>> are we ready? >> one second, yes. >> we have a quorum, so we can start. gaffe gaffe regular meeting for thursday, 21st, 2019. the commission does notal rate any disruption or outburst of any kind. please silence any mobile devices and when speaking before the commission, speak directly into the microphone, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i would like to take roll at this time. commissioner fong. >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner johnson? >> here. >> commissioner moore? commissioner koppel? >> here.

>> mission president melgar? >> here. >> and i believe commissioner richards is going to attend today. the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. number number 1, record number 2018-003593 sioux at 906 broadway. conditional use authorization, proposed for continuance to march 14th, 2019. item number record number 2018-009316 cua. conditional use authorization proposed for continuance to april 4th. item number 3, record number 2017-00924 cu. at 601 van ness avenue. proposed for continuance to april 2018. and commissioners, i'd also like to note that further on the discretionary review calendar, record number 2017-01292 drp at

830 olmsted street, a request for d.r. has been withdrawn. i don't have any speaker cards. >> does somebody want to make a motion to season in >> public comment. >> we'll now take public comments on the items on the calendar for continuance. if anyone wants to pull off a particular item from continuance okay. commissioner hillis? >> continue to move the items. >> a motion and a second to continue the items. and acknowledge to withdraw of item 15. on the motion, commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commission president melgar? >> the motion passes unanimously 6-0. and places you on commission

matters. item number 4, consideration of adoption of draft minutes to february 7th, 2019. do we have any public comment on the minutes, on the draft minutes? commissioner fong? >> move to approve february 7th minutes. >> second. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to approve the minutes. commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> missioner koppel? >> yes. >> commission president melgar? >> so move, commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 6-0 and places you on item number 5. commission comments and questions. so -- >> so i just wanted to announce that we will be losing quorum at 5:00. so we're going to try to get through the agenda as quickly as we can. but if you have items lower lower down on the agenda, i want to give you the heads-up we may

possibly continue those. so we will -- i'll do my best to keep it moving. thank you. >> commissioner fong? >> thank you. i'm officially leaving this commission and moving on as the president and c.e.o. of the san francisco chamber of commerce next month. but i wanted to take a second to really thank the commission, the public, staff, commissioners and if i can reflect just very quickly eight months and three month -- eight years and three months every thursday here. we met a lot of friends and hopefully not too many enemies. appreciate all of that. the purpose of me serving on this commission was really to serve san francisco and to help thy neighbor, whether that's a next-door neighbor or a

cross-town neighbor. the personal growth has come from this, from me over eight years has forced me to think and speak out loud in public about things that normally you don't get the opportunity to think about. whether that's design-related things, to take some understanding of design, architecture, whether that's large fis, which maybe you don't have exposure to. whether that's open space, parks, how are they are used in the city, public realm, street, transit, cannabis, affordability, housing of all types, not just affordable housing, but we need a little bit of everything, bars, nightlife and ultimately our skyline and how that is shaped for a very long time. so those are all played roles in my head in processing each one of those items and each one of those topics. i have learned even more

patience, more tolerance, have developed a thicker skin, specifically from some people more than others. [laughter] and negotiating skills that will take me into my next chapter here. i was thinking how to wrap this up. and as of late, we noticed people are grabbing things, whether they're grabbing photos at instagram or selfies of the golden gate bridge, whether they're grabbing sand dollars from ocean beach, whether they're grabbing eucalyptus seeds to prove their san francisco residents and californians. people are grabbing land, people are grabbing on to history of san francisco, and people are trying to make claims of being the ultimate san franciscan. everybody grab their fellow san

franciscan, because that really is what the city is made of, has been made of, and that's a citizenry of joining hands with people who are not like you, don't look i can -- like you, don't have the same background and yet you can learn from each other and bond together to create a better city. so i leave with you that. thank you very much for the opportunity. [applause] >> christine -- i'm sorry, i can't control the speakers from my screen. you guys take yourself off after you speak from now. thank you. commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: i'll just say a few words. they don't make them like this very often. if you need to look at his resume, i'm sure that would do the talking for you.

i don't think anyone embodies the spirit 100% of san francisco in general as rodney fong. and i'm extremely mad that i got elected vice president, he's leaving. i got to sit next to him for only four hearings, which is not enough for me. in the small city, we'll probably run into each other sooner than later. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis? >> again thank you. i know we thanked you last week. you deserve two rounds of thanks. you've been a mentor to us all. and i think by your speech, what a san franciscan is. thank you very much. >> commissioners, that places you on department matters. item number 6. director's announcements.

>> i want to thank you. thank you for those really eloquent words. really, really appreciate it and everything you've done for us. commissioners, i wanted to mention one thing. you've gotten some emails about sb50 and the compact and we're scheduling a hearing hearing in mid-march to discuss those items. the reason we haven't done it to date, it has not been revised. we've been told it's going to be revised, that it will be a very different version than what initially came out. we simply don't have it yet. so we're waiting for that to happen. we expect it, perhaps, in two, three weeks. but so we tentatively scheduled a march 14th hearing to present that and to present our analysis of that bill and, of course, that is pending, receiving the revised version. so we'll keep you informed on how that goes. thanks. that's all i have today. >> item number 7. >> can i ask a question on that? >> yes, commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: on the compact, will we have something from m.t.c. or the board?

i think it would be great. i know we heard about it a couple of weeks ago and got a summary, also good to hear? >> we can ask them to attend. consideration definitely. >> what date is it again? >> unfortunately i'm not here that day. staff will be presenting. >> thank you. >> item number 7, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> so the board of appeals did meet last night. and took action on one item of interest to the planning commission, which was an appeal of the building permit for a rear addition to a single-family home at 663 21st avenue. filed by the adjacent neighbor due to concern the addition would damage and make unsafe redwood tree. however, the project sponsor provided an arborist report stating the proposed addition would not harm the tree in any significant way.

the commission voted to not take d.r. the appeal hearing covered essentially the same issues and the board of appeals denied the appeal. the historic preservation met this week, one item to note, this commission will receive the same presentation on the citywide historic resource survey in the near future. and at the board of supervisors, no report. commissioners, that places you on general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter, jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded affn the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceeds 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. i do have a couple of speaker cards.

>> president melgar: okay. thank you. ike and georgia and if anybody else wants to come up, please do so. go ahead. okay. >> good afternoon. in the past five years, the commission has not often applied the section 317 relative affordability criterion, because demolitions were disguised as alterations. as the commission moves forward with decisions in the r-zone, the commission must apply this criterion to maintain a balance in the city. this is particularly true in the three r.h. zone districts, which are the largest geographic area of the 49 square miles of san francisco. speculative project whether demolitions or tantamount to demolition or should be tantamount to demolition, do not preserve existing housing and are not relatively affordable. densification through demolition will not necessarily solve the

problems the commission is seeking to solve. each project should be looked at in a site-specific way, such as is the existing housing fundamentally sound, what is the existing housing currently appraised at, could the current housing -- smallest units and modest expansion. how quickly can the house return to the market after construction work, and what will be the tenure of the unit or units? could the existing housing convert a garage into a unit, complying with the new parking requirements. what is the square footage of the existing house compared with the proposed project. the point is that while many projects have taken advantage of the fact that the demo have not been adjusted since section 13 was implemented over a decade ago, the answer is not, oh, thank goodness speculators are now being honest in their applications to the department and, therefore, it is okay to demolish.

speculators finally acting in legitimate manner, they should have all along is not the answer. housing can be preserved and adapted to sensibly densify should be the answer, not demolition willy-nilly. the criterion is very important and needs the staff and the commission to give serious attention to it, with their approvals. it should not be ignored or misapplied. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> all right, commissioners, good afternoon. thank you for having me. my name is ike kwan and i serve on one of the other commissions that meets in this room. not quite as often and definitely not quite as long. my family and i moved to san francisco about 11 years ago from my hometown of chicago. and chicago, as you might know, was shaped by the daniel burnham plan, which was implemented

right after the great chicago fire. san francisco had a burnham plan also that would have made the layout, a lot of the buildings a little more easy, but this gives me a historical context on why you have so much work and why it's so involved. as i've read and as i know, to restore property lines after the fire destroyed most of the property records, made it very challenging around the city. so, as a result, i want to thank this commission for their tireless work in helping shape this city. but i'm here to thank one commissioner in particular and that's commissioner rodney fong. rodney, you have -- i have come to call you a friend and a mentor over the last decade. in fact, it was you that inspired me to serve on the san francisco public utilities commission. so i blame you for all of the work that i have to do outside of my regular job. [laughter] but your care for this city and those who call it home has been a model to me. i know that you have, like many other commissioners here, countless site visits, actually to go put eyeballs on it, in

addition to staying at the meeting. you care about every single detail and you have to balance the bulk of the public interest along with what makes sense for the entire city. so i'll make my comments brief here, on behalf of the san francisco public utilities commission, i'm here to present you with what we are calling the bucket of honor. [laughter] because of city gifting rules, it's mostly pamphlets. [laughter] it does have a few neat tools in here on how to conserve water, maybe even adopt a drain in your neighborhood. your service here has been exemplary, all of you inspire us, but rodney, thank you so much for your service to the city. this is for you. >> commissioner fong: all right. thank you. [applause] >> president melgar: thank you, missioner kwan. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. commissioners, lori petty here. members, disability action.

and district 5 action. i just wanted to thank director for scheduling the hearing on sb-50. however, before you leave, i would like to urge you to split them. i have separate hearings. and i want to express a certain urgency to do this, because the state legislature takes up sb-50 right about on that date. and hearings at the planning commission are the primary way we in the public get to examine the elements of these things. have you all discuss and we discuss what's the affect on san francisco. what's the affect in ten years? what's the affect in 20 years or even 40 years. it's the affect on local zoning authority, your own authority. so i think that these should be split. and i also believe that the commission should express a

recommendation for or against on each of them separately, sb-50 and the complex. thank you very much. >> president melgar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> the overhead. overhead. no. because the overhead is one of my frustrations. that's what i want to talk about. [laughter] basically people should be able to put 8 1/2 by 11 sheets of

paper on and have them adequately projected to people. half of the time, more than half of the time, most of the time i have come here in the past two months, the setting is not right. there's -- pardon me? all of these red marks they've been there since november. the commission -- it's sputtered. there's no -- no one cleans it up and no one ever checks the setting. you notice that this is not a -- this is the agenda. this is not a projection. the setting should be changed by the people on the staff every meeting. i'm willing to bet that no one has checked the settings for months, because it's been a lot of time that's been off. sitting in the audience, we can't see things. we see what's on the schedule.

so there. you see a little bit more than half of what's on there. when the staff does projections from this computer, of their pastel figures, those figures also disappear. because pastels don't project. people are dependent on the screens and pointing at -- we'll see it on the thing. there the screens are what we see in the audience. when the screens don't -- are not visible, are not of the -- of the sheets that's suppose to be down there. we can't understand what a person is saying. the planning commission has a responsibility and the planning staff. i don't want to put it on you. you should be aware of the problem. you should tell your staff, hey, staff, clean up the acts. the public is the people that have to understand what is being

said at these hearings. and if we don't understand because all kinds of graphics -- [bell ringing] on this projector are not projected or they're on their computer, but they're not projected well on the wall, it -- you're doing -- public participation. >> president melgar: thank you. any other public comment? >> market street. >> president melgar: not yet. >> okay, great. thanks. >> president melgar: any other public comment? okay. with that, public comment is closed. item number 8, record number 2018-016400 pca. activities and nighttime entertainment uses in historic buildings. planning code amendment. i'm sorry, before you begin, i

was thinking that we could move that better market item to the end of the agenda. so we lose quorum at 5:00. [ please stand by ]

. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you to mr. sanchez as well as the rest of the planning department. i am here on behalf of supervisor haney's office. as the commission is well aware, the proposed ordinance will amend the planning code to allow arts activities and night time entertainment as principlely permitted uses in historic used in the r.c.d. encouraging the use of historic buildings for arts and night life to preserve our city's historic buildings is something that we are very concerned with and very much in support of. it will help boost our city's economy and increase public safety and krault of life, especially for the residents of western soma. allowing arts, activities, and night time entertainment in historic buildings in western soma will help contribute to the economic vitality and is

also a major economic driver. according to the controller's office economic impact study back in 2016, slightly over half of night time spending, an estimated 2 toint $2 billion is done by out-of-town visitors. residents account for 98% of spending daily, and 94% of the city residents patronize the city at life to boost night life business. additionally, allowing for these uses will provide much needed activations to buildings that have long remained empty and lifeless and vulnerable to vagrancy, and allowing theses

abotheses -- these businesses to be in these districts as they both develop and expand programatically, expanding san francisco's history of promoting arts and culture. thank you. >> commissioners, the department supports the ordinance before you today. you allowing arts activities and night time entertainment in historic buildings in the r.c.d. can help to contribute to economic vitality in the soma and support the recently formed soma filipinas and leather town lgbtq district. first, allow arts in the r.c.d. district, it is important to extend the privilege of allowing arts uses in as many

properties at possible. this includes contributors to a historic district. secondly, to conditionally permit nighttime entertainment uses in historic buildings, including contributors to a historic district. staff is cognizant of the sensitive used abutting the r.c.d. and believes that a process including good nath policies can help that good operators from bad. finally to require a preservation, rehabilitation and maintenance plan for historic resources which take advantage of expanded uses within the folsom street n.c.t. and the r.c.d. district. this is a reasonable request in exchange for allowing otherwise prohibited uses and enables the project sponsor to demonstrate how a new use will extend the life of the building through preservation. this concludes our preservation and we're available for questions. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you very much. we will now take public comment

on this item. i have peter zablatt, and anyone else who wants to speak to this item, please come up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. peter zablatt with the pelosi law group. i'm here on behalf of the church at 10th and howard that would be substance to this legislation. first and foremost we're here to support this legislation. we think it's important to substantiate historic properties and give them as much flexibility as possible and give them economic incentive to renovate the historic structures. we also believe it helps existing renovated historic structures, because it gives incentives where existing opportunities have been outdoors late, to ensure that the long-term maintenance and cost associated with a historic

structure can be covered by that economic -- you know, the change in economics. we fully support the legislation, the only clarification i just alluded to would be there was a lot of information in the staff report about soon-to-be renovated or possible renovated historic structures. it's a little bit clear as it relates to historic structures. in this case, the church has undergone a significant restoration already, and the flexibility and uses that would be allowed in this legislation would allow something like st. joseph's church flexibility to under the long-term viability and profitability and maintenance costs of that historic structure. so with that, we support the legislation and thank you very much for considering that. >> president melgar: thank you very much. any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed.

commissioner koppel? >> vice president koppel: i'm also in support of the legislation. often, these historic buildings are not occupied or if they are, they're seldomly occupied, and i see them as an asset or resource to these communities, but i agree with the st. joseph's representative that this should also work hand in hand with the existing or already remodels buildings, not just to kind of set the table for the ones to be remodelled in the future. thanks. >> president melgar: commissioner hillis? >> commissioner hillis: so i'm also supportive -- i'm supportive of the staff's recommendation, too, so i would move to approve with staff's modifications. >> commissioner moore: second.

>> president melga >> clerk: commissioners, there is a motion to approve and a second. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. places you on item number nine, record number 2019-000592 cua, board number 191030. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audrey butkus, planning department staff. before i give staff's presentation, lee hefner from supervisor peskin's office is here to speak on the item. >> thank you, commissioners. thank you, commission president melgar. this should at this point not

be a terribly new issue. once again we're talking about retail to office space conversions in the downtown c-3-r. before you is one little piece of the proposal that caused a rereferral at the committee and that is a $2 increase to the $4 impact fee. at some point during the renegotiation based on this commission's recommendation for a little bit more flexibility on the third floor, we met with stakeholders who proposed and our office agreed that a $2 increase to the $4 impact fee would be modest and doable for these projects that are doing these types of conversions. i just want to be clear because there is a little bit of confusion what is before you. we are not here to relitigate the third floor flexibility.

we're not reneging on that. this is just about the $2 increase. so the $2 increase still keeps us well below the $12.95 maximum nexus fee, and i would be remiss not to in that context kind of reiterate some of the market incentive that we see to convert retail office space in the c-3-r and across the district. it bears reporting just yesterday the chronicle reported yesterday that the crocker galleria is set to under go a $3 million renovation. it is now proposing to convert 7,000 square feet of second story space from retail to office as part of that $30

million renovation. it would be great if we could capture that type of conversion in that fee, as well. i think that the resulting $40,000 for pedestrian streetscape improvements would be a modest public benefit in light of the pending $30 million renovation, so i put that before the commission today with no idea how we would actually do that, but at least to note the market incentive for these types of conversions is there. it's real, and absent any sort of demonstration that this is an infeasible fee increase, i respectfully request your support. thank you. >> again, commissioners, audrey butkus, planning department staff. the board heard the original presentation on october 30, 2018. the ordinance was then heard at the january 27 land use and transportation committee. at that hearing, supervisor

peskin states that the board of supervisors after reviewing the nexus study found that an increase in the fee could be afforded. the version that you reviewed as mr. hefner said on the 18th of october contained a $4 per square foot impact fee, and this proposed change would be a $2 increase. the department recommends the committee approve the proposed amendment. [inaudible] >> -- and therefore a fee of up to $12.95 is feasible to support the increased impacts on parks and public open space. that's it for staff's presentation, but i'm happy to answer any questions. thanks. >> president melgar: thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item.

any public comment, please come up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is karen flood. i'm the chief executive director of the union square food improvement district, representing the merchants in and around union square. we have been before you on this very issue. i'm here today just to make sure that the legislation, as was stated earlier is exactly the same as the legislation that was just approved by the board of supervisors and signed off by the mayor with the $2 increase. the latest version i have just seen with the $6 fee did not include the language that we have worked so hard with peskin's hardoffice. i have not seen a copy of the legislation of this newest, so i just want to make sure that it says the same thing as the legislation with the $4 per

foot. and that would allow us to do the conditional use at the third floor under certain criteria because that's really where we're concerned about, is that third floor. regarding the $2 increase in the fee, you know, there's been some grumbling among some of my merchants. if you were to go above 12, i think some of them would be here, but we're generally okay with that, just with the proposed legislation, the $2 increase. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> sue hester. i absolutely support the increase to $4. the planning commission and the board of supervisors struck out into uncharted territory in the '80's when they first approved

the mitigation fees. they did it because -- and i want to say you, but none of you were around. city about it because there was a imbalance of housing demand and transit demand and open space demand and child care demand. those are the big four issues when they adopted the downtown plan to approve more office space. so the mitigation measures are really important to address problems. i am also going to pursue at the board of supervisors the idea when a project comes through, the problem of office space being black holes. that's a problem. basically, the owner of the

building when they get approval of more money for an office space conversion should have to put back some of it into lighting the sidewalks because the assumption in the '80's and the '70's, and the '90's are not borne out right now. it's an issue that is an equity issue. the building owners make the money. they charge the rent. office rent is much higher now than they get for anything else and so in that context, the city should be looking at having the owners do some improvements for the lighting of the buildings and the lighting of the public place. the other thing i wish to -- i'm also going to be a crank on, the whole workers to office square footage has dropped

dramatically, and so the whole means of saying this square footage equals this many workers is not true anymore. specifically, the tech industry -- and i read the business times. i read it all the time, and i think you probably read these same articles, but i'm always doing the mental calculations of how many square feet equals one worker. and the workers have to be served by housing, and housing and transit is the big one. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you, miss hester. any other public comment on this item? okay. public comment is now closed. mr. hepner, can you confirm that the language in the legislation was negotiated. >> yes. so i think it's a procedural wrinkle. my guess is the file was duplicated prior to amending in the language about the third floor. it's an unfortunate point of

confusion, but to be abundantly clear, we have no intent to reneg any of the negotiated language on the third floor. this is only about the $2 fee increase. >> president melgar: thank you very much, mr. hepner. commissioners? commissioner koppel? >> vice president koppel: i'll make a motion to approve. >> second. >> clerk: commissioners, there is a motion to approve and a second. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and places you on item number 11, since you will be taking item number ten, better market street, at the end of your agenda. item number 11, record number 2016-011101 ctz, great highway, a coastal zone permit.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i believe the project sponsor is running up the door as we speak, so hopefully, he'll be here at the time we're ready [inaudible] >> oh, hang on. on the phone with somebody else. bridget hicks, planning department staff. the project before you is a coastal zone permit to allow the relining of the highway on sloat. pursuant to planning code section 330.5.4, this project requires approval from the planning commission. the project includes the conversion of the two existing northbound lanes into one northbound lane and one southbound lane. these lanes will be separated by a double yellow line and have eight-foot shoulders on either side. the project also includes the removal of the two existing

southbound lanes. the existing intersection configurations at sloat and skyline boulevards will be maintained. all existing access and parking will be maintained. existing class 3 bike share lanes will be maintained, and additional signage will be added. the project also includes road way drainage improvements. this proposal is one phase of the larger local coastal program, which was an amendment to the western shoreline area plan of the san francisco general plan. the coastal hazard sections of the western shoreline area plan states that erosion of the bluff and beach south of sloat boulevard has resulted to and damage to loss of beach parking and portions of the highway and threatens the critical wastewater infrastructure. sea left rise will likely exacerbate these symptoms in the future. policy 12.1 of the western shoreline area plan calls on the city to adopt managed retreat adaptation measures

between sloat boulevard and skyline boulevard. implementation measure c of this policy is to close the great highway between sloat and skyline boulevard and make situation and safety improvements to better accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles. to date, the department has received two letters of opposition to this project, expressing concerns of potential traffic congestion as a result of the proposed changes, and a lack of vision for overall transit improvement with this area and the rest of the city. as a side note, an environmental review was completed in 2016 which included a traffic study. this project then received a categorical exemption under ceqa. staff recommends approval of this coastal seen request as noted in the executive summary. staff finds the project meets all applicable requirements of the planning code, including

that the project is consistent with the objectives of the san francisco local coastal project. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions, and the staff is also here. >> commissioner, i was remiss in not introducing you to miss hicks who has not come to the commission before. bridget joined the department in july of last year. she's a member of the southwest team, which mr. washington heads up. she has her bachelor's in science and georaffy in from montana state -- geography and masters from san diego state. >> president melgar: thank you. does the project sponsor have a presentation?

>> boris donath from public works. actually, i don't have a presentation but i do have some materials i can provide because i do think there may be questions. >> president melgar: okay. thank you very much. with that, we will take public comment on this item. that's surprising. public comment is now closed. commission commission commission commission commissioner koppell? >> it's more of a question for public works. we would approve this project and go from there. >> president melgar: okay. thank you. >> vice president koppel: fully in support of this project. later next year around the middle of may in 2020,

parkmerced is hosting one of the four major golf championships. i notice there was kind of 18 month timeline schedule, but i wasn't sure when the project window start or end, and i was wondering if there was any way we can end before the golf tournament or start after the golf tournament just because there's one entrance and one egress to and from. >> we are well aware of that golf tournament, and unfortunately as of right now, we have actually not -- i wouldn't say we have completely lost our funding for this project, but we were part of the 2010 emergency funds, which have 100,000 -- 100 million cap for the state of california, and that money has been expended. we're currently looking at other funding sources, and

there's one that's hopeful. we may get that funding in the next couple of months, which will determine our schedule. we have the project that's fully designed. we could build it. we are aware of the restrictions with the golf, and we will definitely work around that, but as to a definite schedule, unfortunately, i don't have one at this time. >> president melgar: so i did have another question. so i am a big supporter of the san francisco zoo, and i was wondering if there'd been any coordination with them as to the impact this will have on their programming and also sort of the cyclical nature. >> our contact is aware of that. there is the ocean beach committee where he's a member of. i am he a member, too, so ther been constant talks.

>> president melgar: thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: we ourselves have been in and out of this project for quite a few years, and i think it is just fine for those people who aren't quite -- -- that has the material in front of them. would you mind speaking briefly and putting the material that applies to the project on the overhead and speak to the improvements that are being intended. >> it doesn't take 11 by 17 sheets, right? >> you can adjust it. >> so what we could do is...the reason i'm showing this is it's actual existing condition right now. mother nature is at work, so we have lost moreland from the fairly recent storm, so this is

a fairly recent picture where we're going to divert the southbound lanes onto the northbound lanes. >> commissioner richards: sorry. could you speak up a little bit, please, boris. >> usually, people tell me to speak down. that's great. at this point, there is still a parking lot that's still existent. you see that at the upper right hand corner of the picture. that's where we are agoing to o the weaving of the southbound lanes onto the northbound lanes, and i can show you another picture in that respect. so that's the parking lot i was telling you about, and we're weaving onto completely northbound lanes, which will be one lane in each direction, one

northbound lane and one southbound lane on the current northbound lanes. then before we meet the intersection of skyline boulevard, we are actually weaving back to two-lane traffic. you can see here that's where we're weaving back from one northbound and one northbound to a double northbound and double southbound to the intersection that is existing right now. >> president melgar: is that good, commissioner moore? thank you very much. >> i'm sorry i got 11-by-17.

i should have known we have smaller. >> president melgar: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: i think the ocean beach master plan was approved in 2012. i'm also on the executive committee along with several department heads as members with the ggnra and other city agencies, so we've been reviewing that work for a long time. as a reminder, this is the part of ocean beach south of sloat that is most vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surge. the storms the last month had a substantial effect down there. this is one phase of a multiphase project. eventually as was said, this part of the highway goes away and becomes a trail. so the staffs of the organizations have been working with the zoo and others about access to the zoo, the parking lot, and so on. so this becomes the first phase of a multiphase project to make that happen.

>> president melgar: thank you. commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. just want to thank the department of public works for eliminating for the public on what's happening, and also, director rahaim for leading this collaborative process, and i move to approve with conditions. >> second. >> clerk: commissioners, there is a motion and a second to approve with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0 and places you on-site number 12 -- item number 12, record number 2016-15997, at 820 post street, conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, president melgar and commissioners. andrew perry, department staff. the project before you is aa request information conditional use authorization at 820 post street located just west of the intersection with leavenworth

street between the knob hill neighborhood to the north and the downtown civic center and tenderloin neighborhoods to the south. it would construct a new eight story 80 foot tall building containing 12 units above the ground floor and approximately 1200 square feet of ground floor retile space. the project would have a uj of five one bedroom, six two bedrooms, and one three bedroom unit. the project does not propose any off street vehicle parking. the project requires a conditional use for the construction of a building taller than 50 feet in height within an r.c. district, however, the project does comply with the overall height limit of 80 feet, however, the project did comply with all other requirements of the planning code and requires inform variances. staff has received two additional letters of support and an additional letter of

opposition along with signatures on a petition opposed to the project's overall height. i have these here for distribution today. and with these included, staff has received three formal letters of opposition, along with 39 signatures of opposition on a petition. as noted on the staff report, those opposed to the project are primarily concerned with loss of light to their adjacent residents, as well as the capability of the building with the surrounding neighborhood. these individuals request the building be limited to no more than five or six stories in height. in addition, commissioners, the letter has now received three letters of support for the project, one coming from the district six community planners. the department finds that the project is necessary and desirable for and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. the project represents an addition of units to the city's housing stock, particularly two and three bedroom units which

kpriez half of the proposed units. the units are more modestly sized with 585 for one bedrooms, and 685 feet for two bedrooms, and the project aways internal layout has been efficiently designed and it contemplates with the planning department guidelines. the project has provided an additional five-foot set back at the rear of the upper floor. considering the constraints of the site with a lot depth of 60 feet and the surrounding character of the neighborhood, the department find that the project is compatible with the surrounding context, would enhance the city's housing goals, and would support city transit first policy by not providing parking in an area that is well served by transit. as such, the department recommends approval of the project with conditions. that concludes my presentation, but i am available for questions. thank you. >> president melgar: thank you. do we have a project sponsor?

>> good afternoon. my name is clemente tsar, and i'm one of the architects. allow me to give you an overview of the project. my eye sight is going. i can't read it on the screen. the site is a fairly small site. it's 40 feet by 60 feet. it's located in the rc-4

district, which is residential commercial with high density. it is allowed to go up to 80 feet. it is in the lower knob hill apartment hotel historic district, but the caliber of the existing building there has degraded so much that it is not deemed a contributor. as you can see from the overhead, it is a small package of land surrounded by four to 12-story apartment buildings. that's the nature of the lower knob hill apartment and hotel district. the existing property fills the lot, but we will be building an 80-foot-tall building that has a rear yard of the 25% required for the rear yard. now with the 60-feet-deep lot,

that's 15 feet. everything is designs to within inches of -- designed to within inches on this project. as you can see from the site plan, the adjacent neighbors have rear yards, as well. whereas the original building that was there did not have a rear yard. it is lot line to lot line. the first, we need two staircases, even though it's a very small foot print elevator. i guess we could look to the second floor on the right. the front unit is the two-bedroom unit. we've chosen to associate a bathroom with each bedroom, and this makes it much more viable

commercially. that's much more attractive for sale. in the back, there is a community room, and in the back, there's a section that counts for community use is open in the back. there are two exits in that area, as well because of the size even though it's fairly small, it does need two exits. if you go up the building a little bit, you see the front half of the building continues to be the two-bedroom units and the back unit is a one-bedroom unit. at the top, we have a three-bedroom unit. we have tried to fit in with the context or the fabric of the neighborhood using some of these character-defining features of the lower knob hill historic district where there's a capital body and a base.

we're using brick as a facade item, which is very typical of that neighborhood, and we're -- i'm locating or incorporating a bay window in the center. again, very typical of the neighborhood. a refresher of what the neighborhood looks like and how we fit in. this is an elevation of the east side, where you can start to recognize the set back and the community room in the back and the adjacent neighbor. the back elevation is moran mated than side because the sides are zero lot line. as you can see, we've set back