The owners cousin. I believe that the upper unit is currently occupied by friends of the owner and they will move out when the time comes and no evictions necessary to do this work. Its my understanding he intends to use this as a pietta tare. They claim this is out of scale with the neighborhood and that the additional block will cast unreasonable shadows on neighbours since there are no others fronting winter place. I think this is erroneous. There are no other buildings fronting winter place, half of the buildings on this block are four stories tall and many of them actually front or rear, shall we say, as opposed to winter place. They front on union street or mason street and theres more buildings that are fourstories tall than the ones that arent. I think we have incomplete, erroneous information. 13 of the 26 buildings on the block talking about the block, its half a block pointed by mason an august alley. 13 are four stories and the midblock open space is inconsistent at best and all of the buildings fronted on union street, which back up to union place have to rear yards and that the common standard of this block. 50 is by the oversized lot. It should be noted that the three dr requesters are 50 feet away from my building and impossible to block their light in error. I find the view issue a little bit erroneous because theyre above us and 65 feet away. The proposed addition will increase some shadows in a small amount of time on august alley on limited number of days but we should look at what the condition of the property is. Its a strange lot, kind of a flagged lot with primary building built 100 in the setback and has been there a long time surround bid three and fourstory buildings. We found out there are concerns about privacy from our building to that building and one of the reasons they asked us to remove this deck and we are not infilling the light but recovering the light with our new addition and did propose a deck and happy to remove it. Happy to also change the siding of the building. I dont think that the impact of new shadows or loss of light in error to this property are libertlegitimate reasons for th. We think they dont like change. We have a study available in 2d and a 3d video that shows the shadow impact, if necessary to look at that. Finally, this issue of loss of privacy came up last week and we find that to be when you look at the situation, its a bit silly. This is a view from our current roof which is the height of our addition, looking down into the building, where mitzie complained about our eigh abilio look into her bedroom and i can see with the landscaping, this is impossible to see in those windows. Its impossible to see in those windows from the current Property Line windows. Her concerns about privacy are also a little bit kind of strange when you look at the fourstory Apartment Building next to her with windows and decks her property. We agree to remove the proposed balcony and have given these image and what i consider to be sort of a conceptual loss of privacy versus actual to think the request to raise the sill height to 56 is unnecessary. We would propose we raise them to 36, a little less access to her yard which doesnt matter and does continue the pattern of windows on this side of our building. We believe that this is a codecompliant project. The variance, if we were to be requested to be code compliant, if you look at this building here, we have about six feet of building as we say over the existing footprint and if we were to remove that, this line right here is still about two feet into the rear setbacks and we would have to come to a line right here to be code compliant, structurally ill logical. If you think about the impact of this from the green street requesters, given the site lines from their buildings, theres really zero change of impact. They want to to remove the third floor which means we have no project. The residential guidelines, they were looking at things that had projects that were front yard, rear yard and we clearly have a different situation. Her yard to east is fronting a different street, a lot not normal 25 feet with an existing nonconforming cottage in the rear yard and we dont believe the guidelines are the same way we have, which is side by side. Theres a reason that the Design Guidelines were not applied in the way hes asking. We think we have a project even with a variance makes sense and that we understand this are issues around these fourth floors, but when one looks at the situation here, the impact of winter place is zero and the impact to the midblock open space, if we can go back to one of the images that shows the whole block, were still one of the smallest buildings on the block. Theres already 13 of 26 buildings on that block are four stories. So im not not sure how our addition, they claim its a 1,000foot addition, its not. Its 620 feet. I believe theres a lot of misinformation and untruths that have been stated by the dr requesters and their attorney. When you look at the facts, we have an approvable project and would encourage you to do so. Thank you. Do we have any Public Comment in support of the project sponsor. Public comment is closed. Dr requesters, you get a twominute rebuttal and you get four. Thank you. Steve williams again. If they have a codecompliant project, why on earth didnt they propose it . Its not what is before you and its not a code compliant project as a variance. Its not visible from winter place because winter place is 1e a picture of the building. You cant see anything. But its visible from everywhere else and will be incredibly visible from mitzies house and here is the view, if i can have the overhead again, on page 9 of my brief. They put up the story poles. You can see this is looking over mitzies property. She has a fence in front, the garden, looking over it towards the building, looking due west from august alley, this picket e was taken. This is visible from every section of august alley. Mitzies august supplies all of the midblock open space. I mean, thats a fact. This is her property here. She has a onestory garage with a bedroom in the front and a onestory living room and culture in the back. Culturkitchen in the back. Its a famous site. I attached an article from 2004 as an exhibit. It has historic value. I think that the department missed the boat on the historic value of the subject property and that will property be a part of the challenge if this goes further because it was built by capeudo, one of the Founding Fathers of north beach and ive been told they have a sequa problem. He lived in that cottage, by the way. Therewhy does that need to be dramatically expanded to the detriment of the neighbors . That violates numerous code sections. No explanation for the web lists on hotpads. Com or the shortterm rental. Isnt covering a light well the same as filling it in . If you block all light from the top and getting to your neighbor, block every bit of available light that used to come through the light well, isnt that the same as filling it in . Talk about splitting hairs. The architect said that the residential Design Guidelines dont apply to buildings that are side by side. I dont knee wha know what that. Yes, i its a deadend alley but these buildings sit adjacent, side by side. And theres no admonition in any part of the residential Design Guidelines that say they should not be a applied to this situation because they should. Theyre asking you to put an unarticulated fourstory building next to a onestory cot cottage. Thats what the request is here. They already loom over mitzies cottage and thats obvious from the photos you look at. You can see the shadows in those photographphotographs. Shell lose the on light she gets to her deck. Her deck is on the east side of the building in the back there and there it is right there and the only direct sunlight comes right over the top of that building. And we sat there and timed it. Shell lose two hours of direct sunlight to that deck. Finally, the project is close to 1,000 square feet because theyve neglected to mention that theyre adding 360 new square feet of conditioned space in the basement. If theyre dying for more Square Footage, it could be captured there. The parking could be eliminated, bedroom could be put down there. As they said, theres a giant dark room thats built in the basement. So thats about 1,000 square feet of new conditioned space. Thank you very much. Please reject this project. Thank you. We will now hear rebuttal from the other two remaining dr requesters. Very briefly. I think youve heard misleading statements from the other side. I just wanted to go back to the scale of this and youve heard how its in keeping with the rest of the block and counting up buildings on the block. I want to go back again and say were talking about winter place and we have not heard anything about any other building on winter place for the fourth floor. And youve been told that, well, buildings kind of front on to winter place from union. Well, they front on union and they back up to winter place. Some of those are four floors. But union is downhill from winter place. So am that. This wont tower over winter place. So i think that one is really misleading and the other thing i wanted to address is the shadow on mitzies yard. Showing pictures of foilage saying there you are, no problem, she does have windows there, so thats misleading. Now and the other thing is, pointing to that building to the south of her on august alley saying, well, look, she has to privacy, to life, this is a great big building there. Somehow that gives them the right to further destroy her privacy and her shadow and that doesnt seem right. I dont know the exact Building Code or the planning code but doesnt seem right because you have a bad neighbor on one side, you should just live with a bad neighbor on the other side. Thats it. Please stop this project. Thank you. Thank you. We will hear rebuttal from the remaining dr requester, please . You pass, ok. So thats it. Project sponsor. Im sorry, go ahead. Im rich samson. Youve been a resident for 25, 30 years and this has been my resident for 18 or 20 years. I did move out when my son was born so that we had more space, only a onebedroom unit. As far as hotpads, youve never rented my place on hotpads, air bnb. I have my son 50 of the time and rest of the time im in north beach. My office is at grant and green. I park in front of my house every single day. And for many years, i would sleep there, 50 of the nights of the week. So all of this is a fallacy. Secondly, its a fourstory, a very small unit, as big as this area, 600 square feet. Im trying to have a second room to have my son in the city. We both want to get back to the city. So the other dr people are, i think, 60 or 70 feet away and this air, light and space seems to be a complete fallacy. Mitzies property is surrounded by many and her place is covered to foilage. My second floor unit, the reality is, you dont look down, you look at the view. So i think a lot of these arguments are fallacies. The fact that varanes street, that was used by the attorney, is on Telegraph Hill and my property is on russian hill. You cant count because its not three blocks but five or six blocks. Thank you very much. Thank you. I just want to follow up you have 22 seconds. Thats fine. The overhead, please. There whole issue of the four stories on winter place, yes, these buildings front on the other street, but this is a fourstory building on winter place, and this is a fourstory building with a corner on winter place and two other buildings with a corner on winter place. Ok, thank you. Commissioner more. Let me ask mr. Winc wince winsle drawings by the architect dont match. I have two packages. I have a package that was reinserted into this weeks package. Its should be dated september 5th, but those two packages are identical. However, what was presented a few minutes ago seems to be something es. Ael. Else. Am i missing something . I simply added the drawings to the packages by the deadline that i needed to publish them. If he presented something today that was different, which i believe was a varient that avoided a variance, that is not in your packet. Ok, thank you for saying that. In our june meeting, there were comments made or i made them to myself that the package submitted now and then is completely irrelevant to the type of information we have to understand better what is going on. Its very difficult to understand the context in which this building is happening. Its a three dimensional in all directions, so theres no 3d in this package, nor any description of materials. I see the Department Taking on the horizona horizon siding. So none of that has been addressed. I am having a difficult time accepting the presentation that was just made a few minutes ago, as something to be considering in my deliberations because none of the material was given to us and was incomplete. The guidelines where quite clear of what this commission is expecting and we expect the same from everybody. Materials, 3d, colour rendering, if it all possible. Im having a hard time looking at this project in audition to the many questions in june and have not been addressed. Mr. Fung . Mr. Winslow, theres no exposures variance, only a rearyard variance. Correct. I imagine the building complies or doesnt comply with composure and the addition doesnt trigger a need for an exposure variance. It doesnt. The building is on an existing substandard width rightofway. Which if it were new would trigger a need for an exposure exception. But considering that the existing its an existing addition. This doesnt trigger a need for a variance because its an addition to an existing addition. The architect for the permit holder has indicated a panellized siding. Does that conform to your requirement . please stand by . Commissioner richards . A good portion really had a compelling reason for me to say its extraordinary, project right where it is at was location of the open space. And then our consistency on other projects like the very next, which i do remember, i always have a hard time supporting and recommend we disapprove the project. Is that a motion . It is. Second. If there is nothing further commissioners, there is a motion to take dr, and disapprove the Building Permit application. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 60. Okay. Do you want to take a little recess . We are going to take a ten minute recess, and then come back the commission does not tolerate any disruption, or outburst of any kind. Please silent your mobile device is paid when speaking before the commission, state your name for the record. Commissioners, we are now on your 3 00 p. M. Calendar for items 11, 12a, for case numbers 2015014028env, 2015014028dva, 2015014028cua for final Environmental Impact report. The adoption of findings and statements of overriding considerations. Planning code and zoning map amendments and conditional use authorizations for the property of 3333 california street. Would you kindly turn on sf gov. Tv. Good afternoon, commissioners, i am with the department staff. I have a couple of materials for you, updated draft, special use districts, sorry about all of the paper. Updated ordinances for the s. U. D. , a Planning Commission memo, as well as we have Public Comment letters and support and opposition for your benefit. Before i begin, have been asked to make notice to the public, a stenographer is present to create a transcript of todays proceedings. I would encourage all speakers to speak slowly, clearly in order to assist in this process. We would appreciate a members would state their name for the record. However, they are commissioners, before you is the certification of the final Environmental Impact report for the mixeduse project located at 3333 california street. I am joined by several colleagues of mine from the Planning Department, as well as the office of economic and Workforce Development. All of which are available to answer questions during the deliberation. Joining me specifically, is the Environmental Planning division. The project sponsor team. After providing a brief hesitation of the project including the required approval actions. I will hand the presentation over to k, regarding the certification of the sdi are. Lee will provide a discussion of the Development Agreement. The project sponsor team will divide a detailed overview of the project. Requesting the commission to certify that the cir. After that you will be asked to adopt sql findings including findings and adopting statements of overriding statements. Otherwise known. You will be asked to adopt the recommendation to the board of supervisors to approve an ordinance, primarily amend the planning code text to establish the 3333 california street special used district or s. U. D. , to amend the associated height maps, and specify Additional Development controls for the project site. Youll be asked to adopt a recommendation for the board of supervisors to approve a Development Agreement, and then you will be asked to reprove a request for conditional use authorization. This would allow structures to exceed 40 feet within the arm zoning districts, a child facility to be replaced at a different location on the project site, and a pud with modifications from the requirements of the planning code as described in greater detail. The project would redevelop the subject property with residential, retail, child development, parking space and open uses. [reading notes] the project within construct 1313 New Buildings ranging from four story duplex at townhomes, and Apartment Buildings as residential only or mixeduse buildings on the first and second floors with residential uses above the second floor. Overall, the project includes a total of approximately 1. 4 million square foot of new and rehabilitated floor area, then hundred 78,000 square feet of residential area. 35,000 square feet of retail floor area. 850 Parking Spaces, and 839 bicycle Parking Spaces. The project will provide 744 dwelling units, with 25 provided as onsite senior affordable units which is 185, one bedroom and studio units. It would include the following dwelling mix. [reading notes] with 44 of the dwelling units containing at least two bedrooms are larger, the project exceeds the requirement for the planning code. The project will provide approximately 52 of the overall lot area as the open space, which is a combination of privately owned public space and a private owned space exclusive for the residential use. The project would include a total of approximately 125,000, or roughly 2. 88 acres of privately accessible land space which is Multi Purpose pauses, lawns, and pathways. The project would include streetscape improvements to enhance the safety and strengthen the network of existing sidewalks and street crossings including improvements along presidio, euclid avenue as well as laurel street and mayfair drive. They meet the goals and objectives. Specifically a key element includes the reconfiguration at the intersection of presidio avenue, pine street masonic and masonic and euclid. They consist of build outs on other sidewalk improvements where lanes are currently located. While these public improvements, with these public improvements, excuse me, delaying areas will be publicly accessible, but not accessible to motorized vehicles. On july 30, 2019, district two supervisor introduced i ordinance amending the planning code to establish the 3333 california s. U. D. To make other related code amendments. Facilitating the project, give a site to associated develop an agreement. The ordinance would allow certain nonresidential uses along california street, specify offstreet parking for job care uses. Establish Affordable Housing and procedures for permit approvals, and extinguish the [inaudible] the ordinance would also amend the zoning map to change the height and bulk for the project site from 40x up to 40x, 45x, 67x, and lastly 92x. The develop minute agreement between the city on the project sponsor will set forth vesting rights and establish a set of committed public benefits. To conclude my presentation, i would like to cover a few changes. [reading notes] these were amended, just this past tuesday on september 3, by the supervisor or the residential childcare fee pursuant to planning code section 4148, would be waived in lieu of the provision of the onsite childcare facility. There is a map that has been updated to conform to the open space Square Footage is which are in your plan set dated august 20, 2019, exhibit b. There are additional text changes to subsection two, of the ordinance regarding the development controls of the applicable proposed s. U. D. The Development Agreement ordinance, there updated exchanges to the figures for the open space calculations. Regarding Public Comment over the last few weeks, numerous comment letters. Citing the need to create muchneeded housing. They have generally preferred the Community Alternative hand over the proposed project. On the whole, the Department Finds this project is on balance a consistence with the policies with the citys general plan and does recommend approval. I will now handed over to my colleague. Thank you very much. Good afternoon members of the commission. I am the Planning Department staff and the dp core data for the 3333 california street mixeduse project. The idea before you is certification of a final or eir for the 3333 california street mixeduse project. The motion is before you. The draft e. I. R. Was drafted on november 7, 2018. The Public Comment period closed on january 8th, 2019. The responses to comments published and distributed on august 202nd, 2019. Subsequent to the publication of the e. I. R. , the project has been revised. In general, the uses would be less intense than what was analyzed in the eir. The responses to comments documents, or rtc sections two includes a description of these changes. As well as. As described there will be no change to the impact conclusions in the eir. As a result of these changes. Also, the amounts of private open space provided the project in the rtc has been corrected. The memorandum was provided in the Commission Packet last week that clarified this information. I have extra copies of the memorandum for members of the public. These changes do not present any new information that would alter the conclusion presented in the draft eir. Consequently they do not trigger the need to recirculate the draft eir under ceqa. Since the publication of the rtc, the San Francisco submitted to comment letters on august 28, 2019. The department prepared a response which was provided to the commissioners late yesterday. I have copies for your reference and for the public. I will summarize the responses shortly. In addition, the department received a total of 47, and letters the publication. Most of these letters support the project, and these letters do not raise a new by an environmental issue that has not been addressed in the eir. I will briefly summarize the project and passive. Jonas, can you switch to the slide, please . The project would result in an unavoidable Historic Resource impact because it would materially alter the physical characteristics of the 3333 california Street Property that conveys historic significance. The project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on the masonic muni route to. Noise levels that are 10 decibels or more over ambient conditions during certain project construction activity, resulting in significant noise impact even with mitigation. The final e. I. R. Finds so the project would result in less inSignificant Impacts with respect to the equal miles traveled, grounded born vibration, operational noise, archaeological resources, human remains, Tribal Cultural resources, migratory birds, and paleontology jewel resources. The e. I. R. Analyzes i realize range to address the significant unavoidable impact. In addition to this alternative, required by ceqa, the e. I. R. Includes alternatives, which result in a less than signaled significant historic impact. Two partial preservation alternatives, which require, but do not eliminate the significant historic impact. Lastly, a conforming alternative for a total of six alternatives. During the Public Comment, a consensual plan for alternative and very impaired they claim these alternatives will provide the same number of residential units as this project, and proposed variant. These alternatives should be included in the e. I. R. As shown in the site plan, the alternative in the variant are similar to the alternative full preservation residential alternative in the e. I. R. Similar to [inaudible] such that it could be characterized as misuse mixeduse element. Development. The department carefully review these alternatives. With the assistance of the department of public works. The public works analysis concludes they overestimates a number of residential units, in the alternative, or variant. In addition, the public works Analysis Finds the alternative, and its variants could not meet the unit mixed requirements in the planning code section 207. 7. Based on this information, the lhia alternative cannot be constructed as described by lhia. For the above reasons, the lhia alternative, or its variants were not recorded to be reported in the e. I. R. Lhia also request that the Commission Considers two additional alternatives provided last week. The memorandum i provided yesterday, addresses the departments preliminary assessment of the two alternatives. Lhia states that the lookalike variance will provide 744 residential units and approximately 20,000 more gross square feet than the proposed variant. The lookalike variant would not include retail uses. The department is confirming the lookalike variant is not included in the e. I. R. The lookalike variant is considerably similar to alternative e. Partial preservation residential alternatives in the e. I. R. The lookalike variance would not reduce the Historic Resource impact. It would alter the existing building, as well as affect the historic landscape similar to alternative e. Therefore, the lookalike variant would materially impact. [inaudible] in addition, the lookalike variance would not achieve some of the key objectives, for instance, due to the size and location of the mixeduse proposed in the lookalike variant, the alternative would not provide objectives of creating a highquality, walkable, mixeduse communities within the site. Lhia also request of the Commission Consider a Community Variant, too. A variant of the lhia alternative was admitted on january 8, 2019. It was provided, seven and 44 residential units and it would not include retail uses. The department determined that the Community Variant is not to be included in the eir. The Community Variant is similar to alternative d, partial preservation, also office alternative in the e. I. R. This slide shows the two side plans. It would not reduce the impact to lessen insignificant level, similar to alternative d. In addition, similar to the lookalike variant, the Community Variant would not achieve some of the key product objectives. The information in the lhia, august 28, 2019 supplemental letters has been responded to in the e. I. R. Or the department of supplemental response. For the reasons above, the e. I. R. Includes a reasonable range of alternatives. We would recommend that the commission adopt as much before you, that certifies the contents of the final e. I. R. Are adequate and accurate in the proceed through with the e. I. R. Comply with the provision of ceqa. The sql guidelines soma for guidelines. Implementation of the project, would result in a project specific significant unavoidable impact, unavoidable Environmental Impact. With respect to Historic Resource, transit capacity and construction noise. Therefore the commission would need to adopt a statement under ceqa. I and other Environmental Planning and city staff are available for questions. I will turn it over to the office of economic and Workforce Development who will address the project and public benefit. Thank you. Thank you. Hello commissioners, office of economic and workforce develop me. A significant contribution to the effort to add housing, especially Affordable Housing in all parts of the city while remaining contextual to the neighborhood. The proposed Development Agreement includes a wide package of a Community Benefits in exchange for a 15 year vested entitlement. During which the project sponsor will build out the project. The benefits are specifically targeted to the neighborhood and are appropriate for the smaller scale of the project, as is the 15 year da term, which is shorter than the typical da length. The benefits are onsite Affordable Housing, public open space, a large Childcare Center with 10 of the seats reserved for low income families, enhanced tdm commitments. Participation in the citys workforce develop a program, and a negotiated Fire Department auxiliary i want to focus on the key project benefits. 25 of the project project units will be onsite Affordable Housing for low income seniors. The affordable senior proposal was developed with strong advocacy. The affordable building will be located on california street, adjacent to supporting amenities and to transit. The terms of the da require the sponsor to complete and opened the senior building, before more than 386 market rate units are completed. The sponsor is also required to fee outcome on each of those market rate units into an escrow account to be used too fond of the senior project. The project includes no city subsidies. As security for the city, if the Affordable Development is not completed, the da specifies that the city has the right to acquire the senior parcel at no cost, and use the escrow fund to complete the senior building starting in year 12 of the da term. These 185 senior affordable units represent a significant benefit from the project i will be a major increase in the Affordable Housing stock of the northwest part of the city. I would now like to turn it over to dan from the prado group. Good afternoon commissioners, and staff. I am the project sponsor along with s ks for 3333 california street. Our presentation today covers project highlights and an overview of the urban design approach. Representatives from our entire design team and our partner, mercy housing are here to address any questions from the commission. To create design diversity across a large 10acre site, our project Team Includes three building architects, and a sustainability firm. The team was selected for their awardwinning track records, design forward thinking, community orientation, and commitment to quality architecture and urban planning. Over the past 4. 5 years we have had over 160 meetings with the community, including neighborhood associations and individual neighbors. The project has evolved significantly from its initial ppa, based on community and city input. We are continuing that outreach. The existing site was developed as a suburban style office park, and is disconnected from the surrounding neighborhoods. The site is surrounded by walls, and burns that obstruct the site from engaging the sidewalks. The existing site plan is out of scale with the neighborhood, and disconnected from the existing street grid. Our proposed project design breaks down the scale of the existing sites, and reconnects it to the city grid. Importantly, as we mentioned, the project will provide 744 muchneeded Housing Units on the west side of San Francisco, where very little has been built over the last 50 years. 186 of those homes will be onsite affordable Senior Housing, 25 of the total homes versus the 18 that is required. 58 of the other 558 homes will be familyfriendly 24 build bedrooms. Our site plan balances the housing and associated parking around each of the five surrounding streets to not overburden any particular street frontage or neighborhood. Under the eir, the project construction was studied in four phases, individually each phase would take under the phased approach in the stefani, full buildout would take seven years. One of the many benefits of phase in the project is the ability to stage construction, primarily onsite, reducing the offsite impact to the neighborhoods. The project also has a groundfloor retail, the component has been limited to california street, and now comprises only 2. 8 of the total project Square Footage. The retail will create visual interest and current scale, where it creates an un gap in the retail fabric of california street. The retail component will reconnect the fabric, and enhance pedestrian activity and improve the walkable options for the neighborhood. At a high level, the Community Benefits of our project include over 5 acres of public and private open area, including 2. E open space. Onsite childcare, 4175 children, onsite affordable Senior Housing at 25 of the total units. A leadership level of sustainability. Over 20 million in Community Benefit fees towards jobs, housing, schools, and transportation. Over 10 million a in new annual property tax revenue, due to the conversion from a tax exempt use , to a taxable one. To summarize, this is an opportunity to transform a walled off suburban Office Campus into a walkable, connected, and Sustainable Community with onsite Affordable Housing, homes, open space, groundfloor shops and childcare. The project will retain, and complements, the main part of the existing building, activate the sidewalks and stitch the site back into the surrounding neighborhood fabric where it belongs. Now i will turn the remainder of the presentation over to emily, principle of jensen architects. Thank you. Thank you, dan. Good afternoon commissioners. Working with the design team over the past several years, we arrived at two core goals. First, as dan mentioned, we are making a place merely for people , one that is walkable, green and connected. That is the network of open spaces, not the building that drives the plan. Secondly, we understood from the beginning that each edge of the site is unique and has a x distinct and tailored approach. It is important to understand the sites topography when addressing this object. It flows significantly, 67 feet and all which is the equivalent of a sixstory building. It is a very steep side to walk across and founded by firms and retaining walls, which create a barrier to the existing site was designed primarily for parking. A significant portion of the service of the site is dedicated to surface parking. At the perimeter, the absence of activity on the sidewalk, as well as the shape of the intersections encourages fastmoving traffic. Our project is designed primarily for pedestrians. We do this by putting all of the project parking, as well as access below grade. With extremely limited areas on grade for vehicular access. This frees up the ground, to serve the community with a series of open spaces and walkable, accessible connections linking them to the site into the neighborhood. The buildings are designed to frame and activate the open spaces like a series of outdoor rooms through which residents will come and go to their homes. A couple of examples of what im talking about. Here looking east, you see the existing driveway and surface parking which in our project becomes one of these pedestrian connections linking mayfair drive all the way through to presidio. The places to stop, linger, or meet friends. Here at mae sonic and euclid, a twostory berm, we adjust a grade down to meet the sidewalk, creating an accessible connection all the way through to california. Working from the beginning as part of the design team, we identified substantial opportunities to meet and exceed the guidelines for sustainability. The open spaces perform multiple functions. Starting with wellness, getting people outdoors and walking, increasing the size permeability, decreasing storm water runoff. Eric has been working with city planning to pilot the biodiversity guidelines for the city. Beginning with looking out the pedestrian realm, within the site. We recognize opportunities around the perimeter of the site to improve and enhance the pedestrian experience. At pine and presidio, euclid and mae sonic, were fast moving traffic makes it an inhospitable place to be on foot. At these locations, we have increased the size of the sidewalk to make a more comfortable place to be a pedestrian. At the edges of the site, the buildings are designed to meet the sidewalk bringing people to the street, the site Access Points are designed to be welcoming entries inviting the neighborhood in. From the beginning, the design Team Approached the existing building enthusiastically as an elegant example of midcentury design. At the same time, we have significant concerns. It doesnt address the sidewalk, or the adjoining neighborhood fabric. The project addresses these issues in a variety of ways. First of all, working with a series of architects as well as landscape architects, we had the opportunity to create a fabric of buildings and open spaces, each which has a unique identity. The goal of this is to create a part of the city that feels as though it has evolved organically over time, rather than feeling like a master community. We begin the work we started with the scale of the blocks breaking it down into four pieces, now at the scale of the buildings. Each building frontage addresses the context across the street so that the buildings are larger grain on california street and finer grained on laurel. Each Architect Team studies the neighborhood context looking at patterns, window patterns, mapping patterns, the texture and orientation of the city fabric. The goal of this is not to mimic the adjoining context, but to harmonize with it to create a site that feels like it echoes the finegrained fabrics around it. As i mentioned, we studied the neighborhood materials and incorporate materials that we saw into each of the buildings, this is an example that california street. These examples exist throughout the site. We started the scale of the city fabric, we worked our way down to building materials. We designed the project to connect to the neighborhoods at multiple scales. We focused on the open spaces, prioritizing walk ability, sustainability and activation of the pedestrian realm. Transforming the existing isolated, and outdated site into something that serves the citys needs today. Thank you. We will take questions. Thank you very much. I have quite a few Public Comment cards. I will call them out. For folks that are in the overflow room, please come up when your name is called. If you want to stand and wait for your turn, you can do so on my left. I have an harvey, mr. Luis belmonte, marcy glaser, charles ferguson, kelly robertson, judy down, devon chancey,. Come on up, please. You can just put it there. Okay, anybody come on up in the order. Is at the order . There is no particular order. If anybody wants to come up, and needs to leave, and they need to come in front of you, they are welcome to do so now. Somebody has got to talk. Go ahead. Thank you. I am president of Laurel Heights improvement. We support the 744 Housing Units and we support the affordable early on, but we oppose the retail and the design that fails to use the historic sec. Of interiors standards. The stefani failed to consider even one mitigation measure that would produce or avoid the Significant Impact on the Historic Resource. Mitigation measure is a project change such as not building a certain part of the project to reduce the effect. If you are inclined to consider the developer site plan, the commission should adopt as mitigation measures, remove approximately 30 feet from the double front, south side of the euclid building to preserve the green space. Remove two laurel duplexes towards the top of laurel to preserve the green space. Reduce the height of the five remaining laurel duplexes from 40 feet down to 30 feet, set back the top level of 15 feet to avoid overwhelming, 20 feet tall across the street. Construct a groundlevel passageway, through the Main Building, to avoid cutting a 40foot hole all the way through the building. Staff only asked for accommodating a portal through the Main Building, and said it need not be a straight axial pathway. And construct a set back one level addition on the top of the Main Building to conform with the historic standards, remove the masonic building, to save the terrace and make it publicly accessible open space. For picnics on et cetera. With the walnut building and large, this would have as much residential Square Footage as the developers of arion. The Community Alternative accomplishes this. We rebutted the misstatements of it such as assuming larger sizes for alternatives that were in the developers plans. The developers plans were drafted when hit not historic significance was concealed. When i told the developer, now that the historic decide guidelines apply, hes ever get the rules, do you like it. It states that the secretarys standards are to be applied, and we urge because we cannot achieve all of the needed housing without damaging this resource and its beautiful landscaping that has become such an asset to the community. The modifications made by the developer were designed before we learned of the historic significance. Also under the law, architectural drawings are not required for the alternatives evaluated in the stefani. We have excerpts of the modifications that we requested in our august 28 letter. Also you should remove condition of approval 24 that says pursuant to code, the project should provide no more than 1200 offstreet Parking Spaces for all units, unless you are going to evaluate the possibility, of expansion. Our alternatives are not similar to alternative see which had about 2030 less units. It was rejected for that reason. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon commissioners. I think you for your attention and for your patience and service. I know you have a tough job. Please speak into the microphone. I live two blocks from the proposed project and have for the last 35 years. I am here in support of the project. We have, as a society failed our citizens. We citizens of San Francisco and our Political Leadership have not created enough housing to support the increased population. As a result of that, many of our citizens spend a proportion of their income totally out of line , with affordability in terms of getting shelter for themselves. In some cases, a tragically high amount of their income is spent on shelter. That is our fault. We have found a multitude of ways to slow down and prevent the creation of adequate housing , in this city. We should do something about it. I will give you foster example, which may illustrate the problem. The first house i bought, in San Francisco, was in 1970 in the sunset district. I pay 20,000 for the house. In todays dollars, that is about 250,000. That house, that exact same house, would sell today for 1. 4 million, perhaps more. We have created this lack of affordability, and we need to do something about it. You, today, have that opportunity to
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.