planning department's standard model on these type of things. the ground floor is staying pdr so we have several tenants that we are speaking to about these things and the upper three floors are going to be office. >> is that because there's so many departments involved your streetscape is not going to be completed prior to the building construction? >> that's exactly right. that's why as part of the agreement we are -- you guys might recognize outside of city hall right now the two flashing lights, those will be installed coming from either direction saying alert, crosswalk coming up. so that will be used during the period between occupation and completion of the streetscape improvements. >> and do you have any approximate time that it would take for that streetscape, for it to be completed? >> well, it's an interesting question. that's something we've been bating around quite a bit. i mean, there are some people that are enthusiastic that we might be able to get approval within 4 months and

then construction within 6 to 9 months. obviously when you are dealing with several different jurisdictions the approval process is always kind of up in the air, but that's our optimistic schedule. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> when you talked about the improvements to sterling street, did you indicate there were going to be signs placed there not to use that as a crosswalk? >> yeah, right now there are two handicapped ramps. those will be filled in along with some sort of physical blockage along with signage saying use the crosswalk across the street. the city has a standard, it needs to be worked out but absolutely it would be consistent with that. >> thank you, we can hear from the zoning administrator and i

would ask folks to please take a seat. the fire code requires that we keep that area open so please take a seat. if there's anybody who has a seat open next to them maybe you can raise your hand so folks can see that, where the seats are. thank you. mr. pacheco, if more people show up, perhaps you can call and see if there's an overflow room available. no, we need people to take their seats. >> thank you, scott (inaudible) planning department. i think both parties have been very clear. this is an authorization issued by the planning commission the end of january. a couple points raised, concerns about pedestrian safety were raised at the planning commission hearing. one of the standard conditions of approval was expanded at this time by the commission to note the department would continue to work with applicable other agencies regarding issues surrounding pedestrian streetscape improvements, fire access, pedestrian safety and traffic

calming measures. so it's a condition of approval that is in the motion. i appreciate miss hester's eagle eyes on the rendering and addressing some of those questions. part of the submital from acom and the rendering is probably meant to show people on the sidewalk, but it did raise questions about perhaps maybe they are heading somewhere. so there is a raised plan that was the current project that does provide essentially a patio or outdoor area for the ground floor and i think this was developed as part of the original project. the original project had the entire building as office. through the approval process they changed the ground floor to be pdr uses, so the project sponsor can perhaps clarify whether or not this element will remain, but it is not, as it's designed, as i read it in the plans, not designed to function as a main entrance or other alternative entrance. this area here is raised and it does provide some kind of outdoor

amenity area and that's access to the ground floor pdr use. the main entry for the building is here and on the plans i would agree that that is and does read as the main entry to the building and it is in very close proximity to the proposed crosswalk location. so perhaps the project sponsor may want to address further refinements with regard to that element, but as it is, it doesn't appear that would function really as any kind of an alternative entrance. so, with that, available for any questions the board may have. i can't confirm what the project sponsor stated about the additional environment review that would be required as part of the sidewalk improvements, the crosswalk improvements. those are not technically part of the current project description, they are something the project sponsor has agreed to do and signed a private agreement with the neighbors to do so, but it is not fully part of the project. i am available for any

questions. >> can you define what do they mean by neighbors? >> i think the project sponsor is best to define who signed the agreement. >> as an aside, where are we with the allocation on this? >> i don't have the exact number here. i think this was actually a small cap location and the small cap, which are projects less than 50,000 square feet, between 25 and 50,000 square feet, we historically see surpluses each year. it's more the large cap allocations that we would look within the coming year to see surplus of, but this is not the large cap, it's more the small cap. it was a large cap project but through the course of the process it was revised now. it is now a small cap

project. >> thank you. can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak under public comment? okay, please step forward. >> i'm bob planthold, i came to support the appeal. to give you folks some background that may affect your judgment on my credibility, i served on 4 grand juries, i was an officer of the ethics commission twice, and i authored some controversial decisions. i have other good government experience. much of my recent advocacy is in the area of pedestrian safety, so much so that i have regular meetings with the caltrans deputy directors, their so-called executive board. i am bringing this up because yesterday we were told that decisions had to hinge on accuracy, adequacy, consistency. it ain't there. you are hearing some carefully worded responses and presentations.

this sponsor said there's a written agreement. why hasn't it or wouldn't it have been given to the apellant? i'm going to be cynical, wouldn't it give grounds to shut her up if she saw the accomplishments. i have researchd with caltrans staff. yesterday the planning staff said none of the people who prepared the eir were registered traffic engineers or regular engineers. you heard mta said in 2012 we'll get to it later. there's no adequate competent independent transportation analysis going on. the caltrans staff at district 4, the bike ped coordinators, they said they were supposed to have gotten the draft eir yesterday people were told the project was originally given to caltrans some time ago and they accepted it. it's not the same as receiving the draft eir

caltrans staff further told me that there was supposed to have been an application for an encroachment permit for the requested access curb ramp. you're hearing all these great nice things about eliminating the access curb cuts because it's unsafe. back up and deal with reality. there's already a crosswalk across 5th and bryant entrance, 5th and harrison exit from the freeway. next, the people who said that act as if san francisco supervisors have control over that, and they don't. that's caltrans jurisdiction, that curb ramp. maybe they will approve it. but you can't count on it and the fact that caltrans has been left out so much elsewhere. i'm bringing this up because even as of 2012, three years ago, the federal highway administration updated their definition of an intersection to include crosswalks. there was a change in methodology that found there's an increase in pedestrian injury count based on the new methodology.

but mta and others are basing their analysis on almost a phantom. there's almost nobody there so there's almost no problem. there's nothing related to the projected increase in numbers of not just tenants but clients, customers, family members dropping by and coming to there. it's inadequate. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, we will have rebuttal. miss hester, you have three minutes. >> tomorrow is walk to work day. this is a great way to celebrate walk to work day. we don't create new dangerous intersections. everything that you heard from the project sponsor may be correct. the crosswalk may be built after

occupancy. it may have caltrans approval. it may have mta approval. people may remove the parking on the street that is currently a physical impediment to people coming down the street. they may get the barrier installed at sterling street and the crosswalk removed. what we do know is the project sponsor was adamant at the meeting she had with the people in the public last week that they plan on having people working there in august because they can rent it. and the rent level is one of the highest rent levels in the city right now for tech offices south of market. this is near caltrans station. so we are to hope that no one has an accident. we are to

hope that the crosswalk is there by the time people start coming to the office. there is a lot of incentive to rent this out at $70 a square foot for tech offices. because the planning department botched this one. they did. they didn't look at these issues of creating a hazardous building and hazardous access. the city is going to be implicated in what happens there. i just was asking for, please, written notice that's kept that says i was told and i'm going to tell my employees that it's dangerous to get there, get inside. i don't think that is

ground-breaking. they are doing, encouraging bicycles by providing parking spaces. they say they are encouraging transit use. there's no transit that comes right to the site, they have to walk to the site after they get off transit. it's the city's responsibility to create safe intersections. what is vision zero about and why are you encouraging people to walk to work if they can't do it safely? thank you. >> mr. keplar >> thank you, commissioners, i'm not going to take all my time here. the only point i want to emphasize is that this is a project sponsor that's been aware of the streetscape conditions from the beginning of this process. the way that this process unfolded, while a unique site, really is a standard way that these streetscape improvements get done. you have a project -- and this is a modest project. major projects, you get your

project approved, subsequent to the project you work out appropriate streetscape improvements with the other various agencies after planning commission approval because you have multiple jurisdictions that are going to be looking at this and in this case obviously we have caltrans as well. again, approving this project today, denying the appeal, is going to result in actual real world improvements to the health and safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and tenants in this neighborhood. so we again request that you deny this appeal and here for any questions. thank you. >> yeah, counselor, the agreement is with neighbors. who are they? >> the agreement was worked out with a woman named alice rogers, who is the head of the rincon hill mission bay south of market neighborhood association as part of the streetscape and retail joint task force between the merchant's association and -- it's one neighborhood

association for the whole area. miss rogers is very active in a lot of projects right now, i worked with her on a number of these, so she -- there were a number of tenants across the street we met with, other office workers in the neighborhood, people who live at the clock tower building. ultimately it was kind of a diffuse group of folks and in the end it made sense that alice -- excuse me, miss rogers in her role as kind of overseer and making sure of the orderly development and improvement of streetscape conditions, she was the one that entered into the agreement with us. >> i have a question. could you speak about liability? so you have an agreement. >> uh-huh. >> if it doesn't, if things don't get implemented prior to the building opening and there being people crossing back and forth and something happens, with all these overlapping jurisdictions where does that leave an injured party?

>> i don't want to speak as the board's attorney right now and i'm not a specialist in liability, but what i will say is that, you know, there are varying jurisdictions here. it is the public realm and so -- but anyone that would actually, you know, be injured here would clearly bring in as many of these parties as possible to get a judgment. i think the important thing here is that when things happen in the public right of way it's generally the city's liability and while the project sponsor is taking on the cost and design and construction of those streetscape improvements it is still the public realm and my understanding is that there's no change in the liability just due to the fact that we're constructing the improvements. in fact, we're paying into a fund at sfmta, they will maintain the traffic light moving forward, you know,

we're paying the cost to design it and actually construct it, but ultimately it still is a city improvement, it's in a city right of way. >> thank you. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, i'll be brief. first, the city, the planning department, we do take very seriously the policies of vision zero and that is implemented typically flew planning code requirements which deal with various streetscape improvements. i think this project has been important for us to see maybe our current requirements in the planning code have some shortcomings. this is a unique site that doesn't otherwise trigger the requirements of section 138.1 to make streetscape improvements and this was a topic that was discussed yesterday and supervisor kim had these questions. we need to take a look at how we can improve the ability that we have in the planning code for specific

maybe location-based issues to try to address these. i appreciate that aspect of the appeal being raised and these concerns being raised. this is an important policy, it shouldn't get lost with the many other important policies that we have in the city and we need to see how we can better implement it. available for any questions, thank you. >> i have a question. this building was occupied at one point, right, for pdr uses? >> that is correct. >> so whoever was working here had to contend with the situation as it is now. >> yes, that is correct. and the building was constructed many decades ago and the bridge itself was constructed in the 30's so this has been a hazard, something that has been in place for quite some time. but the argument of the apell apblt is going from the pdr use to the office use is intensifying that use because you have more people using this. >> but there were people in harm's way before. >> that is correct. >> mr. sanchez, has the

department been involved in multi-jurisdictional meetings related to these potential improvements? >> these specific improvements that are associated with this? i am not aware of the level of involvement. i know there have been meetings with the sponsor and with mta and various other agencies. the specific staff that i spoke with, they have not been involved but i don't know if there are other members of our staff who are more typically focused on these requirements that may have been involved in meetings over the last couple weeks. >> commissioners, matter is submitted. >> perhaps the project sponsor's attorney can respond to that last question. >> thank you, commissioner, yes, when the appeal was filed and we began to engage on a higher level with supervisor kim's office, she's done a very nice job of helping coordinate the different groups in the city. we have had a meeting that has involved the project sponsor, sfmta, the planners

that were assigned to this project as well as supervisor kim's office. so preliminary meetings have been taking place already within the various city groups. supervisor kim's office has already reached out to caltrans, a little more difficult in terms of coordinating there but they have also been reached out to supervisor kim's office as well. >> but they were not involved in these joint meetings? >> they were not involved, no. >> before you even begin deliberating i think it would be probably wietz to remind you this is one of those rare situations where 3 votes of the commissioners can overrule the department because your authority over this matter comes from the planning code and not from the charter.

>> hopefully it's a little bit of humor, but mr. hester and i had much darker hair when we heard the first appeal of a proposition m allocation project. >> still had --. >> a little grayer. the discussion here, when you read the issues related to the office allocation related to the environmental review which is predicated upon the eastern neighborhood eir, are not the things that have been brought up by the apellant, they are related to the sidewalk street

improvements, related safety. it appears that just from a non-traffic engineer basis that the most dangerous is the crossing that currently occurs at the street that they are going to block access to, you know, and that the new walkway appears to be a vastly better improvement. so i'm prepared to accept that at the sponsor's word and that there is an agreement there in place that they will do their utmost to incorporate that into -- and implement it into actuality. >> i'm a little perplexed. i would like to take the sponsor's word going forward, but there's a lot of moving

parts and increased density and looking at the condition of the crossing is a concern, especially with vision zero in place. . >> i would just add i don't think anybody is motivated to leave this as an unsafe situation, if for no other reason than (inaudible). >> i agree, but having that many new people, what happens if the building is done in august and the crosswalks don't get done for three years? you know? >> i think that point is very logical but that doesn't always reign >> make a motion. >> i will take a shot at it. i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the

office allocation program with the proposed improvements satisfies the basic criteria and to adopt the environmental findings made by the planning commission. >> is that, just to be clear, the planning commission motion 17661 is where the environmental findings were made. so you are adopting those findings? >> if that's the date of the last one i read, yeah. >> mr. pacheco. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to deny the appeal and uphold this motion on the basis that the office allocation and proposed improvements satisfy the basic

criteria and with adoption of the environmental findings from the planning commission. on that motion to uphold, president lazarus, aye. vice president honda, aye. and commissioner bill sun, aye. commissioner swig is recused. thank you, the vote is 4-0, this motion is upheld on that basis. thank you. >> thank you. as our commissioner is returning to the room we will wall the next two items, item 6a and 6b will be held together, this is appeal no. 15-020 and 15-021, both filed by georgia slut shut against the department of building inspection, the property is at 437 done can street protesting the issuance on january 21,

2015 of a demolition permit and also of a permit to erect a building. the demolition of a one-story single family dwelling with 690 square feet of ground floor area. the other is to construct a 3 story single family dwelling with 1,423 square feet of ground floor area. >> i wish to disclose that i have a business relationship with rubin and junius and their representation will not have any bearing on my decision today. >> this goes, to assist myself i went online and looked at photos on the address online through google maps and google search. >> mr. schuttish, because you have two appeals you have 14

minutes. >> i am georgia schuttish and i am the apellant and i am here to talk about relative affordability as it is in the planning code section 317d3c, subsection 9. that part of the planning code is all tieed up with demolition. you cannot have a demolition unless you check off that box. that box was checked off by the project sponsor in his affirmed document saying that the proposed single family dwelling protects the relative affordability of existing housing. i want to talk about how relative affordability of existing housing can be protected. but before i do that, i just want to describe the block to you because i think that's an important factor as well so you understand it.

done can street is a dead end street, it's about 50 percent grade. if you were standing on the north side of duncan street you would see the following. you would see four single family, four peak roof homes going up the hill, and you would see the project site. currently the house is at the rear so there's an open lot, and you would see four more peak roof homes going up the hill. if you were to stand at the project site and look to the noergtd you would see four more peak roof homes going up the hill but the fourth one is a cottage set on the rear of the lot. there's one other cottage on the rear of the lot towards the top of the hill about 6 houses away from this one set on the rear, got a

variance in 2003 and that open space of the front of the lot is he equidistance from sanchez as this house up the hill is equidistance from noe street. so you have these 3 cottages. in addition there are 3 other cottages behind the homes on duncan street. that's fundamently the street. getting back to relative affordability, what is it and how can the existing housing be protected. i described some of the existing housing for you. how can we protect the relative affordability? in my brief i make six points that talk about this and point no. 3, which i think is the most important thing, is about the average square footage of the single family homes on the

street. the average square footage is 1500 square feet for single family homes. that's in your exhibit 3. so, to me, this seems like this should be the standard for existing housing and what needs to be protected. the proposed project is about 3500 gross square feet and that includes a two car garage. so as proposed, that project would become the largest single family home on the 400 block of duncan so what does that mean in terms of protecting the relative affordability of existing housing? that's my question to you. i think that it's not been dealt with. it wasn't dealt with at the planning commission, it wasn't dealt with by the staff, it hasn't been dealt with by the project sponsor in his answer

where he basically answers the question with a question. how do we protect it? well, we can look at the average square footage. we can all accept the fact that a house that is more small relatively less square footage, will be relatively more affordable. i've heard decision makers say that. i heard supervisor kim say that within the last month. so that is my premise. so what am i trying to get at to protect the relative affordability of the existing housing. in sectioning 2 i propose ways to do it and it's basically to reduce the square footage. and i don't think i'm asking for an extraordinary amount of reduction since the house is so large. i make the suggestion of removing the