case number 2018. 2 henry adams. conditional use authorization are proposed for continuance to january 30, 2020. items 2a and b, for 1776 green street, are proposed for continuance to february 13, 2020. i have no other items proposed for continuance and no speaker cards. >> commissioner koppel: -- >> we have a public comment. >> richard drury for the petitioners on 1776 green street. i and my clients are not available on february 13th. so i was going to request if the commission might consider a date of -- i think they're gone for that two-week period through the 20th. so the 27th or the following thursday, we would request? >> how is that? >> jonas: so february 20th? >> 27th? >> jonas: okay. february 27th. >> thank you very much. >> okay you can make the motion. >> commissioner koppel: motion to continue items 1a and b and 2a and b to february 27th, to the dates set aside. >> jonas: thank you, on that motion to continue, items 1a and b to january 30 and 2a to february 27, 2020. on that motion, commissioner diamond? fung? johnson aye. moore aye. koppel aye. melgar aye. that motion passes unanimously 6-0 if the acting zoning administrator could continue item 2b. >> continue 2b to the date specified, thank you. >> jonas: thank you. >> commissioners, that will place this on the consent calendar. all matter are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff requests. item 3, 2019012131cua. 1099 colors street and 2019, 14257, 401 potrero avenue. i do have one speaker card in opposition to 1099 dolores. i assume that the person in opposition would like this pulled off consent? >> yes. >> so let's pull it off consent. >> commissioner koppel: motion to approve item number 4. >> jonas: could you call public comment. >> president melgar: do we have any public comment on the consent items besides the dolores street project? okay, with that comments is closed. >> jonas: thank you. >> commissioner koppel: motion to approve item number 4. >> second. >> jonas: thank you, commissioners, on the motion to approve item 4 under the consent calendar -- roll call -- so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. consideration of adoption of draft minutes for the december 12 regular hearing, the december 19 closed session and the december 19 regular hearing. i have no speaker cards. >> president melgar: thank you. does any member of the public wish to provide public comment on the proposed draft minutes? okay, with that, public comment is closed. commissioner koppel >> commissioner koppel: motion to adopt draft minutes from december 12, 19 closed session and regular hearing as well. >> second. >> jonas: thank you. on that motion then to adopt the minutes for december 12 and 2019. diamond aye, johnson aye, moore aye, koppel aye. melgar aye. so moved that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. placing us on item 6, commission comments and questions. seeing none, department matters, director's announcements. >> commissioners, happy new year to you all. hope you had a great break. the one thing that the new year has greeted us with is a new version of sb50. as you saw in the newspapers, i just received a copy yesterday, so we'll plow through that. the biggest change seems to be the new version of the bill is allowing for a local option of meeting comparable density as would be allowed in sb50. how that is laid out in specifics is still to be determined. they haven't laid out what that means. appears to allow local jurisdictions up to two years to provide plans that would be comparable to what is required and you sb50. we'll try to get that to you. that is my only comment. >> president melgar: thank you. >> jonas: okay. item 8, review of past events at the board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. >> i am manager of legislative affairs with a short report. the committee is still not in session, but i presume they return next week. the full board, the flower mart's ordinances passed the second read. the academy of art university passed the first read. and the interim activities that you heard quite a few months ago sponsored by the mayor and supervisor haney was referred back to land use so recommendations can be added to that. that's all i have. >> president melgar: thank you. >> jonas: if there are no questions, general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest it to the public. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. i have one speaker card. >> president melgar: happy new year. >> 2020, hard to believe. looking to the future of the rh neighborhoods and the speculative projects built whether or not sb50 passes and whether or not speculative projects are tantamount to demolition or large alterations there are factors pertinent to the projects that i hope the staff and commission will consider in the future. each factor seems to overlap and interlock with the other. in no particular order, these are the values of the calculatio calculations, full lot excavationings into the rear yard and esthetics or preservation of neighborhood character. i want to talk about these by looking at one particular project, because all five are applicable. 463 duncan is right across the street from me. another immediately adjacent neighbor and i filed separate drs heard on december 6, 2018. the project was approved with simple changes on a 5-1 vote. it's 1927 mediterranean revival facade, except the garage door. the windows, front door, and kartusch are all there. they're a unique san francisco style as mary brown wrote in her study. it is undeniably san francisco vernacular and homes that look like this do not exist outside san francisco. the facade is being demolished. the project added a three-bedroom unit, but the density is gained by a full lot underneath the garage and lifting the entire structure 18 inches. my d.r. request raised the issue of livability in the subterranean unit, but per the staff analysis, commission does not deal with excavations. this excavation and necessary shoring will obliterate the existing backyard and create an open air bunker removing soil and greenery. the two floors are the top floor with open large living plan kitchen space and the lower floor with three bedrooms. this is not an efficient use of space, given that the project is expanding 20 to 30 feet in the rear yard. there are no parking requirements. and the bedrooms could have been created on the existing levels preserving the facade. the site permit is valued by dbi for a million dollars which is extraordinary for a remodel. the demo calks were not finalized -- [bell ringing] -- i blame the project sponsor. one more point, after december 2018 approval by this commission, the permit went back to the building department and in february 2019, something happened with the plans. but i'll go into that next time. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment that is general in nature? okay. general public comment is now closed. >> jonas: very good, commissioners. that places on regular calendar, item 3 was pulled off consent and will be considered now for 1099 dolores street, conditional use authorization. >> the project before you 1099 dolores street seek to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct a new three-unit four-story residential structure within rh3 district. the proposed structure is a 5801 square foot in size and will provide three residential units. the project includes the addition of one vehicle parking space within the existing detached garage. and the relocation of the curb cut from 24th street to quane street. one unit is approximately 1538 square feet with three bedrooms and has direct access to the rear yard. unit 2 is approximately 1138 square feet with two bedrooms and second floor terrace. and unit 3 is approximately 269 63 square feet with three bedrooms and has direct access to a fourth floor. it is class one and three exemption and general role extension. the department has received one letter of concern and inquiry on the existing monkey puzzle tree within the rear yard. the main concerns with the letter is the overall height of the building. the department finds the project is unbalanced consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan. although the project results in the removal of a dwelling unit, the project maximizes density by providing two net new family-sized dwelling units which is the goal of the city. the department find the project to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or object properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> president melgar: thank you. do we have a project sponsor? you have five minutes, sir. >> thank you. i'm jeff gibson, the project architect. i'm happy to discuss it. let me introduce the developer, shoddy, for a second. >> hello, planning commission. my name is shoddy. i'm the project of 1099 dolores street. thank you for giving me the time to speak today. i've lived in san francisco over 40 years. i'm a small scale developer who has been focused on adding housing in a respectful manner in san francisco. i'm proud of being able to add three-family oriented units in place of the single unit there today. we have worked hard with neighbors and the planning department to get to these support plans. thank you so much for the time. >> i'm just going to give you a few brief sort of overview of the project a little bit. when we start a project, we like to create an internal project objective and we hope that is in alignment with general planning goals. for this, our project objective is to create three new family-sized missing middle housing units to replace one non-affordable single family home on the liability. it's rh3, so we're building three units. the three units are three bedrooms and two bedrooms, nicely scaled, not large, with private outdoor space. they're applicable to families and residents in the area. we're before you with the conditional use because we're seeking full demolition of the existing building. we do a lot of work in the city. you've seen my face here many times before. we know the demo cal well, we could have worked, but we want to be forth right when it suits the project. honestly, it's better to remove the existing non-affordable, non-historic building. if we didn't do that, we would probably lose one bedroom potentially in each of the units. and end up with a different project that didn't suit planning goals in the same way. other than that, the project is fully code compliant in height. we're not seeking variances, loopholes or exceptions. we worked with neighborhood organizations, neighbors, at the preop. several neighbors came and we listened to comments and quickly kind of integrated those things as we first initially submitted. we started thinking of this as a two-unit building, but in response to suggestions from the representative from the neighborhood council we thought maybe we should expand it -- not the envelope, but the unit count, to three units. we also heard local concerns about parking. i guess parking, on-street parking is tight in the area, so the neighbors were pushing us to include more parking. but the planning department also had concerns about the way we wanted to introduce a curb cut on dolores street. so we eliminated that and creatively found a way to hold onto the existing parking garage, swing the parking access around to quane which doesn't have on-street parking. we had one, now we'll have two on site, but also added two on-street parking spaces for the general public, which we see as win-win and responsive to neighbor concerns. there were concerns about height. in particular, concerns of view and the building across the street, how their view downtown might be effected. overall, when we worked on the building, i can show you a diagram related to scale and massing, we started with initial over-the-counter review with planning and then had a project review meeting. we wanted to scale our building similarly to the building on the southeast corner. so this is our building here. these red lines. basically, we started from the building on the southeast corner of the intersection and then carried the lines across following grade and are designing the building in a similar form and massing, but slightly reduced height. there is a dialogue between the historic building and our building. we haven't heard directly from concerned neighbors, so any comments that come up today are taking us by surprise, unfortunately, but we're happy to answer questions about it. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you so much. we will take public comment on this item. we have a speaker card, but anyone who would like this speak on this item may do so now. >> i live in the valley close to the project location. i have three issues -- >> president melgar: i'm sorry, can you speak into the mic. thank you. >> i have three issues today, first, if you drive in my neighborhood you know that parking on the street is extremely difficult. this project will have two parking spaces for three family units. >> president melgar: can you speak up, we can't hear you. >> i know the san francisco does not require a parking space for each new unit built and that is a mistake, but here is a brand new construction and three parking spaces can be built without any major impact to the overall design. we have already lost two prime parking spaces across the street from this building project in front of a pediatric doctor office to accommodate commuter buses. now parents of sick and newborns have more of a struggle parking. how is the volume? okay? second, the architect has failed in every way to be mindful to enhance the beauty of the area. the project looks like a ski lodge. i ask that you require this architect to honor the uniqueness of this neighborhood and to come up with a more appropriate size and design. as all builders, and all neighborhoods in san francisco should be required to do. third, the building is far too tall for the neighborhood. this is a quaint residential area with mostly two to three-story buildings. i urge you to consider a design change to make the top unit one level and not two. at a minimum, a redesign to bring down the height of the roof line to a more appropriate height. i'll take any questions you have. >> president melgar: thank you, sir. any other public comment on the item. did you want to provide public comment? >> i am. i just wanted to give them a copy, so -- can i have three minutes, please? thank you. i think that two conditions should be added to the approval of this. one is that unit two should have a full kitchen a full-sized refrigerator and not just a wine fridge and should include a full gas oven, electric, with a cook top, because that unit -- unit 2 was originally part of what is unit 3 and that was supposed to be family room area. i've seen that happen in other projects. that's a different story. the second condition that should be added is that a report should be sent to the staff on the information on the final sales price of the unit and occupancy to illustrate how the units achieved the project, missing middle. i also think that the trees should be considered to be safe, that monkey puzzle tree, it's a very rare tree. i sent you a picture of it this morning. the project sponsor paid $2 million for this building. the project was conceived as adding three units to the existing structure, but it would cost the demo calgary threshold. if this had been a typical structure, it would have been easier to mask the transgression as projects with the vertical expansion have done. there was an alternative with the threshold could not have been transgressed, but the project sponsor needed to have condos to make the speculative project work economically. a different project could have had an alteration that renovated the existing unit with a horizontal popout and added a unit to the basement level, with adapting the garage. an alternative like this seems more like the form of the missing middle housing and more affordable. also the criterion for protecting housing could have been met this way. it's not met contrary to page 8. again, there is too much glass on the dolores quane street facade and the rendering doesn't show the actual streetlight pole on dolores which gives you better context for the height. if i could have the overhead quickly, please. see, there is the house now. there it is. and also i'd be curious to know about the ownership occupancy since 1985. does this mean this project has been empty since 1985? i'm curious about that. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment on this item? with that, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore: i was actually comfortable approving this project on consent while normally we look at demolitions a little more closely, this project struck me, rh3, as a very balanced approach, particularly with new legislation in place. we have all the tools to do so. since it is a code-compliant project, i did not see issues. we can argue about style. unless it's something where the neighborhood comes together and speaks about concerns. nobody is here. and i'm comfortable really to support the project as it is proposed to us. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioner fung: ditto. >> commissioner diamond: the project sponsor addressed the question whether or not there is full kitchen in the middle unit? >> yes. i'll happily speak to that. i think the last public comment speaker was looking at an older version of the drawings posted on online. it doesn't correspond to the current drawings. all three units, there is no sham units. they're all full units, full kitchens, i love to cook, they're real kitchens. thank you. >> commissioner koppel: motion to approve. >> second. >> jonas: seeing nothing further, there is a motion seconded to approve the matter with conditions on the motion. diamond aye. fung aye. johnson aye. moore aye. koppel aye. fe melgar. that passes unanimously, 6-0. items 9 for case number 2019022569. establishing twelve named neighborhood commercial districts. this is a planning code and zoning map amendment. to our surprise out of the 12 proposed neighborhood commercial districts, there was only one commissioner with a conflict. and in order to allow commissioner diamond to participate in the other 11, we will be taking up the gary boulevard district first. and then take up the remaining 11 later. so we'll need to recuse commissioner diamond to proceed. >> president melgar: thank you. she prepared a cheat sheet for us in terms of the process. thank you, city attorney. so we will make a motion on the recusal of commissioner diamond first. then we'll have a staff presentation on the geary ncd by audrey. public comment on the geary and cd only. you are of course welcome to watch this commissioner diamond, you just can't participate. and we'll vote on the ncd geary only. when you return, we'll have the staff presentation on the rest. it won't be redundant because you'll have hopefully heard the first and we'll vote on the next 11ncd. thank you. commissioner diamond, do you want to say something? >> commissioner diamond: i want to ask to recuse myself because i live within 500 feet of the geary district. i will be watching the presentation in the staff room. you can assume i've heard it. >> commissioner johnson: i want to say something for the benefit of the public and then i'll make a motion. when commissioners live within 500 feet of a project we're required to recuse ourselves with the potential of financial conflict. i also live within 500 feet of the proposed geary. in consultation with the city attorney, however, because i am a renter with a month-to-month lease, i am able to participate because i don't have a conflict. so just wanted to name that and then also to move to recuse commissioner diamond. >> second. >> jonas: thank you on the motion to recuse commissioner diamond, commissioner diamond aye. so moved. commissioners that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. >> good afternoon, audrey merlone. i have amy here to give a presentation. and then i'll give the staff presentation. >> >> president melgar: welcome. thank you so much for hearing this today. the legislation that you have before you in two separate pieces will ultimately create 12 new named districts and supervisoral districts, 1, 4, 5, 6,ing 7, 9 and 10. item aide to supervisor ronen and so we're lead, but the supervisors from each of the districts in which the named ncds are proposed is a cosponsor. so these would be added to planning code section 201 which currently identifies 30 of the named ncd and nctd. each showcasing a distinct mix to the needs of their communities. we continue to have real concerns about the viability and continued existneance. businesses are facing huge obstacles. shouldering heavy burdens to keep their doors open. this will create a framework from which we can begin to make changes to promote these small business districts with a nice array of services and retail and small offices and bars and restaurants and housing. what we all want to see on the corridors near our homes and near where we work. these code amendments open this opportunity to work with the merchants and work with community, but there are no changes to the underlying code controls at this time. we want to make that very clear. so encouraging property owners to keep store front occupied is essential to this vibrancy that we're looking for. and in march, the voters are going to be asked to vote on the store front vacancy tax. and these planning code amendments are being moved forward as a package. very quickly, in order to ensure that if the voters do pass the measure -- this is up to the voters -- the ncds will be in place at the time of the election so this tax strategy can be a i -- applied to these districts as well as other districts throughout the cities. that is what voters expect and we want to deliver that. i want to thank -- it's been quite team work to get to this. and it's fairly simple, but very complicated piece of legislation. audrey merlone has been amazing to work with. thank you, aaron star, dan, the team of city attorneys, judy, plunged into this. i want to say thank you to all of those folks for making this possible. if you have any questions i'll be here. >> president melgar: thank you very much. >> so again, audrey merlone, planning department staff. this item is to consider the establishment of the geary boulevard ncd which i have a map for. if i could get the slide projector. the geary boulevard would encompass properties along masonic and 28. the stretch of parcel is currently zoned nc-3. the ordinance is not proposing any changes to the current zoning controls, but if the geary boulevard continues to evolve in the future and decides they would like to make changes to the zoning controls in the future, they can do so without having to change all nc-3 districts. it would require separate legislation. the department has not received public comment regarding the proposed ordinance. i want to mention there are several non-substantive text amendments to the original text that planning needs to be made. the non-substantive changes to the legislation are just to conform to the zoning tables in the amendments you voted on in the code corrections ordinance. just to make those consistent. but to illustrate that -- the first would be just to conform it to the again, non-substantive amendments made to all the nc tables, simply with changing the residential to r and requoting of code sections. and the second is to conform our footnote for fringe financial services languages that are in the nc tables. we did consolidate the language to try to make it simpler in this original text ordinance, however the code corrections ordinance that you all approved also edited the code language and we think that is the better, more clear way to go through with this. but neither of them are substantive changes to the footno footnote itself. but i'm happy to answer questions on that. the department recommend that the commission approve, because continuing the viability of the neighbor commercial district is dependent on the ability to provide required services. the succeedful district provides a variety of goods and services. establishing the geary boulevard neighborhood commercial district will allow the corridor to identify the specific needs of the district and fit the needs in the future. that concludes our presentation. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you, audrey. >> i have no speaker cards. >> president melgar: do we have any public comment on this item? no speaker cards. okay public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'm delighted to see that the supervisors are stepping together and starting to curate their neighborhood corridors, particularly in a time when we're all concerned about not only small business, but effects of vacancies in the corridors. this will not only give protection of the nc designation, but also allow each neighborhood as time goes by to shape its own destiny in a more kind of direct way, rather than being generically called, you can now be specific and address what really makes your neighborhood special. i was talking with amy about the matter, thinking about what happened with me in the neighborhood was the corridor which became quite a few years ago a neighborhood commercial district that created its own protections and it's one of the first corridors with its own neighborhood-specific guidelines. i think it's a wonderful opportunity for all of the others to follow. i'm in full support and ask that we move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner fung: my comments are not necessarily directed toward this specific code change, but more in light of -- as i analyze each of the criteria and the constraints and opportunities within these neighborhood commercial districts, it appears that they're vastly outdated. that there is no ability within the way it's set up to incentivize the filling in of vacant store fronts. to allow certain types of uses that are prohibited there, some of the designation of uses between multiple floors doesn't make sense. i think some of the commissioners have already heard this from me, but i would like to, in the near future, bring this forward for our commission to consider the process for creating the neighborhood commercial controls that are a little more opportunistic. >> president melgar: okay. so i will also say, thank you to amy and to supervisor ronen for working on this. i wholeheartedly agree with commissioner fung. i think we have a lot of work to do. and you know, as we have spoken about in the commission repeatedly, retail has just changed so vastly in the last 10 years. and you know, we not only need to adapt, we also need to look at our codes and see whether what we have on the books is what we intend to have. and whether or not they work. and i certainly have heard about how many of the funky things in our code are outdated and not as intended. so i fully support your comments commissioner fung that we need to look at this. that being said, we need to get there through. i appreciate this will be a good tool for the corridors to do what they need to do with our support in the future. thank you. >> commissioner koppel: just a little more context. i view the filling of these ground floor retail spaces as kind of a multiplier effect. it's not just going to bring in business for that business, but it's going to bring foot traffic and people are going to bring families and attend and patron the other businesses, too. so it will steam roll and multiply for the whole neighborhood. >> jonas: nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the matter. on that motion commissioner fung aye. johnson aye. moore aye. koppel aye. melgar aye. so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0. and at this time, commissioner diamond can rejoin us. >> president melgar: come back, commissioner diamond. >> jonas: and consider the remaining 11 named neighborhood districts. >> president melgar: welcome back, commissioner. so the next action item is to consider the establishment of the other 11 districts. if i could have the slides again. so the first is the inner balance bow street along 2 and 8th avenue. the outer balboa street generally including the properties along balboa street between 32 and 39. the bayview including properties along 3rd street from yosemite to cortland avenue. the mission bernal generally including the properties along mission street between chavez and randall. the san bruno avenue including the properties along sn bruno taken hale and only stead. the lakeside village ncd generally including the properties along ocean avenue between junipero serra boulevard. the lower haight including properties along haight street between webster and steiner. the poke, from geary to golden gate with frontage on geary boulevard, golden gate avenue and other side streets. finally the inner taraval ncd generally including the properties along taraval street. no proposed changes to the current zoning controls. we have not received any public comment. and we will be making the same non-substantive text amendments recommended for approval in the code correction ordinance to fix the inconsistencies with the zoning control tables, but they're non-substantive. we're recommending approval for the same reasons we recommended approval for geary boulevard ncd, but we're happy to answer questions. >> president melgar: do we have any public comment on this item? >> tom, executive director of livable city. i think generally we're in support of these ideas of customized neighborhood commercial districts and we've worked on creating a few. fillmore and divisadero. we're sorry it didn't come from the department, but we're happy it's happening. all of the comments are apt as well. a lot of the zoning controls are pretty outdated and we've been working with supervisors zoning district by zoning district. upper market came before you recently to say, let's allow a lot more uses on the ground floors in the neighborhoods, let's open them up to institutional uses, but that's doing work with the community. so i urge you to do two things. one, if you support this today, i urge you to propose something back to the supervisors where you say, let us work with you to talk to the community about what the existing controls are, what we recommend in terms of code changes and start that conversation. we haven't had a neighborhood plan come out of this department for about a decade. and it's time we did. so you can engage on the zoning question with these different corridors and say, let's do these one by one, have the conversation and do it. you can do this in conjunction with cleanup. mr. star did this with chinatown. it was cleanup, but he was able to have a conversation with stakeholders. he said here's what we want to tweak. when it was brought back to you, it was clean up and substantive changes recommended by the community. so we definitely urge you to engage in that process. and just be proactive about the corridors. i think there is a lot of potential to fill the store fronts, to promote small and local businesses, services, arts, non-profited, et cetera. but it's just going to require work on the part of this department. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment on this item? okay, public comment is closed. >> because i haven't spoken, i echo so many of the things my fellow commissioners said and the comments of the last speaker. i think just having this piece of legislation be the start of a conversation and opportunity to do deeper engagement, have more nuanced conversations and solutions that are community driven to the future of the commercial corridors are important. i know that several supervisors who engage their communities ahead of this legislation are already thinking about how to continue to engage their communities. so i would move to approve. >> president melgar: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: i wanted to add my voice to the chorus. even though i wasn't here, i did hear the comments by the fellow commissioners and in particular commissioner fung's suggestion. i think it's important to do that in conjunction with each neighborhood. i would like to second the motion. >> jonas: seeing nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion seconded to approve the name changes of the remaining 11 neighborhood commercial districts. diamond aye. fung aye. johnson aye. moore aye. koppel aye. melgar aye. so moved. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. item 10, for the sb330 housing crisis act of 2019. informational presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your patience while we get set up. planning department staff, and i'm here this afternoon to talk about a piece of state legislation that passed last year and came into effect on january 1st. the senate bill 330 from skinner, the housing crisis act of 2019. we'll be talk can today about the overview of what the bill has and focusing on implementation in san francisco. the key thing to note, the overarching structure, the bill declares a housing emergency period effective on january 1 for five years, so through 2025. it has provisions that apply to jurisdictions, spoiler, we are an urban jurisdiction, so all of the provisions of the bill apply to us, so we can skip that. there are basically three buckets if you will of what are in the bill. the first relates to limits on zoning actions taken by the city that will refer to as down zoning actions and the it type of deadlines. the second bucket is related to the application review process. there is a number of things. there is ability for the project to be locked through the zoning controls at the time they file what is called a preliminary application. the second piece is that there will be for local landmark designations, article 10 and 11, that designation will be need to be made prior. and finally, there is a limit of five public hearings for not all, but many, housing projects. i'll talk about that piece as well. very relevant to this body. finally, the third category is there are a number of provisions related to replacement housing, replacement units for situations where new housing will demolish existing units, including relocation and right of first refusal benefits. there is a lot going on in sacramento and the director mentioned. there is another bill that came back this month. i want to remind you what is not in sb330. there is no new ministerial approval procedures. throughout the entire bill, it specifies that the coastal act and ceqa are not superseded in any way. other jurisdictions that don't have rent control ordinances, those can be implemented in other jurisdictions. fire hazard zones are exempted and there are ability to put exceptions for public health and safety which is narrowly defined in state law. zoning action and design stts. in terms of zoning actions, essentially as of january 1 of this year the city is prohibited from taking zoning actions. that includes the actions by the board of supervisors and the voters. it does include voter initiatives as well. what is the prohibition? we're calling it down zoning. we can't do any zoning actions that would reduce the zone capacity for housing as compared to what it was at the beginning of 2018. that baseline, it's a little confusing. that's the benchmark we're using. if housing was allowed in 2018, that's the benchmark. the prohibition only applies to actions taken in 2020. that's a little bit of a mind game there. but what are the actions? it's very expansive. it could be reduction of height or density or f.a.r. increased lot size or setback, minimum frontage requirements, any kind of moratorium on housing approvals, caps on the housing approvals, population caps all finds under this. there is one major exception, you can take these kinds of actions which with erefer to -- we refer to as down zoning if current actions are taken. eastern neighborhoods where many sites were zoned where no housing is allowed, but it was a major upzoning in terms of housing. this was put in to allow that kind of balanced comprehensive planning. that's the please idea there. but it's meant to prevent spot down zoning if you will. lab zoning actions. design standards. starting in 2020 we cannot adopt any new design standards that do not meet the definition of objective design standards under state law which is what you think it is. luckily, in san francisco, because of our diligence of the design team, john francis and others who worked on getting these queued up for us, urban guidelines are good to go, residential guidelines. a number of area design guidelines, such as japantown can still be implemented and applied to new projects. historic properties that are not ceqa resources. those are all in effect. also we can apply any design standards whether objective or not to nonresidential projects as well. we have an effort that we may be gearing up on in the new year related to historic guidelines. because that falls under the ceqa umbrella as implementing ce ceqa, those will be adopted and applied to projects. so we in san francisco are in pretty good shape on design standards luckily. second category is, in terms of applications for new housing development projects. so just so we're all on the same page, a housing development project is two or or more units, two-thirds residential in the case of mixed use. the first item under this is this preliminary application. so this is a new type of application created by state law. it is no the same thing -- not the same thing as a development application. in san francisco, we have created a version of this, we're calling it the preliminary housing development am caig to be as clear as possible and making clear it's for the purpose of the state bill. what does it do? it's meant to be an early point in the review process where the applicant can put in the application, that is not the same level of detail as the development application, and essentially they get locked in. the zoning standards and the subdivision standards and the fees as well. there are important caveats. first of all, you can file the preliminary application, but you have to file the development application within six months or we start over. you can't do this and three years later say i want this. once the project is approved, it has to be under construction, commencing construction within 30 months, two-and-a-half years after the approval and the approval is the issuance of a site permit that's a little later than the planning. the project cannot increase in size by more than 20%. state density bonus accepted, so it can increase by virtue of the state density bonus. but not more than 20%. so if they increase that sort of freezing of the rules goes away and they would be subject to the rules of the day. finally, during this, even if they have the preliminary application in effect, the fees can still be indexed annually, it's if we were to adopt a new fee program all together, that cannot be applied to that project. we have an application on the website january 2nd in time for the bill. what we're doing in san francisco is saying that a new project coming in, they can submit that along with the project application, their development application. if a ppa is required, they can provide it as a supplement to the ppa as well. projects before 2020, they will be able to submit the preliminary application starting this year, but the rules they'll be locked in on are the rules of that day. january 3rd. not the day they came in. that's the preliminary application. related to the local landmarks which in our case is article 10 and 11 for conservation districts. we can still do designations of landmarks and districts but not if it's going to be on a property that has an application in the door. you have to do this before the application is deemed complete. it's not possible to do a landmark designation in the 30-day window. if you're not designated as 10 or 11 resource, it's not going to be available while that project is under review. this is not the same thing as ceqa. ceqa again, totally off the table in the bill. so we will still be doing review in terms of historic resources, evaluation, application is required. we will require it, review it. if new information comes up throughout the review of the project, we can pause and say we need to do h.r.e. so it really is very narrowly just the article 10 and 11 designation. someone could designate a property on the national register and that could be grounds to reevaluate. it could happen. it's just the actual designation that the historic preservation commission has to happen before there is a live project. finally, the bill busy will put a limit for code complying housing projects only. i'll talk about that. a limit of five public hearings. these are public hearings for the entire jurisdiction. these include informational hearings, appeal hearings, continuances of hearings. so it's expansive. what are code compliant projects? these are projects that are not seeking any exceptions from the planning code. we often have a downtown exception, eastern neighborhoods exception, a pud, planned unit development where they're seeking exceptions. those are not code complying. there is a development agreement, variance, anything that involves a rezoning. projects that give exception to the state density bonus are code complying because the state law makes that clear. it does include projects that may need a cu in front of the planning commission, but because of the size of the lot for example, they don't need the cu to get exception, they need the cu as a procedural matter, those are still considered code complying. we're going to see a number of projects in the bucket. and these projects are limited to five hearings throughout the entire jurisdiction. what we're going to be doing in planning department is adding to the templates for case reports and all of the letters back to applicants, that okay, this is going to be subject to the five-hearing limit and we're going to basically, at the planning department be the accountants of this and note in the motion how many hearings have occurred so that information is out there. it does include appeal hearings as well. that is a piece of information that will need to be considered by the planning commission and other commissions that have to take an action related to the approval of the project. joint hearings can count as one hearing. and as i mentioned, again, this is not apply to any hearings related to ceqa actions. finally, related to the replacement of existing units. so if we have a project that comes before the planning commission with a 317 conditional use authorization to demolish or merge unit, there are a few conditions that are going to apply. first of all, if any existing units whatsoever are going to be demolished, the replacement project has to replace at least that many units or more. that's just the blanket rule. secondly, there is a category of units termed protected units. these are units that were below market rate. the restricted units, section 8 occupants or any unit occupied by a low-income household in the past five years, whether it was rent controlled or bmr or not. any unit by 80% under ami is one of these units. when i say past ten years, the five and ten years prior to the application coming in. so if there are protected units being removed, we cannot approve the replacement project until they're replaced in equivalent size, meaning bedrooms and comparable affordability. finally for the protected units, existing tenants there at the time, they get a right of first refusal to return to the replacement units. there are relocation fees that must be paid. we do have higher relocation payments in san francisco and we can modify them as time goes on. those will apply. and the tenants in the protected units have the right to remain in the unit up to six months before construction commences as well. so then finally, i wanted to zero in on when i said the protected units has to be replaced for the unit of comparable affordability, a little bit complicated, but we think we figured it out and all of this is in director bulletin on the website. if you have a protected unit and we know that there was a low-income household in the unit, we have to do a replacement unit. there needs to be deed restricted bmr grurnt 55 years, at the income category that corresponds to the prior tenant. the state has 50%, 80% of ami. we had existing tenant, unit is demolished, they were 70% ami, that is unit required for each one of the units as condition for the reapproval with the 317 approval. . if we don't know the income of the prior units or it was vacant, we are to assume the same ratio of affordability that exists in the city. so based on a specific set of data from hud. the most recent data shows that in san francisco 48% of all the housing units were occupied by households below 80% of ami, so we'll be going with 48%. if you're replacing two protected units, and one of them we don't know the income of the units, one of them needs to be 80% bmr and the other would be market rate. there is a provision related to rent controlled units which can be occupied by residents who are above low-income. if it's a rent controlled unit and the occupants are above low-income, the city has an option. the unit can be replaced by a new rent control unit, starting out at market rate, or could be replaced by a low-income bmr unit. in the absence of clarification in the planning code, that decision will be with the planning commission on a project by project basis. finally, the state law does allow for jurisdictions that speak to their inclusionary units. to allow for these replacements unit to be in addition. here in san francisco, section 415, we specify when you replace low-income units, the units are above and beyond the inclusionary units, so we'll be able to keep with that under the bill. i'm going to pause there. i'm sure there will be questions. we'll be available. you guys didn't get all that? thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. we will now take public comment on this item. do we have speaker cards? no? that's amazing. >> sort of a stupid question. today on the calendar, you had continuing items, will those be counted? those will be counted. even if you plan ahead of time not to hear them. the other point is kind of what i said about 10 -- 1099 dolores. the point of this from senator skinner, she wants to get more housing. i understand that. but i think we have know what we're getting when we get it. that's why if you're granting this right to develop, to developers, it would be nice to know how much the housing is cogsing people, whether it's market rate housing to understand. like the condos in knowy valley, i think that's information that you need to know if you're approving either demolitions or remonetary polici remo re-moo remo remode remodels. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. obviously, there is a huge amount of information that has just been release and we're all digesting. as a project sponsor here in town, i'm very confused right now about the status of applications. it sounds like there are three applications required, different timing requirements. if the projects change, do the applications need to be change? if the project is in the pipeline, do we submit the new application immediately? there is lots of questions in terms of timing and guidance, i was hoping to get a better understanding of what to expect. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment? okay. public comment is now closed. >> commissioner koppel: just a quick question for staff. just a little clarification. i heard you say regarding the five hearings that were jurisdiction, does that mean the jurisdiction of san francisco city and count. >> any hearing body related to the approval of the project for san francisco. >> commissioner koppel: if the project went to the h.p.c. and then the rec and park, that's three. >> that's three. >> commissioner koppel: and we cannot foresee how many appeals might be after us, correct? >> that's righted. >> commissioner koppel: but five is the limit? >> correct. >> commissioner fung: and ceqa appeals? if the hearing is just for purposes of ceqa -- >> that's right. >> commissioner fung: my question was different. is there a differentiation between public and private land? >> no, this is about the housing potential on the site. so you can have a public site that allows certain type of housing or privately owned site that allows housing. does it allow housing and what intensity? whether it's publicly or privately owned doesn't matter. >> commissioner johnson: okay, so i have three questions. also this was wonderful to read. so thank you for taking a very complex thing and making it enjoyable. and understandable. and helping us kind of figure out how to navigate this. >> of course. >> commissioner johnson: my first question, am i to understand with the neighborhood special area design guidelines, the ones that we put into place before the new year are great, but we're not able to do any new ones in the next? >> right, we can do new design guidelines, they just have to meet the standard objective. we don't have to argue about what objectivity is, state law defines it. thank you. at least they're clear about it. so objective standard is one that is a design standard that involves no judgment by public official. available and knowable by the applicant and proponent and the public official before submittal of application. so that is a fairly high bar. it means that it needs to be things that are quantity tative. it can't be a broad concept such as, you know, compatible with the neighboring structures. it could be needs to have a certain type of articulation. it needs to be a certain height, certain materials. it has to be verifiable, quantifiable, and objective. we'll have to go by those standards with any future design guidelines. >> okay, next question is related to the replacement units. there is a lot there. to just talk me through, again, wi b. units, people can choose to go with, but what happened to rent controlled units? >> rent controlled unit that would be demolished? >> yeah. >> so we'll look at it if the unit is rent controlled by 80% of below, that's a low-income household and that falls under the requirement that you have to replace it with a bmr at the equivalent income. for rent controlled only, that is the only instance where we have the discretion to either replace it with a new rent controlled unit or bmr. >> that is the project sponsor's choice? >> that's are all things that will have to be conditions of approval on the cu to demolish, so it's the discretion of the commission as well. the city could choose to specify in code what route we're going to take, but up until that point, it's project by project. >> and then the last question. what is the plan to help everybody now navigate these new rules? >> yes. we did publish a new director's bulletin. number 7. it's been on the website since just before the new year. it does walk through each of these areas. and it gives a bit of overview and gives specific implementation for san francisco. in addition, we have posted that preliminary housing development application that has some instruction as to what that is and how it works in the document itself. we'll be updating the demolition, section 317, cu application to ask for all the information. we need to know about the occupancy in the past five years. if you don't give it to us, don't know, this is what is going to happen. we'll be updating the templates when we respond back to ppa, applicant, to include standard verbiage that explains to the applicant and the public whether any of this applies and how. we're doing as much as we can to integrate all of this into the documents that we do, the applications we have. and the director's bulletin will be the guidebook that we have. and we do expect, i should say, some guidance from the state at some point, although in the experience, the state, it does take them time to catch up. as more information comes out or as we learn from implementation, the way we do it may evolve, but for now we have a fairly clear statement how we're going to implement this that is available now. i encourage everyone to take a look at that. >> commissioner diamond: so it seems like we need to reserve hearing capacity for appeals. and in light of that, i'm wondering if it would be reasonable to request staff to try even harder than they already do to resolve neighborhood differences before they bring matter to the commission for approval, so we don't end up trying to decide whether we can afford to continue it while the issues are resolved. is there plan about addressing that issue? >> we've been communicating to staff and we're going to continue the presentations. and i think that folks are becoming aware we need to be more cautious about when something is ripe to be scheduled for hearing. and the type of back-and-forth you're referring to falls into that bucket. we need to do as much as we can to ensure it's calendared so we don't find ourselves in a situation where we have to count the continuances and be concerned about the appeals. >> a couple of things. first i want to thank jacob and kate and the city attorney office. this actually was an immense amount of work. as often happens with these state bills, there are lot of elements that are not very well defined. so we've had to make some assumptions and create -- as jacob said the state will provide guidance with more detail, but i don't expect that for two years and in the meantime, this law is effect. we're the first jurisdiction in the state to implement this ordinance. the second thing, and i'm not sure if it was mentioned, because of the provision that allows projects to have their code requirements frozen at the time of application, it puts a lot of onus on us to do record keeping as to what the code was along the way, because the code changes twice a month or more, on average. could you talk about that for a minute? it will be a whole new record keeping system we'll have to implement in the department? >> yes, luckily, m legal, the company we contract with to provide the municipal code online does have a feature that allows for archiving for past versions of the code, so we're going to be activating that feature. you can choose which month of which planning code to look at. we're figuring out the details on how frequently this archiving will occur, at least monthly i presume. the idea being that both an applicant and planners and anyone in the public needs to be able to go back and look at the relevant set of rules that we're holding a project to perhaps two years after they came in with their application. so that will be available in m legal and then it will be on us and all of the ppa responses, in the plan check responses, in the case reports to the planning commission to make clear whether this is a project that is under a preliminary application and, if so, what is the date we're talking about. so we're going to be sure we have a clear way of doing that in all of our documents so we know what we're going by. we'll all be learning as we go, but the lucky thing, we have the technology available so we didn't have make up a runaround. it will be there and we need to know which one we're going by. >> commissioner moore: does this require staff training? and do you have a core group which is a clearing house in the beginning? >> yes. as often, we have our special projects and policy team that have pieced this together. and we are making the rounds among staff to do trainings. we're putting up director bulletins. the templates are available. that's another flag for them. this is going to be an effort, we're going to be working on this throughout the year. as projects come forward, we'll be learning by experience as well. i should mention as i failed to, on the note, that the replacement unit requirements, all of that applies to projects in 2020. you'll be seeing projects over the next coming months that does not apply to. it's not as if we have to shift immediately, but other things like the preliminary application, projects are welcome to file that today. we're doing the training based on as things kick in. >> is the state auditing you? >> not to my knowledge. but like i said, the housing and community development agency of the state will be putting out guidance at some point. in our experience with other state laws such as the density bonus and others, that is the entity that would reach out if they had any concerns, may issue further guidance. and that is the entity to which people may file a complaint if they feel the city is not following along correctly. >> president melgar: i also had several questions. so on the appeals, does this include -- i'm sorry hearings -- does this include other jurisdictions besides san francisco? so if a project needed a hearing from the regional air quality management board, is that one of the five? >> i don't believe so. it appears to be five per jurisdictions. >> okay, what if a project has, say, you know, four hearings and then they get their building permit and they go and they screw up. and there is violations. and then there is directors' hearings to correct the violations at dbi. and it puts them into five, six, seven. >> thank you for asking that question. yes, this is five hearings from the application to the approval of the project. so any post approval hearings of which there are all kinds, including that situation where the project comes back to life due to violations, those are okay. so we can have -- i believe it's unlimited once the project is appro approved. those can still continue. this is five to get you from the application to your approval from the city. your initial approval. so that is important clarification. >> often times in this body, we have had requests for postponement of hearings or rehearings from the developers, the project sponsors, because in the long-term strategy they want do this or the other. does that count for the five hearings? >> i believe. any time that the commission acts to continue, that counts as one of the hearings. as long as the hearing occurred and you acted to continue, then that counts. >> president melgar: so my last question is, what are the repercussions? what the remedies if there is more than five hearings? >> it falls under the bucket of the state being perhaps not as clear as it could be as director ram mentioned. the state law is clear that there can only be five hearings and one of the if five hearings, action to approve or disapprove must be taken. after the fifth hearings, no hearings should occur. and that's it. we'll be filling in the blanks. [laughter] >> president melgar: several things occurred to me, because i worked in different departments, government. so there is d.p.h. there is all sorts -- so i'm wondering who owns this from the city side? so if there is, you know, like a restaurant that wants to open and you need fire -- who is going to be doing what you do for us in terms of the city? because it's going to take a lot of -- it's not policies, it's procedures, and someone who can marry both and have enough power over the bureaucracy to make it happen? >> we should be clear, it is public hearing. so there could be a number of types of, you need to go fire. >> president melgar: it happens before. someone has to be think being the strategy before it comes to the hearing. >> right. so like i say, we'll step up planning to at least in our documents be kind of tracking how many hearings have occurred. we are in touch with the -- under the executive director on housing, this housing coordinator group was created. a staff member appointed at all the agencies that have permitting authority over housing, including mta and others. we have sent the information to that group and will be discussing their regular monthly meetings of the housing coordinator group. that will be the first touch for us to share information about what we understand it means to planning and we need to coordinate on this starting right now. so that will be our group and then those folks will be the point people within the agencies and i'm sure over time, we'll -- they may assign other staff to be on top of this. in the meantime, what we've been asked is that all the housing projects coming in, check in with the housing team at planning so we can do a look, see what the history is see what the project may be subject to, to highlight it up front. say this is a project that looks like it needs the following three hearings, so be cognizant of that in how you choose to approach the project. and we'll be having conversations with other strategies as well. but now, planning is taking the lead and working with the housing coordinator group to disseminate this throughout the rest of the city. >> president melgar: thank you. i have a couple more questions. the next one, if you could define what is a down zoning? right before the break, we had a project, a two-unit building, that we allowed to become the community music center expansion. is that a down zoning? >> this is related to legislative action by the city? if you're doing conditional approval on the project, that's fine. the housing accountability act applies. we have all of that. this is related to prohibitions on new growning actions that would -- zoning actions that would change the capacity. i believe if it was a condition that the commission opposed on the project that is already in, that is not covered under this. that is simply going to be a housing accountability act qustion that i presume was resolved in that case. [please stand by] [please stand by] >> president melgar: and, you know, do a bunch of stuff. and ongoing monitoring for 50 years or whatever. so i'm wondering, does this bill come with state moneys to help us do this? >> but i should say we have had other projects, and what our practice has been is if you're going to talk about a b.m.r., you're going to follow the inclusionary housing models, and mohcd track of number of projects every year, what they're expected to see, and we make sure it all gets recorded. and once it gets to mohcd, that they're talking to the owner about the leasing for the units. so if we're talking about b.m.r.s, we're going to put them into the existing program because otherwise, it would be very difficult to keep track of. so that would be the approach as in other cases. >> president melgar: yeah. i have no doubt that we have other cases, it's just going to take us time. >> one of the things about the hearings is there are things that require multiple hearings, like projects that have a shadow impact. their current procedure requires them to have one direct hearing to the capital park planning committee and one before the commission. so obviously we're going to have to work with them to get it down to one. that's not required by law, but it does count as two of the five. that's one of the things that we're going to have to figure out how to stream line the hearing process a bit. i had one other thing that i was going to say, and i completely forget. that'll do it. >> president melgar: thank you. commissioner diamond? >> so dall the tangential thins that go with the project, we'd quickly use up the five. >> the phrase is hearings in connection with the approval of the project, so a white zone, a tree removal. it is, as you said, ancillary. the shadow hearings are in the planning code. certain hearings, p.u.c., water supply assessment, falls under ceqa implementations, so that's fine. i think as we go forward, we're basically going to need to inventory the different types of hearings that happened, but i think those examples are going to fall outside of it. >> president melgar: we're going to need a chart. >>h, yeah, we're going to have charts. >> president melgar: commissioner jemoore? [inaudible] >> president melgar: i will just end by saying that i'm surprised that we have such outstanding staff. you guys rock it. you did this very quickly, very thoroughly, and i appreciate it. >> clerk: commissioners that will place us on item 11, for the sustainable city framework informational presentation. >> president melgar: hi. >> good afternoon. happy new year. lisa fisher, your resilience and sustainability lead. simply put, everything we build today either supports a vibrant, healthy, and future-proofed city or can accelerate global heating and can be a costly retrofit tomorrow. we are excited to share the sustainable neighborhood program of framework instead of tools to support climate resilience, equity, and quality of life on any project scale. it's a rich collaboration and i wanted to take a moment to thank my colleagues, especially adam and director rahaim and maya, josh, all the teams that have worked on the major developments that we've been piloting, as well as my colleagues at the department of environment, the p.u.c., and the mayor's office. i appreciate your patience while i try and summarize a comprehensive and a little bit wonky effort in a four-part agenda. so what we're up against, what we're doing about it both as planning and with our fellow agencies, and specifically the sustainable neighborhood program and its tools and some next steps. and then, i would like to end -- some of our colleagues wanted to be here today to make statements, but they got caught up, but i have a few statements to read of their support before we go to public comment. so the first two sections actually created for the city climate resilience program and climate emergency hearing? so sorry to make you wait five minutes for the punch line, but i think it'll set some important context for the drivers for this. so as we know, the climate crisis is already here, already impacting our businesses, quality of life, and will increase over time. by the end of the century, a number of san francisco households will be exposed to sea level rise and flooding. this map was produced by the department of public health and actually shows the september 2017 heat wave, and the differential in ground temperatures. if you were in golden gate park, it was a balmy 75°, but if you were in one of our inner neighborhoods, you were experiencing temperatures over 120°. and of course, we're currently facing many, many other crises in housing affordability, child care availability. the framework aims to help meet the mayor's near-team priorities in a way that ensures our long-term sustainability and resilience. in fall 2018, the united nations synthesized 6,500 scientific works and decreed that we need to get to zero emissions by 2050 to meet the paris climate accord. this is over the 80% reduction that we had all been planning on. so san francisco's goals are 0, 80, and 100. what's important to note is those goals are actually by 2030. it is known that the next ten years are the utmost importance, we cannot wait until 2050. and in san francisco, we are very rightly proud of all of our progressive green building requirements and we've exceeded our emission goals, but this was created to tee up the climate action strategy update and shows that our emissions will start to rise again in our current kind of regulatory framework, because of growth, because of the economy, and because we've already knocked off a lot of that lower-hanging fruit. so we'll provide a deeper dive on the climate action strategy later this year, but just to let you know, we have to reduce emissions another 89% in order to achieve these goals. so in this all-hands-on-deck-crisis, we're in on supporting these goals. we're working with many other agencies and the mayor's office and now the board. yesterday, i represented us in the new building and decarbonization task force kicked off for the environment. so the next four slides are just quickly giving you the context of what we're doing as a city and what planning is doing with the other agencies from the interagency level to the neighborhood level just so you can understand where this fits in all of this. so over the last 1.5 years, planning has been partnering with several agencies to create a climate resilience program for the industry to strategically integrate all these different efforts that are going on originally spurred by individual departments. it also creates a think tank-like forum for core staff to innovate and align. we use this term climate resilience to encompass the city's work on mitigation as well as the climate adaptation. and we're mainly focused in this green area of identifying the synergies between these two efforts. like i said, we've kicked off the climate action strategy update, and that is due to be completed by the end of the year. likewise, you've already heard about the sea level rise work as well as the port resilience work, and we've been pushing sustainability, pushing for them to be resilient. we're focusing on four unique avenues that we have as an agency, so our early interface. a lot of the departments that are developing the regulations or doing the research, they're not in touch with the developers or the projects. we do integrated partnerships and a lot of long range planning. that helps us tee up and do a lot of practice. we have the planning code, we have t.d.m., the plant finder tool, better streets. the sustainability neighborhood framework aims to be another tool in our toolkit. and finally, design review gives us a lot of interface with projects. andti and finally, in citywide itself, we've added sustainability in our core functions, and focusing on the sustainability work, the biodiversity, the climate work, the waterfront work, and how we're working with transportation, environmental justice, etc. so hopefully, you are now sold on the need for this tool and its benefits, and appreciate your patience. so this is also not new. you've heard about the sustainable systems framework from five years ago. we've been working on sustainability district in soma and chinatown. we are looking to create something that's consistent. we want any community member or commission staff to use the same framework. but the word ecodistrict is already trademarked, so sustainable district is the term we've coined so far. i know it's not john's favorite, but it's one of our best ideas. one of the main, main points is how can we maximize benefits so all of these accesses to sustainability? projects have to meet stormwater requirements. they can really do so in a way that encourages walking and sustainable trips, and they can use local plants that support our biodiversity. so we've created a vision framework, and there's three tools that support its use. a program summary, a work sheet and program guide that'll be much more dynamic than our current spreadsheets. and throughout this project, we've had five main driving principles of what we wanted to achieve. people centered and compelling, built on best practices, effective and efficient, not going to add process, compelling and easy to use, and flexible and scaleable. so we've been focused a lot on neighborhood and district scale, but it's intended that even home renovation could pick it up and get some insights. so we are here, the framework itself. we are centered on five goals. healthy air, renewable energy, clean ecosystems and renewable waste. these five goals as well as the 15 targets are all synonymous with existing city goals and commitments. so the planning department cannot creating this in a vacuum. we're using this in a way that allows us to connect these projects with larger city goals. we're under pinning this with climate equity, resilience, and climate. so as you're picking your priorities, how can you make sure that what you're doing to make your project resilient to extreme heat isn't actually creating additional emissions? and then, the lines are just illustrative to point out that all of these things are connected in a modern world so we end up with cost neutral solutions. this is just a four-page summary that illustrates the when, the where, the why, the how. there is five pages, one for each goal. at the top, we have the buckets for equity, resilience, and climate that point out to you things to consider and things to adivide divide as you go thd contemplate your strategies. so you can look at the materials you're using, you can look at the building systems that you're using. there's a lot of different approaches or pathways. then, the third is a summary of really important existing requirements. this is not meant to replicate the green building code and the health code where all these complicated codes live, but to pull out the most salient ones where we can pull them out and make progress. the next one, we're calling enhancements, and it's building on existing city policies and initiatives. so this is where the main team gets together for major projects and we put together or wish list or please can you try to achieve this in your project, but this becomes the kind of dynamic part of the work sheet, and then, the strategy compendium is making this descriptive. we want engineers and designers to tell us the best solutions for achieving these targets? so after we hand this over, we, you know, based on the projects that we are currently in, we have an iterative process with the project team to kind of turn that column of city-family requests into the specific goals for that project. so that column four in the final product, this is actually a snapshot from potrero power station becomes the potrero power station goals, lives as a five-page compendium in their document. and then, the list of strategies actually becomes a directory of where you find all these different strategies and standards and guidelines in their document itself. and then, because spreadsheets can kind of make your head pop off, we have a one-page version, and this is what you might have already seen for the market-octavia plan where we summarize here's all the ways that we're pushing the envelope and what we're proposing in that plan. so lastly, we're creating an on-line guide that we will be excited to bring back to you that will make all of this much more dynamic. and then just really quickly, the five next steps. so we're excited to hear your feedback. we're going to be conducting some stakeholder engagement over the next few months, getting together with community groups, developers, and technical experts. we'll be refining that, and then we'd love to come back with a resolution hopefully early summer. >> president melgar: thank you, miss fisher. >> should i quickly read these support statements or did you want to ask questions first? >> president melgar: can we hear public comment on this item. do we have any speaker cards? yeah -- no? okay. come on up. >> thank you, commission. my name's christopher peterson. i think much of this framework is terrific. i do have one recommendation, which is that the framework be much more explicit and prominent in its discussion of housing. from a climate perspective, because of san francisco's extensive transit network, its walkability, it is appropriate climate, this is one of the most appropriate places in the state to be producing more housing. so i think that this framework should really call out the need and be recommending the provision of additional housing, especially in areas that are close to major transit corridors, commercial centers, and employment centers and commercial districts. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. peterson. next speaker, please. >> greetings, planning commissioners. peter brasto from department of environment. couple other colleagues submitted a written statement, but was able to make it. just got off of yerba buena island, speaking of diversity. that's my role at the department of environment. i'm thrilled with this framework that lisa has been leading and everyone at our interdepartment agency has been working on. when do you see a department with robust ecosystems right smack dab in the middle -- i'm remembering that slide there. we can live in san francisco and berkeley and oakland and mill valley or whatever. we could have 100% renewable energy, and no waste, but do we want to live in a place with no plants or animals or do we want to continue to thrive? it's critical that we do that, and i want to give huge shout out to lisa who's been huge in implementing our work with the biodiversity agency, working with us from the department of environment. so just thrilled a, and thank u so much. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. i have a speaker card from helen brekke. >> i'm with the climate reality bay area, and i want a second dose of the speakers that have already talked regarding housing and biodiversity. i also want to reemphasize what was in the report that city departments need to work together and find more interconnections and networking so that we can achieve the climate emergency goals. everybody working in a silo is not going to succeed, so i wanted to second that. and then, the only thing i wanted to say is i was happy to hear the speaker from the planning department talk about meeting with community as part of this project? i wanted to underscore the importance of that, as well, that it's on the little blush i had, this -- it said that the stakeholder meetings were for designers, developers, and environmental groups. and i think meeting with community, whether or not they have previous interest in the environment, is going to be really key to meeting the climate emergency goals. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, good afternoon. my name is julia, and i work at natural resources defense council. i work in renewable energy? i don't work in sustainable projects, but i am a member of the lower haight homeowners association. the city working with the communities across the seven-by-seven area and really having more of a coordinated effort, protecting the housing, protecting the environment, working on transit, all of this is really important moving this forward. i also wanted to say that there's a lot of work that's gone into this? and i wanted to say thank you for letting me speak, and thank you for all the work you've done on this. thank you so much. >> president melgar: commissioner koppel? >> vice president koppel: thank you. we're working on installing solar on the -- as much of the p.u.c. properties as we have been. it's refreshing to see us working with the downtown buildings and whatnot. just one question -- i like the coverage of the report. are we looking at potential underground transit tunnels? that's just one thing i haven't heard about, and i know they're very vital to how we operate as a city, whether it's muni or the b.a.r.t. tunnels. are we looking at them and protecting them from some potential disasters? >> you're talking about the -- sort of on our resilience aspect? >> vice president koppel: yeah. >> so that citywide division, acting director, we came here, and i presented last year about our sea level rise and vulnerability assessment. that does include the existing underground train tunnels, such as the b.a.r.t. and muni market street tunnel, of which the embarcadero station is a vital component. the next stage is to come up to develop adaptation strategies to come up with that. we've been working with the port of san francisco and others on how to make the waterfront more resilient so that our waterfront is protected. we're also looking at future potential tunnels such as the downtown rail extension or future b.a.r.t. tunnels. >> vice president koppel: thank you. >> president melgar: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: couple of questions for staff. the -- can we expect a sustainability overlay for the hub plan? >> yes. actually, this was the highlight of that so far, and what we've been doing is going -- using, actually, the five work sheets to go through the entire plan and look at where we have any gaps, where we might want to tweak words of the existing policies, and then, we've actually added a new subset of policies specifically around sustainability and resilient where they didn't actually fit within the existing policies. >> commissioner fung: okay. in terms of the, then, specific goals, is that being projected by staff or how are you determining those goals for the hub plan? >> we've been working on that together with the staff and also as it relates to these existing city commitments and definitely leveraging all the work that we did in the central soma plan, which was also an interagency effort. >> commissioner fung: so those goals are also the citywide type of goals. >> right. so the idea is the sustainable neighborhood framework can kind of cement the city ideas and commitments, and then throughout the hub, we can see policies that will support them. we don't envision that the hub itself would have a list of its own goals and targets. the idea is, you know, how can our major planning areas and things going in there work together to kind of realize these types of environments for the people that are living and working there. and the goal is for you guys so that, you know, when these big projects come, they all show you the same table. they can kind of quickly talk about what they're specifically doing. because of course depending on your context, depending on what you're up against with your site, you're going to be able to prioritize things in different buckets. >> commissioner fung: or be able to expand. >> yes. >> commissioner fung: last question, with the potrero power station project, it was suggested they look at an example given the history of the uses on that site and the contamination that occurred, that they consider an example of a net-zero building, which would have been the power plant itself. is that being considered, too? >> yes, and you'll be hearing from them at the end of the month, and we've been working really closely with the mayor's office and oewd and the department of the environment and how that project can be a great example of maybe not net zero but more of, like, net zero carbon? like, we're working with them to not even bring in natural gas, to bring in 100% renewable electricity. >> president melgar: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. thank you so much for the report. you may have covered this, but i just have a couple of questions. one is just how you're thinking about this strategy playing into other strategies around the city, specifically departments, like the neighborhood department network, nert, you know, being prepared for natural disasters, making sure that people have places to go if they can't shelter in place, and making sure the department is responding to the need specifically of communities of color and older housing stock where people can't necessarily shelter in place. is there a response to that? >> sure. in reality, all of those things have been habit and core to the climate resilience plans that we've been working on, with the office of cap raresilience and planning and other city departments. we had a survey go out, like, how are you feeling? how prepared are you? the climate work is focused on climate mitigation, and we are using that as an opportunity to work with them and other groups to talk about the preparedness? so we just had a debriefing with brian strong about the things that have happened so far on that project? and in that, we've teed up to those different stakeholders groups, is that this is the first project out of the gate in this larger climate resilience area of work. and then, we'll be coming back to you about the climate action strategy, we'll be coming back to you about the d.e.m.s and their climate emergency preparedness plan. kind of one of the things we're excited about, this climate resilience interagency program, we can have much more communication clearer to the public? and hopefully, that will inspire both participation but actually people being prepared and being kind of inspired to do things in their own realms and together in their communities? is that helpful? >> commissioner johnson: yeah, that's great. >> president melgar: thank you. commissioner moore? >> are you doing anything to inform the communities about the projects and the work? because i believe it created a complete different dialogue between us and the community. >> in terms of the hazard preparedness part? >> just in terms of the entire program. >> yeah. so there's several workshops going on right now about the waterfront efforts, the port's resilience. we will be circling back. at the hazards plan, it's currently with fema and the state being reviewed, and then, it'll come back and be with the board. how do we create both some open houses where people can come and learn about that as well as all of these emergency preparedness methods and also we have a great -- from the five stakeholder workshops that we created this summer, we have a great network of communication that we can continue to distribute this information. >> president melgar: thank you so much, miss fisher. i think this is really amazing, and i just want to thank you personally because, you know, my fellow commissioners know that i've insisted on calling the climate crisis a crisis, which it is. this past month has been difficult being a human on this earth and see what's happening around us, and i love that you've taken such an approach that is definable and has specific tools that can be applied, and like a drop-down menu, you choose this, you choose that. it's super practical, and it makes me feel hopeful because it's difficult to be, you know, in this time, given the enormity of this impact, tackling this problem project by project. so i want to thank you for taking this seriously and doing such tremendous work. i think we're going to look back in ten years and remember lisa fisher and the work that you've done. thank you for working with the larger city family to get this on the books. thank you -- and looking forward to the resolution. thank you. >> okay. thanks, everyone. >> clerk: commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move onto your next item, but before we do, for the benefit of the public, i am pleased to inform that under your discretionary review calendar, item number 18, at 2727 vallejo street, discretionary reviews, both of them have been withdrawn. so if anyone in the public is here for item 16, both those d.r.s have been withdrawn, and because of that, it will not be considered this afternoon. commissioners, item 12, for the sfpuc alameda creek recapture project report. >> clerk: item 16, 2727 vallejo street, there were two d.r.s filed against that property. both of those d.r.s have been withdrawn. >> good afternoon. chris kern, planning department staff, and joining me are members of the sfpuc project team, including tim ramirez, natural resources manager, who will give you a brief overview of the project following my presentation. the item before you is somewhat of an unusual one. it's the partial recirculation of a draft e.i.r. for the sfpucs alameda recapture project. it's located on s.f. capture lands in alameda county would bypass around the alameda creek diversion dam as part of an effort to reestablish steel head in alameda creek. the draft e.i.r. for this project was published on november 16, 2016, and the planning commission certified the final e.i.r. on june 7, 2017. the final e.i.r. determined that the post project would not result in any significant environmental or biological impacts. on september 19, 2017, the board of supervisors reversed the certification in response to an appeal of the final e.i.r. by the alameda county water district, and the board in that action directed the department to undertake additional analysis of potential impacts of steel head and to submit that report for review. the primary concern with the e.i.r.s analysis of impacts on steel head focuses on the complex interactions between surface waters and groundwater in the project area. and because of the technical nature of this topic, the board also directed the staff to submit our analysis -- our groundwater analysis to a peer reviewer. so per the department's instruction, we engaged a professor to peer review the e.i.r.s groundwater analysis. based on dr. moran's initial review and feedback, our ceqa consultant initially revised and expanded the groundwater analysis. it's included in the recirculated e.i.r. the peer review report concludes that the revised groundwater analysis contained in up and downix hyd 2 r supports the e.i.r. since the board's 2017 reversal of the e.i.r. certification, the planning department and sfpuc staff have held multiple hearings. in response to agency feedback, the sfpuc has revised the proposed project to further limit pumping during the steel head migration season, and tim will provide an overview of these modifications in his presentation. the recirculated e.i.r. contained updates impacts on steel head migration. it also concludes that the project would not have significant impacts on steel head. the recirculated portion of the draft e.i.r. was published on december 4, and the public review period closes on january 21. to date, we've received one comment letter from the alameda county water district stating that the district will not submit any comments opposing the e.i.r. if the department will submit monitoring reports. comments made today and all comments received today during the comment period will be responded to in writing in the responses to comment document. comments should be directed to the information and ad canvasy in the e.i.r. written comments may be submitted to the department by e-mail or regular mail until 5:00 p.m. on january 21. when the responses comment document is complete, the department will provide responses, and we will then return to the commission to request certification of the e.i.r. if the e.i.r. is certified, the sfpuc may consider approval of the project. now i'd like to introduce tim ramirez, who will provide a brief overview of the proposed project, including the recent modifications to the proposed project operations, after which i would request that you open the hearing unless you have questions for staff at that point. >> thank you, commissioners. tim ramirez, director natural resources and land management at the sfpuc. can i have the slides quickly, just a few to try to capture the summary of the project. so this is one of many projects in our water system improvement program. this project is focused on maintaining our water supply reliability to our customers. this commission certified the document for this program in 2008, so we're coming to an end of almost -- over a decade of work. as chris stated, that is to recapture a portion of the flows that we're releasing from our reservoirs and bypassing from our diversion dam upstream. so very quickly, overview map. this shows the entire alameda creek watershed boundary. we're focused on probably what is the peach color at the bottom, where our southern reservoirs are. the northern is the livermore valley. they meet in sunols canyon and then out to the bay. this is a zoom-in of our watershed. in the canyon in between, it's harder to see, is the diversion dam, and we're recapturing water released from the far right of the screen, flows going from the right to the left. and here's alameda creek, and here's some of the quarry ponds that are left from mining. that's the pond that we're -- from which we're proposing to pump water into our system. we are releasing almost 15,000 acre feet of water from our reservoirs down extreme to support the analagous fish, and the project is proposing to recapture some of that. initially, we propose to recapture just over 7,000 acre feet, and we've reduced that now to 6,000 acre feet, and we'll talk about how that's done in just a minute. and we're talking about this pit. this is a pit that's offstream. this is probably the key chart, and in the middle, the original column, is what was initially proposed in the first round of the e.i.r. and on the left is the new proposal. and in summary, the no pumping period has been expanded both earlier into the winter and then further into the spring. and the idea, out of an abundance of caution to the agency's comments, is to really make sure we're not doing anything when there's water in the creek that might affect fish. so the adults are coming back in the winter. we want to make sure we're not affecting their ability to migrate upstream. and then, in the end, in the spring, the young fish are moving downstream, and we don't want to do anything there, as well. in may and june, there's some conditions about whether we can or can't pump, and we wanted to be cautious. we wanted to make sure there's no flow in the creek at all above the project site. so if there's any flow in the creek at all, we're not pumping, and we're also talking about restricting the flow of the pump, as well, in the last slide. and this is the last slide. this is a cross section. alameda creek is on the left, and the key elevation here is that little hatched area of blue where the elevation is 225. we don't want to get below that because we don't want to have the water flow the other direction away from the creek. that's the bottom line, and so we want to make sure we don't affect the migration period in the winter and especially in the spring, when the young fish are migrating. that's my presentation. i'm happy to answer questions, and i'll be here later, also, if you have any. thank you for your time. >> vice president koppel: thank you. now i'd like to open this up for public comment. i have one speaker card, laurel hitus, and if there are any other speakers, lineup on the side of the room. >> thank you for the chance to supplement the initial written comments we subm is to be commended for arthur work to the fishery's work group. since that time, we appreciate the staff has been responsive to our request for information as we continue to review the recirculated e.i.r. in a december 31 letter to planning staff, acwd requested that specific commitments for monitoring and reporting be incorporated into the project. acwd reiterates its request to be reasonable, and we ask that the planning department and staff include requirements in the e.i.r. to operate the project and perform monitoring and compliance data to all watershed stakeholders to ensure the project is operated as described. acwd believes that transparent monitoring and data sharing can build trust between all stakeholders. we will not appose toppose the recirculated e.i.r. if it can contain the requesting monitoring and reporting. thank you for your consideration of the acwd's request, and we appreciate the continued coordination in the alameda creek watershed on these important issues. thank you very much. >> vice president koppel: thank you. >> clerk: if there's no other public comment, the commissioners may wish to chime in. if not, we can move onto the next item. >> vice president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: question, then, for staff. this monitoring program would be a mitigation then? >> chris kern, planning department staff. no, it wouldn't be a mitigation measure because we could only impose mitigation in response to a significant impact under ceqa. the water district in their comment letter requested that we include the additional monitoring and reporting requirements in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project, the mmrp. we're not sure that that's the right mechanism, but the p.u.c. and water district have had some conversations around that and have proposed alternative mechanisms through which the additional monitoring and reporting can be assured, and we're still working out the details on how to accomplish that. >> commissioner fung: there appears to be -- the operational element there is really something between the two agencies. >> that's the planning department's view of the request. >> commissioner fung: okay. >> vice president koppel: and just a reminder to the public, written comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on january 21 of this year. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. seeing nothing further, we can move onto items 13 a, b, c, d, e, and f, for the property at 542 through 550 howard street, also known as the transbay parcel f mixed use parcel for planning code amendments, shadow findings, downtown project findings, study findings, and conditional use authorization findings. >> good afternoon, commissioners. hap happy new year's to each and every one of you. nick foster, planning department staff. so before you are proposals for property located at 552 to 570 hours street. specifically, the commission is -- [inaudible] >> -- 325, to allocate up to 275,764 square feet of general office use, to provide shadow findings, and following two resolutions, one, to provide to the planning commission planning code map amendments to approve an ordinance to adopt a general plan amendment. so in addition to your deliberations today, the zoning administrator is being asked to consider the variance application and to make a determination on the request for relief from selection provisions of the planning code. should the commission approve the project today or at a later date, the board of supervisors would then conduct hearings which would result in the city's final approval or disapproval of the project. onto the project itself. the proposed project includes the construction of a new 61-story mixed-use building, reaching the height of approximately 750 feet, 800 feet if you include all the rooftop screening features. it would include 189 hotel rooms, approximately 276,000 square feet of office use, and approximately 20,000 square feet of open space. as i mentioned with benefit of the planning code amendment, it would require the below market rate units off-site. additionally, the project would include 178 class 1 and 32 class 2 bike parking spaces, with parking spaces accommodating 183 vehicle spaces for the residential hotel and office uses. it would provide a pedestrian bridge to the salesforce park. the commission has previously reviewed this project as part of the initiation of the general plan amendment, which was initiated on december 5 of this last year. it would amend maps 1 and 5 of the downtown plan and figure 1 of the transit center district plan. the amendment would basically facilitate a height and bulk swap on lot 116 and 136 with lots 138 on assessor's block 3721 which is basically eliminating split zoning. on december 10 of last year, supervisor matt haney approved a portion of the planning code and to reclassify the height and bulk district, designations for the portion of the site. also, that ordinance would waive certain provisions of the planning code to allow the required inclusionary could be provided off-site, and basically for a small footprint of the building to not be used for off-sites. the department has received significant public comment on the shadow impact. we received comment on policy 6.6 on the transit center district plan and finally some commented related to potential impacts on pedestrian zone and natoma between 1st and 2nd. jonas handed out a planning out ordinance. this is nonsubsequent, basically some boiler plate language that was updated by the city attorney's office. there was a substantive change to one of the conditions of approval, page 55, number 42 gviii was simply updated to state the inlieu fee was not available. so it's either on-site or off-site, the fee is not available for this project. the last one, as commissioner diamond pointed out, there was a small typo saying that the project was wholly residential. it's not, it's mixed use. [inaudible] >> i'm available for any questions you might have, and of course, the project sponsor is here, as well. thank you. >> president melgar: we will hear now from the project sponsor. >> thank you. good afternoon, madam president, members of the commission. c.j. hickly, land use counsel for the project sponsor. we are really delighted to be here this afternoon. this has been a long time coming. we're very happy to seek your approval of this really important and unique project in the trans-bay area. since you've heard from me a few times in the last few weeks, it's my great pleasure to turn things over to fred pelley, from pelley clark architects, and he'll present the project in the larger urban context, so take it away. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it's a great pleasure to be here, and it's a kind of anniversary to me because 2020 marks the 13th year that i've been involved in the design and execution of the transbay transit center district plan. i frankly see parcel f in many ways as the completion of this incredible visionary plan, and we've taken the assignment of designing parcel f as the culmination, the final set of architectural and urban design contributions to this incredibly important visionary world class center. to that end, let's start with the first slide -- or the second slide. i think it's important -- am i the slide person? to that end, it's very important to somehow keep in mind, this is a hard thing to do because it's been so long, but on the left of the slide is where we were about 15 years ago. the right hand of the slide is where we are today. an enormous amount has been accomplished during that period of time, and as i say, caesar pelli, my late partner, and i have been extremely involved in the transit center district plan. and again, just a simple graphic that shows what happened over that period of time. [please stand by] we began our design of parcel f some four years ago. and we felt that was, given the fact that is the culmination of a long period of building and planning, this is a moment to both look at history and to look at the future. and one of the key inspirations for the architecture of the building was the coloration, the materiality of many of the most significant buildings within the san francisco area. and then particularly, if you will, the bell building which is the immediate neighbor. and i think it's one of the most attractive buildings in the city. they're light in color, substantial buildings. where the glass to solid ratio creates a sense of permanence and solidity. we did not see parcel f as a building that was going to compete with the sales force tower architecturally. because it's a multiuse building, we had the opportunity to express the multiuse qualities from the yachts. in a way, the program is legible as one interacts with the building. it does have a prominent position as one enters the city, particularly from the airport. you can imagine without parcel f there is a gap in the skyline that is waiting to be filled. here you see two views of the building. on the left is the view when you're standing on the salesforce park back toward the project. the upper part is residential. the middle part is office. as you see in the section on the right hand. the lower part is hotel. and the yellow beneath that, the lower 7 floors of the building, where all of the buildings amenities are located. of course, this is also accessible from the part and from the street. so in an interestingly, parcel f has multiple street levels and we've tried to make the street experience three dimensional. there are few opportunities to create a 3d street experience in the way we can in parcel f. i'll get into that later. absolutely critical underline all the work we've done is the impact of the building on the street. both in terms of pedestrian movement, cars and trucks. a great deal of study has been done on how the building meets the street, how we activate all sides of the building, particularly natoma and howard. frankly, how we hide loading docks because this is very visible part of the city. how people can flow easily from the south to the north. that was a particular concern of planning staff. the connection to the very unromantically named under bus ramp park. we need find a better name. all the way up to mission. i think that is going to become an important point of access north to south, but also east to west. the building supports and frames pedestrian movement at the street level. now, i'll talk for just a minute on constraints. this is a site that in many ways there was always intended there would be a building here, but no one thought ahead to how do we create an environment and a site that is ready for a building? to that end, you see the curved triangle in the drawing on the right. that's the tunnel underneath the streets. that's the tunnel that is going to eventually give access to the train box. that's in place. we can't build on top of that. that uses 30% of the parcel f site. that is a no-build area. on top of that, there are three light gray circles. those are the preexisting exhaust fans that will vent that tunnel in emergency conditions. with those two things present, it's really impractical to build a building there at all. so we had to work closely with tcta about how not only to build a building that levers over the train box, but also allows us to move those vents to other locations in the future. that took a year worth of work. the net result, again it's a bit light, but just to the east, to the left of the bus ramp, there is a line of a kind of light blue which will be the new location for the vents. and it's actually a very good and much better location because there is no vertical encumbrance above the vents. those leave the parcel f site. on top of that, we were able to create a wine glass structure so that the building comes down, but then the structure starts to gather toward the middle, that really allows to us lever over the train box. at the same time, it makes the whole lower a floor of the building column-free. very transparent. it touches the ground very lightly. you can see that the loading docks are embedded in the center of the site. here you see the loading blocks dock location in the center. the access is from howard. trucks go into the loading docks onto a turntable. the turntable repositions the trucks to allow them to load and unload. there is no truck impact on natoma at all. flush the other opportunity this presented was that now we're able -- you can see where the orange is located on the parcel f site. we're actually able to put two retail fronts on this location. that is a rare opportunity and it reinforces the sense these are lively streets, accessible streets and are active and visible through many hours of the day. we're also celebrating the pedestrian passage to the west of the site. this is the condition that you see today. on the left hand slide you're standing on natoma looking toward the east. that is the bus ramp above you. on the right-hand side, you're standing on natoma looking back toward the bus ramp toward the west. anyone who walks there today, realises this is -- we're making due with it as public space, but it's not very inviting, not handsome. it has tremendous potential in the future. and that's what we're capitalizing on in parcel f. one of the things that we got quite excited about early on, is that -- this is already happening in san francisco -- you've already got this tradition of making use of spaces that are otherwise back alley spaces. they're spaces people might not think of public, civic destinations. we see that opportunity as parcel f reaches the ground. one of the great effects of having a train box beneath us, we have to build a very, very light structure on top of the train box and the red awning and the two-story cafe you see in the foreground are built on the train box, but that's as much architecture as we can put there. that means the building steps down in scale. very active uses that spill out onto natoma and celebrates this interaction of the building with the back alley, that is natoma today. if you look at it from the other direction, thinks the view -- this is the view to the hotel lobby. but in the upper left hand part of the slide is a fully accessible public elevator that will go from natoma up to the fifth floor, which is the bridge connection to the park. two views you see on the left hand slide, the bridge on the fifth level, the public elevator to the left connecting to the park. on the right hand slide is the hotel entrance and the public elevator just beyond. if you look carefully, the parcel f building is very transparent, very open and that is the result of the wine glass structure pulling all of the structural support toward the inside. fortunately, parcel f will be one of three buildings connecting by bridge to the park. in many ways it's the western anchor to park activities. 181 fremont connects by bridge, but this fifth floor in parcel f is essentially a whole other street level. we worked to put amenities there, to put access points for the public. clearly, it's the easiest way in and out of the building at the park level. and this is a view when you're standing on the park. the bridge is in the foreground. the pedestrian elevator is on the left. you can see just how open, light, transparent and welcoming the lower levels of parcel f will be. this is it. this is the way the building meets the sky. >> president melgar: lovely. okay. thank you very much. had one more thing to add? >> yes, i know i said i was going to let fred do the talking, but there were other points. >> can you take one minute, because you've gone over. >> i'll try to make it quick. i just wanted to emphasize as i think you all know, we have had concern over the shadow issue. i'm really happy to report that we have finalized the deal with the community organizations. i'm sure you'll hear more about that. i'm happy to talk to you about it as well in light of the time constraint. i'll just also say that i wanted to quickly mention the issue of affordable housing. and this project's relationship to the block 4 project. as you know, we're proposing to fill our inclusionary requirement by providing offsite affordable units. and it is our great hope and desire that is able to happen at transbay block 4. the project is currently under review with ocii. we're negotiating at dda and have every reason to believe we're going to be back here later this spring for consideration of that project. i want to point out that the two projects together represent a really extraordinary contribution to the city's housing stock. it willing 800 units of housing in the downtown. i think it's a fantastic solution for the affordable housing knot we've had. >> president melgar: we will now take public item. i have several speaker cards. paul, lauren, cynthia and danny. anyone else who wishes to speak on the item, please line up on the left and come up now. >> good afternoon, my name is paul. i'm with clearway energy. we run the district energy grid here in san francisco. it's over 100 years old. it actually warms this room. and i just wanted to make sure that policy 6.6 of the transit center district plan is followed for parcel f. we're very excited about parcel f. it's a beautiful tower. i think a tremendous addition to san francisco and its housing stock. policy 6.6 requires that district heating, district energy is utilized if it's accessible. and we're actually located -- we have our line located at 2nd and howard street, so we're available, we're ready to connect. and this is actually a fantastic thing for the city because it actually future-proofs the property. we're moving towards zero carbon. and we're working with sfpuc. and so as soon as we have zero carbon fuels going into our system, everyone connected to our grid benefits from that. so i think it's a very sustainable offering that we provide. that will include the city hall as well. so that is all i wanted to say. i just want to be sure we're included. we're in the original plan drawn over ten years ago. and i hope that it becomes a reality. thank you. >> jonas: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. executive director of local city. we have no quarrel with this project but for one thing, the destruction of the great car-free pedestrian base at the transit center. this is -- the sales force center is amazing. i was there this week. the park is incredible. it's an incredible public building. it's great transstation, but where it's failed is the environment around. we all know that have to a really great transit oriented neighborhood, you need to look at what is happening at ground level. these places happen, live or die, based on what is happening at the ground level. this is the typical condition at ground level right now. this is ministry fronting on the terminal between 1st and 2nd. as you can see, for decades the department has approved projects that have added loading docks or garage entrances and just kind of chopped up the block. it's a terrible idea for two reasons. one, you create this horrible condition, it's not lively, it's a lot of dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians because of vehicles going in and out. it precludes turning the streets on the project into pedestrian streets. we recently voted to make market streetcar-free. we were lucky, there weren't a lot of loading docks and garages. because they preclude those things. as long as they're active, you can't create a car-free space. this is one exception. this is the space today. if this project goes through unamended, what you'll see is the area in the foreground, back to where the food trucks are, is going to be wiped out. there is going to be a cul-de-sac put in and a garage for almost 200 cars. it's going to mean two things. one, you lose the pedestrian space that exists now. it also means that we preclude or foreclose the opportunity to extend this pedestrian space. if you go to that block, you can see the foundry square project has a garage entrance, but you can go back several hundred feet more and create a bigger pedestrian owasioasis. if you put a garage in the middle of the block, you're not going to be able to do that. i harken back to an earlier presentation on the sustainability plan. if we're serious, if climate is an emergency, if this changes everything, why are we here today destroying a pedestrian oasis to create more parking spaces. we ask you to approve the project with the condition that it not add the driveway and the loading -- vehicle loading on natoma street. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> so, i'm with local 2, as you all well know, the hotel and hospitality workers union, we're here today in support of this project. the support letter would be in your packet, but there were a few last-minute details. they've been sorted out and this project comes with guarantees there will be a fair process for the workers of the hotel to join a union and be able to bargain for living wage, affordable health care, respect on the job and dignity on the job which is crucial for this sector of the workforce. as you'll hear me say, it's the kind of commitment that we ask any developer should be prepared to make. we're in support of the project and ask you to approve it. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. good afternoon. i'm a resident of the east cut neighborhood where the project is located and chair of the advisory committee. unlike, for example, mission bay or treasure island, there is no master plan governing development of the east cut neighborhood, so each individual project must be considered particularly carefully for its impact, not just on our neighborhood, but on the city as a whole. parcel f, the project that is proposed, turns a blighted parcel in my community into a neighborhood asset. and fills the city's need for more housing, more hotel rooms and more office space. and as mr. clark showed us, it will bring much needed street-level retail activation to enliven and benefit the neighborhood and city. parcel f is also described, features this unique amenity, the skyway bridge connecting the salesforce park. as important, as discussed earlier, parcel f expedites construction and delivery of 336 affordable housing units ocii block 4 in the transbay redevelopment project area. a key contribution to what would be a population of 3,000 citizens living in affordable units in the east cut neighborhood. indeed, an unprecedented 49% of block 4's homes will be affordable. block 4 planning is proceeding apace. and we have found the developer heinz to be approachable, cooperative and responsive to community concerns about both of these developments, parcel f and block 4. and understanding that the projects contribute more to the neighborhood than the sum of each project's parks. the development of block 4 currently an empty lot behind a chain link fence, will not occur without parcel f moving forward simultaneously. on behalf of the transbay citize citizens advisory committee, i ask the approval of the requests today so that ocii and the city can continue to work with heinz to fill in two blighted parcels still marring the east cut neighborhood and add another signature high rise and tax revenue generating property to what is quickly becoming the city's most engaging and vibrant neighborhood. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, president melgar, vice president, commissioners. i, too, want to wish you a happy new year. it's my first time this year speaking. danny campbell. sheet metal workers, trustee with the construction trades council. i'm here on behalf of the council in lending our wholehearted support, the developers and project sponsor was engaged very early on with us and committed to build this project badly needed housing for the city with the fine women and men of the san francisco building construction trades council. i heard estimate at term peak, there might be 3,000 union construction jobs building this project. you can rest assured it will be built with the highest skilled labor that the industry offers. so thank you very much. we look to your support. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. campbell. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michele. i am a d6 resident and with united place. we're here today in support of the project. we are super happy to see 300 affordable housing units in the pipeline especially the 40 units for sro families. that's a huge win. shadow is also very important, so we're super happy that the developer has mitigated their impact with the community that is impacted -- that it's impacted and we're confident they would. as a resident, i appreciate that this project puts hotels where hotels belong, which is east of fifth street. heinz has been a partner united place, so we're happy to support them and happy to say they have committed and have been working with us on a rebuild and expansion of our youth center. so we are excited for the day that we come before you as a project sponsor maybe. thank you. >> happy new year. president. i just want to say, you know, a native of san francisco, building a relationship is important to us. it's something that is authentic. it's building a bridge. there is a lot at people instrumental from heinz meeting with us, and they have partners like chris collins and rich peterson who was very helpful in bridging this gap. i want to say with these types of relationships, this is how we build our city. when i was at the inauguration yesterday, london breed was talking about how we need these projects like this to happen so we can get these folks off the street in affordable housing. thank you. >> mayor breed: thank you. next speaker, please. >> afternoon, commissioners. eddie for bright line, also representing community youth center, chinatown community development center, sro family united, parks and recreation in chinatown and myself. we're very appreciative first of all of the planning commission listening to community concerns coming out of chinatown about the impacts of parcel f. today, we're filing a letter of support that should have been circulated in your e-mail, talking about after working with the state-sponsorponsor we've w the families and the project sponsor to ensure that the programs within chinatown are supported as well. with that, i'll kick it off, families as well to describe it more in detail. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioners, president melgar, representing the sro family collaborative. if you know my history in san francisco, i, 12 years ago, came here, started working with families that live in single room occupancy hotels. we're talking about multi-generational families that share a 10 by 10 room or even smaller in the chinatown sros, where grandmother, grandfather, children, parents, all share the same room. and share shower facilities and kitchen facilities with everybody on the floor. if they're lucky. or everybody in the building if they're not. and so open space is a really big issue for our community. and so we're happy to be here today and see opportunities increased for sro families through the affordable housing partnership to this project, which really, we believe is going to have a tremendous impact for families that are going to be able to access this affordable housing opportunity. and will mitigate the effect that the shadow would have had or will have on willie woo woo wong playground. so it's really exciting to be here after a month of intense communication and show our support for the project. and to be here today to share that with you. so thank you very much for your steadfast support of the community. it wouldn't have been possible without all of you. so we're excited to be here today. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, happy new year, commissioners, cory smith on behalf of the san francisco housing coalition. staff got the opportunity to review the project. while we realize there is just one proposal in front of you, what we're seeing is this and block 4 as tied together. so when we're talking about more than 300 new subsidized affordable homes and the quantity of homes between the two projects, we're really excited. that will represent a 35% inclusionary rate, which for a private development with zero public dollars is a really, really significant numbers that we and everybody else here is enthusiastic to see. great seeing all of the labor partners out here as well. we know that this will be built, as mr. campbell said earlier, to the highest possible standards. one other thing we want talk about, though, the $1.1 billion that is going to go to the city of san francisco from the project. $56 million of one-time fees, $288 million of tax revenue over the next 30 years, almost $500 million in fees. $177 million related to the tcc phasing. and then i'm just going to add this in, the $45 million associated with the block 4 project. $1.1 billion on top of affordable housing is really a win for everybody. so we were absolutely enthusiastic about it and i ask that you move it forward. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. smith. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners, my name is jim chapel and i'm here representing the san francisco bay area planning and urban research association. i've been involved with the planning of the transbay district since early 1995 when the location of the new terminal was selected. this includes extensive consultation in my role as then executive director of spur. on various planning studies to develop the transbay neighborhood plan on setting up the design competition for selection of the terminal and tower developer and setting up the community benefit district to help maintain the public realm. i urge you to take all necessary steps to approve the project as proposed, including the general plan amendment, planning code and zoning amendments, adoption of the section 295 findings, downtown project authorization, prop m office develop allocation, and cu authorization. parcel f is a key component and built out of the transbay center. spur is a strong supporter of the plan to focus regional growth in downtown san francisco. sculpt the downtown skyline. invest in the transportation infrastructure, street and public realm and protect historic resources downtown. this location is the right place for growth due to its proximity to regional transit and the center for regional employment. people who work in downtown san francisco are the most frequent users of transit. it is environment impatience pairtive we -- imperative we focus growth in such places. parcel f will provide not only 165 residential units, 275,000 square feet of office, 199 hotel, ground floor retail and indoor and outdoor privately owned public open space, but in addition, will fund the construction of over 300 new affordable apartments nearby. the ground floor is designed to be oriented toward pedestrians with lobbies and retail long both howard and natoma facing the transit center. the design of the proposed building solves the requirements of a complicated site and building program. it will be a positive contribution to the streetscape and the skyline of the city. i urge you to affirmatively vote today on the six actions to improve the development of parcel f as a long-planned part of the transit center district plan, a plan that is key for the city and region. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. public comment is now closed. did you want to chime in? >> thank you. good afternoon. commissioners, i wanted to just jump in to touch on the variance to give a quick update. this case has six different action items on the agenda for the planning commission. unfortunately, they should have had seven. there should have been a 7th item for the variance case itself that somehow did not make it on the agenda even though it was noticed. so i can't take action on it today, or it can't be considered heard, so we'll have to schedule the variance hearing to be scheduled at the time next special hearing to have that heard. i wanted to make that point. hands are tied there because it's not on the agenda, so we can't have that count. having said that, came prepared to have the hearing, reviewed all the material, heard everything here today, and just for your reference, i am supportive of the variances. there is exceptional and extraordinary circumstances here with the constraints to the site, the train box below, with the mix of uses, other factors. there seems to be clear justification for the variances and i'm supportive of them. obviously, we'll have a formal hearing in the future. >> president melgar: thank you. that does not preclude us from taking action on the rest? >> absolutely not. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioner koppel: so i've been on this commission for three-and-a-half years. this was the first meeting i accepted. heard about the project literally three-and-a-half years ago. so glad to see it here today finally. i really like the mixture that creates the true mixed use here. they were dealing with a lot of constraints with the small footprint along with the transit tunnels below. so i really think they're making the most out of is this. this small plot of land. this definitely fits in with the neighborhood. i really like how the building accesses the public within the ground floor and also connecting to the top of the transbay park. the fees like cory smith mentioned are just astronomical. thrilled to see the permanent jobs. and also mr. campbell with the temporary 3,000 construction jobs. don't forget, there is going to be a lot of apprenticeships on this job. we just swore in a new class of apprentices. i'm thrilled these people are going to get a chance to work on a job like this. which is sometimes work we don't actually get to do. seeing rudy here and mr. on, just solidified the full support for the project. and i'm definitely very supportive today. >> president melgar: thank you, commissioner. >> commissioner diamond: i want to echo commissioner koppel's praise for all of the tremendous benefits of the project. i do have two loose ends. i have a question for mr. on. so i was very pleased to get the letter of support on behalf of all of the organizations. i assume first these are all the organizations that raised concerns at the initial general plan hearing, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner diamond: are you satisfied that you have an executed enforceable agreement with whatever the terms were, or are those remaining steps? i believe we have executed an agreement. >> commissioner diamond: tau thank you. a question for the project architect. very, very beautiful design. reflecting many years of work. could you address whether or not you looked at the alternative of no vehicular entry on natoma? >> we looked at that and a number of options. the issue is we have to have a drop-off for the hotel. and the hotel -- the hotel is a relatively small hotel. it's kind of in the boutique category, so its demands for vehicular drop offare modest. because we were part of the planning in general, we bent over backwards to preserve natoma as a pedestrian environment even though there is a small incursion of cars. it literally does not work without a hotel drop-off. that is extremely important to recognize. 540 howard also has a loading dock, so it is already invading the natoma area. interesting statistic. if you take -- maybe an overhead just to make the point -- if you look at the entire extent of the natoma pedestrian area, it is still entirely pedestrian, even though there is a drop-off here. if you look at the entire surface area of natoma environment, the drop-off represents 9% of the surface area. so we worked very, very hard to be sure that cars and pedestrians can equally occupy that space. cars are behind ballard, so it's very, very safe. the access to the parking garage below grade is actually on the property of parcel f. so that is parcel f's property to do what they need to do. but we felt that 9% incursion into that otherwise entirely pedestrian environment was a reasonable solution. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore: i had the benefit of spending additional hours on talking about exactly that same point. i looked at the alternatives that were studied together with planning and everybody else, and it's amazing to see what one thinking might be an alternative and what it comes to is better in the end, which is so finally tuned and well together, there is no way than seeing in a complex project. particularly when the parcel is more than a third, almost half encumbered by technicalities. so i think the project on its own, aside from the quiet elegance, i think it's a marvelous addition and makes the park come alive. without it, it's just a single building and a long park kind of leading to nowhere. but now you're starting to frame it. the way it integrates back into the urban environment on both sides, just slightly different building types, more street-related activity, i think it's a fabulous project. and i think the city is making a major step having committed to one developer who can deliver on that high level of performance, but also daring to hire the same architect. because mostly we're so much into diversity and new look, et cetera, we're forgetting that there is real power in the simple elegant gesture to also make the park finally that civic gesture we all have been hoping for. i was critical from day one on. i've been on the commission for a long time. i looked at the competition. did not feel that the park spanning that long was the right answer. and i've completely changed my mind. i also had a very interesting discussion about the tower being on the southwest corner of the park. does it's location and height affect the quality of putting shadow on the park? i like mr. clark to speak to that himself. because as we're talking about it, he was kind of like interested in calling pete walker and talk about that very question. there is a very high investment in a quality park that has now already -- the public is owning the park. and i'm saying, are we losing anything? if you would speak about that. >> i would like to. i'm going to use another graphic. pardon me, i'm sketching on this drawing. so that's part of what you're seeing here. i spoke with adam green span who is a principal at pete walker partner and he was the key landscape designer for the park. suffice it to say, he knows every species in the park. if you ever get the opportunity to walk around with adam to learn about what he's put there, you realize that everything is there for a purpose. what goes hand-in-hand with that, from the very first moment that the park was talked about, we all asked the questions about shadows. this is a park in the middle of a city that eventually knew was going to be surrounded by high rise buildings. immediately, it's going to be in shadows. that was part of pete walker and adam's consideration in terms of planting from the beginning. what is really interesting from a micro point of view, the far eastern end of the park is much foggier and wetter than the eastern end. there are dozen a micro climates within the park and a dozen subgardens that talk to each of those micro climates. the far west is the driest. it's for the prehistoric garden occurs. the shadows today actually are coming more from the east end. 181 cast a significant shadow on the park. i've been on that east end many, many times. and broad sunlight -- actually, it's hot certain times of the year. it's a lovely place to sit. what you realize immediately is that if it's 1500 feet long and five acres, there are going to be areas of shadow, there are going to be areas of sun. it has that modulation that one finds in great parks. it's never all in sun. it's certainly never all in shadow. the foundry square buildings, 181 freemont, even block 5 are casting shadows on the site. what is really wonderful about that, we're now able to measure a park that is there, operating in place, to see what the net effect of all of these new shadows are on the park. and there have been none. it turns out that pete walker and adam were being very sensitive to placing this within an urban context, which is never purely in the sun or purely in the shadow. it works to mod late with the light conditions. on top of that, the buildings on the northern side of the park are almost all glass. those buildings are actually reflecting light back into the park. we had never anticipated that. that reflected light tends to fill the shadows on the south. so even though there might be a shadow on the park, if you look carefully -- i've done this many times -- within the shadow are sparkles of light. it's a measurable effect. it's mitigated the shadows and it means that the plants in shadow are getting this reflected light. so you know, the wonderful thing, it has this kind of organic quality. it's not a hypothetical as commissioner moore was just commenting on. we know exactly how it's behaving. and it's behaving very, very well. >> commissioner moore: thank you. that was a poetic way of describing it. there is no piece of paper that can make up that type of discussion. thank you so much. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioner koppel: well, barring any commissioners wanting to separate the items, i wanted to make a motion to approve. and ask for a little direction if we can take all six at once or not? >> approval -- >> i don't see any reason why you can't. >> president melgar: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i would like to take the overall shadow discussion out. i owe it to my own reputation that prop k shadows is nothing i can support. that is basically my name to fame. i would appreciate if we would call that item separately. >> so motion to approve items 13, a, b, d, e and f. >> second. >> president melgar: very good. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the general plan amendment to the board of supervisors and approve the planning code and zoning map amendments. approve the downtown project authorization and office development allocation with conditions and the conditional use authorization. on that motion. diamond aye. fung aye. johnson aye. moore aye. koppel aye. melgar aye. so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. on the matter of the shadow findings, to adopt them -- >> commissioner koppel: okay, yes liked to make a motion to approve item 13c. >> second. >> on that motion then to adopt the shadow findings. diamond aye. fung aye. johnson aye. moore no. koppel aye. melgar aye. so moved that motion passes 5-1, with commissioner moore voting against. >> president melgar: thank you. >> that places us on item 14, case number 2019, 2007cua. 2100 market street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> excuse me, if you don't mind leaving the room quietly, we have additional business to attend to. >> good afternoon. planning department staff. item before you is request for conditional use authorization to establish financial services use within a newly constructed vacant 2999 square foot commercial retail space located at the ground floor of 2100 market street. the project is seeking conditional use authorization from the planning commission to establish a retail use and establish a financial services use for the upper market neighborhood conditional transit district. it extends along market street from church to castro streets. upper market is a multipurpose commercial district that provides limited convenience goods to neighborhoods and serves as a shopping street for a broader trading area. the subject property is located within a mixed use building that was approved by the planning commission february 2014, and completed construction 2019. flat iron shaped lot with 129 feet of frontage on market street, 12 feet of church street and 141 feet of frontage on 14th street. the party proposes to occupy a 2999 square foot flat iron shaped commercial space with 172 square feet of frontage of market street. 17 feet of -- 56 feet on 14th street for 150 linear feet of frontage. the entrance to the current space is located on the church street frontage. stirling bank and trust at the ground floor of the subject property. it would include improvements, but no alterations to the exterior. sterling bank has 20 branchs in the bay area and two east coast branches. a bank is located on the market west, 2122 market street. the sponsor has that property terminating the lease in the near future. they conducted a survey in december of 2019. it was a 300 foot radius from the project site. the study found there are three existing formula retail establishments out of 47 active commercial uses. these include compass real estate, coffee, crossroads trading, 24 hour fitness, walgreens and the existing sterling bank. the lots contain the structure of the safeway shopping center is located outside the 300-foot radius. sense the bank has been -- since the bank has been relocated, there would be no nominal increase to the establishment, but 303, the criteria in which the commission shall consider the project, the analysis for retail concentration area is review of the linear footage of store frontage. it's 20.6% of total commercial linear frontage within the 300-foot radius. the bank is proposed to be relocated to a space with 150 linear feet of frontage resulting in net increase of 125 linear feet. this would result in the concentration of 26.6%. 303, the conditional use criteria provides that within the upper market if an application would bring the formula retail concentration within 300-foot radius to concentration of 20% or more the planning staff shall recommend disapproval of the application to the planning commission. the study also found that there are 10 vacant commercial store fronts and the total of 57 store fronts in the area. that is 17.5%. department has received a fair amount of public comments regarding this project. at the time of the case report, the department received three letters in support. the castro merchants, the district and the eureka valley. since the publishing of the case report, the department has received three additional letters in support which include the council of merchants association, a founder of the academy, a local business and the letter signed by the members and management of sf pride and prc. the department has received nine letters in opposition from neighbors living within the vicinity of the project and letter from the triangle neighborhood association. they share a concern about the size of the space, and the limited commercial and pedestrian activity that results from a bank. since the report, two additional letters were received in opposition from local residents. these are available for review online and i have hard copies if the commissioners would like to review. further requirements of section 303, the department recommends disapproval of the conditional use authorization as the project would result in an increase concentration to above 20% in an already concentrated area in the upper market. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available for questions. >> president melgar: thank you. do we have a presentation from the project sponsor? >> yes, just a minute while we set up. good afternoon. my name is walter. i'm the attorney for serling bank and trust. commissioners, sterling bank does not seek to establish a financial service in the upper market castro community. they're already an integral part of that community and have been for 24 years, but the lease is up and they need to move. they seek to move next door. literally next door as you can see. can we have the computer? literally next door, you can see on the left-hand side of the screen, the existing branch. the proposed branch is just on the right-hand side of the screen. that's all we're talking about here. the report assumes that the choice is between sterling staying where they are or moving next door. that's a false choice. the lease is up, either they're moving next door or out of the neighborhood. the staff report says that the next-door move is allowed, the concentration of retail in the neighborhood will go from 20.6% to 26.6%, a total which staff urges is significant. i urge you that 6%, which is shown -- the difference shown on the pie graphs is a very insignificant, diminimous number and the number is inflated and misleading and that's because we were instructed to only count spaces that are already occupied. what we didn't count is all the unoccupied spaces in the neighborhood. and the veritable plague of v c vacancies in the neighborhood which i live as well. let's face it, the real significant number is the large and ever growing number of vacancies. these photos that we're showing now show just some -- these are 15 photos -- just some of the vacancies within a two-block radius. the last thing this neighborhood needs is another vacant space. i would point out there are more vacant retail spaces than available. the third point i want to make is not all retail banks are the same. the three others in the neighborhood, chase has 5100 branches worldwide. wells fargo has 8,000 as you can see on the chart there. even bank of the west has 600. stirling has 26 total and half of them are here in san francisco. it is truly a locally focused organization. i want to say about the 303d1 reason why this petition is recommended to be denied, that law says that if the application would bring the total over 20%, it would be denied, but as staff indicated, it's already over 20%. so that section does not even apply. with that, i want to turn it over to sterling bank and trust senior vice president. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is steve adams. senior vice president of sterling bank and trust. our lease is up at 22 market street, so i need to move that bank. i just want to move it next door. i got unanimous approval from the castro merchants, eureka valley neighborhood association and the castro cbd. i'm a community bank. i'm not wells fargo, i'm not b of a, i'm not a big bank. we're one of the last banks in san francisco that runs on sro housing. it's one of the reason i want to stay at that end of market street. people say what about the other spaces? i spent seven years as president of the castro merchants. we have a high concentration of banks at market and castro. there is no other banks down at the other end. we're one of the last banks that lend on the sros and a lot of the sro clients are in that part of market street. a lot of the people who live in these aros, i banks them on the bank of san francisco program, which the other banks don't. 95% of the people that i bank in the bank of san francisco program bank at my market street branch. i've been involved in the neighborhood for over 24 years. when i was president of the castro merchants, i, along with others, brought the milk movie to the neighborhood. i along with others brought the farmers market to castro. the bank is one of the few banks that supports the castro holidays. we're one of the few that support windows for harvey. i work with the sisters of perpetual indulgence on pink saturday, putting up the bank branch to put cash in the branch at 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning when other banks wouldn't. i've been the treasurer of the castro street fair. so we're involved in the community. and what i'm asking you today, is i don't want to leave the neighborhood. i paid my diaw dues and i want to continue paying my dues in the neighborhood. i live in the neighborhood and there is a lot of people here helping support me stay in the neighborhood. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. we will now take public comment on this item. i have several speaker cards. line up on the left-hand side and come on up. >> my name is robert. i'm actually going to read a note from andrea she had to leave early. i'm on the castro cbd retail committee. i'm also head of research for cushman and wakefield in northern california, so my job is to track the retail and commercial real estate markets across the region. and i'm also a resident of the castro. so first from andrea, speaking for andrea, executive director for the castro community benefit district. i'm here today to share the cbd strong support for the project. sterling bank is a good neighbor with a strong history of giving back to the community. they're proposing a move next door to the current space. the cbd understands that this move puts them this corner over the limit, however, we also understand this is the planning commission's role to consider the realities on the ground. and sometimes a variety of department recommendations. we're asking you to do this. the castro is suffering from commercial vacancievacancies. not allowing sterling to move into the spot will cause a vacancy at this visible corner. it will add to 15th and cheyenne sanchez, another visible vacancy. this space is large and the restaurants are trending toward fast casual and smaller spaces. several restaurants have gone out of business in this neighborhood recently. the only new business opening in the castro tend to be coffee shops. the corner of church and market is saturated with these types of businesses and we urge you to work with us to vote yes on this agenda item. that's it. thank you for andrea. for myself, personally, tracking real estate and tracking retail in san francisco has been a challenge. no doubt about it. from union square, which is suffering from high vacancy now and vacancy rate that is going to go up further. so neighborhoods, my neighborhood, the castro, which is suffering recently from body clothing store closing on castro street and from cafe flora closing just down the block. we need more retail, however we can get it. retail has changed essentially forever and it's affecting all markets around the world. and san francisco is certainly having its issues across the board. so i'm hoping that we can create a retail, a lively retail store front at this corner and keep it active. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners, for allowing me to speak on behalf of this project. my name is joseph. i've been asked to present the following statement on behalf of president of castro merchants, and owner broker. sterling bank has been a part of our community for many years. sterling bank has always provided outstanding financial services to many people in our community. sterling bank and steve adams have demonstrated their support to the community time and time again in many ways. i am in full support of their permit request per relocation to 2100 market street. i strongly feel that a denial of their permit would be a gross injustice to sterling bank and to our community. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, everyone. my name is kent. i'm here -- i live about two doors down from the current sterling bank and the proposed one. and i'm here in support as a neighbor. i met steve adams at the academy, which is a social and community club a couple of doors down. he's the real deal. he runs a local bank. i'm a small business owner. i have a lot of friends who are small business owners. i'm gay. and he's part of our community. he literally runs a bank two doors down from me where you can walk in as a drag queen and be taken seriously about funding a project that you're doing two streets down. and there is anyone who wants to say he can't stay in the neighborhood, that he can't move next door, just -- i can't even believe we're having the conversation. steve is the real deal. i don't know if i'm allowed to say this, but he's also the president of the small business commission, so he has -- he wears a lot of hats. sometimes he's the president of the merchants group, sometimes he's this. he's there. he's in the community. and he represents the bank. and they're real and i go to them for advice and counsel. they're a local establishment that serves our community. and he wants to move next door and i think he's awesome. even if there were no vacancies, even if all of the stuff that is going on which everyone is going to speak much more eloquently than me about, even if that was the case, i would still be here supporting him and his local bank that supports us as small businessmen who are sometimes the minority. and he has always made me feel and my other friends who are in small business in the neighborhood like we're just as important as everybody else and i support him. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is paul miller. i'm the owner of a small business on the same block and i live in that neighborhood as well. i came down today in support for a couple of reasons. one as previously said, it is important to have a bank there in that neighborhood. if you want to use a smaller bank, there really isn't an option in that area. you're either forced to use chase or wells fargo is really the only option. and if you want to support small local bank, there isn't anything for us to use. and that would be only four doors down from our business. so i'd like, if we had the opportunity, to continue to do so. the other thing which i'm understanding is an issue, is apparently the amount of store frontage it takes up. having been in the neighborhood for some time, i can tell you that my feeling is actually the opposite. i'm hoping that they can move so they can take up more street space. part of the problem is, you walk down that block, it feels like things are closing. so even if it's the same amount of businesses to take up more space and look in and see traffic, many of you know who come out of the church and market muni station there, often there are homeless people creating encampments and while this is not going to solve the problem, it certainly makes it feel like you're not going through a slum, instead, you're on a busy street. and lastly, i wanted to comment on the fact that i understand that some people are frustrated with the developer for the way they've handled this. and i know that some people aren't necessarily thrilled how they're using the residential space up above. but this isn't what we're here for today. what we're talking about is can this bank go into this space? i think it's quite separate. i understand we would love to pick and choose the businesses, but unfortunately, we don't get to choose what goes in. what we do is choose whether the businesses that want to do business can. there are spaces for smaller retailer and we'd love to have them. there is spaces for restaurants and we'd love to have them. there is a business saying can i be in this space, part of this neighborhood, and i can't see why we would say no. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> my name is brian springfield. i live one block from the location of sterling bank. i've lived there 21 years. and i live across street from a vacant commercial space zoned for restaurant use at 2175 market. it's never leased. it's sat vacant for three years now. 2175 was also the location of a business venture called myriad, like a food hall concept, multivendor. that struggled for a while and eventually failed. i support their application to move next door to the current location because i'm really concerned about the vacant store fronts in the castro. i've seen the closures of chow restaurant, the original location at church and market followed by cook shop that moved in right after them. across the street was grapevine, down the street, sushi, finntown and just recently cafe flora closed after 47 years of business at their location. that's just the restaurants. that's just as far down market street as sanchez street. so it's a real problem. i keep mentioning these restaurants because i hear some people are opposing the application because they want to see a restaurant go in this space, but wishing for something doesn't make it true. these commercial spaces become a problem for the neighborhood once vacant because they make worse on the situation on the streets in that they invite -- first of all, they reduce foot traffic and they invite people to camp out in the doorways of the businesses and this makes it difficult for the businesses that are staill operating to be successful. i don't want to see closures at all. sterling bank, their lease is up at the current location, so staying there is not an option. so the choice didn't between allowing them to move next door, or asking them to stay put, the choice is between one vacant store fronts and two vacant store fronts. i would rather see one than two. i urge you to support their application to move next door. i'll also sing steve adams praises if i have time. i was a resident of the neighborhood and he urged me to be on the board. he is actively recruiting to support and join the neighborhood organizations and i was a beneficiary of that. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm gwen, owner of a small business, ace mailing, and founder and current vice president of the northeast mission business association. i have been president of the small business commission and been a commissioner for years. and i want to say sterling wants to move next door. i think it is very, very important that we keep them exactly where they are in that location. they've given so much to the community. i also live on market, so i drive or walk past that every day. and i do want to say that from the holiday and christmas tree celebration in the castro, to supporting the sros and to being a really great lender and help to small businesses, i just can't imagine that we're not going to support sterling bank moving next door. we don't need any more vacancies and we do need sterling bank. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm stephen cornell. i am past president of the district merchants, past president of the small business network, past president of the small business commission. i have owned a business for 40 years on polk street. i am here to say something about sterling bank. i've been around for a long time. i've seen businesses come in. they want to be part of the neighborhood. they want to be part of the association. they want something. they need something to become part of us. and then when they don't need us, they go away. sterling bank has been part of all of these associations i just talked about all the time. they didn't want something. they wanted just to part of our association, part of our functions. everything we do. they'll go and buy tickets for dinner and show up. they don't say, hey, we bought ten tickets and we have eight tickets available for anybody. they come with the staff. they come and they're part of us. they are really a great business partner. if all of the rest of the community could do that, we wouldn't have any problems. we should be bending over backwards for sterling bank to move 100 feet away. please approve this. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is brian spears. so i'm kind of wearing two hats. i'm the developer of the property and i'm also the owner of lucky 13 bar, which is a small business on the same block. i've been a customer of sterling bank for over 20 years. i personally know steve and i think he's an outstanding individual and has done a lot for the community. >> i'm sorry. are you saying you're the developer of the property? so the owner of the property? so you're somewhat the project sponsor? >> i'm associated with the project. >> president melgar: your time to speak was in the beginning. >> i thought as a neighbor i could speak. >> cory smith, i'm speaking as individual, resident and someone who does not bank at sterling bank, but i've spent a lot of time and know the folks and stephen well. and his reputation for doing good work for the city absolutely proceeds him. and it was walking before and he said we're trying to move next door. i'm sure he's spent a fair amount of time as president complaining about how the city gets in the way at times of businesses being able to do business. it's the concept of moving next door that has become complicated and burdensome than it probably needs to be. so for this item itself, wholeheartedly encourage you to move it forward and grant the cu, because we have a good community member who wants to stay in the community, and wants to continue doing work with the community and that should be applauded. >> president melgar: any other public comment? >> walter parsley. >> you've already spoken, sir. >> you're part of the project team. >> i'm also a resident. >> president melgar: sorry. >> jonas: you've spoken. >> president melgar: any other public comment? with that, public comment is closed. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to ask mr. adams to speak a little bit about the size of your new operation. and i think that is most of the problem. mr. adams has been forever the voice of small business. a number of years ago, this commission had a subcommittee which i served on together with commissioner fung, where we worked with mr. adams and talked about the nuts and bolts of small business. however, now, i'm asking you, and as i think the department, you're moving from a small space into a significantly larger space. >> yes. >> i think it is the frontage, including the size how it affects the public realm where a bank itself is not seen as a sidewalk, neighborhood, as much as as any other type of use. speak about why you're enlarging to this extent? >> well, it's a little bit bigger than the space we're in now. >> twice as large i think. >> the space i'm in now goes further back. it goes almost back to 14th street, but it is larger. one of the reasons -- but it would be activated. a lot of people think banks are only open between 9:00 and 5:00. the reason i want to stay in that area, i do service -- i do a lot of small business lending. and i do a lot of lending period. and my lenders will be working in the evenings. so the space is going to be activated, not only during the day, but in the evenings. i have a rule, too. i don't like shades pulled down or anything like that. we'll have a community room in the building, in the space, a conference room. my old space next door, when i had the room early on in the late 90s and early 2000s, that space was activated three nights a week. we had events there. golden gate business association met there. a lot of the neighborhood groups meet there. so the space will be used at night. and i know a lot of people hear that, but we proved it and did that. the community room at chase is about to go away so i have a lot of community groups saying, if i can't use this, can i use the new conference room? of course. i let you use it before, i'll let you use it now. there will be nighttime activity in the space. i've been working with the cbd. if i get this, i'll be installing security cameras on 14th street. and by the metro muni entrance on the other side and working with the cbd and mission station and northern station to create a sense of security there. which you don't have now. and i've also sending a contract for steam cleaning of that corner if i get this. and i did it so, at least once a week steam cleaning on that corner, but if i need it two or three times, i'm the boss, i call and say, steam clean. i drive by and see a dirty sidewalk, i hate dirty sidewalks. but that space will be activated. you know, if you've been in the bank branches now, we have artwork, san francisco artwork in most of the bank branches. we have a castro theme that is going in there with historical pictures and stuff from the neighborhood. so the space will be activated. it won't be sitting dark after hours. >> the reason i'm asking him to speak about it is, he is basically a neighborhood business person. and that still doesn't solve the dilemma of what the department and we, ourselves need to consider, but i have a ear for that, because community members who are his clients coming and speaking, i'm torn on the subject matter. i like to work by the books and support the department's findings, but i'm also curious what is the rest of the commissioners are thinking. >> commissioner johnson: i, too, appreciated you asking the question about the space and the dilemma that we are in. however, i feel like the timing of this conversation is great because of the earlier conversation we had today about the ncds and the fact that we need to find creative solutions and really update, i think, some of the ways we've been looking at these commercial corridors to support our thriving -- the thriving of our corridors and businesses. i also just recall that two hearings ago we had a project that we also considered that was formula retail. and approved that because we also felt like just given this corridor, having a thriving business there would be helpful. and that was nothing to say for all of the community support that has come out talking about how they actively use this space, talking about how it supports small and local businesses and how the space would be activated after hours. i see this as an invitation to take a nuanced approach. so i'm fully supportive of this project. >> commissioner fung: planning, quantitative metrics perhaps provide an indication. they're not always the sole answer you know, for the planning issues and land use issues we face. and you have to have a qualitative overlay on top of that. the logic says, you're there now, they're moving one door, the number stays the same. you know, just the frontage, linear footage, i understand provides an indication, however, you know, the logic here is that it's still the same in terms of the number of formula retail. so i'm supportive of the conditional use. >> commissioner koppel: so i work close by. i'm on the first block of fillmore so i'm very familiar with the neighborhood, the area. and what i like most about where i work is the sense of community. i've signed up to pass out neighborhood flyers for the dtna and i probably do it every month. and this area is in dire need of filled store fronts. although we might not have agreed with mr. spears housing policies, we're not talking about that today. he ace local developer. he is a san francisco guy. he's got a couple of different properties going on. and we should help him fill his ground floor retail spaces. i make a motion to approve. >> commissioner diamond: i thought project proponent and the supporters made very persuasive arguments and i am supportive of this, but it also strikes me seconding commissioner johnson's and fung's comments, this may be an opportunity to rethink some of the rules that we use for formula retail. i'd be happy to second the motion. >> very quickly, with all due respect, unfortunately, your packet did not include -- so you have it make a motion. >> i think they can create some findings. i was just going to speak to that. >> a couple of things. the oral of retail is work world of retail is changing quickly. it wasn't long ago we were in the neighborhood to put this provision in the code that said we would recommend denial if it was above 20%. it was not that long ago. so it's changed fast. i appreciate that. and i respectfully disagree with the speaker who says this doesn't apply. whether it's 20, 21, 22, if it's above 20, that's the way it works. having said that, the notion was to do with what commissioner fung said. that's our recommendation. it doesn't bind the condition and there is a qualitative judgment you have to make with the recommendation in either direction. but it does speak to the point that the nature of retail is changing really quickly. and we -- it's the process of changing the code doesn't happen as quickly as you all know. and so this is one of -- on that bucket list of things we have to look at with retail, this issue of formula retail and where it applies. when we did the formula retail changes about three, four years ago? i'm maybe dating myself. we looked at this idea of increasing the number from 10 to 25 or 30. and we unfortunately did not get support for that. i think it may be worth looking at that again. clearly, there is a big difference between a bank like sterling and a bank like wells fargo or chase. and the formula controls don't acknowledge that difference. those are the kinds of things we need to look at in change of -- in light of the changing conditions in retail. >> president melgar: yes to all of the above. when we changed that a few years ago, it doesn't seem like it was that long ago, but it actually was long ago. in terms of what has happened in the world and the rise of amazon and a bunch of things that have happened. so i lived in the neighborhood and the neighborhood -- i no longer do, i live somewhere else, but it's completely transformed. in the neighborhoods where we have implemented those tight controls, and especially around formula retail, we have seen vacancies raise. so you know, 24th street, this neighborhood, north beach. so i really want us it look at that with evidence, empirically to see, is it just that the world has changed or is there cause and effect in terms of what we have done? this morning we had started this conversation based on commissioner fung's right on comments but i want to take seriously the neighborhood by neighborhood approach, because you know, geary street, commercial corridor is very different from castro, from 24th street. and there is different needs, different socioeconomic customers in these corridors, but the neighborhoods are very different from destination retail for example. and you know, we kind of treat it all the same. and then i think a more knew -- nuanced view is overdue. those are my comments. i'm totally in support of the project and i wish you luck. >> commissioner moore: i still would differentiate if chase was asking me the question, i would support the department of saying no, because the effect of big banks like chase and wells fargo are devastating. they're basically freeze an area into motionlessness. perhaps we at some point can work on requirements of what part of the operation is near the window. what is it we want to see at night near the window? i don't know. i'm not going to design it for you. but it could animate what is happening in the space without looking at static and dead staring into a.t.m.s or moving neon signs, et cetera. that is where the rubber hits the road. it needs to be said that a bank that is a local grown bank is the type of fellowship it has, would still have my support and chase would not. >> when the commission is ready, i -- in order to take action, i have made a list of potential findings to read into the record that summarize what the discussion has been so far. >> thank you. >> so the findings would be that this particular use would fill a vacant space and given the nature of the corridor, that is necessary and desirable. it also would support a local business. and additionally, the space would be activated after hours. and overall, the number of formula retail businesses would stay the same along this corridor. >> president melgar: thank you. >> commissioner moore: one element which i would like to see. that is a social component to the work which i found interesting. and that deals with lending to sro. i found that very important, particularly when we talk about the corridor and the overlap in castro. >> if there is nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with standard conditions of approval and findings read into the record on that motion. diamond aye. fung aye. johnson aye. moore aye. koppel aye. melgar aye. so moved, the motion passes unanimously, 6-0. [please stand by] [please stand by] we're going take a small little break. >> clerk: -- for thursday, january 9, 2020. i would like to remind the public to please silence your cell phones that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioners, we left off on 15 a and b on your calendar for the property at 2017 green street. the appeal of the preliminary hearing negative declaration and discretionary reviews. for the purposes of this hearing, we're calling up both matters together. the staff will give a presentation on the appeal and the discretionary reviews. the appellant will be afforded time, and the d.r. requesters will be afforded their time. the project sponsor will then have an opportunity to present their project and respond to the appeal and the discretionary reviews, after which we'll hear rebuttals from the discretionary review requesters and accept one period of public comment. >> president melgar: yeah, hold on, hold on, hold on. we -- commissioner diamond has requested to speak. >> commissioner diamond: i want to disclose to the commission that i have a personal relationship with one of the d.r. requesters who lived to the east of the project opponent. our sons were friends in school, and so we've been social friends with them. i don't believe that relationship would have any impact on my ability to be objective and impartial, and i feel like i can fulfill my fiduciary duties as a planning commissioner and would not propose to recuse myself. >> president melgar: thank you. jonas, just so i'm clear, we are calling both matters together. >> clerk: the appeal and the d.r. together, yes. >> president melgar: but what staff will present will be on both. >> clerk: it will be, but just for clarity to separate the ceqa determination, you will vote on that separately, and if you vote to hold up the declaration, you will take up the matter of the preliminary review process. >> president melgar: just for purposes of the process, after staff does the presentation, we will hear from the d.r. requesters first. >> clerk: the appellant of the mitigated -- >> president melgar: who are the same? >> clerk: well, yes. >> president melgar: and then, do we have to have a separate presentation on the d.r.? >> clerk: we should have some presentation. you can certainly limit the time as the chair. >> president melgar: sorry. i should have cleared that up before. but then, for the project sponsor, he will come up after the d.r. presentation on the appeal and both requests. >> clerk: that's correct. and you have that flexibility, as well, to modify their time, but generally speaking, the project sponsor would receive ten minutes for the appeals and ten minutes for the d.r.s because there are multiple d.r. requesters. >> president melgar: okay. thank you very much for clearing that up, jonas. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm jeannie poling, planning department staff. joining me are additional staff members. could i get the overhead, please. the item before you is a preliminary proposed mitigat n mitigation. also in the packet is a response to an appeals letter and a separate response letter that we received after the close of the appeal period. you also received an additional seven-page letter from the appellant. this raises no new issues that weren't already addressed in our appeal responses. the decision before you is whether to adopt a motion to affirm the proposed mitigated declaration or m.n.d. if you decide not to review the m.n.d., then the discretionary review cannot be conducted today. if you decide not to amend the m.n.d., you may instead propose the m.n.d. back to the planning department for specified revisions or you may overrule the proposed m.n.d. and require staff to file an interim report if you find substantial evidence to find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. first, i'll briefly describe the proposed project, and then i'll respond to the concerns raised in the appeal. chris may will respond more to the history in his d.r. presentation. the product -- project would add an a.d.u. and expand the basement garage level. the project propose is a full structural and seismic upgrade, partial excavation of the rear yard and facade alterations. the project has a complicated history of environmental review. we issued an exemption for the project in may of 2017, and after a permit that legalized excavation work was issued, the appellant filed an appeal of the exemption in november of that year. in january 2018, the board of supervisors upheld the exemption appeal and directed planning staff to conduct a more thorough analysis of the proposed project, which we did. we prepared an initial study that includes a mitigation measure requiring the project sponsor to perform ongoing coordination with the planning department during the building department's review of structural plans and project construction. the initial study concludes that with this mitigation measure, potential impacts related to historic resources and geology and soils would be reduced to less than significant. we published the pmnd in 2019. the appellant represents the owner of 2421 green street, also known as the cox head house. comprehensive responses to assertions are provided in our written appeal response, but i will briefly summarize them. first, structural integrity would be followed by complying with the building requirements. the appellant's request for additional d.b.i. review of the project at this time is premature, since the sponsor has not submitted structural plans to d.b.i. and cannot do so until the plans are reviewed. second, the proposed project would not result in indirect impacts on the coxhead house. while the proposed project may alter the amount of sunshine on the coxhead house's rear yard, it would not diminish the setting such that there would be an impact on the resource. neighbors may not like the project's effect on their views and their access to light, however, affect sun views and light are more appropriately addressed through the discretionary review process. third, the project would not result in impacts related to the release of hazardous materials because it's in compliance with san francisco health code chapter 22-a, as overseen by the department of public health. the project is on maher map of possible sites because it is on the site of an underground tank that was removed. it's subject to review of the health department pursuant to the maher ordinance. the health department may waive maher requirements if the applicant demonstrates that the property has been continuously zoned as residential use since 1921, has been in residential use since that time, and no evidence has been presented to create a reasonable belief that the soil and/or groundwater may contain hazardous substances. the project met the conditions for waiver and therefore the health department indicated that no further oversight is required. nonetheless, the health department reviewed the test results and found that the project does not require a site mitigation plan. the health department also confirms that the soil testing procedures and locations were appropriate. in conclusion, the expansion of a building adjacent to existing buildings on a hillside is not unusual in san francisco. projects of similar size and scope are typically eligible for exemption from ceqa. we prepared a pmnd for this project in response to the board of supervisors ceqa findings when they upheld the exemption appeal. as part of our analysis, we visited the project site multiple times, coordinated with our preservation team to review potential impacts on cultural resources, and coordinated with the building department's plan review services division to review the project's geotechnical reservation before d.b.i. would do so. we also worked with d.b.i. to undergo monitoring and coordination with the planning and building departments over the course of structural design and construction. implementation of this mitigation measure, which would become one of the project's conditions of approval would reduce to less than significant any impacts related to geology and soils and the direct affects of historic resources. thus no reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment would occur from the proposed project. further, the appellant has proposed no substantial evidence that would warrant preparation of an e.i.r. or that the pmnd is otherwise deficient. a detailed review by the proposed project by the building department as requested by the appellant is premature at this time. structural review cannot be conducted until after the planning department and d.b.i. review and approve the site permit and after structural plans are submitted to d.b.i. we recommend that you uphold the pmnd and not require further analysis or an e.i.r. because such efforts would not provide any meaningful analysis beyond what was conducted for the pmnd and more importantly would not reveal different results from the pmnd. by upholding the pmnd, you do not restrict or limit your ability to hold the discretionary review. this concludes my portion of the presentation, and christopher may will present the discretionary review. >> you have before you three requests of the discretionary review of a proposal proposing to construct one and three-story residential addictions. since the october 2017 neighborhood notification and subsequent d.r. filings, the project sponsor has revised the project to include a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit which measures approximately 1,023 square feet. the upper floors would decrease from approximately 4,118 square feet to 4,092 square feet. before i proceed with the d.r. request, i'd like to provide the commission with a more detailed permitting and enforcement history of the project. in april 2017, the project sponsor filed a building permit application for the construction of the horizontal rear i additions, the expansion of the garage, alterations to the front facade and the full foundation replacement. the following month, environmental planning staff issued a categorical exemption for the project, determining that the building is not an individual historic resource or a contributor to a historic district, and the project would not have significant impacts on the environment. a few weeks later, the project sponsor obtained over-the-counter approval of a building permit application by d.b.i. without review by the planning department. the scope of work for that permit included the deteriorated basement wall with new landscaping walls in the back yard. in september 2017, d.b.i. received a complaint that work was being done beyond the scope of the foundation permit, including a horizontal addition. d.b.i. determined that the scope of work warranted review by the planning department and suspended the permit the following day. planning department staff reviewed the foundation permit plans and determined that while the excavation and expansion of the garage level was compliant with the planning code and was in accordance with the ceqa determination, one of the proposed retaining walls at the rear aligned with the foundation of the proposed horizontal rear addition that was subject to planning code section 311, neighborhood notification, which had not yet occurred. planning department staff reviewed the revised plans with the zoning administrator who determined that the department could approve the revised permit if the retention wall coinciding with the rear retaining wall was removed. on october 23, 2017, the planning department issued neighborhood notification for the proposed horizontal and vertical additions under the original building permit application. between november 28 and 30, three d.r.s were filed, and on november 22, an appeal of the ceqa document was filed with the board of supervisors on the basis that the project would have significant impacts on the adjacent historic resource at 2421 green street. the coxhead house is a three story single-family dwelling that extends approximately 35 feet beyond the wall of the existing subject building. it has several windows that overlook the subject property building and its rear yard. on june 26, 2019, environmental planning staff issued a preliminary mitigated negative declaration which was subsequently appealed on behalf of the owner of 2421 green street, who is also one of the d.r. requesters. as you've heard, environmental planning staff recommended that the commission adopt the motion to uphold the pmnd. this was originally scheduled to be heard in june 2019 but has been rescheduled numerous times because of the appeals. serial permitting is typically characterized by work that occurs piece meal in order to avoid a process such as neighborhood notification or to circumvent requirements, such as the calculation of impact fees. it would not be uncommon for a project sponsor to obtain a separate permit to replace windows or remodel a bathroom, neither of which would trigger neighborhood notification and apply for another permit for a back yard addition, which would trigger neighborhood notification. the sponsors subsequently submitted applications for permits which did trigger neighborhood notifications. the d.r. requesters also allege that the project is not adequately terraced per the cow hollow neighborhood design guidelines. the project is located on a laterally sloping lot, whereas the terracing guidelines illustrate scenarios where terracing is recommended only for upsloping or down sloping lots. nevertheless, the residential design advisory team reviewed the original project in september 2017 and again in december 2017, following the submission of the d.r. request and both times found that the project appropriately respected the neighborhood topography and the neighborhood context, preserving the stepping down of the hill along green street. the proposed addition massing is reduced on upper levels, maintaining privacy as well as access to air, light, and midblock open space. the massing was found to be consistent with the cow hollow neighborhood guidelines. the existing windows on the front facade could be either repaired or replaced in kind with aluminum clad windows as long as those were compatible with the surrounding windows in the neighborhood. in response, the project sponsor has submitted a revised front elevation, indicating that the replacement windows would be smaller than originally proposed and would be clad in wood and painted in a dark trim. after review, planning department staff has demmed th -- determined that the project meets the application request and does not exceed the permit request. moreover, the d.r. requester's concerns regarding light and privacy are not substantial. in addition, the department notes that the proposed a.d.u. on the first floor accounts for almost all of the floor area added to the building, while the primary dwelling unit will actually decrease in size. the remainder of the additional floor areas are for shared access to the garage level. planning staff reviewed the demolition calculation statistics and considered that the deemed project is not demolition and is not requesting any variances. thus, they request you deny the appeal and take d.r. as advised. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president melgar: thank you. we will now hear from the appellant and project sponsor. >> hello, commissioners. i'm representing the owner of coxhead house, which is immediately uphill of the proposed project. the coxhead house is this property here. the subject property that's proposed for construction is here, just downhill, on a 24% slope. it's one of those streets with stairs. it's very steeply sloped. the coxhead house is known to be eligible as a national historic site. ernest cox was one of the first people who used wood shingles. other than the frank lloyd wright house in chicago, this is one of two artist owned residences in the united states. it's a very significant property. our concern is this project, which would expand the neighboring property from 4,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet, a floor area ratio to 2.5, in a neighborhood where the ratio is usually 1.0, it's going to allegedly be an a.d.u. -- i don't know if it meets the requirement for that, but it's a very large subterranean excavation, 13 feet deep. the coxhead house was built in 1893 with a single layer historic brick foundation, which is part of the historic quality of the home. our concern and the concern of the board of supervisors notably is this could cause the coxhead house to collapse. it would vastly undermine the foundation and undermine the historic qualities of the home. i'd like to start with the board of supervisors, because this matter's been to the board of supervisors twice already. the highlighted portion here -- let me get out of the closed captioning. the highlighted portion here is what the board of supervisors found after considering testimony from our experts. they held that the proposed project holds unusual circumstances related to historic resources and hazardous materials, and the project "may have a significant effect on the environment." that's the board of supervisors, 11-0, including current mayor london breed, who was then the president of the board. now, that's a notable finding because as commissioner diamond knows, the legal standard for an environmental impact report is is there a fair argument that the project may have any adverse environmental impact. that's the legal standard set by communities for a better environment, for south coast air quality management district, a case that i argued in front of the california supreme court. the board of supervisors has made that precise finding. neither staff nor this planning commission has the ability to reverse that finding. that finding is administration res judicata. if the developer wanted to challenge that finding, the time was to take a writ of mandate within 30 days of the board of supervisors' decision. they didn't. that's a final finding made on the basis of an extensive factual record. the board of supervisors relied on evidence from dr. lawrence karp, who you will hear from today, ph.d. who conclud-- who concluded that the project would profoundly affect the nature of the coxhead house. they also sought conclusions from matthew hagerman, that remediation plans are required to safeguard public health. simply stated, neither the staff or this commission have the power to reverse a final finding of the board of supervisors. furthermore, the mnd, the mitigated negative declaration itself contains evidence that the project will have significant adverse impact. the m.n.d. states, on page 65, the project has the potential to result in significant impacts related to protection of the adjacent foundation of 2421 green street that could become unstable as a result of this project. that's the pmnd. that's not our experts, that's the city staffs' conclusion. now this is not a theoretical risk. other projects approved by this department have resulted in catastrophic results. this is 121 crown terrace, approved by staff. it fell down a hillside, despite alleged compliance with building codes. now here, the pmnd said we've mitigated the risk. trust us. here's the mitigation. if unacceptable earth movement occurs, is encountered during construction, the project excavation shall be halted, and a geotechnical engineer shall evaluate if additional measures are needed. of course we can't wait until unacceptable earth movement occurs to figure out what we're going to do because by then, this fragile, valuable historic resource will be tumbling down the hillside. now a fundamental part of ceqa law is designed to have preapproval mitigation so we avoid the harm. we don't wait until it falls down the hill, we come up with the mitigation measures before project approval occurs and before project construction commences. soil contamination. this project is on the city's only maher map of -- own maher map of contaminated sites. this is the soil contamination allegedly -- this is the city's map, not mine. the pmnd relies on some new soil testing. that soil testing was done in 2018. our hydrogeologist, matthew hagerman analyzed the samples. they happen to have been taken from beneath the garage, an area that was reconstructed in 1980. in other words, according to matthew hagerman, hydrogeologist, these samples were taken from the only area on the site that is known to have been cleaned up, oddly reminiscent from what happened at hunters point, where tetratech took samples from an area that was known to be clean. we saw what happened there. carol karp found that there were impacted to the historic resources, but the pmnd found that it could contamination the resources of the historic adjacent foundation of 2421 green street. that's the pmnd. also, carol karp found that contrary to what the staff is telling you, the project does in fact affect views of the project from public streets. this is a photograph taken of the coxhead house from pierce street. those flags are the story poles that outline the outline of the project. clearly, they block views from the coxhead house almost entirely. according to u.s. versus montecito, this is a significant view under ceqa. this is the view of the poles from inside the house. clearly, this will adversely affect light and air and significantly affect the historic resource. this is clearly substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have adverse environmental impacts, which is the legal standard. under ceqa, if there is a disagreement among experts, that disagreement is supposed to be resolved in an e.i.r. here, at the very least -- i understand that the city staff disagrees with our experts. that's a disagreement among experts, and under the negative declaration standard, that disagreement among experts must be resolved in approximate an environmental impact -- in an environmental impact report. we therefore ask this commission to direct staff to prepare an e.i.r. for this project, analyze these impacted, come up with appropriate mitigation measures, and not consider discretionary review at all which would be premature until the e.i.r.'s prepared. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. so we will now hear from the second d.r. requester. >> clerk: well, that was in regard to the appeal to the preliminary mitigated negative declaration. so i suppose you could ask the project sponsor to response to the appeal or you could go on with the d.r.s and let the project sponsor respond to both. >> president melgar: this is for the hearing, though. >> clerk: okay. you have three d.r. requesters, and they get five minutes each. >> president melgar: okay. you are the d.r. requesters. >> yes. would you like us to respond now? >> president melga >> president melgar: they were called together. >> i'll keep this short. we do believe that this project created extraordinary -- presents extraordinary circumstances, which is the d.r. standard for a variety of reasons, including the ones i just laid out. this is very unusual. i want to emphasize, we're not talking about a neighborhood dispute. this is a historic resource, and historic resources are treated different. they require a heightened level of scrutiny. there's not a lot of them in the city, and there's not many that would be threatened in the way this project threatens the coxhead house. so the -- listed historic resources would be one fact that d.r. would be appropriate. second, it's on the city's own maher map of contaminated sites. we're not saying oh, maybe there's contamination there. the city said it by putting it on the maher map. the cow hollow design guidelines have bye-been appro by this commission, and therefore, they're binding and enforceable. the design guidelines provide heightened standards above the zoning code, including projects on shared open space, which this project does. it expands to four stories high, including neighborhood open space. the design guidelines also state that the structure should be consistent with volume and massing in the neighborhood. as i mentioned, the typical volume ratio in this neighborhood is 1.0. this project would be 2.5, more than double the floor area ratio, so it's inconsistent with the massing in the neighborhood. the neighborhood design guidelines on page 23 state that the project should comply with terracing. terracing means when you're on a steep slope, as this is, each home should be -- the downhill home should belower than the uphill home. they specifically call this out so the uphill home can have a look over the downhill home. as these pictures show, this project obliterates the view from the uphill home, so clearly violates the neighborhood design guidelines with respect to terracing. and finally, the neighborhood guidelines at 28 say the proposed project should respect any historic resources in the area. clearly, the coxhead house is admittedly a historic resource. this project thoroughly disrespects that historic resource and therefore violates the neighborhood design guidelines. therefore, we believe that discretionary review is appropriate. the sponsor should be required to design the project within the existing envelope. however, we said before we do not believe the commission should reach discretionary review because sec rareview in the form of an environmental impact report is required prior to any approvals. >> president melgar: thank you, mr. drury. >> clerk: and mr. drury, you repair who? >> philip kaufman, owner and resident of 2421 green street. >> president melgar: thank you. we will now hear from appellant number two. >> okay. i'm speaking on behalf of susan berg and mike lamphart. they live adjacent to 2417. they're in this white house that you can see on this -- that you can see on the map, and i'm going to read their testimony. i know there's a crunch time here, but i owe them that. we recognize the right of the property owners to improve their homes. we have remodelled our house and many of our neighbors have done so, but we have gone about it in a fairway. we followed city regulations and policies and the cow hollow guidelines and worked with our neighbors. when we remodelled our home, we did so within the existing footprint and building envelope. what the developer has done is the complete opposite of this. instead of playing fair and by the rules, he has done work without permits, has disregarded the neighbors' concerns and has prepared plans that are inconsistent with key principles of the residential design guidelines and the cow hollow design guidelines. the cow hollow association wrote a letter on december 7 opposing the project, and for some reason, it was not considered in the packet, and i have copies of it which i will file with you at the end. we're very concerned about the developer's conduct. there have been several notices of violation conduct and stop work conduct already. work has been done exceeding permits, without permits, and the developer has intentionally let the property fall into disrepair. we're really grateful that the neighbors on the block have observed and reported this activity and that d.b.i. and the planning department has responded to complaints before the entire house was demolished. for more than a month last year, the developer let streams of water pour out of the home and down the sidewalk. this is a photograph of the chimneys. the developer removed the chimneys from the house, right there, without a permit, stating that it was a hazard. i believe that the city or the planning or one of the boards requested that the developer cover the holes, so this was last winter during a rainy period. that was not done in time, and since then, water has been pouring through that house, and i believe, if i'm correct, that the house has been officially classified as abandoned. the windows were left open during the rainy season, and water poured out through the front of the house, down the street, and it was reported by one of the neighbors who contacted the department of public works. so this is the situation that we've been dealing with. the developer has made some minor changes to the original project design by slightly altering the facade and inserting an a.d.u., but the massing is the same. it remains inconsistent with the design guidelines, and this is our reason for filing the d.r. it does not respect midblock open space. it expands the footprint of the house 17 feet out into the rear yard, and you've seen the photographs of that. our -- we have proposed an alternative design that would satisfy the builder's want to expand the home. if the developer were to remodel the home in the existing footprint and not push the house back, he would have a six bedroom, 5,279 square foot home with a two-car garage that could accommodate a large family without significantly impacting the immediate neighbors and larger neighborhood. and i will stop there. and i would like to present this. this is the letter from the cow hollow association that was sent in but not included. >> president melgar: thank you very much. you can just leave it there, and jonas will pass it around. thank you very much. we will now hear from the third d.r. requester. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is louise beja. i was here with my husband, but he had to leave. so i would like to -- in the interests of time, i will not repeat any of the points made by the other two d.r. requesters, but i'd like to incorporate them and say that i agree with them very strongly. one thing i would like to address is the planning -- is the staffers said something -- the cow hollow guidelines, as you know, have been adopted as advisory, but they are very highly respected, and they're very important for the character-defining features of our neighborhood, and the midblock open space is one of our most important, beloved features. the coxhead house, i believe, goes back past the other houses 30 feet, and the proposed addition goes back 18 feet. the developer says well, you split the difference, go back half, and that makes it okay. i understand from a mathematical, or if you're putting three blocks, i understand. but i think that conceptually, it does not make sense. if you -- the historic coxhead house was built a long time ago. they didn't know they were encroaching into the midblock open space. and they say because you're next to this historic house, it's okay for you to go back 18 feet into the midblock open space, which is a huge incursion, i think is just wrong. to say it's okay for him to go back 18 feet, i think this is a historic house, so maybe we should consider whether going back 18 feet is not proper. so our position was that it's not proper, and so with that, i will thank you very, very much for your efforts. i know it's late, and i know that you're taking a lot of consideration, and we all appreciate it on both sides. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you very much. we will now take public comment, i guess on the peal and the d.r. request. >> clerk: you should probably hear from the d.r. requester and then take public comment. >> president melgar: so we'll hear from the project sponsor on both the d.r. and the public request. >> clerk: so they'll get 20 minutes. >> hi, commissioners. i'm chris durkin, owner of 2421 green street. the project was scheduled for planning commission hearing nine times and has been continued and delayed for no legitimate or legal reasons. the delays were requested by the district supervisor. we know that the planning department and this commission have been subject to enormous political pressure with no legal basis or rationale. this is obvious, if you think about how it would be possibly, about a 1,000 square foot addition to a single-family home could trigger a negative declaration. this has never been required of any project before in san francisco. the planning department and planning commission have approved much larger and more complex projects by way of categorical exemptions under ceqa, which is what should have happened under this project. this has not been a fair process for me. i'm sure many of you are aware that the project opponent has used enormous power, wealth, and political influence to unreasonably and unlawfully delay the approval of a simple building permit to remodel my property. i've lived and worked in san francisco for 16 years. my wife is from el salvado, and we have two kids, both of whom attend school in district two. with my current residence being the only exception, none of these projects have been in front of the planning commission. i work diligently to make neighbors happy, which is not easy. i know it can cause fear to people to feel that there's a change in the neighborhood. the opponents are calling this a spec project, which it is not. i told them at the beginning that i considered residing at the property, but considering how i've been treated by the neighbors, that won't be happening. i have a very positive relationship with d.b.i., and i've done everything they asked me with regard to this project, and i'll continue to work with the department until completion. the neighbors have engaged in filing numerous false complaints with d.b.i. at one point, they called in so many complaints that d.b.i. sent the head of code enforcement to my property for a site visit. during the meeting, no violations were found. instead, d.b.i. observed the d.r. requesting neighbors conducting structural framing work on their property with no permit. the code enforcement officer immediately went over and issued an m.o.v. for work with no permits. it should be noted that my construction personnel removed unsafe chimneys as part of construction work. in the interests of safety, construction crews removed the unsafe brick chimneys so they wouldn't collapse or worse. these were unbraced and made of unreinforced masonry, which are not allowable under the code. i've made consistent good faith efforts to address neighbor concerns. i met with mark lamphart, owner of 2415, several times, and we've had positive meetings and interactions. unfortunately we couldn't proceed with a settlement cause the appellant, mr. kaufman, objected. i've exhaustively requested to meet with mr. kaufman. he has refused or not responded to all my requests. instead of working towards settlement, he filed a lawsuit against the planning commission and the city of san francisco as a stall tactic. that lawsuit had no merit and was dismissed by a ceqa judge immediately. i've tried in earnest to arrange a meeting so i can explain this is a very ordinary project, and it is in no way a risk to his property. i urge the commission to ask mr. kaufman why he's refused to meet with me and to work towards a solution. these facts highlight how unreasonable he's been throughout the entire process. still, i've continued to make exhaustive efforts to meet his demands and reach a resolution. the new garage that they're opposing is actually 7 feet away through solid rock from his house foundation. i intentionally kept this wall away from the property to give them peace of mind. i've clarified over and over that the foundation will not affect his foundation. his expert produced a report with falsified claims that the new foundation proposed to attach to the current foundation. it's also the report that the board of supervisors inadvertently relied on when they granted the ceqa appeal. i've offered multiple times to meet with mr. karp to discuss the technical aspects of the foundation, all of which were declined. the key aspects of the karp report are factually incorrect and should not be relied on by anyone. i've offered complete access to my property for mr. kaufman. i've offered to pay for a new foundation for mr. kaufman along the property -- the shared property line and to maintain his existing brick foundation wall. he declined. i've offered to place $250,000 in an escrow account as insurance against damage during excavation. no damage will occur, but the funds would be available to mr. kaufman should any damage occur. he declined that, as well. i hired a vibration engineer to propose analysis on the proposed project. it's charles salter associations, a highly recorded engineering firm. i've incorporated the use of shingle siding to be compatible with mr. kaufman's siding. i've greed to work with the neighbored at 2415 to plant plants or trees at the site next to their site. i installed story poles at the neighbor's request to show the addition. i met with the supervisor kathrin stefani. she requested multiple times for mr. kaufman to attend a settlement meeting. he refused. instead he used his time and money to file a lawsuit against the city. he met with two cow hollow homeowners association members -- i've met with two cow hollow homeowners association members, which was extremely positive. the rear addition roof line has been completely changed to a pitch roof in lieu of a flat roof for capability with adjacent buildings in cow hollow guidelines. i've reduced the size of windows on the front and rear facades to ensure capability with adjacent homes. as a matter of law, this project is categorically exempt under ceqa. due to improper political pressure, the planning commission rescinded their cadx. today, i've spent over $1,000,003 years on t $1,000,0 $1,000,0 million and approximately three years to get a permit, which is unreasonable. a huge benefit is we're adding an a.d.u. on the ground floor, something else no one else has been willing to do in this neighborhood. i believe this commission would be the first to approve an a.d.u. in cow hollow and the existing heights. the addition allows for three bedrooms on one floor, which is extremely important for little kids. when completed, the new rear addition will be 21 feet shorter than the appellant, mr. kaufman's house. his home is over 85 feet long and three stories tall, which has a significant impact to the neighborhood open space as well as shade, shadow, and air impacts to my property. while driving around pacific heights, it seems that almost every home is under construction. every home in front of you have all been categorically exempt from ceqa and allowed to proceed. this commission has recently approved much larger projects in the neighborhood. there's a 10,000 square foot house on this block and another 16,000 square foot house one block away for sale for $27 million. the comments from the appellant's attorney about floor area ratio being 1 are absolutely incorrect. this project is not out of scale or extraordinary for the neighborhood. there's nothing extraordinary but the political influence. i ask the commission to approve this project with no changes. it has already been in front of a ceqa judge, and the complaint by the appellant was thrown out. please allow this project to proceed as all others as have before it. thank you. you'll hear from the project architect. >> good evening. eric domican, domican mosey architects. exceptional and extraordinary circumstances have been defiant as complex topography, unusual context or other circumstances not addressed in design standards. in my experience, there's nothing exceptional or extraordinary, and there are no unusual circumstances relative to the site property adjacent context or proposed project. in fact, the scope and scale of the project is relatively modest by cow hollow pacific heights standards with typical sites and standards characteristics also very similar to much of cow hollow pacific heights neighborhoods. it's an up sloping site with also a cross slope. there's a historic resource directly adjacent. the project is located within the maher zone. all typical characteristics to projects in this site. relative to the proposed project, the rear addition is modest in size with only approximately 880 square feet spread across floors one, two, three, and four, and the new a.d.u. of approximately 1,000 square feet has been created at the first-floor level. approximately 780 square feet of garage expansion that includes two-car parking, storage, laundry, an elevator, stair at the basement level. the garage expansion, associated excavation has upheld the neighboring property line. with regard to the midblock open space, the proposed rear addition balances the rear walls of the two adjacent properties and does not extend as deep into the midblock open space as any of the homes to the west of the property on that block. there is no impact to the midblock open space. wi with -- which includes side yard set backs, and roof shaping to lessen impacts to adjacent properties. all of these techniques have been incorporated into the -- [please stand by]. >> each and every allegation by the pmnd appellant and those concerns you will hear from neighbors, which they understandably would express with a project like this, have been addressed. those impacts concerning historic resources, hazardous materials, and geology, all have been addressed by staff in compliance with the law. most importantly, we want to make the important point to the commission that this project will be subject to significant additional review and analysis by city experts. this project, three years old now, is only at the beginning of the city review process. we ask that you let us proceed with that process. thank you. we're available for any questions. we have one more speaker. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is pat buskovich. i'm a licensed civil structural engineer. i've been practicing 40 years now, which is kind of numb. only work in san francisco, only work on existing buildings. in a ten-block radius of this site, i've probably done 100 projects. this is a straightforward project. this is not a difficult site for foundation work. this is very straightforward, good geotechnical site to do the work. i've discussed this site with the project sponsor. every question that i asked him, he impressed me with the answer. the final question about vibration issues, he said he brought in salter. that's a name when you mention it, he knows what he's doing here. thank you very much, commissioners. >> president melgar: okay. you still have two minutes on the clock. are you done? okay. we will now take public comment. i have several speaker cards. barbara heffernan. ben heffernan, i have both speaker cards. paul grimaldi, peter kaufman, philip kaufman. you're the owner of the property. you get an opportunity to speak at rebuttal. howard epstein, robert funston, and robert lozano. >> clerk: just to be clear, any party that's a party with the d.r. requesters or mitigated negative declaration cannot speak during this period. this is intended purely for members of the public. >> president melgar: so is that clear? this is for members of the public, people who are not d.r. requesters, but you will get an opportunity to speak after this. go ahead. >> good evening. my name is dan heffernan. we are uphill from the coxhead house. all we got was 2 feet, and we went through 18 months of -- i didn't think we were going to defend it, but the cow hollow guidelines, which we took very seriously, and we're very pleased that we did. that's my first point, that we've done this, and the design guidelines are very important, particularly when i think back to this earlier this afternoon, when you were talking about changing things to improve quality. here, we're just asking you to keep things the way they are. we've got a quality neighborhood with quality green space, and then, they take it -- we take it very importantly, and we're saying just enforce it. this is what it needs. phil kaufman, i will speak to the character, as if he needs it. phil kaufman has been addres d addressing this and been concerned about it. this house is becoming derelict, and flipping it and getting as much square footage as you can. it's not about the neighborhood at all, and thanks so much for listening. >> president melgar: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is paul wermer, and i'm simply an interested resident and in particular with respect to projects on historic preservation and land use. i have two comments. one relates to the depth of the house. there's this principle of rear yard averaging, but that gets really wonky in a case like this, where one lot is so much deeper than the lot that's being averaged. i think that's a problem that's not been acknowledged by the sponsor. the second comment i'd like to make relates to the historic character of the coxhead house. there was a lot of discussion about light and air and views, and the comment that light and air are not protected. and i fully understand and agree that that's correct when you are talking about the usual circumstance. but we are not talking about the usual circumstance here. we're talking about a coxhead house, and one of the things coxhead did was to play with solid walls on parts of the building and windows on parts of the building to make use of that light. and so the historic character and example of that historic character clearly is going to depend on divisability of those

Related Keywords

Fremont , California , United States , Berkeley , Alameda County , Oakland , Bayview , Togo , Eureka Valley , North Beach , London , City Of , United Kingdom , Chicago , Illinois , San Francisco , Alameda Creek , Dan Heffernan , Steve Adams , Peter Kaufman , Tim Ramirez , Adam Green , Danny Campbell , Lisa Fisher , Richard Drury , Brian Springfield , Stephen Cornell , Barbara Heffernan Ben , Matt Haney , Robert Funston , Chris Collins , Ernest Cox , Phil Kaufman , Paul Grimaldi , Mary Brown , John Francis , Jeff Gibson , Robert Lozano , Carol Karp , Henry Adams , Matthew Hagerman , Pete Walker , Cory Smith , Christopher Peterson , Chris Kern , Louise Beja , Philip Kaufman , Chris Durkin , Howard Epstein ,