>> okay, good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission meeting for thursday june 20, 2024 hearing. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask you line up on the screen side of the room to your right. each speaker is allowed 3 minutes. when your allotted time is reached i will announce your time is up and take the next person to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and state your name for the record. the commission does not tolerate disruption or outburst of any kind and i'll ask we silence mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. i will take roll at this time.

diamond, here. moore, here. braun, here. imperial, here. koppel, here. williams, here. we expect commissioner so to be absent today. first is consideration of items proposed for continuance, 1 and b. 2022-009794drp, 1153 guerrero street. proposed for continuance to july 11, 2024. two, case 2022-000438drp, 320-322 frederick street. proposed for continuance to july 11, 2024. item 3, 58 buena vista terrace, proposed for indeafinant

continuance and 4a and b. for property ot305 libber street. conditional use authorization and variance proposed for indefinite continuance. at this time, we should open public comment on your continuance calendar. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any items proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance. seeing none, public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is before you commissioners. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to continue all items proposed. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion, williams, aye. braun, aye. imperial, aye. koppel, aye. moore, aye. diamond, aye. so moved, the motion passes

6-0. >> for the two variances i'll also continue the variances as proposed. >> thank you mr. zoning administrator. on your consent calendar. all matters considered to be routine and may be acted by a single roll call vote. there is no separate discussion unless a member of the commission or public or staff request. in which event the matter is removed and considered as a separate item at this or future hearing. 5, case 2024-000653cua, 2001 van ness avenue. item 6, existing awning amnesty program. item 7, 2023-009959cua. 1948 sutter street.

conditional use authorization. again recollect member of the public thiss is your opportunity to be be requested any items on consent be pulled off and considered today or at another hearing. seeing none, public comment is closed and the consent calendar is before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to approve all. >> second. >> thank you. on the motion to approve consent calendar, williams, aye. braun, aye. imperial, aye. koppel, more. aye. moore, aye. diamond, aye. motion passes 6-0 placing under commission items for item 8mentf >> commissioner imperial will read the land acknowledgment today. >> we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush

ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. >> thank you. item 9, consideration of adoption draft minutes for june 6, 2024. members of the public, if you like to address the commission on the minutes, this is your opportunity to do so. seeing no one coming forward, public comment is closed and minutes are before you commissioners. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to adopt the minutes.

>> second. >> thank you. on the motion to adopt, williams, aye. braun, aye. imperial, aye. koppel, aye. moore, aye. diamond, aye. so moved commissioners. the motion passes 6-0. item 10, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner koppel. >> so, today i do have some slightly unfortunately news. seeing nigh term is ending shortly, i decided to take the numerous hours and days we spend looking at the packet working on the commission items to focus more on my day job, which is and has been focusing on the electrical industry i'm still a strong part of, so today i am announcing this may be my last hearing. if we have more, i'll be here until then, but it is time for me to just focus and put my time and energy where it belongs. i would like to say a number of thanks.

first of all, to fellow commissioners, expresident rodney fong and now director rich hillis who taught me early on and didn't know how to use the microphone properly so thank you to them. commend dennis richard to brings truth to this commission and also want to thank commissioner moore for actually listening to me. so, i [indiscernible] she listened to me when i had stuff to say and concerns, so thank you. also wanted to thank the president of the san francisco building trades council, larry mazzola for his leadership. [indiscernible] local 6 union hall and through the electrical contractor association for allowing me the time to put towards this very strenuous

position. [indiscernible] still a proud graduate of there and wanted to just give a shout out to all the working class residents of the city that get up and do a job and go to work. i was a second year apprentice working at a temporary palace fine arts building, carrying a 12 foot wooden ladder which is extremely heavy, wearing a hard hat and safety glasses and mask and overalls, my tool belt, bringing up power tools to the top of the ladder, installing light fixtures and said this is real work. this is hard work. as the sweat dripped down my head as i saw-as the days and months and weeks all the scars built up on my hands building this city. i actually earned my pay check, earned a chance to stay in the city, earned a chance to buy a house in the city. i took the bus and road my

bike to every job site. i had apartment on hayes seat and bought my house in the sunset but never take for granted the people who risk their lives when they show up to work every day, whether construction workers, fireman, police officers, especially those electricians and elevator mechanics we just-it is a little more dangerous the stuff we have to deal with and think to this day we are taken for granted. keep showing up for work everybody and all the contractors that employ these workers. we don't just become electricians or construction workers, we have to get trained and trained properly at a training center that teaches properly how to do these dangerous jobs so you can properly earn your pay check. throughout the tenor of my career up here i had reoccurring themes i like for hopefully you to carry on and a lot has do with something that is in the general plan. under the commerce and industry section and it makes a really important

distinction between residents and tourist and what i felt since day 1, we should prioritize our local businesses, our local residents, our local construction workers to build our city. i don't think it is a good idea to have contractors from outside the city. i don't think it is good idea to bring in workers from outside the city, and a lot of our workers were displaced and used to live here. someone who used to live here and displaced i don't think they are tourists. hats off to those in disadvantage neighborhoods. i always have been on your side helping along the way and will be and challenge who ever replaces me to bring half the stylist suit game i have been bringing here this whole time. [laughter] even half the quality. enough about me. that's it. we got a hearing to do.

[applause] >> commissioner koppel, i'm so sorry to hear this news. your voice has been so valuable on this commission. as you just said, your attention to the needs to the people who work here has been consistent and persistent throughout my five years on the commission, and i have appreciated the focus you have had on that issue and making sure that it is front and center in our decision making. i also want to thank you for how welcoming you were to me personally when i first joined the commission. i really appreciated the reach-out and the warm embrace of my entry into the commission. it was just really really--i just think that your absence will be felt

in a very very strong way. i see vice president moore would like to speak next. >> commissioner koppel, thank you for your service. what most impressed me about you, is the consistency for what you stand and for what you taught me through your consistency and your unwavering clarity when you speak about labor. i do appreciate that much more then perhaps i can summarize in the few minutes i have, but with it came not just having a position on something, with it came who you really are. transparent, clear and principaled. something i really appreciate in your work and your consistent standing by issues when you need to. again, you will be missed. we worked together for many many many years and i always have to

answer my question right after you, so i will probably hear the resonance of your name for a long time to come. it is hard to say something profound and meaningful, but let me say thank you and thank you for your services. >> commissioner braun. >> i just want to echo the thanks commissioner koppel and how much i appreciate your long tenure on the commission. it is a very big commitment and you have done it a long time. it is a well earned break to focus on your work. i really valued your perspective and the time i have been on the commission with you and your commitment to both labor as well as the importance of safety and insuring the safety of the projects that come before us. i'm definitely going to miss having you on the commission and thanks again for your service. >> commissioner imperial.

>> thank you commissioner koppel and i really appreciate the friendliness when i came on as a commissioner and i also appreciate your perspective when it comes to safety. i remember [indiscernible] really really mad about it, and it is something that is important that public to know and also when you speak about labor, actually there are times i would like yes, he's right about this. and also your perspective on the cannabis. i think those are really important issues as well. i really appreciate your presence here in the commission and i wish you could have stayed longer. i know you have tenure that have longer, but i will miss your presence and your voice. thank you. >> commissioner williams. >> joel, sorry to see you go.

you know, i relate to you a lot being in the trades, building trades, coming up here in san francisco. even though you are from the sunset, i'm from the mission and excelsior, but we have a lot of cominalities, like the time you told me your baseball goes to wolfs batting cages on mission street, i also went there as a youngster. i appreciate the connections we have. i appreciate and respect everything you do for the electrical union and for the apprenticeship. it means a lot to you. that means a lot to me too. i appreciate everything you brought to the commission, even though i wasn't able to be with you, sit with you a long period of time, i respect you and i wish you the best moving

forward. i know you will be successful in whatever you choose to do because you are just that guy and i'm going to miss those suits. [laughter] >> director hillis. >> thank you for everything. it has been a pleasure serving with you both on the commission and joel was the president when we were out during covid and so we talked every day practically during covid from home and managing that situation and managing us through it tremendously. i thank you. anyone you speak on the commission you see everybody else nod your head. i think when a time folks disagreed with you, it is very rare because i think you put san francisco first in all your decisions and san franciscans whether working san franciscans or residents, so i think it is something that is going to be difficult

if not impossible to fill and thank you for bringing that perspective to the commission on all you have done. much appreciated. >> i'll chime in as well. joel, thank you for your all most 8 years of service. former commission president koppel. if there is nothing further commissioners, if you could also further indulge me and just that we have nothing on your advanced calendar for next thursday hearing and if there is no opposition we'll send a cancellation notice for next thursday and july 4 holiday, so you are given a two week break. >> thank you. >> commissioners that places under department matters. director announcements. >> nothing from me. >> 12, review of past events at

board of supervisor and board of apreels. appeals. >> good afternoon. odd rumaloney and echo on behalf of staff. thank you commissioner koppel for always treating staff with respect and kindness. so, with that, on the board report. there is one item of interest at land use committee this week. this was supervisor peskin's polk street neighborhood commercial which creates exception to allow store front merger and large use for limited restaurant uses designated legacy businesses in the polk street. you all heard this item last week and voted approval with two modifications. as reminders, those were first to remove the prohibition on store front mergers and second, conditionally permit uses that are 2500 square feet or greater and remove the 4,000 square foot non residential use size cap. supervisor peskin chose not to

incorporate these recommended modifications. there were 2 public comments in support from the family who owned bop's donet and share appreciation for support and goals to relocate and expand. the item was sent with positive recommendation to full board and at the full board this week there were no planning department related items. thank you. >> good afternoon president dimand, commissioners, the board of appeals did not meet last night. >> commissioners if no questions, we can move to general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit general public comment may be moved to the end of the

agenda. >> late 2016 commissioner koppel is when you came? you replaced commissioner [indiscernible] i remember that. i'm sorry. especially leaving now with the rezoning. you are getting out before you know--anyway, i do want to say one thing. i always liked when you were president. you always said thank you to whoever spoke and i thought that was really nice. the other thing i like you said was in january of 2019, before covid hit, i raised the issue about the demo calics you were the only commissioner who publicly said about what the demo calic and director [indiscernible] laughed it off which was not fair. that is the story. and that is quhie i sent that letter this week about [indiscernible] because it raised so many questions for me. i sit there thinking, what am i

hearing? here's section 317, it is all the same definition. whether building department, or the so call tantamount definitions which are not called that in 317. they are just about what is removed so it raised all kinds of questions. i liked at bruno heights and there is no interpretation. sorry mr. teague, no interpretation for demolition part of the bernal heights sud. no interpretation for section 317, so totally puzzled and why i wrote the 5 page letter with all the exhibits because it is not just about bernal heights it is how section 317 and implemented and what i said. the bernal heights thing is like, you can do in bernal heights is exactly why section 317 was written. didn't want to have alteration that just left a little bit of the

building and that was the whole point and didn't understand why that is the case in bernal height s and still don't, particularly given the fact there is no alteration permit with this project. it is just a demo and building permit and the whole point was had a demolition permit. needed to have a demolition permit. really confused. please read my letter. law of the day, i raise that question in the letter too. law of the day, cited at the hearing a hour and a half before. law of the day. what does that mean for 317? interpretation and permit applications. i think the commission needs to assert your legislative authority for section 3172b and polish up the demo

calcs. that -thank you very much. it is questions. i don't want to play got yeah, it is questions. i want clarification. thank you very much. >> thank you. last call for general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. we can move to your regular calendar for item 13. office development annual limit program update. a informational presentation. >> if i can get the overhead, please. good afternoon president diamond, commissioners. corey teague. here to talk about the office

development annual limit program and more specifically impacts of proposition c, which passed earlier this year. just outline of what we'll talk about today. give backgrond on the program itself. we have newer commissioners that had a lot of presentations about the actual program and history and mechanics so provide a little background and go if to the specifics of the amendments to the program under prop c and how we plan to implement those provisions. so, what is the office development annual limit program? it is essentially a regulation to limit major office development each year. it is a city wide program, not specific to any particular zoning districts or parts of the city. it applies to any office development of 25 thousand square feet or more in the city, and it essentially every year gives the city 950 thousand square feet of office space to allocate to

projects and two different buckets. what we call the small cap and large cap. we get 75 thousand square feet per year in the small cap for office projects between 25 thousand square feet and 49.999 square feet. and then the large cap, we get 850 thousand square feet towards projects of 50 thousand square feet or more. so, all these projects if you require office allocation must come through the planning commission. the planning commission is the body that does grant or deny office allocations and each year and each separate bucket, large cap and small cap, any unallocated office space gets rolled over to the next year. over the course of years and decades, sometimes the amount in each pot goes way up and sometimes drawn way down depending on development psychos. cycles.

office allocations can be revoked by the planning commission because they are not moving quickly enough to meet performance period or we have projects allocated a certain amount of office space and end up not using it all. sometimes it is institutional use and we can pull that space into the appropriate pot. again, if it is small cap project, anything goes back to small cap and large cap goes back to large cap. there are exceptions to these rules. state and federal office buildings, do not require local approval, so those do not come to the planning commission for allocation, but the program still requires we account for them. when those projects begin construction, we do have to take that square footage out of the large or small cap and for port and redevelopment projects, there are different types of projects and different parts of the port and different redevelopment plans with different rules, so whether or not those have to come to planning

commission varies but regardless the program has to account for the projects and pull the square footage out of the respective cap. for city and county office projects, those buildings are completely exempt from the plan. not required to get allocation and they are not pulled from the program. very quick history, the program started as part of the downtown plan in 1985 and adopted by the board of supervisors, a temporary three year program and captured 50 thousand square feet or more and certain amount of space could be allocated. intended to term out and there were lots of exceptions for different projects that wouldn't require allocation and that was adopted by the board. could have been amended by the boards, but the policy year under proposition m the voters adopted, it took that more limited program and turned into

a permanent program and made it a program that accounted for the smaller projects, the small cap, 25 thousand-50 thousand square feet and because it was a program adopted through ballot measure it can obviously be amended to ballot measure. which brings to 2020 the last time modify said under proposition e. at that time, we were going into 2020 in a very different development and office market. we had very low availability, high demand for office space, but proposition e made a number of changes to the program. first, it substantially altered the criteria for review for allocations for the planning commission to consider for each case. most notably, it tied how much aufsh office space we have available each year to allocate to how well we mean our rhna targets.

it is proportional if we are only meeting 50 percent of our rhna affordability goals from the year prior, we only get 50 percent of the annual allotment the following year. that was a big change. the other couple changes are in recognition that the caps were very low, but there was high demand. there were provisions to allow projects that provided enough on site affordable housing to still be allocated even if it went beyond the cap had available. same thing, central soma there were special provisions to continue to move forward up to a limit and those projects would be accounted for by drawing down 10 percent the next 10 years, even if it was taking the program into the red. those were very unique and new provisions added in 2020 under prop e. again, we focus today on prop c, so if there are questions about the

program itself or proposition e, happy to go into more detail. as of today, the current balances in the large cap we have nearly 290 thousand square feet and small cap, little over 400 thousand square feet and in central soma reserve, which is the pot central soma projects can pull from until enough housing is developed there, we have 730 thousand square feet. essentially, the annual allotment, where the program reups every year is october 17 each year. we send that out every year at that time. proposition c, what is it? it did a few different things. it was just adopted in march. one thing it does, unrelated to the program, it exempts conversions of non-residential buildsings to residential buildings from the real estate transfer tax.

like a incentive for converting downtown office buildings et cetera, to residential. the other two things that it does are specific to the program. first, it allows existing office if there is proposal to demolish existing office and build a new larger office building to essentially give credit for that demolished office space, which the program doesn't do now. for example, if you have hundred thousand square foot office bidding and you want to fully demolish and build a 500 thousand square foot office building you need allocation of 500 thousand square feet. if you demolish it you lose it. this does change it now so in the same scenario you only have allocation of 400 thousand square feet and gives credit for the existing office space. that was one small change. the more specific issue we will talk about today is it created essentially a conversion and demolition program and we'll go into what the

specifics that are. it essentially says that any conversion of office space or demolition of office space of 10 thousand square feet or more that occurred in 1986 till march this year, that we can document the zoning administrator has until september 1 this year to publish inventory of the projects and square footages and all that square footage is added back to the large cap. so, for example, 100 van ness was a office building here not far away on van ness, converted to residential. maybe 10 years ago now. not sure the exact timeline. that is a similar projeth. ect. existing office space between 86 and now and converted to different use.

theoretically under this program that can do this process-the square footage can be pulled back into the large cap. prop c says the zoning administrator does have to develop a process to give the public a opportunity to review and provide meaningful comment on the list. working back from september 1, which actually september 1 is the sunday leading into the holiday, so we are talking about august 30. the plan is to in early to mid-july develop the draft inventory of these projets. we are still working, it is very initial at this point to try to identify these conversions and demolitions that occurred since 1986, but to publish a draft inventory and that timeline. we announce that at planning commission hearing, put it on our website. we also have an office annual

limit program e-mail list that we use to mail out information, including every october 17 when everything is updated, so we send the information out to that e-mail list as well to give the public a opportunity to review that draft inventory and also provide comment on that draft inventory. and then, again, after about a month of public review and comment period, then that will leave anywhere from 2 to 4 weeks for the development of the final list, which would be again, issued no later then august 30 and that is requirement under prop c. the september 1 is hard deadline, so that is the praiss over the summer to develop the list, issue for public to review, receive comment, do a final letter of inventory and issue that by essentially august 30. i don't have any projections at this

point in terms how much square footage we think may be included. now it is very preliminary of starting to pull together projects that may fall under that list. this is public hearing and announcement to the public, if there are any members of the public who have projects they think will qualify they are more then welcome to reach out with the information prior to the publication of the draft inventory in july. i realize i went through all that which is on this slide. one slide behind. that is essentially what we wanted to just make the planning commission awar of. there is no official role or action for the planning commission in this process. it falls on the zoning administrator to administratively run the process but we wanted you to be aware that on the front end and of course, on the back end whenever final inventory is published and finalized and added back to the inventory. we'll be back before you to

give you the results. that concludes the presentation and available for any questions you may have. >> if there are no questions we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. >> thank you. thank you mr. teague for this handout. i guess i will say is not specifically germane to the inventory, but peripheral to it. one of my concerns and i think i talked about before is, when this conversion happens of office to housing the older buildings downtown that is viable may be vulnerable to conversion because i think they are easier to do then the big towers that are empty with the large floor plates. for example, i get my hair cut on kearney street in a nice older

building. it would be nice to turn it into apartments, it has big windows but that is full of tenants and would be a shame to see a speculative development to occur. i don't know if this precipitates that, but i think it is concern. there was a article in the wall street journal on june 11 and i made a copy for mr. teague and it is about calgary and how they are do it up there but not doing affordable housing and how they are able to get away with it. that is something to think about going forward with there office allocation thing. i guess i'll just say, i'm glad prop m passed in 1986, because if it hadn't we might have a lot more empty offices downtown and around the city, so that's it.

thanks a lot and good luck to you and thank you again and take care. have fun. >> last call for public comment. okay, remote caller. >> good afternoon. this is sue ester who had a role in adoption of prop f. i would just--i appreciated what corey just explained, but i would --please put this on the calendar for discussion, even though you don't have [difficulty hearing speaker] i think having the conversation about the [indiscernible] by having it topic of discussion at a planning commission meeting would help you

understand the public to understand and even mr. teague understand that-i have advanced calendar in front of me. probably one of the days in september is really a good day. september 12 or september 19. i would just ask the planning commission to take incentive of setting a date. even though there is no staff report, mr. teague's report and the public should be able to comment. thank you very much. >> last call for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. this informational item is before you commissioners. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i have a question on the relation between prop e and prop c.

i guess just something to clarify for me is, as looking into the prop e goals is--now that we have prop c and of course there is a lot of you know, the central soma doesn't really-hasn't built that much of office space at this point, and so let's say an office space that's built in central soma, it is already built and being converted into housing, i guess my-because prop c is when you build a office building that should have equivalent to the portion of affordable housing or housing. but with prop c, now that you

are converting it to housing, so the idea now is that let's say that building of 50 thousand square feet that will give to the large cap, but how will that pertain to the calculation of the housing? >> thank you for that question. might be helpful to think of prop e and prop c in two different ways. prop e is very much about how can we allocate space as one prong, the other prong is how much space do we have to allocate. tied to affordable housing with rhna. prop c is purely just about how much we have in the pot. it is purely a process of adding more space into the large cap through the specific process of identifying projects that were converted or demolished since 1986. one thing i failed to mention in the

presentation is, this initial timeline is required in a prop c, but september 1. the first publication of the inventory, but it also very clear ly states that going forward in future years if more projects are identified the inventory can be and should be updated and same process should occur for those future updates. so, for prop e, i might need to dig into your question more, because there is two ways to interact with affordable housing. one is on kind of the supply side. again if we don't build enough affordable housing the year prior we get less office space to allocate the next year. secondly, there is project specific affordable housing issues which says if we don't have enough in the pot, say there is only hundred thousand square feet in the large cap and there is a office project thatp wants to

build 300 thousand square feet, we will let you do that if you provide in the project enough affordable housing, the affordable housing demand created by the office space. if you do that on-site, we'll still let you go ahead and get that allocation and you have to pay it down every 10 years. that is a option, not a requirement. those two aspects of prop e related to affordable housing, rhna aspect and project by project aspect shouldn't be impacted by prop c because that is one time infusion of more office space into the large cap, with the potential for smaller updates in the future. >> prop c doesn't really have any mandates on whether it should be just affordable housing? >> right. prop c doesn't really impact a individual projects, accept for

the one aspect mentioned of, if a project includes demolition of an existing office building, they retain the credit for that office space. >> thank you for that clarification. >> sure. >> i agree with mrs. hester in terms of having this--i assuming that mr. teague, you will have by september 1 and perhaps for us in september will have-good for us to have informational hearing around that time and also looking forward to that inventory list. thank you. >> commissioner braun. >> my first question is answered by somebody else. my question is, i'm curious to hear more about the methods used to

identify the office buildings that may have been demolished and you are using to gather that information. how is that process working? >> at this point the method is anything and everything available. we have certain amount of institutional knowledge in the department, because usually large conversions or projects we worked on in the department. obviously there are other agencies in the city that may have information relative to this, like deparchlt of building inspection, but we again we will be reaching out proactively and have the option to receive input from all the other folks in the industry who work in the space and have worked in the space for a long time and again, i think we already received some of those to kind of very preliminary beginning of putting this list together, but i don't think there is any specific methodology we have in place and instead just have a much more comprehensive approach to

trying to identify these projects any way we can. i think it is helpful-we want to capture every project that is out there in this timeline, but if we dont and miss one or two projects, we do have that option and requirement in future years to update the inventory and add that space back in at that time. >> great. i was thinking, i'm glad it hear you are working with the real estate brokers or community, because they will also have data bases that might track information in a more convenient way. >> a lot of people who work directly in the office development and the office leasing world are on our e-mail list for this program, so they will be getting an e-mail when we send out the draft inventory, and so we will be insuring all those folks in that sphere will be aware and have a opportunity to provide input. >> great.

there will be a lot of what about's. one other in the weeds question, i was curious as to whether space demolished or converted is a state or federal or county building, does that also go back into the allocation? >> it has to be office space under prop m, so going back to the original slide about what we account for and don't, if it is state or federal that qualifies. there is conversion of state building we are aware that was more then 10 thousand square feet that qualifies. if it was a city building that didn't qualify and not considered office space under prop m that wouldn't count. >> thank you. my other question, i wasn't clear, is there a plan to come back to planning commission with final numbers and informational hearing?

>> i did state whenever we issue the draft inventory that will come to the commission and at the final we come back. i didn't specify how it will come back. obviously it is to commission discretion if you want to schedule something that was more specific item opposed to just a report. >> sure. i'll just say, i'm in support also of hearing what the results are at a commission hearing. thank you. >> commissioner koppel. >> thanks mr. teague for this report. i still think that downtown area is extremely valuable area of town just for the economy and commerce sector. not only does it provide a lot of permanent jobs with white collar sector and also the blue collar sector, the lower wage workers and am excited to see effort put into this. i like lately been hearing some things about potentially just trying

to make downtown more a 24 hour section of the town, which is just thrilling to hear. knowing about projects like 100 van ness, especially excited to hear we are looking at the demo credits, because you might think this is true, but a lot of times it is cheaper easier and faster to actually demo an entire building and build a new one, if it isn't set up perfectly like 100 van ness was and is. some are set up more easily for conversions, but honesty, a lot of times it's simpler, faster and cheaper to actually tear it down and build a new one. if we want the housing that may be another way to look at things. just glad to see we are looking at these options and we are taking everything into account. >> thank you . commissioner williams.

>> thank you for the presentation. i agree with commissioner imperial, it is helpful for the public to weigh in on prop c and the possibilities. i think there is positive possibilities as far as getting to our affordable housing goals, and so i think it would be helpful to have the public weigh in and maybe give us some ideas that we are not thinking about. anyway--that's it. >> vice president moore. >> i have a specific question regarding your comment about if there is only hundred thousand square feet in the large cap and somebody wants to build a 300 thousand square foot office building, he, she will be allowed to get advanced credit if they

provide affordable housing. office and housing in one building dont combine so well. can you get that credit in payments? >> short answer is no. the principle of prop e is the reason to give that advantage to allow that project to go forward is that, there will be no lag in affordal housing. office development now pays very high affordable housing job housing linkage fee, but there is the lag before the funds become affordable housing, so that was specific. there is-one miner nuance to that is, if you are doing a project and part of the residential component will have its own affordable housing requirement as a residential project, if you do the inlew polk, 50 percent can

count towards the requirement. the basic answer is now, you have to provide affordable housing on site. it doesn't have to be on the same building. it can be a multibuilding project on same site but has to be the same project. >> the reality of site sizes together with combination of those two uses raise a lot of practical questions and want to put that to the record. >> thank you. i have a number of technical questions as well too. i want to start out by saying, i definitely support the other commissioners request we actually schedule this for public hearing and we hear back on the results of the inventory. so, just to make sure i understand, prior to the passage of prop c, any demolition or conversion of office space did not result in any credit any of it caps, small cap pool,

large cap pool, central soma pool, nothing? it was just lost square footage, correct? >> conversion you did get credit for that. it was specific if you demolish a office building you lost that credit. that's what prop c changed. to treat demolition no differently then conversion and maintain that credit for a project going forward now. >> with the conversion, before and after prop c, does it become a private reserve for that specific site? what if the site or can it be used elsewhere? transferred? >> it cannot be transferred. it is like a private reserve. what tends to happen in conversion is more if you have a existing building and want to do a vertical addition and want to move the office use higher and lower floors are converted to

retail, institutional, something else. you still end up with the same but expanded building and the office space is just located in a different maybe newer portion of the building so you keep the credit for office space you already had. >> is it a life time private reserve? if somebody doesn't use it immediately can they draw on it in the future? >> if it is front end question-there was a project without the address, but they got 400 thousand square feet. they were building the building before they actually finished the building they decided to lease half the building to a school instead of office space, so they never used half their allocation and we were able to revoke that half they didn't use. if they would have built that out, once you have 400 thousand square foot office building you have a 400 thousand square foot office building and pre-prop c if you demolished it

you lost that, but now you don't lose that, unless you decide to completely remove it. if you have office building and convert to--if it is situation where as part of the project you are moving things around, you get to keep-get credit for all the office space you already have. >> you are keeping track of these buildings to figure-like the example you gave where it became institutional rather then office, so it wasn't lost, it went into the pool, or when you revoked it did it disappear? >> it pulls it back. we do track the construction progress and permitting and everything for all our office projects and we keep a running list and if there are projects that are essentially inactive or if there are projects that did not use all their allocation for variety of reasons, we periodically bring those back to the planning commission

for revocation and when it is revoked it pulls that back into the respective cap. >> i have a sense maybe you can confirm the cap at the moment or amount of square footage in the cap is not stymied development, given the lack of office projects, or do you is a sense it is? people are not putting forward projects for the future? >> we track a very specific pipeline. projects submitting applications and would say the actual pipeline of office projects now is probably the smallest it has been since i can remember. i don't know the exact demand, because at the same time, in the large cap we dont have 300 thousand square feet. one project can easily be way more then 300 thousand square feet, so depends how you want to judge that. we dont have a lot of office projects in the queue and not sure for a large cap, i have to look, not sure

what the last projects was applied for. i don't know the post-pandemic and all of the office projects that have come before you i moved forward are small cap other then central soma projects that were moving along when the pandemic hit. i don't think we received many large cap project application since then. >> do you is a sense order of magnitude how much square footage as a result of this inventory you will be able to add back to the cap? >> i don't really, just because i haven't really began to crunch the numbers at all. at this point, we are very early and just trying to identify potential projects and then once you identify addresses and projects we will be very actively moving forward to try to nail down square footage et cetera. i would say that we are talking a period that goes back to 1986,

so i'm not going to be surprised if is decent size number. >> talking hundred of thousand, millions? kwrrks >> i would be surprised if less then a million but that is speculation. there is good number of projects that have this conversion or demolition that occurred. we have to go through the and document it but wouldn't surprise me to be high hundred thousands or higher. >> okay. one additional question, so when you do this inventory and theres square footage you can put back in the reserve, what goes into the small-does it all go into the large project no matter if a small- >> correct. >> what is allocated to central soma reserve opposed to large project? >> nothing. this is purely added square footage back to large cap and large cap only.

doesn't touch small cap or central soma reserve, and it doesn't matter if it was an office building that was only 15 thousand square feet and less then 10 thousand or more, as long as the conversion was 10 thousand or more, then it would get pulled back to the large cap. >> right. i guess i have one more which is, no matter how many, 9500 square foot conversions there may have been, it is all lost office space, correct? you don't add it up or take into account the cumulative effect? >> can you say again? >> let's say there were 10 buildings that were converted that were 9500 square feet of office space, that square footage you don't look at the cumulative effect. each individual one is less then 10k, the square footage is gone, correct kblrks correct. >> thank you. vice president moore.

>> you mentioned 1986 as the date you , that was time of the development. do any redevelopment projects fall within your pulling the square footage together? >> didn't catch the last part. >> 1986 at that time we still had redevelopment projects. do demolition and redevelopment projects fall under this accounting as well? >> yes, redevelopment and port projects both we have to account for them even if they are withins we didn't have to approve to the planning commission. we will be consulting with ocii and the port and make sure all the projects eligibility, even if not in our typical planning commission authorization sphere, we are trying to capture all those as well. >> okay. thank you. >> if nothing further we can move to

item 14. case 2017-011878pha-10. 420 23 street potrero power station phase 1 block 2 vertical development. major modifications. >> good afternoon commissioners. planning department staff and thank you commissioner koppel for your subs. the item before you today is design review application with request for approval of major modifications to building standards of the design for development or d for d. for block 2 of the potrero power station development agreement. major modifications are required to allow deviation of more then 10 percent from any numerical stanards within the d for d and reviewed and approved by this commission upon advise of the planning department and planning director. the project includes construction of new 7 story 130 foot mixed use building containing 678 square feet of ground floor retail use, 102 .192

square feet of lab use, 182.652 square feet of institutional healthcare non-hospital use, 44 bike parking spaces and 3 off street loading spaces. three levels of subterraneren space contain healthcare uses and building maintenance and infrastructure and amenities. humbled street will be improved with garden or pocket park. the proposed building operated by the university of california san francisco and include outpatient healthcare facilities featuring a cancer treatment facility with 3 story medical equipment and lab above. the project requires four major modifications to proceed. first modification of priority retail standard in section 3.2.4. second, the upper building setback in section 6.4.1. the street wall standards, 6.4.5 and modification of inparking and

loading entrance in section 6.20.5. the commission must find the requested changes to building standards quality of design and public benefit superior or equal to that anticipated in the d for d. the overall power station mix use project consist of comprehensive master plan for 29 acre former industrial site includes numerous public benefit and community amenities that transform the central waterfront. many applications for been before you for this project and listed in your executive summary so i'll spare everyone the process of going through project history. i will just remind you that this commission initially approved the project january 30, 2020. certifying the eir adopting findings and recommending approval of plan

amendment--then april 21, 2020 the board of supervisors approved the project master plan and da. the projecktd sponsor engaged robrust community out reach throughout the development and refinement of the design process leading to submittal of phase 1 development application over the last several years. i will let the sponsor team get into that. a public preapplication meeting for design review for block 2 held march 28 this year and june 1 the sponsor held a second community meetings fallowed by a site tour. feedback was positive and question around the amenities might provide to memberoffs the community such as children play area and overall timeline for opening to the public. the department receive 9 letters of support from individuals and community groups including the ymca of san francisco, the dog patch neighborhood association and potrero boosters. strong support for the pocket park, the fact the building will be

occupied by cancer treat center kwr the power station team is consistent in community outreach and--the department has not received letters of opposition. you also received a red line version of the staff report with non substantive edits and that staff report includes a new condition of approval related to proposed pocket park. because the park is completely elective and not anticipated in the d for d, there are therefore no guidelines specifically relevant to the park, so we want to insure that there would be a back-stop to review the park. should you approve the motion before you today, the proposed condition of approval requires the planning director and or planning staff to review the final plans for the park prior to issuance of first construction document or equivalent document. i have copies of the condition if you want to take a look. i'll read the proposed condition into the record. prior to the issuance of first

construction document, the project sponsor shall submit final plans and information related to the proposed pocket park along [indiscernible] including but not limited to proposed landscaping, hardscaping and furniture. department staff insure consistency with fiendings of the motion the proposed pocket park achieves quality of design and increased public benefit prior to approval. the department find the project is on balance, consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan and meets the power station development agreement. the special use district and planning code. the project achieve the superior design quality and provide public benefits and excess of was anticipated. by voluntarily constructing a pocket park and providing first cancer treatment center of its type in the region. the sponsor will fill you with more

information. based on the findings included in the staff report we recommend aal proval with conditions and this concludes my presentation. thank you so much. >> thank you. project spencer, through the chair you have 7 minutes. >> commissioners. good afternoon. project sponsor for potrero power station. glad to be back with positive update. last time we were before you in january we said we had a new years resolution to be back with new building and glad on summer sol sts we have a new building to show you. fantastic. so, it is a busy time at power station. we have been taking buildings apart and doing quite a bought of bit to keep the project moving. since we been before you four years ago when the project was approved we started roit away on

infrastructure and building roads, finished the sea wall and by the end of 2025 we will have enough infrastructure on site to support 3 thousand square feet of development. this shows how we link to pier 70 and how they come together to open dog patch waterfront. also work aing on preservation, something close to our heart. we preserved and strengthened the 19th century station a in 2021 and this year starting to preserve and strengthening unit 3, the midcentury power station on the waterfront which we think will be an amazing public space. images of what it looks now without the boiler inside. we also advance workforce housing and affordable housing and broke ground earlier this year on 105 units of affordable housing finance with new financing method and this was yesterday showing pilings put into the ground so happy to be advancing housing. now block 2, the new building.

we have the opportunity to think about how we might use the site that had opportunity for commercial development office and life science laboratory. the university of california came to us couple months ago and said they are trying to build a innovative cancer center yoozing technology called protontherapy. they tried for years. this struck a cord with us. there is 33 proton senters around the country and florida has 4 and the west coast has 5 and nothing between seattle and san diego. if tennessee can center 2 and arkansas 1 we mine as well have our own. they designed a building that does fit not only protontherapy bit exciting uses. the building block p2 which will be

house the cancer center, clinical space and incubator space so the future companies that bring invasion to drive economy will fit. we are pleased to bring world class architects and design. very excited the building will have shown before you the subterranean protontherapy center, three floors of clinic and incubator. the building is set back to accommodate the cancer equipment that needs to come in and for that it created a opportunity which is this pocket park not contemplated. it isn't often you get a chance to do something great for the community and we are excite thrd is a lush garden and park want expected and thrilled to show both the commission and or the planning director the plans for the garden when completed. the building itself setback in the garden and how the building will be pushed back.

the modifications we are requesting help enhance the design and help the utility required for the cancer center. we want to talk about what else is going on at the site. we have robust community engagement process. the projeblth was unanimously approved 4 years ago and take the community commitment very strong. also the commitment and partnership with organized labor which is terrific and continued on. the project is continuing site tours and our power station foundation continues to invest in the community and advance of the project delivered to insure as the project arrives we are coming into a healthy community. finally, when you work on building as much infrastructure as we have, we have the opportunities to open the waterfront which has been closed to the dog pack community since lincoln was president so thought it was a good idea and if there was the opportunity to advance not only housing, commercial, but also public spaces and so

this is a street image taken some days today. you see the street is opened up. we opened up this unit 3, which is is this old power block, which in the past powered the city. now we think it is a incredible place for a public space so this is the chimney looking up. now you can look up in the sky. working with ucsf and this project moving forward, we will be putting in and opening in permanent park, temporary -opening up half decade faster and starting the planning process now and the goal is to be able to open up the waterfront as we open the affordable and commercial building with ucsf. we are thrilled the project keeps moving along. it has been a long road and we certainly expect every single twist and turn over the past 4 years but

very happy the project has been moving along and we have been able to hopefully with not only approval here and later otthe uc regents break ground on this important building next year. thank you so much. >> that concludes sponsor presentation, we should open public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. >> hello. my name is bruce, from ucsf and have a few points i like to make about the project. ucsf is proud to be a national leader in clinical care, medical education and bio medical research. we are excited to lease a building--i will take my mask off. excited to lease a buildish at the power station and work with

[indiscernible] master developer. the new building will be located on approximately 50 thousand square foot commercial parcel called block 2. the building includes 3 major uses, a cancer treatment center, artificial intelligence and life science and clinical areas. block 2 is designed by the firm hur zaugg. notable work include the [indiscernible] as well as ucsf new hospital at parnassus heights. the new cancer center utilize advance cancer treatment with highly precise proton radiation. we envision have a start up company with focus on intersection with ai, life science, medicine, research and development. the building contain a variety

of outpatient clinical use. we don't know what the exact mix is today, but they may include family medicine, endoscopy, multispecialty. there is not any inpatient healthcare use in this facility. the new building comply with provisions of the power station development agreement and make significant contribution towards living community benefit including infrastructure and new waterfront park and other uses. thank you for your consideration of this important project. >> good afternoon commissioners. i told you last week i would be back. jf, potrero booster neighborhood association. last week are talked about the tension in the dog patch neighborhood between industrial use, residential youth growth and institutional use and the way we try today get around that is through the planning process

and i think the power station shows exactly how well that can work. the project sponsor has done a tremendous amount of community outreach and early stages some things we talked about is, the ability to power station to be a place where we can plan for the different sort of uses that are impacting the dog patch community and that is what they did. that was manifested in the d for d and land use plan for the different lots and parcels and manifested in development agreement. and so we see coming together and seeing how that works out so well. not only have we been able to kick-start affordable housing which was a key benefit that this project was going to bring, but now we see how it can accommodate life science and institutional uses. i think we have to give thanks to friends at ucsf for recognizing this opportunity. we all know ucsf has a lot of flexibility with land use. what they did is saw a perfect opportunity to do something they could nlt do anywhere else and

establish a place they could be a anchor just as they were in mission bay so long ago. so, technically we are here because we have to have changes to the d for d and the provisions d for day say we have to provide more community benefit and i think that under lies how this thing you are asked to approve is a win win win win. i can keep going on with the wins but will stop there. not only do we get a state of the art cancer treatment facility, additional clinical space and life science research development space but also get more public open space as a part of the project to accommodate the project. we get the bringing forward community benefits on site and off site in order to help create the infrastructure necessary to support all these new residents and new workers that we will bring into the neighborhood and we do while keeping active ground floors and all the other things part of good design and get a world clatss architect

to boot. we can't get that on every project, but nice when we get it. as a result the potrero and dog patch neighborhood association have been supportive of this project. we went through a long process and conversation and wasn't always easy easy but it was mature and robust and ended up with principles and ideas how to grow this part of the waterfront and what you are asked to approve today is a part that and look forward to you know, continuing to move on with the development of this part of our neighborhood. it is a part of the neighborhood. it could look inward and try to be separate, but no, it integrated itself very well. >> thank you for coming back this weekismt it gives a opportunity to rectify a oversight i made last week, which is, you are not here in that capacity i want to acknowledge your role on the board of permit appeals and thank you for your service. >> thank you.

>> last call for public comment. >> everyone, i think you are starting to get know me. aurora robin, a san francisco resident since 1981. thank you for your services and everyone for being here. i want to let you know that i worked for more then 15 years as project manager and helt care, so it is interesting projeblth to hear about so thank you for bringing more cancer research and dollars to the community, because as everyone knows, cancer is the leading cause of difficulties in our healthcare world. i work for places call stanford, kaiser, most recently, sutter implementing epic instillation so i know about working with

healthcare people and bringing in new clinics so really exciting. my biggest comment is about providing housing obviously because currently even though i have background in bachelor and project manager, i'm in a sro and i love when i hear new buildings being biment with affordable housing. it is at the icon. not to say more about it. i am making it work and it is affordable if you call it that. so, what i wanted to suggest are two things. when i hear about the new developments my concerns are always, are we pushing out seniors, people who paid their dues living in the community? are we allowing for bikers and for the wildlife? are we allowing for the character of san francisco to retain? allowing for people who found a way to make san francisco, one of the most expensive cities, being able to

live in the city, finding a way to make that work for them? what i heard in the short time i have been here you are trying to do that so appreciative that. but can i suggest this, san francisco needs housing, but what i want to ask ask, if you are looking at the housing, can you look as mini homes because many seniors don't want a big place. i'm 61 this year, and i would settle for a mini home with platform bed. there are so many living in cars and that happened to me, but i made it work and got a job while living in a car so that is a miracle. [laughter] and also i'm available for work, so if you need [indiscernible] i normally dress better but tried to make it here. thank you all. please consider those things. the wildlife impact, because i saw a wonderful representation of wet

land restoration. bringing the birds back means less bugs, more better earth because they poop on the earth and make compost, so forth. won't bore with that. and then the more--because i have been hearing about luxury housing development, but really it is stable housing development that we need. we need to prevent people going into cars and living in sro when they have done their time and dues. i think that is my time. thank you everyone. >> thank you very much. okay. final last call for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed and the matter is before you commissioners. >> thank you. i want to start by thanking the project sponsor for continuing to make an investment in this amazing praublgect. project. it was one of the first projects i had the opportunity to weigh in on and approved when i joined the commission and i have been so happy to see

you not with standing the hurtles in the economy moving forward and coming forward with this project that that accommodate the needs of ucsf. we have heaped praise on the project for honoring history, looking to the future, all the elements. i will not go into detail, i just want to talk about a couple aspects of the modifications you are proposing. i'm very supportive of the modifications, but i want to make sure, given the park design we saw is not necessarily the final dein zoo design, i asked staff if they can draft a condition that allowed for staff oversight review and approval and i want to make sure that you are okay with the condition that they read into the record.

>> we are commissioner. thank you. the only reason the park isn't yet designed is we dont have the final technical specks for the equipment. we are more then happy to come back to the commission, transparency and engagement with community is something we hold dear to the project principles and are values. >> the condition is sufficient but others may want to weigh in to see if they want the design to come back as informational item so we can can see what was-what the end result is. my second question has to do with the frontage along craig. not my favorite frontage, because it is very utilitarian. i understand why it had to be designed that way, but there is a corky part bugging me, which is the-i think 6 feet wide, the space you refer to i

think inappropriately as pedestrian relief area. i suggest those who are dog owners, that is not the greatest term. when you think a dog relief area, that is not-i wouldn't use the comparable pedestrian relief area term. it is like 6 feet. it has driveways on both sides of it. i assume the primary purpose is if somebody happens to be walking there and a car comes out, there is a safe place for them to pause, but is it marked in some way? is there warning buzzers that go off? is the marking on the sidewalk such the pedestrian would know this is a safe zone to stand in? can you describe what you actually visualize this-i realize it is tiny detail, but as described it isn't making sense to me. >> no problem, commissioner. happy to do it. apologies for the lack of creativity in

the nomenclature with the area. craig lane is designed to be a back of the house street. it alley designed to take traffic away, mostly loading traffic away from primary streets to insure faster public transit and safer pedestrian experience. we envision very little pedestrian experience on craig lane. we don't want to plan for that situation, so should a pedestrian walk there and there a truck we want to create a safe place for pedestrians to stop. it will have a flashing light and may have a sound. we will do our best to rename it in a more positive light. >> thank you. i'll call on vice president moore. >> i don't have questions. i just want to make a comment.

i'm in full support of the project. good guidelines. wonderful framework for the overall site and as you implement the project, i can only acknowledge that when you put additional creativity and stack it on top of already good guidelines, i call that creativity gulor. i believe all the things you are asking for are indeed creative interpretation of architect taking good guidelines and mubing into reality of designing real architecture and creating real spaces that work. the guidelines are ideas which most people fight. why do i have restriction to my creativity? in this particular case, i believe that the guidelines have inspired creativity. i think the building, the use, the mix use character is all amazing. it is community benefit.

it has all the support of the community of everybody near and far and i couldn't see any happier project as you are moving forward. so, i make a motion to approve with the conditions which were added and-- >> thank you. >> second. >> commissioner koppel. >> i will third that motion and i don't need you to come back for a scheduled item, just informational on redesign would be fine. i want to thank you again for having the courage to take this monster huge project on. whether we know it or not, there is so much work going on down there and constant basis. large scale, huge footprint work. i'm blown away so thank you again and showing up here and continuing to keep moving forward. >> our pleasure to present to you over the last 8 years commissioner

koppel. thank you for your support and guidance. >> commissioner williams. >> not really too familiar with the project outside of what the presentation you gave me the other day, but i was very impressed with your approach beginning with the approach to community and getting everyone involved and getting community folks engaged and respecting community. i think you know, that speaks a lot to you know, your guys values, and that's really important and it shows through everything else that has come forward that i have seen so far. i just wanted to highlight that i really appreciate that. you took the time to respect

the people and communities that are there with the affordable housing complex and named after a community hero in the bayview hunter point. all that stuff is very important to me and so i just wanted to let you know that i appreciate your consideration and concern and your focus on that. thank you. >> vice president moore. >> i want to add one additional comment triggered by what commissioner williams said. i believe this project is a perfect example how the community can create excellent projects, can create win, win for everybody. this project has been around quite a few years and from the very beginning when the community was critical and really had all challenges for

you, you have stuck through it and today i think we have a project that has more community support because community still is able to weigh in and on hardly any other project before us. that is to acknowledge the community, thank you, thank you, thank you and to acknowledge you. thank you. >> if nothing further, there is motion and seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended by staff and read into the record related to pocket park. commissioner williams, aye. commissioner braun, aye. commissioner imperial, aye. commissioner koppel, aye. commissioner moore, aye. commissioner diamond, aye. the motion passes 6-0. >> thank you commissioners. >> i think we will take a 10 minute break. >> very good. sfgovtv, 10 minute recess.

>> good afternoon and welcome back to san francisco planning commission meeting for june 20, 2024. commissioners, we left off under regular calalder. property 88 spears street. you will be considering the conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator the request for variance. >> department staff. the project before you is request for conditional use to allow office use, and below ground familiar at the property. the project include tenant improvement and one story vertical addition for restaurant. the property is 11 story building containing 13 thousand square feet of

and 144 thousand square feet of office use. the department has not received public comment. conditional use approval to convert conversion to office space would allow the property owner to promote tenant occupancy tenant activity on the ground floor. the department believes the project is desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood and recommend approval. also requesting variance for beyond the dimensions considered by the zoning administrator. this concludes the presentation and available for questions. the project sponsor will present now. >> projethsponsor you have 7 minutes. >> good afternoon and thank you so much for allowing us to the time to present the project. for 4 years san francisco has been reckoning with the consequences of covid and the toll it has taken

on downtown. utilization of buildings is central discussion point and specifically what the future of downtown hold, what does the future of these older office buildings hold for the city and how can they play a role in the revitalization of downtown in this new chapter that we are collectively going to work together to start writing and to show that san francisco can live up to its name as this cradle of invasion and have its downtown actually reflect that energy that optimism and so, with this project, with 88 spear we want to reimagine what it should look like. up until march 14, 2020 before we went into lock down was hundred percent occupied and never needed to

consider alternative uses ground floor activation, truly being a destination just given the vacancy at existed at the imto. 5 percent of san francisco. we took the project as a challenge. it was the first office building that was bought last year at the bottom and we've since rolled up our sleeves and give credit to department leadership and staff for being incredibly creative and taking on a big partnership role allowing to push the envelope and figure how best to position the building, but with that, i just wanted to reiterate that, our commitment here is to really figure out what these buildings need to look like and what we have come up with. we hope you agree with our view is, a solution we want to see rolled out in many other buildings downtown. with that, i'll turn it over to our great architect, and land use

team as well. thank you. >> hello, i'll share design intent and scope of the project. these are images of the existing building. you can see the street level views and upper left and the lower left you can see the spectacular view fram from the roof deck which is under utilized. the image on the right shows the existing program which is retail at the base, office above and existing mechanical penthouse in gray. this shows the new scope of work. this is spear street elevation on the east. one of had most exciting aspect ozs of the project is new restaurant addition which consist of one story restaurant with associated elevator extension that is required. there is additional work of renovation to the facade of the mechanical penthouse and level 1 and 2

facades. this is a proposed ground floor plan. this will consist of a huge amount of interior renovation to really improve the arrival experience for the project and create a active inviting destination. the access to the roof level is through the main office entry doors. the restaurant reception is located to the north in that pink box. there are additional tenancy carved out in the south which is cafe and coworking space. this is a great view in order to be able to see the whole projeth. . you see the restaurant addition to the modernized base at the bottom of the building. these images show the renovation to the facade on spear and mission street. you see consistent use of deep

dark pallet paired with antique bronze metal. also see the proposed dramatic to set the stage for the hospitality approach that is part of the interior story. these views show the restaurant one story addition as well as the renovation to the mechanical penthouse which turns into a lovely garden area. the restaurant itself will have a translucent etf roof at the top and it has three faces that are highly glazed to maximize these incredible views of the bay bridge all most full span. this also includes work to create a connective feature stair from the restaurant level to the existing mechanical roof deck level. lush seating areas that have integrated places for people to rest and

work and enjoy being together. with that, i'll pass it to john to talk to the variance. >> good afternoon commissioners. mr. teague. john, on behalf of presidio bay ventures. the standard allow for lect of 50 percent of the pbuilding frontage or 25 feet which ever is less. the 50 is only 36 percent of the building frontage and exceed 25 feet. this variance request meets the findings. finding 1, the building constructed in 1966 before the downtown plan. the building was designed with focus on recessed ground floor retail arcade with deemphasized to office stores at the far end of spear street. the arcade filled in 2000 and building entrance is barely distinshuished. the building ground floor frontage has a mix of old and new features

not successfully integrated. enforcement leads to unnecessary hardship. which are the building highly office space. pulls the bay with elevator and back up house into ground floor rather then afterthought. the two bay is a critical component revitalizes and activating the building and the controls undermine this. finding 3, variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. the building design prior to downtown controls, this building needs flexibility from the controls to rebrand attracting tenants and create a destination roof restaurant. mr. zoning administrator, here if you have questions or fiendings.

thank you. >> thank you. we should open public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity kreess address the commission on these items. >> good afternoon commissioners. i'm with east cut community benefit district which is district in which 88 spear is located. very pleased to be here today to speak in support of the project and plans presented for several reasons. it is an aging building that needs quite a bit of work to make competitive and remain in the market. it meets several goals of neighborhood aspirations and greater downtown area. specifically for the mar key, i think you should look at the building today. it isn't welcoming and inviting to the tenants or public. we welcome any attempt to make the building connect more with the sidewalk. same way the retail space use,

if you go there today there used to be a walgreens. such a large retail space in today's market does not make a ton of sense, so we appreciate the addition of cafe space and coworking space, which will greatly improve the connectivity to the sidewalk. bear in mind, the project is on a block that connects market street, so it is quite a heavy pedestrian traffic thoroughfare, because people go to and from bart, to and from the deepest areas of the neighborhood and passing by this brilding so i think cafe space will be successful. we lost three cafes in the past 4 years. specialty, [indiscernible] and lastly, which is the cherry on top is addition of two stories for restaurant space, which further meet the aspirations of downtown to really transform our neighborhood into commercial,

to slightly mixed use, to everybody's neighborhood. we want the space, so san franciscans and visitors have places to visit and very-it leverage the height of downtown. for all these reasonss we encourage you commissioners to support this projects both the conditional use, but also the variance on the. thank you. >> it is funny to hear about the renstrations to 88 spear street because i worked in so many buildings in 40 years since being and moving for school to san francisco. when you talk about renovations to buildings, i probably worked in them. i'm excited to hear about this one. i just want to add that, in

addition to cafe space, and living residential space, you might want to consider what is also lost, which is day care space and that's crushing to me, because in the old days i used to see pg&e had a playground for their children, and that created longevity with that firm and other firms that did that. as you are talking about these spaces being renovated, please remember the children. i was once one is and all you were as well. thank you. >> thank you. last call for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. this item is now before you commissioners. >> commissioner koppel. >> revitalizing downtown and neighborhood for everyone. could not be in more support for this project. the developer has history of doing nothing but good things here and move

to approve. >> second. >> no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded tew approve with conditions. >> commissioner williams. >> just want to say, it looks like a very nice project. very well done. i just hope i'll be able to afford to eat in that restaurant after it is built. it looks expensive, but nice. beautiful view. yeah, it definitely seems like something that will attract people downtown to that space and so--it is nice. thanks. >> commissioner braun. >> i am in support of the project. it is great reimagining to modernize a build ing. i do have one miner question for the project sponsor. with the mechanical penthouse

having the open space around it on the same level, just curious how noise is addressed with the interaction between the restaurant and penthouse and deck on the roof of the building? >> they have recommended to add defusers to some of the areas to mute some of the noise, so it has been determined by acoustic engineer it will be comfortable. >> okay. helpful to know. sure you thought about it, it was more my own education. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> i have a question to the project sponsor. are there already perspective tenants for the office use? >> we haven't wanted to start marketing the space, but we have been in talks with two operators for the ground floor, so a bakery, which would

be incredible and so we actually adapted the space and some of back of house to accommodate their functions and also for the ground floor and second floor connected office space, we have been in talks with a incubator operator as well to have that be more of a -rather then a traditional office space with a single tenant, which would would accommodate a lot of smaller businesses so been talking with both of them and haven't advanced it pending today's meeting. we are optimistic we will be able to in short order sign both those leases and also continue the converivation with the soperators for the restaurant bar and event space. >> i'm very supportive but have a question for the architect about the

marque. how do you maintain the ray of lights? how many lights are there and somebody constantly changing bulbs? how does that work? >> the good news with led is they last a lot longer then your traditional bulbs, and we took ins separation from this piece to incorporate public art, so the feature will actually be designed by an artist and then integrated but it is essentially a larger light fixture or led fixture, so the process that drives all that is on the inside of the building. we don't anticipate there to be as complicated process of maintenance as some of the older versions of what this is meant to evoke in new york for example. >> thank you. zoning administrator. >> thank you. clearly, lots of support for the project.

the only item is just the marquee and design makes sense. i want to give consideration. as mentioned the code allows for 25 foot and this is 50 foot so fairly substantial size and doubling of what is required so just will take it under consideration to see if the situation here unique enough with this site relative to others to justify the full extent of the variance, just want to make that comment. >> if nothing further there is motion and second to approve with conditions. williams, aye. braun, aye. imperial, aye. koppel, aye. moore, aye. diamond, aye. so moved. the motion passes unanimously 6-0. zoning administrator. >> close the public hearing for the variance and take the matter under advicement. >> very good. commissioners, that place on the final item on the agenda today, 16.

2023-004458cua, 21 flood avenue. conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon again commissioners. lizzi mau, planning department staff. the project before you is request for conditional use authorization for the removal of vacant unauthorized dwelling unit at the first floor of three story over basement house. the property contains two authorized dwelling units and three unauthorized dwelling yunlts. unit. two do not require conditional use authorization to be removed due to the substandard floor to ceiling height. only occupied by family members of the property owner and had no evictions under administrative code section 37.98 8-12 or 37.9a, 14-16. return the building to original condition as two family

dwelling. the department has not received public comment. the department finds the project to be necessary desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. the project sponsor does not have a presentation but are here and also available to answer any questions. >> very good. the project sponsor forefits the 5 minutes we will open public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission. seeing none, public comment is closed and the matter is before you commissioners. >> commissioner williams. >> i wanted to ask the planning staff, did someone do a visual inspection to make sure that there was no tenants inside the building? >> yes. as part of the project i

conducted on-site site visit to verify that there were no occupants of either of the three unauthorized dwelling units. >> just another question, is that something that you guys-is that mandatory that you do this? >> for udu removals, we do--as routine inspection, staff do do routine inspection. >> it isn't mandatory? >> happy to jump in. it is staff requirement for all removals of dwelling units to do as site visit. yes is the answer, it is required. it isn't in the code, but it is a department procedure i reinforced to staff, you shall take a site visit before you sign off on anything that is removal of dwelling units. >> just asking because, there was something a project that came before this commission a few weeks ago where there was tenants in there. >> that's where we had that conversation where it didn't

happen but was supposed to happen. >> was supposed to happen. >> it was supposed to and hadn't and if it had we would have--i reinforced with staff and management this is requirement so it is a protocol in the department. >> just want to comment on that protocol. my feeling is that a requirement and mandatory to do to have a vite visit and make sure there is no one living there. i just want to put that out there. i thought we would have some kind of a more conversation on this subject a few weeks ago it came up and so- >> i think or maybe lost in translation, it is mandatory for staff. just trying to make the

distinction between what is in the code and what is the staff requirement and so, the staff requirement we do a lot of rules we ask staff to do that are not all codified and this is one of them, so for any project moving forward whether comes to the planning commission or not, we want to make sure the public, the commission and everyone has confidence that none of those will be approved without there being a site visit. >> commissioner, you see him here or most of them so ask. we are happy to let you know but it is our policy to do that site visit. the one you were referring to didn't happen, but it was the policy and continues to be the policy. reiterated with staff it is our paums. policy. >> we are happy to have you hold us accountable and ask the question. gives us little more accountability and happy to have it.

>> yeah, accountability is important, but more important is that we know that there is nobody actually living there, especially when it comes to demolition. i'm just concerned, that's all. i don't want to have be a party to some unfortunate circumstance for a tenant is overlooked and gets pushed out into the street. that's all. >> we agree. thank you. >> vice president moore. >> i'm curious about the dates. there was a code enforcement in 2020 and follow-up code in 2023. when did all of this start? the course of having 3 unauthorized dwelling units, the owner derived income from these three unauthorized dwelling units. is there a penality when

something like that happens and why all a sudden the change of heart? >> did we have the project sponsor make a presentation? we skipped that? >> yeah, the project sponsor did not make a presentation. and, we should do the project sponsor presentation. >> we skipped it because they declined the opportunity. >> sorry. didn't realize that. okay. >> i assume staff would know. >> lizzi mau, department staff. yes, there is open enforcement case associated with this project and fees are assessed based on the amount of time enforcement case has been opened. unfortunately the enforcement planner is not here today and so the value that fee i do not know at the moment.

>> is this a condition that could have existed 10 years prior to it being noted? >> yeah, again we are complaint based, so i don't and it doesn't sound like lizzi knows exactly why or who filed the complaint. it could have been a condition that- >> sorry, misunderstood the question. so, the complaint was open because there is a dbi complaint for fire happening at the property and so the fire revealed there were 3 unauthorized units in 2020. >> we don't know how long pre-fire those units existed or those details. >> commissioner koppel. >> satisfied as far as we can take this with the question and answer we had, so move to approve. >> second.

>> commissioner imperial. >> i do not have generally an issue with this project, but i think it's moving forward for the staff to give us more information history about the complaint, about how long has this been a udu been existing and why just now and also the enforcement penalities. that would be very helpful for us to have that kind of information in our packets, so thank you. >> vice president moore. >> this project has two kitchens and two baths. that is obviously something somewhere along the line somewhere that must have surfaced. unless this was all installed without permit, et cetera.

>> good afternoon. i'm the son of the owner. our family members, we built the rooms about 10 years ago and it was just for family to have a place to stay. that's pretty much it. >> if there is nothing further commissioners, there is motion seconded to approve with conditions on that motion, williams, aye. braun, aye. imperial, aye. koppel, aye. moore, aye. diamond, aye. so moved commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 6-0. and concludes your hearing today. enjoy the break. [meeting adjourned]

>> good morning everybody. welcome to july 9 meeting of san francisco county transportation authority board. i'm rafael mandelman and serve as the chair the vice chair is melgar. i want to thank james from sfgovtv and amy saeyang. madam clerk, will you please call the roll? >> chan, absent. dorsey present. engardio present. mandelman present. melgar, present. peskin, absent. preston, present. ronan, present.