Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Full Board Of Supervisors 20240712

[gavel]. President yee good afternoon and welcome to our september 29, 2020 regular meeting of the San Francisco board of supervisors. Madam clerk, would you please call the roll. Clerk thank you, mr. President. [roll call] clerk mr. President , all members are present. President yee all right. Thank you. Please place your right hand over your heart. Would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] president yee thank you. On behalf of the board, i wish to acknowledge the staff of sfgtv who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. Madam clerk, are there any communications . Clerk yes, mr. President. I just want to make sure that i captured supervisor stefani or did i miss you, supervisor . Supervisor stefani madam clerk, i believe that you did, and i am present. Thank you. Clerk i believe that, and i apologize to you, and yes, mr. President. All members are present, just to make sure. President yee mmhmm. Clerk and yes, i do have a communication. The minutes will reflect that during the covid19 health emergency, members of the board participated in this meeting remotely through Video Conference to the staple extent as though physically present. The board recognizes that Public Access to this meeting is essential and certainly more acute in the age of covid19. Therefore, we hope that members of the public will take advantage of the following opportunities to be able to participate remotely in this meeting. We will accept written correspondence and make it a part of the legislative file. If sending by u. S. Mail, send your letter to the San Francisco board of supervisors, room 1, carlton b. Goodlett place, San Francisco, california 94102. If sending by email, sent to bos sfgov. Org. You can watch the cable cast on your television by going to substantial 26. When you were readying your public testimony, please turn your television down. That way, youll be able to follow the prompts on your touch tone. You can listen to the meeting and be in sync with live meeting. To provide your comments, telephone number is 4156550001. When you hear the prompt, enter the meeting i. D. That number is 1469958608. Press pound twice, and youll have joined the proceedings as a listener. Were working hard to not leave anyone out of these proceedings. If youre experiencing problems, we do have a person to assist you. Telephone number is 415554, 8184. I would just like to identify agenda matter that is available for your comment. There are 1 03 p. M. Special orders. Public comment will appear for each item. It is important to note that the 1848 grove street cua and ceqa appeal will be called together. 42 and 43 is the committee of the whole for the emergency ordinance, and i will also then just mention the numbers for the 1846 grove street appeal. Thats 44 through 51. Items 52 through 55 and 56 through 59 both have potential continuances that will be addressed during Public Comment as there is a notice date on the agenda that they might be continued to. These dates are subject to change, depending on the boards final decision today, and additionally, the president will have the m. T. A. Items called together. Thats items 60 through 63, 64 through 67, 78 through 79. The items within the subject matter of the jurisdiction of the board, items 80 through 88, those items on without reference to committee calendar. All other items are not agendaeligible content for your testimony as they have had duly noticed public hearings fulfilled at committee. I just want to be a little more certain than that. Items 5 through 21, these are the budget items for the city, containing the annual appropriation ordinance and the annual salary ordinance for the city budget. Couple of last point, pursuant to city policy, it is worth mentioning in advance that the board of supervisors will not tolerate discriminatory or harassing remarks made at this meeting. There is nothing in state law that will extend protection for anything that constitutes discriminating or harassing remarks. We have interpreters today. Will you please announce in concession and let the Community Know youre here to assist them. [speaking spanish language] [end of translation] interpreter sorry. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. [speaking spanish language] clerk i will just interject, mr. Cosenza, we heard what you said, but your connection may be a little its difficult to hear you sometimes. You did cut in and out, but if there are any members of the public who are listening, we will have the interpreters standing by for this meeting, and if you need any assistance, please just start speaking, and the interpreters will jump in and assist you without any prompting needed. Miss interpreter . Yes, thank you. [speaking tagalog language] [end of translation] [speaking cantonese language] thank you. Clerk thank you all for being here, and finally, mr. President , pursuant to title 2 for the americans with disabilities act, we have an individual who would like to make a statement via telephone. President yee okay. Thank you, madam clerk. Before we get started, just a brief reminder to all supervisors to mute their microphone when they are not speaking to minimize audio feedback. Maybe people have not heard from the public that San Francisco has moved its color, i guess, in terms of where we are with the pandemic, and weve moved into the orange state as the color code that the state is using, which means that there will be a variety of businesses that will be able to open that have not been able to open from until tomorrow, i guess. And that includes restaurants. I want to say everyone in San Francisco has really followed the safety suggestions, guidelines that our Public Health officer has made. Continue to wear your mask and do your social distancing, and just because were returning to what kind of businesses are open, it doesnt mean that we can just let go or let down or defenses on this. As you can see from the news, theres been many other locations where they opened up more quickly, and they loosened up social distancing and started not wearing masks, and they saw a rise in races. Its an announcement to keep distancing and to keep wearing masks. Tonight is also the first president ial debate, and i know many of you havent made up your mind in who youre going to vote for and would love to see the debate. Ill try to get you out of here on time so you can go see who the best president ial candidate is. With that, madam clerk, i understand weve received a communications request. Clerk yes, mr. President. Operations, is the caller ready to make his comment, please . Im concerned this department has still not allowed visual participation of members of the public or made any effort to provide participation for those who do not have phones or internet laptop access. Ive concerned that this department refuses to add any disabled access on the meeting website. In fact, the word disabled does not show on the website. For seven months, the disabled have not been able to address city hall with their grievances and access to p. P. E. And other needs. According to the New York Times [inaudible] have resulted from people in hospitals and longterm nursing homes. Thats 77,000 deaths of people, and theres cases of a hospital in San Francisco, laguna honda, of staff taking pictures of residents while theyre naked and distributing them. I would like to know what the supervisors are doing about this. [inaudible] during the covid19 pandemic and support the moratorium that protects Small Businesses and tenants during this difficult time. As we know, the ellis act and no fault evictions are used by housing speculators to wrongfully and immorally evict people without just reason, and there is no reason why this should be continuing during this covid19 pandemic. Id also like to thank supervisor walton for the caring act legislation to stop racial profiling on 911 calls. Thank you for your time. Clerk thank you. Mr. President. President yee okay. Thank you, caller, and thank you, madam clerk, for arranging this accommodation. Colleagues, were approving the minutes from the august 20, and august 25, 2020 regular Board Meeting minutes. Are there any changes to these Meeting Minutes . Hold on a second. Let me make sure i put you on chat. May i get a motion to move the minutes as presented . Supervisor fewer so moved. Supervisor peskin second. President yee a motion by supervisor fewer and a second by supervisor peskin. Well take Public Comment after clerk mr. President , we need to have a roll call. President yee oh, yes, madam clerk. Well take a roll call, and then following, that. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. After Public Comment, the minutes will be approved. Okay. Madam clerk, lets go to the consent agenda. Call items 1 through 3 together. Clerk items 1 through 3 are on consent. If a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. President yee okay. Seeing nobody on the roster, would anybody like to sever . I guess not, so seeing no names on the roster, madam clerk, would you please call the roll. Clerk on items 1 through 3 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee the minutes are finally passed. Madam clerk, lets go to the unfinished business. Please call the next item. Clerk item 4 is an ordinance approving an amendment to the redevelopment plan for the Mission Bay South redevelopment project, which modifies the maximum number of hotel rooms permitted on block 1 at the intersection of third and channel street and making the appropriate findings. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 4 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed. Madam clerk, please call items 5 through 21 together. Clerk items 5 through 21 kpri comprise the matters associated with the citys budget. Item 5 is from the budget and appropriation ordinance proopting all estimates receipts and all estimated expenditures for the departments of the city. Annual salary ordinance he enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance for the fiscal years ending june 30, 2021 and june 30, 2022. Item 7 is an ordinance adopting the neighborhood beautification and graffiti Cleanup Fund Tax designation ceiling for tax years 2020. Ite items 8 is an ordinance proopting a total of 5 a79,184,142 of proceeds from revenue bonds. Item 10, ordinance to appropriate 260,351,806 dlsh of hetch hetchy revenue, low carbon fuel standard, capandtrade revenue, and power and water revenue for the San Francisco Public Utilities commission hetch hetchy Capital Improvement program for fiscal year 2021 at 94,380,451 and for 202122 at 165,971,355, and facing 142,970,073 of power ba bonds, and 108,626,733 of water bonds by project. Item 151 an administrative Code Amendment amending the administrative code to adjust fees of the office of the chief medical examiner to include postmortem investigation services. Item 16 is an ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the department of Administrative Services to impose a fee for reproduction and notely Services Provided to the public. Item 18 is an ordinance to deappropriate approximately 4. 6 million of series 2010a retuneding certificates of participation prior reserve funds and appropriating 102 million of refunding certificates of participation series 2020r1, including deappropriated funds and 9. 5 million of one or more series of refunding certificates of participation proceeds. Item 20 is a health code amount to set rates for services such as patient rate Services Provided by the department of Public Health for fiscal year 2020 through 21, and 2021 through 22. And the last item, item 21, is an administrative Code Amendment to suspend the restrictions on expenditures on Funds Available in the budget savings Incentive Fund and to authorize the use of the fund for any purposes relates to the citys response to the covid19 pandemic or its related impact. President yee thank you, madam clerk. So if theres knox, then no objection, then, madam clerk, i will ask that we take roll on items 5 through 21 together. Seeing no objection, madam clerk, call the roll. Clerk on items 5 through 21 [roll call] clerk there are ten ayes, and one no, with supervisor stefani in the assent. President yee without objection im sorry. The ordinances are passed by a 101 vote. Congratulations, chair fewer, on the Budget Committee and other members that were deliberating over the budget this year. Madam clerk, please call the next item. Clerk item 22 is an ordinance to amend the health code to establish cleaning and disease prevention standards and practices in Tourist Hotel and Large Commercial Office buildings to help contain covid19 or other contagious Public Health threats. Supervisor peskin mr. President . President yee supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin can i ask that we refer this item until later in the meeting . President yee number 22 . Supervisor peskin yes. I will be ready for it in a few minutes. President yee sure. We can do that. Madam clerk supervisor peskin thank you, mr. President. President yee no problem. Can we go to item 23, madam clerk. Clerk item 23 is an ordinance waiving, for a twoyear period, permit and renewal fees in the public works code for cafe tables and chairs in public sidewalks and roadway areas, and for display of fruits and vegetables or nonfood merchandise on public situations and waiving fees for use of parklets. Supervisor peskin mr. President , if you could delay this for a few minutes, we will be ready for it in a few minutes. President yee all right. Madam clerk . Clerk item 24 is a resolution approving terminal 2 book store lease number 200049 between books, inc. As tenant, and the city and county of San Francisco, acting by and through its airport commission, for a term of ten years, and a minimum annual guarantee of 220,000 for the first year of the lease, to commence following board approval. Mr. President , i believe youre muted. President yee madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 24 [roll call] president yee and without objection, the resolution is adopted. Supervisor peskin mr. President , im ready on items 22 and 23 . President yee okay. Supervisor peskin we are ready, so if you could call the roll on item 22. Clerk on item 22 [roll call]. Clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee without objection, the item is passed. Supervisor peskin and mr. President , item 23 is ready. President yee okay. Supervisor peskin, do you have anything to say . Supervisor peskin yes. Last year, before the pandemic, my staff assisted going through every fee assessed through Small Business in the city of San Francisco to identify those identifies that represent unreasonable barriers to entry. Were not the first office to do so. I think my predecessor, david chiu, worked on that. And while the pandemic disrupted that larger project, it made it abundantly clear that many fees charged to Small Businesses in the outdoor realm, particularly the realm that is within the jurisdiction of the city and county of San Francisco, particularly when it comes to tables and chairs, were too high. And too th that end, we have c up for this temporary waiver for tables and chairs and displays in parklets. I have a few minor amendments. On pages 2 and 3, clarifying that we cannot waive m. T. A. Fees and urging the m. T. A. Board to take up this fee waiver of their own accord pursuant to their charter authority. So i would like to move those amendments, and id also like to duplicate this file and rerefer it to committee in order to continue working with public works and their staff to ensure that shared spaces permits are fully accommodated going forward, and that we not be put in a position of needing these businesses to reapply for this service that has emerged during the pandemic. I want to thank public works and robin abad for everything hes done to sheriff the outdoor spaces program, so id like to move those two amendments, mr. President. President yee okay. Is there a second for the amendments . Supervisor mandelman second. President yee okay. Seconded by supervisor mandelman, and a roll call on the motion to amend. Clerk okay. On the motion to amend as stated [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the amendments are accepted, and before we take a roll call vote on the resolution, i would like to add my name as a cosponsor. A few years ago, myself and other colleagues had also introduced legislation to cleanup a lot of the fees that were charged to Small Businesses, and i would like to continue that item as started a few years back. Is that all right, supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin thats fine, mr. President. President yee okay. Madam clerk supervisor preston . Supervisor preston through the president , just one clarification. Im sorry i didnt raise this earlier. Supervisor peskin, you know, the findings talk about Small Business, and i strongly support the policy youre putting forward. I just want to make sure, in terms of the waiver, that this would not be apply to would not apply to, say, formula retail if they dont apply to the permits that are specified there, but just to the extent that it could, wanted to just raise that issue as a possible friendly amendment or the duplicated file. Supervisor peskin right. So we have been wrestling with the issue of formula retail, and we can deal with that in the duplicated file, and its something that i have talked with my staff as recently as early this afternoon, and thats one of the reasons that were duplicating the file and sending it back to committee. Supervisor preston thank you. President yee okay. And well take a motion on the duplicate file in a second, but madam clerk. Clerk so mr. President , may i suggest, then, an alternate process . President yee okay. Clerk since item 23 has been amended, before you vote on the original item as amended, supervisor peskin has duplicated the item. What youll need now is a motion at his request to send the duplicated item to committee, get the motion and second, majority vote carried, then vote on the original item 23 as amended. President yee no problem. So theres a motion by supervisor peskin to duplicate the file and send it to committee. Is there a second . Supervisor mandelma supervisor mandelman second. President yee second by somebody. Raise your hand. Motion by peskin. Madam clerk. Clerk on the motion to send the duplicate file to committee [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee so the motion to duplicate the file and send it to committee passes. Supervisor peskin, so the duplicated file is not amended. Are you okay with that . Supervisor peskin yes, sir. Those were nonsubstantive amendments that were made in committee, and we can deal with that there. President yee okay. Thanks, excellent. Madam clerk, lets take the roll call on the original item as amended. Clerk okay. [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. The item as amended is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, lets go to item 25. Clerk item 25 is a resolution retroactively authorizing the office of the District Attorney of the city and county to renew its current agreement with the california Victim Compensation board, for a Revolving Fund in the amount of 75,000 to establish a process to pay expenses on an emergency basis when the claimant would suffer substantial hardship if the payment was not made and when the payment would help the climbant with an immediate need for the period of july 1, 2020 through june 30, 2023. President yee madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on the resolution [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Then without objection, the item is adopted unanimously. Madam clerk, lets go to item 26. Clerk item 26 is a resolution retroactively approving a First Amendment to the contract between the city and county, by and through its Human Services agency and allied universal security for the provision of unnamed security services, to increase the amount of the contract by 7. 8 million for a total amount not to exceed 17. 2 million to commence july 15, 2020, and to revise the term end date from 60 calendar days after expiration of the local emergency as declared by the mayor or her designee to december 31, 2020 for an amended Agreement Term of april 1, 2020, through december 31, 2020. President yee supervisor walton . Supervisor walton i definitely want to see this moving forward, but as we continue to see contracts this size, we will continue to see how many folks in San Francisco are employed by these measured contracts that our departments entered into, so i just wanted to remind everyone to be on the lookout for these types of items as we move forward. President yee okay. Thank you. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 26 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, lets go please call items 27 through 30 together. Clerk okay. Items 27 through 30 being called together are resolutions authorizeding the office of Contract Administration or o. C. A. To amend the following technology purposes. It enters into a contract between the city and c. C. T. Technologies, doing business as computer land of silicon valley, to increase the contract amount by 21. 5 million for a total contract amount not to exceed 44 million. Item 28 is a resolution authorizing o. C. A. To enter into a First Amendment for Technology Marketplace purchases between the city and the insight public sector, to increase the contract amount by 8 march yoilphone a total amount not to exceed 28 million item 30 is a resolution authorizing the o. C. A. To enter into a First Amendment for Technology Marketplace purchases between with Intervision Systems l. L. C. , to increase the contract omt by 11 million for a total contract amount not to exceed 31 million with no change to the threeyear term to expire on december 31, 2021 with two oneyear options to end, at the sole and absolute discretion of the city. Supervisor fewer colleagues, id like to correct the short title of the resolution on item 30, so the total amount reads 21 million, not 21. 5 million. Every where else in the rest of the resolution has the correct amount. That was just to correct the amount in the short title. President yee very good. Is there a second . Seconded by supervisor peskin. Madam clerk, please call the roll on the amendment. Clerk okay. On the amendment to item 27 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the amendment is accepted. [gavel]. President yee madam clerk, lets call the roll for item 27 as amended, 28, 29, and 30. Clerk on item 27 as amended through 30 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted as amended. Madam clerk, lets call the next item. Clerk item 31 is a resolution authorizing the Fire Department to donate a retired ambulance to the city college of San Franciscos Emergency Medical Services academy. President yee okay. Please call the roll. Clerk on item 31 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, call items 32 through 34 together. Clerk items 32 through 34 comprise resolutions receiving and proving annual reports for the various Community Benefit districts for fiscal year 20182019. Item 32, the only report for the castro upper market Community Benefit district, and item 34, for the noe valley Community Benefit district for fiscal year 2018 through 19. President yee okay. Supervisor safai . Supervisor safai yes, mr. President. President yee did you want to be added to one of these . Supervisor safai yeah, i wanted to be added as a cosponsor to ocean avenue, if thats okay. President yee okay. Item 32. Madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on items 32 through 34 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted unanimously. So madam clerk, lets go to the next item. Clerk item 35 is a resolution to declare the intense of the board of supervisors to receive and approve a final annual report for the property based Business Improvement district known as the top of broadway Community Benefit district for fiscal year 201819, to disestablish the district, and to remove a multiyear assessment on all parcels in the district, ordering and setting a time and place for a public hearing of the board of supervisors, sitting as a committee of the whole on november 17, 2020, at 3 00 p. M. , on the proposed disestablishment, approving the form of the notice of public hearing, and directing environmental findings. President yee okay. Madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 35 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, lets go to item 36. Clerk item 36 is a resolution to urge the city to expand the definition of vulnerable populations for services for people experiencing homelessness during the covid19 crisis. President yee supervisor preston . Supervisor preston thank you, president yee, and i would like to move to continue this item to give us some more time. Were going to be meeting with the director of the department of Public Health and others regarding the definition of vulnerable population. So with that, wed like to move to continue to the Board Meeting on october 20. President yee okay. Theres a motion made by supervisor preston to continue this item to tuesday, october 20, 2020. Roll call, please. Clerk mr. President , i apologize. I didnt catch the second. President yee supervisor peskin. Clerk peskin, got it. On the motion to continue item 36 to october 20 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, item 36 is continued to october 20, 2020. Madam clerk, call item 37. Clerk 37 is a motion appointing supervisor raphael mandelman, term ending december 1, 2021, to the California State Association of counties. President yee colleagues, can i have a motion to excuse supervisor mandelman . Supervisor fewer so moved. President yee okay. Madam clerk, can you call the roll. Clerk on the motion to excuse supervisor mandelman [roll call] clerk there are ten ayes. President yee without objection, supervisor mandelman is excused. Clerk just for item 37. President yee well, is that what hes thinking . Madam clerk, please call the roll on the motion. Clerk on item 37 [roll call] clerk there are ten ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the motion is approved. Okay. Supervisor mandelman, you are welcomed back to the meeting. Congratulations. Madam clerk, please call items 38 and 39 together. Clerk items 38 and 39 comprise two mayoral appointment nominations to the San Francisco Public Utilities commission. Item 38 is a motion to approve tim paulson to the commission, and item 39 is a motion to approve Ed Harrington to the commission, both terms ending august 1, 2024. President yee okay. Madam clerk, can you please call the roll. Clerk on items 38 and 39 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the motions are approved. Madam clerk, call the next item. Clerk item 40 is a motion to appoint cissie bonini, for an indefinite term, to the Food Security task force. President yee okay. Madam clerk, please call the roll. Clerk on item 40 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. Without objection, the motion is approved. Madam clerk, lets call item 41. Clerk item 41 is a motion to appoint the following individuals to the Mental Health sf Implementation Working Group amy jones, philip jones with a residency requirement waives, Andrea Salinas and sarah shortt, terms ending june 1, 2021, and steve fields with a residency requirement waiver, and monique lesarre, terms ending june 1, 2022. President yee supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen yes, thank you, president yee. I just wanted to tell my colleagues that we had a huge list of incredibly qualified applicants for Mental Health sf at the rules committee, but we did our best to narrow it down to these proponents that we believed had the right mix of qualifications and expertise to make Mental Health sf the success that we can and know it will be. This is really the last step until we start implementing the law that we passed unanimously at the end of last year, and its extremely exciting. I also just wanted to mention that the mayor has appointments for her seat, which i guarantee shes in the process of filling, and District Attorney [inaudible] that we hope will make his appointment soon, as well, and then, we can get up and running and start vastly involving our Mental Health Service System here in San Francisco. Thank you. President yee supervisor haney . Supervisor haney thank you, president yee. I just wanted to echo the sentiments of supervisor ronen. This is a great set of people to implement this supervisorial law. I want to thank you, supervisor ronen, for all of your efforts. And to all the people who stepped up and wanted to serve, were still going to need your help. This is going to be a true transformation of the Mental Health system, and we thank the mayor working with us, and this Implementation Group is going to be absolutely essential. So i thank them and definitely encourage us to appoint all of the folks in front of us. President yee okay. Madam clerk, go ahead and call the roll. Clerk on item 41 [roll call] clerk there are 11 ayes. President yee okay. The motion is approved unanimously. Madam clerk, we will i know that items 42 and 43 are next, and id like to and come back to these items later in the meeting. Supervisor peskin and mr. President , i do intend to table these items, so at any point when you want to call item 86 on the adoption without consent calendar, i would make a motion wobb without Public Comment to table all three items. President yee okay. I got that. Thank you. Supervisor peskin yes, sir. President yee so should we go ahead and move to items 44 through 51 together. Clerk items 44 through 51 comprise two appeals for the proposed 18 4r6 grove Street Project continued from july 18, 2020 and august 25, 2020, for a public hearing of persons interested in determination of exemption from Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act or ceqa, issued as a categorical exemption by the Planning Department on february 12, 2019, for the proposed project at 1846 grove street, assessors parcel block number 1187, lot number 003h. Items 45 through 47 is the affirmation or conditionally reversing or preparation of finding to reverse the calli l categorical exemption determination. Item 49 is the approval of the commissions decision to approve the conditional use authorization. That is an eightvote threshold. Item 50 is the eightvote threshold, which is the motion to conditionally disapprove the departments decision subject to the issuing of written findings, and item 51 is the preparation of findings. President yee all right. Colleagues, we have two appeals related to 1846 grove street in district 5. This is under the environmental exemption under the California Environmental quality act. We will first vote on a categorical exemption, and then, if it is affirmed, the conditional use authorization requires eight votes to overturn the Planning Commissions recommendation or impose additional conditions. Without objection, we will proceed as follows up to eight minutes for a presentation by the ceqa appellant or their representatives, and then, eight minutes by the c. U. Appellant or their representatives. Two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. Up to ten minutes for a presentation from city departments. Up to ten minutes for the project sponsor or their representatives. Two minutes in opposition per speaker in opposition or support of the project, and finally, up to two minutes for rebuttal for the ceqa representative, and then, up to two minutes for rebuttal to the c. U. Appellant or their representative. Colleagues, is there any objection to proceeding this way . Seeing no objections, the hearing is now open. Supervisor peskin, do you have any opening remarks you would preston, do you have any opening remarks that you would like to share . Supervisor preston thank you, president yee. Ill reserve remarks until after the presentation. I did want to thank the board for the couple of continuances that we had on this and also to all the parties involved. My office convened two aviation sessions, first on august 20, and then on september 11 to try to bring together project sponsor and appellants. And what what i will say is we had a very respectful and productive discussion, but not one that resulted in agreement, and that brings the matter before us today, so ill reserve further comment till later in the proceedings. Thank you. President yee okay. Seeing no more names on the roster for my colleagues, i will now ask the ceqa appellant to come forward and present their case. You have up to eight minutes. Okay. Im going to share my screen. I dont know if my president yee we see it. Okay. Perfect. Mr. President , honorable supervisors, staff, sponsor, good afternoon. My name is henry tang. I am copresident of the nopon west neighbors, also known as nopon. I have lived in my home adjacent to the proposed development for 13 years. Almost all of the appellants have lived in their homes near the proposed development fore the same amount of time. Heres a quick summary of the proposed project. The lot is in the middle of the block and has a narrow 3. 5 feet by 50 feet alleyway as the only means of access and egress. The lot is zoned at rh1 as rh1 and rh3. This zoning is for two residential units. The lot has 17 adjoining properties. The project is built right up against the fences of the neighbors. As shown in red, 80 of the perimeter is constructed against the fences of adjoining properties. There are several elements for which the project ceqa requires an assessment. We believe these factors merit a formal analysis with results made public. Our concern is that with a major transit stop would cause a large number of ubers, lyfts, and taxis could wait on fulton street during rush hour. There is a coastal live oak tree on the lot that is protected by state law. The sponsors assessment falls far short of an analysis with a determination that it will survive construction and measures for keeping it alive after construction. A usgs study published by sf gate in 2017 raised the project site as having moderate risk of liquefaction. We believe that removing 310 cubic yards of soil should be environmental evaluated. We do not believe that this will have no Environmental Impact, which is the reasonable for the environmental exemption. [inaudible] is that the project does not meet either ceqa or San Francisco policy requirements for the exemption. Here, we have a portion of the San Francisco Planning Departments categorical exception determination checklist. It states that the dwelling units must be in one building. This is both a ceqa and a San Francisco policy requirement for the exception. The project is for four dwelling units in four buildings. Planning, at the december hearing, and again in its response to the appeal letter, sites a 1997 certificate of determination as the basis for granting the class 3 exemption. They referred to it as a memo and as a precedent. So 1997 equated six dwelling units in one building with six standalone residential dwelling units. This is contrary to ceqa requirements. Ceqa is specific as to the exact authorities it delegates to local agencies. Changing ceqa here for categorical exception here is not one of them. The 1997 memo is also contrary to a resolution that the Planning Commission adopted in the year 2000, presumably to correct the 1997 memo. The resolution very clearly requires that the dwelling units be in one unit, one building, and excludes projects like this one from a class 3 categorical exemption. It would seem necessary to phase us, but judicial requirements do not apply to planning codes. I cannot site preloma prieta earthquake codes to current building requirements. Now, lets briefly examine plannings response to the appeal letter. The response, again, sites the 1997 memo, and i quote. The department determined in that exemption that six dwelling units would have essentially the same impact, whether theyre provided in one structure or six, end quote. The response also acknowledges the year 2000 resolution but dismisses key language, highlighted her in yellow. This language is precisely contrary to the determination i just quoted and precisely excludes structures like the project from qualifying for a class 3 exemption. Finally, it sites a paragraph from ceqa which sets certainty as the bar for common sense exemption. We believe that the project and its review did not meet this bar. Now lets shift to the sponsors response to the appeal letter. The sponsor uses a photo, shown on the left, which purposes to show that theres ample room in the alleywaytor two people to alleyway for two people to pass each other. If youll look closely, one can see from the individual shadows that they are actually standing in front of each other. The gap between them is a space one in front of the other, not the space between them when passing. In the photo, we took a photo of two people standing next to each other at the gate. Two people cannot pass each other at a normal stride, let alone safely in a fire or earthquake. Add to that First Responders entering with their equipment, heaven forbid there are disabled people in wheelchairs at the development. Please remember, this narrow area extends for 50 feet. What if one of the buildings adjacent to the alleyway is on fire or damaged by an earthquake . How can those be safe in . We believe that supervisor peskin hit the nail on the head at your july meeting when he said in order to qualify for categorical exemption, it has to be evident and with certainty that a project will not impact the environment. This is what ceqa requires. We believe this project falls well short of this bar. All the neighbors i talked to, including ones in the Construction Business and developers, can not believe that such a project is being proposed. It defies common sense. As you will see in the conditional use portion of this hearing, our expert fire Safety Consultant will tell you that this project as designed will lead to an unsafe condition. Im almost done. Ten more seconds, please . Clerk thats up to the president. President yee ten, nine come on. The haightashbury Neighborhood Council has interest in the area in which the development lies supports our contention that the project requires further ceqa evaluation. We urge the supervisors to disallow the categorical exemption for this project. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I am available now and later to answer any questions you may have. President yee madam clerk, i believe theres the the conditional use appellant that will present . Clerk okay. So legislative department somera, do we have the other appellant queued up . Yes. It is elliott gitleman and brandon keys. Clerk all right. Mr. Gitleman . Okay. I wont go into my background other than to say i have a degree from the university of maryland in engineering, and ive been in business on my own in 20 years. Most of my experience has been plan review for locate the jurisdictions in the local jurisdictions in the bay area, where ive been typically doing 40 to 80 plan reviews a 45 to 80 plan reviews a month as a representative for fire protection. When you look at this project, we have to look at whether or not this is being classified as an r2 or an r3 occupancy. The fire and Building Code requirements are somewhat different. Typically, an r3 is a residential dwelling, and r2 is three or more residential units. The way i look at it, one property, with the way the buildings are situated on it, the way this is situated, we would classify this as an r2. Under r2, the alleyway would be considered to be an exit corridor or an exit courtyard, which if it doesnt have fire rates construction for at least one hour, from ground up, it has to be at least tenfeet wide. It doesnt have that. Also, an r2 requires that alleyway to be, as part of an egress, 40 inches wide, and right now, its about 32 inches wide. So basically, we have a bottle neck, and we dont have the ability for people to get out of their safely whether its a fire or earthquake. My concern is everybody in that alleyway, everybody back there is trapped there until the fire is extinguished, and they still may not be able to get out of there that way because there may be building damage or collapse in that alleyway. So basically, weve got a land locked sayings where weve got people trapped there with no way of getting out, whether theyre handicapped or otherwise, whether theyre needing accessible or otherwise. So my feeling is basically this is an unsafe condition. It does not meet the requirements r2 for a 44inch minimum access. If we go back and look at San Francisco fire Department Public Assembly Order 512, it points out a situation similar to this, and it was revoked and has not been included since the 2013 edition. So i think that if theres any other questions, id be more than happy to answer those. Again, i think the whole issue is that alleyway is not legally a means of egress to the public way. President yee okay. Anybody else presenting . Yes. My name is brandon keys. Im a resident adjacent to the project. Ive been a president of San Francisco for 20 years. My background is the development of large Clean Energy Power plants, where we take life safety extremely seriously. As elliott, who has a background in this, has shown, this project has serious issues, having only one ingress and egress. Frankly, ive never heard of any building project anywhere where theres one way in and one way out. This developer is asking for multiple raranc multiple variances for this project to be able to move forward, and i ask this body thinks through the life safety aspect issues of this project. As a developer, i can say its been extremely frustrating working with the developer for this project. Theres been Minimal Community engagement. If you look through the list of engagement items that the community has put forward, the majority of them are emails between himself and i or not meetings between the community. Many meetings were not noticed, and when they were noticed, they were noticed improperly or only a few neighbors were told of these events. Often, the developer was asking me to reach out to the neighbors in order to get them to be there, and then, once we were in the meetings, the feedback we got was very dismissive. It just didnt feel there was actual engagement with the developer throughout the process. Weve included a couple of notes around specific events where frankly there just wasnt the engagement were looking for. I was a presenter at a meeting, and it was difficult to hear or see anything. The meeting cut at four hours, which many of the callers who wanted to express their opinion were cutoff. Many of the folks who wanted to weighin and voice their concerns were not able to do so. Another thing ill note is the developer is proposing to build 4700 square feet and move 320 cubic yards by hand. It just frankly doesnt make any sense, and the developer doesnt have experience doing this. We as neighbors are very concerned theyre going to get halfway done and not be able to complete the project for lack of understanding of the cost and what it will take to build this development by hand. Ill note that this is what the developer sent me when i asked what tools theyre going to use to do the project. Those are home depot cards. We know we have a housing crisis despite everything thats going on with covid. What were asking for is a project that conforms with the rules, can be built in this location, not one that builds a bunch of luxury condos thats up against everyones zero lot line. So, in summary, we ask that the discretion thats granted to this body be used when thinking about the life safety aspect of this project. We are all deeply concerned that in a fire or earthquake, everyone will do what they have to do, which is jump over the fence into everyone elses yard to get away from the issue. Again, this location has one way in and one way out, 32 inches wide. We dont believe this project is safe. Thank you. [please stand by] clerk as the president said were taking callers in support of the appeal. Youll have two minutes. indiscernible clerk hello, caller . We can hear your television. indiscernible clerk maam, can you speak directly into the telephone if youre trying to provide Public Comment. indiscernible clerk all right, well, operations it seems that this person is listening to their television and not the prompts on the phone. Well circle back to that caller. Hello, caller and welcome. Caller hello. Clerk hi there. Welcome. Commissioner chan yes . Yes, thank you caller yes, yes, thank you. Thank you for this hearing and im absolutely in favor of this appeal. The exemptions that have been granted by the Planning Commission is a grave injustice that you now have a chance to set the record straight on. And to correct. The lot was zoned for a two residential units and the investors want to put double that amount using up almost all of the land and not having any of the setbacks that all of the other neighboring lots have. This is not about helping create new housing. Its four units. There are plenty of vacant homes that are even on my block that people have been buying as investments and they stay vacant. This is not going to do anything for the housing shortage that the city will always face. Instead, what we need to do is to uphold the rules that have been put in place so that people who are living here, who have their homes, who have their properties based on certain criteria, are not suddenly subject to having neighbors who get to by pass all of those same rules and build whatever they want and eat up all of the land that normally should be used for more public enjoyment. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Mr. Brendan, do you mind turning off your camera at this point . Ill let the members know that there are seven callers in the queue. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller that was one of best presentations and one of the most compelling arguments for an appeal. I very much support this appeal. I think that, you know, the appellant touched on pretty much everything that i was going to say, so i dont really have anything to add other than that i support it. I yield the rest of my time. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the appeal. Caller hello . Clerk hello. Caller i live on masonic avenue and im strongly opposed to this development. My unit is adjacent to and directly affected by this project. Im concerned about fire safety given my location directly east of the development. The winds blowing off the ocean from west to east with sometimes reach 20 Miles Per Hour and i have a wooden house built in 1917 that is not. And the development is much too dense. Four units on the lot that is only zoned for two. Furthermore, the conditional use was granted with conflicting classification of the dwelling units. As four units in one building for ceqa and four Single Family residents for c. U. Investors claiming that the lot should be classified as r3 zoning and it should be r2. And d. B. I. Will make this determination after which the fire marshal does the appropriate checklist. The fire marshal said that the preap approval was based on r3s, not necessarily whether its safe or unsafe. And the fir fire marshal said tt if it was r2 that there would be major issues. Equal and fair application to the planning rules determines how much land and sky can be covered by a building and how much land must remain open space. Thats for the appropriate levels of privacy, and the backyards are beneficial to the community. Were only asking that the investors follow the rules and be fair. Please vote to approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commissions decision. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the appeal. Caller hello, good afternoon, supervisors. This is the president of indiscernible council, we provided a letter written by Jamie Michaels of our boards position on this project. In its current form it should be denied. We ask you to uphold the appeal. Id like to point out that the development is to authorize for a property authorized for two units. And many of the concerns that the Planning Commission had heard in the first hearing were not ever addressed. Also that historically many tiny lots like this, put in the middle of a block were purposefully left vacant after the 1906 earthquake. So that those areas could act as a fire block to prevent the spread of fires. So, please, take all of these arguments written to uphold the appeal. Thank you clerk thank you for your comments. All right, operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the appeal. Welcome, caller. You will have two minutes. Caller hello. My name is jane kellogg and i live right next to the development. I have been here for seven years. I oppose the project. And im in favor of the appeal. There are several reasons why i dont believe that this project makes sense. First, this lot is unique in that it has only one very narrow and long breezeway as a sole means of access and egress. Despite what the developer says, there are no other lots in the city that have as minimal an access as this one. In event of an earthquake or fire i cannot believe that the residents of the project will shelterinplace as they envision. While it calls for fire rated walls my fence and all of the fences surrounding the development are not fire rated and theyll easily go up in flames. In addition to owners in the immediate area there are many longterm renters in the area that are fearful of losing their homes and having to face high rent rates in the city. The project sponsor and his supporters claim that the marketrate residences will help with the housing crisis in San Francisco. Given that there are more empty residences than homeless people, i doubt that this will help. It will more likely add to the glut of expensive housing. Third, it requires many variances that should be granted for desirable construction. I dont think that, and all of the neighbors directly affected, dont think that this process is necessary. Its neither safe nor beneficial to the Affordable Housing crisis no one who is directly affected by the project approves of it. The numerous socalled sent in letters of support dont live near by and only a handful reside in district 5. They are better in someone elses backyard. Please consider those of us who wish to continue to live with neighborhoods safely and turn down this project and support the appeal. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the appeal. Caller hello. Thank you very much very much for taking my comment. Im very much in support of the appeal. My name is jason chu and i represent two of the properties on grove street that abut this lot. I would like to reiterate the comment before that since the mention of the earthquake, multiple fafact, a prevalent number of blocks in the area have a fire block lot in the middle. Which was designed because of the gas lines in the area and also to prevent fire from spreading quickly. The development of this lot is something that goes flies against a hundred years of San Francisco architect, Planning Commission and building inspection wisdom. Its really amazing to me that its now being allowed to be developed. My father had a chance to buy these lots, the lot, two times in last 30 years. Each time the restrictions that were placed on it were too significant regarding access, the inability to safely egress in this small hallway. In terms of the developer, the meetings that hes scheduled sometimes were not posted and i never received any kind of notice of them. And the one time that i was going to go to a meeting because i had heard about it from neighbors, he changed the meeting at the last minute and posted a simple 8. 5by11 piece of paper on the fences. And his attitude towards me is dismissive. After a Planning Commission meeting i asked him very politely, i would like a larger setback, please. Please dont build an 18foottall by 37footwide wall with no windows, no architectural merit at all, simply a monolith right against my fence. He said, impossible, turned away and there was nothing left to be said except for seeing the smirk on his face. This is the type of person that you are allowing to build here. He has a reputation in glen park of doing the same thing and then skirting laws. Clerk thank you, sir, for your comments. Already, to the 30 odd members in the queue who are listening, now is your chance if youre speaking on behalf of the appellant to press star, 3, otherwise, theres two individualslinning and well take this to the end. Individuals listening, and well take this to the end. Welcome, caller, you have up to two minutes caller hello, everyone, i am john marciketa, i live right next door to the walkway that everyone is talking about. One of the things to note is the neighborhood is, of course, concerned about the fire risk. The other side of the walkway, not where i live, but the other side of the restaurant, so you can imagine that fire risk is actually quite real. I was looking at the slide and it said that theres supposed to be a 10foot fire resistant wall on both sides. Which, obviously, isnt the case. But, i mean, just from i dont know the fire codes but from a common sense standpoint youll have 20 people in there one way in and out and extremely narrow. Theyre taking their garbage out and theyre getting amazon packages piled up there. There will be bikes people cant walk by each other. And the developer said, dont worry, if theres a fire theyll just stay in the middle and wait while the fire crew comes in. They cant go out and say, hey, theres a fire crew coming in. So we ask i personally have, you know, significant concerns about fire risk here. I would not have my family live there with my 2yearold son, and i have a pregnant wife. I dont think that they could make a quick exit through there. Theres a tree, right, on the other side of the fence too. Thats where the garbage goes. Right in front of that gate. So its not like you get out and then theres a bunch of space either. So, you know, i think that earthquakes we talked a lot about it. But its just unsafe the way that it is. And we havent been reassured at all by the developer that anything can be done that will make it feel safe for us as neighbors there. So with that, i ask you to support the appeal and, you know, to listen to us neighbors here who care very much about the people who may end up living there. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the appeal, please. Caller hello. My name is Abigail Keegan and i live at 67 masonic and my unit is one of those directly impacted by the development. I support this appeal. I attended the december 2019 Planning Department meeting held inperson at city hall. I saw that the neighbors and the appellant were given a fair opportunity to present their concerns. When the commissioners continued the project so that the developer could come up with a better design they were able to articulate clearly, the commissioners were, the concerns of the neighbor. Well, then covid hit. For some reason this project was deemed essential and assigned an immediate date. This project was presented in the First Virtual hearing held by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission meeting held on april 9th was a poster child for the technical difficulties at the beginning of covid. The platform severely limited the communitys ability to voice their concerns. Many of my neighbors were unable to pivot to the online format. The meeting itself was rife with technical problems. I myself was cut off after 20 seconds and thats not even with putting 20 seconds in the public record. At one point the hearing had to be restarted. And Public Comment speakers were put on hold and like me when called back were left in the queue before being cut off. There was no one available to guide people through the process. Neighbors didnt know if they should begin speaking or if anyone could hear them and the public overheard the staff discussing the technical difficulties with at t. The most egregious part of the april meeting is that the developers presente present, any were aided by staff to present our slides our Neighborhood Group was not given this courtesy. You replaced 30 seconds in the queue of callin speakers. And our presenter was unable to hear the commission or the clerk and had no way to know if his slides were shown. Our carefully planned opposition blended in with the Public Comment. This made worse by the scores of those employed by the developers since december. Thank you, and i hope that you support the appeal. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller in support of the appellant and the appeal . Caller hello, i am meg gray and i live on fulton street, and like my neighbors i have a lot of concerns with the development. I think that theres life safety issues. I definitely have a young family. I think that point has been pretty well covered and i hope that you all take that into consideration. One of my other sort of big issues has really been the relationship between the developer and the neighborhood. You know, i have received one invitation to a neighborhood meeting from the developer despite being right next to the spot. And, you know, i knew that he knew my email address, i put it on the list. If it wasnt for my neighbors though i wouldnt have known about a lot of the subsequent meetings. So, luckily, i was able to attend but in those meetings it felt that he was consistently dismissing, or even kind of threatening us with, like, this is best we can do. Like, if you dont go with this, oil do this big horrible thing. So it all felt very not in good faith when he was speaking to neighbors. And, you know, after that initial Planning Commission meeting i think that a lot of us were optimistic and i dont think that the Planning Commissioners understood our concerns and were able to share that feed diagnose bac feed bace developers, and he didnt really change anything. He did reduce the number of units which hell tell you over and over again from five to four. But our real concern was around density and he kept the number of bedrooms the same. He made one unit larger and got one of small unit, so he only minimally reduced the size of the project. So this is kind of disingenuous communication that fostered zero trust between the developer and the neighbors and i think that trust is especially important. It affects so many people. I think that theres Something Like 17 lots and 30 units that surround this lot. So ive been really discouraged to watch how hes sort of tried to get by the rules and play by different rules than everyone else has to and to not be willing to engage in good faith with the neighbors. So i hope that you support this appeal. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Operations, is there another caller in the queue in support of the appeal . Operations . Okay. Caller hello. Clerk welcome, caller. We are taking Public Comment in support of the appeal. Are you in the right place . Caller i basically want to say that with the fire code they are trying to use doesnt exist anymore after 2015. Im not sure how they were able to pass a d. B. I. Requirement. And then the other thing is that i actually have a Public Health background and i cant believe that in the age of covid that they think that something that you can build dense housing like this and have people cross through a hallway like that is going to enable physical or social distancing at all. And theyre going to have shared ventilation and sewer lines and youre looking at something where you could actually transmit covid19 through the building. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Is there another caller in support of the appellant . Hello . Caller hello . Clerk hi there, welcome. Caller thank you. I my name is susan. I live one block over from this potential development. And i have to say that its a completely ridiculous thing to have this plan to basically build units in what is essentially peoples backyards. I have been over there. I have seen the alley. Its very narrow. Im a small person, but i didnt even feel that i would be comfortable walking through there and passing people. The idea that people who just stay there while if a fire started it would be a complete mess. You expect people to just stay there while the fire is happening . No. There would be panic. People would be running around and they wouldnt be able to get out. Its a complete fire hazard. I feel like this has been dragged out for a very long time until people are exhausted. I know personally know 10 plus people who are in support of the appeal. But not everyone can pinpoint 3 00 on a tuesday afternoon and call in. So everyone in the neighborhood is in a complete uproar about this. Im a renter. If my place went up, i would have to leave the city. I couldnt afford to live here. So thank you very much, and please support the appeal. Byebye. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller in support of the ceqa appeal . Madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk thank you. Mr. President. President yee thank you. I want to thank the public for their comments. Seeing that theres no more Public Comment for this section, it is closed. Now we have up to 10 minutes for representatives of the Planning Department to present. Hi. Good afternoon, president yee and members of the board. Im aaron star, with the Planning Department. Joining me today are the planner for this case who will be doing the presentation. And the principal planner for environmental division. And lisa gibson, Environmental Review officer. And the director of our environmental division. And the team leader for the northwest quadrant. Okay. Good afternoon, matt deo, the lead planner for the project. Im going to share my screen. I have a very brief presentation. Before you are separate appealings oappealsof the contie authorization for a project at 1846 grove street. For the reasons described in our appeal responses, the Department Requests that you deny the appeal. The project has two fourstory units on a vacant lot as you can see in the site plans. The lot is on the southside of fulton street and not dproaf street as suggested. Its a sidewalk with no street frontage and a long access path before widening at rear. The majority of the lot is at the rear where the open space is located. And theres two dwellings and two, threebedroom dwellings. From 1,026 to 1,407squarefeet. It has 10 bicycle Parking Spaces and no offstreet automobile spaces due to the shape of the lot and making parking not feasible. And i will first address the appeal of the ceqa determination. On november 21, 2019, the project determined that the project which then had five dwellings was exempt under ceqa. And the project was later modified and improved to have four dwelling units. And as described in detail july 27th, the project is exempt. The Department Issues categorical exemptions when it meets the definitions for the comevment ones and theres no Significant Impact due to unusual circumstances. The department has common sense exemptions when they cannot meet the categorical exemption so it can be seen with certainty that theres no possibility that the project may have a Significant Impact on the environment. And minor impacts do not exclusive from being issued either exemption. This regard to the appeal, first the appellant states because the project proposes more than three structures its not eligible for a class 3 exemption. Its a common sense exemption and we still have a class 3 categorical box. They made this because of the following. Six dwelling units, whether in one structure or six, would have essentially the same impact, given the dense urban setting of San Francisco and should be eligible for an exemption in either scenario. This is documented in the 1997 certificate of determination, which was also a common sense exemption. The department relied on the cited certificate of determination to conclude that the project was eligible for a common sense exemption. And the certificate did not exempt this project. The exemption for this project is issued after the Department Found with certainty that no Significant Impacts existed. The departments exemption determination checked the box that said that it was exempt under the categorical exemption. The categorical exemptions are for family residences, and one building per six dwelling units. It consists of four buildings and four dwelling units, thus, it meets the definition of a categorical exemption for the number of units proposed but not for the number of will structures. As discussed earlier the department relied on the cited 1997 certificate of determination to conchewed that the project did meet the definition of a common sense exemption. Second, the appellant claims without substantiation that it will have impacts on the environment. The department reviewed the project for Significant Impacts on the environment and the response our response to the appeal details that it can be seen with certainty that there are no possibility of Significant Impacts on the environment. Thus, the departments position is that the project is clearly exempt and we request that you deny the appeal. I will now address the appeal of the conditional use authorization. On april 9, 2020, the Planning Commission granted the conditionaluse authorization to the dwelling unit density in the r2 zoning district. The district permits two dwelling units but allows Additional Units based on the lot area with conditional use approval. Four units are proposed on this lot. In reviewing these applications the Commission Must find that five criteria have been met. They are detailed in our appeal response dated july 27th. If all criteria are met the commission may grant the conditionaluse authorization. And if no one contends that it is not necessary or desirable for the neighborhood or the community or that its a safety hazard or it will have adverse impacts on traffic due to lack of onstreet parking. They say its not appropriate for the neighborhood or the design. And given the size of the lot and the low profile of the design it is an appropriate scale to the neighborhood with a total of four units the project still has fewer dwelling units than the adjacent properties, excluding lots with only one dwelling unit. As such it is appropriate for a lot of this size. Additionally the design of the project incorporates second floor setbacks and minimizing the impact to the adjacent properties. And the appellant states that the project has a safety hazard with the configuration of the lot and the placement of dwelling. The project will be reviewed for full compliance with all safety codes. And these codes are not under the puview of the panning department. The Fire Department indicates that the project does have a pass for meeting all applicable code requirements. They will require it in full during their permit review process in response to the neighborhood concerns, the Planning Commission has had a commission of approval on the project that will require the project to request a new conditionaluse authorization should it result in a change to the project. This ensures that the project is safe and that the neighborhood would be apprised of any change to the project that are needed to meet compliance with licensed safety codes. It determines if the project cannot be safely developed no permit would be issued and the project would not move forward. But, again, these codes are understand under the purview of the Planning Department. Finally, the appellant states that it will have adverse impact on traffic patterns due to the lack of offstreet parking. And the project is consistent with the citys policy which is not requiring offstreet parking. Further, given the proximity to nearby transit corridors and fulton street, its lack of offstreet parking is a positive attribute and not a negative one. For reasons that i stated and the appeal response, the Department Recommends that the board uphold the decision to grant the conditional use authorization for 1846 grove street. Thank you, and im available for any questions. President yee so are there any questions . I dont see anybody on the roster right now. Okay. Then, thank you very much for your presentation. Now we will go to our project sponsor. Or the representative. And with the presentation. I give you up to 10 minutes. indiscernible president yee are you trying to talk . Youre sounding like a chipmunk. So im not sure what is going on. indiscernible president yee thats not working. [laughter] clerk while he is coming back on, mr. President . President yee yes. Give him a second there. Yes, you are sounding like a human being right now. Okay. Not a chip mun chipmunk today. Well, thank you, supervisors i am the project architect and im one of the three coowners. So we appreciate the opportunity to present these four new homes. Our team here today includes the two other owners, one is a residential contractor and the other is a Small Business owner as well as fire retired Fire Department marshall. We are defending the process that started in 2016. From the beginning, we took input from planning staff, residential design Advisory Team, and we modified the project per the comments of the Planning Commission. We held five Public Meetings seeking Community Input. The appellants here were offered unlimited opportunities to meet with us in larger or smaller groups. All of those additional opportunities were declined. And the preliminary review started in 2016 to discuss the general context. Due to housing shortage we were encouraged to maximize the number of units on the site. After submittal it was reviewed by the project planner and environmental planner. Residential design team reviewed the project. After it was revised based on the neighbors comments and the comments of the Planning Commission, it was reviewed again and found to be compliant with the residential guidelines. A Second Public hearing in front of the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator ended in unanimous support. The process worked. Compromises were made, and the project was modified. I would hope that the supervisors have had a chance to listen to the deliberation at the Planning Commission and study the very modest homes on this very large site. Including the views looking in from surrounding properties. After planning approval, it was appealed and we agreed to continue with this and to engage with dialogue with the neighbors. Id like to show some images of the project if i can share my screen. So you can see in this image the overall context of the very small building relative to the Massive Development on all sides. You can see the roofs. So this is the context within the block. You can see here a site photo, you know, roughly showing you that this is the size of three city blocks. Or three standard lots in a city block. And then, of course, you have seen this photo. I have a video showing people passing very comfortably as well that i can show you if you request that. So what are the appellants arguments here today . Im going to get back to the meeting. So what are the appellants arguments here today . The appellants have said that at the property is too dense. Theres too many units. Well, we were allowed six units, recognizing the unique nature of the site we proposed five due to the neighbor comments and comments of the commission, we reduced the number to four. This same site parcel if it had full street frontage and subdivision could could either have six or nine units, plus a. D. U. S in the district for a total of 12. This project proposes four. In our early meetings with planning we were encouraged to maximize the number units and we came to the table with a proposal that did not overcrowd the site. Our brief illustrates all of the concessions and modifications to the design made in response to the opponents and the Planning Commission comments. The appellants argued because theres no b. R. M. Units that the findings are invalid. The opponents falsely argue that the approval requires a higher standard than what is written into legislation by the very board of supervisors. We believe that the homes will be more naturally affordable due to the particular circumstances of the lot, the lack of parking, the smaller unit size, and minimal private amenities. These homes will not have city views, garages and luxury amenities. They will have private and common open spacesuitable for families. Middleclass families who do not qualify for b. R. M. Units need homes too. The appellants argued because some dwelling units are vacant in San Francisco, then no new homes are needed, citing data from the internet. I assure you that there is no successful Business Model that allows us to keep these homes vacant. Appellants have argued that the narrow frontage makes passing of two persons impossible. Ask me for the video and i will show it to you, showing people easily passing. It is no different than i singleloaded corridor. The appellants argued that the project is unsafe. At the 11th hour they found a consultant to present a code analysis. An analysis full of inaccuracies and outright misrepresentations of the project. We have responded to this letter if detail and i hope that you have had a chance to review this response. However, you do not need to believe me. I am not the regulator. Nor are the neighbors. Please look at the letters provided by the Building Department and the Fire Department. The Building Department agrees with the occupancy. The Fire Department has provided a conditions of approval letter which include a number of measures that the project must implement, including a full sprinkler system, up to the highest standards. The project will have pipes at the rear and useful for fighting fires on any property and its a noncombustible type construction. Please note the signature of the San Francisco fire marshal himself. In addition to others in the chain of command. They are the responsible departments for reviewing the code. The fire marshal and d. P. I. Publicly stated that if the project meets code than it is considered safe. The project meets or exceeds the accessing and exiting and egress. The department agrees that these are Single Family homes and duplexes and not apartments. The appellants argued that the onestory wall unduly impact their properties. These walls at the allowable height of a rear yard fence were thoroughly understood by the planning city of and commission. These are largely onestory homes with smaller twostory popup areas. They are configured in a way to minimize the impact to the neighbors and to preserve the existing trees to create a community on this lot. Commissioner moore called it a unique solution to a challenging site. The commissioners understood the volumes on the site and appropriately decided not that the homes would be invisible, but, rather, that the design appropriately distributed vot eums across the volumes across the site in a way least impactful to surrounding homes. The appellants argued that marketrate homes are not needed in San Francisco. These are familysized homes built for the Community Around a beautiful tree, with native plant landscaping and these are environmentally conscience homes. Bicycle friendly. With no car parking using sustainable materials. And are fossil fuelfree with no gas line. The appellant cites precedent. And we included many examples of homes built without direct street frontage in the immediate few blocks. One only needs to do a survey of google maps to see hundreds of similar examples of homes without direct frontage in every neighborhood. Okay. So this is precedent set something i hope so. Lets hope that housing can be built and lets hope that good design is encouraged. Lets hope that people can find creative ways to build new homes that are minimally impactful to adjacent properties. And passed on by the Zoning Administrator and the Advisory Team and the Planning Commission. I hope that the supervisors will each make an independent judgment here today in your role as jurors. I have heard that theres a concept of deference to the District Supervisor and i do not know where supervisor preston will come down on this. In this case i would respectfully request that you each independently evaluate the merits and the voracity of the appeal submitted in the oral and written documents. I request that you not decide this based on a popularity contest or based on politics. I request that you consider it with a 60 decision at the Planning Commission. Not some split decision. These were the same commissioners that were recently appointed by this board. We have put our heart and soul into designing these four homes in the best, most considerate way possible. We have broad public support, not because we hired a lobbyist or because were paying anyone, which is ludicrous. But because people genuinely care, and see this as a very, very modest project. Please read the comments of the residents on the petition with over 300 signatures. Lets hope that San Francisco is still a city that says, yes, we can. Please reject this meritless appeal. In regards to the ceqa, i think that planning did a very good job of defending their decisions. Its not in this zone and our partner is a residential contractor and hes on this call. If you have questions how he could do this work by hand, please ask. Thank you for your time. President yee any questions of the developer or the city planner . Okay. Seeing nobody on the roster. Then i will invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition of the appeal. And to support the project to please press star, 3. And to be added to the queue to speak. You will have up to two minutes. Madam clerk, will you please call the first speaker. Clerk operations, please unmute the first speaker. Welcome, caller clerk just a moment to the caller. Do you mind turning off your camera for the moment. Thank you. Thank you, caller. Please proceed. Ill set your timer. Caller sure. My name is beta brockman and i live in district 5. I have to say that as an lgbt person this reminds me of listening to the debate over Marriage Equality where all of the conservatives made arguments that didnt make sense because its an interest to them. If you dont want to get gay married, dont. Theres a really simple answer to the People Living in this project. If you dont want to live on the lot, dont. If you dont want, you know, a space six feet wide then dont move to this lot. But theres many, many people, tens of thousands of people, maybe hundreds of thousands, who would want to live here. One of the callers said that no one who is directly affected by the project approves of it. I can guarantee you that is not true. Not only do i live relatively close to this project, but theres many, many people who would love to live there. I know people, teachers, firefighters, receptionists, and these people have names, ryan and kevin and sarah and joel and they would love to move here. Right now they have to commute longer, spend more on rent and they cant afford to have kids. They have to spend hours a day commuting and they dont have money for essentials because of the cost of housing. Its all because of projects like this getting held up. These people, their families, these are the people who would live here and theyre far, far more effective than people worried about seeing an extra uber pickup once a week or seeing a nice building instead of uncut grass outside of their building. And the selfishness of saying that the inconvenience of having an extra neighbor or two that you will see on the street once a week outweighs the benefit of the family being able to see, you know, their father or mother for an extra hour a day because theyre saving on the commute or have money to put food on the table. This just astounds me. I kind of wonder who raised you people. Like, its just amazingly selfish. I think that the board of supervisors should put the actual lives of the people who would live in this project over these kind of privileged people, you know, obviously silly complaints clerk thank you for your comments, sir. All right, operations, is there another caller in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal . Caller hi, supervisors and the city staff. Thank you for your service. I am elliott and i live in district 5. I reviewed the project designs and i have listened to the applicants today. I want beautiful modestly sized common sense housing in our district. And this project seems to propose just that. As we heard earlier, the Fire Department deemed the project to be safe. So i hope that we can all get behind adding small units to give more people a chance to live in our great neighborhood. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you if are you r comments. Please unmute the next caller. Caller good afternoon, board of supervisors. My name is char mean curtis and im calling in support of this project. As someone who has been developing Affordable Housing in San Francisco for several decades now, im aware of neighborhood opposition to even welcoming developments like this one. The project sponsor is a talented architect and a really decent person, despite the reports to the contrary. He has genuinely tried to address the neighbors concerns and in my opinion has done an exceptional job of designing a thoughtful project on this unconventional little lot. The only way that it could be more sensitive is by not being there at all, which appears to be the objective of this appeal. The appellants are arguing that the project is unsafe, that it seems it has got to be only within the citys purview to determine whether or not this is the case and whether this is code compliant or safe or not. And not a group of neighbors who oppose a project and their hired consultant. I think that were all used to it but we should still ask ourselves if it should be this hard to develop projects in a city with a profound shortage of housing. I very much hope that you will reject this appeal. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Caller hello, everyone. Thank you for listening to me today im sarah beaudro, and im calling in support of the project as well. I am a millennial living in San Francisco and i hope to raise my family here someday. But i would not be able to stay here. I would probably have to move out into places that are getting developed in areas that are currently on fire or could be on fire. And while living in this climate emergency, it seems ridiculous to not be developing small carefully considered, very environmentally friendly units inside of a safe place to live like San Francisco. So if we want people to be able to raise children here and to be able to contribute to the economy here and the future, we need to approve projects like this. So i really hope that you will reject the appeal today. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal. Caller hi, good afternoon, supervisors. My name is scott and im a renter in hays valley who opposes the appeal. Im a middleclass San Francisco renter who dreams of one day being able to buy a house in our beautiful city. I know that its kind ever an unconventional lot and an unconventionalconventional arrat we have to make the most of every opportunity to build housing, even if it means being creative with a parcel like this one. I see that there are many environmental benefits to this project, including being next to transit lines and a smaller Carbon Footprint. Probably less likely for people who use cars. And the project is really, really thoughtfully done. If you have seen the architecture, its great and it leaves open space and not just a cookiecutter development. And, yeah, i would like to just say, you know, i urge the board to kind of make it harder to appeal every single small project like this. And it wastes a lot of everyones time and i wish that there would be some call to make it so that the Planning Department can do their job. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Andrew Sullivan and i live a fiveminute walk from this location on grove street. Not that it matters to the people who would live there, since theyd be new, but i have lived in this neighborhood just shy of 25 years. In fact, i used to live on grove just one block away. Im calling in strong support of this project. We need more neighbors in this neighborhood. People who can raise their families here, who can walk to work and shops, and who can do the best thing to reduce Carbon Emissions and urban sprawl by living in the city. This is a perfect location for new homes, en masse transit with walkable to the best shops in town, and i can tell that you it wont be a problem for residents nearby. I live in an apartment with a Carriage House right behind it, and its no problem at all. So i strongly encourage you, supervisors, to reject the appeal and to support these new homes and please stop accepts appeals like this in the future. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. Im speaking in strong support of the housing and i encourage to you reject this appeal. We need more housing, especially in fill housing as we address climate change. The experience that we all had with the 2020 wildfire season show us that the status quo is not working. As far as the safety concerns, i trust our fire marshal and other professionals who stand by their reviews that this meets the requirements. There have been four years for the review process which have reduced this project here before you today. The fight with the neighbors and with the living roofs and these homes have an inward focus to minimize the impact on the neighbors. On a personal note, as an lgbt person who moved to San Francisco for the tolerance of the city, its really important for me that other people are able to live in and to appreciate what San Francisco has to offer. I see friends move out of the city because of the lack of housing options, so its important that we create homes. I havent given up on this city and trying to make it a better place. At a more general level, its crazy that we have this whole board of supervisors spending their valuable time today in an individual home project for these units. Please uphold the decision from the Planning Commission and reject this appeal. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Caller thank you, board of supervisors. I am ben woodward and i would like to speak in favor of this project. I feel very much like many of the other callers do that it is a Modest Development in a very unusual lot that requires some careful design. I have looked carefully at the designs of this as its evolved over the years. And it is the kind of place that i would love to live. And so i urge you to support it. I feel like most of the comments against this were actually they tended to reveal, like, oh, yeah, i dont want somebody in my backyard or that this space should be for public enjoyment, you know. Well, you know what theyre really trying to do is to trying to keep a hold of a resource they dont actually own. So i feel like this has gone through a long review process and its a worthy project. And it will help to address some of the challenges that we have in this city. So i urge you to reject the appeal. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller on the line who supports the project and is in opposition to the appeal . Caller oh, hello. My name is tony and i live in district 6. And i support the project. The fire marshal stated that the project meets the code requirements. The project went through extensive review process. The Planning Commission gave it unanimous support. Its clear that the neighbors just dont want anything to be built there. There are concerns about safety, and its just a pretext to stop the project so i urge you to reject this appeal and let the project go forward. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hello, my name is madeleine boyd, good afternoon, honorable supervisors. I would like to oppose the opposition to this appeal. On behalf of my friend who lives close to the development and cannot call due to working obligations. Living in San Francisco is expensive and i point to examples like this. 1826 grove street is a small number of objectors putting their own interests and fear of change against the good of our city and the needs of its people. I wish i didnt have to call in to support every Housing Development. I wish i could trust the right thing to get done. I also would like to say that im lucky enough to be a San Francisco Property Owner and i speak in favor of this development against the ceqa appeal. And Housing Needs to be more affordable and we need more houses. Also Ronald Regans ceqa has been used more than it has been done to protect the environment. The Planning Commission has done its job and the ceqa appeal is a lastditch effort to block this development. Supervisors, you are just as concerned about the citys housing crisis as i am and please do the right thing and get homes built. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal. Caller hi, im a resident in district 6. And i am well aware what comes with Housing Development. I have to say that looking at these plans, those of us in district 6 would kill for developments like this. This development is environmentally friendly. It has setbacks. It has open space. You know, district 6 is commonly the apartments and small boxes with no open space looking into your neighbors windows. This project has none of that. Iit has passed the life and safety planning and passed all of the requirements that the city has put forth. In fact, its only here in front of the supervisors because supervisor preston sponsored an appeal at a mire meeting. It didnt meet the appeal signature requirements to get in front of the board. The opposition has already had a number of special treatment to get this to this level. We should be looking at this similar to many other frivolous appeals, just like the twin peaks appeal that we heard earlier. This is something that would be great for the city. Things they list as negative its no parking hey, thats a positive. We are a transit first city and this is near public transit. It has open space. You know, the only reason to deny this would be to preserve an empty lot for the benefit of the neighbors. And to preserve the high the currently high values of the neighbors houses. Yes, some of those houses may come down in value when you have a naturally affordable building built next door to it. Comp does that but we should prioritize housing in this city, you know, environmentally friendly housing, which this is. We should not be prioritizing the home values of people who have lived in this city for years and years. We need to open this up. You know, speaking as someone who lives in a small apartment, i would love to live in a house with a yard that i could afford here in San Francisco. Thank you. Clerk thank you if yo for yr comments. Operations, please unmute the next caller. Caller hello, supervisors. I live nearby and im a renter working hard with my partner. In San Francisco it feels that this will never happen. I reject the appeal and support this project. These homes are modest and will be more affordable than the multiMillion Dollar mansions around this neighborhood. I would love to stay in my neighborhood and own a home like these. The design is approved by the Planning Division and the d. B. I. And the fire chief. Many had legitimate fire concerns. I trust our Fire Department to mitigate any issues. These are more fire safe than our old victorians. I hope that they trust our Fire Department too. On the note of fire, when we fail to build housing in San Francisco, we force the workforce to move outward into the wild land interface. These neighborhoods have been burnt to the ground every september and october as were experiencing now. If were worried about fire danger we need to build in places that dont have wildfires. San francisco doesnt have wildfires so lets build housing here. For the health of our climate, lets build housing in a city where residents have a lower Carbon Footprint compared to their counterparts. Finally, this lot has been zoned for residential for at least 70 years, according to s. F. Plannings website if the neighbors wanted to ensure that no residence was built here they could have purchaseed it and kept it vacant. They could have worked with the planning comeation to change the zoning before someone purchased it. These neighbors neglected to do so and they did not meet the threshold for filing an appeal as the previous commenter mentioned. I live in this neighborhood, i dont own a car and i do not have a parking space and i have been satisfied with the Public Meetings, the outreach and the communication that has come from the team. Please reject this appeal and approve the project. I would love to live there. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. Caller hello, supervisors. My name is Sam Wrightson and im a San Francisco resident and i attended the preapplication meeting in 2016. And i am supportive of this project and surprised that its still under review after nearly four years. I would like to echo the conclusions of the Planning Commission that the project offers a modest and skillfully designed solution to an underutilized parcel. And it provides muchneeded housing in San Francisco. The project has been through an extensive review process. It meets the safety requirements of both the Building Code and the fire code. I believe that the new units will be safer than many of the surrounding houses that were builbuilt before the more rigors code compliants now in place. Its o housing that the city needs. Please reject the appeals of this project. Thank you clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller, please . Caller hi, good afternoon, supervisors. I am robert sufman i went to one of the meetings on november 19th, 2019. It was i think a 45minute meeting which was remarkable because there were only four people who showed up, including myself. Like, troy was there and honestly its weird hearing all of these people saying that there was like no meetings because, like, he waited for people to show up. He said that there were 40 people at the first meeting and the second had 20 and the one i went to had four. He is happy to answer all and any questions. I asked about the unit sizes and i asked about the living roof and he mentioned also that because the neighbors concerns he actually increased the how the project was spread out over the parcel area so that it wouldnt seem as threatening, which actually makes the project more expensive because it requires more concrete for the foundation. So its really hard for me to see how the sponsor was not responsive to his concerns. He was able to give me concrete examples, pun not intended, of how he was trying to work with the neighbors. And the fact that he spent like 45 minutes waiting for people to show up, like, with, you know, which oddly turned into a conversation about, like, the corner masonic. So people he waited for people to show up. So, yeah, everything about this project, as everyone said, i support this project and i oppose the appeal. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hello, supervisors. Im a 20year resident of district 5. Earlier in the year i submit aid formal letter of support to Planning Commission for this project. Currently i submitted a letter to you electronically that reiterated its Due Diligence and having a progressive solution and a design for a urban housing challenge. And the summary from the Planning Department. Theyve done their job. They have vetted approval by the Planning Department and the commission that is being challenged, a question comes to mind. What improvements toward life safety, seismic upgrades, sustainability or social responsibility to the housing crisis have any of the opponents performed on their own multimillion Dollar Properties . If the answer is, like, well, nothing, or next to none . Then i have to wonder who is the threat here. And theres just no room for hypocrisy in this discussion. We need to move forward on a progressive design and have this project move forward into another stage of development. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please, who is in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal. Caller good afternoon, supervisors and madam clerk. I am sarah ogilvy and im very blessed to live in San Francisco. The California State Legislature declares that the lack of housing is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental and the equality of life in california. And all californians and future californians have a right to speak about any Housing Development project. Im calling today in opposition of the appeal and strong support of the project. Which is already been extensively modified by the Community Input and gone through a painstaking review process, coming out as San Francisco commission determined, the Planning Commission determined wonderful in the final result. San francisco fire Marshal Daniel decostio said that it meets applicable code requirements and stands behind his review letter. On the subject of fire safety, governor Gavin Newsome has declared a state of emergency and major disaster in napa, sonoma and shasta counties. Californians and potential californians are being put in harms way from the construction of more housing in wildland urban interfaces. The greatest solution that we as a city can provide to address this crisis is to build desperately needed infill housing in this walkable, transitrich area. Climate refugees right now, and thousands of people are unable to find or afford housing here due to San Franciscos staggering jobs to housing imbalance. We need projects like 1846 grove to be built as soon as possible. I am pleading with you to consider the diligent work of the architect and the experts here and to please approve this project on its countless merits. Thank you so much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hello, supervisors. Yes, i just want to make a comment that, first off, i think that we need more infill housing in San Francisco and these are opportunities that really need to be opportunities that should really be like this project that should be be encouraged, rather than discouraged. Its extremely welldesigned project i have looked at the drawings carefully, im an architect. I feel that the architect has done a tremendous job of keeping the scale down towards the neighbors. With regards to the issues of fire and life safety, the project already has gone through one round a preliminary round of investigation with the fire and Building Department. And it will need to go through a further round to get permitted. So lets trust in our system. The Fire Department and our Building Department and our Planning Department. And i encourage you to wholeheartedly to support this project and to reject this appeal. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hello. And thank you for taking my call today. Id like to come out in opposition of the appeal. I am speaking as an architect and a longtime resident of San Francisco. As an architect, i feel that this project as everyone has stated has gone through numerous reviews and regulatory processes and it was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. As an architect i know how difficult that is to achieve and i very much respect everyone who has been involved in looking at this project through those agencies and their defense of their support for this project. As a 24year resident of San Francisco, i have to just speak about hearing the opposition to providing more housing, that is modest housing, that will help increase the availability of housing for middleincome people. This is not luxury housing we are talking about. And i also do not know why developers are just a knee jerk dirty word that everyone talks about. This is small development. And in San Francisco, which has become so difficult to build in, so expensive, we really need to be rewarding and encouraging Small Developers who have the ability to be creative and innovative in a way they approach a project. To be able to build and to reward that ability. Because Large Developers will not do that. And this is only four units. There are numerous projects in San Francisco and examples of Carriage Houses and second apartment buildings and projects accessed purely lie stairs throughout the city that people have safely and comfortably lived in. So, please, continue to please oppose this appeal and support 1846 grove. Clerk thank you for your comments. We are taking Public Comment in support of the project and in opposition of the appeal for the grove street ceqa n. C. U. Appeal. We have listeners in line. If youre interested in speaking on behalf of the project sponsor, please press star, 3, now. Operations, lets unmute the next caller. Caller indiscernible hi, i am joshua. Thank you for your time. I want to support this project. I live in district 5 and we need as much housing as we can here. This is a wonderful place to live and talking about the fires, people will be displaced and we should build as much housing in our city as we can. I hope that you reject this appeal and let the projects to go forward at a faster pace. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next caller, please. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. My name is theo gordon and im a renter in district 5. I think as a member of an organization that i am on, the land use committee. So we analyze the project and troy met with us several times. He did a lot of community involvement. Im asking you to reject this appeal. I spent a lot of time with the developer, and i work with the community. I dont want this to be about troy and i dont want it to be about the wealthy homeowners who are opposing this project, theyll be totally fine no matter what happens. I want to talk about the people that you dont hear from and you wont hear from today youll hear from the young couple that gets to move into one of these homes who has enough room for a second child. And the doctor who walks to her job at st. Marys. And you will hear from professionals who get to move to the city they love and ditch their car because now they ride the bus. You wont hear from the teenagers who grew up in these homes and get to walk to Golden Gate Park whenever they want to hang out with friends. But thats who we are building housing for, these people. Supervisors, these are the people whose lives are impacted by the decisions you make tonight. Approve these homes for them. Its unconscionable that were allowing people who live in multiMillion Dollar homes to delay badly needed missing middle housing. The opposition is trying to criticize this housing as being a luxury and i find that offensive. Housing is not a luxury, its a necessity. What is a luxury is owning a multiMillion Dollar home and blocking new homes because you dont want a shadow on your garden. At the end of the day this is classic just not in my backyard. The fire concern is made up and not backed up by experts. The opposition has lied over and over again and i have been in the meetings where they lied about it and then said they were not invited to these meetings. MultiMillion Dollar homeowners dont want change. They come up with every excuse they can find. And our system and sometimes our elected officials reward them. We cant have a system that cares more about the views of the wealthiest than solving the houses crisis. Clerk thank you, sir, for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Caller high name is james lawson and im a professor. I wanted to say that i thought that the argument against this project is really unfortunate, and grove street is something of a large density housing. Its preposterous. I believe that we have indiscernible who prevent the persons from going, this has nothing to do with this development. You could ask the City Developer and he should gladly provide evidence that it is something that hes not putting this on grove street to avoid any kind of scrutiny of the traffic implications. Its simply not true. We have uber blocking traffic now. And in terms of some of the police and fire and ambulance, who would be responding to this project, which is preposterous also to say that grove street is simply going to prohibit those First Responders from being there. If someone called 911, we have Computer Systems that would tell them this is not really on grove street, it is on fulton street. So the argument against that is preposterous. The developers tried to hide something or prevent scrutiny because of the high density traffic pattern, its completely preposterous. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets unmute the next caller, please. Welcome caller. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. I wanted to call tonight and to express my frustration with this process that we are experiencing. It is this particular Housing Project that we are appealing, and its the overall system that we have created. What it means is that we have a housing crisis that is dysfunctional for all of us. Housing is more unaffordable here than any other american city. Were not the most dense city, but just the most expensive city. And this process that were experiencing right now, that we are sitting through, thats the reason why were broken. The reason that we dont have any houses, its the reason that we havent built enough houses lack decade or built enough houses the decade before that, or even built houses the decade before that. The last 30 years this process has been abused by the rich and powerful to attempt to cement their power. Now the thing is that some of them are level headed about it and understand the racist pieces of the zoning. And some of them think that its in their economic interest. And its specifically what i wanted to comment on tonight. Density is economically valuable for everybody. When we can take a given square foot of area and split it up among more people, we all win. We all get to experience more of what San Francisco is, we get more of a city, we get more artists, we get more musicians. We get more of a greater object. We should strive to have that density, rather than being in opposition to it. And, sadly, i see that as a city we are one of the most difficult places to build. With estimated costs of building Affordable Housing at 850,000 a unit, what that really says is that there wont be Affordable Housing in our city build. Clerk thank you, sir. Thank you for your comments. All right, operations, is there another caller, please, in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal . Caller good evening, supervisors. Im calling in support of this project. And i urge you to please reject the appeal. One thing that i think about a lot with these kind of appeals you are generally supporting a process that is very much for the rich and powerful and the privileged. And the folks that you obviously dont hear from are the ones who are most hurt by this. San francisco has been excluding so many people from our city for so long that were at the end of the day hurting the most vulnerable, squeezing out all of the folks that dont have the ability to pay the crazy prices that we have for housing here. So thats the number one thing that id like everyone to think about in this passage, is to think about the most vulnerable. Lets think about the folks who are hurt by this deal. And think about the opposition and how much bad faith has gone through this whole process. You know, the safety concerns are simply debunked. The Building Department and Fire Agencies have approved the design. You know, its gone through an extensive review process. This has been modified to address a lot of the neighbors concerns. The homes are very modest. All of the opposition is just saying, hey, we dont want it. And thats something that we need to oppose. So, please, reject this appeal and support this project. Thank you clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller. Caller hi, this is martin. Im a neighbor in d5. And im calling in support of this project as well as the opposition of the appeal. Kind of just in principle. I will tell you why. I mean, you heard a lot in the original opposition side that theres never been a Development Like this before in the city. Thats simply not true. I lived in a flat lot myself and i lived to tell the tale. Im here, im alive, and you know, it was a great time living in the property. Which before moving in i was always like, so surprised that we could fit that many homes into such a small lot. But it works. And it was a twounit project behind, you know, six or seven units in front of it. So, really, this is not unprecedented in any way. Again, you hear a lot about how its just four units and it wont solve the housing chris. In no way do i think it will solve any crisis of any kind and i dont think that anyone is under that delusion. But the principle of death by a hundred cuts, by a thousand cuts, rather. And so when we see Small Projects like these and these are tiny projects four units to get killed one at a time, piecebypiece, one has to wonder what are our supervisors doing, you know, identifying lots for 100 Affordable Housing. And identifying how we can relocate the victims of the fires in our beautiful city that, you know, lets us to live car free. I personally love taking the 24, and the 7 and getting around. I dont have a car i never have had a car and i feel that wouldnt be possible if i didnt live if a city like San Francisco. Which im proud to call home for many, many years. Again, this is one of those things where i hate that i even have to call in because this should be a common sense project that is easy to approve. But, clearly its not because we have a broken process. How do we extract benefits to get 100 Affordable Housing and focus on that instead of focusing on four units. In a place that, to be frank, is full of Million Dollar homes. So i respect the District Supervisor because hes always fighting for tenants rights. And its a huge step for all of us. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, can we hear from the next caller. Were taking Public Comment in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal of the grove street and ceqa and c. U. Appeal. Caller good afternoon, supervisors. I am a resident in San Francisco. And im calling to strongly support this project and to oppose the appeal. I think that everybody else has given great arguments around how this is a great idea to build more housing in a vacant lot and infill housing in this neighborhood is exactly what we need as part of our tools to combat the housing crisis. And, furthermore, this is approved by sf p. D. B. , and d. B. I. And the Planning Commission and its upsetting to see the opponent use these bad faith attacks and an amateur analyses about the safety of the units. When in reality its gone through its checked every box and approved by every relevant agency. Furthermore, when the people who are opposed to this project criticize, you know, the developers or speculators, i cant help but laugh because those people are living in this neighborhood where your average home goes upwards of 1. 5 million. And keeps on going up. And if theyre making if a homeowner keeps on making that money or is able to sell that mom for more money, is that not speculation in and of itself . I think that its just so hypocrital for a homeowner who has seen their home go up millions of dollars in value to say that building more homes is speculation. When in reality, they just want to have a monopoly of rent on the city by stopping all home building. Its upsetting to see the board of supervisors spend so much time on this. I mean, its been two hours of time, were in the middle of a pandemic and theres so many major issues that the board of supervisors should be focusing on. And its, frankly, quite disspiritting to see that this is what is taking up their time, Building Four homes in one of the greatest cities in america. It really just doesnt make sense to me. And what im also worried about is that even if this project is approved that other Home Builders might see that its taking them four years. And it might say that its not worth it for us to build more homes. So thats what im worried about. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller good evening, afternoon, supervisors. I am mike chan and im a resident of district 2 and speaking against the appeal and for the project. You know, i think that overall thinking about this in a holistic manner and more of the merits of the case, both the qceqa conditional appeal and the conditional use appeal. I would say that considering the merits of the case the question is, you know, do we trust the experts that we have hired and appointed as people who are stewards of the planning code and the planning process and the fire safety, or do we trust how much do we trust them . Because according to most according to people who who we have who are city staff, who are city appointees, you know, this project meets the requirements and meets the codes and meets the rules. And, therefore, you know, we should have the ceqa extension to hold and keep the conditional use authorization. If the supervisors decide to overturn either of these, then i feel that i feel that it is a lack of trust in the appointed bodies and the hiring staff that we have. And i think that you have to put a very, very high bar to say this is wrong. And to say this is wrong and to basically essentially say i dont trust your judgment and you should be fired. You know, and in a broader sense, you know, as other callers have said we have maybe about 40 years of underbuilding of housing and this has come up with the zoning and the processes in the 1970s and 1980s. State law is coming that we wont be able to really do that anymore you know, as i heard one said in Public Comment, our allocation numbers are going to get bigger in San Francisco. And if we cannot build four units on underutilized sites like this, then the city is going to put more and more screws on the city and our process of standing in the way of this. So i urge you to deny the appeals and to also work towards a saner and more predictable and more rules following process that such clerk thank you, caller. Thats two minutes. All right, operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller i am michael balker and i urge you to reject this appeal and support this project and follow the recommendations of your staff. Im sick of the board wasting all of our time hearing ceqa and d. R. Appeals of the appointed and paid staff recommendations which you should trust these people as the experts they are. Im about to raise my family and i own an infill Carriage House only two projects away from this project and i couldnt afford a multiMillion Dollar home, and thanks to the wisdom of our residents in 1880 i have a small structure in my backyard to call my own. I hope they will make more room for families looking for entry level homes in San Francisco like myself and reject this appeal and support this project. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller hello. My name is dan perez and i am an architect living in the city for 26 years. Troy is a fellow colleague that i have known for a very long time and he is an upstanding citizen. I am speaking in favor of this project or this thoughtfully designed project, and i would have the point that an earlier caller made about precedent and the city i live in russian hill and there are many narrow access to sites, both in russian hill and Telegraph Hill. In fact, supervisor peskin, your home is in one of the sites where there are narrow stairways that are used to access the homes. And the Fire Department is still able to get into those lots to protect homes that were built in the early 1900s. And so i would urge you to reject the appeal and to approve this project. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Caller im joining the numerous other people who have called to support the project and oppose the appeal. I dont think that the appeal made a sufficiently strong case to override the professional judgment of the Planning Department and the safety judgment that the Fire Department has indicated. And to do the Due Diligence necessary before issuing permits. Those are the basis on which the appeal is made. please stand by i think the units that are beautiful and thoughtful, and with 75 living roof is something i think that is quite extraordinary, and just more projects like this should be encouraged. I think its difficult when people do propose Something Like this to see it dragged through these processes and slowed down and made more expensive, and i would just like to see you approve this and hopefully more projects like this in the future. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, next speaker, please. Hi. My name is brian ito. I live about a block and a half away from the project, on hayes street. I am fortunate enough to own a home in the neighborhood, and im calling in support of the project. One, i think, most importantly, my concern was whether or not the project meant the fire and safety concerns were done. The process seems to be broken where a couple of wealthy people are able to hold up a modest project like this. And as long as it complies with the law, i dont know why the city would not encourage these projects and streamline them. It just seems really broken that Something Like this is able to drag out so long. Clerk thank you for your comment. We are taking Public Comment on the grove street appeal and ceqa appeal and opposition to the project. Operations, can we have the next comment, please. [inaudible] if we go back to 70 years when this has been done residentially, like the earlier caller said. [inaudible] instead of an older, unsafer housing. More homes are the solution to that. [inaudible] and more homes are the solution to that, too. Theres [inaudible] and more homes like these are the solution to that, too. [inaudible] and more homes like these are the solution to that, too. Im sure that this project can be built, and thats good. I think that if we know that it was a typical boxy development, the neighborhood would oppose that, as well. So even though i oppose the appellants, i would say im sympathetic to their concerns. The system is complex, bordering on capricious, [inaudible] instead of these [inaudible]. Clerk those are your two minutes. Thank you, sir. Okay. Operations, can we hear from the next caller, please. Hi. My name is gerald. I am a homeowner in San Francisco. I live about a tenminute walk away from the proposed project. Im calling in, of course, to support the proposed project. I think most of the other callers have made all of the significant points about why its important. The only thing i can find wrong with this project is that its, you know, hasnt even started building and its taken this long to get to this point for a small number of modest attract tiff homes. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Hi. My name is richard, and i am an architect and developer in the city. Im calling in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal. Despite unanimous approval by the Planning Department, and addressing constructive comments from neighbors, it still has been filed and a hearing agreed to, despite not meeting the threshold. The project is a product of thoughtful and careful consideration, and preservation of green space. This is a unique site, and the developers have been taking up the mantle, intelligently planned [inaudible] and instead provide much needed housing in the city. The opposition has no alternative ideas other than sustained opposition [inaudible] please approve this project. Thanks. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, lets hear from the next caller, please. Welcome, caller. Good afternoon. My name is gene kaplan, and ive been a San Francisco resident for the last 12 years. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this project, and in addition, i want to thank the passionate supporters of this project who are taking the time to take a stance for better, more inclusive future of our city. This project provides options for safe, Affordable Homes for people who are unable to afford homes in San Francisco. But more important, its an opportunity to set precedents for projects similar to this one, and to open our hearts and neighborhoods to new residents. Each one of us knows San Francisco residents who have left a city due to housing costs. This is the first page of the history that will be written, and we should support this project and not block, as these steps are clearly bringing our city to its former glory. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller, please . Hello, supervisors. Im calling in in support of this worthy project on 1846 grove street. As you know, our city is besieged with dirt and smoke and unAffordable Housing, and this is one thing that we need. My name is dr. Michelle burke, and i am very fortunate to own a home in noe valley. I am a psychiatrist and a landscape designer, and ive had many opportunities to work with this project sponsor over the last 20 years. Im here today to show support for these ingeniusly designed cottages. They are designed so that none of the cottages face their neighbors, there by improving the neighbors privacy. Through the design of shared internal courtyards and private patios, the new residents will have outdoor space to relax in and unwind. People are afraid of change. They forget that we live in a city that we all come here to work and enjoy the benefits that the city offers and that we must share. They forget that there is a shortage of housing in San Francisco. We must maximize the development of open lots and allow others to live and thrive beside us. With a project like this, theres really no downside. Thank you for your time. Byebye. Clerk thank you for your comments. All right. Operations, lets hear from the next caller in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal for the grove street ceqa and c. U. Appeals. Hi. My name is ramon. I have been a resident of San Francisco for six years, and i call in strong support of the Housing Project and thus in strong opposition to the abuse of our environmental laws for blocking housing. The appeal has absolutely no foundation. This is benefit housing built near transit in a lovely city. There is nothing that is unenvironmentally friend lag with it. What is concerning, however, is seeing our laws being abused to this extent. Ladies and gentlemen, we are starving right now, and you can see it in the housing prices, and you can see it in the streets where our brothers and sisters have to sleep because we do not allow any housing to be built. Please allow this Housing Project to be built and please disallow spurious appeals like this. Thank you so much. Clerk thank you so much. Operations, lets unmute the next caller, please. Hello. My name is [inaudible] and im a longterm resident in San Francisco, and i want to share my frustration with previous commenters that a modest project like this has to endure an appeal. This is a thoughtful project, and i just dont see why a project before you has to go through a multiyear process. If you follow the rules and the zoning laws, these should be good enough. I really dont understand why approvals, reviews, and departments okaying projects arent good enough when people have a chance to be part of the process. The process is broken. A project like this, thoughtful and modest, should just be approved. Thank you. Clerk thank you, sir, for your comments, operations, is there another caller in the queue, please . Good evening, supervisors. My name is rick hills, and i am a resident of district 7. Norman yee is my supervisor. And im here to not add anything different or additional to all of the comments made in support of the project and against the appeal, but rather to offer a little bit of historic perspective. I used to be on the Planning Commission in the late 1990s at a time when supervisor peskin appeared before us on behalf of the Telegraph Hill dwellers, and i think, if i might be so bold, that he would agree with me that this is the type of project that his organization was in support of, particularly one that has gone through four years of the process and had hearings before the Planning Commission where the Planning Commission raised issues, and the project sponsor, again, in conjunction with the neighbors and the relevant stakeholders involved addressed those issues so where the Planning Commission unanimously approved the project. Its time to call an end to the process. Im still involved in real estate 21 years after i resigned from the Planning Commission, and San Francisco is seeing a huge exodus of people who live in small multiunit and apartment buildings because they want more space and greener space to live in if a pandemic like this continues, and this is exactly the type of housing that we need for that type of situation. Its sensitive, meeting the scale of the neighborhood, addresses all of the fire and safety concerns. I urge you to approve it in its entirety. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Operations, is there another caller, please . Good afternoon, board of supervisors, and thank you, madam clerk. My name is [inaudible], and i live on ashbury street in one of the homes that are impacted by this interesting project. I think one thing thats been overlooked, and thats unfortunate that were not able to vet all the credentials of all of the callers, but, you know, you have to take my word for it, too. Ive lived on ashbury street for the past 20 years. One thing thats really significant is i dont think people are really aware as i am now that when my roommate was caused to move because of the covid situation, i found that we have rentals now available in San Francisco that is 30 higher no. Its three times as many people looking for rentals. When i checked on what the midrange amount of the new instruction construction is going to be, i was given the information from the meeting that actually didnt even start, quote, unquote, of the four years planning until about nine months to a year ago, so all that interesting conversation about notifying us is very slanted in terms of its reality. But my point is is that as much focus as there is in putting this in our backyards, it compromises the safe and the security and the fire hazards of our children and our elders im 66 the thing is that youre making more youre making more new by making more new construction, youre forcing out more rentals. The developer said he was going to own one of the units himself and sell the three others at Something Like 885,000, which, per unit, sounds a little usual. Clerk thank you for your comment. We are taking Public Comment in support of the project and in opposition of the peal for the grove street ceqa and c. U. Appeal. Is there another caller on the line who is in support of the project sponsor or the project and in opposition to the appeal . Operations, please . Hi. My name is justin raquel. Im a district 5 resident, and i just want to echo everything that ive been hearing about being in support of this project and against the appeal. We need housing in this city, and we should not allow ceqa to be weaponized to prevent housing from being built. Its very simple. We should create rules about what housing should be allowed, and if it follows the rules, we should allow the housing. We should not get involved in multiyear discussions over whether we should allow the housi housing. Lets get moving, get this built, and if possible, get rid of ceqa so we can have more housing and live in an environmentally conscious way. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Operations, is there another caller, please . Operator madam clerk, that completes the queue. Clerk mr. President . President yee all right. Thank you for your comments. I guess i will close Public Comment for now. [gavel]. President yee next up, well invite the ceqa appellant to present a rebuttal organizement. Youll have up to two minutes, and after that, ill invite the sponsor to present rebuttal. Thank you. Mr. President. The appellants are not claiming that there are substantial Environmental Impacts. What we are stating is that there are factors specifically covered by ceqa that need further examination to determine that there will be no Significant Impacts with certainty. What is unique about this project is it is not infill or land locked. The uniqueness is the very constrained and unsafe alleyway that is the only means of access and egress for so many residents in one location. It should be emphasized that this project will do nothing to relieve the shortage of Affordable Housing San Francisco. There is a published study, highlighting the glut of unAffordable Housing in San Francisco. There are more vacant units than homeless, according to an sf gate article by mike moffatt of september 25, 2017. This development will add to the glut and do nothing to address the shortage of Affordable Housing. The impression of the sponsors supporters is that we, the neighbors, are very wealthy; rich and powerful. I wish we were, but were not. Many of us are renters, and most of us live in modest homes. I walked around the block today, and there are at least four for sale signs in the modest for modest housing right on this block. We the neighbors would love to welcome neighbors in a safe and environmentally sound clerk thank you. Thats two minutes. President yee okay. Thank you. The appellant in the rebuttal argument for c. U. . Are you still there . You want to talk about the fire marshal approving, and we all know in this industry, the fire marshal in big departments does not really get involved in these projects on a daily or on a case shall bycase basis. Its usually members of their staff, and in a on a casebycase basis. Its usually members of their staff, and then, in if a plan review, staff points out why they dont meet the code, and then, in that situation, the project has to be redesigned, which i dont think the architect would want to do. As far as the architect responding to my letters, saying that my opinion has no merit, i could do that on his opinion. Im basing my opinion on my experience and in other jurisdictions. This is, in fact, an r3 development, not an r2, and i cannot believe this would be allowed to be built in this right. I thank you for your time and i am available to answer any questions you want to ask me. President yee okay. Then, if theres no question, i will this public hearing has been held and is now filed. [gavel]. President yee we will know reconvene as the board of supervisors. As previously discussed, we will first take up consideration of the categorical exemption which involves an analysis whether the determination from the Planning Department on this project was appropriate. To conditionally reverse the Planning Commissions decision, six votes are required. Supervisor preston, do you have more comments to make . Supervisor preston i do. Would you like me to limit them, at this point, just to the ceqa issues and address the conditional use separately . President yee as i stated, were going to look at the categorical exemption issue first, and then, were going to go to the other one. Supervisor preston okay. Yeah, thank you, president yee. I do have some questions and comments about about both of these appeals. Ill limit myself to the to ceqa right now. I think the question, through the president , for mr. Deo of planning, just so i understand the ceqa issues, the depu departments contention is the common sense exemption are plie plies applies. Youre not relying solely on the class 3 exemption, is that correct, just at the outset . Hi, supervisor. Im actually going to turn that question over to my colleague, wade, who just came on. Hi, supervisor. Yes, we primarily relied on the fact that the project needs whats called a common sense exemption. Supervisor preston and part of the common sense exemption, as applied here and my understanding of it is whether youre classifying this as, like, three or two twounit properties or three threeunit would conclude that the impact of these from a ceqa analysis is really indistinguishable, is that right . Thats correct, supervisor. Typically, we look to see if projects meet the definition of whats called a categorical exemption, and in this instance, the class 3 categorical exemption limits that exemption up to six units or three units and three whole family structures. So in this instance, theres no difference in terms of physical environmental effects of having four units and four individual structures, so it cant quite meet the definition of a class 4 categorical exemption, so we relied on the common sense exemption. Supervisor preston thank you. And i just want to state, as were talking about the ceqa issues here, that at some level, that makes sense to me. I want to keep this framework in mind for when we move onto conditional use, but for purposes of the ceqa analysis, i think using that common sense lens, not not assuming a a different Environmental Impact based on how you arrange the units on this kind of property makes sense to me. And i will say, and im interested in other colleagues comments, if any, that ive not heard on the ceqa appeal that the analysis and determination of exemption, either through class 3 or the common sense exemption was improper. So im interested if any colleagues have comments, but it appears to me, at first glance, to be a correct application of the ceqa exemption. And i do intend to make a motion on that, but would defer first, through the president , if other colleagues have comments or questions. President yee i dont see anybody on the roster, but i see somebody raising their hand. Supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin no, thank you, president yee, and thank you to all of the members of the public who have weighed in on this very complicated and contentious and albeit small item, but this is due process. This is what the state legislature wanted when they wanted local municipalities to preside over ceqa appeals which dont happen to us very often, but this is one of those cases. [please stand by] president yee i dont really have much to add to the comments. I grew up in the sort of north beach area. What is described in this project is actually, [indiscernible]. I dont what it in terms of the walkway, it seems similar to what i went through. I do believe that i would like to make a motion to affirm the categorical exemption determination. President yee okay. Are you the motion should be on the common sense exemption. Its not a categorical exemption. Its a common sense exemption that the board should be voting on. Just have a clear record. Through the president to counsel, that could be category three, is that correct . No, as the Planning Department made clear. Its a common sense exemption that applies here. That was the basis of their analysis. I wanted the oral record to be clear as well. President yee youre approving 46 and 47, is that correct . Correct. President yee no discussion. Madam clerk, can we have a roll call . [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. President yee the motion to approve 47 passes. Supervisor preston, would you like to discuss the conditional use issue . Supervisor preston i would, do you need to file conditional use or was that already filed . President yee its filed. Supervisor preston great thank you. Honestly, i think this is more challenging of the two appeals here. I think this raises a pretty serious issue. We have a this was two unit projects permitted. I dont think well here on this appeal. I think that some of the safety issues that have been raised warrant some further discussion and answers. I do want to get some clarity and make sure my understanding of the relevant occupancy classifications are accurate. Through the president again, the planner on this project we have a dispute regarding r2 and r3 occupancy. I want to make clear to the public and for colleagues the differences. If this were r2 occupancy project, this would mean we more than two dwelling units and if it would require certain fire safety that did not apply to r3. Is that right . Generally, yes, thats my understanding. Supervisor preston if was included r2 project, there will be no dispute here that the call it what you want, alleyway, egress, exit, whatever you want to call that 50foot strip, 3. 5 feet wide area. Theres no question that this would not be deemed safe and not be moving forward. Generally yes. Thats my understanding. I would add what makes this so complicated, were essentially debating a Building Code designation and the Planning Department, we dont have the qualifications to make that occupancy determination. E. D. I. Doesnt tend to weigh in on things. Any sort of disagreement what occupancy a project should be, the avenue that actually can be before the board of appeals. As far as the conditional use goes, the occupancy codes really on a huge factor in our decision. I want to get clarity. Not on whether its classified or not. Just on the r2 project. The information i have received from jeffrey motte at d. B. I. , the occupancy was deemed to be r2, youd have an egress requirement that this egress court would not need to hear. Correct. Supervisor preston i want to confirm that were all on the same plage. Page. If this were r2, this is not this would not be in compliance for safe project. Correct. Supervisor preston heres the problem from my perspective. Right now, you have two adjoining buildings in this process then you have two other buildings that are not adjoining. One of those two detached units were adjoined to the two that already attached. This will be r2 and deemed not compliant in an and deemed to be unsafe. Do i have that right . Im going to call on my colleague here to weigh in. He can jump in here. Im little uncomfortable having you ask planning staff about the Department Building inspection code. Were not qualified to answer questions on that. How this will be characterized is not something we can answer. Were only experts on the planning code. Supervisor preston okay. Someone from d. B. I. On who can answer . Im trying to nail down im happy to simply state any understanding, something to have a confirmation or disagreement with your expertise. If its not the planner, theres someone from d. B. I. Who should be answering that. Are they on the line . Any Staff Members from d. B. I. . Mr. President , i understand that we have patrick reirden who was invited to this meeting. The legislative deputy, do you know if they are signed on . I am checking that right now. It does not look like any of them are here. Supervisor preston anybody here from fire relative to codes . That too will be helpful as we adjudicate this matter. President yee no response from fire. Supervisor preston im sorry, supervisor preston as it relates to d. B. I. , i think we have to drill down into that issue. Let me say that. Im not sure that some of these are i in dispute. I would try to confirm them through planning or through d. B. I. If thats easier. As i understand it, after conferring with d. B. I. , leading up to tha this hearing, if thiss an r2 project, r2 occupancy, theres no question that the egress is not sufficient. I think weve gotten confirmation of that from planning. What makes it not r2 according to the Department Planning and d. B. I. I believe, the units are separated in the way they are separated. Heres my concern. Nothing changed about the total occupancy. If you have three units that were joined in one building and one unit that was separate with the same occupancy load, which is 25 people. Theres absolutely no question that the appellants will be correct and this would not comply with code and it would not deemed a safe project. What we have here in this situation is a developer being creative to avoid that result in moving having one of the units not be attached. Not changing anything with respect to the occupancy load. We still have the same authorized 25 people back there. We still have essentially the same Square Footage we would have and to gain the benefit of an r3 categorization. R3 is designed for Single Family homes and for duplexes. It has different requirements. Frankly, in an r3 situation, this egress will be sufficient. The question before us is it properly categorized. Even if it is a technical matter from a safety perspective, does that make any sense. Just because of how these units are situated on this lot with the same load, same number of people, same Square Footage based on how we arrange them, that will affect whether egress is sufficient or not. If you look at the difference between r2 and r3, if do a congregate resident back there, if it were r2, it will be more than 16 residents. If you were to do r3, will be less than 16 residents. In other words, if you do a congregate resident there, if it was fewer than 16 people, the existing egress will be okay. It makes sense to have different standards based on how many people youre putting back there. I think that i find it interesting when it comes to ceqa analysis, were saying one unit, two structures, three structures, we got to look at the impact here. Thats what we did under ceqa. When we come over to the analysis of fire safety, we get what im hearing from departments, is really a hypertechnical analysis to accommodate a developer building something that doesnt sound fire safe, that the fire the expert who weve heard from, has said its not fire safe and i have significant concerns not about creating housing on this lot. I know lot of the calls have been about whether thats a good idea or not. I think that thats not the issue here. The issue here is how much housing will be back there and specifically, what occupancy load make sense given that we have a narrow egress and given that we have we dont have fire safety on the two all walls that are next to that view. President yee the project sponsor has a retired Fire Department captain thats available. I dont know if you would like to see if he has any answers. There were several people from the Fire Department that were invited to this hearing but none of them are online. Supervisor preston the Fire Department position as stated by trujillo has been through this. They would make the determination of fire safety at the time the permits were issued. President yee just so you know hes available. Would it be would you need to have that discussion with d. B. I. Present . If so, would you want to maybe just let us move on to the next items first to see if we can get somebody from d. B. I. Come into the meeting if you need to have that expertise. Supervisor preston im not sure that will be helpful. If planning disagrees. I dont think theres dispute here regarding the fact that whether this was deemed r2 occupancy, it would not be fire safe. Thats the placement of the units is what its determining whether its deemed r2 or r3. The occupancy is not changing and i think from everything that i see in this project, unless theres a dispute on those bake facts, i think theres a significant safety issue thats been identified by the appellants and that urgent warrants reducing the number of units and the occupancy load to what will be allowed under r3, which is under 16 occupant and no more than two dwelling units. That would make perfect sense in this project. I think it would remove any issues of safety. The egress clearly support that level of that occupancy load as well as that number of structures. I have a problem shifting around the same number of people to take advantage of lower requirement and fire safety and i think its very properly before us on the ceqa appeal. I think it raises a serious issue. If planning if theres disagreement on that, i like who hear that. Otherwise, well be prepared to hear comments from colleagues and move forward with a motion. President yee supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin i thought we moved on to items 4951. President yee were on 49 of 51, conditional use. Supervisor peskin i believe were on the conditional use matter. Supervisor preston correct. If i said ceqa, i misspoke. Supervisor peskin you would like to hear from d. B. I. , but i believe that supervisor preston has very clearly articulated the issues before this body. This is a conditional use. It is a function of benefit and necessity. I think that supervisor preston has laid out a path forward where in we can actually approve project that creates more housing, that is safer. I say that as counties north of us are burning as this city burned 114 years ago. I think that these findings are appropriate, that they are correct and if supervisor preston wants to make a motion, i will be happy to second that motion. I think that we can bil build oe midblock open space which is a privately owned piece of property. Doing that and making it safe so people can get through that three and a half foot flag lot, its not easy. It makes entire sense to me and supervisor preston wants to make a motion, i will be happy to second it. Supervisor safai i appreciate your analysis. Im looking at some of the meeting chat and it seems that theres a dispute in terms of the way the occupancy is being discussed. Im just curious if that has been taken into consideration . Im sure you did your analysis. I see here they have someone former fire marshal thats giving an explanation to talk about different analysis the way the density can be built. I wanted to see what your thoughts were on that or if thats necessary. If not, you already analyzed that. Im fine. I was just curious. It caught my attention. Supervisor preston i will be happy to have Mario Ballard to testify. I would be happy to impeach his credentials, right here and right now. [laughter] supervisor safai i was asking more from the department of Building Inspections if supervisor preston have any thoughts on that . Supervisor preston i think we have the info we need and the record from d. B. I. And all due respect to the its one thing to have folks from the department or even folks who are independent expert and another who is in the apartment developer. We have heard from the project sponsor. Youre good with what d. B. I. Said . Supervisor preston let me just go ahead and make the motion and the record and then colleagues, its in your hands. I will be moving to table with item 49 and moving to conditionally disapprove the decision of the Planning Commission and conditionally approve a conditional use authorization for the same place and port bu property. The motion is based on my conclusion if they proposed use of the size and intensity contemplated are provide a development thats not storable for the neighborhood. It will be detrimental of the health and safety of persons living here and buying given the safety risks given to egress. It does not have wide enough egress court, does not have the walls as laid out by the appellants. Regarding fire experts the appellant experts testified that the project of this occupancy is not safe. Based on the list, move to conditional use to the Planning Commission and approve conditional use authorization this time with one all of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission already, two, it limit up two units on the lot and three, a maximum occupancy up to 16 people. President yee i believe you made a motion to approve items 50 and 51 and table items 49 . Correct . Yes, as stated. Supervisor peskin i can second the motion made by supervisor preston. President yee any other comments . Theres been a motion and its been seconded. Madam clerk. [roll call vote] there are 11 ayes. President yee item 49 is tabled and item 50 and 51 are approved as conditional conditions that supervisor peskin arcti articulated. The decision related to the conditional use authorization is found to be inadequate and is hereby returned to the Planning Department. Madam clerk, thank you very much everybody. Lets go to the next item. Items 5255 together. Clerk comprise public hearing and associated motion for the appeal of determination of exemption from Environmental Review for the proposed project at 617 sanchez street. President yee lets get a motion to continue