are what is being proposed for a three story notch from the top floor. i think we're just amending it by reducing it by a floor. commissioner koppel. >> i'm more than confident on voting on this today and looking at the 4th floor notch at 45 feet and i'm more than confident that i know what we're voting on. >> commissioner moore. >> that would require then also that the building heights are properly expressed with one floor coming off on the side. >> yeah. i mean, that has to be the case. that's the code. that's in the plans, too. >> i'm just still personally concerned that drawings, which have not been put on the record for the public to see, is not a way that we should be doing our work because if we're doing this for one, we should be prepared to do that for anybody else who wants to negotiate an outcome at

the 11th hour. i cannot break my own position on that, and i will not. i just can't. even if i support a modified position on this project, i cannot do it. >> commissioner johnson. >> we have spent a good amount of time and conversation about this project, and looking at the plan, sitting at the table with neighbors, i really appreciate your comments, president hillis, but i do think that we are closer than we've ever been. i believe and we have heard from neighbors and others that the four story, 45 foot design creates the light and air and space that at least meets some of the concerns of the neighbors. so i also feel ready to make a decision on this project.

>> commissioner fong. >> move to approve a 45 foot wide notch at 4 stories or floors. >> second. >> mr. winslow, that's four stories from the taller portion of the building, three stories -- we've got the plans -- >> may i approach? >> you're out of order. >> speak into the microphone. >> that's what we need to determine. what are we talking about here? this is the uppermost story on main street. the building has to step down another story at this point, the midpoint of the lot to make the height work for beale street. so where are we measuring the 4 story notch from?

this portion, the uppermost floor, is the only portion that is in the notch zone. so are we measuring the four stories, one, two, three, four, or one, two, three, four? >> correct. >> bay crest is down here somewhere. >> we need to -- we will be getting drawings in and improving them. >> go to the overhead, the last diagram you showed. go to the overhead, the other one, the next one. from the bay crest courtyard. >> i've got it. >> i think it's clear. it shows three story notch from the taller -- >> mike mike. [ off microphone ] >> there's a floor on one side. i mean, if we can't agree what a floor versus a roof deck is,

we're in trouble. there's a floor on one side. there's not a floor on the other side. it goes three stories down now. we're asking for one story -- the -- two stories above the courtyard. exactly. >> let's just be clear. one story lower than ha -- than what this image shows. >> yes, than what the plan are in front of us. >> if i may, the one request i do have, it sounds like a detail, but i think it's important, is that the railings not be glass. >> be clear? >> well, transparent, but not be glass for a couple of reasons. one, i think the air movement and the other is the issue of birds and actually a third issue is just simply that glass actually becomes opaque. i would suggest the railings not be glass. >> and be wire or -- >> whatever other --

>> transparent with the typical railings, metal railings or whatever. >> okay. >> is there a code issue related to that? >> yeah, birds. >> the issue here would be the code safe requirement. so typically, i in case like th, the department would recommend a railing that's cable and wire or open railing using metal or some other material as opposed to a solid material. >> yep. >> so is that incorporated into the motion. >> sure. yes. >> can we -- can you read into the record -- did we need to have that condition in the reported as far as the height. >> so in order for you guys to proceed, we would add to the motion the condition that the project sponsor shall modify the design to be measured at beale street to a depth of 137.6 inches that's equal between beal and mean straights, to comply

with the height district and include a 45-foot wide central open notch at the 4 most floors measured from main street. that's it. the project sponsor would be required to work with staff on such modifications and the final plans would be subject to the department's review and approval. >> the other condition? >> and the condition that the railing be composed of an open material. >> okay. procedurally, there is a motion to continue that was moved and seconded. shall i call that question first? >> yes. >> on that motion then to continue to a two weeks? three weeks. >> let's say three weeks. >> to june 14th, on that motion, commissioner fong. [ roll call ]

>> the motion fails 2-4 with commissioners fong, johnson, koppel, an and hillis voting against. there was a motion to approve this project with conditions a read into the record by stuff including a 45 foot wide four floor notch. on that motion. [ roll call ] >> so moved, commissioners. it passes 5-1 with commissioner moore voting against. >> thank you. >> commissioners that will place us on item 17. this is a conditional use authorization.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staffment you have before you a conditional use authorization request 20 to construct approximately 185,000 gross square foot building containing 168 dwelling units with approximately 4,800 square feet of ground floor retail and up to 103 below grade off street parking spaces. as a planned unit development, the project is he can exemptions for floor area ratio, year yard, and obstructions over the right-of-way. the zoning is split into two parts. the two most eastern parcels are in the nc3 and 130e height in both district. the two most western parcels are within the rc4 zoning district. the van ness special use district, and the 130v height in

both districts. while the zoning districts permit the proposed residential and ground floor uses, the districts have different requirements for rear yards, residential open space, parking, and alleys. after publication of the case report in march of this year, the department received an appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration. this resulted in a continuance from the march 22nd, 2018 hearing without any introduction or discussion of the project. since that time, the appeal was withdrawn, and the preliminary declaration is unchanged. before you is the final mitigated declaration. as a result, i have a summary table of the mitigation monitoring reporting program which will be attached as conditions to the project if approved. since publication of the case report, the department has received additional letters in support of the project from the principal members and parents of the tenderloin community school, neighboring business owners and

residents, the bay area women's and children's center, and the district 6 community planners organization. these individuals support the development and are encouraged by the revitalization of a long vacant site. the department is recommending approval because it provides 168 new housing units and an underdeveloped site which will a liveiate the housing shortage as well as create more affordable housing by providing 24 units. further, although the project requires exemptions as a planned unit development, the scale and massing is compatible with the neighborhood. this project is necessary and desirable. this concludes my presentation and i am available for further questions. thank you. >> all right. thank you. project sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the sponsor of the project. i wili wouldn't be standing here

without any parents, 94 and 88 years young couple. about 30 years ago, they were fortunate enough to buy a small office building next to this project, 600 van ness. ever since then, it has always been their dream to giving something back to the city in a way that would allow others to call san francisco as their home and just as they did when they came to america. as soon as you know, 600 van ness used to be occupied by a vacant mcdonald's building, and it has created a lot of problems with vandalism and illegal activities. that has really created a concern for the neighbors. >> do you want the overhead on? >> sorry. go ahead.

>> so this is the site in the yellow. so when we acquired the property, we immediately reached out to the community groups and especially the school, the tenderloin community school next door. we know we have to get their input, invited them to be our community partners. otherwise, i don't think there would be a project. so what you are seeing, we're presenting to you today, is a product of those conversations. so for the school, there were four concerns, the number one is that they want us to minimize the shadow impact on the playground. even though the code doesn't require it, but we have -- in order to accommodate their request, we have voluntarily reduced the area by 20%. that's quite significant. but as a result, we're very happy. there's no significant shadow between march to october. minimal strad owe -- shoddy durinshadowduring the winter mo.

the other thing is safety on elm street. it's a narrow alley. we agreed no loading on elm street so all the vehicle traffic will only going to van ness and golden gate. again, it's to ensure the children's safety. we also will have 16 residential units on elm street on the ground floor so we can protect -- they can watch out for anything that's happening there. also, they want to make sure that we do a good wind study so that there will not be negative impacts on the project site. as a result, there's no hazardous wind condition at the site before or after. obviously, we'll follow the recommendation from the wind study. finally, the school asked can you preserve the view of the

dome for the city hall, and we said yes. we talked to many community groups, as you can see. we have met with them, most of them, many times, and really, they come up to 4 key issues. the first one is the bmr on site. we agree to do bmr and there will be 24 on site bmr. the second one is no nested bedrooms. we incorporated that. number three, because for the future, they asked us to reduce residential parking. so we have reduced from 60% to 50%. we agreed to do that by giving up 16 parking is spas. spas -- spaces. they want us to pay attention to every side of the building for the beautiful architectural details to all sides of the buildings. you will see that we have done so. so as you can see, you know, all

the concerns really boil down to three main areas. a building that respects and can complements the surroundings that promotes safety and that is a positive force for the residents who are in the building and the community, and i hope we have addressed all that. so right now, i would like to take this opportunity to thank all the community members who have been open and engaged with us throughout this whole process. this project is really a result of our shared desire to make the tenderloin and civic center neighbor a wonderful place to live. so it is my sincere hope that all prove this project. now, i want to turn this over to one of my architects, bill higgins, and we also have another -- one of my architecture team to present you the project, how we respond to the community and the planning commission's comments and feedback. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. my name is bill higgins.

we have been working in collaboration with craig scott and his team on trying to sculpt the mass of the building and differendifferentiate the facado the school's concern about the shoddy and blending into the tenderloin neighborhood. i think this particular slide shows you the -- on the left side is the school, and the rooftop playgrounds. on the right, you can see our building, in response primarily to the shadow effects that might occur on the school and how we can minimize them. so in particular, as tenney said, we just carved away at what the potential mass would be on this building, and as a result, ended up with a reduction of 20% of the mass. to walk you through the plans,

the streetscape plan also enhances the whole aspect of safety on the street. the tenderloin school is north of us. through special paving, additional 16 trees, street lighting, we will enhance the safety of the school and also en enliven the neighborhood. we have 8 units on the ground floor which stoops. we have 8 units above them with balconies providing eyes on the street. the rest of the ground floor in red is a continuation of retail storefronts wrapping van ness and golden gate. i'll skip the plans because you'll start to see the massing reveals many different open space requirements, commonly accessible open space which in a

way were carved out by the need to minimize the shadow on the school. but it provided over 50% more required open space. you can see that in the sections. architecturally, you can start to see that the building's a composition of facades. we look at a facade system that maintains the street wall -- >> just take 30 more seconds here. >> maintains the street wall and at the same time, addresses van ness as the major corner with this sort of corner here. we looked at two facade types, high quality materials, precast concrete, the a facade which you see here is a textured colored concrete panel, and this would be a punch window acting as a backdrop to the fas aid. the view to city hall, trying to re-enforce the coloration of the dome into the architecture of

the building and also the street wall creates like a vector along the van ness corridor. finally, the lobby is two stories. as we turn the corner, we have a continuous canopy which unifies it. the main part of elm street or the units which stoops on the ground floor, balcony on the second floor. >> you said finally twice. [ laughter ] >> thank you. >> all right. thank you. we'll open this up to public comment on this, if there is any. go ahead. >> i'm lynn davis and i live at 601 van ness, which upper plaza. i have a condo that looks east at what was the old mcdonald's and i hope it looks out when the

new building is built. the second reason is i work on fridays at the tenderloin community school. i'm familiar with tenney and the staff and how they worked with the community. third, elm alley right now is home at night to 6:00 a.m. to the recycling bandits are there. they're breaking glass. they're leaving that for the school children in the morning. that won't happen. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please: if there's others who would like to speak. it's helpful to line up. >> i'm the principal of tenderloin community school. this is my first year at the school. i've been with the school district for three years. i have been very aware of this project. the group especially tenney and

the other people working with her have gone above and beyond in terms of working with the school, finding out what you're concerns are, and working with us. at a loss of profit to them to make sure that whatever is built is going to have the most minimal impact on our children. most specifically, the shade study that they did, it was a great cost to them, but they did do that study. they came to our school site council. they had a general meeting open to the whole school community, open to questions, talking about what the project was going to look like. they were very transparent. they answered all questions that were asked. i think they've really kept the interest of our students and our school at the forefront. obviously, they want to build this project, but they're going to build a building that will have a reduction in the number of units so that way there would be less traffic. they changed the entrance so that it would impact -- not have

an impact on our traffic patterns at the school. then really keeping it a priority in terms of our playgrounds, maintaining as much sunshine as possible for the children to play in. also, they are going to work to maintain the beautiful view that we have of city hall. so we've been appreciative of their efforts, and we, as a school, as a representative of the school, i do support and am in favor of this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. i've been working with mitch wilson, the executive director of the bay area women's and children's center about 7 or 8 years. most of that time at the tenderloin community school. they couldn't be here today, but she wanted me to come and read this letter from her. dear planning commissioners, i'm speaking on behalf of the children's center to assure you of the building next to the tenderloin community elementary

school at 600 van ness. we are a nonprofit to led the 8 year effort to establish the elementary school and has offered many programs at the school for the past 20 years, our director, board members, and staff have met with the representative of the owner and her team of architects numerous times over the past couple of years. we worked deliberately with them from the beginning on such issues as safety, shadows, and wind corns. they've taken us seriously. we support the changes they've made. again, we give our wholehearted and enthusiastic endorsement to this project. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. my name is steve. i am currently a tenant at 544 golden gate avenue. as a matter of fact, i have been at that location for over 30 years. te intenney has been my landlor.

i've seen lots of changes in the neighborhood from the heyday of stars, restaurant, the dot-com boom, and the current revitalization of the neighborhood. i do believe the plans to build the dwelling units and the ground floor retail will bring much needed housing in the area. it will also enhance the area especially elm street. it's been a slow transformation, but once the mcdonald's was demolished, i witnessed an improvement in the area. knowing that will will be residential units should make the area safer. you can also help local businesses as well. for instance, i've seen a decline in the number of diners during the day at max's restaurant. i'm sure of other businesses in the area have seen a decline in the business, too. i'm excited about the retail aspect and as i mentioned, the area is improving and having

residential units that include off street parking will be a welcome addition. parking, the number of off street parking may be reduced. i encourage, if that could be changed, fine, but i'm in full support of having as much off street parking available to the occupants. in conclusion, i support and would like to see the 600 van ness project approved. >> thank you. any additional public comment? ms. hester. >> i was going to defer to the the person who testified the last time that there should be more housing on site. i support this project. this is a second project on van ness that i have supported,

first one being the conservatory of music. the agenda today has two items back-to-back on your agenda. overhead, please. 144 units, total war. last item, 168 units. persons like me supporting it. this is because the developer has done real work with the adjacent property owners. i went to a bunch of the meetings, not all of them. there was a lot of meetings between the tenderloin grade school. tenderloin has second most distressed residents in terms of the circumstances in which they live. chinatown is number one. but tenderloin is number two, and people don't have sunlight where they live. they don't have -- kids play in

the hallway because there's no space in their apartments. so theeve the fact that the grae school is there because of monumental work by the committee to force a grade school and a recreation and park facility is a monument to the work of mitch wilson and others like that. it was decades of work to get those facilities -- and the kids go to the school. there's sunlight at the school. that's really important. so the developer that really works with the people and shaves off their project in order to respect the community, respect what buildings a community is a school, in large measure, and providing facilities that people like to go to, kids and their families. so i think you should approve

this project, and also, tell your staff, this is a good model. community outreach in long-term gets a better project and it gets less blood on the floor on projects you've had today already. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hester. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm richard. and i'm also a neighboring business owner. i have only been a business owner adjacent to this parcel for over 20 years. i can't compete with 40 years. i want to quickly add my voice to the chorus. the groundswell of support for this project. i mean, again, the family, the owners of the building where my office is, my small insurance office, and i've just been so pleased -- we had mcdonald's next to us for a number of years. okay.

that's all right. and then they shut it down. i was so pleaseed when a local family request acquire a parcel of that significance and do a process like this to propose a project like this. i think it's magnificent. so, again, i want to add my voice to the chorus and say that this approval can't happen fast enough for me. i think this is really going to improve the block. it has already improved somewhat, but this will really help a lot. we appreciate your consideration and quick approval of this process that has obviously so much support. thanks very much. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner moore. >> quick it will be. i'm fully supportive of the project. wonderful story. i think it's powerful to hear that we don't have to look at parts of the community opposing it. move to approve. >> second. >> if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions.

[ roll call ] >> so moved. commissioners. that motion passion passes unan. please please. >> that will place us on item 18, discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners. you have before you a request for -- >> if we could ask those leaving to do so quietly. thank you. >> excuse me. those of you leaving the room, if you could carry the conversation outside.

>> go ahead. >> you have before you a discretiodiscretionary review ol shaped lot with frontage. the project does not include any changes to the existing single-family dwelling that fronts on to goff street. the new construction is located entirely within the required rear yard on a portion o of a lt that is 15 feet wide. as proposed the project requires a variance which was heard by the zoning administrator in 2016. leading up to and during that hearing, the dr requester and members of the commission raised concerns relative to the protection of a tree located on the subject property and eligibility for landmarking status.

in deference to the project, the administrator closed public comment but took the item under advise many. the project was on hold for over a year pending movement relative to the tree landmarking. at the beginning of this year, 2018, planning staff inquired as to the nomination status and found that it had never moved forward after the variance hearing. having received a revision that would retain the tree, the department decided to move forward with the 311 notification process. during that time, a discretionary review was received and is before you today. the dr requester resides in a single-family dwelling west of the subject property. this building is a city landmark, 31. the concern listed in the dr application include the removal of the tree, privacy afforded to 3 bedrooms in the dr requester's home and the collected adverb

changes to the property attributed to loss of light, loss of privacy, and loss of use of the western facade from the public right-of-way. the dr response addresses these concerns. it includes a competing arborist report that said it will not harm the tree. it a farmed that the 14 foot set back from the shared property line and placement of windows will maintain the privacy for the dr requester's property, and it concludes that the project does not demolish or materially alter the physical characteristics of the landmark building, and therefore, it does not cause any adverse impact for ceqa. since publication of the dr analysis, the department has received four letters in opposition to the project that raise concerns relative to retaining the tree, the amount of proposed excavation and the small scale of the home. additionally, this week, the historic preservation commission scheduled the nomination for the tree landmarking on june 20th.

staff has consulted with the department's preservation planners, the department of public works and sf environment and confirmed the landmarking process may move inened at that em with the processing of this building permit before you. additionally, as the tree is already identified as a significant tree, it's important to point out that it will also be subject to review by dpw subsequent to the planning department approval of the permit and the project sponsor will be required to provide a tree protection plan. the department is recommending you approve the project today as it is found there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. the project complies with the applicable requirements of the planning code and the objectives of the general plan. further, the residential design and architecture team has found that the scale and massing of the proposed building are minimal and the building is appropriately located on the site to respect the adjacent neighboring properties as well

as preserve the tree. this concludes my presentation, and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. dr requester; welcome. >> i have some additional information for the commission. >> okay. >> can we get the screen? >> sfgov, can you go to the computer? there it is. >> great. good afternoon. my name is john moran. i'm the current steward of the house. over the last several hours, i've learned a lot. i've learned that your job requires thoughtfulness and vision and long-term thinking. so a question i pose to you, which i thought of last night, which i'm sure you thought of, but i didn't until just last night, is what will san francisco look like 100 years

from now? 100 years from now. the sales force tower will be 100 years old. it will be surrounded by newer buildings. no doubt there will be flying cars that elon musk will invent in his lifetime. real statement development will march on across the city. in the context of 100 years, it would be very forward thinking if you would leave the burr house and the surroundings as they are today, complete with views on all three sides of the stand alone gem that generations of the public can enjoy, undiminished by development. 120 feet of frontage space, a piece of san francisco history preserved. it's 100 years from now. i hope your exercise your

discretion to deny the rear yard variance or at least require the building to be set back further. there is too much at risk to approve this project as is. here's the house. it was built in 1875 by the mayor of san francisco. i believe the variance should not be granted because of the triad verse effects to the general -- tree adverse effects to the plans. it's injurious to the burr house, and we've put forth a reasonable proposal that was rejected. here's the tree. in 19 blocks, it's the tallest tree from tale taylor street and baker street. i'm hold by the ac architect tht 25% of the canopy will need to be removed. building this project will be detrimental to the public

welfare. right now, three sides of the house are viewable. it will lose one of those sides and 23 feet of viewing space will be removed. it's not in harmony with the general plan. the plan states that irreplaceable resources must be -- must not be diminished, and their surroundings must be protected. here are some photos, and the circles indicate where there will be direct sight lines from the oversized window at the front of the -- oops -- from the oversized windows at the front of the building or the deck at the rear. also, the space from the new construction to our house is 10 feet, not 14 feet, as the project analysis states on the bay window in my daughter's room, the number three bedroom, as well as down in the dining

room where direct sunlight comes in, you can see in the third picture there. here's what it looks like with the world's largest selfie stick that i made last night. it's about 16 feet up. so it looks directly from the property line, directly into our daughter's room as well as one of our son's rooms and the dining room from different -- either the decor the front window at the front of the house. here's the revised sight lines that i've done. i believe this is materially injurious to the burr house. right now, we have 125 feet to our neighbors across the street. now, we're going to have direct views that are between 10 and 15 feet away into the living room,

the parlor, as well as the two bedrooms up front. direct sunlight will be blocked, and views from the dining room. some and of the items i would like to respond to in the project analysis is the -- in addition to the 10 feet instead of 14 feet, is the privacy screen only is three feet long instead of 6 feet. >> your time is up. you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. new public comment in support of the dr requester? seeing none, we'll hear from the project sponsor. >> can we have the overhead on? thank you. good afternoon, i'm the architect for 1776 vallejo. this proposal is for a 1695

square foot second unit on a 15-foot wide lot with a creative floor plan that anticipates the feed for different occupants, presence, renters, it doesn't matter if they have a car or no car. it's a forward looking design of a house intending to be creative about how people are going to live in the future. the lot is presently used for extra parking and has been attraction for the homeless drug users and collects garbage and is unsightly. it is a bit of a nuance. the burr house is on a 91 foot wide lot. the view of the house from the public right-of-way will remain unobject -- unobstructed. i believe the 14 feet is measured from the wall of the house to the property line.

[ stand by ]

test test. test. >> commissioner koppel: i make a commission to not take dr and approve as proposed. >> second. >> president hillis: if there is nothing further commissioners there is a motion to not take dr and take the project as proposed. [roll call] so moves that passes 5-1 with commissioner moore voting against. that places us on item

192013.0847drp for 1503 francisco street. item 20 has been continued to july 26. >> good evening commissioners david lindsey, star. staff. the project at 1503 francisco street includes interyour renovations and comp temporary ffacade and concrete and windows with aluminum trip. the project has been determined that it's not tan ta mount to demolition. the project is not seeking variances or modifications to requirements of the code and the project was reviewed by environmental and preservation

planning staff which determined the project to be categorically except from environmental review. through the environmental review process, the subject building was determined to not be a historic resource. the subject property is on the southwest corner of san francisco and octavia street. the circa 1925 building, 25 feet by 125 ten feet deep. zoning is rh3. two separate garages, utilities and storage room. second story contains two one bedroom apartments and the third story a three bedroom flat. this consolidates into a single space with lifts below and a common lounge area with access to the common rear yard. the second story contains two

one bedroom apartments and the second story a dwelling with roof deck at the rear as well as roof deck on the roof. this portion is characterized by a mix of three and four story, two and three unit residential buildings with larger multiunit apartment buildings dated from the 1920s and 1930. four-story building are generally located at intersection. west of the subject property is a four story two unit building. sorry, immediately west of the subject property is a four-story, two-unit building and east is a three-story, eight-unit apartment building. immediately south of the subject property is a three story two-unit residential building. across francisco street to the north is 11 unit apartment building and acros a four story

12-unit apartment building owned by the dr request tor. prior to the publication of commission packets received one e-mail in support and one e-mail in opposition. since the packet was distributed received 2 25 letters in support of and 10 in opposition to the project. i will turn these in for the record. >> the single dr was submitted by christina subnare and -- their concerns with the project are as follows that it will