. >> clerk: and sfgovtv is on here, so why don't we push "live," christine?

okay. we are now -- somebody needs to turnoff their microphone. in fact, i'll ask all to turnoff their microphones. okay. we're getting feedback from someone playing back the sfgov delayed broadcast. josey, if you can move your cursor to take away the floating menu bar. okay. welcome to the meeting of the planning commission on february 16, 2020. i will remind the public that

on february 26, the mayor declared a state of emergency. as we a and then, she declared that we may hold meetings remotely. some tips to keep in mind. we are learning that there are problems with the at&t bridge conference line. it is extremely finicky and has a limited capacity, so as a result, we're asking members of the public calling in through the 800 public line is to call in once essentially. call in and follow the hearing. every time someone calls in, hangs up, and calls back counts against the city.

in the event that our at&t bridge fails, we may be forced to recess and call back in. however, this should not take too long, about five minutes at the moment, okay? so just, again, i do apologize in advance for the clumsy nature of this remote hearing, but this being the third time my staff at least is working through the hearing process, i'm beginning to feel much more comfortable. commissioners, at this time, i'd like to take roll. [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. i will remind not just the commissioners but staff and anyone on the team's live event, if you're not speaking, mute your camera. this will allow a much more efficient meeting to be run, and our producer to see all the cameras necessary. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance,

items 1 through 6. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: further, commissioners, under your discretionary review, item 16 for case 2017-015019 drp,

discretionary review, is proposed for continuance to may 21, 2020, and item 17 a and b for case 20717009796 drp is requested for continuance, and both of those come from the supervisorial offices. i have no other requests for continuances. members of the public, please, if you wish to speak on these matters of continuance, and only on the subject of the continuance itself, now would be the opportunity to do so by dialing 888-273-3658, and enter

access code 3104572. so chan, if we can go to the queue to allow people the opportunity to speak. is anyone on the line to speak to a continuance? >> caller: yes. >> operator: you have three

questions remaining. >> yes, i'm speaking on item 16. the continuance is to be for 60 days, not 30 days because the item had to be renoticed. i discussed this with david winslow. i'm representing some of the neighbors at 350-352 san jose avenue, so we request that you move it to june 18 or 25. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. [inaudible] >> -- on behalf of the resident

of 1088 howard. we are happy to agree to a short continuance to accommodate the d.r. requester, but we ask that it be as short as possible. all of us are adjusting to the new reality of video conference hearings, and it's unclear if it'll be in different in a month, so we have to have a hearing other than that. the project has been proposed since 2017, and we need an opportunity to present before the commission. thank you for your time. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audie raun. i am here to ask you to postpone the project for 350

san jose off. the public deserves to have their 311 notification. i don't know if there's enough time to discuss individual errors and omissions that the planning should have caught, but basically, we need more than 30 days, and the project needs to be renotified. so i'm asking the commission to do the right thing. renotify the project with the correct drawings, and 30 days is not going to make that happen. also, we believe that the lockdown is not going to be on indefinitely. at some point, we are going to have to come out, and hopefully, we will be facing you in person to present to you the exhibits and documentations of why we think this is not a just project.

thank you very much. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. whoever has their mic on and is watching the sfgovtv broadcast, please mute your microphone immediately. >> jonas, i have additional questions. >> clerk: okay. why don't we push them through? >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> hello. my name is kathy lipscomb, and

i am a neighbor of this project -- a noe valley neighbor. i think it should be delayed very long. i am furious that apparently tenants were evicted, and they were -- there's no record of any buyout process, and i don't know why a project like this has any legitimacy. the owners -- the present owners are the ones who evicted tenants, and now they want to make luxury structures a -- linked to this building, and they also want to have luxury condos in the present four-unit building. outrages. it should be delayed, yes, most definitely. thank you for listening. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hello, planning commissioners. this is anastasia yovanapolous,

also from noe valley. i'm urging the commission to consider a continuance of 60 days at 350-352 san jose avenue. the notice to the neighbors must be renoticed. we'll have more to say as noe valley tenants about who got evicted and what happened at this project. thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> oh, i'm sorry. this is georgia, but i agree with everything i heard. i thought i was on b, but i agree with everything i heard. i'll wait till later. thank you.

bye. >> you ha>> operator: you have questions remaining. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, i believe you can begin your deliberations now. >> president koppel: so before i start calling on commissioners, i did receive the request for the 30-day continuance, and so that was as far as i knew things are going. if the other commissioners or staff want to chime in, that's fine, but let me start off with commissioner moore. >> clerk: commissioner moore, is your microphone on? >> commissioner moore: sorry, my microphone was not on. on today's agenda, it was

$750,000 for improvement of dewey park to be undertaken this summer. this was on the part of community activism to improving the park, and i would like to get some clarity on how the park would be affected by this potential -- this building being rather large and intruding into what was originally the rear yard of the building. i'm not taking any position, but i believe i would like to get more information on the park improvements and what they entail in that area, and that would make me gravitate to a longer extension than the 30-days proposed for 350-352 san jose avenue. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. since there are -- i'm -- you know, i'm cautious when there are history of evictions when

it comes to proposed developments, so i would support the community request to extend it to 60 days? i think there needs to be more scrutiny about this building, the 350 san jose avenue? and the community deserves to be renotified. and in these times, everyone is in emergency mode, and to think about planning is something that is, like, on top of it, too. so i would support a motion to move it to june 25. >> clerk: did staff person may want to chime in? >> yes, good afternoon. commissioners. chris may of planning department staff. i am speaking on item five, the

proposed continuance of 2417 green street. that was heard by the commission on january 9, 2020, and it was continued to mediate between the d.r. requesters and the project sponsors to hopefully come up with a compromise. that meeting was scheduled for march 17 at city hall, which had to be cancelled because of the shelter in place. we also wanted to seek the

commission's direction on the mediation of that meeting, and whether that would board the commission's direction on january 9. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i have two questions for staff on the requested continuance on the san jose matter. first, when did the supervisor request continuance? i understand the continuance came from the supervisorial office, and second, if it's staff view that renotification is required. >> david winslow regarding 350 san jose. the supervisor's office requested a 60-day continuance to reengage with neighbors on the issues before them.

coincidentally, yesterday, we also reviewed the project with respect to some of the -- contesting the 311 notification accuracy with the sponsor, and we determined it was inadequate, and therefore needed to be renotified. so that's another 30-daytime frame, and i think 60 days is probably a reasonable time for this to be continued out just because there's a process that will require the supervisor convening meetings with neighbors as well as project sponsors to hash out issues with the sponsor as well as

adequate notification. >> clerk: commissioners, i'm notified that there is one other public commenter that would like to submit their testimony, and we're just waiting for them to call into the bridge. >> operator: your summit is now in conference mode. you have one question remaining. >> clerk: okay. go ahead, speaker. okay. somebody needs to mute their

microphone, please. caller, are you on the phone? >> clerk: mr. kaplan, are you ready to speak? >> hi. i'm sorry. this is georgia, but when i'm listening, there is nothing on the phone, and i have no clue as to where you are in the agenda. so i don't know what's going on, i'm sorry. i'm very confused today. is this like last week? i'm not getting anything on my phone. i don't know if you can hear

me. i don't know. i'm sorry. i don't know what to say. i don't know if anyone's hearing me now. thank you. >> i can hear you. >> clerk: yeah, but apparently, she cannot hear us. >> caller: really consult. >> commissioner moore: i could hear mr. kaplan in the background, but too faint to discern every word. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, everybody. i don't believe that i'm able to hear any audio -- any of the audio commentary in discourse that is occurring in this meeting at this time. if you could please check the signal or the way that the communication is coming through the phone.

the phone is not -- i cannot hear what you are discussing. i would like to give public comment, as i'm sure many san franciscans would like to do. however, we don't even know what's on the agenda, and i don't even know what project is being discussed right now that i was allowed to give public comment for, although i do have some projects that i'm highly interested in. and again, san franciscans would like to be hearing this via phone, not necessarily via video. so if you could please help, once again, this is sarah with yimby action, and we advocate for housing in all areas. >> clerk: commissioners, we're going to have to take a five-minute recess and rebridge the at&t conference line. as you can see, we're already experiencing technical issues

with it. so i would

>> okay. we've remerged. >> clerk: thank you, chan. okay. so commission president koppel, if you could close public comment for the matters proposed for continuance? >> president koppel: okay. seeing no other public comment, public comment is closed. before i call on the other commissioners, here's where i'm at on the san jose project. i do understand supervisor requested 30 days. i do think it is take slightly longer than that but potentially not 60 days, so i'm leaning towards the 30-day continuance with potentially just maybe pushing it back a week or two after then.

commissioner imperial? >> clerk: commissioner imperial, is your mic on? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. sorry. i did not -- so i have a question on staff regarding another development that is 1088 howard. did the supervisor -- you know, did the supervisor also request a 30-day or is there a timeline that the supervisor recommended? >> clerk: both requests were for 30 days, commissioner. >> commissioner imperial: okay. for -- regarding the 350 and -- san jose avenue, i would still push for the 60 days just

because -- again, because of the renotification, and it looks like there are people, various of the communities that would like to speak more about this development, and it would be a good -- and also the staff mentioned, as well, that, you know, usually it would be also a good time for you, supervisor, and the community to discuss --

[please stand by]. >> hi. david winslow, staff architect. there were some minor modifications that needed to be corrected in the drawings, and that was what led to the need to -- [inaudible] >> those can be corrected pretty quickly, i believe, by the architect. just a matter of staff time in order to notice. but, however, i believe that there will be other outcomes as a result of the involvement through the supervisor that might also want to be incorporated in that -- that noticing. i think it's realistic to be, you know, 45 days -- something necessarily -- it doesn't necessarily need to be 60. >> clerk: commissioners, if i

may, if we continue it 30 days, and we determine that it needs to be continued further, that is easily accomplished. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i, too, would like to hear from the parties, so i make a motion to continue items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 to the date specified. continue item 16 by 60 days,

and items 17-a and b by 30 days. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: second. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: somehow there was a delay, but i seconded that motion, too. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. if there's nothing further, i have a motion that has been seconded to continue items 1 through 6 as proposed, item 16 to june 18, and item 17 to may 21. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. if the acting zoning administrator could act on item 17-b, the variance, for 1088 howard street. >> director hillis: okay, jonas, we'll continue that to the same day. >> clerk: thank you, mr. acting zoning administrator. commissioners, next is your consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission, there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which

event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 7, 2018-011717 cua, 1369 sanchez street, and item 8, 2020-002054 pca, reauthorization and extension of fee waiver, legalization of unauthorized dwelling units. and i did get a motion from georgia sciutish to remove item 8 from the consent calendar. >> president koppel: okay.

would anyone else like to pull an item off the consent calendar? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i would like to remove this item from the consent calendar because it was on the open calendar last week, and i believe it should be there. >> clerk: very good. we'll take item 7 off the consent calendar and hear it at the beginning of the regular calendar. chan, is there any public comment? is there anyone in queue, chan? >> caller: no. >> clerk: okay.

did you want to ma did you have anything else, commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: no, i would like to make a motion to approve item 8 on consent. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good. commissioners, on that motion to approve item number 8 on consent -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and again, for the benefit of the public, item 7 will be taken up at the beginning of the regular calendar, placing us under commission matters, item 9, commissioner comments and questions. seeing none, we can move onto department matters. item 10, director's

announcements. >> director hillis: excuse me. good afternoon, commissioners. i just wanted to give you a quick budget update for the department. we are due to submit our nine-month report to the controller's office tomorrow, and we're estimating a $6 million loss in fee revenue or, you know, we're not going to meet budget by $6 million for our own fee revenue. we're also awaiting direction from the mayor's office for general fund impacts. our fee revenue is about $40 million per year, so we believe we're about $6 million under for the year, mostly due to a lack of revenue in income from applications. so we'll come back more and talk to you about that. we believe we can bridge that gap by keeping positions vacant and reducing some of our

nonpersonnel expenditures, but i wanted to make you aware of that as we send our estimates to the controller's office. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> director hillis: commissioner moore, are you on mute? >> commissioner moore: i'm sorry, director hillis. i was asking as to whether or not the additional cost for conducting these televised meetings will continue in the form that they do contribute extra costs, and do they have to be borne out of the budget? >> director hillis: jonas, i don't know if you can provide any information on that.

if they are, they're not significant. definitely, the fee revenue is going to be the driving factor in any changes to our budget. >> clerk: the city already had contracted the m.s. teams application, and we had existing contracts with the at&t bridge conference line, and so there are some nominal fees associated with it. i believe less than $100 associated with going to the live event broadcast, but other than that, these remote hearings are not incurring additional significant costs. >> commissioner moore: thank you for clarifying that. >> clerk: okay. if there's nothing further, we can move onto item 11, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, manager of

legislative affairs. the first item was supervisor stefani's -- [inaudible] >> -- and three reduce the ground floor ceiling height prosecut from 14 feet to 12 feet. the planning commission heard this item on january 28 of this year. while this recommendation was not included in the ordinance, supervisor stefani indicated during the meeting that she was amenable to the change and was discussing the option with the city attorney's office. there was no public comment during the hearing, however, supervisor preston expressed concern that the option for inclusionary or housing fee goes against the original intent of the f.u.d. supervisor preston questioned

what made this bad precedent. both supervisor safai and peskin agreed with supervisor preston. supervisor stefani also indicated she had initial concerns, but after sitting down with the city attorney and going over the numbers, she came to the conclusion that this was the only way to get housing on the site. in the end, the committee moved the item forward without recommendation in order to give him an opportunity to discuss this further with supervisor stefani and the developer. next was the development agreement for the potrero hill power plan. the committee heard this on january 20 including modifications, including adding a 20% -- [inaudible] >> -- requirement and other

changes. at the hearing, staff from oewd and staff also presented. chair peskin made the motion to amend the ordinance to include the commission's proposed modifications, which then passed. the chair then recommended this ordinance be moved to the full board as a committee report, and this motion also passed. last on the land use agenda was the proposed zoning map and planning code amendments for the buy view industrial triangle. one of the proposed ordinances would update the zoning within the bayview industrial triangle, and the other would prohibit cannabis retail within the bayview triangle area. both items were heard at the planning commission on february 20 of this year. at that hearing, the planning

commission recommended both of the additional considerations on how -- they recommended both items with an additional consideration of how to accommodate the nearby school's request for expansion space. planning department staff has since been in contact with the school's administrators for other routes to achieving this desired expansion aside from school changes. there's no public comment on either item, and the committee posed no significant questions or recommendations. committee then forwarded the item to the full report board. the ocean avenue ordinance that would amend control regarding lot usage and orders permitted were passed. and the potrero power plant and bayview industrial triangle ordinances all passed their

first reading with one note, that supervisor mandelman voted no on restricting cannabis sales in the bayview industrial triangle. that's my report, and i'm open for questions. >> clerk: okay. seeing no questions from commissioners regarding the meeting of the board of supervisors, the board of appeals attempted to meet last night for the first time. unfortunately, due to some technical issues, they had to adjourn the meeting. the historical preservation commission did meet yesterday via teams and the conference

bridge. they were able to act on several items under consent, approving some certificates of appropriateness. they also heard the standard environmental requirements, code amendments regarding ceqa determination measures, and there was consensus that the commissioners were supportive of the proposed code amendments. there was significant community opposition to having the matter considered during this emergency and in a remote hearing, and for that reason, the commission chose to continue that matter to their next hearing of may 6. they then heard and adopted

recommendations for and approval for three small businesses. city nights, korean martial arts, and the new everyboconsey theater. at the adjournment of the regular meeting, the art commission of the historic preservation commission convened and considered the project at 300 bartlett street, and the architecture review committee provided significant review and recommendations. that's all i have, unless there are questions from commissioners? seeing none, we can move onto 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 when 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 exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment will be moved to the end of the agenda. there will be a hard stop today at 15 minutes before the general public comment will be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this would be your time to call 888-273-3658. again, the access code is 3170452. press pound, and pound again, and then enter one and zero to enter the queue. chan, if we could go to the question-and-answer mode for the at&t conference bridge. >> operator: your conference is

now in question-and-answer mode. to ask your question, press one and zero mode. >> clerk: so to members of the public, now is the time to press one and zero to submit your testimony under general public comment. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> oh, hi. thanks for fixing the audio. this is georgia sciutish. good afternoon, commissioners. hope everyone is doing okay or as good as possible. i want to read the findings that show the very first thing in section 317, and here's what they say. san francisco faces a continuing shortage of affordable housing. there is a high ratio of rental to ownership among the city's residents. a general plan recognizes that affordable housing is the

greatest stock of financially accessible residential units and is a resource in need of protection. therefore, a hearing will be required before any permit that would remove any housing except as described below. the planning commission shall develop a code implementation document setting forth procedures and regulations for the implementation of this section 317 as provided further below. the zoning administrator shall modify economic criteria related to property values and construction costs in the implementation document as warranted by changing economic conditions to meet the intent of this section. and right below that is definiti definitions and below that is tantamount to demolition.

but before the tantamount to demolition, it says, the commission may reduce the mechanical elements of this criteria in b2b and b2c by up to 20% of their values should it deem necessary to implement the intent of this section 317 to conserve existing sound housing and preserve affordable housing. so that's the adjustment, but it's never been done. and i guess my question is, if the drafters and approvers of this code section thought it necessary, why did they put it in there or did they think it would be abused? i hear the cow bell, so i'm done. thank you. >> clerk: georgia, you have 30

seconds. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon. i am kay klum. my proper my -- after the current owners purchased the two unit affordable rental building in 2018 adjacent to mine, they told the tenants they would be doing a little renovations. day by day, more of the building was demolished. neighbors were alarmed, and eventually, it was deemed an illegal demolition. the tantamount demolition was last authorized for conditional authorization on sept 18, 2019 when it was disapproved.

we have submitted documentation of the two units by e-mail, which you should have now. please remove 2118 21 street from the april 21 calendar, and do not reschedule it until after sept 19, 2020. thank you very much. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> clerk: speaker, if you're ready to go, you have the phone. caller? caller? this is your opportunity to submit your testimony.

>> caller: yes. this is audie rem with noe valley. i'm here to echo the same statements that the previous caller had, but more than that, i would like to point out to you that the case that was continued today, 350 and 352 san jose avenue, along with a case that will be coming to you next week, which is 4118 21 street, as well as yet another case at 4211 26 street that will be coming to you the following week, they all involve tenants that were evicted or displaced. some of these cases involve demolitions. some are being heard by you as a postmortem approval for these demolitions. i guess the question to you is, do these tenants' lives matter?

we have so many evictions ademd evictions that preceded these demolitions and massive remodels. i do understand that there's nothing in the planning code that precludes a developer or a speculator from removing tenants, remodelling, and then re-gussying it up to rent to another person. neither do we have protections for these unjustly acts, but it is within your discretion. commissioners, you can make the decision of either approving these projects, which is a way of rewarding these bad actors, or you can stop that. it is within the discretion of this commission to actually tell the speculators that this is not right.

you cannot buy these places, particularly because tenant occupied homes in this town are far, far cheaper than the ones that are not occupied. the case before you next week is an egregious case. a 59.5-year-old woman was displaced after 20 or 30 years, and she had to leave the state. so it's not just an affordablity crisis, it's actually the bad actors that are pushing our tenants out of the city. thank you very much, and please use your discretion against these bad actors. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: hello. i'm speaking about 2020-000215,

4118 21 street, also asking it be removed from the agenda under planning code section 303. this was rejected in august last year by the planning commission. it was two units being replaced by two units, and it's the same applicant, being replaced by the same applicant. i'm one of the 16 neighbors objecting to it being heard prior to september 19, 2020. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hi. my name is ben. this is essentially my first time giving public comment, so i'm really happy this is happening virtually. you know, a lot of people can't takeoff half a day to show up in person, so i appreciate that

this is an option? so i just want to say, in general, you know, there's been a lot of talk about moving construction activities and other things and stuff later, and i think it's important to do what we can now because this whole crisis has made it ever more clear that housing is a huge issue in the city, and to delay much needed housing, we should avoid that at all costs. yeah, and we need to keep the pipeline moving and more projects going so that we can actually get more people in housing, and i think there's a way to do that without, you know, sacrificing these tenants, not just for existing residents but for the people who would live in these new projects. their voices are not going to

be on this line. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> good afternoon, director hillis and commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition. we realize there is an ongoing conversation continuing construction during the covid-19 crisis, and we wanted to make sure that you all are aware that we are having an event about safety on the construction job site tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. this event is open to the public. anybody can get the information at sfhac.org/events and sign up. we will have residents from the san francisco building trade and others, including the san

francisco employer association. i will follow up with an e-mail to you all, and i look forward to seeing you tomorrow. thank you very much. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sarah, and i'm a member of yimby action. i just wanted to say, a new study was published by the national association of home builders, indicating that 1,000 average rental apartments being built generates 1,250 jobs and $55.91 million in taxes and in revenue for local, state, and federal government? moreover, $10 million in remodelling expenditures creates 75 jobs and $3 million

in revenue. so my comments are that any projects that are going to immediately be on the agenda that do not cause displacement or harm to tenants, including the soma parking lot project, i would ask you to consider expediting that project moving forward to save the economy and to give thousands of families the opportunity to save the economy here in san francisco. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: okay. excellent. all within the 15-minute time limit, as well. commissioners, seeing that there are no additional public comments, we can move onto your regular calendar. item 7 was pulled off of your consent calendar, 2018-011717

cua at 1349 sanchez street. keep in mind that this is the second hearing. aoctober 24, 2019, after hearing and closing public comment, commen comment. presentations will be limited to three minutes, and public comment will be limited to one minute. >> good afternoon, commissioners. stephan stephanie cisneros, department staff. just to provide a little bit of history on the project, it

received initial approval through the existing building in 2017 with conditions implemented by the discussion as part of a discretionary review hearing. this application is intended to address additional demolition that took place during construction that caused the project to exceed the demolition threshold outlined in planning code section 317. the item was first heard by this commission on october 24, 2019, and was continued to december 19, at which time, the commission continued the item again to request that the project be revised to include an accessory dwelling unit. a link to the original october 24 published packet has been provided in your current packet. this new current packet does contain background information related to the october 24 discretionary review hearing. since then, it has been

modified to include a one-bedroom a.d.u. on the location of the project. this concludes my brief presentation. i'm available for questions, and we do have the project sponsor on the phone with us today to provide a brief update and to answer any questions that you may have. >> clerk: before we get to the project sponsor's presentation, i wanted to remind members of the public that this is your time to call in to the 800 number. 888-273-3658. end the access code, and press one-zero to be entered into the queue to speak on this matter. project sponsor, if you're ready, go ahead and speak. you have three minutes. project sponsor? you may need to unmute your

phone by pressing star-six. >> caller: yeah, hello? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: yeah, this is the project sponsor for sanchez. >> clerk: you're on. >> caller: okay. i just wanted to let you know that i'm the architect. this is the first time that i've done this. i'm sorry. it's really confusing. i just wanted to let you know that i am here to answer questions. we have responded to the last hearing, and we have added the a.d.u. as requested to the project. it's now two units and an a.d.u. at the ground level. it would provide three units,

including one badly needed for housing at this point. that's all i have to say. >> clerk: okay. chan, why don't we go to the q&a? >> caller: okay. >> operator: your call is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon, press one and then zero. >> clerk: do we have anyone in the queue? >> caller: yes. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> oh, hi. it's georgia sciutish again. hello, commissioners. i've got three points to make. i think since the project sponsor's units are all going to be rental units, you need to

have a report back within six months of the c.f.c. that they are rental units pursuant to the t.i.u. and nothing has been ellised. you extend the spiral staircase up just like the existing back stairs or what were the existing back stairs that served both flats before they were illegally demolished. and then, the three criteria, b, i, and l and section 317 need proper authority to authorize this demo. b just shows that there were maintenance issues. i think that they were decent enough. if you look at the redfin 2015 link that i sent, you can discern that. you can compare rental rates in

2015 to 2020 to get a sense of the relative affordable. certainly, if they'd been fixed up in 2015, not attempted to be made into a monster home with a sham unit, as former commissioner richards would call it, you can see what the relative affordable would be. and finally, criterian l show that they were family units, not single units. i think it's important since this was an illegal demolition to get the draft motion right, the findings right, when you're reapproving this illegal demolition. that's it again. so if anyone has any questions -- i want to thank miss cisneros for her help, and

i'll stay on the listen to listen in. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. i believe the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i'd like to ask the architect a few questions. can you hear me? >> caller: yes, i can. >> commissioner moore: okay. i am looking at your drawing as it lands on the lower floor across from the a.d.u. my question is, shouldn't that spiral staircase exit away from the building face in order not to interfere with that lower living unit as depicted on drawing az02? >> i think it's a good suggestion.

right now, the spirals have limitations in terms of where you start and where you end up. if we can get it further off the architectural development, it's a good suggestion, and certainly, if we can keep the spiral stair going in front of somebody's private window, that would be -- yeah, that -- that would be a good idea. again, spirals just have a certain math to them, and they tend to start and end at the same place, but that's something i can look at. we were trying to minimize the impact of the spiral staircase on the rear yard. i was trying to hug it as tight as i can to the building and minimize decks and other things to keep it minimal. it is already a variance, and the intent is, you know, to minimize the impact. >> commissioner moore: what is important for the commission to have an a.d.u., which we appreciate being introduced, but it has to basically

guarantee privacy, and since the spiral is a right-turning spiral, you may want to look at that, as well. i have another question on behalf of my fellow commissioners. regarding the roof deck, i could support a roof deck, but i would ask that we reduce the roof deck to 462 square feet to what is an appropriate open space for a unit in rh-2, and that would be approximately 125 square feet so the deck goes to approximately the dimension of 11.3 by 11.3 to keep an appropriate sizing to the rest of the building. i do not want to add an extra square footage as a reward. this project has had challenges with the commission. i am supportive of a deck if it

has to be on the roof, however, it would have to be reduced to less than half of its current size. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'm prepared to accept the revised design with the a.d.u., and i would move to grant the conditional use and approve the project with commissioner moore's modification of the roof deck. >> president koppel: second. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i was going to second. >> president koppel: commissioner moore, go ahead? >> commissioner moore: could i ask commissioner fung, you would agree with turning the spiral or make an attempt to turn the spiral away -- from into the building to away from the building?

>> commissioner fung: yes. >> commissioner moore: thank you. >> clerk: okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to reduce this project as amended, reducing the roof deck 50% and modifying the spiral stair as noted by commissioner moore. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us on item 12 for case number 2015-004827 env for the alameda

creek recapture project. this is the certification of the final environmental impact report. please note that certain portions of the e.i.r. is closed. the public comment of the draft ended on -- on the draft recirculated portions of the e.i.r. is closed. that ended on january 21, 2020. is staff prepared to make a presentation? staff? >> president koppel: go ahead, mr. kern. >> clerk: you may need to unmute your mic, chris.

chris? chris, your mic is still muted. >> can you hear me now? >> clerk: yeah, we got you. >> caller: sorry. had to switch technology. this is chris kern, department staff. i'm afraid my computer doesn't have a camera or a microphone, but you should be able to see my photo. this is a presentation of the final e.i.r. of the

commission's alameda creek recapture project. the commission previously certified the final e.i.r. for this project in june 2017, however, in september 2017, the board of supervisors overturned that action in response to an appeal filed by the alameda county water district. in upholding the appeal, the board directed the department to recirculate the report on the project's impact on steel head, and on the other points, the board determined that the data was accurate, and no further appeal was required.

th they -- the revised steel head impact replaced that portion, and is substantially more detailed. it analyzes flow in alameda creek and analyzes surface and groundwater interactions. other impacts examined that could be affected by the revised project operations and the updated technical analysis include special status wildlife species. accumulative impacts that could be impacted by the revised construction schedule include transportation, noise, recreation and hazardous materials. there are no changes to the impacts or significant mitigation measures from the june 2017 e.i.r. the department also submitted the revised groundwater surface water technical analysis to an

independent expert for peer review. it is included as an appendix to the e.i.r. the department published that e.i.r. in december 2019, and the comment period closed on january 21. during the comment period, both the alameda water district and the zone 7 water agencies submitted documentation requesting that the sfpuc hold additional monitoring regarding reporting and effects on groundwater. the sfpuc greed to do the additional reporting and monitoring. i'd like to say that we received one letter from the alameda county water district expressing their agreement for the additional reporting and

stating that the district does not oppose certification of the final e.i.r. on april 1, the department published a supplemental responses to comments document, addressing the comments received on the circulated portion of the e.i.r. the supplemental responses to comments, in combination with the recirculates portions of the e.i.r., the november 2016 draft e.i.r., and the september 2017 responses to comments together constitutes the final e.i.r. we believe the e.i.r. is adequate and provides decision makers and the public with the information to understand the financial impacts on the environment. on this basis, staff asks that you approve the final document and find that the final document as prepared conforms with ceqa, the ceqa siguidelin,

and chapter 31 of this code. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> clerk: chan, do we have anyone in the question-and-answer mode? >> caller: we'll activate. >> clerk: so again, members of the public, if you wish to speak to this matter, this would be your opportunity to press one and zero to get into the queue and submit your public testimony. chan, why don't we leave the public comment free and open and if anybody enters the queue, would you be so kind to notify us. >> caller: will do. >> clerk: commissioners, i believe the matter is now before you.

>> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: staff has made a comprehensive answer to the questions that we heard, and i'm prepared to move to certify the final e.i.r. >> president koppel: i'll second that and call on commissioner moore. commissioner moore, is your mic on?

>> commissioner moore: i'm sorry. i have a problem with that. i think that the document submitted for alameda is complete and accurate. >> clerk: okay. and chan, just to be certain, no one has entered the queue? >> caller: no one. >> clerk: then there is a motion before you to certify the final e.i.r. document. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that item passes, 6-0, placing us on item 13, 2017-014833 env,

at 469 stevenson street. this is a public hearing on the draft e.i.r. are you ready? >> yes. i'm going to share my screen. my name is jennie delumo. joining me remotely today is lisa gibson, environmental review officer and jessica range, principal planner, both with the project department. the item before you today is review and comment on the draft environmental impact report or draft e.i.r. prepared for the proposed project. the purpose is today's hearing is to take comments on the accuracy and adequacy of the draft e.i.r. in compliance with the california environmental quality act or ceqa. no approval on this document is

requested at this time. the draft e.i.r. for the proposed project was published on march 11, 2020. the public review period began on march 12, 2020, and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on may 11, 2020. the project site is an approximately 28,790 foot through lot in the soma neighborhood. it is on the block between 5 and 6 streets. the project is currently developed with 166 surface space parking lot. the proposed project would demolish that parking lot and construct an approximately 535,000 square feet, 274-foot tall building. the proposed project would provide approximately 495 dwelling units, 4,000 square of commercial retail use on the

ground floor, and 25,000 of private common open space. it would include a three-level below ground parking garage providing 176 parking spaces, and when installed, 27 class 2 bicycle spaces on adjacent sidewalks. this would provide 19% of the base project's residential units as affordable units on-site. the number of final units will be determined prior to project approval. the draft e.i.r. concluded that shadow casts by the proposed project could adversely and significantly affect the

adjoining plaza and impacts to air quality would be significant, and that impacts on pedestrian levels would be less than significant. as described in the initial study, all other impacts in the proposed study were found to be found less than significant, less than significant with mitigation, or would yield no impact. the draft e.i.r. analyzed three project alternatives, which is required by ceqa. under the reduced density alternative, the project site would be developed with an approximately 160-foot tall building, and 346 dwelling units. 6,357 square feet of retail, 153 parking spaces. this alternative would cast less shadow on the plaza project and would result in insignificant and unavoidable

shadow impact. no residential parking power only alternative would be slightly taller at 484 feet, with 357 dwelling units. this would cl this would construct one basement level for off street freight and service loading, and no parking spaces. [inaudible] >> this alternative would require the same mitigation measures as the proposed project measure to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels.

today, the planning department is seeking comments on the adequacy and accuracy the of the information contained in the draft e.i.r. for members of the public who wish to submit public comment, please state your name and address so that the reporter can transcribe your information. on april 13, 2020, the department received a request to extend the public review period to three weeks after the close of the shelter in place order. in response and to allow for more for interested parties to submit their comments, the environmental review officer is extending the public review period from april 27, 2020, which is a 47-day review, to may 11, 2020, which is a 61-day

review. [please stand by]

>> do we have any members of the public in cue for this matter? >> yes. >> why don't we go ahead and take those. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> question: this is david woo and there are many gentrification impact concerns about this project. the er does not impact the rights with delivery services representing safety impacts, as well as increasing the mt, and the city is struggling to

control the safety impact of the new modes of transportation. ththis is not understood in the draft of the eir. they are treated as extensions of the freeways and subject to high amounts of traffic for these same reason. the era of ride-sharing and alleys have been short-cuts in serious traffic and safety impacts. this current project is completely out of scale and not stepped back and interjects park on stevenson which is a busy and narrow pedestrian way. a.alternative b is one way of approaching this site with the building conformed to the height

and density requirements. it's misleading making the draft eir deceptive as an informational document. we asked for the continuance of this hearing and an extension of the common period including, again, if the shelter-in-place is extended due to the coronavirus health crisis and the lack of access to online public hearings. the health crisis has put both community members and community organizations into a tail-spin, struggling to adapt and meet the urgent needs of residents and the workers on the ground that are struggling day-to-day to survive, such greatly limited to engage in the public planning process. as the planning department undertakes a racial social equity plan and framework for planning, this should be applied to the current health crisis having huge impacts on race and socioeconomic status. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining.

>> question: good afternoon. thii am the board president of e organization specialty created to management plaza for the public benefits. i'm speaking to express the board's strong opposition to the shadow cast by the stephenson project over midplaza. as evidence evidenced in the shw study, the shadow from the project would take away significant sunlight from mid-plaza for several months of the year. as a mid-plac mid-plaza should d and does not reference this in the ordinance. on behalf of friends in the plaza, we urge the planning department to consider the adverse impact the shadow will have on the youth and vibrancy is take steps to reduce the

overall height of this proposed power. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> question: good afternoon, commissioners. the proposed housing project at stevenson street continues to provide an abundance of market rate housing that negatively impacts our community. we have concerns about the proposed project's approach that completely disrespect. (inaudible). >> we have testified so many time before the shadow impacts. some in the tenderloin have

accessible working space and they need to be protected. the alternative b shows that if they were stuck to the 160-foot limit, it would be possible to end up with more new shadows. any new shadow is completely unacceptable. (inaudible) the cumulative effect is that we're destroying the few vacancies we have in the city. there is an environmental impact with gentrification. this will increase once in the area and escalate the underlying zoning. ( inaudible).

it's not provided as an attachment to the bbei. we ask this hearing be continued and the comment period extended. (inaudible). >> operator: you have five questions remaining.

>> question: i want to join in the question and the person that spoke in the first place about continuing the hearing and extending the time for public comment. there is an enormous conflict between this project and the surrounding low-income communities and that should be basically accounted for in the project. the other thing that's happened in the past couple of years all of the circulation has been thrown into chaos because this project is going to depend on fifth street and sixth street to get into -- get into our out of the project and those streets go to market street which is close to traffic.

the planning department has not had a measurement of what the impacts of the closure of market street to traffic are and those of us who are familiar with this area know that uber and lyft and other transportation alternative companies disregard the stoppage of traffic and we have no -- because right now traffic is closed for the city and ther --d for the city and have no measurement at all. they should do a basic -- pardon me. they should relock at the traffic and enforcement and the enenforcement is nonexist tent. ent. i support the two-week extension

for comments is not enough. equal in this area are low-income people and a lot of problems because of the closures and that is really important. to the city and the health of the people in the area. thank you. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> question: good afternoon, commissioners. i'm on behalf of the san francisco housing action coalition here in support. you know, we obviously understand the environmental imperatives taking the utilized sites and adding lots and lots of housing. we all know that putting housing in close proximity to jobs and public transit is environmentally sound and as we watch the air quality during the covid-19 crisis increase, the air is cleaner, we know it's

because people are not driving as much. and so, if we want to continue the idea that, hey, climate change is real and we know exhaust from cars is one of the key contributors. the best is most effective way today that we can work to mitigate that negative impact is by creating density in our urban corridors, adding a lot to housing in places that are well connected close to the area plan where we just added jobs for employees. is i just want to encourage everybody when thinking about the environmental impacts of this, to look at it from a holistic perspective to understand what great things could come out of building homes on this site on stephenson. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining.

>> question: i'm calling in in support of this project. i think what we're not considering, a lot of the comments i've heard is the people who would live here if the larger proposal would be allow god ahead. we're talking about shadows and transit and classic scale. maybe we need a little more traffic. although many people will not be driving. on the other hand, we had housing for dozens of people, right? so it's important for the people who living there and important for the people who are without housing because people have enough of it in the city. there's a lot that we can't do in terms of planning. but there's a lot we can do that

is more easy to do online than for people to take time out of their time, leaving work. i wouldn't be having this comment if i had to take half a day off work. that's not something a lot of people can say. i like this format. but you need to consider the need of the people who aren't on the line but who we would live here. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> question: good afternoon, president, fellow commissioners. thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. my nami'm a field rep with the carpenter's union here in sanfrancisco. i represent 40,000 carpenters in northern california and 4,000 live here in san francisco.

we are in support of this project, a long-time partner of the carpenter's union is committing to using a general contractor and 27 stories and 927 units. this project will give local carpenters the opportunity to work close to home and give apprentices the opportunity to learn the trade that offers a living wage and benefits including health and retirement. you know, we are in a housing crisis right now and this may not be the answer, but this is part of the solution. the partner's union fully supports this project and ask thasyou approve the project whee time comes. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> question: good afternoon, commissioners and thank you so much for this opportunity to give public comment.

i'm sarah ogleby and i'm a member of b & b action is i'm speaking on my own behalf as a resident of san francisco. i believe in projects that create abundance of housing andn opportunity-rich areas. i completely understand the fear and the concerns of the people who have spoken, who represent a low-income and hard working class people, people who may be displaced. i completely understand what they're saying. i myself have experienced homelessness and it was only through housing, through obtaining housing little by little that i was able to get my family out of a crisis of home lessness and out ohomelessness.

the 495 units that would be created here would take tremendous pressure off of the mission where i live and it would allow people who can afford these homes who are putting pressure on the old housing stock in the mission district and it would get them to an area where transit is plentiful, problems regarding the street and the plaza, they can be resolved. i've been homeless standing in the middle of stephenson plaza and my concern at that point wasn't shadows. it was the fact their was homeless. so i just want toed to speak on behalf of a lot of different people here when i say that adding the housing spot to san francisco helps the carpenter who just spoke create hundreds of jobs and millions in revenue for the city which the city is looking at serious fiscal

danger. and we need to think proactively. we need to be forward-thinking. we need to give everybody an opportunity to boost the economy here and creating abundant housing will give infinite possibility to thousands of people who can't give in san francisco right now. so please, please look at this project with open eyes and as widely, as widely scaled for housing as possible. thank you so much. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: good afternoon. i'm will the san francisco land use coalition and i just couldn't help but jump in after hearing the talks about thousands of people that need housing in this city.

and the gentleman from the union that was talking about more jobs for his fellow colleagues. i am 100% supportive of the union, but i do want to remind you that one of the unions that is hurting right now is the hospitality, the local 2, the people who work in the hotels. we have thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who have lost their jobs because of the crisis, covid-19 crisis that we're facing and we're not out of it yet. we do have people in all sectors that have lost their jobs, including the tech sector. i do want tow brin to bring up t that the yelp, as an outfit, has laid off 1,000 people and furloughed another 1100 people. so isn't it insensitive to talk about more homes, for who?

for the people who lost their jobs? is it time to talk about housing crisis where we have economic crisis? i just want to chime in on that because it is important for you, the commissioners to think in terms of what average person in san francisco is going through and who will be coming to san francisco to reside in these places and units? right now, the mean are living in san francisco were concerned about their rent, their mortgage payment because they do not have the economic security to think from this week to the next. and it is premature to think about or talk about the jobs at 4 him some odd units and the building of 400 odd units will bring to san francisco. ithis is something economists

predict to be far wors worse thn 2008. please do not downplay that and do not downplay the pain people are going through, including people in the union, the hotel expect hospitality. we have to be sensitive to everybody. not to mention the tech workers are faced with lay-offs. this is not the time to talkabo. we've lost our jobs. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> commissioners, i believe this would be your opportunity to review and comment. commissioner diamond. >> i have a question for

director hill circumstance. is and that is whether or not we can schedule an opportunity for an informational hearing on this project where we could do a much deeper dive into many of the aspects of the project that aren't necessarily environmental impacts, per say, addressed in the deir and if we could do that significantly of any approval hearings for this project. >> sure. commissioner diamond, through the chair, absolutely. i think we anticipate this project coming back to you for approval late this year, so we can certainly schedule a hearing event to address some of the issues and you may have or others may have. i get this is complicated, especially given the density of the project. >> thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> again, i appreciate one of the public's comment regarding

the housing crisis and the economic crisis we're in and i want to inform other commissioners and the public as to, you know, my other end of the job as who works in a nonprofit for access for affordable housing. we are really seeing people that getting layoffs and they are asking for rental assistance. they don't want to have debt for their rent, but people are worried about the economic impact in their lives. this project, it is big and there's a lot of issues in terms of shadow, the transit mode, also the surrounding area. this area is surrounded by etheros.

some may have been used as a tourist attraction. we know small businesses are impacted during this time. the rent is something that is a big issue. right now people are scrambling to pay for their rent and we're waiting for the money for that rent, as well. in terms of the transportation, in the alleyway, the stevenson street is always used as an alternative to market street, to go to the free highway. i understand that it is complicated and i do support other public comments in continuing and extending the

comments until the shelter-in-place is lifted. it's mainly because the people right now don't have the mental health capacity and the organizations are working on this or the stakeholders don't have the capacity as they are trying to help their own communities. so we need to be sensitive on that. and i would urge other commissioners to also think the same.

>> (inaudible). >> i believe the district bound brinboundaries would help to put this project into better context. at this moment, it is a large building and extremely difficult to understand, partially because it is not where i believe it should have come to, which is the central soma plant. in addition to that, it's just basically a large oversight project floating like an island on it own. toui would like to see a liberan

on the exact criteria that this project is not in c3 but in c3g district. this building seems to be emulating extremely high density and that's why it appears in a somewhat missing context. i would also like to see further expiration and comment and details of what san francisco design plan envisioned for this. there are photographs, diagrams and maps that are missing. i would like to go and explore the question and ask why it could comply in project. it's not the baseline. it could comply in project that would be designed for a 6-1.

i would like to see a building without shadow impacts on important public open spaces. i believe this is somewhat diminishing the impact and understanding of the project proposed. i would like to see a project that diagrams the building that follows the separation rules and it looks like we are being shown an excessively large building

where we only asked to approve these exceptions without really understanding what that means. my own belief is that the state density bonus does not add the numbers of the bmi units but that rather a negotiated project like former supervisor kuhn used to do. the building, i would like to see a building that respects value regulations and i would like to get a better understanding how the use and families would not be seriously impacted but wind acceleration and that particular of tim towns lots of children who walk to school and i believe that myself

walking in that area often and frequently impacted for high winds and i'm not a frail person, but i do feel the impact of wind in that area and i would like that to be considered for the children walking on the street, as well. i have other concerns about impact, excessive soil, why are we considering that amount of escalation for a large amount of cars when we're adjacent to all transit lines that could be ever put together usually five minutes away. that, indeed, also raises the question of site access as mentioned by the other commissioners.

quality of open space do not provide a rear yard. i see an insufficient detail even on the conceptual building design, no matter what alternative. i'm interested in quality of unit lay-outs which many had eirs show in project discussion. we want to avoid unnecessary bedrooms. we understand this is a market rate building and we want to examine to the flaws being proposed. i have to say that i do not see

any justification or any kind of discussion on project objectives. in many cases we do have a habit of that and i see the possibility of great impact of gentrification, especially social and equity impacts on the soma families. i think in closing, i think this is a market rate driven project and i'm wondering why the top floor would have a five-bedroom unit. it is from a conceptual design a tower mass in diagram which

completely disrespects contexts and side setting. by coin coincidence by researcht happened in this area, i ran across a site study conducted by a highly qualified architect in the city. there was a site study for this particular project site. while i do not have numerical data in terms of how many units it generated, it is a far more interesting design and again, i feel that numbers, numerical numbers of units are driving the design which seems to be significantly impacting, to say the least. i want to add that i believe that the project adds -- that this project impacts the attempts to revitalize and bring this back to life.

i believe this is the surrounding context of plazas is being threatened by the massive overtower over the entire setting. the stevenson project seems to not understand a small scale restoration and stewardship that people have taken to really bring this part of the older portion of downtown back to a life of its own. it's a lovely, wonderful part and i think we should take a protective attitude towards. and i want to restate my objection that the entitled 5m project and the benefits to the community have not at all been taken into consideration. i would like to ask for something which we have never done before. i think miss kobande and i

speakers with permission, summarize very well that the community most affected by this project is one that is people with lesser means, small, diminished access to technology and i'm asking whether or not we to potentially have a second viewing. hopefully back at city hall, where people from the community could come and comment in-person on what they're not able to do today. i believe that would be us practicing social and environmental equity and i strongly urge that the commission as a body considers holding a special hearing for live comments on the subject matter.

>> i would like a clarification from my fellow commissioners. i appreciate you reflecting on the project itself and the things you would like to see. is this recommendation something different from line of questioning or conversation between commissioner diamond and director hillis related to the fact that this project -- it would come back at the end of

the year. but there would be a public hearing before that. hopefully in the fall and that is a time in which we all hope we are in person. just wanted to make sure that we're being as clear as possible about the recommendation. >> our understanding is to have an additional public hearing, not necessarily on a draft eir but on the project itself prior and somewhat well before the approval hearing that's anticipated at the end of the year. just so you know, we've extended the period from the 27th to may 11th already. >> commissioner fung. >> sorry about that. i tried a couple of times to try to type my name but it wasn't

sending through, but i guess this time it worked. i will be issuing a couple of comments on the dir with respect to the cultural artifacts. given the history of this area and its use during the gold rush days and other things, i think there will be a number of questions i would like to raise. overall, the draft eir is comprehensive enough to be able to initiate this process, both the environmental entitlement issues that have been brought up hopefully will be resolved and unimaginatively designed building will go through its process. >> commissioner imperial. >> my request was to forward a

comment. i understand the comment right now is extended -- submitting comments until may 11th. my request is to extend the request until the shelte shelter-in-place is lifted, where the people can come to city hall and can also give comments and whether there's a more extensive time in giving comments. this is a time where there is a pandemic and people's worries are everywhere. my request is to extend the comment until shelter-in-place is lifted. >> so before we call on anybody else, i'm in favour of initiating what we're looking at today. i do feel that we are going to hold an informational hearing before the approval to get a lot

of the real issues addressed and that the comment period was extended and so again, this is just a drafting environmental impact report section and so, seeing as though we're just at the very beginning, in support of approving today. >> commissioners, i will remind you, there's to action today. we're just receiving public comment. >> seeing nothing further, chen, i want to make absolutely certain there's no one in the cue on the phone-in line. >> q & a was deactivated after public comment was closed. >> very good. commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to item 14 for case 2018-001191c at 93-97 leeland avenue. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to present?

>> yes. just before i stopped, i just want to make sure if you can hear me well. >> yes, we can. thank you. >> awesome. good afternoon. the item before you is a conditional use authorization for planning code sections 303 and 317, for two units within the nc2 zoning district. the project proposed to demolish two units on lot 37 at 93 and 95 leeland avenue, including approximately 720 square-foot single-family residence in the year yard and a unit on the second floor of the historic building fronting leeland avenue. also, approximately 400 square foot non-habitable shed on lot 28 is also proposed to being

demolished with new construction of an approximately 6,800 square feet been with ground floor retail and seven units. the project also proposed a merger on lots 28 and 37. the majority of the historic building will be preserved, including the two commercial units on the ground floor and one on the second floor. in total, the project site includes eight dorming units, three ground floor commercial units and a class one and class two bicycle tenants. the units to be preserved on the second floor on leeland avenue is occupied. the tenants were relocated from the rear single-family residence in february of 2018. currently, the other two units that are proposed to be

demolished are vacant and there's no evidence of any evictions on the property. the project complies with the planning code section 317. for public average, sponsor hosted one meeting on august 11, 2018. to date, the department received two public correspondents on the design details which those could be refined when the applications are submitted after the entitlement. in conclusion, the department finds the project is balanced consistent with the general plan and consistent with the development patterns and will respond to the neighborhood character along leeland avenue. although this results in a loss of two existing units, it does

provide five new units and they contain two or more bedrooms. this would be a mix of goods and services available in the district and economic and vitality of the neighborhood by adding new commercial space. the department also finds the projects will be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and not to be detrimental to the adjacent property. this concludes the staff's presentation. the project sponsor is ready for presentation. thank you.

>> ok, do we have a project sponsor. maybe this would be a good transmission. commissioners, we are experiencing technical difficulty with the at&t bridge, so if we could pause for a moment and allow my staff to rebridge the at&t conference line. chan, can you rebridge and then notify us? or actually -- >> i could activate the question and answer mode. >> why don't you activate that, then. project sponsor, do you have a presentation?

>> operator: press 1 and then 0. >> hello. so i'm mark bucarelli, the architect and i think the staff report put all of the bullet points i had outlined. so i mean, if you have some questions, we would be happy to answer them. >> is there anyone in cue for public comment. >> yes. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: can you hear me? >> we certainly can. >> question: this is russell marine and i sent a letter about the project earlier this week.

i just wanted to give my general support of the project. i attended the pre-application meeting in 2018, so the project evolved a little bit from then and slightly better, but it also fills at this point still a little bit finished and i detailed that in the lotter. specific the ground floor residential unit at the rear, the adaptable unit looks like it needs some work. the rear yard needs attention and the commercial storefronts, which is something we're concerned about, they need a little bit more definition in how they'll be designed. there is the highest commercial vacancy rate in the city. it's not one, but the highest. we have a lot of commercial vacant buildings and that is important that the commercial part is correct that we get it right so we don't have additional vacancy. there was a building completed next door to this about three or

four years ago, maybe, and had the commercial storefront and it's been vacant ever since. brand new building, storefront, vacant and nothing has changed. so when we have these extra ones, we don't want four in a row. so in general, i support project and hope the planning commission puts pressure on them to refine the storefront so that we know what we'll get and some perfected tenants can get in there and understand what it will take to bring a business instead of having an empty shell that it's not going to be viable to a business. so, again, hopefully the project will move forward. one thing in the conditions of approval, but there's a three-year window that if the project doesn't move forward in three years, they would have to come back to resubmit or maybe two years. if it's three years, it will be three years before the project

moves forward. so two years before the project expires and maybe it will move further. that's the end of my comments. thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: i'm following up on russell's comments and i want to say i support his comments and his suggestions. like you said, this area is depressed or a depressed area of san francisco. a lot of attention is needed for this particular project. overall, i do support the project, but there's a lot of questions that need to be answered and a lot of refinements that need to be attended to. and, also, i would like to see some of the elements from the

older building incorporated in the new construction and that's in 2.6. and like russell stated wound of the comments and the case in the backyard, i think that's something that should looked into. that's possibly where people who work at home and an area where people who don't want to be in their house have an ability to go where it's secure and safe and design where people who actually congregate and work on their computers or work from home. and the location of the bike or bike storage, i think that's concerning. also, the commercial space, the way it's laid out on the new construction is a little bit perplexing. i would like that to be attended to, as well as the old

commercial space. we need to specify how those two units would be brought up to code and one of the units are missing a restroom. overall, i hope we can communicate with the project sponsor and architect and planning department and refine this project. most importantly, that this project establish a baseline of when it is expected to be built in the future because it will be new construction on this avenue, leeland avenue. so we would like to establish a baseline, what to expect in quality and design. i thank you for your time and appreciate you taking my comments. goodbye. (bell ringing). >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> very good.

admissionerscommissioners, i bee matter is before you now. commissioner diamond. >> i have a question for staff and it relates -- (inaudible). >> given concerns about the viability of retail going forward, is it possible to allow him a flexibility of doing either residential or retail on the ground-floor? and if that's possible and they do residential, does that mean increased number of units or a change in the lay-out of units? and is that done over the counter, with staff? does it have to come back to the commission? if you could lay out for me the process, i would appreciate it. >> yes, sure. so the project located in the nc2 family district which allows but does not require ground-floor commercial space

along leeland avenue. so basically, both residential and most of the retail use are permitted. the retail use on the ground floor, right? but down the road, if the project is sponso sponger sponsr mind, they don't have to go back to a planning commission or they don't need another 30 days on the neighborhood notification. those can be done over the counter. but i do want to mention because right now they are maximizing their density, so if they want to increase the residential use on to the ground floor, they can make the 15 units bigger. and so if the commissioners do want to put a condition of approval, that is fine.

you can add it in the approval stating that the commission encourages the ground floor residential and that meets the ground floor residential. if the project sponsor were to apply to change to residential, you can do the ground floor at a later date. >> thank you. commissioners, i welcome your feedback on whether or not you would be open to such a condition and it seems to make sense to me and i welcome your feedback. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm interested in pursuing

that right, commissioner diamond. the only thing i would ask is that there's a little bit attention given to unit design because even on the ground floor now, there's a particular weakness with the bedroom facing the public walkway, which is in most cases not an igo location because you have a relatively narrow walkway into the rear of the building. i would, indeed, report that and we could make a motion to craft it. i just don't know how to form formulate that. maybe mr. ionan can help. >> commissioner fung. >> question for staff. is there any question related to exposure requirements?

>> so the project is co-compliant so the units on leeland avenue, they meet the exposure requirements facing the public right-of-way. and the units on the back, they are facing a co-complaint rear yard. so it also meets the exposure requirements. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i fully support the idea of flexibility for the retail, given that we have spoken about so much in this hearing and the new landscape, thinking about just giving flexibility for homes. i did want to clarify on the record what the issue of the one

residential unit on the sixth floor that is currently occupied and the tenants located from the rear single-family residence, do you know what is going to happen after? can you add a little more context to that? >> maybe project sponsor on the phone call can answer that question. >> can you hear me? i'm speaking on a phone through my architect's computer. >> yes, we can hear you. >> if the intent to maintain the current tenants and occupants and that they would be temporarily relocated pursuant to the control board, you know,

provisions and be allowed to reoccupy the new units when they're completed. >> thank you. >> just in response to commissioner moore. if your request to add a condition of approval was related to flexibility, i believe you woul the staff pland indicate there would be no requirement for additional approvals to modify the plans from retail to accessory dwelling units or increasing the size of existing units into the ground level. >> commissioner moore.

>> i would be amenable to support an adu because in in part of town, there is a need for smaller unit housing and is a working-class neighborhood where i think an added unit won't be appropriate rather than just enlarging it and it would give the applicant for flexibility to phase in the other unit whether than deciding from the get-go how to do that. the only condition i would ask is that the unit design be refined to look at the two unitc walkways and a few of the public responses made, bu. basically we are not here to resign the project because it's a good idea and i'm in full

support. it's to ask for an additionallasadditionaladu for . >> commissioner johnson. >> with the president use, to put another sentence qualifying what was said, that the tenants would not only be relocated but the board would return. >> commissioner diamond. >> i think i heard the

appropriate condition had something to do with compliance, if they change the ground floor to residential, that it be done with the residential guidelines. is that what staff was suggesting by nature of a condition? >> i believe they would have to, but i think commissioner moore offered the other suggestion that if it was converted, the preference would be for an adu instead of enlarging a unit. >> and does that require compliance with the residential design guidelines, the adu? >> yes. >> yobut i believe you can add that as a condition as well as the language. >> the bottom of the building looks like it's retail space and if they change it to residential, whether it's adu or enlarged units, i don't want it

to look like retail space. >> mr. sucray, did you have something to add? >> yes, i think as was mentioned in the findings that compliance with the ground floor residential design guidelines would probably be the most appropriate and that way, then, we can work with the project sponsor on crafting the ground floor to fit within the neighborhood and meet the established guidelines that we have city-wide. >> well, i would be in favor of attaching that commissioner. >> commissioner, imperial. >> i just would like to support commissioner johnson's comments in adding some language about the tenants that will be -- that can come back or i believe is

somewhat occupied and can come back because of the rent loss. >> so would anyone care to make a motion? >> i made a motion, but it kind of got pushed into the back. i made a motion to approve with the caveat that the regional space would be converted to an adu, that the resigners would follow the residential guidelines and that the rent-controlled unit and the renter living in that unit would be coming back to the building once the building is completed. >> commissioner fung. >> i think the project as

proposed has residential units in it, and i'm not prepared to -- (inaudible). >> commissioner fung, issue think you have a bad connection and you may want to repeat your comments. >> the question of having neglecflexibility changing to residential and whether it's the residential space, that's fine. >> i believe that is the motion, that to allow for the flexibility. >> can everybody hear me. >> yes, commissioner fung, we

can hear you. >> i believe it's to allow for flexibility, not requiring an adu. >> so the way i heard it -- ok. >> commissioner diamond. >> yeah, i definitely would be in favour of the flexibility, definitely not a mandate, and i also don't necessarily want a mandate that if it is residential, that they choose that, that they have to be adus. if they end up with larger units that have more bedrooms, that's more conducive for families, i would be supportive of that, too. so i don't necessarily want to limit this to adu should they choose to change from retail to residential. >> there's a motion and do i hear a second? commissioner moore?

commissioner moore, i believe your mic is turned off. >> i said the motion is about flexibility and i just wanted to reaffirm that. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i'll second that. >> great. and just for clarification purposes, in response to commissioner diamond's suggestion, that it not necessarily be an adu, if i heard your presentation correctly, this project is at its density limit and so the only way to add to it would be through an adu. is that correct? >> yes, sorry, i dropped my computer and it just froze. yes, because they maximized the density, they can only maximize the adu if they increase the

density. >> i wanted that on the recommendation for you, commissioner diamond. there is a motion and a second to approve this project with conditions as have been amended to include a finding related to rank stabilization for the existing tenants and the ability to return and provide flexibility for the ground floor to be converted to residential. that would be adding an adu and that in case of conversion to residential that the ground floor would have to comply with the ground floor design guidelines. on that motion, commissioner diamond? >> just a second, i think there's something about the preference for an adu or not. i think that the -- commissioner moore, was that your motion? >> no, i said flexibility. i think the ideal flexibility is

better and because we cannot really at this moment decide what potential technical issues come into play and let's just say flexibility. >> very good. so no preference to adu or expanding of existing residential units. commissioner fung. aye. >> commissioner imperial. a earthquakes. ye. >> commissioner johnston. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commissioner president koppel. >> that passes 6-0 unanimously.

>> we have one in the cue. >> through the chair, do you want to take this public comment? >> can we? >> you could take the public comment and if they sway you one or anotheway or another, you cad your vote. >> i think it would be good to hear. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: this is nelson again. i heard the conversation about the flexibility on the commercial storefront on the new development and i just wanted to state that there's been changes on the redevelopment project, removing more of the commercial space that was proposed on that development and now only the

grocery store, at 50,000 square feet, even though it's part of the dr -- (inaudible). >> public comment is now closed. >> you have already testified, sir. >> i know, but i can make a followup comment? >> so we can now move on to item 15, case number 2016-00447, texas street. this is a conditional use authorization and staff, are you prepared to present. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with the planning department staff and i do want to make sure that you can hear and see me before i proceed. >> we can, thank you. >> the item before is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317 to allow demolition of an

existing two-story single-family dwelling circa 1907 and new construction of a four story two family dwelling in an rh2 zoning district and height and bolt district. the proposed project would demolish 1,587 square foot bedroom which is vacant. it has been declared unsound prepared by a qualified consultant and tha this was incd your packet. they submit a form for the number of existing units at the subject property. upon review, staff determined the existing building contains only one residential unit. the proposal includes new construction of a four-story, 4,112 square-foot building containing two residential building units, three off-street parking spaces and four bicycle parking spaces and meeting

requirements of the planning code. the draft motion you were provided with today incorrectly stated those units will contain three bedrooms. while unit one contains three bedrooms, unit two contains four bedrooms and this will be corrected in the final motion. to date, the department received core sponcorrespondence from tw. both suggest that the existing building may have been constructed as a refugee cottage following the 1906 earthquake and fire. the preservation staff requested additional analysis of the potential status as a refugee cottage from a qualified consultant review. staff found the existing building does not meet the dimensions with refugee cottages and does not retain features on the buildings which have been identified as cottages throughout the city to date.

as a result, staff reclassified this to a resource status of c, meaning that no historic resources are located at the property. the department finds the department is on o balance with the rh2 district and guidelines and the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will remove a nonhistoric structurally unstable building which is currently vacant and maximize the residential density allowed by the planning code at the subject parcel by constructing a new two-family residential building. because the subject building is vacant, no existing tenants will be displaced by the proposal. further, both proposed residential units will contain three or more bedrooms, making the new building suitable for families. it's compatible with scale and mapping and designed to meet modern life safety. this is compatible with the neighborhood and not detrimental to persons in the community.

this concludes the presentation and the project sponsor should be on the line and we are both available to answer any questions you may have. >> someone needs to mute their mic. we can hear the delayed broadcast. thank you. project sponsor, if you're online, we are prepared to take your presentation. you need to turn off or silence your television or your computer

that you're watching. >> computer is now silenced. thank you. >> thank you. go ahead, sir. >> go ahead and present? >> yes. >> my name is ross levy. i'm the architect for this project. i believe that planning staff is following along with a presentation that has a script to change slides as i speak, so let's hope that that works. and i'm showing you images of the context in the neighborhood. it is an unsound, two-story one unit building from the early 1900s. the neighborhood is of a varied character. buildingsrange from two to four stories tall. the second slide is a rear yard, which is a large rear yard and upsloping and this is in a valley and appears to be

downsloping when viewed from the street and slopes back up into the rear yard. aerial view of the subject property, just to give you a sense of the immediate environment, pretty consistent mid-block open space which our project preserves and respects and, also, the varied types of architecture and bulks of building in the immediate area. and you'll see that in another aerial photos photo, as well. the roof plan, most important feature there is a large side yard or a continuous side yard along the south edge of our proposal that allows light and air in a sub terrain-i terrain l that will be important for plans going forward for a two-unit building and we show roof decks and setbacks per planning code

and residential design guidelines. basement floor plan shows a two bedroom family size living unit. this is at the basement level because the street level is the level above it just as defined by the relationship of the base eelevation to the sidewalk and street level which requires any off-street parking enter on the level above this. that is the next floor level which is a parking garage with some utilities in site circulation and this parking garage is a reasonable size for three cars to move independently and there's a reason we will discuss later. on the floor above, you have a bedroom -- two bedrooms, kitchen and dining areas for a family-sized housing unit and

we're proposing now a two-unit building to replace a current single-unit building. and then on the level above this, we have a living are livid a master suite. the reason that this unit was designed so graciously was that we had anticipated that this may become a three-unit building in the future per pending adu legislation and that legislation has now passed at the state level and we have designed this building with both this upper floor and with the larger parking provisions to provide for a third unit to actually be within the building mass, something i would like to talk to commissioner to take up as they discuss our project this afternoon. and the section just showing you that we're well below the height limits in the 40x zoning area,

reasons being the relationship of the lot to the street that i spoke about previously and, also, just the immediate context and the appropriate scale and mass for a new structure in this location. we are showing you a couple of perspectives from the street and a marina style, very simple front, but a contemporary take on a san francisco type of architecture related to the '40s is '50s architecture and the earlier flat-front edwardian architecture and simple window designs and an advisory team to relate to the immediate context and ultimately, a building that in three dimensions fits in well with its neighbors in the size, form and dispostion and provides much-needed houses, potentially

up to three units. although, two units are we would have applied for because this is what the code allowed at the time the application was submitted. i'll pass it back to the commission secretary. >> great. i think that presentation went very well. why don't we open up to q & a chn, and i chan and if mee public would like to speak, enter 1-0 to get into the cue. >> opening.

>> are there any members in the cue. >> not yet. >> commissioners, why don't you deliberate and chan, notify us if anybody does enter the cue. >> will do. >> i'm asking mr. levy to please go over the adu. that was a little garbled on my end. >> yes, thank you, commissioner moore. if staff is listening, thes ea easiest way is to look at slide

number 11, monica, if you're out there. and commissioner moore, the answer to your question is we're looking at a four-level building and the basement level is a unit and we have good exposure there and so that is a very viable unit and then we have a level of parking in circulation and two residential levels shown on top of the parking. those two residential levels are currently joined as a single unit, but we've designed the project so that the upper level might be broken off pretty simply and become an independent unit, so i'm prepared to make this a three-unit building and i believe the project sponsor would like to make a three-unit building and i believe the current code actually allows for it to be a three-unit building, but that was not the code at the time that we made this application.

>> thank you, i appreciate you setting it up that way. i like the building and like what i see and i'm curious what my other fellow commissioners have to say. >> commissioner fung. commissioner, is your mic on?i believe commissioner fung may be experiencing technical difficulties. and we have one person in cue, so maybe we should take the public comment. >> let's try the cue. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> question: hello, this is jeremy paul. i'm commenting on the avu aspect

of this project. can you please confirm you can hear me in. >> yes, we can hear you. >> thanks very much. so as of january 1st, 2020. 2020, ab68 became law which allowed for anasm du to be installe proa new structure. i'm very excited about this new legislation. i'm looking forward to seeing it implemented. i'm very pleased that mr. levy has incorporated an adu in this structure respectively so it can be easily adapted for use under the adu legislation and i would like to compliment this design and support this project. thank you so much.

>> so is frank back on? if not, we can call on -- >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> commissioner fung, are you back on? >> yes, my connection was going in and out. >> we can hear you now. actually, it cut back out again. >> commissioner fung, try it without the video. >> can you hear? >> try to do it without the video playing. turn your camera off. >> turn the camera off. how is that? is that better? >> yes. >> well, now we can hear you.

>> ok. i have to issues with the conditional use for the demolition and i'm prepared to move to support the granting of the conditional use. >> second. >> second. >> second. >> we have one more. commissioner diamond, did you want to speak? >> i'm in favour of this project whether it's a two-unit project, whether it'or adu. i'm prepared to comment. >> commissioners, thank you for your comments and i just wanted to say i think that potentially just like in the last project that required condition of approval as the adu, i would ask you craft something similar so that the project sponsor is able to revise plans and then not have to bring this back to the commission.

>> so that actually was my question to the maker of the motion. commissioner fung, you did make a motion to approve this with conditions as proposed. it's only a two-unit building. if we could get clarity from the commission that it is not opposed to adding an adu, we can certainly add that finding and then as monica is suggesting, we can prevent the matter from coming back to the planning commission. commissioner fung, are yo you amenable of accepting an adu if the cosponsor chooses to add one? >> that's acceptable to me. >> and is the second amenable? >> yes. >> then commissioners, to approve this matter finding that an adu can be added. commissioner diamond.

>> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> complicationer johnston. aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye and commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> that passes 6-0 and for the benefit of the public, the dr calendar was essentially continued. item 1 16 to june 18 and item 17 to june 21. and there no other items on the agenda today. >> thank you. >> i will ajourn. >> very good. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> good morning. the meeting mr. come to order. thithis is the april 17, 2020 regular meeting of the. commission. our clerk is here and i would like to thank jason from sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. do you have any announcements? >> yes. due to the covid-19 health emergency, and to protect commissioners, staff and p