>> do you need a study for that eat time or is -- time? >> in addition to making sure the fee is indexed every year, like other impact fees we had considered building in a mandatory resetting of the base fee periodically. in conversations with some of the oewd and planning staff we were discussing this option. it sounds like that will be the practice moving forward, we did not put it in the legislation before you. we would be open to adding that to make sure it is re- looked that periodically so we are not waiting another 22 years before we have this assess area to on

in here now. it is something that we can contemplate moving forward with your feedback. >> thank you so much for explaining that. the percentage of the allocation if he is extremely sensitive. i am very, very touched by the fact how mr. cohen took up the issue of labor and fee, and all of it together i think is an extremely profound piece of legislation. i am in full support of it. >> i had a couple of questions for staff. mr. sanchez the model for the labor requirement, part of its baseline assumptions was based on the census. how accurate is the census? >> can you repeat the question?

>> the analysis and model that establishes the affordable unit to requirement, for different uses, or professions if you will , has as part of its baseline assumption data from the census. the question is, how accurate is the data from the census? >> joshua with planning staff. you are referring to the income breakdown that are underlying the nexus analysis? i believe they use a variety of sources including the census. there is a census product, i'm going to get the name wrong, it provides a personal level data where you can match incomes. it is a very disintegrated geographical level.

it provides a breakdown in terms of their incomes, and their job sector and job classes. i believe they are using other economic sources to enrich the data source. i think it is as good as exists. >> if participation, in the census is limited, as some suspect, that potentially would change the baseline assumptions, wouldn't it? >> to the extent that it would change the overall worker composition of various industries and their incomes then theoretically yes. we are limited to the data that is publicly available. >> last question, i was a little bit surprised at the numbers from pdr.

regarding that use, the fact that it is now ingrained into multiple districts, and zoning areas. i was a little surprised that it's requirement was less then some of the other uses. >> jobs housing linkage fee requirements is zero. that is a policy decision that the board and commission have made over the years, it is a policy matter. >> am talking about it is affordable unit requirement. >> so, there is different factors to get as a percentage of the workforce and pdr uses it as a high percentage of workers who make below market rate -- below median average. there is a worker density factor that gets layered into here.

every thousand square feet of space there is fewer workers. so, that balances out. those factors arrive at these ratios. the other uses you will notice that the retail rate is actually the highest. it is always the highest because it is a percentage of workers in retail, most of them make lower wages. on a square foot basis, actually generates the highest demand for affordable units. hotel is also pretty high, as well. >> commissioner richards? >> so, this whole issue of feasibility, as far as looking at sales of buildings, commercial buildings, i was quite surprised. a building i used to work in 123 mission just sold a couple of months ago for $400 million and it was acquired a year prior for $290 million.

for anybody to say we do not have a healthy office or get, things are flipping for 30% more than they are, over a year, needs to go back to math school. 110 sutter sold for $270 million, it is a hundred year old building. first six weeks of 2019 we have sales in san francisco at $3.4 billion on the market, just in those first six weeks. no other buildings coming up for sale, like the one i just mentioned. 2018 was 2.53 billion in sales, 2017 was $3.48 billion, clearly we have a healthy office work it we look at these numbers. a couple of other things. commercial real estate. i don't know if you own a home, or you rent, bringing renters taxa back, or mortgage tax deductions, property tax deductions a limited with our income tax deduction up to $10,000.

the comp tax cut was a real tax cut. it cut taxes on businesses sometimes up to half. i'm just going to go over how much benefit, i don't think this came out in the nexus study. maybe there is a line in there if you want to pointed out, that i am wrong, prop 13 roll exemptions has been around since prop 13 past in 1977. commercial landlords are getting away with murder when they transfer under 50% of their buildings. they are not paying transfer tax. they are not being reassessed. business commercial real estate interest and taxes are fully deductible, as business expenses. they have this thing called depreciation which you and i do not have that goes over the life of the building. the building keeps getting depreciated and they subtract that from their income. that is a great benefit. accumulated capital appreciation

gets wiped out at the death of the person who holds commercial property. he passes it on to his heirs because it is a stepped up basis beyond death. that is enormous. i mean, there are people with hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial real estate that are not paying taxes when they die. they have an estate tax exemption of $22 million for a married couple, $11 million for single. they have a partnership transfer exemption. i have an llc. it owns the building, so i don't sell my portion of the building to have to pay tax on it. there are all of these different ways that commercial property gets so much benefit. i don't think we realize. i think this is one of the last

things left we have to find affordable housing four. looking at sb-330 and it imitations on anybody's ability to raise any types of fees to recoup any of these impacts, because it makes developments less desirable or less feasible. this is about all we have left. my one question is, we are finding this out 36%, and haney if you can answer this question, you said that brings about 2,000 and change, the number of units. the impact on the square footage of the office that we were having, would be let's say 4,000 more, just to round up. where is that unfunded housing coming from? the demand is going to be there. the most telling thing, supervisor, was page 19 in the nexus study. local analysis of housing conditions found the new housing affordable to lower income

households was not being added as the supply and fish -- sufficient quality. anything left of $193, we are digging ourselves further in the hole. where do we get the money to fill in the hole? >> i think that is a very good point. that is why you heard from many of the speakers who came up here today. this may not be enough. at the very least it should be viewed at a very common sense, reasonable fee increase. you know, staff did mention this, as well as one of the other speakers that this study does assume that every single worker is going to live in san francisco. >> about a third do not. >> in that sense, the other thing to also remember and the point was made, we have not been building adequately for decades now. there is also the question of the fact that we are starting

from way behind. >> we are way down in the hole. >> we are way down in the whole. the housing that is being built, through this fee is in many ways making up for our failures in the past, as well. we have affordable housing bond. even with this fee, at this level, we are still way behind. this is, you know, a modest increase. if you are looking at what the need is. we need, you know, this cannot be the whole pot. if we pass this, and the affordable housing bond we still have so far to go, even based on our own studies. >> i do support the yearly increase on this index. thank you. one last point, we have places in in this state that have extra housing, and higher unemployment. i take exception. i bet you if you got out and asked voters, in california, why don't we put jobs where there's more housing and higher employment, they would probably

support that idea. rather than trying to jam it had we can't really even absorb it. we have this thing called high-speed rails that runs to nowhere. there is a new region we should create with two big cities where we can start from the ground up and we can be as dense as we can. 3.5 million homes that keeps been in in the mckinsey study, that everybody has adopted as "fake" that is overestimating the need by two times. you can fit all of those homes, the density of sb-50 in 140 square miles. think about that. >> thank you commissioner. [please stand by]

>> it is kept up with inflation. >> it is more than inflation. what is the method they use? does anybody know? >> i don't know. >> okay. would it be different?

i am asking what the difference is in what we currently have and going forward. maybe court they can explain -- courtney can explain. >> i will do my best. it is a little unclear to find out how it has been indexed historically. that is where we want to index it with the aicce. my understanding is that in the past couple of years they have created a new methodology. it is tough to find out what that is, right now the inclusionnary and jobs housing fees are indexed differently than the other impact fees. >> are we then saying that it hasn't been as transparent and

we want to migrate it to someplace to understand it and make sure it keeps up. is that what we are saying? >> that is our intent. >> what about the feasibility study. i understand the nexus study and the need is clearly there. it is really telling that nobody in two hours of public comment came out to speak against it from the development community. i heard mr. kevin raise questions but not speak against it. that makes me question a little bit the feasibility analysis that i saw because it seems to me that if it was going to break the bank, people would be against it. i am not trusting numbers. i don't understand the method. i am a math person. i like to understand what i am seeing. can you talk to me about the

feasibility side of it? >> i would echo your sentiments on that. i think what has been frustrating for us with the feasibility study is that the number that is recommended is well with in the limits of what we can do with the 1997 nexus study, and if we had been indexing the fee with a consistent method year over year we could be charging $38 per square foot right now. that seems to be not recognizing today's realities of an affordability gap that is more than i think 500 times what it was in 1997. they are much lower, there are more workers per square foot of office and the cost of

construction has gone up as well as inflation. again, we our position is the recommendation of $38 is really inadequate. it was also mentioned during comment the feasibility study recognizes or seems to assume that under current fees office development is infeasible, and yet we see a lot of office growth happening. when we looked at our number and set it at 69.60, we know they are not prescriptive, they are recommendations. we wanted to end up somewhere relatively in the middle and all we really had to go was looking at other impact fees. looking at a third of the nexus amount. i will say with the exception of the inclusionnary fees at 67% of what nexus said and the inclusionnary amounts exceeded

what was laid out in the feasibility study. >> commissioner richards further comment. >> commissioner richards: i move to approve the legislation. >> i was not done. i wanted the make a few additional comments to make sure we cover the basis. we have heard some feedback about potentially modifying the fee allocation to make sure we are being inclusive of other types of housing that are severely underfunded. as we move forward we have had a request on changing the rules around land dedication. right now, the land dedication can only happen within a constrained geographic region. we have been approached about changing pipeline provisions and treating projects in the pipeline. those are what we are looking at

amending as we move forward. >> thank you. i want to thank supervisor haney for bringing this into courtney for all of the work that you have put into it and the members of the community for taking the time to be here and, you know, help us through this process. i will reiterate that i am not sure about this math either in the feasibility analysis or anything else, but i want to empower you to keep negotiating the best deal that we can get because i trust that you will. i will not support this staff recommendation of $10 fee. i think it is too low. i am not sure that the $69.60 is the right fee. i don't know if it is too high or too low. i don't understand the method i want to support you going forward and raising the jobs

housing linkage ne, i am not ready to support a number today. i think that we still need to discuss it. as i told you, i am particularly interested in central soma and what it does to central o soma. i would like to see those numbers and empower you to get us the best deal overall. if anybody makes a motion i hope you take those comments into consideration. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: could we close by the approval with modifications. what i heard nobody is supporting that modification so what we are trying to say is that we are supporting where you are, including forward going negotiations in improving fees and allocations.

would you help us with that? >> i appreciate that. we have spoken about this. there are ongoing negotiations around it so i think i hear what you are saying and i will take that as we move forward we will definitely continue to work with the community and this has to go to land use and colleagues and such, i would appreciate your support in the legislation, but i understand the questions that you are raising around the number. >> then couldn't we just send it forward with affirmative support, not only for what it says by supervisor haney also that we are supporting ongoing negotiations, refinements and focusing on further ex emfiction of what is issues are. we don't have to vote on anything. we can forward with a strong

recommendation of support. >> we should vote on it. it is an action item. >> is somebody going to second? commissioner richards. >> it is an action item. you need to act on it. >> i move to vote yes on the legislation as proposed by the supervisor with no modification. if you need to change things or even encourage different allocations up to you. let's keep it clean. >> i second. >> thank you. >> nothing further, commissioners there is a motion and second to approve the proposed legislation as proposed. on that motion. (roll call). so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 5-0. >> thank you so much.

thank you. >> that places us item 11 for 2017-003559env, 37 0 california street for the environmental impact report. written comments will be accep accepted. i will remind members of the public today's hearing is to accept testimony on the adequacy and accuracy of the report, not on the project itself.

>> good afternoon, president melgar and members of the commission. i am environmental planning staff. could we have the overhead presentation? thank you. the item before you is the review and comment on the 3700 california street project draft environmental impact report. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comments on the draft e.i.r. pursuant to environmental quality act and the local procedures for implementing. no approval action on this document is requested at this time. the public review project began on june 13th and will continue until september 24th. this public hearing was rescheduled from earlier day and comment period was extended because of error in distribution of the notice of the draft

e.i.r. i will discuss it before opening up to public comment. the 4.9-acre project is the former california pacific medical center comprising the full block bounded by california, cherry and maple and sacramento streets and portions of the blocks to the east and west. the project would demolish five of the six existing buildings on the site, renovate a portion of the hospital building, retain and renovate an existing nine unit residential building and construct 31 new residential buildings. the proposed 273 dwelling units include 14 single family homes

and 19 multi family residential buildings with buildings from three to seven stories or 36 to 80 feet in height. 416 vehicle parking spaces and over 450 class one and class two bicycle spaces would be provided. the draft e.i.r. finding that the project would result? no significant or unavoidable impacts. impacts related to the following topics could be reduced to less thansitionnificant with mitigation measures. historic resources archeological, tribal cultural, nesting birds and construction noise and vibration, all other impacts were found to be less than significant. the draft e.i.r. identified three project alternatives.

no project alternative is required and assumes nonacute medical uses with minimal alteration to existing buildings. the reduced construction alternative would reduce construction related impacts associated with grading such as archeological, tribal cultural and construction noise impacts. the rehabilitation reuse alternative would reuse impacts related to construction noise and nesting birds for less than significant with mitigation to less than significant. since the project would not result in unavoidable impact they would not reduce the impacts to less than significa significant. sorry that is the slide that shows the alternatives. today the planning department is seeking comment on the adequacy

and accuracy of the information contain understand the draft e.i.r. for members of the public who wish to speak please state your name and speak slowly and clearlily so the court reporter can make an accurate record. all verbal and written comments received today will be transcribed and responded to in responses to comment document. revisions will be made as appropriate. those who wish to submit written comments on the draft e.i.r. nay give to the commission secretary today or deliver to me by e-mail or hard copy by the end of the comment period which is 5:00 p.m. on tuesday, september 24th. unless you have procedural questions i respectfully suggest the public hearing be opened. thank you. >> is there a project sponsor? let do public comment.

i have speaker cards. if i call your name, please line up. rose hill son, leonard, victor harget. anyone else is welcome to speak. please address the environmental impact report. >> i submitted this document of comments. we sent it because because i didn't want to go over it. i hear showing a bunch of things i wrote in summary. i will read it. there is a reduction of on-street parking. we don't talk about level of service, i want this point. reduction of on-street parking in high occupancy level of service d. this is a level of service d area, drivers will circle.

maple driveway is predicted one to two vehicles a minute. that is 250% increase and 214%. 38% traffic increase on the south side of parker and that is going to conflict with the parker euclid bike path. vision zero failures. two blocks parker south. decrease the garage ceiling parkers to decrease california street impact. french laundry chemicals a concern, increase radius depending on tribal desires. net numbers used reliance on cpnc hospital data is not environmentally friendly. prior hospital stats would be used to analyze this 3700

project. new low pressure fire hydrants for safety there should be high pressure. 361,800 -- so 61,800 oil movement. 7320 trips. need for construction transportation management plan, contractor parking plan, rooftop appurtenances. negative 23% street trees not environmentally friendly. 150 parker school as recenter within the dir modeling included in the 3333 california. decrease cars seven to two. thank you very much. 30 seconds left to go. >> next speaker, please.

good afternoon, president melgar and fellow commissioners. i am victor hargate. i have been a journeyman carpenter for 34 years. i live here in san francisco, and i am speaking in support of the 3700 california street project. there will allow a carpenter like me to continue living in the city of san francisco. this project will help me continue my career as a carpenter moving toward retirement. this project will provide me with the necessary income to provide for my family. this project will bring much needed housing to the area. i am in full support of this

project, and i ask that you move to forward this project. thanks. >> next speaker, please. >> i will remind members of the public this is not on the project but the environmental impact report. >> good afternoon. i am a field representative with carters local 22. i am here to ask you accept era to move this on. tmg partners is using a general contractor to provide a good wage, health and retirement benefits to members. they will offer training and education for those entering the carter trade. this includes women, minorities, veterans. this will bring much needed housing in the area.

we heard over 30 people have said how much we need housing. this is part of it. i would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak and urge you to accept the e.i.r. >> any other public comment on this item? >> i am marie sullivan, and i am a property owner across the street from 3838. actually since 1968. my parents bought the place. i certainly support new housing. and jobs for people. but i am very concerned about how this is going to affect the environment and parking. that is why i am here to say that i will speak my concerns. thank you. >> thank you.

any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i have a few questions. generally, i think the draft e.i.r. is well structured and clear. i appreciate that. however, i am concerned the cumulative impact between two large projects they have cumulative impacts which remind me of creating something too car centric. i am concerned that the high number of parking spaces for each of these projects. i am addressing the 3700 california has an impact not fully evaluated without shifting

overlay of uber and lyft. i am in support of density, however the massive excavation both projects are trying to undertake to achieve this outcome is of great concern to me, particularly because i believe that the infrastructure of public transportation should be increased prior to the two projects starting in the area. it is not just th the expansionf the buses but cross connections which kind of weave this particular large development for cusinto the larger project anddedestination throughout the city. i would like the e.i.r. to address that. there is a challenge probably not within the traditional structure of how we do e.i.r.s. i like to start to address what we do after cars diminish.

in our agenda are two other projects seeing the reinterpretation of parking and if we are talking about higher and better uses of parking, we have a project coming up in a few minutes, i would like this project as it is providing below grade parking to already anticipate that change to a higher and better use. those are my comments. they are a little bit looking into some future interpretations, but i believe they are important to address. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i agree with all of your comments. >> very good, commissioners, that places us on item 12. 2014-0926dnx at 1270 mission

street. this is an informational presentation. >> good afternoon, i am the department staff. before you is an update regarding the project at 1270 mission street. this was approved by the commission on october 27, 2016. proposing the demolition of the existing one story commercial structure and surface parking lot and new construction of 21 story with tw with two 00-foot . the increase was requiring the project to provide 25% on site units or 75 units. the project sponsor has revised the project eliminating the setback and changing the overall

design of the building with a new architect. the elimination of set back is 5% of the square footage and provides 7% more units for 321 new total. still held to the 25% on site this increases affordable units by five to 80 total. it will maintain the rear and west side set backs provided in the original project and similarly propose to improve the east side of the site with shared street with raised crosswalks and special paving. as stated in conditions of approval changes may be approved by the zoning administrator. he has found it to be in general conformity with original project. no action is required today. this is an informational update for the commission and public to be made aware of changes to this

approved project familiar thank you. i am available for questions. >> is there a presentation from the project sponsor? no. just informational. okay. do we have any public comment on this item? okay. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: are we allowed to comment on this project? while i believe that the attempt to create more housing is always a noble one, i do recall that we spent a significant amount of time shaping this project particularly in the context in which it occurs. many of the moves we spent quite a bit of time on and there were at least four or five minutes where we re-examined this over and over again, i believe that

the project as it is presented in the new design is actually a step backward. i want to b see that mr. cider s what i was saying. i believe in project is a step backward. not in terms of numbers of units but in the physical appearance. the project ex trueds itself as a single shape from what was previously carefully modulated between base, middle and top is a step backward in ever taller inner city environment. i believe this project with its numbers is not doing us a favor. by differentiating it is in color is not enough.

if i would be asked to vote i ask the architect and developer who are in a new partnership on this go back to the discussions we had surrounding the particulars of the previous building and carefully exam why we chose what we did and do more study. i cannot support what is proposed. >> commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: it appears that every project in front of us is expanded to the absolute max possible. i guess this is reflective of it. i wouldn't use the term step backward, but it is the current approach from the urban design point of view. it is not an improvement. both in terms of what the setback used to do for

separating the base and the tower and also the large on and dated approach in terms of the precasts shown. it is not necessarily an improvement. >> mr. snider. >> commissioner moore, i apologize for the side bar. what we were trying to do is figure out what the range of options to this commission might be. there are, of course, many. as the sponsors heard the comments just now. you could direct us to prepare a resolution recommending further changes to the sponsor, advising staff, providing comment to the zoning administrator. it is a fairly unusual situation. you have granted thi this

entitlement already. it is in place. you have these options available to you should you pursue them. >> we don't have an action item in front of us. that is it. >> item 13. 2017-002136 c.u.a. at 340 town send street. this is a conditional use authorization. >> good evening. michael christian son, department staff. this is a request for conditional use authorization 249.78, 303, 848 to establish a 178 space public parking garage by converting an existing

parking garage used for accessory parking to a public garage. this is 340 townsend street within the central soma zoning use district. the western district and the 130 district. the site is currently developed with five story structure. first three levels are devoted to parking and top is office space. the existing garage is under utilized with 100 spaces unused on a given day, according to the project sponsor. the department considered if this is appropriate use for the site if the auto parking could be converted to higher use. the site is transit accessible with the fourth and king transit station across the street. central subway is opening service in 2021.

the context of the neighborhood undergoing significant change. the tennis club and creamery will generate construction activity in the coming years. crews come early before transit is in full-service, it is likely providing additional parking capacity in the immediate term may provide relief during the construction. as the neighborhood develops public parking may impede less auto dependents pattern and it may be redeveloped to higher and better use. the department's recommendation is for approval of the authorization with three year expiration date so the department and commission may reevaluate after three years if the sponsor wishes to continue. the department completed environmental evaluation and found it would not have a

significant impact on environment. department has not received formal support or opposition to the project from the public. the department finds it is necessary and desirable and in compliance with the planning code. as such the department recommends approval to limit authorization to three years. this concludes my presentation. i am available for any questions. >> do we have a sponsor. >> i am here on behalf of the project sponsor. reuse of the accessory garage. it is an odd building, if i could get the overhead. it was originally approved with two floors of office and they came back to get three floors of parking underneath. that is how times changed since the mid 1980s. we are going to modernize it so we have 24 new bike spaces, four

new car sharing spaces, well more parking than necessary for the use on site. the traffic study where we had folks go out and watch found that there were 112 spaces empty during the peak occupancy period. it is heavily under-utilized. we also know we are going to lose a clot a lot of public parn the future. they will be removing public parking lots and coming next year the wells fargo site behind the brick house cafe will be coming in the next couple years here. there is definitely going to be the demand. i did watch the hearing from last year not quite apples to apples. i wanted an indication where the commission was at. in terms every use of the space,

it is a very difficult situation to do anything other than maintain it as parking. the comment about does it cost involved with updating the parking garage and eliminating the space to justify that? you have the practicality of doing this underneath an operating office space, not to say you couldn't empty the office space for a while. financial aid doesn't make sense. if we look at other uses, residential use, this site is inappropriate. we don't have any dwelling unit exposure, no open space. former parking garage, office each floor is 50,000 square feet. we are going to be out of small cap in the next year. that is going to be discussed in the coming months. office space isn't available. finally, we have talked about retail on the block before.

if you will remember 505 brannan across the street. this is the back side. mr. there was discussion if 505 brannan should put the retail space on the back. they agreed the retail space right there did not make sense so, you know, assuming it didn't make sense for brand new development to craft good retail space, this is more challenging. thank you, commissioners, for your consideration. we have the three year re-look to check in three years. >> thank you very much. do we have public comment on this item? okay. public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i have a question for you. higher and better use, these

years is not a long time. is it inappropriate to ask what your view beyond those three years might be? >> for this building itself? >> commissioner moore: yes. >> this was originally as far as central soma to be rezoned to 330 feet to 350. it was brought to 130. 330 town send is going to be developed with residential tower. we didn't want that conflict. there was no developer ready to do anything with the site. i thought this was a great redevelopment site. it has highest density in the city and 130 feet. you have an existing building with an existing tenant and existing parking operation. my guess is that everyone is getting rid of their parking garages to do new development in central soma. i would say at least midterm that is not unexpected.

>> commissioner moore: thank you. i voiced my concerns about parking to parking before. if i would have a clear idea what could happen with the site, i would be happier to support an interim three years to know what is at the end of the tunnel. i am not interested to see three years later for the project to come forward and ask for the same. we are maturing within district with the central subway and cal tran and everything else, i would like to see this site become something different from the use that is dependent or promoting parking in the way that it does. i am curious what other commissioners have to say. i am supporting it, but i would like to know more. >> commissioner fong: you said this building was built in the 1980s?

>> correct. >> what is the floor to floor on the parking? probably less than 10 feet, right? >> if we can get the overhead. i am guessing 15. >> commissioner fong: that is not going to make your case. if it was done back then, the ada requirements now would have required the ground floor to be substantially higher to get the clearances, and, therefore, adaptive reuse of the space might be possible. if this was done back then at a minimum floor to floor, then it is probably not likely to be able to be adaptablebly reused on any of the parking levels. the options are keep it as parking for some other

development with residential above or to demo it and build something else, is that correct? >> it is a parking garage that is underserved right now. it is not to be redeveloped. we are in support of three year review. thank you. >> i am supportive of this. i think that we are going to see a whole lot more of this in the next 10 to 15 years, and i look forward to us having some options and policies about the ad adaptive reuse of the spaces. i think that we are making progress with the rent legislation -- recent legislation to have housing on the above floors in downtown. i think there are other options. i brought this up when we approved 333 california which was a great project but has a

lot of parking underground, which is more difficult to adapt even. i think, you know, i am fine with the three years and having it be a public parking lot. did you want to say something more, commissioner moore? >> vice president joel koppel: e year look back. >> second. >> to clarify you want a hearing on that or will a memo suffice? >> memo. >> is that all right? yes. to approve this matter as amended to require three year update memo. (roll call).

so moved that pass pass unanimously 4-0. >> there was discussion for 14a and b to be taken out of order. did you mean to place at the end of the agenda? >> are we ready to go? ok. let's go to the next item and then come back. >> 15a and b2017-000263 c.u.a. and 20-22 church street. the zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. >> can we take a break? >> we are down several commissioners and we just need a little break. let's take five minutes and then we will go to

>> welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, september 19, 2019. we do not tolerate outbursts. please silence your mobile devices. we left off on items 15a and b. 322 church sheet. you will consider the request for conditional use and zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. >> good evening. sharing young, planning department staff. before usa request for conditional use authorization at 20-22 church street to add two new residential units to the existing two story residential building on the front of a lot. a one story vertical addition

and excavating a portion of the basement floor. it is within the residential transit district. the arthe proposal will increasm four to six residential units on 1990 square foot lot. existing two-story noncomplying structure is at the rear of the lot. the front and rear buildings are separated by an inner courtyards. this would increase square footage from 1615 square feet to 3052 square feet to create two bedroom residential units on the proposed basement and third floor. no changes to the rear of the building. as far as issues for consideration. the project sponsors conducted a

pre-application project. there are no letters or phone calls in opposition to the project. we recommend approval with conditions. the zoning administrator will consider the variance for rear yard open space for this project. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i am here on behalf of the project sponsor. i propose the 10 new dwelling units, one in the basement and one on a partial third story addition to the building. currently two floors. the site contains two buildings. one is two unit in the front and

one in the rear. we need conditional use for density. you will like the configuration. there will be four units in the building, two bedrooms each from 647 to 786 square feet. two bedrooms, these are going to be affordable by design as much as that is possible in san francisco these days. third floor is five feet from the front and i want to point out the elevation if i can get the screen. you will see it. this is consistent with the street wall. we are not going taller than the right neighbor. left is shorter. they have been afproved for vertical addition to add seven feet. they should be taller. they are not set back. we feel this is very consistent with the neighborhood. we need variance for technical issues. we are wng