actually going to improve the indoor air quality of the people who are going to be living in these things.

We're going to be pulling gas out of these buildings.

We're going to be improving the windows, improving insulation.

All of these things are going to have actually positive impacts on folks.

So I realized that it didn't look like unless I missed it.

It wasn't discussed in the EIR, but I did want to put that out there and just keep have you keep that in mind.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Final last call.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

And the draft environmental impact report is now for you for your review and comment, commissioners.

Vice President Moore.

I just want to express my strong support for this DEIR.

I think it's a remarkable document, not only in its length,

but in the thoroughness by which literally no stone remains unturned.

What was thrilled to me is seeing actually a phasing diagram,

something which is extremely important when it comes to any type of larger construction.

I leave it with that comment.

and it probably stands in the room because I question that and other large projects not having undertaken a thoughtful phasing strategy.

The support from the community, I think, is ultimately the gold standard.

It is the proof that this project was properly reviewed and attended to with the community giving it its highest approval.

I have heard in a long time.

Mostly they are lingering forms of unanswered questions,

perhaps resentment about the massiveness of the project.

This has been thought through all the way to the dot on the I.

I am in full support, and I consider the draft EIR adequate, accurate, and complete.

Thank you.

Is that a motion?

That is a motion, yes.

Motion to approve.

There's no motion.

Oh, that's right.

There's no action.

It's just for your review and comment.

Thank you for that reminder.

Commissioner Imperial.

If there is a motion today, I would also second it.

I also find this EIR or the draft of EIR as accurate and complete.

It actually also talks about, also recognize the areas of concerns that is usually common in the draft of DIR.

I also, as reading through this, what I really enjoyed reading the EIR is the historical resource part, which talks about the history and acknowledging the urban renewal displacement.

And I also appreciate the mitigation measures.

I actually would second the HBC comments, especially I would give a shout out to Commissioner Matsuda on her comments on the interpretive programs in terms of really identifying the history of what happened there.

and it looks like in terms of the oral history

that would be a really big task to make

but it's something that is being identified

as something in terms of the mitigation measure

for the historical resource

and I just also want to thank

the co-op owners that came here

and really the history of it

is something that we should not really undermine

you know

Mayor of Office of Housing is making

its efforts to reach out to the

former redevelopment

that were displaced back in the

1960s and 70s and it's not easy

and to hear those stories

actually will be very very

helpful

to remember the history

and to never do it ever again

so

that's my comment and I'm

supportive of this EAR, thank you

Commissioner McGarry

also in full support i think everybody hears the rush from the mic because they want to actually

vote on this but unfortunately there is no vote i believe this it's it's a fantastic example of

the community taking back their neighborhood and reshaping its future correcting addressing

number one addressing the ills of the past correcting them going forward with a phenomenal

example because this isn't the only community of color who's been impacted by redevelopment

throughout the country so i can see a phenomenal opportunity here and an example a beacon on the

hill so to speak for other communities other cities around this country to possibly do the

same hopefully do the same because this is a phenomenal project and i wish you well but

And I wish you could vote on it.

Commissioner So.

Last time when I hear this project about over a year ago, I used this term.

This is like an eye candy project.

Any land use development planning would like to use.

You literally have everything everybody wants.

And I really wish you continue to be successful for other obstacles that you have to get secure.

mainly is probably the funding source.

This is overdue, and everybody show up today.

I really appreciate your taking the time to voice your histories,

your legacy, and your culture.

And I really hope that with this project,

we really speak as in San Francisco, we want them back.

I want you to bring back your family, your community,

and attract more people come back here.

to build your next generation of legacies.

I wish you ever success.

Commissioner Braun.

I'm going to restrict my comments to the draft EIR for today,

and I, too, am satisfied with the adequacy, accuracy, and thoroughness of the analysis.

I think the alternatives presented are reasonable,

and I appreciate that the draft EIR transparently identified

and recognized the significant and unavoidable impacts.

So I look forward to reviewing comments on the draft EIR

and the responses to the comments.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Yeah, I too was very impressed with the draft EIR.

I read through most of it, not all of it.

It was pretty lengthy.

but I learned a lot about the project, and you covered everything.

You know, growing up here, the whole history of redevelopment and urban renewal

is something that, you know, unfortunately I had to learn later in life

and the injustices to not only the African-American community

but also the Japanese community that I wasn't even aware of.

And so it was great to see that the mitigation that you guys covered under that,

under that

as far as the interpretive

program, the oral histories,

the documentation

of the history of that neighborhood.

And so one of the questions, though, that I did have

was,

and I know there's a lot here that's going to be done,

but what I was trying to kind of figure out in the end

what exactly is going to be done with all the oral history

and the photos and all this stuff.

What's going to become of all of that history as far

AND HOW IS IT GOING TO GET IMPLEMENTED INTO, YOU KNOW, A SPACE OR A PERMANENT FIXTURE WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT, AND I KNOW IT'S THERE, I KNOW IT'S THERE, BUT I'D KIND OF LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE WALK, YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC THROUGH THAT.

and I say that just because I think it's going to be important

if this project gets done

and I hope it is successful and gets done

that there's a history, a visual history

that youth

and anybody that visits this site can

understand because

it's an important history. We don't want to repeat

what happened with redevelopment

and urban renewal. It's very important that those

that be a part

of the project, but it also

has to be a physical place where people can visit.

I don't know if it's in here, but

I would like to kind of understand that more.

Yeah.

Can anyone comment on that?

Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Williams, for your comments and questions.

And respectfully, as a reminder, today's hearing is for the purpose of receiving comments on the draft EIR,

and we will have a transcript of those comments and responses to them in our responses to comments document,

where we will address those points.

And then if you have any remaining questions

at the time of our certification hearing

where we'll bring the project back to you,

we will then answer them.

Thank you.

Okay, good, because thank you for that.

I just, you know, looking through all of this

and trying to understand the past

and all the unfortunate things

that have happened to communities through displacement and land use.

It just feels important that we get this right.

We make sure that this project is something that's going to be a plus to the community.

And I also really would like to congratulate the community

that has put so much effort into this over the years.

I'm someone that believes that communities should have a say in what gets built.

And obviously this community has been hands-on and has taken a lot of pride in making sure that they take care of each other.

And so I just want to highlight that.

And I think other communities can learn from this particular project.

You know, there's been other communities in San Francisco that have not faced urban renewal per se,

but displacement and gentrification, for example.

and so I think

let this be a lesson for all of us

to understand the importance of land use

how it can be constructive

how it can be destructive

and make sure that we don't make those same mistakes

over and over

and so that's all I'd like to say

thank you

thank you Commissioner Williams

I'll also just echo the similar sentiment up here, very satisfied with the thoroughness of this draft EIR.

I think the mitigation measures are very appropriate.

I also would echo Commissioner Imperial's, you know, acknowledgement of the February 5th memo we got with our colleagues at HPC

and really wanting to be thoughtful about how those histories, the oral histories, are captured and where they live,

and both for residents and the small businesses.

so I would love to just shine a light on that as well.

So thank you, Commissioner, for bringing that up.

And I think that's all of our comments, unless Commissioner Williams, you're good.

Yep.

Okay, perfect.

I think that's it, Jonas.

Very good, then.

We can move on now to item 10, case number 1997.058C-02 at 949 Post Street.

This is a conditional use authorization.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Good afternoon, commissioners, Dakota Speicher, department staff.

The item before you today is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 303

to modify the conditions of approval granted by the planning commission on June 12, 1997,

under planning commission motion number 14391.

Specifically, the project proposes to, one, eliminate the restriction that units must be occupied by seniors, those age 55 and older.

Two, increase the gross annual income of qualifying households from 60% to up to 80% area median income, or AMI.

Three, increase the pricing AMI from 60% to up to 70% AMI.

and four, allow the use of subsidized vouchers from Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing, or VASH,

and Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, or HCV, or other qualifying subsidies for all of these units.

I'll speak a little bit louder.

No interior or exterior improvements are proposed with this project application.

The subject law is located at 949 Post Street and is within the RC4 zoning district.

In 1997, the subject property received conditional use authorization to construct a new affordable senior housing apartment building.

As it relates to the project today, the conditions of approval required the dwelling units be rented to seniors and the gross annual income not exceeds 60% AMI.

In 2018, the previous property owner entered into a settlement agreement with the city related to a planning enforcement case.

enforcement staff is here today should you have any questions as it relates to this project

the settlement agreement defined a senior as a person who is 55 years or older allowed the

property owner to reserve and lease 16 of the 24 units to tenants holding vash vouchers and three

allowed the property to be governed by the 2013 procedures manual instead of the 1992 manual as

previously approved. There have been two planning enforcement cases as outlined in your packet,

both of which have been abated. As I mentioned, enforcement staff is here,

should you have any questions. Since your packet was published, the department has received one

letter in opposition to the project, citing concerns about housing voucher recipients.

The department is supportive of the request to, one, eliminate the senior age restriction,

which would not preclude units from being rented to those 55 years or older,

but would instead activate vacant units with a broader demographic.

Two, increase the gross annual income of qualifying households from 60% to up to 80% AMI.

This adjustment expands the eligible applicant pool without increasing rent,

effectively removing barriers to occupancy and ensuring a broader range of qualified tenants that can access these available units.

Three, expand the use of VASH and HCV for all units on the subject property,

as this will expand housing opportunities for veterans and those utilizing federal housing vouchers.

The department is not supportive of the request to increase the pricing AMI from 60% to 70 due to resulting increase in rent obligations.

While existing tenants would be protected via stabilized rent, subject only to the standard inflation adjustment,

the department maintains that such an increase would erode the availability of deeply affordable housing

and further limit options for vulnerable populations.

Two, allow the use of other subsidies because the project sponsor has not specified what those subsidies are.

The department finds that the project with modifications is on balance, consistent with the planning code and the objectives and policies of the general plan.

Although the project will eliminate senior age restrictions, seniors themselves would not be precluded from renting these units.

Further, an increase to the qualifying AMI from 60 to 80 percent and the use of VASH and HCV would not increase rent,

but would increase the number of qualified applicants seeking very low income units.

Lastly, the project will facilitate the continuation of a 100% affordable housing project at a deeply affordable rate.

The department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood

and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity.

This concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions, and I'll hand it off to the project sponsor.

Thank you.

and I'm here today representing the owners of the property, both of whom are here today,

John and Peter, in case you have any questions for them.

As Dakota outlined, this property is located at 949 Post Street.

It was built as an affordable housing project in 2003 with 25 residential units,

one of which is the manager's unit.

It was built as a senior housing facility,

and the BMR agreement was later modified in 2018 as Dakota outlined.

his presentation. It is located between Hyde and Larkin, you know, in the heart of the Tenderloin.

Our clients purchased this property in 2020, which was poor timing. It was just before COVID.

As a senior housing facility, it was more impacted by loss of life as people contracted the disease.

And so they ended up with a lot of vacancies, as well as having people in an ongoing way not able

to pay rent. So they purchased the building, had an economic hit right away out the door,

and then have had a lot of difficulty since COVID renting out the vacant units.

I came onto this project in August just to sort of start the process. And there were seven vacant

units then, and there are still seven vacants unit now. And I'm going to kind of get into that

a little bit because I think the context helps explain what's happening here. After they purchased

the property, they had some units able to use VASH vouchers for the studio apartments,

but the Section 8 Housing Authority stopped issuing those vouchers to studio apartments.

And so unfortunately, they lost the opportunity to recoup the additional increases that the

subsidy would provide on top of the base rents. And I'll get into that a little bit more as well.

The owners were not notified of that policy change. It was something their leasing agent

discovered as she kind of dug in. And they had a previous contract with Swords to Plowshares that

helped bring them qualified tenants for the property. And suddenly Swords to Plowshares

became unresponsive to any of their requests and their emails. So they lost a source also of

rental tenants. Our leasing agent shifted to working with the Bayview Hunters Point Social

Services, Onlock, Senior Services, Catholic Charities, Bishop, Curry Senior Center, and several

other subsidies, and she really hustles to try to work with various agencies to place

tenants and find tenants that are qualified for this property.

The maximum rent that's set by MOHCD, because some of the utilities in this property are

covered by tenants, is $1,545 a month with a 60% AMI.

Only the San Francisco Housing Authority, the Section 8 providers, have a payment standard

that pays more than what the tenants can pay.

So the 1,545 is the maximum amount that a tenant can pay for rent,

and then the subsidy may pay more on top of that

to bring the monthly rent for the owners up closer to a market rate rent.

So because Section 8 is the only agency

that has a standard requirement that allows them to pay this,

they basically have to negotiate with any other subsidy that they're working with

in order to get more than the $1,545.

And I'll show you why that's important.

And as I've said, Section 8, the San Francisco Housing Authority,

is no longer issuing specifically the VASH vouchers for studio apartments.

So there's been, again, they've taken another little hit financially on that side.

MOHCD also posts this maximum number, rent number, when they're advertising,

which, again, when we're negotiating with the subsidies,

makes it a little bit more challenging to get above that $1,545 number.

These are the real numbers.

On a recent application process, 256 applications were submitted, 12 withdrew,

214 were disqualified or were non-responsive.

That's a massive number of the people that are applying for these units that simply don't qualify.

Many of the people who apply are not seniors.

So that's one of the reasons that they're seeing that they're not being qualified.

People will submit an application sort of being like, well, maybe they can make an exception for me,

which under the BMR rules, obviously they cannot.

30 were qualified, but only two decided to move forward with a formal application once they had toured the units.

That's another thing that our leasing agent has suggested is seniors don't want to rent these units.

They're on Post Street between Hyde and Larkin.

Seniors are looking for the feedback she's had is that they're looking for safer units in nicer neighborhoods,

and they're looking for buildings with more amenities and more of a lifestyle.

There are basically no amenities in this building, and the units are quite small.

We've consistently had a failure to succeed in the lottery system,

and what happens in the BMR units is it goes to a lottery first.

If you don't get tenants out of the lottery, it goes on a first-come, first-served basis.

And so repeatedly, this property has rolled over out of the lottery into first-come, first-served,

which is another indication that it's very difficult to get tenants into these units.

The MOHCD offered a one-time waiver of the senior limitation, as they were able to do once it rolled over into the first-come, first-served process,

and found a lot more tenants because they didn't have to have senior qualifications.

So we know that that's a source of some of the difficulty here is the senior limitation.

Yeah, she's, our leasing agent noted these two things which I already mentioned.

Removing the requirement for the 55 plus tenant requirement will significantly increase our

tenant pool and allow us to fill these units much more quickly.

This is kind of a detailed breakdown.

I know it's quite small.

I can get a copy of this for you.

Basically, this is a copy of all of the monthly rents for each of the tenants.

So a tenant will pay, for example, $940, and then the subsidy will pay the $605, making

it $1,545.

Some of the tenants do pay the $1,545, but in most cases, the subsidy is only bringing

us up to that 60% AMI limitation, the $1,545.

So at the very bottom of this, $28,428 is the actual rental income currently each month.

This does factor that we have seven vacancies.

But you can see their operating expenses are $21,000 a month.

Property taxes are $6,600 a month.

Monthly loan interest is $19,000 a month.

And so currently with the vacancies, they're losing over $18,000 a month.

They're not paying their mortgage.

They are in default.

the bank has threatened to take the property back, which is why they started this process

and why we're asking for a modification to the BMR agreement.

The largest operating expenses are the on-site managers' fees each month, professional fees for certification.

These BMR units have to have a qualified consultant to recertify the tenants every year

and also go through the extensive number of applicants.

She charges basically the equivalent of two months' worth of rent for each unit that she leases.

So the owners don't even make money on the first two months that that tenant's renting,

and at the end of the year, if they become disqualified for some reason, income or otherwise,

they start the process over.

Repairs and maintenance, a little over $4,000 a month.

And then property taxes, property insurance is something that I know we're all struggling with,

but their property insurance increased $20,000 a year last year.

So there are significant increases also in the expenses just because of the environment that's happening with insurance.

Now, if we look at the same spreadsheet and we assume all of the units are rented at the current 60% AMI with that $1,545 a month, they're still going to lose almost $8,000 a month.

They're still looking at a loss every month, which is why we have asked for also the increase in the income to 70% AMI from 60.

Basically, we understand and we want to be really clear to the community.

We are not changing agreements to any of the tenants that currently live in this building.

All of their payments, all of their agreements, all of their rights and responsibilities, everything stays the same for current tenants.

It's only for the vacant units and for the units that become vacant that would then reap the benefits of this program,

this change that we're asking you for.

So if we're only renting seven vacant units, that's $2,600 a month.

We're never going to get that.

So the overall goal here is to increase over time the rental rates for all of the units to $1,800 a month so that they can break even.

And thank you for your time.

I'm here for questions, and so are the honors.

With that we should open a public comment members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter

You need to come forward

Last call

Public comment is closed this matters now before you commissioners. Commissioner Imperial

Thank you for the presentation and thank you staff

I have a question on the

The architect or the presenter in terms of subsidy

identification.

So it looks like in this rent

world that you've provided us,

there are other subsidy

providers, Catholic Charities,

Eviction Defense,

Brilliant Corners,

Lutheran Social.

Are they, can you

talk, are you aware of

the length of these subsidies?

Are they for the,

are these permanent subsidies

or do they have due dates

on these subsidies?

Can you come up?

My name is John Warner.

I'm part of the ownership group.

There is not a specific sunset that ever gets communicated to us on the ownership side.

And, you know, in the probably three years that we've been working with the consultant that Serena referenced,

There have been times that subsidies have actually switched to different agencies.

And, you know, there is, you know, occasionally we will receive a letter from the subsidy provider.

Sometimes they'll put up a security deposit.

But, you know, they're not actually obligated to continue it for any specific period of time.

I mean, we are entering into a lease with the actual occupant of the unit.

So there are subsidies that may have time frame.

That's what you're – because Section 8 – the reason I'm asking this is because Section 8 voucher is a permanent subsidy, and that creates permanent livability for that tenant.

In terms of these subsidies – and I'm aware that other subsidies, like I believe some parts of the eviction defense may have some time frame.

so and also

I may the reason I'm asking these questions because you're presenting about your losses

and you know what is actually also

feasibility to your feasible to your to your building

I am so that's a kind of kind of like

nuance that I'd like to see and also

in terms of the like the maximum amount of these subsidies

of other subsidies that could pay.

They may not be as high as the Section 8,

because I'm aware that Section 8, I think,

provides more subsidy than the other subsidies.

So, yeah, I just kind of want to know those details.

If, yeah, if you know that.

I handle the money, so I'm as well-versed in it as anybody.

And so I can tell you that it has been extremely infrequent

where any subsidy stream has been discontinued.

I mean, people are more likely to pass away

than to lose the subsidy from any of these third parties.

The few rents that you see there

that exceed the mayor's office handbook limits,

those were all in place prior to our ownership.

We have not rented a single apartment

to anybody where we've collected more than the legally allowed 60% AMI,

depending on the year that it happened.

So, you know, the one thing that I can tell you is that the vast majority of the tenants

were receiving money from the San Francisco Housing Authority when we purchased the property.

And now, like the last month, we're down to four of those people.

Yeah, and as I mentioned in my presentation, the other subsidies have no obligation.

to pay above that $1,545 a month.

So if you look at the rent rules,

the ones that have the SFHA or the Section 8,

some of those are paying $1,870 a month,

which really puts us close to break even.

But it really hinges on the subsidy

paying over that $1,545 a month.

And as I've said, the other subsidies are not obligated

and do not have programs in place to do that.

I understand.

Thank you, thank you.

That's my comment.

That's my question to you.

You know, I'm, and, you know, in terms of, I'm more leaning to the, you know, to the recommendation by the department itself of this,

because I'm aware of the kind of residents that live in this, that they are, even if you try to increase the, you know, the AMI,

the increasing price to 60, that would increase the rent,

the portion of the rent for the tenants as well.

That would also increase the subsidy in itself.

But it's always calculated in a way that the tenant can also pay.

But when there is an increase of rent,

there would also be an increase of the share of the tenant as well.

and so many of these

so that's what I'm

you know I'm

concerned as well and

understand the loss

of the feasibility

especially in this kind of affordable housing

and again the only thing that I

could you know

I could really

suggest is this

really increase

whether MoCD can provide

this kind of subsidy that's the kind

of to keep this more affordable is to have more, you know, city funding or state funding

to keep this type of building.

But I'm always centered around the tenants and the people that are going to live here.

So that's my comment.

And I, you know, for me, I would like to take the planning department's recommendation.

Commissioner Williams.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation.

At first glance, you know, changing the age for seniors is something that I'm very reluctant to do

only because I understand how little senior housing there is.

But then understanding the location and other considerations that were explained,

it just it really points out like the dilemma that a lot of lower income seniors are having

as far as you know getting housing getting placed getting a program or a process that works that

works for the owner and works for the tenants.

And so

I'm kind of

not confused, but I don't know really which way to go because

again, I understand how changing

the circumstances around this particular property.

You know, I really am very cautious to make sure that whatever we do, it doesn't limit someone's senior's access to housing.

And so, although I understand the numbers, it really just shines a light on a system that is not working.

and how much more work we need to do with figuring out ways to fund housing for our seniors

that don't rely on so many other areas of subsidy that can change.

And it just really doesn't promote any kind of real longevity and permanence and secure housing for our seniors, which is a huge problem.

This points it out.

And so I'm not exactly – I know we're not going to have the solutions to this unfortunate dilemma.

But it highlights the work that we need to do, not only as a city, but everywhere, as a state, to figure this out.

Because I happen to know that our senior population, according to the census, is the only population that grew like 8.7%.

So this is a problem that's not going away.

more folks are becoming older

and

you know they

they're going to need a place to live

so

anyway that's those are my

comments thank you thank you Commissioner

Williams Commissioner Braun

I have

a one

quick question

for I think probably the project

sponsor is there an expiration

date the affordability restrictions for this

building?

I believe the original agreement was 50

years. Okay, so it's still

a ways out. Yeah, we're about halfway through.

Thank you.

And then I have a question for staff.

I'm sorry, can I correct

that? So in the settlement agreement

in 2018, it was

the clock got reset on that.

Okay, so it's 50 again from

2018. Thank you for clarification.

I have a question for staff

about one of the recommendations

or modification recommendations.

So there's a comment in there about not allowing use of sort of all unspecified subsidies,

not including that in our action.

Could you expand a little bit on that, Dakota?

Yeah, definitely.

I think the request just was a little bit broad, so it didn't go into the specific subsidies

that were requested.

So for those reasons, just because they were unknown to us, we couldn't recommend that they were part of this motion.

Okay, thank you.

And maybe I'll circle back to the project sponsor on that then.

I'm curious, what is the request as far as allowing other subsidies,

and what's your kind of thought on not just opening this up to all unspecified subsidies?

Yeah, the 2018 agreement was very clearly that it outlined that seven of the units would benefit from the VASH program specifically.

And so this is really not my wheelhouse, quite frankly, as an architect.

When I jumped into this, I've learned a lot about the BMR program in the last few months.

And so I wrote it broadly because I wasn't really clear that we would need to provide a list.

We can happily provide a list of the subsidies that they work with and that they have tenants in the building with.

I don't know that it will help in the sense that, like I've said, those subsidies don't have an obligation to pay more.

But the opportunity to have those, like all 25 or 24 of the units, to have that ability to go above the 1545 if we have a subsidy that's willing to pay the extra is really crucial, I think, to them not losing the building.

Okay.

And you have something to add?

Just to clarify, so the 2018 settlement agreement specifically allocated 16 of the 24 units to be kind of earmarked for VASH voucher holders.

I appreciate Commissioner Williams' comments about the systemic issues that this is highlighting.

So our in-house property manager, in the wake of the vacancy that followed COVID, basically could not navigate the qualifying process that Serena presented in terms of the over 200 applicants resulting in two actual move-ins.

So we hired a specialist that is very familiar with this terrain.

And as I understand it, all these additional subsidy sources that you see on this

is that that has been the only way that she can actually get people into these units,

meaning that the combination of the certification requirements,

the administrative rigor for people that are low-income,

many, you know, borderline on the street,

that for them to navigate the process of providing the income documentation,

navigating, you know, just getting through the process

of actually renting an apartment through a bureaucracy,

that this is her way to get a leg up for some of these people

by arranging for these subsidies.

Like, that was not even her assignment, necessarily.

It's, like, the only way that she can bring them to the table.

So, you know, in addition to the relaxation of the regulation that we're requesting, you know, the real systemic issue is that it is very difficult just to rent these apartments.

I mean, this is a 20-year-old building.

It's not substandard housing.

It is a nice, very clean and new building, not fancy workforce housing.

And so, you know, it was really just the creativity of our certification consultant who is also handling the leasing to bring these other subsidy providers forward.

I think there was some confusion initially as to whether or not we could get additional Section 8 voucher holders into the property, whether or not we were allowed to do that.

So I think we've been reaffirmed that that's possible, although none have been delivered.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, please.

Just to add one more final period on this sentence, Carly Grove, department staff.

The VASH vouchers avoided the DALIA process and that leasing process because VASH vouchers are

such a specific veteran population that they were able to occupy the units by referral.

And so when the VASH vouchers came out of the property, it also created, I think, what the

project sponsor was just describing as a new challenge in leasing units without that direct

referral process.

The VASH vouchers work very similarly to Section 8 vouchers where they gap.

The payment standard brings the income back up around a market rent.

And so those two factors really, I think, hit the project pretty hard.

I see.

And I'm also curious if department staff have any other thoughts on the sources of subsidy that, you know,

it seems like the current subsidy sources have been really cobbled together, has been sort of described.

and so that's why I'm kind of wondering

if it's really necessary to say that, you know,

we can't open up subsidy sources more widely on this project.

And I think that the recommendation around subsidies

was really around the structure

of how referrals were made to the department.

So I think with the VASH, kind of what I was describing,

you know, swords to plowshares can make a direct referral

to the owner who can occupy the unit with a veteran.

So I think the 2013 procedures manual

is permissive of rental subsidies.

So anything from any of these agencies

can be provided to a tenant by that agency

and they can use that towards their rent.

I think what we were intending with that recommendation

is really if there's a similar structure to that referral,

like a VASH voucher,

we'd like to be able to review that

before the project sponsor took advantage of it.

I see. Okay. Thank you.

So my thoughts on this is, you know,

I'm willing to support the changes that expand opportunities

to fill the affordable housing units in this building.

I will say, though, you know, I'm not,

I think similar to Commissioner Imperial,

I'm not in favor of increasing the rent AMI,

the pricing AMI, to 70%.

because that's the one thing that will reduce the depth of affordability of our affordable housing stock.

And I'm sympathetic to the situation of the building owner in this situation.

But ultimately, that change lasts.

It sticks with the building.

It sticks with our affordable housing stock for a very, very long time.

and whereas even if the building changes hands,

if we keep it at the 60% AMI pricing limit,

then it will stay at 60% AMI for the next property owner as well.

And so I think that I'm all for trying to get the units filled

and to do what we can to expand opportunities to find sources of subsidy,

but I'm not in favor of increasing the AMI limit for the pricing from 60% to 70%.

And so basically, I'm essentially taking the department's recommendations here for approval with modifications that the department put forward, and I will make a motion to that effect.

And I second it.

Vice President Moore.

I think Commissioner Brown summarized it very well.

it took a while to really understand the subtleties of what is implied here,

but I think the department has done a great job to really laying it out,

particularly today answering questions,

which sometimes just cannot all be captured in the report.

I also like to give a shout-out to Ms. Grobe.

I had a question regarding continued preferential rental for seniors,

and she explained that in this particular circumstance,

it does not apply.

There is a whole sub-chassis to this particular subject matter,

but I take that as a recommendation.

What we are really doing is we have a vast population

with differing needs to find affordable units,

and all this does is expand the possibility for others to find housing

with not taking away from seniors who will be just any other person applying

be capable of living here.

Great explanation.

I do support the increase of income, but I do not support, as Commissioner Brown very

sensitively laid out, to increase the qualifying rental rates for AMI from 60 to 70 percent.

I think that is kind of taking too much away of what others in the community need as well.

So I'm in support of the department's recommendation and have actually seconded the motion.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Yeah.

I just have a thought on the AMI.

The AMI increases, like, how frequently?

Because I know that, you know, 10 years ago, or let's say even 20 years ago, the building was built.

I'm not exactly sure when the building was built.

It's 20 years old.

and so I'm just you know trying to understand what the AMI you know was then what it is now

because I'm sure it's considerably more now than it was then and so just to kind of

understand how the AMI works. Commissioner Williams well I think I think our team is

trying to look up specific numbers which we can get back to you but conceptually yeah AMI

it increases. The city publishes every year a list of area median income by percentages. And so

the number that is represented by 60% of area median income changes annually. That generally

changes. It is based on income in the area. It is not directly attached to cost of living,

inflation revenue from rent, but it generally parallels that.

So I think what the rent was

at 60% of AMI when the building was built versus the costs that the

building owner had to cover are in parallel with what the

cost, the rent is today with the costs they have to cover.

I understand that part. I'm just trying

to understand how the AMI,

how it impacts the costs of it, how it changes.

And because when it comes to low-income people,

it's a big difference between 60% and 70%, let's say.

And what was 60% 20 years ago is a lot different than what it is now

as far as people having to come out of pocket for their rent.

So that's just...

Yes?

Yeah, so the rent, it does increase.

It's capped at 4% annually, adjusted for inflation.

Our wonderful colleagues from OCD are here as well, should you have questions to elaborate on that.

But it is capped at 4% annually.

OCD does publish those numbers.

But gradually, you're correct, it does increase.

It's not the same rent that was being collected in 2000 as it is now.

Okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Commissioner Williams.

I'll just echo the sentiment of a lot of my fellow commissioners,

although I really appreciate the bringing some metrics to the dialogue

because it's sobering to see how it's not working just from a pure math perspective

and to see the vacancies continue.

Something's got to change.

So I really like this idea of casting a wider net, gets you more prospective tenants.

So, you know, broadening that demographic,

increasing the gross annual income from 60%.

I'm worried it's not going to be enough,

but maybe this is a good test to see what happens.

If the graph still looks like this in, you know, six months,

just seeing what the loss is monthly,

I'm just a little bit worried about, you know, the idea of this,

these folks defaulting on their loans.

So I don't know if there's a way to, if it continues to be a problem,

If we can get this project sponsor back here for a reevaluation in a time-efficient way,

I think that might be something we might want to commit to.

Otherwise, I echo the sentiment of my fellow commissioners in supporting staff's recommendations.

And maybe a better list of the vouchers so we can expand what that could be beyond what's written here.

That's it for me.

Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with staff modifications on that motion.

Commissioner McGarry? Aye.

Commissioner So? Aye.

Commissioner Williams? Aye.

Commissioner Braun? Aye.

Commissioner Imperial? Aye.

Commissioner Moore? Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye.

So move, Commissioners. A motion passes unanimously 7 to 0, placing us on items 11A and B for case numbers 20, 25,

5-0-0-3-8-5-6-CUA and VAR for the property at 430 Green Street.

Commissioners, you will be considering the request for conditional use authorization,

and the zoning administrator will be considering the request for variance.

All right.

Hello again, commissioners.

Dakota Speicher again for the Planning Department.

This item before you is a request for conditional use authorization

pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.2, 249.49, 303, and 317

to allow for the demolition of an existing residential building

containing one dwelling unit to construct a new approximately 5,000 square foot,

four-story tall, 40-foot tall residential building containing two dwelling units.

The commission must also consider the installation of a garage with one off-street parking space located within the Telegraph Hill, North Beach Special Use District.

The project is also seeking a rear yard variance, which will be considered separately by the zoning administrator today.

Subject property is located at 430 Green Street and is within the RM1 zoning district, Telegraph Hill, North Beach Special Use District,

priority equity geography, special use district, and a 40X height and bulk district.

In 2019, the previous owner entered into a bio agreement with the tenant at the time,

who vacated the same year.

The subject building is currently owner-occupied,

and there have not been any evictions within the past 10 years.

In 2025, the sponsor hosted the required pre-application meeting.

According to the sponsor's notes, there was neither support for nor opposition to the project.

Since your packet was published, the department has received three letters in opposition to the project.

The first from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, citing concerns about a potential second off-street parking space

and overall safety concerns with off-street parking, a need for an additional unit height,

and lack of on-site affordable units.

The second letter is from an adjacent property owner to the northwest,

citing concerns over the building's massing, access to light and air,

lack of usable open space within the project, and concerns over construction impacts.

The final letter received is from an individual across the street from the subject property,

emphasizing similar concerns found in Telegraph Hill Dwellers' letter,

and further citing incompatibility with the district, impacts to private views, and construction concerns again.

The department finds that this project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan.

The project will demolish an existing age sound one unit building to construct a two unit residential building, thus maximizing the allowable density of the subject property.

The project will provide a multi unit residential building that provides rental and ownership opportunities for middle income households and promotes multi generational living for families.

the project will provide two family-sized dwelling units that contain access to family amenities,

including laundry, off-street parking, usable open space within a high-density area of the city.

The proposed one-car garage will not increase the levels of automobile traffic or impair pedestrian use on Green Street.

The department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood

and not to be detrimental to adjacent properties or persons within the vicinity.

This concludes my presentation.

I am available for questions, and once again, I will pass it off to the project sponsor.

You have five minutes.

Thank you.

If I could get the computer, please.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

John Kevlin here on behalf of the project sponsor, the Shoe family.

The shoes purchased the existing single-family home at 430 Green in 2019 and have been living there ever since.

They are pursuing this project to create a duplex that will accommodate their multi-generational family

while also adding a new rental unit to the city's housing market.

The matriarch, Joanna, is here with us today.

They specifically chose this location due to its proximity to Chinatown.

The three grandparents that are living at the house do not speak English,

So this was a perfect location for their family compound.

The project proposes demolition of the existing single-story over-basement 1,100-square-foot home.

It's actually south of 1,100 square feet.

If you can imagine it, there are four bedrooms squeezed into this tiny space today.

In its place, a three-story over-basement duplex is proposed, including a four-bedroom apartment occupying the upper two floors.

This is a family-sized unit and will house the Shoes family.

Note there is an elevator proposed to exclusively serve the unit to accommodate the grandparents.

There's a two-bedroom apartment occupying the second floor.

And then finally, a basement level that will include a single parking space and a workshop designed for the family.

And in particular, you'll see here the elevator comes out on this floor in order to access that parking space.

Obviously, in North Beach, parking is a little bit more sensitive than other areas of the city.

In this case, it's very important to the project because, again, we have three seniors in this building,

and there's a lot of appointments and other things to get to, and so this is particularly important here.

It's only a single space serving two units, so not even one-to-one.

No roof deck is proposed, and open space is provided at the rear via a setback fourth floor and a deck on the second floor.

The project creates new housing in a desirable area of the city that sees little new housing development.

The project does require a variance from the rear yard requirement, which is justified here.

The rear yard requirement is set by the depth of the two adjacent buildings.

Such depths actually average less than 15 feet here, but despite this, the code still requires at least 15 feet.

You can see the difference illustrated on this slide.

The project proposes a rear building wall that provides a greater setback than it would exist today.

The basement pop-out with the second floor deck on top essentially replaces the current deck in that location,

although smaller and further setback from the rear.

The second and third floors are roughly a two-foot larger setback on half of the rear wall

and a single foot of additional depth on the other half of the wall.

And then at the fourth floor, it provides that generous 30% setback deeper than what is required by code.

As such, the project generally increases the rear setback compared to its current condition,

and the rear wall is only increasing by 5 feet in height.

Note also that this is an undersized site on a block of undersized sites.

The modest-sized apartment buildings on this block ultimately provide particularly small rear yards.

And as you can see from this exhibit, even with the variance,

the project provides similar amounts of open space in the rear yard as its immediate neighbors,

including the east neighbor, which provides no setback whatsoever.

So this is not inconsistent with the existing built character on this neighborhood.

So, in closing, the project provides a home for a multi-generational family,

adds a net new dwelling unit in an area of the city where there is little new housing development,

and does so while staying consistent with the existing built environment of its neighbors.

Thank you, and for your consideration, we're here to respectfully request your support for the project.

Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward.

Hello. Can you hear me?

We can.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Connie Ng.

I am here speaking on behalf of my family who owned and lived at 14 to 16 Verena Street

next to 430 Green Street.

I'm here to oppose this project.

We are the neighbors that I believe Section 134 was written to protect.

We have three residential units across four stories.

Nearly all of our windows face east directly toward 430 Green Street.

Right now, with the single-story building that's there, we get eastern light, sunlight

throughout the day on all four floors.

This project requests a massive rear yard variance to extend the building deep into the lot that puts a four-story, like, 39-foot wall with a minimal setback right up against our property.

I have rudimentary pictures of this for...

or this is the proposed area of construction.

And ours is right here on the back.

And you'll see the windows all on that property.

And then I did a very rough sketch

of what the building would look like.

I don't have beautiful computer software

to do that properly for me.

But it shows that the sunlight units get now.

They will be virtually eliminated by the building being constructed four stories high as well.

And I believe that Section 134 has two requirements that can't be met here.

First, the variance can't adversely affect neighboring properties.

We are that neighbor that adversely affects that.

This will eliminate most, if not all, natural light that comes through to our three units.

It's not adverse.

It's not just adverse.

It's severe for the neighbors and the low-income seniors that live in the building.

Second, the project has to improve access to light and air for neighbors.

It won't improve that.

It will eliminate it.

We raised this exact same concern back in 2021 when we were notified of the pre-application process.

Developers knew about this concern from us in the Chinatown Community District, and they seemingly didn't do anything to improve or enhance the program or the plans.

We've also spoken to other neighbors on Green Street, specifically 434, 436 Green, the right neighbor to the left of the property.

And they oppose this as well.

So this isn't really just us being difficult.

This is a real neighborhood concern about a project that requires massive code variance that causes significant harm to the existing residents that live on the property.

We're not against development or redevelopment in any way.

but this variance, like I said, eliminates sunlight to existing homes, all to build what seemingly is two luxury units

that don't meet the representation of the community that they currently are in.

So we're asking you to not approve the variance if possible.

Thank you.

Last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

This matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Williams.

Yeah, a couple of questions.

Given the close proximity to the buildings behind it, and this is a question to the media.

Is this a common detail?

Do we see this a lot in this neighborhood?

Zoning Administrator.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator.

If I could just ask, which detail, what aspect of the project are you referencing?

The closeness, right?

I mean, the buildings are very close to each other in the rear, and it's tall as well.

And so I'm just wondering, you know, how common this is in this area.

Yeah, I would say that there are definitely parts of the city, and this is one of them,

where you have a combination of kind of small lots that are kind of historically developed where they are very tight.

And there's not like a kind of a traditional mid-block open space like we may see in some more of our western neighborhoods.

I mean, this is definitely a neighborhood, and this block and kind of the vicinity is definitely an area where you see a higher level of kind of building density than you would in maybe some other neighborhoods.

So I think this is a common context in this area in terms of having buildings this close to each other.

Okay.

If that's what you're asking specifically.

Yeah, yeah.

Just for a general question there.

I mean, I look at this, and obviously it's not a normal circumstance.

You know, it's a small lot.

I mean, I understand that the owners want to build something for themselves,

but I also understand that because of the lot size

and because of the close proximity to the neighbors,

I think that I feel that that's a legitimate concern as far as the height.

I notice that there's a deck on the roof and another structure to get to that deck.

And I'm just wondering, you know, if that's needed.

It's kind of feels like it's – am I right by – is there a deck there?

John, yeah.

Thank you, Commissioner.

The open space provided for the top floor unit is at the rear of the fourth floor where it's set back,

so it's on the roof of the third floor.

There's no roof deck on the absolute top of this building.

There is an elevator penthouse up there, not to use it as a roof deck,

but to access it for utilities, mechanical purposes.

But to the degree that the commission was looking for some relief from that, there are less impactful ways of getting access to that very top rooftop without having the elevator go the whole way up.

Yeah. I think, you know, thank you for that, John.

I think what I'm getting at is, to me, it just feels like an unusual circumstance.

And as much as I understand the property owners wanting to build and have every right to, it feels to me like the project could reduce in a way that would accommodate the neighbor, some of the light issues that they're having.

I know it steps back in the rear a little bit but it just doesn't it feels to me like it could do more

that's where I'm at right now I just wanted to to verbalize that thank you Mr. Teague

I thought I was further down the queue thank you yeah I think it's just helpful to break out

kind of what we're looking at, obviously.

Again, the Planning Commission is looking at the demolition

and the addition of the garage in the Telegraph Hill SUD,

and then specifically the variance is for the rear yard issue.

I would say that on the rear yard variance issue,

to take a position somewhat similar to the commissioner,

this is a small lot.

This is a very dense area.

I completely understand the adjacent neighbors' concern about impacts on light and air.

Having said that, I think those impacts are primarily due to height and not depth, which is what the variance is for.

There's some impact from that, but primarily, even if you do a completely co-compliant four-story building here,

you're going to have those light impacts just by the nature of the location of these buildings

and the direction of the sun, et cetera.

So I just want to point that out.

So it seems to me when we have these types of scenarios where, you know,

substantially something is reasonable, but you have a really tight context,

It's just making sure that the design is as contextual as possible to try to reduce those impacts as much as possible while still allowing a reasonable development of the site.

So I would also be interested to hear from the commissioners and their positions on any other ideas you may have about just the design context, the height of the building.

if you see there are any ways that you feel like the design could be tweaked to be more contextual,

I would definitely lean on the commission in that regard to see what your perspective is.

Commissioner McGarry.

I can't help but think this is already a strange situation.

It's basically a small lot.

It's a single-story building beside another single-story building,

each of which or both of which are basically flanked by three to four storey buildings.

So I can't see how three to four storey buildings around can protect their light

and these one storey buildings should stay one storey buildings forever.

I have a problem with that.

We're living in a city.

A city grows.

Basically the people who bought this have grown out of this and they want to expand it.

I would make a motion to recommend

modifications. I second it.

Commissioner Braun.

Right?

Yes.

First of all, the item is

conditional use authorization with the demolition of the existing unit which enables the project

to move forward.

Generally speaking, I'm supportive.

You know, the new project adds a housing unit.

There have been times I've pushed

to get additional units added to projects,

but in this case, this project's already maximizing

the site density under our local rules.

So any further push would end up trying to push somebody

to build a state ADU,

which feels a little kind of beyond us.

So I'm not going there.

you know this it's in conformance to the height limits in the area i would love to see this

project not have a parking space but really i don't see exceptional or extraordinary circumstances

on the mandatory discretionary review for having the single parking space at this site so i can i

can live with it um i think the big question then is this discussion we're having about the

circumstance of you know the height of the building and the fact that it's pushing in the rear yard

so much and it's tricky because as has been noted the adjacent buildings already pushed quite a ways

into their rear yards as well and in many ways this building would be in conformity with the context

of other buildings in the area i i respect um you know or i understand that nobody wants to lose

direct light coming in through a window from a new project but i also do generally agree with

commissioner mcgarry that you know it's not it wouldn't be an unusual circumstance in this area

it's um you know something most projects that we ultimately approve or see at the planning

commission have some impacts on light for other um other properties in the area and we you know

can't just freeze a single story building in place for that that reason as far as i'm concerned

my one my one thought though is you know the variance falls to the zodiac administrator

and not to just put this in your shoulders i i you know i if it's it may be reasonable to pull the

building back a little bit and not let it go quite so deep in the property line um i'm not firmly

i'm not i don't have a firm position on that or thought on that um but it's it is the one

consideration that you know it is requesting a in order to essentially conform with the existing

conditions of nearby buildings, I mean, it's asking for a pretty significant variance,

as has been noted.

So I just, I'm willing to support the project.

I wonder if there's a minor compromise that could be made just with the depth in the yard,

but I'm not going to kind of force the issue.

Vice President Moore.

I'd like to take a slightly different tack.

We're having a substandard lot 20 feet by 57.5 feet, which is very atypical given its widths and its depth.

Often we have shorter lots, but we have the 25-foot widths in the front.

That creates a very unusual circumstance to design in context,

because what we're putting on this lot is a significant amount of square footage spread over four floors.

And the problem I have with it is that the assignment of uses, particular to the ground floor,

are so squishy and undefined that I believe that the building may have to reorganize itself

in terms of accountability of what's on the ground floor.

I do not mind the parking space, particularly for a multi-generational family.

I think that is acceptable and should be supported.

However, when it comes to a woodworking shop of 621 square feet,

I'm kind of saying that gives me two ADUs at a minimum.

And then when it comes to storage space, which I just kind of like,

I think it's about in the 190 square foot range, I'm saying, gee, that is almost an ADU.

We are approving ADUs at square footage of 230 square feet and up,

and I think there is a squishiness in overbuilding this lot

with not properly kind of finding a way to fit the circumstance.

If you have a suburban lot and there's lots of space around it

with buildings not being near,

you can do what's proposed to be done here,

and I think it's well done on its own.

When you try to shoehorn this into the context where it is,

and adjoining neighbors are telling me that when controlled units,

a stone throw away are being impacted because light in our living space

is indeed part of livability and healthy living, I'm having a little hard time.

So there is a possibility of more usefully assigning of how the units work together and a different look at the ground floor.

That is almost 800 square feet and more.

Or to shave the building back to the extent that it indeed creates more than just the required rear yard open space.

because the impact of the adjoining building by the owner,

who very, very succinctly described what the issues are,

that is what I think we need to distinguish.

Mr. Teague?

Thank you.

And just to touch on what Commissioner Brom was saying

and also was raised by the person here opposing

is that one of the findings for the variance

is that you don't have detrimental impacts

on properties in the vicinities.

And that's kind of where I was saying

I think there's a case for a variance here.

I think the key is just getting the design to a point

where it's as least impactful as possible.

And to me, the impacts appear to be two major impacts.

One is just height, right?

and so where are there places to just, even at the edges and the margins, to address that issue?

But the other one, even though it wasn't stated in person, I think it was something in writing

and also just from viewing it is the project is subject to design guidelines

and that close proximity in the decks are any potential privacy issues.

And so on that, I was going to ask the project sponsor,

I don't know if you've had any feedback on potential privacy issues or thought about that,

or if you've thought about or would be, you know, have any thoughts on adding an additional privacy screening at the rear decks to address that,

because the proximity is quite tight there.

And that is one issue, and this comes up a good bit at the Board of Appeals as well, in terms of privacy for decks within close proximity.

So I just want to ask the project sponsor if you can come and speak to that a bit and see if you've thought about that.

Would be open to adding, I mean, obviously the decks have the railing, so they're going to be 42 inches tall,

but maybe some level of additional privacy screening with some frosted or translucent glass material,

something like that, to allow light in but still provide privacy.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Teague.

I think this is not an uncommon context of having an upper story open space at the rear of the building.

And I think it's pretty common in these cases to incorporate a screening measure like that.

So we would be more than happy to introduce that to the project and continue working with the zoning administrator on that.

Can I also just offer maybe to go a little bit further?

because I appreciate the general positivity towards the project

with the concern around the rear,

and that's been kind of the heart of this case since we've been working on it.

If I could get the projector.

All right, let's see if I can do this.

Okay.

I think you guys can.

This is a little low-tech here, but...

Can you zoom it out, Mr.

I'll zoom it out, yeah.

Yeah, so we see the whole drawing, not just...

There you go, yeah.

Okay, so this is the proposed side elevation.

And so you can see that fourth story.

It stops at the 30% line, and then the lower three floors bump out.

Moving the very rear wall of the building in may not even have any impact on the light coming into that rear building

just because that fourth story certainly is blocking most, if not all, of whatever shadow the deep rear wall has on this lot.

So what may be more effective here is that we've got some room to play with into floor-to-floor heights.

We've got the second floor at 10 feet.

We've got the third floor at 10 feet.

And we've got the fourth floor at 11 1⁄2 feet.

we could get another four to five feet out of the height of the building, which by the way,

the rear wall, which is actually for the most part farther away from the building than it is today,

it's only five feet taller than what's there today. So if we can take two feet out of that,

now we're just talking about three additional feet at that depth of the property. So let me

just throw that out there because I do think that kind of gets more, personally, I think it gets more

at what the concerns are and does it in a way that certainly for the project sponsor is something we can easily accommodate.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

I appreciate that, John.

Another thing that was mentioned earlier is the structure that, I guess, encompasses the elevator.

that projects outside or above the roof line.

Is there any way that that could be relocated in a way that would remove it from the rear of the building,

which would further enhance light to come in?

And I appreciate what you've, one of the considerations that you've brought forward.

That's, you know, that's, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

But I also, given the circumstance, I would see if we can go, if we can get as far away from the back of that building to let the light into that adjacent building.

I mean, I think that would greatly help the situation with your neighbors.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Yeah, let me respond to that.

If I could get the projector again.

OK, so now we're on the roof.

So the elevator doesn't have a stop on the roof,

but what you'll see is that there's an override,

the mechanical closet.

It does need to get to that fourth floor for Joanna's folks

and in-laws.

But it also has a staircase that goes to the roof.

So I'm not exactly sure how much we can bring that down,

but what we can commit to is taking away the stair penthouse

and installing a hatch, right, so that bolt comes down, and then continuing to work with the zoning administrator and staff to minimize that mechanical penthouse as much as we possibly can there.

I don't know.

Elevators all have different mechanical systems to them.

I'm not sure if there's an elevator where we don't even need to have a person-sized door on it,

But what I guess I'm trying to commit to, Commissioner, is eliminating that stair penthouse and then working to minimize that mechanical penthouse as much as we can to accommodate the elevator.

We can do that.

I appreciate that.

I think that that's a reasonable solution.

Mr. Teague?

Thank you.

And thank you, project sponsor, for walking through that.

Because I think the kind of step-by-step you took there was a good example of how we can operate on the margins and make it more contextual.

Because what I heard there was some of the potential changes are removal of the stair penthouse, reduction of the mechanical penthouse to the extent permitted, kind of under code.

to meet the requirements that you need,

but also within the building code.

Reduce the fourth floor height from 11.4 to 10 feet

and add privacy screens to the rear decks.

I think you also mentioned even taking off other floors.

I mean, I don't know if bringing floor heights below 10 feet

is really necessary for something like this,

but I do see a floor height above 10 feet

you know given the give and take with the variance that being a reasonable

again kind of response at the margins just to bring the height all of that

collectively working to bring the height down which I do think is like the main

issue for light issues like the depth is less of an issue that's more of a

privacy issue I think and so I think with with those changes those four

carve-outs I think I would be comfortable with the with variants from

there, but I'm curious to hear from the commission

your position on those proposals.

Commissioner Braun?

I think the proposals

actually do make a great improvement

to the project and to

the impacts that we've been concerned

about, and is a certainly

less extreme solution than when I was

sort of tinkering with the idea of just

bringing back it, bringing back

the reducing how it encroaches

in the rear yard.

and so yeah I would definitely be able to support those changes I know that we

have a motion that was made by Commissioner McGarry's that I don't know

if you'd be willing to amend that motion or not but that those are my thoughts

sorry I'd be willing to amend the motion to incorporate the changes this and I

I will second it again.

Yes.

I would like Mr. Kivlin to speak a little bit about the large spaces on the ground floor.

There are hardly any residential buildings which have a 621-square-foot woodworking shop.

Could you explain that a little bit so we have a better understanding?

Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. I think one of the, as we've talked about, this is a small site to fit what we're trying to fit on it. Not uncommon, but it is a small site.

What happens when we add another dwelling unit to go from two to three is that we end up in an R2 occupancy rather than an R3 occupancy, which is one to two units.

And it requires the introduction of another staircase in the house.

So we very quickly start eliminating floor area in this very tight footprint that we otherwise had, and also eliminating the elevator, which for this particular occupant, the first occupant of this building, would be challenging for.

So the ADUs are a challenge.

I also, I would defer to the zoning administrator on this.

These are subgrade units, essentially, and they're facing what we know is a smaller rear yard than most.

And whether or not those would even be ADU's exceptions, that would be considerable from your perspective.

It's a pretty small area at that ground level at the rear to be facing onto.

So those are my thoughts.

The workshop, Commissioner Moore, is kind of we've got space on the ground floor.

There's not a desire to do two parking spaces, and I think there would have been a lot of greater opposition should we have done two parking spaces.

So to your point, is the workshop itself critical to the project?

No.

it's more about programming that basement, especially in a way that creates a wall there

and doesn't, you know, for future owners, leave the potential open for maybe space for other vehicles down there.

So you're saying that potentially that could be adapted under different rules currently.

I think in this particular part of town, you can only park one car given the zoning.

Is that correct?

That's right.

Yeah.

And there's no intent on the product sponsor's part, but I know there's sensitivity here not to have, I mean, even one space is a little touchy, two spaces much more so.

So we needed to program that space, and this is what we came up with in terms of serving the family and not being able to add that third unit or fourth.

The only thing I have to say, speaking for myself,

is that people living in reasonable units is more important to me

than providing a car space with a potential addition of reserving space

that could in the future be another car.

So I would have appreciated if this project would have come forward

without that additional car space,

but created a reasonably sized unit,

probably definitely in the thousand square foot range on the ground floor and bringing that building down by a space.

That would be, for me, kind of like fitting the circumstance in which these small lots originally were created where people did not have cars.

Many of the people living in this area don't have cars.

And that is just a signature of this particular part of town.

So that is my own position, but that has never been considered, correct?

I'm sorry, was that a question?

Yeah, that's the question.

The issue is with that third unit, adding that second needs of egress requirement under the building code

and adding an entire other stair shaft.

My question to you was not having a parking space but putting a large-sized unit on the ground floor

and having then the rest be one unit on top of it.

Oh, I see.

That was my idea.

Understood.

The SHUES have been living in this building since 2019.

It does not have a parking space today.

They do have the older members of their family.

And so particularly in this case, that one space really was important to the family.

Okay.

Thank you.

We do have a motion that's been seconded.

I see Commissioner Williams, you have some quick comments.

Yeah, I just wanted to clear up.

So exactly how many feet in total is the building going to be reduced in height?

Sure.

Just to repeat, maybe helpful for the motion, too, if that was the intent.

The changes that would be conditioned is, one, replacing the stair penthouse with a hatch.

So that reduces that completely.

And also working with the department and Department of Building inspection to minimize to the extent possible the mechanical.

hatch on the roof.

Reducing the height of the fourth floor

down to 10 feet from, I believe,

11 feet, 4 inches now.

So that's all the verticality

that would be removed.

And then the fourth kind of condition

would be adding privacy screens

to the rear deck and more details,

decks, plural.

And the more detail there is

for a total of 6 feet in height.

And for that extra screening

above the, you know, solid railing for that to be a frosted or translucent glass.

So it allows light but provides privacy.

So those would be the four conditions.

Right.

Okay.

So basically the height would be reduced by about a foot from, I mean, the whole entire

building envelope.

Well, it's hard to explain because the stair penthouse is actually like eight feet.

so that's you know even from a from a massing perspective it's not as massive as an entire

floor right from a height and a light impact you know it it's more substantial than its actual

massing because of the height right but then the actual building the total building itself would

be reduced uh you know one foot four inches such that no floor has a ceiling height greater than

total floor height of more than 10 feet.

Yeah, I mean, as much as I appreciate, you know, all the considerations that have been

made, I still, I just, I feel like it's, I mean, it's good.

I'm just not sure if it's going to really satisfy or at least partly satisfy the neighbors and their concerns with the light coming in.

I think for me it's because of the proximity, the close proximity of the rear of the buildings.

I think that that's a real issue.

And I know that we're just talking about the demolition and adding the garage.

but at the same time, you know, we're saying okay.

And so I know we heard from, can I just, and I hate to drag this out,

but I just want to, the woman that lived in the building behind,

could you just come up here for a minute?

I just want to, yeah, I apologize for calling you back up here, but you've heard what's transpired.

Do you feel, what do you feel about what's happened so far?

I think it's hard for me to contextualize how high it is because it's never, it's been like those two little guys on the green street.

And so it's hard for me to understand when I see and look out.

All I've seen is a deck before.

And I don't understand if the elevator hatchy thing is producing eight foot.

But then realistically, the heights of the apartment units are just one foot, one inch, four inches.

Like how substantially would that allow for light or air or anything to mitigate the problems?

And I appreciate the addition of the privacy screens on the decks and stuff, but the windows, there's no going around it.

The windows literally will look at the decks and look at a frosted deck of someone.

And if they so choose to open that deck to look out, they're just looking directly into the units,

which is, I think, a problem that's hard for San Francisco to resolve because of the buildings being so close together.

But in this case, I think I just would love to preserve the sun.

I remember growing up in the units.

My whole family lived in all three units, like, multigenerationally, and my grandparents as well before they passed.

And I remember just being able to, like, feel sunshine coming through the window, so it was nice.

But those are just some things, like, so I don't know if I'm answering your question appropriately.

Yeah, I appreciate those comments.

Thank you so much.

Is there anything else you want to add?

No.

But I appreciate the discussion.

Yeah, me too.

I respect everything that my fellow commissioners have said so far.

There's a lot of important issues.

For me, as much as I appreciate, again, the project sponsors legal team being willing to make some movement,

and I still am having a problem really with the light issue and the properties being so close together.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Williams.

I think that's all of our comments and conversation.

Maybe we can move to vote.

Indeed.

There is a motion that has been seconded, commissioners, and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner McGarry,

but I believe that the motion was to approve with conditions as amended to have the project sponsor

continue working with the zoning administrator and staff on the reduction of the building height,

specifically replacing the stair penthouse with a hatch,

reducing where able to the mechanical equipment above the elevator shaft,

reducing the fourth floor to a 10-foot height,

and incorporating privacy screening.

Is that all?

Yes.

It will pretty much be the same.

Great.

On that motion, Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Soh?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Nay.

Commissioner Braun aye. Commissioner Imperial aye. Commissioner Moore no and Commission President Matt Campbell aye.

So move commissioners that motion passes 5 to 2 with commissioners Williams and Moore voting against.

Zoning Administrator what say you?

I will close the public hearing on the variance and intend to grant the variance with the same conditions.

Thank you.

Commissioners, it will place us on item 12 for case number 2025-005983, 799 Van Ness Avenue.

This is a conditional use authorization.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I am Christy Alexander with Planning Department staff.

The project before you proposes to convert the existing vacant two-story over-basement,

former Mini Cooper USA commercial building, to self-storage use.

Doing business is Storage Star.

The project includes interior renovations of the approximately 44,595 gross square feet space

and exterior repairs and rehabilitation of all street-facing elevations,

consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for a historic resource.

Such repairs and rehabilitation would activate the building which has been vacant for eight years

in the residential, commercial, high-density zoning district

along the Van Ness Corridor and Historic Auto Row.

The Historic Preservation Commission heard this item at its January 21st hearing

and adopted a resolution advising the planning director to waive the active use requirement of Planning Code Section 145.1c3

as outlined in the resolution in the packet for the first and second stories of the subject building.

Specific street frontage requirements may be waived for historic buildings

when the HBC advises that complying with specific street frontage requirements

would adversely affect the meritorious character of the structure

or that modification or waiver would enhance the economic feasibility

of preservation of the historic structure.

Prior to the Planning Commission taking action on the conditional use authorization,

staff recommends that the Planning Director take action on the active use waiver

after the public hearing is closed.

The department has received one letter of opposition from the public since packet publishing.

Previous support was received from SF Heritage, the Tenderloin Merchants Association,

several real estate developer groups and nearby residents, and small business owners

expressing support for additional storage space.

Two opposition letters in total have been received from nearby residents expressing concerns

about the appropriateness of the proposed use.

Overall, the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives

and policies of the general plan, and meets all applicable requirements of the planning

code.

The department also finds the project to be desirable and compatible with the surrounding

neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity.

This concludes my presentation, and I'll be available for any questions.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Melinda Sarjapour, Ruben Junius and Rose. I'm joined today by Matt Garibaldi, CEO of Storage

Dar, our project architect, Wallace Design Group, and our preservation consultants, ARG.

We welcome any questions. This project is seeking conditional use authorization to occupy a long,

vacant building with a desirable new self-storage use. It's also requesting waiver from active use

controls from the planning director, and as Christy mentioned, in January, the Historic

Preservation Commission unanimously recommended that exception. The project is an adaptive reuse

of an existing historic building that has been vacant since 2018 and has been subject to vandalism

and disrepair since that time. Storage Star would occupy the full building with self-storage,

which requires minimal interior modifications and no physical expansion. There will be no impact to

character-defining features, and the interior changes are easily reversible. An active lobby

and office area would be provided at the main building entrance at the corner of Van Ness and

Eddy and staffed during all operating hours. The project will also provide many community benefits.

Self-storage is a low-impact commercial use that supports the practical needs of neighborhood

residents. Storage Star would invest in restoring and maintaining the building's historic exterior.

The project will provide new exterior lighting and partner with the Tenderloin Merchants Association

to enhance security and safety. Some of the security features will include interior cameras,

on-site employee presence, and routine site walks of all three frontages between 12 and 4 p.m. every day.

A new mural is proposed to be installed at the basement level along Van Ness Ave,

and based on feedback the team has received from SF Heritage and an HPC storage star plans to select a design for that art

that evokes the building's historical role in Van Ness' auto row.

The project would also infill unused curb cuts from the former auto use at this site

and proposes two on-site street loading zones, which would result in a net increase of street

parking. Existing street trees would be retained. Storage Star is a desirable use for this particular

site and the surrounding area. This building has been vacant, as I mentioned, for nearly eight

years, and the surrounding Van Ness Corridor has struggled with both commercial vacancy and crime

in the post-pandemic environment. A December 2024 Planning Department survey found a 53 percent

ground floor commercial vacancy rate in this area as compared to 7% citywide.

And research conducted by the sponsor mid-last year found 500,000 square feet of vacant retail

space along the corridor, 30% of which have been empty for more than three years.

This is an area of the city that needs a viable commercial operator.

Here are some images of the site showing existing...

Oh, actually, sorry.

This is an image of the historic structure.

This is a building that's deserving of preservation.

It's one of the only few remaining auto-oriented buildings designed by famed architect Willis Polk,

and it's identified as significant within the Van Ness area plan.

And here are some images of the site showing current conditions.

While this property is zoned for a flexible range of uses,

several factors have led to its long vacancy and make Storage Star an ideal operator.

These include the high costs required for restoring and maintaining the historic structure for new occupant, lack of site parking, a relatively small lot size, a building layout intended for auto uses, and a sloped transitioning elevation along both Van Ness and Eddy Street that limits the ability to have direct walk-up access.

These images provide a quick overview of the scope of the exterior work.

In general, the project will restore the historic building features along all three frontages.

All concrete cracks and deterioration would be patched.

All broken windows were placed in kind.

Original entrances and windows were stored.

And the facade repainted and refreshed.

This project will breathe new life into this building and reactivate the area,

creating a more secure and welcoming environment for neighbors.

I'm now going to welcome up Matt Garibaldi, the CEO of Storage Star, for a few comments.

Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Matt Garibaldi, founder and CEO of Storage Star.

We are a small business founded in San Francisco and operated right here in the Bay Area.

We are deeply familiar with the city's space constraints. We are proud of our track record

of successful adaptive reuse projects like this one that helped to reactivate and contribute to

the surrounding community. We offer well-established discount programs for senior citizens, veterans,

and first responders. Our company has a proven commitment to well-maintained, secure, and

aesthetically integrated facilities. While self-storage can be misunderstood, it serves a

practical need to community residents in dense urban environments like this, particularly during

life transitions. It is also a use capable of bearing the significant costs required to restore

long-vacant buildings like 799 Van Ness and preserve historic character. We are particularly

excited about the opportunity to restore and provide long-term stewardship to 799 Van Ness

and to invest in revitalization of the city's Van Ness corridor.

We've spent months speaking with nearby residents, building owners, and community stakeholders,

and we're pleased to have earned significant community support.

Thank you for your consideration, and the team is available for any questions.

Thank you. With that, we should take public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Irene Cohn, and I live at Opera Plaza.

I've lived there for 15 years, and I distribute weekly something called What's Up on Van Ness,

which tells people all about the cultural activities going on and on and around Van Ness Avenue.

commissioners this project is an insult to the neighborhood and it's an insult to the city

if you remember historically in the 70s the redevelopment agency cleared the site for

opera plaza as a way of redeveloping van ness avenue as a retail residential and commercial

community. And until COVID came, we were pretty successful. After Opera Plaza, there's Symphony

Towers. There are other condominiums. And right now, they're building housing for teachers and

police just on Franklin Street. So we have activities, all sorts of cultural activities

up and down the avenue. We have people who come into the city for these activities.

the building in question has been allowed to deteriorate by its landlord,

and that's why it's in the condition it is.

And now they're asking to do an industrial use in what is a retail and residential neighborhood.

This does not add anything to the quality of our life on Van Ness.

The building itself, although historic, looms over the avenue.

It's dark and it's gray, and it's turning it into storage,

and whether or not they propose a mural is irrelevant.

This isn't the Mission District.

This neighborhood has a different character,

and it should be a use that serves the people of the community.

And yes, we could put our clothes there,

But that would not add to the safety on the street, the feeling comfortable walking by a building that has an active use.

And I know already the Historic Commission approved the conditional non-active use, but I think that was a mistake.

It's rewarding somebody for letting a building deteriorate, and it's not adding anything to the cultural and residential strength of the neighborhood.

We have a school. We have another piece of property next to the school that at one point was permitted for residential.

I don't know what's happened to that particular property now.

They're using it for soccer for the kids at the school.

But for the quality of the neighborhood, for our ability to feel comfortable as we walk down the streets,

I request that you turn down this application.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, President Campbell, Vice President Moore, and members of the San Francisco Planning

Commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Jayanthony Manjivar, and I'm an organizer with the North Coast State Carpenters

Union, Local 22, here in the beautiful city of San Francisco.

I'm speaking today on behalf of my brothers and sisters who live and work in the city

in strong support of storage start proposed redevelopment project at 799 Van Ness Avenue.

I was born and raised in San Francisco and continue to reside here.

It is only since I became an organizer that I realized a successful career as a union carpenter

in San Francisco or anywhere for that matter.

It relies a lot on good stewards of development.

We're all stewards of development here and recognize the quality and standard we want

to achieve and can only be delivered with a union general contractor.

StoryStars commitment to using the union labor on this project is critical.

That commitment directly is translating to creating good union jobs for San Francisco,

including opportunities for women and minorities to begin or continue with their careers in

the construction industry.

For our members, this means strong wages, family support, supporting benefits, and career pathways

that sustain households and build the next generation of skilled carpenters, all while

delivering the highest standards of safety and craftsmanship.

The building of 799 Van Ness is a historic structure that dating back to the early 1900s.

Unfortunately, it has sat dormant and underutilized for many years

in a corridor that has experienced divestment and prolonged vacancy.

This redevelopment represents a meaningful step towards economic recovery

and revitalization along the Van Ness corridors near City Hall.

This is the applicant's first project in San Francisco, and they have demonstrated from the outset a commitment to doing the right thing by working collaboratively with an organized labor.

Historic buildings demand true craftsmanship, preserving structural integrity, restoring the facade, and thoughtfully adapting the interior while maintaining the building's character requires the skill, precision, and expertise of Union carpenters.

On behalf of the North Coast State Carpenters Union Local 22, I respectfully urge the Commission to support and approve the proposed development at 799 Van Ness.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Darwin McCready.

I live at 601 Van Ness Avenue, a block from my subject property.

I'm here to speak in opposition to the project.

What we're looking for in Lower Van Ness, what I would describe as from Geary on down

to market, is active uses that provide encouragement for street life, pedestrian life.

This is the opposite of that.

This would probably have one employee, no eyes on the street, doesn't do anything for

street safety or activity in the neighborhood.

My last point is that uses like this, self-storage, once they go in, they never leave.

You know that.

I urge you to deny.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Rene Colorado.

I'm the executive director for the Tenderloin Merchants and Property Owners Association.

I'm here to speak in support of the 799 Van Ness project

Our organization has worked for over half a decade

to improve conditions for families, businesses

and the general well-being of the street

This project will support all that

What the new administration is doing in terms of

trying to revive San Francisco has been great. Van Ness has long been the main artery

for San Francisco, maybe 10 years ago. And I think this is a step in the right direction.

This building, if this project weren't to go through, I mean, this building could reasonably

be vacant for another 10 years. And I think right now we should be doing everything possible to

bring in new companies onto the Van Ness corridor, responsible companies. I've been dealing with

the CEO and the president of Storage Star. They've been great. They've been great in their

community outreach, and they've been very straightforward. And I'm very much looking

forward to welcome them into the community and, you know, create jobs, uplift the community. And

that section of Van Ness has been poor from street conditions. We've been working there for about

five years on the street, and this will directly help everyone, residents and businesses. Thank you,

folks. I like hearing the last speaker because I see his team and their vests and all that,

And it's what allows my staff, my office manager, my partners to feel safe.

Rudy Gonzalez, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

There are clear economic benefits and workforce development benefits to the all union labor commitments that have been made by the project sponsor.

And we're grateful for that.

I rise before you to speak in support of the project actually as a property owner at 825 Van Ness, where the Building Trades Council has its headquarters.

I walk by this block every single day, sometimes multiple times a day, sometimes even on my way here to visit all of you kind public servants.

We have seen the ups and downs and the ebbs and flows.

I remember my great-grandfather's Ellis Brooks Chevrolet placard on the back of the 72 Nova and the jingle that went along with it.

Times have changed.

We probably should have done more during the Van SBRT process to actually plan for and appreciate what we are now suffering from, which is an absolute devastation of ground floor retail in this corridor.

It is unsafe.

It is unsightly.

It is hard to walk through the human despair that plays out on our streets.

Now, rather than give you a lecture about public health and where we should be prioritizing

our resources, I do want to note that the increased foot traffic with the project sponsor

actually putting a tenant in here and bringing activation via the foot traffic that will

come is really important to us as neighbors.

As neighbors, we know that self-storage is oftentimes thought about as the consumer,

right?

the prism of how we interact with self-storage. But I understand in the development space,

there actually is a growing demand for this, not so much from the residential consumer,

but from the small businesses. They have immense constraints on their space. And I think about the

cafe across the street from us, the Van Ness Cafe. I think about some of the other smaller mom and

pops. They barely have enough room for patrons to come in when the patrons feel safe enough to do so.

And they hardly ever have enough space for expansion.

Storage actually provides a really important opportunity for small business support and growth because they can have flexible space that doesn't require long-term financial commitments or build-outs or construction that I obviously like.

They can have small businesses adapt and flex space and do pop-ups and activations in retail spaces.

And they can have a unit today for six months and then never use it again if they want.

There's a really important piece here for the small business community, inclusive of my office.

We fully support the project activation.

It's sad that we have planters out there right now and cops walking around.

We should have real activation, and I would welcome art.

And I take a little bit of offense to the idea that those murals are just for us in the mission.

They belong everywhere in our community, not just in the heart of the mission.

But we like them there, too.

Thanks for your time.

Hello.

My name is Bob Bastas.

I'm at 601 Van Ness Avenue.

I'd like to mention that the previous owner of the property

was a car dealership, a Mini Cooper dealership,

and they had an open sales room.

So you could walk in and look at the cars, whatever.

They also occasionally sponsored community events.

It was an open building.

It had a public space.

This proposal is going to close off that building.

It is going to do nothing for the community.

I really think what's needed there

is some space that is open to the community,

not closed off from it.

So because of that, I think that this

is a poor use of that building.

I certainly want to see that building revitalized,

but it should be done in a proper manner.

So thank you very much.

OK, last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

This matter is not before you, commissioners.

Thank you.

I'll get us started here.

Thanks, everyone, for coming out.

and participating in this conversation.

I agree self-storage is not my top choice for this building either,

but I do think the realities are pretty sobering.

It has been vacant for eight years,

and it does deserve to get some new life breathed into it.

And I do think it's important that we respond to the market demands,

and if we think a storage unit, self-storage, can be successful here,

then I think that's something I'm open to supporting.

I like the points that were made in public comment around increasing footfall to the neighborhood

I think the small business user is an interesting reminder

the investments made in restoring a historic building like this are really significant

and I appreciate the project sponsor making those investments

this is a building of merit and there's a reason this had

unanimous support at the HPC

and it's possible the markets will shift again

and the winds do tend to shift, and I do appreciate how the build-out is light touch

and reversible one day, and maybe this building can one day be another showroom or a community space

that is a little bit more desirable. I had a few questions. I love the mural. Hopefully,

that doesn't get vandalized. I was curious about the exterior lighting. My read of the elevator,

and this is maybe for the project sponsor,

it looks like there's some linear lights being proposed on the facade

that seem more ambient in nature.

I wondered if there's more specific lighting that will be on the building

that will just provide a little bit more illumination at night

from a safety perspective.

Hi, I'm Lacey Yergovich, preservation architect with ARG.

So, address the lighting concerns.

The exterior lighting that's being proposed is going to be up and down lights at every concrete pilaster along the major walkways.

So then when you're passing by the building, you'll see up lighting and down lighting along the pilasters to highlight the architecture.

Thank you.

I was reading it as more lighting up the architecture, but it sounds like we'll get foot candles on the sidewalk.

Yes, up and down.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Maybe while I've got you.

Don't go away.

I also was curious just in looking at the plan, specifically the ground floor plan, I wondered if you all had explored or considered moving the storage off the window line and putting the corridor along the window.

So I don't know if that works from a business perspective, but it just seems like such a shame to not actually see any sense of motion or movement inside the building and have them blanked off into those storage units.

And I wondered if you all had looked at that as a way of just creating a little bit of activation in at least that first five or six feet of the building.

The answer is yes.

Okay.

I did look at the layout.

Unfortunately, this for a building for self-storage is already quite small.

It's about 30,000 net rentable square feet.

So the reduction in area they get from shifting things around, it wasn't feasible for them.

Thank you.

Those are all my comments, but this project has my support.

If there's...

We'll call on you if a commissioner asks.

Thank you, Commissioner McCary.

Thank you.

If there's one thing being up here has taught me,

there is no magic wand that's basically going to make anybody happy.

Would you speak a little louder, please?

I'm sorry, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Can you hear me now?

Lovely.

If there's one thing being up here, for a brief amount of time I'm up here,

it's that basically there is no magic wand that's going to make everybody happy.

This is a beautiful building.

It's a quaint building.

It's been let go into terrible disrepair.

I'm not too sure in another eight years this building is going to survive.

It will be a teardown if it's just left the way it is.

Security walks daily, hopefully outside security cameras, exterior lights, fill-in of the street curb cuts, activation, basically tenderloin merchants here across the road.

So not just the 53% of ground floor spaces on Van S that are vacant right now, that are going to remain vacant.

But when they do want to bounce back, and we will bounce back, and across the road with the Tenderloin and the other side,

basically that need this storage space right now.

And if I was to tie two of these together, our previous case that we heard here with I can only dream of a 600 plus square foot woodworking shop for me and my three boys to actually learn.

But the reality is the first 14 years of my time here in San Francisco, I lived in an apartment and I couldn't even store my tools.

You know, I was a working carpenter for years.

So I use storage for my tools.

So it's not just a business person.

It's not just basically people basically trying to look after the business, grow their business.

But San Francisco is a very tightly packed city.

And the people who are here move out for various amounts of reasons.

And those who stay, they stay confined with serious conditions.

And you stay here because you want to stay here.

and I have used storage even though I hate the idea of storage,

but I know it's a necessary part of life

because I utilize myself as a single person just to store my tools

that basically provided the wages to actually pay my rent in San Francisco

and stay here and basically find a wife and start off and build together and move on.

So I'm totally in favor of this.

this building as it is right now and this part of Van Ness is a blight on San Francisco and it has

been for quite some time. We desperately have to do something and if it starts here it starts with

this little corner here and if that provides the storage to start up a little business next door

across the road or behind great but we have to start somewhere so I'm very in favor of this project.

Thank you. Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you. If I'm in a different world, I would love to land bank this site. And if you have the money to do this, I would love to land bank this site.

Because if you look into this, this is in a van nest, very attractive corridor.

And yes, everyone wants activation.

Everyone wants also in this time's housing too.

But in reality, where we're in, nobody really likes storage for some odd reason.

And I remember we had actually an item maybe last year or so.

that is on fifth and mission.

I believe it's between fifth and fourth and mission,

and there was a big turnout against of that self-storage as well.

But given that this is in the main corridor,

and I understand that you're asking for a waiver for active use,

that the previous developer actually worked with the community

to talk about the active in the ground floor at least,

some portion of it.

And because, again, the way I'm thinking this is this is the corridor that really needs more activation.

And I appreciate the comments in a way that would invite people along the street.

but I'm wondering if there has been that kind of talks with the neighbors on how to you know if

there can be a space for active use or you know think about maybe some portion of it or you know

less than five percent of it or anything yes yeah there has been consideration of whether there's

an ability to carve out areas in the building. As part of the feedback we got from planning,

we did reserve about 15 foot deep in each direction lobby area at the ground floor of this.

But because of the size of the building, it's just, it's not economically feasible to carve

out more area. You would lose the storage space that we need in order to invest in the resource.

Okay. Yeah. I appreciate. Yeah. I see that it was 15 feet. I was thinking about like at least

more of a portion on where the vaness would be.

But as I'm looking into imbalance

as well as the needs of the merchants

and for personal uses as well,

storage is also greatly demanded.

So in hindsight, I would approve of this.

I would be in favor of this as of now,

but I wish there was more leeway as well

with the neighbors in terms of making them feel

like they're also part of the neighborhood or the corridor.

Commissioner Braun.

I have a question for the project sponsor.

I have a question for the project sponsor.

So I'm just curious to learn more.

There's been a lot of talk about street conditions and concerns about safety in this area.

What is the sponsor's approach to security as far as outside the building?

I know that we have our standard conditions requiring sidewalk maintenance and that kind of thing, maintaining the sidewalks in a clean condition.

But, you know, there's an idea here.

If you have a more active use, there would be more eyes on the street, which is beneficial for public safety.

And so I'm just wondering, you know, what is the plan?

Is there 24-7 on-site security?

Will there be sidewalk walks?

Are there cameras in the exterior to monitor conditions?

How does this play out?

Yeah, the sponsor, Storage Star, has been partnering with the Tenderloin Merchants Association for security on the site.

And they've come up with a plan that's going to include cameras for eyes on the street, having employees on site during all operational hours.

When the building is not in operation, it'll be locked down, so there'll be no access to it.

So routine walks, training for employees in managing security situations that might arise at the exterior.

commitment to being a real steward of the property, keeping the sidewalk clean,

keeping the mural clear of graffiti. There's a maintenance plan that has been

developed for that and just kind of increasing the presence, understanding

that this is sort of an odd site. We've got a transition along Van Ness so you

don't have direct site access and there hasn't historically been from that

frontage. And a lot of the facade area even at the basement level with the

automotive use has not been traditionally active and has, you know, larger doors, opaque doors

there that are traditional historically that would be retained. Okay. Thank you. And so at least when

the use is open, there would be people on site and there would be security monitoring. And then

it sounds like after hours, I think the hours are listed in the packet here until 7 p.m.

So after hours, there would not be people on site, but I assume there would be at least

burglar alarms and ability to respond to issues.

They're installing exterior lighting to make it more visible in that area in the evening on the streets.

Okay, thank you.

And actually, you said something that was a good segue to one of my thoughts about this.

I take to heart the points about storage uses not really activating the street in quite the way that we might like.

it's why there is this conditional use authorization that's part of a project like this.

What I'm seeing here is that this is a very hard type of building to reuse. There are plenty of

other uses that could go into it, but it is a large showroom type of building, semi-industrial,

that's challenging to reuse. Previously, there was the auto dealership. When I look back at

what the mini dealership really, how that addressed the street,

I feel like from a sort of street activation perspective,

it's not that different.

There were additional transparency and accessibility on Eddy Street,

it looked like.

But otherwise, because of the slope of the streets around the building,

you mostly were, again, just looking at windows or blank facades

or roll-up doors as part of that building.

so I'm just not entirely convinced that this is a huge change besides the fact that it's not

publicly accessible to anyone who can just walk in the door which I do appreciate that that's

maybe less desirable in some ways and I also appreciate concerns about you know the sort of

deadening of some of the street environment that comes with self-storage but I've seen

in many other places in the city self-storage be fairly well integrated with communities it's there

for a long time. Again, not the most active, most preferred use, but it's the overall impact has been

to me not especially significant. And I do appreciate that there would be the corner lobby

area, which does have the, I think it was 15 feet of depth minimum of sort of active use there.

The security upgrades seem great. The reinvestment in a historic building is really good to see.