You would also have to do this with additional agencies coming in. That is not a roadway, right . Right. Its only a sidewalk. Its a pedestrian walkway. Commissioner johnson yes. And in addition, the connection had budget issues, liability issues. What were some of the other options that you had a question about . Commissioner johnson i think that was there were two on here. Consideration all options on page 2. Oh, right. The other option was allowing the connecting the driveway directly to the hoas private driveway. Thats part of the reason that the suit came about. It is a private driveway, not a public street. We dont have the ability to mandate that. The hoa didnt want the connection to take place. They didnt want this particular Property Owner to connect his driveway to their private drive and on top of that even if they were not opposed to it the engineering with the slope to not have to cross over at least a portion of burnett avenue, paper street and sf huff puc parcel would have been very difficult to do, which leads to the third option, which would have been to only provide an easement on burnett avenue north and sfpuc. However, dpw has a financial requirement to their taxpayers to get the most fair value for their land and to cut a portion of this off would not be getting them that option because it would render the rest of the land unusable. So i cannot go into the specifics of that, because im not dpw, but thats why it was told to us as not an option by sfpuc and dpw. Commissioner johnson so sfpuc and dpw are the reason were rezoning rm1 . Well, the Property Owner needs access to their land and this seems to be the most feasible option. What about a swap of the current parcel well the puc parcel . Im not trying to redo the settlement, but were things like that considered . Many options were considered. Its the puc parcel. They must get maximum value. They cannot split a parcel and have a portion thats basically useless on the market. From the pucs perspective, if theyre going to sell a surplus asset, theyre going to sell it at the highest value, which includes the dpw parcel being thrown in at the same time. When you have a larger parcel thrown together, its a higher value. Commissioner johnson okay. Im glad we got that clear. I think the piece that was missing for me is the reason that we cannot provide the easement, so i got it. And i should clarify, the reason why its going to rezone technically, its Standard Practice that the unzoned would take so it would transfer the property to the plaintiff in this case. And Standard Practice is that it would not remain public, or we would have to face this issue or rezone it. It is happening before or at the same time as the transfer. We would be going to the abutting zoning. Commissioner johnson thank you. Im just about ready to make a motion, but one last question. These things are challenging. We dont have too many of these, but we do sometimes have settlement deals, where theres a deal struck and then the last piece is, weve to make a decision which is not really a decision because theyve made the decision for us, i guess. So my question is, was the Planning Department with the City Attorney or we were referred this settlement the way we would any proposed zoning that was sponsored by a supervisor. So this proposed solution was provided to us as a proposed zoning map amendment. Commissioner johnson okay. Kate stacy from the City Attorneys office. If the Commission Wants to make recommendations of a different zoning designation for these parcels that made sense to the commission, the commission could certainly recommend that the parcels be rezoned differently. I think the map that you saw there were other zoning designations in the area. Its like any rezoning. If the commission thought that some other rezoning was appropriate, you could certainly recommend that to the board of supervisors. Commissioner johnson yeah, i mean, if the whole purpose is just to provide easement, i wonder why cant we rezone it to p and its already public, but owned by i guess that doesnt make sense. I take that back. What are the other options . Again, the other options that were considered in the settlement, which are in the case report, just didnt seem nearly as feasible for what is on the table. Commissioner johnson okay. Does the settlement its a large parcel that comes out of this, if you merge it. And does the Settlement Agreement address that at all . I could see wanting from a planning perspective to somehow configure the remaining lot that comes out of here and not kind of leave that up to future, you know, discretion of we dont have control over lot mergers. Dpw does. In zoning, thats my concern. You end up i dont know what would be built on this. And maybe we could get at that more by a combination of zoning in the parcels that come out of this. And i dont know if the Settlement Agreement contemplates or just leaves it up to the future Property Owner what this parcel would look like. There is no requirement for the Property Owner to subject plans for the three parcels if the settlement passes. I believe the only condition is that he cannot sell it as another isolated parcel, so we dont run into this problem in the future. But thats correct. If he were to apply for a parcel merger without a development application, that would not be seen by the Planning Commission, but because of the steep slope of the lot, at the bare minimum, it would go through a ceqa evaluation and general plan priorities would come to us and any development would be subject to at the bare minimum 311 notification. Right. I dont know if im prepared to vote on this today. I would like to know more about the result of our zoning decision and what it could lead to. What we think logically it would lead to. If you have a parcel thats zoned p in a pretty consistent 25x100foot neighborhood, you kind of know what will happen. I dont know whats going to happen here. Its an odd lot. Its steeply sloping. Probably would have the development on the burnett side, but i dont really know. And maybe you want to split it into two lots. It would be great to get i dont know if i can vote on this today. I dont quite have a firm handle on everything thats happening. Through the chair, first of all, you either vote on this today or it goes directly to the board, because the 90day time limit is over and they didnt express a willingness to hold off on it. And the other thing is, you could probably could probably be sub divided into three lots and then you would do three on each for that, in a more direct, linear way. Or you could merge the lots and it would be one per 800squarefoot lot area. And what would that be . Again, the appellants current parcel is 2,300 and the puc is 4,500. And the other, i dont have the you have some steep slope development. I think if we could get more information, it would make me more comfortable about being able to vote on this. Commissioner richards so, staff, 1 4 mile away at roosevelt and 17th, theres a serpentine rock outcropping thats at a 60 degree angle. Would that be a similar leap of faith that that could happen here . Certainly in this zoning thats conceivable. Its very steeply sloped, but there are other places in the city that are steeply sloped that could be developed. Its a question 7 of the engineering solution. I see on our packets, january 24. Yes, it must have been extended. You have until january 24. Commissioner richards i think i would like to find out what could be developed there. Ive been getting a lot of communication with other neighbors and so it could come back and i want to understand that. Housing can be developed here. We know between 9 and 12 units of housing can be developed on this parcel. Commissioner richards sure. What more do you need to know more . President hillis were just getting that now. Would you recommend a different configuration of the lot . On this side of burnett, there tends to be development on every lot. And on the other side, its open space and twin peaks. I think the neighborhoods should understand what will happen, the ones on greystone right behind here. I dont think they should get its not like its going to be open space. I think we need to understand what that rm zoning can do on a lot like this. I have a chart if that makes anybody feel better. Commissioner richards maybe a little. Commissioner johnson i was going to say, you were saying that the 60day time is that i corrected myself. Its january 24. They did a 30day extension. Commissioner johnson okay. I was going to say, then let the board decide. Its boardsponsored. Planning legislation. Theres wi s wits wit s wits wit settlement. We have talked about how the Planning Department was or was not involved in the process. If thats the deal that everyone has struck, i think we should go with that. And if we want to add anything to it, thats fine, like maybe a condition that, you know, lot merger be prevented or something. I dont know. I dont know what else we would need to hear. Theres lawsuit, settlement, supervisor has sponsored legislation. We should move it forward and not be a roadblock in the process. Commissioner koppel do you mind putting the zoning chart up again . Absolutely. I will not be able to fit it all in one section, but i will move it around. This is for rm zoning. To start, you have the three dwelling units per lot or one per 800 square feet of lot area. Thats all thats allowed as a maximum. For the minimum, you have a width of 25 feet and an area of 2, 500 square feet. For the basic ratio, not applicable here. And for the front setback requirements, based on the average of adjacent properties, up to 15 feet or 15 of the lot. Same thing for rear yard. It would be 45 of the lot depth, with some exception. For the usable open space requirement, it would be 100 square feet per unit. And, again, with exceptions there. And then for any other special requirements, we have there is limits on parking and parking facades and ebbing west real ebbi equestrian sites. And so even though its low density, it has higher density as opposed to rh2. So im leaning towards approving rm1. If and when the appallent could look at lot merger, then maybe we could have them approve the stairwell or retrofit that. Commissioner moore the only question that comes to mind is that the lot merger makes a new parcel very, very large. Its almost four times as large as it was on the onset. Wouldnt somebody make lot cuts, which would make sense given the Development Pattern that would be a winwin for everybody. By creating the large lot, the value of the lot as far as undervalued, relative to what you do if you do it smartly. And in terms of equity, if i live in this neighborhood, i would ask for replotting of the entire thing, where everybody would win, including continuing the Development Pattern germane and clear, even from this very small map thats in front of us. You see the shapes of how buildings orient their size, etc. . Thats a question that i would have to ask. There is no proposal to merge these lots or reconfigure the lots at this point. So they could do a lot of things. They could leave it as three separate lots as it is now. They could rearrange it to be in three different configurations that theyre talking to to match the pattern of the neighborhood or they could merge it for a Larger Development there. We dont know what the owner of the property is going to do with those lots. Commissioner moore by agreeing to the merging, were abandoning the ability to influence outcome. You are not agreeing to a merging. You are only agreeing to a rezoning of it. At the end of this hearing, its still three lots. We know there will be come on. The lots are unbuildable. The two lots to greystone terrace, cannot be built on. So they have to do something with them. Commissioner moore and thats when later on our own influence or the neighborhoods desires can be better expressed. Correct. The lots would have to conform to the planning code and whatever is developed on there would go through neighborhood notification and go through ceqa environmental review. Commissioner moore r2 would be more comfortable to me than rm. We could make theres a whole Settlement Agreement and i think we could make recommendations on how thats configured. It could be rm1, but divide it into if you look at the lots to the greystone side, its as big as those two lots combined, which has massive buildings on them. Its fine. We want housing, but i dont know if i would want to see a development thats kind of that size on these two lots. I just want to understand what the planning rationale is. Were creating the biggest lot in this neighborhood by doing this, which makes me uneasy. Commissioner richards im uneasy as well. Whoever litigated this has a sliver or a pizza slice with nothing on it. Theyre leveraging the fact that theyre land locked to get a huge lot to build a Windfall Development on and we have one probably 1 4 mile away thats contentious already. I would not support this unless we have a Development Pattern that exists in the neighborhood rather than creating this gargantuan lot. Well have another roosevelt17th on our hands. Well be happy to do it when the d. R. Arrives, which it will. Commissioner koppel arent we trying to create the potential for developmentally dense housing . Commissioner richards we are, but i would be more comfortable with density than a garr huge project. The board of supervisors can do what they want with this, but i think we owe it to the board and the neighbors to make that recommendation. I dont think i have enough information to make that. If we can get more information on the Development Potential and what we anticipate development to look like, and we can make a recommendation on just a little more it may not be taken. We can say, recommend this and divide it into two lots. Thats not necessarily in zoning, but in the agreement. [please stand by] commissioner richards . Vice president richards move to continue this item to january 18th. Commissioner moore second. President hillis i feel back. Commissioner johns bad. Commissioner johnson wont be here to hear this. Clerk commissioners, there is a motion to continue this until january 18th. [ roll call. ] clerk so moved, that motion passes 43 with commissioners fong, johnson, koppel voting against. Commissioners, thatll place us on item 12 tor 20181859coa, at 2039 post street. Good afternoon, im mary woods of department staff. The applicant is seeking a motion to allow a change of use from a Grocery Store to surgery center. Its currently located at 1635 divisadero street since 1989. Its in a building containing about 13,000 square feet. The current proposal at 1336 post street is approximately 34,600 square feet on the ground floor of a six story mixeduse building. The proposal is also to reconfigure the existing 72 Parking Spaces to 87 Parking Spaces with 20 valet spaces. Theres currently one loading space which would be maintained for ups or fedex deliveries during regular Business Hours from monday through friday only. The clinic is not open during the weekend. There are currently no bicycle spaces onsite. The proposal will propose nine bicycle spaces, five class one and four class two. The project is in a 130 foot e high and boat district. The zoning for the site is nc3, which requires cu for a changing use from Grocery Store to another use. Since last week, staff has received one letter in support of the project, and one letter from a neighbor who had questions, which the sponsor had adequately addressed. The departments recommendation is to approve with conditions. This concludes my summary of the project and im available to take any questions. Thank you. Thank you, miss woods. Project sponsor. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Jodi knight on above of reuben, junius and rose. As you know, the project proposes to make a use of a long vacant site for use avenue an ambulatory and surgery center. It will provide increased services. Theres a significant demand which youll hear from the project sponsor whos here today, particularly for outpatient joint service. It has off street passenger loading, materials loading and sufficient garage parking. Its a clean and quiet use which is compatible with the residential uses above. We have had considerable support from the hoa, which really would like to see some use on the ground floor. There are security concerns about a vacant ground floor, but really has no interest in having a Grocery Store down there. Regardless of the interest, theres been no market interest. This has been a longvacant property. Its been marketed to a number of other uses and nobody else has wanted to move in, so this is really the perfect solution. I know were here today because of the requirement for cu for removal of a Grocery Store. There has not been a Grocery Store there for a long time, but i know thats an issue thats concern of the commission. There 14 Grocery Stores within one mile of the site, and i do have a map showing the four largest Grocery Store facilities within approximately a half mile, so you can see theres several large stores, and then, theres a number of smaller stores. But there are sufficient access to groceries in this area, and presidio administrator jessie scott is here to provide you some more information. The architect is also here today, and were happy to take any questions. Thank you. Hi. Im jessie. Im the administrator of the surgery center, and i just wanted to let you guys know a little bit about who we are and why we wanted to move. We currently have fife operating rooms and one procedure rooms, and we want to move desperate to seven surgery rooms and one procedure rooms. We are the only Outpatient Surgery Center where patients can get that service in san francisco, and we are the first center of any kind, hospital or anything in california, to be recognized by the joint commission who awarded