>> and welcome to the regular hearing for thursday, april 30th, 2020. before i begin, as has been the case for our remote hearings,

i'd like to enter the following announcement into the record that on february 25th, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid-19. furthermore, the mayor and governor have suspended -- suspending select laws applicable to commissions and making it possible to hold commission hearings remotely. and on april 3rd, there was authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely through the end of the shelter-in-place. recognizing that the commission's consideration of certain projects is an essential government operation. and it directs the commission to prioritize the action items pertaining to infrastructure and housing and small business. and i will also in advance remind members of the public, staff, and the commission that this platform is not perfect and that at times becomes clumsy.

we have learned that at&t's bridge conference is finicky. so in advance we do request your patience. there are built in delays in broadcast from the live events to sfgov-tv and the audio feed into the live events. so enable the public participation sfgov-tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. sfgov-tv is broadcasting and streaming the toll-free phone-in number across the bottom of the screen. comments and opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling 888-273-3658. and entering the access code 3107452. pressing pound. and pound again.

and when we request public comment, you will be directed to press 1, and then 0, to enter into the queue. you will be lined up in the order that you press 1 and 0. all right? when you're allotted time reaches 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime and then at the end of your time i will direct staff to move to the next speaker. all right? i'd like to take roll at this time. commission president koppel. commission vice president moore. >> present. >> clerk: commissioner diamond. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner fung. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner imperial. >> here. >> clerk: and commissioner johnson. >> here. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is items

proposed for continuous. case number 2015-010401047d.r.p, discretionary review for continuousance conti conuance. the project and hub, housing sustainability districts and to make the case. and item 3 for continuous to make 142020. and items 4a and b for 2015 2015-000940g.p.a. and p.c.a.-01, for the market activity and plan amendment adoption of the general plan amendments and planning code amendments are proposed for continuance.

excuse me, items 4c and d and e for case number 2015 2015-000940map-002, and for the market octavia amendments, zoning map planning code business intact code regulation and implementation program are all proposed for continuance. and item 5, the certification of the impact report is proposed for continuance to may 14, 2020. and items 6, for standard environmental requirements, code amendments and are proposed for continuance to may 21, 2020. and items 7a and b, the

commercial use operation and variance are proposed for continuous to june 11, 2020. and item 8, case 2018-001031 2018-001031-3219 for missouri street discretionary review. and it's proposed for continuance to june 11, 2020. and item 9, at 17 178e e-cliff item. and item 10, case 2018 2018-0001088cua-4211, conditional use authorization for continuance to june 18, 2020. and item 11 -- >> president koppel: (indiscernible). >> clerk: yeah. on the phone line if you can mute your telephones we would certainly appreciate that. >> clerk: item 11, at 1926 on

madero street. and case 12, at 3754 pacific avenue for continuance to june 23rd, 2020, and item 13 will hazardous procedures informational presentation is proposed to continuance to jewel 23, 2020. and items 14 case 2020-00103... 24th street, conditional use authorization is proposed for indefinite continuance. further, commissioners, under your consent calendar we did receive requests from the office for items 16a and b, case numbers 2018-01065cua at 55

commission street for the conditional use and variance and that is proposed for continuance i forget now to june 11, 2020. i have no other items proposed for continuance. why don't we go ahead and open up the q. and a. session. and members of the public if you wish to speak to any of these continuances, only on the matter of continuance this would be your opportunity to press 1 and 0 to get into the queue.

jen, is anyone on the line wishing to submit testimony regarding the matters on the continuance calendar? you may be needed. >> i can hear you but for some reason i was miewtded but i was unable to unmute. >> clerk: you're unmuted now. >> can you hear us?

>> clerk: okay, she seems to be able to hear on the audio. >> okay, i'll try to take that first call. >> clerk: how many callers do we have? >> we have eight. you didn't hear that? >> clerk: no. >> okay. we're going to have to rebridge again. >> clerk: all right, my apologies. as stated this is still a bit of a clumsy platform.

we will break for five minutes and then reconvene when the at&t bridge has been reestablished. >> jonas, i think that i got it. >> clerk: you got it? >> yeah, let's see again. caller, can you -- [no audio] >> we'll need to rebridge. >> clerk: okay. we'll take a -- so if everybody could just hold on and if the callers can re-call in me see. >> clerk: okay. so, again, my apologies, but if

any member of the public wishes to submit your testimony to the items proposed for continuance, this would be your opportunity to call the 88-273--- >> (indiscernible). >> clerk: enter the access code and press pound and then pound again. and then 1, 0, to enter into the queue. i will provide you with a couple minutes to call back in and then when you see a number of speakers or callers online, go to the question and answer mode, please. >> your conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question press 1, and then 0.

you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners, corey smith on behalf of the coalition. are we doing comments on continuance right now or still waiting? >> clerk: we are taking comment on the matters proposed for continuance. >> fantastic, thank you, jonas. good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of s.f., and speaking of the hub area plan, i understand that it is getting continued today but i just really wanted to emphasize after four years of conversations with the community that all of these things do have a clock. and we don't want to miss out upon all of the tremendous benefits associated with this plan, and so looking forward to continuing to move the process forward on may 14th.

thank you. >> you have five questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. audrey rail, and the san francisco coalition. i'm calling in support of the item number 10 for 4211 26th street to be continued to june 18th. this item was not noticed properly because, a, it was in a notice, it referenced the item to be a single family home. and also they were missing plans on the existing structure, two-unit structure, that is sitting on the site currently. so we appreciate the item got continued and we look forward to the hearing on june 18th. so, please, accept our

continuance for this item. thank you. >> you have four questions remaining. >> hi, this is jeremy shaw with shaw architects calling in about our item number 16 for 5500 mission street. we've been in talks with the supervisor and his staff and we've agreed to continue until june 11th to make sure that we're following best practices in terms of how we can provide more homes for elderly. thanks. >> you have four questions remaining. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sarah ogilvie and i'm calling in enthusiastic support

of a continuance for the hub project to may 14th and i'm really, really excited to see the opportunities for more homes to be in progress and planned for there and i would really, really hope that you understand that the community's need for housing is great and that this opportunity to move forward should be expeditious. and i'm just very thrilled to watch everybody engage and to take action on that project. it's really delightful. and i'm thrilled and i know that i speak on behalf of many other members of the community who are very excited. and also i want to commend the commission for extraordinary work on making remote public possibility. really appreciate it. thank you. >> you have two questions remaining.

>> good afternoon, commissioner. ryan patterson. calling in regarding item 12, for 3074 pacific. our office represents the requester and we understand the public sponsor has requested an accelerated hearing. we support staff currently proposed date of june 25th, and while we understand the desire for an earlier hearing, there are a lot of projects with long-standing applications that are all being pushed back to june. including some of mine. other neighbors i understand have also emailed you to support staff, the continuance to june 25. shelter-in-place we understand is extended to may 31 which makes it impossible for my client to come and to participate in person which he'd like to do. as well as other neighbors. we're hopeful that also that the staff will have continuance and sufficient time to reach an

amicable resolution. and i represent the project sponsor on items 7a and b, 552 and 554 hill street. we are having continuance to june 11th. again, we understand the need for this for all of these projects. thank you very much for your time. >> you have one question remaining. >> good afternoon. sarah hoffman, i'm an attorney for item 1, 804 22nd street. we would like it to be continued to may 21st. we currently are having discussions with the project sponsor involving this matter and i believe that a little more time will be beneficial there.

thank you very much. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: okay, commissioners. again, my apologies for that clumsy start for our hearing but the matter is proposed for continuance are now before you. commissioner johnson. >> supervisor johnson: thank you, items 1 through 14 (indiscernible) and also (indiscernible). >> clerk: item 16a. >> thank you. >> i'll second that, zonance.

>> clerk: thank you. on that motion then to continue all items as proposed, commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner fung. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> aye. >> clerk: and commission president koppel. motion passes unanimous let's 6-0 and this places on your consent calendar. >> i'm sorry, item 7b to be specified -- >> clerk: thank you, acting zone administrator. i appreciate it. now commissioners that will place this under your consent calendar and all matters under the consent calendar are considered routine by the commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote by the commission. there's no separate discussion of these items unless so requested, in which the matter

should be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item under a future hearing. and 150waverly place, continual use authorization. and item 17, case 2019-004021c at 1331 through 1335 grant avenue. continual use authorization. and item 18, the conditional use authorization. and item 19, 2019-201940cu 554 street. and item number 20, 1880 clement street. continual use authorization. item 21, case number 2021...

18th street, continual use authorization. those are all of the matters under your consent calendar. we did receive a request to pull grant avenues off of consent and here at the -- under the regular calendar. are there any other items that the commissioners would like to remove from the consent calendar and if the members of the public would like to remove any of them from the consent calendar, now would be the opportunity to hit 1 and then 0. if we could go to the q. and a. , please. >> your conference is now in question and answer mode to summon each question press 1 and

then 0. >> clerk: so at this time this would be your opportunity to simply request that any of those items to be pulled off of consent. why don't we take the first caller. you have any? >> you have one question remaining. >> yeah, hello. i wanted to let the commission know that the hearing is not being televised on sfgov-tv. the small business commission is running late or something, but no part of your hearing is being televised. >> clerk: mr. williams, did you want to submit a testimony related to a continuance matter? >> no. but i did want to alert you -- and the commission that this is not being televised. >> clerk: it's not televised but it is still streamed via sfgov-tv. thank you. >> it's not.

i'm -- it's not being streamed. and it's not being televised. i'm on the computer right now. none of it has been. >> clerk: we were advised by sfgov-tv that it is streamed live. >> you were misadvised. the special small business commission is being livestreamed in place of the planning commission. >> clerk: there are multiple channels, mr. williams. so thank you -- >> i'm aware of that. i checked both channels and the other channel is showing... something completely different. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: commissioners, would any of you like to remove any items (indiscernible). >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> i ask for the removal of

grant street from the consent calendar. a lot of questions came in and we should discuss it as a group. thank you. >> clerk: okay, any other items to be pulled off of consent -- >> president koppel: commissioner -- >> i would -- i would support commissioner moore's request to take grant off the consent calendar. >> president koppel: is that a motion? >> clerk: we don't need a motion. >> president koppel: okay. okay. >> thanks. >> clerk: well, we need a motion to approve matters under the consent calendar. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> move to approve all items on

the consent calendar except for item 17, 13, 51, 1355 grant avenue. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to approve your consent calendar with the exception to item 16a and b, which were continued and item 17 which will be considered under the regular calendar. on that commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner fung. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> aye. >> clerk: and commission president koppel. commissioner president koppel? >> aye. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion it passes unanimously 6-0. and that will place us under

commission matters for item 22, the draft minutes for april 16, 2020. do i hear a motion? >> i pressed the button -- move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: well, we should take public comment, actually. >> your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press 1, 0.

>> no comments so far. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, then there's a motion that is seconded to adopt the minutes for april 16, 2020, on that motion, commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner fung. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner johnson? >> aye. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> aye. >> clerk: and commissioner president koppel. that passes unanimously. and placing us to item 24. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> i wanted to commend the architect shaw for postponing or continuing 5500 mission street. i believe that it's really to look for higher standards of care with respect to elderly care facilities and convalescent homes given the lessons that we are learning nationally, and not

just locally, from the major outbreaks of coronavirus in those facilities, i believe that it is within our responsibility to ask for higher standards of care when looking at these facilities and applying standards that may not even have been tested before. i saw a number of potential issues in the application as it stands and i know that mr. shaw will work with the a.i.a. to raise the standard of care for what he is proposing. i very much appreciate it. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson. >> thanks. i want to note that the (indiscernible) is it streaming the planning commission hearing? i want to make sure that we're giving people the right link

that is streaming the current hearing to address the comment that came up before. so if that could be addressed, we'd appreciate it. >> clerk: so we were advised that sfgov-tv would have a link to our broadcast. and right now i am on my ipad on sfgov-tv that is broadcasting our proceedings. there may have been a delay in that. but i believe that we're up now.

>> jonas, can you confirm where that link is? because somebody put it on the chat, but where -- >> clerk: it's on sfgov-tv, their second channel. >> okay, because i didn't find it either at first. >> clerk: they recently switched over from the small business commission to us. but if i'm not mistaken they did have a separate link on their web page directing people to our livestream. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay, i will also just remind people to set to chat on this live event is really just used to speak. so brigette and jeff, if you could delete your comments, we would appreciate it. so if there are no additional

comments from the members of the commission -- we can move on to department matters. item 24, director's announcements. >> jonas, just a couple items. hello, commissioners and thank you for bearing with us. i think that you were emailed earlier today and we will post this online as well as under the director's report for next week. so the public has it. so we kind of put together a memo that shows our guidelines and goals for public participation for our comprehensive plans and policies both during this covid crisis and we expect as that we come out of it we're going to have some limitations on how we conduct public meetings. obviously, you know that it's crucial for us to engage the public in our work, especially when doing larger community funding and policy projects.

we've got that housing element coming up and we can count on robust public input for that. so we have published guidelines or put together guidelines internally and i would say that we're relying on a number of ways to communicate with the public. if we can't do the typical public meetings. everything from email and mail to posters, to video postings as well as online forums that the public can participate during and that we can record. so, please take a look at that. and if you have questions or comments we can address them next week. and i also wanted to note that we published the 2019 quarter 4 housing development pipeline dashboard recently. it had showed a slight uptick of projects in the pipeline and a couple percent increase, and i

think that what is most notable is that it shows a 26% increase in while it was under construction. at the end of last year we had over 10,000 units under construction. obviously, we anticipate that that's going to change and we don't know to what extent as we entered into this crisis and as we come out of it. so we'll keep you posted on that. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, director hillis. item 25, the review of the past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals. and our historic preservation commission. >> aaron star, with legislative affairs. the first item at land-use hearing this week was supervisor peskin's occupancy or l.l.i.o. ordinance. to regulate the dwellings units

between 30 and 365 days and depends on the number of dwelling units in the building. the ordinance also amends thed ministrative use for non-tenant uses for the renting of a unit to a corporate entity or other non-natural person. commissioners, you took action on this item on january 30th and recommended approval with modifications. and those modifications include enacting an interim control on new l.i.o. and collecting data on the scale and location of l.i.o. activity, and clarifying admin code amendments for non-profit organizations. and monday's land use hearing after supervisor peskin gave an overview of the ordinance, supervisor preston proposed an amendment to the ordinance that would allow for educational institutions to continue to lease housing to their faculty. supervisor peskin expressed his support for the amendment. other comment was largely in opposition to the ordinance. the central complaint came from owners of small buildings of

less than four units that would no longer be able to lease units for less than a year. after public comment, the land use committee moved to incorporate supervisor preston's amendments and recommended the ordinance to the full board of supervisors. next the committee considered supervisor ronen's review ordinance that proposes to have office uses within the zoning district and also requires c.u. for services. and this item was recommended approval with modifications. those modifications include, one, limiting the office prohibition to the mission area plan. two, maintaining the existing permissibility of medical and financial and professional service uses. and, three, a grandfather clause for applications no later than the introduction date of the ordinance. and at the land use hearing, supervisor ronen's office had a one-week continuance to continue to craft and to refine the

grandfathering clause. commission chair peskin did open up the public hearing for comment. all six speakers requested that a grandfathering clause to be added to the ordinance. ononce the public comment ended they continued the item one week to may fourth of this year. and at the board of supervisors, full hearing this week, there were no planning department items and that concludes my motions. and i'm available for questions if you have them. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, aaron. seeing no questions, there was no board of appeals report for our hearing and they will reconvene next week. commissioners that places us under general public comment. at this time the public may address the commission. except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission is 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, the general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public who are phoned in now is your time to press 1 and 0 to get into the queue. if we could only up the q. and a. please. >> your conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1, and then 0. >> clerk: is anyone in the queue? >> yes. >> you have four questions remaining. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. neighborhood council. so i'm asking the same question that i asked a few weeks ago -- do the tenants' lives matter? in the past few weeks there were at least one previously tenant occupied project before you and it was more than disappointing to see that the planning staff misrepresenting at least one of these projects. and downplaying the tenancy status of this property. commissioner imperial, last week you asked the planner assigned to the illegally demolished property at 4118 21st street if someone in the planning can confirm that there was a tenant living in the unauthorized dwelling unit. and here was planner's response. when we look at the unauthorized dwelling unit we take a look at if they meet the physical definition of what would mean a potential unit. and then we look at a whole host of other things, including eviction documents and board records. in this instance it did not meet

the physical definition, so concerns were not raised and we did not have to go this path at all. and here's my question -- what are the department's criteria for meeting the physical definition for an unauthorized dwelling unit? in this case the building was already demolished and, mind you, illegally. there was an hrma file, a document accepted and approved by the planning staff for the property was described as a two-unit structure. even the u.s. postal service has a record of this property as having a second unit called 4118 and a and a half 21st street. but that didn't matter to the planning because it seems that the department creates its own reality. the reason that i'm bringing this up is because i see this as a pattern. there was another property that was continued to june 18th, it was on your docket, but thankfully it was continued. and this was another tenant occupied property that is slated

for demolition. there are two units in this property. and, unfortunately, the department representing it as a single family home. because it's sitting on an h.r.1 zone law but that shouldn't matter. there's a record of this property as two units and the rent board has a record of this property having evicted the tenant for a mere $6,000 in 2016. yes, $6,000 got this tenant moved. and we are going to be talking more about this when this case is going to be before you. but back to my question. it's an implied matter. i would appreciate if somebody could give me an answer what the department uses as a criteria to deem a property existing and tenant occupied? thank you. >> you have three questions

remaining. >> hi, this is sonya trout and i'm calling to ask what is happening with the housing affordability strategy presentation. it was on -- i thought that it was continued to today. but it wasn't on the agenda. i'll send you guys a letter on what i thought about it. and i was going to talk about it now, and now when i have the prior comments, there's new demolition controls where if there was a tenant in the last five years, that tenant gets a right to return to a similar unit at their old rent. and so if the planning department thinks that whether there was a unit or not depends on what -- you know, what the planning department's records -- like, literally none of that matters at all under state law. so my email is sonya@nblaw, and

so previous commenter, if you want to get in touch with me it sounds like the city hasn't read the new demolitions control program in s.b.330, the planner should know about it. okay, bye. >> you have two questions remaining. >> hi, the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, and san francisco land-use coalition. and the san francisco -- it was san francisco's mandate to -- (indiscernible) the building is crumbling. the newly appointed planning director will soon learn that stream lining seqa will not overcome the aging infrastructure, deteriorating transportation and no lack of developer funding. many of the projects planning approve will either be stalled

or financially collapse. and they have large residential property that can no longer finance the projects that they wish to build with or without the planning commission's approval. and they have requested (indiscernible) on a $995 million loan for its massive residential development in san francisco. the debt is secured by the property in san francisco which is 3,165 units. it's the largest multifamily property in san francisco and the second largest multifamily property in the west.

the property developers have a shortage of finance because the banks have cut the amounts they will have for a property value. and this is both residential and commercial particularly hard and the banks have left many firms high and dry. developers can only expect to fund around 60% to 65% of the cost of development from the banks or the senior debt providers. this means that the developer must put up more money themselves or raise additional finance from another source. inevitably at higher interest rates. thank you. >> you have one question remaining.

>> hello president koppel and planning commissioners. how frustrating it is for commissioners, project sponsors and the public to conduct hearings without being able to display and view documents relevant to an agenda item on the overhead projector. last week the commission couldn't see the historic evaluation report, h.r.e. official documents that contradicts the project sponsor's contention that 4118 21st street is a single family home. have we had the ability to view the documents, the commission would conclude that the official regular crews is a one-stories, two-unit building. also san francisco planning department records for the address is an official document. i was unable to display as proof that the project is only 2,671

total gross square feet. most troubling for me is the tenant advocate who hates to see tenants displacement going on in my neighborhood with my inability to display an official document i obtained from the rent board. behind the x that says that there was an eviction. it's called the settlement and release agreement for the buyout of the tenant at 4118 21st street, prepared by zach's law firm. to contest the planner's assertion on record that the rent board records were looked at. and we can't prove a tenant lived in the space other than the primary dwelling unit. the planner should -- did not look to see that there's a legal document stating that the occupant occupies a portion of the property known as the premise on the first floor of the property. the tenant had a rental agreement with the premises,

with the move out to leave the keys to the entrance of the hallway on the kitchen counter of her premises. and, furthermore, a simple u.p.s. online post office inquiry proves that the planner could have done that and found that 4118 and a half 21st street has now been able to deliver to that address. got it? you've got to do something better about tracking tenants. they are being displaced left and right and -- and the property private sponsors are allowed to just get away and say whatever they want. thank you. >> you have zero questions remaining. (please stand by)

>> at 1335 grant avenue, and a 558 square foot art gallery as 1331grant avenue. and common space at the rear for receptacle storage. it includes a remodel, with the existing overflap band, and an aluminum forefront. with new clear-story windows with glazing. the subject site is not located within 600 feet radius of a parcel containing existing private or public school or a parcel for which a

valid permit from the city's office of canada's retailer or a medicinal cannabis retailer is located. the department has received 15 letters of support for the project. three after the publication of the staff report, which include letters from the north beach business association, and the north beach neighbors' neighborhood organization. in addition, the department received a form letter with 23 signatures from neighboring residents and merchants. the letters of support reference that this use will provide a good for which the community has expressed desire. the business will improve safety, security, and cleanliness along grant gl. and it will provide an increase in commercial traffic, which will benefit the commercial corridor. the department has received one letter of opposition, noting that the sponsors kept their existing dispensery open

during the recent health situation. they received a letter requesting they be pulled off to address concerns of traffic and storefront independence. i would like to make it known that a storefront merger is prohibited in the north beach, per planning code sections 708.3. and double parking is a mandatory condition of the good neighbor policy, for canada'cannabis' businesses owners. the department finds the project is, on balance, consistent with the north beach neighborhood commercial business and the policies of the general plan. the project adds diversity to the existing neighborhoods and supports the city's equity program, administered by the office of cannabis. and they find it to be

necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and not to be detrimental to the ad vaintd adjacent properties. this includes staff's presentation, and i'm available for questions. and the project manager has a short presentation. you may unmute yourself and begin. >> you need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. you will have five minutes for your presentation. are you prepared? >> yes. can you hear me? >> we can, thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is elrich newman. i'm a native san francisco sansanfranciscan, i lost my mother to drug abuse, and was raised in foster care, bouncing from group home to group home, never having a stable home or school. when i turned 18, i found mu trumy true passion, which is

cannabis. i started from the bottom, doing janitorial and maintenance, and over the years gaped mor gained more ande experience, from manufacturing, production, consumer service, sales, inventory control, marketing, and employee management. through the office of cannabis' equity program, i now have the opportunity to run my own business in a field i'm very passionate about. i've been mentored by nate and jesse for almost a decade now. and they have taught me during mis my time working at barberry coast. and i plan to implement this at barberry north beach to work hand-in-hand with the neighborhood and the community to great a great north beach experience for everyone. this project proposes bringing the first medical and adult-use cannabis to north beach. north beach is an historically significant

business, and one that has a distinct character and culture. it is important that north beach's first cannabis retail store be compatible with the neighborhood character, and be operated by experienced operators. a barberry coach dispensary is a perfect fit for north beach. we currently have two locations in san francisco, and have been offering a clean, safe, and comfortable space for cannabis users for over seven years. it prioritizes hiring san francisco natives and trains and promotes within the organization, and maintains hiring practices to reflect the diversity in san francisco. they appreciate the nuances of north beach, and want to build a store that fits into the neighborhood and provides a business and service that the neighborhood will be proud of. the outreach process for this project began nearly

two years ago. the community has been very supportive of the project. the overwhelming majority are supportive of the project and anxious for it to open. grant avenue has suffered from closures of businesses, and a new, well-operated local business with an excellent reputation and local roots will help stimulate the corridor. the business will have a guard and lighting in the front of of the stoash, store, which include safety and cleanliness. and it will provide an increase in commercial foot traffic, which will benefit the entire commercial corridor. the subject parcel is not located within a 600-foot radius of a parcel containment containing an existing private or public school, or within a 600-foot radius of a parcel from which a valid permit for a cannabis

retailer or medicinal cannabis retailer has been issued. although there are sensitive uses in the neighborhood, there are none in the area immediately ashed the around the proposed site, and there will be no negative impact caused by the storefront. there are numerous bars on this block of grant avenue, which are consistent uses with the dispensary, in that they cater to adults 21an and over. the project adds diversity to the existing neighborhood serving retail corridor by installing a new use in the north beach district. the proposal includes restoring the historical facade of the building, and installing a.d.a. access, and having two separate and distinct businesses. the storefront next door will operator as an art gallery and merchandise store. it will provide an

additional place for people to brows. browse. it is located in a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. [buzzer] >> the store will primarily serve neighbors and individuals who work in or who are already visiting north beach. and the operators will designate green street as the uber and lyst drop off. wthank you guys. >> thank you. sharon, why don't we go ahead and open the "q" and "a" please. >> your conference is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question,

press 1 and then 0. >> if the member of the public is prepared, you may submit your testimony. >> you have two questions remaining. >> i'm dan acorini, president of the north beach business association. and i want to make a statement strongly supporting the effort to open a di dispensary by the north beach broadway area. my business is on grant avenue, and we need to fill up these vacancies. and they are the most appropriate, most professional group of people to open a dispensary in north beach. please vote to support

them being able to do this. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> hi, my name is kathleen dooley. i've been working with barberry coast for over two years now, on making sure that the new dispensary complies with everything that is legal and needed, and, also, i have been in constant contact with all of the neighborhood, all of the merchants, and we have made sure to accommodate all of their questions and needs, which is a role that i will be continuing to do permanently. i am a former owner, for 20 years, of a shop on grant avenue. i am well-acquainted with the needs and problems of

our particular neighborhood, and i'm particularly sensitive to anyone who reaches out with an issue or a question. thank you. >> you have zero questions remaining. >> commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> while i'm waiting for some of the other commissioners to chime in, i just wanted to say for a second that this operator has opened a dispensary in the sunset district, where i live, and (indescernable). i've just been nothing but delighted. [audio is cutting in and out] >> i appreciate the fact that the present sponsor is not trying to have

(indescernable). i think it is a really good thing for the city to have more dispensaries in the outlying neighborhoods, that previously haven't had them, as far as i inequity, and the support from the neighbors is important to me. >> commissioner moore. >> i have a couple of pick picky questions. my questions are directed to staff and principle. i'm in support of this dispensary. i have questions relative to missteps and what is in the preamble. there is a reference to a duly-noted on april 9th. we did not have a duly-noted meeting on april 9th where this particular project was discussed. later on there is a reference, somewhere in the text, about the polk street zoning district. we're not on polk street.

we're quite far away from there. and there are a couple of other inaccuracies that were missed. but one thing i would like to be more sure of is the fact that while there is a distinct explanation that an art gallery would be next door, i would like to see a confirmation that this art gallery could never be annexed to accommodate an expanded dispensary use, such as a vaping lounge or anything of that kind. when there is a description of merchandise, perhaps we could hear a little bit more about what merchandise? i'm assuming you're not intending to sell edibles at that particular site. the subdivision of the space makes the art gallery space, or whatever will be in there, a little less workable. because at this moment, the back of the house is

only being attributed to the dispensary itself. so i'm wondering, there will be a shared use between both establishments? because i think an art gallery will need a little bit of back of the house space as well. and that's a question to either the planner, for the proof part of the question, and the applicants, for the second part of my question. >> sure. thank you, commissioner moore. the inaccuracy of the 9th, you are correct. i will correct that. that was because of the shelt ishelter-in-place order. thank you. in terms of the joining of spaces, north beach does have quite strict standards, to not allow mergers of the spaces. we looked at this spot pretty carefully in terms of our policy discussion, to ensure they were still separate and distinct storefronts. so for the planning code,

there was not a lot to be combined. and if they sought to expand the existing use in any way, even if it was a few square feet, they would have to come back to you for a conditional use authorization to expand the existing cannabis retail, if permitted. so any sort of expansion would come back to you. i think the project sponsor can best explain why they needed this layout. >> i think you explained it well. i still would rather like to see a prohibition on that space. because in the absence of having a real full explanation of how the art gallery works, i would prefer to have it more strongly on record that there will be no expansion allowed into the space. when we looked at -- in comparison, when we looked at polk street, we continued the project twice in order to get a better understanding of

that particular dual space and how it would be used. and ultimately the applicant came back with two distinct business descriptions and plans, for the operation of two separate spaces. i would personally like to see the similar clarity here, that there is, indeed, no future pbilityd possibility for expansion of the space. >> sure. and i think that can be added. >> good afternoon, commissioner moore, this is brandon halihan. can you hear me okay? >> yeah, we can hear you, brandon. >> i can hear you. >> so the art space, that corridor going to the back, we wanted to install an egress from the space, and that was the important part of having that back hallway, from the dispensary side. and there is a large -- at least to a large space, as well, which we have a

lease on the entire basement, and the art gallery will be used in the basement. we can't use the basement for the dispensary because it can't be part of (indescernable). so the basement is going to be under those sub-lease of the art gallery. we have an agreement with jeremy fish, who is a north beach artist, who agreed to manage it and operate it, and he has an entire roster of local artists that he is going to curate out of that place. and we have no intention to attempt to merge the storefronts. going through the neighborhood process and the public outreach, we made it very clear that was a big issue. and we committed that that was not in our plans, and we were able to negotiate this art gallery solution, which we thought was a really big success for grant avenue. and, yeah, so we don't have any intention on using that space for anything to do with the

gallery. and the only sort of merchandise that would go out of there is things that are related to the art design, maybe t-shirts or posters or things like that, that they sell out of there, but with the art. no cannabis products or anything like that. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> i have a question for staff on the type "c" consumption conditions. so i'm hoping, based upon conversations at the commission, that staff is working to a standard approach for when -- for how you deal with type "c" consumption. for example, on the polk street, the staff had recommended, i believe, 311 notice, but the commission decided to be a

little stricter, and having prohibition on "c," because the adjacent yoga studios next to the rest of the space, they felt that consumption on site for type "c" was inappropriate. and then last week, with 24th, you recommended 311 notification, in the event they wanted to pursue type "c," based on the fact there was residential in the same building. i believe we went with that recommendation. now on this project, where there is residential above, you're recommending a prohibition on type "c." i'm wondering if you can address that, if there is some special circumstances here, that makes you believe that 311 notice is not appropriate and a prohibition is better? or has the project sponser simply said he is not doing type "c," so you put in a prohibition? i'm trying to understand the overall contact so we can try to get to some

consistent approach going forward? >> sure. yeah. so i think this is another unfortunate incidence of shelter in place. the goal of the department is to do 311 notification of standard condition for cannabis retail when residential units are above. that way it can be looked at in a case-by-case basis. and if the neighborhood was in opposition, or any specific groups, a d.r. could be filed and bring that forward to the planning commission. this was an instance where had shelter in place not occurred, we would have put that 311 condition on, but unfortunately, there was a miscommunication there. that's why it was a prohibition. it sounds like we were amending the idea -- or a

request from the commission to amend the motion and add a certain condition. we can certainly add or alter this condition about onsite consumption by the designer. >> mr. christiansan, did you want to chime in? >> yes. this is michael christiansan with the department staff and the cannabis coordinator. we did intend to stand standardize this process, trying to bridge the per misabilitperpermisability. in cases where we don't have consumption proposed, rather than a prohibition, we would prefer to input the process requirement if

consumption is wanted to be added in the future, to not pre-judge the request before we actually have anything to review. in this case, you know, following that line of reasoning, a process condition would be something more similar to a notice requirement or requirement for mandatory discretionary review. if the commission wants to see it come back. and this case is also relatively unique in that although it is well-assigned for this space, it is a narrow space and functionally may not be able to accommodate a consumption space at all. but, as we said, we do recognize this inconsistency, and we want to be standard and fair as we implement this program, and we're happy to have that conversation in the future.

>> thank you, michael. i do understand that commissioner diamond may be experiencing some technical difficulties. i provided her with a call-in number, so they may have a followup question when she calls back in. commissioner imperial? >> i have first -- first, i support commissioners moore and diamond and the staff in terms of, like, no expansion of this lot. also, i do agree that we

do need to standardize when it comes to the different types and also in terms of the onsite consumption. my question to the planner, or to the staff, or maybe also to the owner, when it comes to -- i guess when it comes to the products of the cannabis, it looks like -- how is the loading and unloading going to take place for the products for this establishment? >> i think the sponsor would have the best answer for that. >> yes. testing. can you hear me? >> yeah, we can hear you. >> so the loading will have to be done during

office hours, through the front. you need to have a second -- a second door to do deliveries or product intake during business hours. because we only have one door, we have to do it off-hours through the front door. >> thank you. >> maybe twice a week at the most. >> commissioner moore. while we most likely will not be able to get a standardized set of conditions today, what i remember very vividly is commissioner fong, a few weeks ago, reminding us

about what it will take, should a vaping room and onsite consumption ever be attempted in a building that has residential before. it was an incredibly vivid descrirntiodescription, and it s actually for that reason that i would prefer for this project to have a prohibition on the adjoining space becoming, at any point in time, being concerned as a vaping room. the 311 notice would not be comfortable for me. i would like to take it further and have a prohibition on the adjoining space. i hope i can get commissioners' support to amend the motion that that event. otherwise, i think it is a fine project. it is a great location. it is a good space to have a dispensary, all of that, except to have more

clarity on the next door space use. >> commissioner, would you like to chime in? >> i would like to provide an additional piece of information for the commission. if the sponsor were to come back in the future and want to expand and use that kind of art gallery as a consumption lounge, that would not be permipermissable. they cannot be located at the front of the site. it has to be a back of house location. you're current mission for approval contains a prohibition on type "c" consumption. so if you would like to maintain that, that would not be an amendment to the motion. you're amendment already contains a prohibition on type "c," smoking and vaping. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner johnson? >> thank you.

wi wholeheartedly agree with commissioner moore. thank you for that update. >> yes. >> i, too, want to uphold the prohibition of type "c" use, and we'll keep that in the motion, and also add language in the finding, prohibiting any cross-use of the two spaces. that they are two separate entities, but they will -- we will ensure that there is not a cross-use of the two spaces. and i would love some help on some actual -- what the language or the wording of the finding could be, or that we could use. generally, i would make a motion to approve with that added condition. >> i'll second that. and then call on commissioner diamond. >> i was going to second it.

>> can somebody help with phrasing it properly? joannajonah, can you? >> the motion is to approve this project with conditions as amendmented tamended,with the addition of te cannabis and no cross-use between the two spaces. if that is sufficient, there is a motion to have been seconded. on that motion, commissioner diamond? >> yea. >> commissioner fong? >> yea. >> commissioner imperial? >> yea. >> commissioner johnson? >> yea. >> commissioner moore? >> yea. >> commissioner koppel? >> yea. >> that motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners, under

item -- on item 26a and "b," 00861, 701 harrison street, for a large project authorization and office development. staff, are you prepared to present? >> yes. staff is prepared. >> great. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i just want to confirm that everybody can see the presentation on the screen. >> we can, thank you. >> the first item before the planning commission is a large project authorization pursuant to section 329 and 848, to allow construction of the seventh story, a 95-foot tall one-inch office building, with ground floor commercial along harriharrison street.

pursuant to planning code sections 321 and 322, to allocate 41,991 square feet. commissioners, as a reminder, this is the first (indescernable) before the commission since the adoption of proposition "e." the findings are currently reflected in the draft motion before you today. the project includes a seven-story mezzanine, measuring 58,538 square feet with approximately 8,539 square feet for commercial use. there is 16 bike kel 16 bicycle parking spaces. and it includes 5,108 square feet of usable open space.

space. >> to date, the department has not received comments, but has received one inquiry regarding the notification process during the shelter-in-place order. the project has 49,199 square feet of now office, which falls within the af available full feet for projects. this project properties approximately 5.5% of the currently available small cap pool. any subsequent increase in office square footage, including changes to the retail, or modification of the bicycle parking areas, would remove the project from the small allocation pool. the project would get approval from the large application pool. it would be required because of the

requirements that would be triggered if they were proposing more than 50,000 square feet of the office. [audio is breaking up] >> as well as the housing linkage fee, and the health care facility through (indescernable). the department recommends approval, and the project is on balance, consistent with the general plan and the planning code requirements. this concludes staff's presentation, and i am happy to answer any questions. >> are you prepared to make your presentation? you may need to press star 6 to unmute your phone. you will have 10 minutes.

>> can you hear us now? >> we can, thank you. >> great. thank you. good morning, commissioners. this is dan pratten for the project sponsor. we're here this afternoon requesting your approval for a small-cap office building on a surface parking lot at the corner of third and harrison. this is a project that fully complies with the central soma plan. we're not seeking any code exceptions, and the planning department concluded that the project won't have significant environmental impacts. we completed a shadow study. that includes the ellis street community garden, which is a private, but well-loved, garden on the block to the north of the site. this is a zero parking project that will support the city's investments and transit, and it will allow the ground floor to be given over to retail uses. because of its proximity

to the freeway, the sponsor viewed it as a perfect site. we expect about 275 permanent jobs when the building is complete. the project will also do its part to find affordable housing, transit, and other community improvements, with just shy of $6.7 million in one-time impact fees, along with ongoing melarus. for those that don't have a calculator handy, those one-time fees amount to about $114 per square foot, which is one of the highest impact use structures in the city. the design, which our architects will speak to here in a moment, will be a nice complement to the 725 harrison project, which is an independent project that takes up most of the rest of the block to the west. we hope you'll agree this

project fulfills the objectives of the central soma plan and respectfully request your approval. with that, i'll turn it over to our architects to make a brief design presentation, and, of course, we'll be available to answer any questions you might have. thank you. >> i here with scott moto architecture. the first slide illustrates the project's location, situated at the intersection of third and harrison street. >> this view, looking south towards the intersection, the building is situated at the compliment complemencomplement e major highway

intersections. it defines the 85-foot high street wall. this inflection responds to the adjacent building scales, and it becomes a way to break up and articulate the building's simple form. it helps draw the eye towards the corner and the main lobby entrance on harrison. there is an added layer of aluminum sides to modulate daylight. it offers subtle appearance. some of the (indescernable) are removed to further articulate the facade by creating two multi-story glass forms. it architecturally emphasizes the corner. the next slide has two views, looking southeast and northwest.

we also developed this design on third street, i should say. southeast and northwest. we also developed this design considering the building's side, looking up and down. the mid-section changes from having more or less visible reflection, depending on your point of view. the design is more articulate than the typical side property line (indescernable). there is the possibility for integrating the placement of public artwork here. the next view on harri harrison street, looking northeast, we also considered the design of the building in relation to the wide range of nearby building scales as well. from the immediately adjacent two-story scale to the large tower in the distance. the two-story black and metal portal defines the

main lobby entrance on harrison street. the next view is the corner close-up street view, looking south at the corner. this close-up shows how the facade is above the ground floor to reveal a classy front store. it is punctuated by the black and metal, defining two small retail entrances on third, and an office lobby entrance on harrison. there are street trees and they are planted wide on the harrison street. >> hello, this is marsh comaho, and i'll continue the presentation. next we have our ground floor plan at street level, which includes two

mid-sized retail spaces, with landscaped entries, a separate office entry along harrison street, a widened 15-foot space. there are spaces between street trees. for a typical office plan, the third floor plan, shown here, this demonstrates the effect on the plans of the infected building envelope, which also occurs on the fourth floor. we worked to compact the elevator and stair court to the interior property line, in order to ma maximize flexibility. next we have level six, which has a cut-out that offers visual connectivity to the office space below on level four, and it will increase the natural light to areas that are further away from the building's cucurtain walls along third

and harrison street. as we travel up to the mezzanine level, set back 15 feet from the property line, it includes a two (indescernable) it offers direct access to the project's common open space, via a roof space at the corner of third and harrison street. the rest of the roof level will have greenery. finally, the higher roof, located above the mezzanine, will screen in the mechanical equipment, which includes a raise of solar panels. the building section here further illustrates the pop-up for the mezzanine, the two upper floor eight atria,and the 10-foot 9 floor to ceiling on the

office floors. we focused on robust materials that will weather well. we proposed a curtain well of insulated glass and aluminum, looking like corrogated metal. we introduced black and steel at the base, which will have a natural petina. the elevation drawn along third street illustrates the facade composition, with the mezzanine pop up, and a third and forth floor inflation setback in relation to the neighboring historic building, housing the rako photo center. and finally, the elevation drawn along harrison street illustrates the mezzanine pop-up, and the

third and fourth floor inflection setback. that concludes our design presentation. thank you for your time. we're available and happy to respond to any questions or comments. >> is that the end of the responsthesponsor presentation? >> yes. >> excellent. thank you. if there are no immediate questions for this sponsor, members of the public, if you wish to provide testimony to this item, please dial the 888 number, with the access code, and press 1-0 to enter the cue. jan, why don't we go to the "q" and "a," please. >> your conference is now in question and answer mode. to someone each question, press 1 and then 0.

per miskt you have one question remaining. >> hello, commissioners. this is david wu. we are asking for a continuance of this proposed project due to several concerns. the project is located within the fel filipino heritage district, and yet the developer has not done any outreach that we are aware of. the cultural district is not even recognized in the planning documents. as you know, it was created to help stabilize the filipino community in the south bay market. this project speaks to none of those goals. and with covid-19, with non-profits and small businesses desperately

trying to stay afloat. the proposed project is located next to the youth and family special youth district, which is not referred. it must be recognized and identified by the planning department and the developer, and the project must reflect their goals in any proposed development. as you may know, community stakeholders have long been advocating for the strengthening and expansion of the youth and family s.u.d., which we hope can be put forward as part of the filipino's culture. it underminds the 50,000 square foot small cap, by trying to push forward a 58,000 plus. and it is not a community-serving use in the south market. it also appears that the shadow ban of the proposed project, such as part of the mid-block alley that is proposed by the

development at 72155 harrison street. and we request that the planning commission suspend items that are not essential to move forward with at this time when community and input is severely limited. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. oszi realm. i would like to echo david wu's comments about the outreach to the community. also, i would like to remind you that we are going through an unprecedented economic and health -- public health menace that is going to change business as usual. so my concern is this: why are we approving office

spaces when we don't even know who is going to be staying in san francisco and who is going to be leaving? and by that, i'm not only talking about the common people, the poor people who cannot pay their rent, after some six weeks to eight weeks of not having a job to get paid for. but i'm also talking about businesses, including big businesses, that some of them have actually come to the realization that since they have been doing so well from having their white collar workers working from home, there may not be a need to actually have an office or headquarters in san francisco. sure, they might have something, but they probably are not going to keep these offices for the full number of employees that they had before covid-19. so why are we doing this now? what's the urgency? why shouldn't we not wait until we see the aftermath

of this horrendous calamity that has hit our city and the globe? there is no rush. nobody is standing there waiting for these offices to come alive. i really urge you to postpone this, not to next month or the month after, but please postpone this until we have a better understanding of the economic downfall of covid-19. think about it, what financial institution is going to actually provide the loan and financialization needed to build these offices? basically u-you're going t, you're going tobe issuing en, but nobody is going to be building, simple as that. so please postpone this indefinitely, until we have a better understanding of the economic fallout from covid-19. thank you. >> you have zero questions remaining.

>> jan, why don't we go ahead and leave the "q" and "a" open, in case any additional callers come in late. commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> commissioner diamond? >> yes. i have two questions. could the project sponsor please address the concern that was raised about lack of reachout to the neighborhood groups? >> yes. dan pratten for the project sponsor. we did actually contact a total of 34 different community organizations at the outset of this project to solicit their input at a neighborhood meeting. we did have six people attend that meeting. they were largely

neighborhood business owners who were enthused about the addition of new workers and a new building to take the place of a parking lot. they were retail business owners, nightclub owners, who have been among the hardest hit by the current economic situation. and i think they are very eager to see more activity be brought to this neighborhood. we are, of course, more than happy to continue working with the filipino cultural district and other neighborhood organizations on ways that -- ye can incorporate some of their concerns. and to the project, one idea that immediately comes to mind is the use

of some or all of our 1% for art requirement to add a culturally appropriate piece of art to the building. we would be more than happy to commit to a condition of approval requiring us to engage in that future consultation with them. i do, however, want to speak to this notion that what we should do right now is wait and see. commissioners, i am paying people in my office not to work. i know that there are a number of people in the trades who are out of work. i think we've all seen the unemployment numbers that came out today. and i would argue very strongly that the delay serves no one. waiting to see serves no one. what the city and what the country need s is a rapid

return to normal. that rapid return to normal means getting back to business as usual, and, you know, letting projects like this proceed quickly so that when we turn the corner, when we have a vaccine, when we have the public health situation more under control, we can put construction workers to work on this site, we can put office workers in this building. because i am convinced that this situation is not permanent; it's temporary. it's severe, but we will turn a corner. and when we turn that corner, we ought to be ready to roll. >> thank you. could you just tell me directly whether or not the neighborhood groups that raised concerns about your not reaching out to them did receive notification about the meeting that was held? >> um...so i believe, um, this is the -- we notified

the south market community action network, um, and the soma leadership council, the people organizing to demand environmental and economic rights, as well as -- as well as todco. i don't believe that the other organizations that i heard speak today are actually on the planning department's official neighborhood notification list. and so -- or they weren't, perhaps, not at the time that we held the outreach meeting. but we did outreach to all of the organizations that are registered with the planning department. >> okay. thank you. and my second question is for staff. and, that is, the concern that was raised about the lack of reference to the

youth and family district and the filipino cultural district in the various reports that were done. if staff could address that concern, please. >> sure. the project is not within the use and family special youth district, which does havhave land-use controls, so that's why there is no reference to that. the project is within the soma cultural district, as the members of the public stated, but there are no land-use controls associated with it put into the motion. >> thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you, commissioner diamond, for asking those questions. and referring to other -- the cultural heritage district and the youth and family zone. those are actually the two things that i find very --

like, outstanding issues, the fact that the planning department did not include the filipino heritage community in this document. therefore it reflects on how a sponsor should do outreach, too. second, they referenced the use of family zoned district, even though it is not inside the youth and family zone, i believe it should still be referred to. just because there are -- i believe right across this developmenfrom this develot there is a school. and also the effects on the shadow impact. it does not say, of course -- ie the percentages, and it will not impact any rec and park uses. however, there is a school nearby. and will that -- is there a shadow analysis on the ground that is close by?

so because of the lack of references to this zoning, it limited -- and there is a lack of information -- it is limited in what the scope of this project is going to be affected. and second -- and thirdly, because of the area right now -- we are going for small office allocation cap, which actually should trigger a large office allocation, and also because of that, we don't have -- or we do have required the sponsor to include housing, whether it is inclusionary or to provide ven rent allocation. it seems like they're trying to figure out different things that should be allowed pa because

of the zoning inside and also the compliance that it should be in. so, pardon me, i do not support on the approval of having this under the small office allocation cap. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you to commissioners -- >> ske excuse me, i think i was ahead of you. i pressed -- >> yes, i see your name. >> go ahead, commissioner moore. >> sorry about that. i just wanted to express my support for comments made by commissioners diamond and commissioner dayo. i was actually disappointed by not seeing any reference to the youth and family zone, particularly because they are really only half a

block away, which is basically a an adjacency that is really close. it is becoming further and further boxed by a large, more offices than anything else. i believe that we need to find a way that they can participate in this discussion. as we move forward, there will be other projects of equal size, all coming in, i think, under small cap. and i'm trying to figure out if we should not start looking at housing sites in these particular locations. we have essential soma plan dominated by office uses. and i believe that there needs to be a little pushback that some of these medium sites are very appropriate for adding additional housing, rather than more offices.

i appreciate the designer of the building. there is definitely thoughtfulness about the building as an object, in the circumstances where it occurs. i can support its design, but i think it does not answer a number of policy questions, including the side for housing, and the side adjacent to the youth and family zone. [please stand by]

>> the concerns of commissioner imperial and fellow commissioners. >> do you want to chime in.

>> this is rich with department staff. i wanted to address some of the comments and concerns i hear from commissioners on the staff report. in most cases, you know, when we craft the draft motions we are looking at the applicable controls that would apply, and this project was mainly about office with ground floor retail, the ad adjacent districts don't have reference towards those specific land uses and how we would apply any specific control within them. for example, the soma youth and family district mainly requires conditional use authorization for the whole series of land uses like bars and restaurants and other things. the cultural district, obviously, is an important part of our work within soma and

within the central soma plan, we are happy to bolster up the findings or draft motions accordingly to provide necessary references. we didn't see anything in the legislation provided for the cultural district to connect it to the kind of office uses and land use controls that we have. >> i think the conversation in the comments. i want to make a note about prop e and prop n. this is a small cap office allegation. we see those coming right up to the 50,000. iif they want to additional office they would have to trigger it at that point. likely there won't by. we will probably go negative at

the end of this year when central soma projects move forward. i wanted to give you that context, also. >> commissioner moore. >> i apologize, but the flatness of the screen will make what i say an attack on you. i am going to suggest that at any time are we objectly gated to look at city and context? if you look at the application as an office building, then i would say it does not even model the surrounding buildings. it fails on that. it doesn't address the other circumstance, the proximity of the youth and family zone and the cultural district. it fails on both ends. i can live with what you say,

but i believe we need to stretch our responsibility talking about buildings in context, and there are many contexts in which we address this. for that reason, while this is a good building, there are several question marks and omissions i would bring to your attention. >> commissioner diamond. >> question and comment. this is for staff. is this a co-come -- code compliant project? did they meet all of the notification requirements? >> this is code compliant and has been duly noticed. >> in light of that, i have two thoughts. one, i guess i would be prepared to approve if it is code compliant and meets our requirements. that being said we should look at the requirements about note affection and outreach -- about

notification and outreach and adjacent to districts that would be appropriate to reach out. that would be a suggestion to staff to take a look at how we approach proactively requiring project sponsors to reach out. on the other hand, if this is code compliant that met the requirements i would be prepared to approve it today. >> commissioner imperial. >> i would like to ask it looks like there will be more small this kind of project will come in. i guess the planning department or planning staff that we look into having a strong community

benefit, having a strong where the community is really outreached to and having a high priority for affordable housing when we look into the small offices. there is going to be more developments like this, however, for this i still want to be consistent with my decision. i just don't think because it goes beyond the required small office allocation cap, i will not be able to support this development today. >> commissioner moore. >> could you please explain to

the commission why the department used that calculation versus the actuals for the building as the total? >> sure. department staff. we basically used the gross square footage of the office use. in this case even though the total building is 58,000 square feet they have ground floor retail, which doesn't count towards their office use. they are only providing for basically 49,999 square feet of office use within the remainder of this. if they were, for example to change use of one square foot in the future towards office, we would basically rescind the small cap and require them to go back through the large cap authorization. for now what the project before you is small cap. it is under the 50,000 square

foot threshold. the project appropriately aligns with what is allowed in the zoning. >> could i take that further? we all are aware not just rent there is a definite decline in ground floor retail. we are seeing more and more buildings around five or six years where ground floors intended for retail use, those spaces are filled. the harrison third street corridor is not the most retail focused corridor at the moment. it is kind of a little questionable why we are allocating as much ground floor retail going full well the difficulties of even getting tenants in a better location than this one. >> in theory, the sponsor could do a change of use in the future to something else. i will say the central soma

special use district prohibit i won't say prohibits but doesn't call office use active on the ground floor. they would have to get a variance from planning department controls if they seek the use and other complications with the kind of large cap office. it is definitely something that we are seeing kind of in a lot of projects throughout the city. >> planning department staff if i could interject. ground floor commercial uses are required along third street on this portion. this is actually a mechanism for which the project is code compliant. there might be project flexibility on harrison but it is required on third street. >> with that being said this may be the time to revisit those

policies and see how we can move successfully with it in the future. that is not the discussion for right now, i want to make a note the commission consider that as a future discussion. >> commissioners, does anyone dare make a motion? >> commissioner imperial. >> i forgot to delete my comment. i was not making a motion. >> commissioner diamond. >> move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner johnson do you want to add anything? >> i would like to incorporate

something that the project sponsor brought up that they would look to work to incorporate the cultural heritage of the surrounding neighborhood into the building, interest the findings. >> we could add that as a condition of approval if the maker of the motion is amenable the project sponsor continue to work with the neighborhood community organizations in relation to cultural heritage district and to incorporate any programs with the project. >> i think it is an excellent amendment. >> commissioner moore.

>> if the maker of the motion is amenable i would like to broaden your suggestion to the extent that adding the work would follow the conversation with the neighborhood group if they are amenable or if there are variations on that idea. since we did not have the discussion i do not want to use a band aid because we feel it is appropriate, let them amend it themselves. >> that was the intent. >> i believe the amendment is broad enough to include not just the 1% art component but any produce number of programs related to the project. >> including outreach to the neighborhood group themselves that they can derm what is best for them? >> they would have to do that to

communicate with the neighborhood organizations regards the cultural districts. >> thanks for clarifying that. >> i second it if that is the case. >> very good. commissioner koppel has seconded it. we will make that note. commissioners if there is nothing further there is a motion seconded to approve with conditions amended to include a condition directing the project sponsor to continue working with neighborhood organizations regarding the cultural heritage district and incorporating those programs into the development. on that motion commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner mar. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel.

>> aye. >> that passes 6-0. i would like to thank you for your patience for the sort of clumsy beginning to this hearing. there were a number of outstanding factors outside of our control, but thank you for sticking with us. i would like to extend that same amount of gratitude to the members of the public that stuck with us. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. >> we are going to adjourn the meeting now. >> thank you. >> thank you all.

>> president yee: good afternoon and welcome to the april 28th, 2020, regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madam clerk, please call the roll. >> president yee: thank you, mr. president. supervisor fewer, fewer, present. supervisor haney. supervisor haney? okay. all right.