Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I would, maybe this is directed to the director. I know we have the merger underway. It's been underway for a while. It'd be lovely to, for us as well as the public, maybe to get some updates or if it's possible to even get some periodic presentations on what's going on behind the scenes.

Great. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Commissioner So?

I think Sarah wanted to talk about this a little bit in her director's report, but I just want to report back that this past, was it this past weekend? It's just Saturday. It feels so long ago already. Saturday, with the planning staff and myself, we attended the second inaugural Chinese housing summit, all in Cantonese, and it's out in TECHNICALLY THAT IS WHAT DISTRICT WAS THAT. ANYWAY, THE WEST SIDE. SUPERVISOR ELLEN WAS REMINDING ME THAT'S NOT HIS DISTRICT BUT IT WAS A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE OTHER NEIGHBORING DISTRICT. ANYWAY, IT WAS A GREAT DIALOGUE THAT WE HAD CONDUCTED LIKE FOUR DIFFERENT B

Well, I understand tweaks and pivots are good along the way for this case. I think a lot of thought went into this, a lot of work went into this, and I think it should be moved as is, and I would make a motion to move this forward as is, minus the amendments.

I really appreciate everyone, our staff, Supervisor Mendelman's office and Supervisor Mahmoud's office. And actually, specifically, I would really like to send my appreciation to Maggie and her team under the direction and leadership of Richard Sucre. I know like citywide survey is not a new thing. Citywide survey stemmed before COVID and it was We have very limited resource to conduct a very fast-paced citywide survey and also there were priority geography prioritizing neighborhood that has been systematically historically underserved to actually take on those survey. So you might have not se

Okay. So thank you for that. So it sounds like it might still happening depending on if they somehow, the property owner somehow missed the mail or the address is sent to somewhere. Okay. So then it's kind of lead to me, I really want to make sure that we have a very fair process. It is kind of, This is a double-edged sword, but I do want to have more conscientious outreach to specifically property owners that they fully aware of that this is actually even being considered instead of during that public notification hearing which has a running clock. Because I personally, like some of my fellow

Yeah, that would be really good to add that as a recommendation from our body because lately, as we all know, whether you're renters or homeowners, it's really not that easy to actually get your home insurance. And I was told and aware that some of these extra landmarking will trigger the inability for the property owners. I'm not talking about just homeowners, but like just property owners to actually getting their property insurance. or they just got dropped. So, it's not a very fancy time of San Francisco. I just don't want to add more to any property owner if we can avoid that. But in gene

Thank you. I really appreciate that very I would say juicy, but very informative, detailed explanation of all the nuances. I hope that it really also demystifies it a lot to the general public. However, it's in the spirit of really making sure that every one of us and my peers and my supervisors had the same information that they get so that they can make an informative decision when they cast their vote is very important. It's paramount. I'm not asking to go down the rabbit hole, but it's more just like with an assumption of the baseline zoning that we have. And this is the site that would al

I propose to strike down the nomination process to have the specifically call out cultural or preservation organization because they are practically Because does anyone, anyone who can breathe and human being can, like a legal age, I would assume, can nominate the initiation of landmarking? So any given special group? Yeah, I propose to do that, and I also propose to have that intentionally seek owner's consent on the property, and also... at the baseline zoning information to the historic preservation nomination proposal. Just the baseline, the one that we already have, like easily available.

BUT IT'S RELATED TO LANDMARKING SPECIFICALLY, RIGHT? YEAH. SO WOULD THAT NOT BE INCLUDED IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS?

Well, I mean, no, I think it would be a recommendation because pretty much the historic preservation destination would not really come in front of the planning commission. So the time that we have to specifically ask for it is more like then become a reactive than proactive. It's my purpose of this is actually being more of a proactively tell all the policy makers to have the same information. at the beginning, not like at the end, like, oh, can you show us what if this project A, if we become landmark, then what are the potential tradeoffs? I wanted to kind of like when any project that we lo

I think that, does that not align with one of the supervisor's proposed amendments, if I'm hearing you correctly, require the planning department to calculate basically estimated number of units that could be built at the site were not landmarked.

Similar, but except that supervisor's recommendation has been disregarded at what level, right?

Well, partially true. I do not like to have our planning commissioner review landmark destination. I would like to keep it the way it is. It's as a recommendation from our fellow amazing historic preservation commissioners that it's not where I'm going at. I just want to, in the spirit of reading Supervisor Mahmoud's letter and their recommendations recommendations, and also just sitting as a former Historic Preservation Commissioner with the experience of looking at it, how can we better be informed of all the all the costs and consequences of our voting on a given project to be landmark or n

To me, yes, but I would like to open my floor to the rest of my planning commissioner after hearing my really, I don't want to hoard the whole spot here. I'm going to pass it. To me, it is, but it's just in understanding. I know that there are also, we can do more, but that's just for now. That's where I stand.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner So. Commissioner Chen.

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT CAMPBELL. THAT'S THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. I MOSTLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SO'S REMARKS AND I JUST WANTED TO DIAL IN AND JUST MAKE SURE IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE MAYBE TO KIND OF PROPOSE LANGUAGE AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER MCGARY'S CURRENT MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND WITHOUT I BELIEVE IS TO RECOMMEND WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW HOW THE PROCEDURES ARE HERE, BUT I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER SO AND TRYING TO PUT THIS INTO LANGUAGE, I THINK IS TO RECOMMEND WITH MODIFICATIONS. SO INSTEAD OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S NOW ADDING THE ORGANIZATION

Director Sucre is, I think, kind of talking about challenges from staff about really sort of really understanding all the development capacity, right? But I think adding, I don't know what the right word is, you know, the objective of

Yeah, sort of like the objective information that we know about the development potential of this property. And again, like, I defer, I think, to staff or to the president or fellow commissioners about whether that should be a recommendation, whether that should be a directive from the commission to the department that doesn't have to go into the code, whether that should be something that is codified. You know, I don't know, but that's sort of like point three, if that makes sense. So, I'm just trying to summarize, I think, what I've heard. And then I have a novel point four, and so I just, I

RIGHT. SO I THINK I AM ON SO BECAUSE IF IT'S INITIATED BY THE BOARD, IT'S ALREADY INITIATED SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A FIRST HEARING. IF IT'S INITIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT, RIGHT, THEN I THINK THERE'S SOME VETTING. IF IT'S INITIATED BY THE COMMUNITY, I THINK MY SENSE, I HAVE NOT ACTUALLY OBSERVED THESE HEARINGS, BUT MY SENSE IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT STAFF DO NEED EXTRA TIME, I THINK, AND HAVING Even if this language were to pass, I think to say that you could consolidate. We could.

So I think, well, the number of community, the relative mix of community initiated, especially in the next few years with the family zoning plan, right? I think there will be, it sounds like there will be over a thousand

I THINK I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW HOW IT WORKS HERE BUT THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE FROM COMMISSIONER MCGARRY SO I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE MAKE ONE MOTION TO AMEND THAT COMMISSIONER MCGARRY'S MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE MODIFICATIONS POINT ONE, TWO AND THREE ABOUT WHICH IS TO RECAP TO SAY IT'S A DEPARTMENT OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY REQUEST A NOMINATION. POINT TWO IS ABOUT ADDING OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE, THE ZONING, THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND THEN THE THIRD ABOUT SEEKING COMMUNICATION AND CONSENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AS RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS. AND

I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO JUST CONSOLIDATE THEM AND MAKE ONE NEW MOTION TO HAVE THESE THINGS IN IT. MAYBE OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION.

I'M KIND OF WILD CARDING IT HERE. I'M AFRAID THAT IF SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SO'S THINGS BUT NOT WITH MY THINGS, THEN I DON'T WANT TO TANK THE ENTIRE THING. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. YOU CAN KIND OF PARK IT OUT THERE AND THEN WE CAN HEAR SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS AND SEE WHERE WE LAND. Thank you. That's okay. Thank you. Those are great. Commissioner McDonald.

Hi. Thank you, President Campbell. Okay. There's been a lot that's been going on here. I have some specific things I want to add and some questions. So, first of all, I want to say that I really appreciate the efforts that the staff and department have made with Board President Mendelman to address this issue in, I think, a very thoughtful way and to come up with what I think are some pretty straightforward approaches to streamlining things and I have read your arguments and rationales for things that are in the packet here and it seems pretty straightforward and that a lot of things are cover

So you were just trying to telegraph or clarify for these organizations that, yeah, you're included in this, too. So to my thinking, sure, I understand streamlining language when possible, but it doesn't make a lot of difference maybe one way or the other if it's just meant to telegraph to them. And then my other question about additive time that might come with what's been discussed here.

And then on this, oh, did you? So it's basically a part of your process already?

YES, SO I THINK IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IT'S AT THE TOP OF SECTION 10.2, IT SAYS THAT THE HBC MAY INITIATE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL IN THE SAME HEARING AND THEN I THINK MY PROPOSED LANGUAGE WOULD DESPECIFY TO NARROW THAT TO ONLY FOUR DESIGNATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OR THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

Right. I'm sorry, but I don't know exactly how the process works. So is it possible now for me to second the original motion? You could second the original motion. I would like to second the original motion.

Is that any other comments? Commissioner McDonald? No? Okay. So I spent a lot of time with this. I thank you to the staff for spending time with me on this. I think the amendments themselves are quite modest. I think what is triggering for me and maybe some of my fellow commissioners is just around landmarking IN GENERAL, WHICH WE ALL BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I THINK IT'S JUST THERE'S THIS BROADER NARRATIVE THAT WE ARE AGGRESSIVELY LANDMARKING RIGHT NOW. WE SEE IT IN THE NEWS AND WE HEARD ABOUT IT IN ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING THAT I THINK THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Just to make sure I got all of my comments here. Yes, I think that is it for me. You took off your name, Commissioner McGarry, because you were going to talk.

Yeah. I made the motion because thank you for staff, and I didn't thank you when I made the motion. The amount of thoughtfulness in the work you put into this is phenomenal. You've worked with historic preservation. You've worked with the supervisor. And you came up with a document that actually works. It expedites the process. It involves everybody in the process. But why I don't want the amendments is because if we're saving five weeks and our amendment is going to add, that's on the current situation, and we're just going to add five weeks. That's an extra 10 weeks. Basically, it's the oppo

They're looking across from the neighbor thinking that that person should not have the right to landmark my property as I wouldn't have the right. I don't believe I have the right to landmark. But the process is there. Everybody feels there's a democracy. Everybody feels like there is a portion where they can have a stake or a conversation. Yes, I do worry about the individual, basically homeowners, landowners, not having a stake or not being aware that their property is going to be landmarked. That is a concern. But I think it's all taken into account. If they're that far removed and they're

I'm sorry, I missed it. So this is currently the motion from Commissioner McGarry? Correct.

And one last procedural question is that if this motion does not pass, it's still live, right, that we can still discuss? Yes. If this motion fails, there will be additional deliberation, another motion that can be put forward, and we'll vote on that. Okay. Got it. All right. So on the vote, no.

I move to approve with With recommendations as discussed in the record, and I actually, I don't even know who has support, but with points, as discussed earlier, points one, modifying section 1004.1a to specify, to clarify that it is the department or any member of the public who may request designation. Point two, to require information about the development, objective information about the development potential of the property in the hearing information. Point three, to seek consent of the property owner including possibilities of a supermajority if the owner, without the owner's consent. An

I just, I would love to see that conversation continue as a recommendation, not as a formal amendment or anything.

Point four is a recommendation, recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider transfer development rights. I WILL LEAVE MY DEPARTMENT ONLY THING. I'LL LEAVE THAT ALONE. I THINK THERE'S FOUR POINTS.

I THINK THE CURRENT LANGUAGE HAS PROPERTY OWNER IN THERE.

Yes, so staff had two recommendations, and so I think the second one is moot, right, because of this first one. Correct, correct. That's clear. That's clear enough. So the first one is adding cultural, and I think we are not, I think it is not taking that. Right, just to be clear. Yes, yes.

I'M NOT. THE FOURTH ONE FROM PRESIDENT CAMPBELL WAS TO CONSIDER A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

I'm sorry, I just need to know something procedural. Is all I can do right now vote? Is all I can do right now vote one way or the other, or can I ask a question?

I have a clarifying question because the language that's been put into it regarding how much information needs to be provided by staff for you know, the development capacity of the site, I'm unclear whether that is a small amount of information that's being asked for or if it gets into the whole big issue of all of the different possibilities. Yeah.

Do you mind if I kind of elaborate a little bit why I kind of feel like this is more like meeting the middle? meeting the common ground of there's a desire to be more informative about how we vote on any given property to landmark the property. And the way it is now, Only very few really industry expert can immediately know where to look for these baseline zoning information or special interest group that know how to do it. And if the governing body has a very different diverse group of expertise, that might not be necessarily historic preservation driven. So we don't have a way to share with

I THINK WE'RE SUGGESTING MORE of an indication of if a property of this nature were to be developed to its maximum exercising family zoning, for example, it could yield and it would be like an algorithm, right? That you're assuming a certain amount of percentage of efficiency, a certain size, average unit, which would be probably like 800 square feet or something per unit, that it would yield and it would be a range, probably anywhere from eight to 40 units of housing. to be factored into, to make an informed decision around.

That would be really nice. Yeah, that would be really nice. In addition to this, yes.

Oh, so you're describing something different, or in addition to what she's... Yeah, in addition to what this... Yes, that information, that data. Yes.

Yeah, because it's giving us like in a layman language term of what it could be, right?

Is this something we might make as a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors to discuss further versus a modification? There's a difference, right?

OKAY. I THINK THE POINT, THE MESSAGE REALLY ENCROSSED THAT WITH THIS MOTION.

I don't mean to cut you off, but that's the point here is we are talking about amending planning code. So, it's not, and then there's no interest for us to go in deep with like your specifically landmarking any single property, but we're talking about we have, my understanding is like the planning commission has a jurisdiction responsibility to anything that amending the planning code. And today what's asked in front of us today is a recommendation for proposal to amend planning code. So, again, would like to appreciate being something more proactive than reactive on case-by-case. I really kno

So I guess it all hinges on what the definition of baseline information is, if that's what's going into what it is that we are proposing here. I mean, it's still very

All right. Well. Sorry, this is a tricky situation because I feel like... Go with your gut. What's that?

Well, if I'm going to go with my gut, I'm sorry, I'm going to vote no. Yes. You can always make another motion after this if it doesn't pass.

I'm going to go back to... Is this going to make the planning department, obviously it's going to make, you're going to have more work. Is the planning department going to be liable for every homeowner that calls up about their property and how it could be maximized to its potential and the planning department have to basically give a perfect answer to that with every option that's out there right now, and that calculation for every person, property owner that calls in asking for that. And if we get it wrong somehow, It's like, do you have the wherewithal to do that? Do you have the resources

So this work you've done right now is totally upended and you'll be back to the drawing board with a lot more work to actually do going forward. It is no longer what was presented in front of us here today. It no longer has the agreements, no longer has basically the checkmarks of the people that were behind it to get us here today. And now it's going to be totally, something totally different. And you don't have the resources to actually do it. Is that a fair assessment? Because it's not what was planned from the start. Now it's totally different requirements.

I love the can-do attitude, and I know we're going to pull it out of the bag at the end. But it's not what was originally in the bag. We've got something totally different here right now. Correct. It was not something that was part of our original recommendation. OK. So I'll have to vote no on that.

I THINK MY INTENTION IS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEND THIS WITH A RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT WITH A RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT WITH A POSITIVE, I DON'T KNOW, TO SEND IT WITH APPROVAL OR WHATEVER THE POSITIVE.

RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. I AM TRYING TO DISCERN WITH COMMISSIONERS MCDONALD AND MCGARY WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT of these just like of the of the three or four points what are the things that are objectionable what are the things that are that are um you know what what what are the things that if we took out right we would still would still be fine so i think that's that's my question and so i think my sense is that point one is fine because it's just a language thing um point two about the property owner consent thing right i think there i think there is a way to make this streamline to say

Recommendation of approval with modifications and those modifications put in to basically staff's ability to work them out as they come up individually, that the department's discretion on that, to work on them and take into account the points, that would be one way. It would actually, my concern here is the feasibility and the workability and the possibility that it will actually get done or it doesn't get done. That's my concern. otherwise basically throw it out and get something else because that's what we have right now is something else but all the work has been done I don't want that wor

Anything else, Commissioner McGarry? Okay. Commissioner McDonald.

Okay. So the part of the motion that has been before us about making sure that the property owner is in agreement with any designation, I've just been trying to read through the text of the planning code as it is related to all of this. And what I see in here, and excuse me if I've missed something, but there is a notice of hearing, right, where Amongst other things, notice shall also be mailed not less than 10 days prior to the date of hearing to the owners of all property included in the proposed designation. Using for this purpose the names and addresses of the last known owners as shown on

Asking people to show up to a hearing is very different than asking a property owner to actually give his consent. So I think we'll refer to the people who had trained as lawyers to add that into our code language. I just want to chime in. This is speaking of experience as well. I've seen so many owners come in front of me and said, I don't want this, and you still make me do it. And I really do not want to see that happen again as much as we could. That's many times I've seen it.

If I may answer, Commissioner McDonald, I think OUR ACTION AS A PLANNING COMMISSION IS THAT WE WILL SEND A RESOLUTION WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE VERY SPECIFIC, AS WITH LANGUAGE 1, I THINK WITH THAT FIRST POINT ABOUT CHANGING THE LANGUAGE OF WHO CAN INITIATE OR WHO CAN REQUEST AN INITIATION, BUT THEN I THINK WE CAN ALSO BE FAIRLY VAGUE AND LEAVE THAT TO THE BOARD. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT JUST

Okay, so maybe I will try this again. Sorry, President Campbell.

Do you have any other comments or questions? Because I see your thing is there.

Sorry, my thing is still up there. Well, I guess if there, regarding the property owner, if there is language about endeavoring or, you know, to the best of the abilities, I mean, to obtain the consent of a property owner as opposed to absolutely have to, I might feel more comfortable with that. I mean, I think we want to keep it within the realm of, what is possible to do, especially if it's going to be something that's actually in the planning code. So on that one, I feel that way, the part about opening up GOING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE.

THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD PRECEDENT. COMMISSIONER CHEN.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS AND THANK YOU STAFF. I KNOW WE PROBABLY SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS. THIS IS MAYBE THE FOURTH OR FIFTH MOTION. LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS. POINT ONE AS DISCUSSED BEFORE, CHANGING THE FIRST SENTENCE OF 1004.1A TO REFRASE TO SAY THE DEPARTMENT OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY REQUEST DESIGNATION. POINT TWO, I BELIEVE, IS TO Better consider the consent or opposition of the property owner in a way that does not unduly burden department staff. Yes. And then... I THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT INFORMATION WE WANT TO PUT INTO T

Commissioner McDonald, I believe you have a disclosure.

Hi. Yes, I would like to make a disclosure that I know staff member Patrick Grace in a professional capacity. Patrick was a student of mine when I was a professor at UC. Berkeley and we worked closely together both in classes and in other capacities. I do not believe that this relationship will impair my judgment or affect my ability to consider this item impartially. Thank you.

But we appreciate your time and commentary. Thank you.

So this project totally has my support. If 1906 was a natural disaster, urban renewal was basically a conscious, ignorant, arrogant mistake that's a blight not just in this community, this area, but the 638 plus cities around the country. But the fact that those who survived in this community at that had the wherewithal to get to parse those four plus acres together and basically look after themselves and the fact that years later they are the ones who are going to lead the way and give an example to possibly the 638 other cities that were affected around this country. that there is a possibil

Second, yeah. Thank you, Commissioner McGarry. Commissioner McDonald.

Yes, I would just like also to say that this project has my complete support coming from a terrible legacy and a history of hanging on and then coming to this. It's a wonderful, wonderful story and I particularly like the way that this project as it's proposed will help really So I say reintegrate Freedom West into the neighborhood, into Hays Valley, into larger San Francisco, connect it to so much of what's been happening in the Hays Valley community. And this will now be a part of it, and it will have its own clear identity and wonderful public open spaces that will contribute to the greater

I'm really appreciative in hearing stories, the passion of generations of living there and coming back and give back. I do remember last time when I saw this presentation, I coined this, like this is kind of like the candy land for mixed-use development for San Francisco. So I'm really appreciative and happy to see that today you came forward to us and actually have a lot more progress and a lot more detail. Something that we can actually see that you're really actually implementing your steps and I know it takes like a whole village together to do this work and it is a bit too late to make th

Thank you, Commissioner. So Commissioner Chen.

Thank you, President. I'm also supportive. This is great. If anything, I'd be like, why can't I be bigger? Can I be taller? Can we do more? This is an incredibly rare resource, and I'm very thankful that there's a lot of self-determination with the owners about what to do with this property. But the size, the location of this area is something that is quite rare. that Trader Joe's is right across the street. You're close to very high frequency transit lines. You're close to job centers, and so I think If I had a magic wand, I'd be like, make it twice as big. Put more people on there. And let f

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. SO I THINK IF I UNDERSTOOD, RIGHT, IT'S FINANCING AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS AND MAKING SURE RESIDENTS HAVE A CHOICE, RIGHT, OF CURRENT RESIDENTS, RIGHT, CAN GO INTO THE SENIOR HOUSING, RIGHT? YEAH, THEY HAVE.

UNDERSTOOD. AS YOU MENTIONED, IN ADDITION TO THOSE UNITS THERE'S ALSO 133 FAMILY BELOW MARKET RATE RENTAL UNITS. THAT'S RIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

Thank you. I'm echoing, I think, the general sentiment here. Thank you so much for the presentation. This is a once-in-a-generation project, and it's exciting to be a resident of San Francisco and be able to witness this and be a part of it. I really appreciate learning more about the sort of resident-driven, like this financial model. be neat to see how that can serve as a model for other projects in the world or country. I think two things, and this is obviously, everything is in its infancy here that jumped out to me. Interestingly enough, we're around the mobility model, which I really app

I THINK WE HAVE A SECONDED MOTION AND WE HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS. I THINK WE'RE READY.

Thank you, President. I'm inclined to support, and I just wanted to make sure I understand, so maybe to Mr. Horn, so the current, so under the old project state density bonus, right, so it was the project sponsors submitted, it would be 5% on-site at 50% AMI, I believe. Was that the original proposal?

THE BOARD CHANGED THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING LEGISLATION AND THE PERCENTAGES. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION IT WAS 5%, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S ON SITE AND IN LIEU IS DIFFERENT.

THANK YOU. OFF SITE IN LIEU. No, this is, I mean, I think this is quite a fascinating project, because I think when the family zoning plan came about, I think there was some question, I think, from housing advocates about, you know, whether, you know, I think there were some questions about whether the family zoning plan was so restrictive that developers would just choose to keep using the state density bonus. And so, and it's interesting, I think, I don't know if this is the first project, right, that said that. A PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED STATE DENSITY BONUS PROJECT IS NOW SAYING, OH, ACTUALLY, W

I'll also chime in, this has my support as well. I actually pass this property every day on my commute, on my bike, on Market Street and it is like a sad little stretch there with so much opportunity right across the street from Safeway as someone explained like, two doors down from Whole Foods and two doors down from the Church Street Muni Station. So it is just like so ripe for being more than just this two-story sad building with no ground floor presence. It's just like windows and door solid. So anyway, I'm so excited about this project and it has my full support. I especially appreciate t

Yes, so I'd just like to say that, you know, in general, my feeling is that the kind of design requirements we have in regulations related to rear yard setbacks and even the light wells are actually really important in general, and they're there for an important purpose. However, under the circumstances of this particular project, everything that's been going through and the odd configuration of the whole block that you mentioned in the presentation, and whatnot around it, that my take on this project is that I am supportive of it. And I appreciate everything that you've gone through to get it

I would like to just make sure that I understand what you had talked about here with your melancholia situation. So on-site 5% at 50% AMI, you still not pencil it.

Which is what we recently did, like, before summer recess. Correct. And it's still not penciled out.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think I understand what you're saying. It's a little confusing. You were actually, because it's a for sale property, you actually is required to do the 5%, if you don't do the onsite 5%, you're required to provide... 80% AMI, but if you, because you want to keep the rare yard as your special request, then you voluntarily bump it to 50% AMI, but then still it doesn't pencil out.

Right. Got it. Okay. That kind of, no wonder, like, that our chief economist report was pretty illuminating, like, nothing get built. Okay. So I am in support of your proposal today to utilizing the Housing Choice San Francisco to enable this project to happen. It is remotely actually my adjacent neighborhood. I really wanted to see Market Street in that corridor activate and have more people live there instead of having empty storefronts. So I motion to approve with the conditions as staff recommended.

It's really exciting to see the housing choice being exercised, too. We're just starting to see that activity, so it's great.

We are a city. We're tightly packed. There is only one way to go, and that is up or down, but down is not feasible in this case. The zoning allows this to go through, and I find this modest compared to what it could be. I find it tasteful. Basically, compared to most fourth floor additions or additions on top, this one does blend in very well. On the front, it's perfect. I get, you know, people on the front or on the back. Somebody's going to be affected. We're tightly packed. We are a city. I see no reason to to obstruct this. And I'd make a motion to that we uphold this, move it forward and

Can you remind us what's dictating the 15-foot setback for the addition on the front side?

What's the process? Can you remind us? What is that? Is that going through a review? Maybe this is a rich question. I don't know.

And if it was determined to be in... non-historically significant, then there would be more flexibility with that 15 foot setback?

I'M ALIGNED WITH, OBVIOUSLY I SECONDED THE MOTION. I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES HERE. I AGREE THAT THIS IS MODEST IN NATURE AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROJECT SPONSOR HAS MADE SOME COMPROMISES ON THEIR DESIGN TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS. THEY SEEM PRETTY GENEROUS COMPROMISES FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. Yeah, I second the motion and support not taking the DER and approving as modified. And those are all my comments, Commissioner Chen.

Thank you, and I'll be quick. I'm inclined to support the motion, but this is only my second meeting, but I think our last meeting in July, I think we had a somewhat similar DR where I think it was classified as a Class A historic resource, and so the department recommended a setback. The setback created conflicts with the neighbors, and so I don't know if this is a pattern, but something that maybe... You know, if I had a magic wand, I was like, well, maybe if we made it 10 feet, right, then we wouldn't, if the front setback were different, right, then maybe this conflict would not be necessa

So hypothetically, if this project sponsor were open to wanting to move that addition forward to provide a little bit more relief on the back, it's not within our purview to be able to allow them to do that. It would have to go through this process of getting.

Is that something that the project sponsor was interested in having flexibility with, or were you actually comfortable with the 15 foot setback?