State passed that. I think lastly, in terms of the timeline, does this include building and planning, or planning gets 30 days, then it goes to building and they get 30 days, is this permits in general , or specific permits . The housing accountability act is about the entitlement. If it is a project that doesnt meet the standards, or if it is a project that needs conditional use, that is your purview. The bill is not about the post entitlement timeframe. It is about getting the project to approval. That makes sense. Lastly, objective Design Standards, i think we have talked about that. It is so much easier. Some of the Community Housing we develop it. They kind of go away. I kind of look at this and say, we can develop all the Design Standards we want, we have a project that was going to waive five of them. It is understanding that the Design Standards dont make any sense if you can just waive them away. The waivers come into play when he of a stand estate density project. Under the housing accountability act and others, the question is, are the standards objective . If they are, there is no real discussion. We are not compliant with the planning code, here you go. The question is, how do we make sure that the Design Guidelines have objectivity to them which we will be able to implement . If there is something that is written down on paper that anyone can understand what it means, the only time it is getting waived is when they come to the Planning Commission for some sort of condition. One last question. Can i start a pacific petition at the Farmers Market where all my neighbors ask about down zoning . The bill only talks about down zoning for housing. If there is a local initiative or an ordinance at the board of supervisors that would down zoning particular piece of property, that would not be allowed for five years. Any type of other action that the voters want to undertake, there is no change in that. It is just legislative action, whether by the voters or by the board that would actually limit the residential capacity on a particular site or multiple sites. Just what i thought. The coastal zone, coastal act, a lot of it is local, not state. Does is override the local portion of the coastal act that we have . My understanding is we have these local programs and it is a locality adopting that program and they have to get that approved by the coastal commission. It is basically delegating their state authority to the locality. The coastal act is not touched. One last one. I keep saying this. We ups owned the port property we ups owned the port property. Do we have laws in place that they have to be done by the voters . Is that something we have . We have this anywhere in the city as a requirement if they dont approve it because it already exists, they dont have to open stone they dont have to up zone it . When did the requirement of voter approval come into play . That is one thing. It would also be an interesting question we will have to test when we get to that point as to whether or not something that requires voters to take action in order to initiate the Development Count as a down zoning or not. It is night not entirely clear. We will find out. Anyways, it has been incredibly helpful. Thank you. Acting Zoning Administrator . Emily rogers. I just want to take a second to first of all commend staff for a brilliant presentation and an amazing amount of specific answers to the questions here. Jacob has a great grasp of our existing procedures and policies and requirements and it was exceptionally well explained. Also, state law is something that is outside of our ability to clearly interpret. That power lies with the state attorney general. Theres some degree of uncertainty in our current best guess of how it would apply in san francisco. You have done an exceptional job trying to do that, but many things could change, including the way that the law is interpreted in that it doesnt change the way it is drafted. I would like to put that out there. The one thing i want to say is, up until this week, we were the only jurisdiction in the states that did Something Like this people understood what it was. I commend you and staff for providing the resources to do that. We actually know what we are getting into. Thank you very much. You nailed everything. Thank you. Commissioner hillis . Thank you. I think it was a good presentation and explanation of the bill. We did have questions. Again, i sometimes look at these through the lens of other jurisdictions. Cupertino is not happy with this it is generally a good sign. If we have zoning and we are requiring a third level, we should comply with it and allow people to work on that level. There are two things that concerned me or i have questions does this distinguish between maximum minimum density . If i have an r. H. Rhd zoning district, does it have a preference for a three unit building on a lot more is a Single Family home equivalent to that three unit building and what our powers are over that . We obviously encourage maximum density instead of just building somewhere within that density. Right. The housing accountability act is telling you what you cant do in terms of disapproval. As long as the project gets proposed within the density that is allowed, then there is no grounds for disapproving the project. This is where the other state comes into play currently. We implemented based on multifamily projects. The Single Family projects come housing accountability act and it would be a change in our practice in that area, but what ultimately the commission has to look at, is you have to approve it something that is below the density so we couldnt push for higher density project under this . The bill doesnt say you have to, but correct me if im wrong, but if you are in our h3 in the proposal is for two units, then what you are looking at is two units. You can say you have to build three. Right. At times we have encouraged, and i think staff has, too, encouraged project sponsors to maximize the density. Absolutely. We have added language into our Public Service announcements. [please stand by] mo mierins commissioner moor. Commissioner moore that good planning should allow us to have, to defend for and fight for. I believe the onesizefitsall law coming down from sacramento is not good planning. San francisco has led the state for decades in planning and the nation. I would i could strongly believe, particularly for san francisco, that it limits its sound in community voice, and i want to comment on this very general level. I commend staff. Preserve your strength and voices for other things, if you can. Vice president koppel commissioner richards . Commissioner richards so i have a different take, commissioner moore. When these things come up, these guys know what theyre doing. They can call up nancy skinner. In the reasoning of transparency, they know what theyre doing. We require a developer to put a rent controlled unit back in addition to the b. M. R. Units. So it is accurate that the replacement unit requirement thats state law would come out of the inclusionary policy for the requirement. However, the way that the bills structured, it says if youre going to do the replacement units, it needs to be affordable. The lowincome unit would be affordable. Its very complicated. I dont have a definitive answer, but i think what the state law is saying you would provide a unit thats affordable as well as the right of first refusal. If you were in a protected unit for one of the separate reasons, you would get the right of first refusal for the unit. Commissioner richards two things. I think were getting less, so its a step backwards. Two, as these things are coming forward with the right of first refusal, can we take a look at whats happening as they come through . Vice president koppel commissioner hillis . Commissioner hillis just to follow up on that. That was a little different answer than i thought you gave me. States got that requirement. Theyve got tenant protections. Ours sometimes are better or more, you know, favorable to the existing tenant. Can we continue on to do that . Yeah. I think the phrase is stronger or more stringent in state law. I think thats us to figure out if a market rate is more beneficial to the tenant than a unit that meets the definition under state law. Commissioner hillis we can go beyond where theres an issue where theres a c. U. For demolition of a particular building, we can continue to do the things that weve done in the past for the conservatory and music building. Right. It specifically carves out the ability of the city to pass further types of restrictions with respect to other units, so thats something we can continue to legislate on in the future. Vice president koppel commissioner richards . Commissioner richards thats a great thing, but i dont think we have anything written legislatively that says when you demolish a rent controlled unit that youve got to replace one. Commissioner hillis but weve still got that discretion. Right. And sb 330 requires a replacement unit in that place, and we can back that up or do it a different way. Commissioner richards i thought it had to be law. Thanks. Vice president koppel just a couple comments on my side. These arent addressed to anybody, but if skinners looking for certainty, whos the certainty for . Is this good certainty or bad certainty . And i dont know how these can get so confusing and so crossed over each other. I think that these updates thank you again for the great report. If you can answer every one of dennis questions, ill give it up to you. Thank you for answering our questions. I am we have a lot of questions up here, and im sure the people in the public are getting a lot of their questions answered. It does seem like the goal posts are moving on a daily basis. We can hear one thing on monday and the opposite on tuesday, so just keeping the public abreast of whats going on i think is very important. Commissioner richards commissioner, just to repeat the thanks to jacob. He does excellent work. Just to put it out there, im increasingly concerned about the amount of time that were spending on the analysis of these bills. And i get the state doesnt do this level of analysis and almost no jurisdiction does, but i am increasingly concerned about how much time were having to put into this, so i would like to meet with the president of the commission and Vice President and talk about this in a holistic sense just to keep track of it because im very concerned about how this is diverting attention from other work. I just wanted to put that out there because its taking up a hell of a lot of time right now. Clerk okay, commissioners, if theres nothing further, we can move on to item number. Case 2014948 e. N. X. This is a large project authorization. Please note, commissioners, on april 4, 2019 after hearing and closing Public Comment, you continued this matter to june 6, 2019 by a vote of 60. Commissioner fung, you were not yet seated on the Planning Commission, and in order to participate, you would need to acknowledge that youve reviewed the previous hearing and materials. Commissioner fung i have. Clerk thank you. Then on june 6, 2019, without hearing, you continued the matter to june 27, 2019, by a vote of 60. Mr. Chair, how much time should we afford the chair . Three and one . Vice president koppel yep. Clerk okay. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is to permit construction of a new sevenstory 78foottall residential building within the rh1 zoning district. The project includes construction of a new sevenstory, 78foottall residential building with ground floor commercial approximately measuring 86,630 square feet with 60 dwelling units, and 61 class 1 bicycle Parking Spaces and six class 2 bicycle Parking Spaces. The project consists of a mix of units. To date, the department has received significant opposition to the project. The concerns are centered on the proposed Building Height and creation of new market rate housing in the mission. The project sponsor has hosted Public Outreach meetings with the community. Subsequent to the Planning Commissions direction encouraging additional Public Outreach, the project sponsor hosted a Community Outreach meeting on april 30, 2019, inviting more than 1500 owners and occupants within a 500foot radius of the project. 16 of the invitees attended the meeting, including members of the united to save the mission and the Mission Economic development agency. Seven neighbors from the woodward street, two neighbors from 18 street and amy binart, assistant to supervisor ronen. Subsequent to the Planning Commission on april 4, udat provided additional design for the entries and the cat walks. The project sponsor has elected to utilize the project density bonus law. The project requires an inclusionary housing rate of 18 . The project sponsor has volunteered to contribute one additional percentage for very lowincome households. Since the previously scheduled public hearing on april 4 of this year, the project sponsor has updated the project as follows per Planning Commissions comments, the p. D. R. Small work space building was removed from the project. The additional height permitted for nonhabitable elements was removed and the parapet reduced to the regular safety height. Per comments from the Planning Commission and feedback from udat, the cat walk unit access was revised to include two communal seating and planting areas on each level. Privacy screens were added in select areas. Additional sample unit plans are included in the drawings submitted to you all. Three large bedroom units were replaced with smaller units. The introduction of the junior studios, and two bedroom units. Per the neighbors comments, the parking eliminated all of the parking in the basement level. The retail space is now shown as demise as street at the point. Per udats comments, the side of the windows along woodward were reduced. The ground floor unit entries remain unchanged and comply with state requirements for accessibility. A mezzanine is provided in these units. The Department Recommends approval with conditions as the project is skints with the general plan and the planning code. The Department Finds that the project is on bound consistent with the policies of the general plan. The project results in new rental housing including new market rate units for rent, which is a goal for the city and are more diverse uses than the consisting parking lot existing parking lot. This concludes staff presentation, and im happy to answer any questions. Vice president koppel thank you. I do have one speaker card for steven scherr. Clerk we should hear from the project sponsor. Vice president koppel oh, okay, sorry. Mr. Scherr, can we hold off for one second . Sure. Vice president koppel i forgot to hear from the project sponsor. My name is manus 14h, and i the project sponsor for this project. This project dates back to 2014. My first Planning Commission meets was set for february 2014, and cancelled, rescheduled, cancelled, rescheduled until we got to april. April was rescheduled to june. We then sent out 1500 invitations to all the neighbors within 500 feet. We received four emails in comments. One was a proposal to purchase the property. The other three was to support the production of this building. Weve had multiple meetings with everyone who showed up at a meeting for the past few years. As mentioned before, we moved the package, we turned our retail spaces into smaller spaces. We completely eliminated the 20,000 square foot p. D. R. Buildin buildings. We had multiple people commenting that they didnt want a garage and digging down might disturb the water table, so we completely eliminated the garage and basement of this building completely. We installed the walkways between the buildings and apartments. Basically every single comment that was made was implemented in the floor plans. We meet 1500 invitations were sent out, and we met with people that came to our meeting, some people were from the building on 17 and stevenson streets. A couple of the groups wanted to meet. The residents of woodward street, we met, and we greagre that they had some concerns, speed, bumps being reinstalled. We said okay, if the city allows that, well finance that. They wanted some other beautification to be installed on the street, install trees, install full brick paving up to the budget allows. They asked that a lobby be moved from woodward street to 14 street, and we signed a lobby with them, and they ended up supporting the project. We met with meta and offered them 1,000 square feet of rental space at 2 a square foot for 20 years. They wanted 1500, and we said fine. Clerk sir, your time is up. Vice president koppel okay. The only Public Comment card i have is steven scherr. Anybody else wants to speak, please lineup on the righthand side of the room. Good morning, commissioners, my wife and i live in 63 woodward street. So commissioners, thank you for encouraging the project sponsor to hold meetings with the neighborhood, including mitigating the impact of the high density. The project sponsor has agreed in writing to a number of mitigations, so id like to thank manush for signing this agreement. Theyve agreed to add three more furniture along woodward street frontage. Id request that these agreed items be added to the conditions of approval. The sponsor has further agreed to clerk thank you, sir. Your time is up. Thank you. Vice president koppel thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. We are back before you without without having reached an agreement with the project sponsor, but this is not for lack of engagement and sincere effort to reach an equitiable Development Agreement like we have many times for similar projects. We actually thought we had an agreement which even received an approval vote from u. S. M. Membership, but then we found out that the fees for the new state density bonus law were lower than those from the ci