downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization, and office development allocation respectively. staff, are you prepared to present? >> can we -- does commissioner low need to mention a couple things? >> yes. to the recreation and park commission, i request to be recused from this matter. it is a client of which i'm a partner. >> duly noted. >> do we need a motion, stacy? >> clerk: i believe so. commissioner buell? >> i make a motion to recuse commissioner low from the -- this matter on the agenda.

>> i would second it. >> clerk: thank you, commissioner harrison. >> moved and seconded. can you call the roll. >> clerk: commissioner buell. commissioner low. commissioner anderson. commissioner bonilla, commissioner harrison. commissioner mazzola, commissioner mcdonnell. aye. all right. we are -- >> all right, thank you. >> clerk: all good. thank you. >> very good. commissioners, staff, are you prepared to make a presentation? >> staff is ready. bear with me one moment while i navigate through the screens. so good afternoon to commissioner koppel and the planning commission as well as to president buell and the recreation and park commission.

also good afternoon to general manager ginsburg and director hillis. i'm with the planning department staff. and i hope that each of you are safe and as sane as you can be during these times. and today i'm joined by my colleagues of the recreation and parks department to get together to present on the project related to shadow findings. and i'll lead off with an overview of the project and the actions for the commission, and then i'll hand it over to janice who will cover the shadow analysis findings. both of us are available to answer any questions during the commission deliberations as are the members of the private sponsored team, including technical facilities. just moments ago the planning commission adopted a sweep of amendments to the market and octavia area with the subarea, including to the planning code that do facilitate the project located at 30 van ness avenue. in addition the planning commission voted to certify the

environmental approvement plan and to analyze the environmental impacts for the 30 van ness avenue project. commissioners, before you now are our project approvals for the 30 van ness avenue project. first and foremost to adopt a joint resolution to raise the absolute cumulative limit on the civic center plaza pursuant to a jointly-approved planning code section 295i. elementation memo which was adopted in 1989, in order to accommodate new shadow cast by the proposed project. for this separate votes will be recorded for each commissioner as mentioned. after that the recreation and park commission shall consider a recommendation from the planning commission that the net new shadow cast of the proposed picture will not have a significant adverse impact on the use of six properties in the jurisdiction of the recreation and parks department. those parks are margaret hayward playground and hayes valley and

koshland community park and patricia's green and civic center plaza and howard and langton mini park. and then the additional actions under their jurisdiction, those actions are as follows. adopt shadow findings pursuant to the planning code section 295 cast by the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the use of these six aforementioned parks under the jurisdiction of the recreation and parks department. through that under ceqa and as adopting a statement of overriding considerations and mitigation and monitoring and reporting program of the mmrp. and adopt findings to approve a downtown project authorization with for concessions from sidewalks and reduction of ground level wind currents in districts and height limits and both controls for parcels within the van ness and the special use district. adopt findings to approve the

conditional use authorization request to establish a single-retail exceeding 6,000 gross square feet and lastly to adopt findings with the allocation of the office work footage authorizing up to 49,99 gross squire feet of general office use. and so on to the project itself. the project site is an approximately 38,000-square-foot corner lot. a corner lot -- >> how are you? yeah? >> okay, i'm going to remind everyone at this time that if you're not actively presenting or speaking to please mute your microphones. it makes it impossible to follow a presentation as complicated as this may be. so respectfully i ask everyone who has access to this live event that is not speaking to

mute your microphone. >> thank you, and so the project site is approximately 38,000-square-foot corner lot on the east side of van ness avenue between market street and fell street in the downtown general commercial zoning district. and at is 120/420r2, and the van ness and market residential (indiscernible) district. and the project is located within the downtown and the market and octavia areas. and the site is currently developed as a office building constructed in 1908. the building is not considered (indiscernible) to ceqa. and the buildings are for office uses and ground floor retail uses. in 2017, the city and county of san francisco had the project to terms with the purchase and sale agreement which was executed in

february 2017. and the project includes -- the project includes significant alterations to the existing building and the 47 story mixed use building with a roof height up to 520 feet. or 540 (indiscernible). and the project includes a gross floor area of approximately 720,000 gross square feet of usage with 468,000 gross square feet of residential uses and a tower situated atop a nine story podium containing approximately 234,000 square feet of general office space. 21,000 square feet of retail uses and 372 parking spaces and then three below grade level that accommodate up to 146 vehicle parking and five car share spaces for the residential and retail and office uses. there are also six loading

spaces along the front age. and pertaining to residential uses the project would provide 333 dwelling units within 25% of those units being on-site and portable which is equivalent to 83 units. overall the project includes the following dwelling mix. 28 studios, 97 one-bedroom units and 161 two-bedroom units and 47 three-bedroom units. and with approximately 63% of the units having two bedrooms or larger, the project exceeds the requirements of the planning code. and to support the ground floor experience the project includes 1500 square feet of privately owned public space and approximately 5,600 ground floor multipurpose space inclusive of retail spaces and open space and a bicycle repair station on the ground floor.

and it includes streetscape improvements for existing sidewalks and they meet the objectives of the city's plan. and with regard to the downtown project authorization, the exceptions are warranted due to the significant constraints on the available area of the site including but not limited to the below grade zone of influence along market street and the required tower separation from the adjacent project. and as such the top configuration and the overall design of the tower require several provisions as detailed in the draft motion. with regard to the requests for conditional use occupation, for the single retail space, the department supports the request because the project conforms to the goals and objectives of the district, with balancing a diverse and offering non-residential uses and use sizes on both the ground and the second floors.

with regard to the office allocation, the department supports the request because the project will support balance and economic growth with housing, transportation and public services through its location and completion of a mix of residential use and office uses as well as a range of private and public (indiscernible) and for the workers and to meet the residents' needs. with the shadow impacts, while it would cast a shadow on six existing parks it would not create new shadow that would substantially and adverse the effect or the use and enjoyment of publicly accessible open spaces based on the amount and the duration of the new shadow and the importance of sunlight to each of those spaces. to conclude my presentation i would like to have the changes to dates to reflect the actions that were approved to change from may 14th to today's day. and the subassistant changes are as follows -- the draft downtown

project authorization motion erroneously referenced section 163 through 165 of the planning code and those sections do not apply to this project and shall be removed from the motion. and the draft office allocation motion referenced fieptdings amended by the recent adoption of proposition e and to provide draft motions for the planning commission. and a driveway operations and loading plan is required for this project and all projects within the hub subarea. and it must be added to the authorization, and shall read as follows. to prepare and submit a driveway operations and loading plan d lot, in accordance with planning code section 155u. and it must be submitted to the issuance of the first site. regarding public comment, the

project sponsors have conducted community outreach to stakeholders and local community members. today the department has received several support letters from various organizations and businesses. and those letters were included in the staff report. generally speaking, supporters have celebrated this proposal and citing the need for much-needed housing on an underutilized parcel of one of the most transit rich locales in the city. in summary, the plan department staff recommends approval of the project for the following reasons: this project would redevelop a keystone parcel at the prominent crossroads -- sorry about that -- and the vision for the hub area and a vibrant and mixed use

neighborhood. and the vision through the construction of 333 dwelling units with 25% of it affordable units on-site. and this is a significant amount of housing for underdeveloped and for the future transit and is within walking distance to substantial goods and services. the project's commercial uses with the office uses and ground and second floor retail uses can have an intense walkable urban concept. and if the project contributes to an elegant and complementary mass to the city's skyline with the cluster of new high rise buildings within the hub area and to have a compelling civic space at the street level. and lastly the staff finds that this project is necessary and desirable and is on balance consistent with the goals, policies and the objectives of the city's general plan.

i will now hand it over to my colleague janet perez to cover more. and that finishes my presentation. thank you so much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is janet perez from the recreation and park department. i'm going to provide you with a quick summary of the shadow effects from the proposed 30 van ness project on six parks, including the civic center plaza and the hayes playground and howard and langton mini park and

koshland community park. and the sunlight ordinance was approved by 1984 and in 1989 the rec and park commission jointly adoptded a memorandum with quantitative and qualit qualitye determinations for the recreation and park department. part of that guidance includes an absolute limit on new shadow on 14 downtown parks including civic center plaza. this map shows where the proposed 30 van ness project is relative to the market and octavia plan area in the hub. and here's a rendering of the project that nick just described for you. and here's a map of where the project is located relative to the six parks, along with the visual of the existing building at the proposed project locati

location. and here is the plan view of civic center. civic center with two newly renovated children's play area and a new kiosk in the southeast corner with a small outdoor seating area. the plaza has rectangular lawns as well as paved areas. and the lawns are regularly used as soccer pitches for children's athletic camps and the plaza also hosts large events throughout the year. currently there is a 10.012% shadow load on center civic plaza and the proposed project would add 0000.2% for a total of 10.023% of the annual sunlight or taas. and the new shadow would occur in late fall to early winter afternoons, so on average duration of 70 minutes, covering a max mu of 0.35% of the park area. and the shadow falls on the

southern edge of this park on grassy areas, walkways and the seating area around the café. and the date of maximum shading is on december 20 and 21st while the largest shadows on the 18th at 2:00 p.m. for a total of 771 square feet. and hayes playground has a clubhouse, children's play area and exercise equipment and basketball and tennis courts. and there is currently a 33.29% existing shatdo load at hayes valley playground. the proposed project would add an additional 0.01% for a total of 33.3% of the taas. and the new shadow occurs in the early mornings of spring and late summer for an average duration of six minutes, covering a maximum of 24% of total park area. this shadow would fall on the northwestern half on the tennis

court, children's play areas and landscaped areas. the date of maximum shading is april 5th and september 6th, and the largest shadow cast would be on the same dates at 7:44 a.m. for approximately 6300 square feet. howard langton mini park is a small 0.23-acre park with a 40 plot community garden featuring pathways and planter beds and seating areas. there's currently a 41.024% existing shadow load at hayes valley playground and the proposed project would add 0.004% for a total of 41.028% of the taas. the new shadow would occur in the early evenings of spring and fall for an average duration of 4 minutes and covering a maximum of 10% total park area. this shadow would fall on the northern corner of a portion of the community garden. the date of maximum shading would be on march 15th and

september 27th, the largest shadow cast would be on the same dates at 5:58 p.m. for a total of approximately 1,000 square feet. koshland community park is a 0 0.28-acre part and a community garden and a half basketball play area and a children's play area. there is currently a 15.45% existing shadow load at koshland community park and the proposed project adds 0.02% for a total of 15.47% of the taas. the new shadow would occur in the early mornings of summer for an average duration of six minutes, covering a maximum of 28% of total park area. the shadow would fall in the northern half of the park shading the basketball court, community garden and landscaped areas. the date of maximum shading would be on june 21st, the largest shadow cast would be on the same date at 6:46 a.m.,

for approximately 10,000 square feet. margaret hayward is a five acre park under construction. this slide shows the concept plan for the full park renovation and the new park would feedure a unified park with a new playground designed to be at the center of the park's activity. there will be a new community building that looks to a plaza for performances and youth and senior programming and community events. there will always be a new athletic field on the east side and on the west side of the park there will be new tennis courts, basketball courts and multiuse fields. the gray building on the west side is the department of emergencies existing 911 call center and emergency operation center. there's currently a 14.65% existing shadow load at margaret hayward playground and the proposed project adds additional 0.04% for 14.69% total of the t

taas. and the new shadow occurs in the winter for a duration of 15 minutes covering a maximum of 15% of the total park area. and the shadow would fall on the western half on new multiuse fields, tennis courts and basketball courts. the dates of maximum shading would be on december 20th and 21st. and the larger shadow cast would be on december 6th and january 4th at 8:10 a.m. for approximately 33,800 square fe feet. and patricia's green is 4.1 acre park on the former central freeway parcel. the park spans north/south and has a picnic seating area and grassy lawns and central art plaza and a children's play area and seating along the edge of the park. there is currently an 18.06% existing shadow load at patricia's green and the proposed project would add

additional 0.82% for 18.34% of the taas. the new shadow would occur in the early mornings of spring and late summer for an average duration of five minutes covering maximum of 56% of the total park area. and the shadow would fall on the northern and central areas shading the art plaza and picnic area, lawn and benches. the date of maximum shading would be on april 5th and september 6th. the larger shadow cast would be on the same date at 8:00 a.m. for approximately 10,000 square feet. and this shadow diagram shows the annual net new shadow areas from the proposed 30 van ness areas and darker blue means more frequent shadow. and similarly here's a cumulative shadow december that shows the annual shadow of the hub development pipeline project. and the hub projects are shown in orange and the collective shadow are in varying shades of

blue. in summary, the 1989 memo provides quantitative and qualitative kri criteria. and the memo provides guidance from parks over two acres with less than 20% such as margaret hayward playground it's recommended that an additional shadow of up 1.0% could be permitted. on this basis the cumulative amendment for the parks in the memo is at 1.0%. the 1989 memo provides guidance that for parks smaller than two acres with more than 20% shading such as hayes valley playground and howard langton mini park it's that no additional shadow to be permitted. and it's not for parks smaller than two acres with 20% or less shadow such as ma trisha's green and koshland park.

qualitatively the criteria includes time of day, time of year and shadow size and duration and shadow location and public benefits served by the project. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> that includes the staff presentation? >> yes. >> very good. and so we should hear from the project sponsor. is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation? >> hi, i'm with the project sponsor and i want to make sure that you can hear me. >> we can. very good. i am guessing that mr. foster will be pushing your slides forward. so once those slides appear on our screen we will advise you to begin your presentation and you will have 10 minutes for your presentation.

>> okay. thank you. i have a lag in my video so if you can let me know when the slides are up, that would be great and i can get started. >> we will certainly do that. as soon as you're ready, nick. nick, are you able to share your project sponsor's presentation?

>> just give me one second. i'm having some i.t. issues. as a backup, may i suggest that jan has the p.d.f. available? >> if my operations people could pull up the back-up presentation and push that screen forward, please. thank you. project sponsor, your presentation is on the screen. you can begin. >> great, thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. we're the project sponsors of 30 van ness. i just wanted to start by expressing our gratitude to all of the essential workers and

especially the rec park and the planning staff. i know that today that tall buildings across the country will be lit up in green in thanks. thank you for everything that you do. and we're pleased to be here today to present this project to you. i'll be providing an overview of the project and we'll touch on the principles that guide the vision for this project. and i'll hand it over to jack to walk you through the designs. next slide, please. and our project consists of 333 residential units. of which 25% will be affordable. 234,000-square-feet of office space and 21,000-square-feet of retail. it would create much-needed housing for our city and it would generate $40 million of fees of which close to $2 million is directed (indiscernible) and generate

approximately 1,000 jobs during construction. and at a time when our country is headed for 20% unemployment rate. next slide, please. there are four core values that have guided our thinking on this project. first and foremost, we have a strong belief in uplifting the communities that we develop in. as agreed to in our agreement with the city of san francisco in 2017, 30 van ness will offer 25% affordable housing units on-site. in addition, we will also be paying a fee of over $12 million and we're working with the mayor's office of housing to ensure that these funds are directed to affordable housing projects in the neighborhood. as nick mentioned earlier, our unit mix consists of 62% two and three-bedroom which supports families who want to live in the city. and overall we have designed and

positioned the residential tower to welcome residents of diverse economic backgrounds, to have a true representation of our unique city. next slide, please. our next principle was to make sure that we created a ground floor that is active, engaging and welcoming to all. it's one of the most important spaces in the building and when we started designing this project we interviewed a wide array of community members. we talked to artists, laborerrers and non-profits and retailers and we asked them what you would want to see on a ground floor of 30 van ness. and the unanimous response that we received was that everyone wanted an actively programmed space where they could attend a book launch or a music performance. instead of big retail on the corner of market and van ness we decided to create the space that you can see in the rendering. it's about 5,000 square feet inside and 25 feet high and it

will feature stadium-like seating and we'll program this with performances by local artists. we have been working with non-profits such as the arts and we feel that this would be very complementary to our performing arts neighbor such as the conservatory of music. this space will also feature microretail kiosks which will be offered for subsidized rent for small businesses. next slide, please. our third guiding principle was the commitment to enrich the public realm. the sidewalk around our site is extremely windy and congested for pedestrians. and we have been engaged with walk s.f. and bike coalition to read their feedback on how to create a project that helps to enhance the safety of cyclists as well as pedestrians. to address some of the concerns

around our site, we have recessed our entire ground floor all along market, van ness and have given back 3,000-square-feet to the public realm. this will help to widen sidewalks to get more space for pedestrians on a busy intersection that offers access to the area. and it features an artist designed wind canopy which you can see in the rendering which will protect pedestrians from wind. and finally we're offering 300 plus one and bicycle stalls which is above those. and we have the majority of the upper bike parking and also on the ground floor which can be directly accessed from market street in response to the better market street plans that offer dedicated bike lanes. overall we feel that encouraging people to use different modes of

transportation can help to alleviate the congestion on our streets. next slide, please. and finally our fourth qoar value is to make sure that we designed a building this is future ready. that it respects the environment and as a leader in technology and innovation. we're looking -- we will be using dynamic glass on the facade of the office podium. this is a glass that changes its levels based on some conditions to provide optimal interior conditions for users. which takes away the need for blinds and also enhances energy efficiency. we're also looking at several technologies during construction and in the design of the building to make sure that this building is ready for post-cover id era. we're looking at technologies that can provide air and water that is microclean, touch-free elevator and building access experiences. and, finally, 30 van ness will

be one of san francisco's first all-electric buildings. we're aiming for a zero carbon footprint during operations. next slide, please. in conclusion, we hope that you agree that this project will provide positive outcomes for our community and the environment, one of generating more housing and jobs in a transit rich location. we're very grateful for all of the support that we have received from the community and we want to express our gratitude, especially to the planning staff for all of their hard work and efforts that have enabled the project and this area of land to get to where it is today. thank you for your time, commissioners. and i now hand it over. >> commissioners and director hilliis, next slide, please. van ness and market street is one of great intersections of

our city and the intersection of four neighborhoods. it's also at the edge of the downtown buildings and a transition point between the civic scale building and the neighborhoods. next slide, please. with a truly mixed-use program of homes and workplace, our design aims for the office podium to go to larger uses and the structured grid of the civic center while the residential hub has the finer grain and texture of the residential neighborhoods. next slide, please. and the tower placement is a careful balance between several forces. we pushed the tower as close to the intersection of van ness and market as possible. while keeping the foundation out of the tunnel zone of structural influence. this improved the operation for the 150 feet required. we paid careful attention to the wind. that the prevailing winds coming from the northwest and pushing the tower back 12 feet on van

ness greatly reduced the wind coming down the tower to the pedestrian realm. we tried dozens and dozens of iterations for the tower location and shape and this really proved to be a sweet spot. the tower form is further shaped to reduce its apparent mass to increase the locality and to reduce solar loads. next slide, please. and as the tower could not be all the way to the corner, the flat top mass was not possible. due to the shadow impact on civic center plaza. so the top of the tower has been sculpted to minimize the shadow impact and to create the unique addition to the skyline. next slide, please. at the ground floor all three of the street vantages are operated to a high degree. the residential entrance is on van ness along with the passenger loading zone. the office entrance is on market. and all of the service and parking entrances are concentrated to the small frontage as possible on fell

street. the café are next to the office on market street with direct access to the bike lane network. the building facade are pulled back from the line as mentioned on all sides to increase the usable sidewalk. the public plaza is placed in a very prominent location that enhaineses the pe dechtian experience. and an art canopy visually activates the space and acts to mitigate the wind effects. the multipurpose space has retail and microretail and plexible space and seating for performances. and it is visually connected to the office lobby. next slide, please. and the terrace above the office podium provides an outdoor space for residents that ties to the interior amenities. and the design supports indoor/outdoor living. next slide, please. and the intersection shows how the podium is chiseled to have

unique geometry at the corner and it's split into four pieces, each with a slant for proportion. next slide, please. the podium and the tower forms are shaped by the wind and by the sun. the tower programs are expressed separate facade expressions and read together as one composition. next slide, please. and the interior balcony on van ness provide outdoor space for office occupants and allow the tower form to retreat to the ground and to modernize the entrance. next slide. and the multipurpose space has a flexible venue for retail and gathering and performance. next slide, please. and finally the perfect plaza is prominently placed at the corner to greatly increase the pedestrian realm at the intersection. the expanded sidewalk with the entrance and creating a civic moment that better addresses the scale of the intersection. at dusk multipurpose space will

be an attractive place. thank you and we look forward to your questions. >> thank you for that. if that concludes the presentations, we should open this up hearing to public comment. if we can go to q. and a. please. >> operator: your conference is in question-and-answer mode to summon each question, press 1, and then 0. >> clerk: again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to call the 800 number and to enter the access code and press prownd, and pound again. and then 1, 0 to enter the que queue. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> caller: i am daniel javier at intersection for the arts.

i'm here to speak in support of the development. it's an organization that is on market street next door to the 30 van ness development. so we are neighbors and we share a wall with the development. and we have been working for around two years and seeing the project developed and in particular around the ground ?roor space we have been able to provide feedback on this space as it relates to the artistic and performance aspects of the space. and the intersection is working (indiscernible) and we will be working with the community (indiscernible) from soma and the mission and around the bay area, particularly in the san francisco area, to develop this program. we believe that there is great

potential as a new venue. and to provide work and opportunities for many emerging artists in san francisco. and we look forward to having a partnership with this development and we support it. thank you. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. corey schmidt on behalf of the coalition here in support of this project. it has obviously been aligning with history and we're very, very excited to be at this juncture and we really look forward to this project and these homes continuing to move forward here today. you know, 25% is affordable housing on-site and any additional fees that we get from

that are all really, really positive and impactful. the shadow study itself as described are minimal impacts and when you think of all of the public benefits from the amount of new homes and people that get to live there. we feel that benefit significantly outweighs any shadows that would be cast by the building. this fits with our better market street plan and it fits with the hub that the planning commission just approved so we're very excited and we're here in support today. and to continue to move the project forward. thank you. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> caller: hello, commissioners, this is the community coalition. i have a couple questions here. i generally support this building. the height of the building -- it's one of the three that this

community coalition is supporting. and so my question is regarding the mix of two and three bedrooms. and the fact that there's 25% allocated for affordable. so question one is -- how many of these two and three-bedrooms will be allocated to the 25% of the affordable portion? and, question two, what are the a.m.i. levels for the affordability on those 25% on-site? third thing i want to bring up is that you didn't show your three levels floor plans for the marking -- i believe that it's

146 parking spaces. and where would that come out on to the street? where would that come? so i do have some questions that i hope that you could address if you have the time, commissioners. thank you. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> caller: okay, hopefully you can hear me. if you -- hello, commissioners and president koppel. thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is tony rodriguez and i'm a native of san francisco, i was born and raised here and i live in bernal heights with my family. and i represent local 483, and which many of our members would work on this project if approved. and they have excelled at providing construction jobs and provide a living wage and

benefits for our members and hearing from local hires. this project would deliver 25% affordable housing that the city so desperately needs. we ask you to approve this project that would deliver jobs and help with the critical shortage of housing. i have two daughters that live with us in their 30s. i love them both but they would both love to move out but they can't afford it. we need more housing in san francisco. and this project -- this is the type of project that would help. please approve. and thank you. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> caller: good evening, commissioners. i would like to speak towards the shadow on this project and to make sure that the commission is truly weighing out exactly what are the benefits that will be provided. not only jobs in the short term for the construction that will happen when the building is being built, but what economic

benefits this building would provide for low-income and working-class individuals and the long term and for the future. and what ends up gets lost, especially for the low-income and working-class children who are using these open spaces. now that a lot of buildings that are constructed have private open space and there's a diminishing amounts of publicly open space that is available. particularly for the low-income and working-class children and that the commissioners consider those benefits. thank you. >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> caller: good evening, president koppel and members of the san francisco planning commission. thank you for giving me a chance to speak on the mixed use at 30 van ness avenue. my name is april atkins and today i'm speaking on behalf of the department 22. i represent approximately 4,000

people in san francisco and 40,000 carpenters throughout northern california. we are here today in support of the 30 van ness project because of the potential economic impact for the community. partnering with developers like manly who commit to the use of union general contractors shows that it is essential to overcoming the challenges that we face. this commitment allows not only for a livable wage, with health care and retirement benefits, but it also permits workers and their families to live in the communities they work in. this partnership fuels our commitment to accredited apprenticeship programs and allows us to have trained, skilled and experienced workforce that is able to perform at a high level and in a safe timely manner. the result in high worker productivity and a career path for many bay area men and women.

we believe that 30 van ness is representative of such a partnership. given its unique, and it has the potential of easing a housing burden by being part of a hub that includes transit, retail, grocery access, to name a few. in conclusion the carpenters support this project because of the importance to a recovery effort. with uncertainty regarding the long-term economic impact of covid-19, 30 van ness is truly an investment for our future. we ask that the commission to support and to move this project forward. thank you for your time. >> operator: you have five questions remaining. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is ben campbell and i'm a representative for the sheet

metals workers, local union 104. on behalf of the members of 104 i'm speaking in full support of the proposed project at 30 van ness. we're happy to support this project which has 25% affordable housing. this project will have 83 first-time homeownership opportunities for our labor and community partners. the sheet metal workers share in the city's goals to produce more housing and more affordable housing. this project means approximately 1,000 construction jobs that pay middle-class wages, along with health care and retirement benefits for the workers. and the commitment to use union labor will ensure sustainable career pathways and for the union apprenticeships and training programs. the local residents, the cits, e

city graduates and the united states participants. the latest construction industry data shows the timing of this project is critical to the economic recovery of our city. and, finally, the project is a clear benefit to the community and any further delay would jeopardize the construction jobs and new housing for the city. so we look forward to your support. thanks very much for your time as well as your service to our city. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. clerk: caller, are you prepared to submit your public testimony? >> caller: good evening, commissioners. audrey realm with the coalition.

i assure you that our members who are both tenants and homeowners oppose this project because of a number of reasons. for one, the economic recovery of san francisco is not going to happen unless the people who lost their jobs and who were for the most part maybe minimum wage and restaurant jobs and service sector and hotel, and these jobs, unless they come back, we're not going to have an economic recovery. so i'm glad that skilled labor will be able to work on these projects, but those are not the jobs that have been lost as part of this covid-19 caof tha covidd they're not lost immediately as you know the construction of some of these projects are still ongoing. so what i would like to point

out to you is that once again to take the current situation on the ground under consideration before approving these projects. it suffers from having your cake and eating it too. i see 146 parking for a project that is smack dab in the middle of most transit oriented and the most transit-friendly space in san francisco. you can hop on muni but we still have 146 car spaces. that's another luxury offering for people who want to have their cake and eat it too. so i question that. and, secondly, 25% for affordable housing. that's just -- to maintain the level for what this project is going to do so, in other words,

we need more housing to break even. we need 36% or 37% affordable housing for any project to address the people that are going to be maintaining the needs of the condo inhabitants. so one request that i have is a stipulation that if this project is going to give 25% affordable housing, that it will not be able to bait and switch what you had before in projects in tenderloin. as recently as the project on geary, lucky penny, you need to stipulate that the developer cannot come back and say it doesn't pencil out. so if they are giving us 25% affordable housing, which is pretty much -- not even breaking even -- they need to actually

have them on-site and they cannot come back and ask later to -- (indiscernible) thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> caller: good evening, commissioners and director ginsburg and hillis, this is tracy everline with the benefit district. the c.b.d. looks forward to the improvements that this will bring to the sidewalk and the public right-of-way which we are charged with maintaining. transparent storefronts and ground floor activation and more pedestrian activity are key for this area. the activity will really enhance the area day and night. i'd also like to point out that when this is well underway and showing a commitment to the community, they have been funding free community events at civic center and hoping to support the success of other

vital investments in civic center such as the new playground and the café in civic center plaza. and they've also had human resource trainers for our field crews and our maintenance team and our ambassadors could receive additional training around mental health which helps them in their work supporting people in need on the streets in civic center. and in taking better care of themselves. so the community has a very strong ally with the 30 van ness project team. thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> caller: commissioners, i'm jim hass. and i have been active in this hub area for the last 30 years. in fact, i wrote a book about civic center. i live at 100 van ness, so i am

definitely part of the community. i don't live half a mile or 200 or 30 mile 300 miles away as soe who like to comment on things in this area. and also on the board of the benefit district an. i would like to bring up a little history which was that this building, which is currently city offices, was owned by the city. they put it on the market in order to generate money to pay for the new city office building which will have the department of public works and others on south van ness. i think it's 10 south van ness or maybe maybe 15 or 45 south n ness. when they put it on the market,

initially supervisor peskin felt they did not get good enough terms for which balance the city's desire for affordable housing against the amount of cash that would be produced. he spent a year fiddling with it until he came up with a sum for the affordable housing and the cash that he felt that was in the public interest. so the deal is not just a normal real estate transaction, it involves the city, it involves various goals and objectives. and that's all in the documentation of the transaction. and both the city has to abide by it. so the affordable housing part has been there and they have to live up to it and it cannot be changed one way or the other. the heart of my comments though are the market van ness intersection as i have said many

times before should be one of the great intersections in san francisco. today it is a very tawdry place. and many people, city employees, residents, and people who attend arts organizations, find it uncomfortable, if not scary. particularly at night and that affects the ability for the arts organizations to maintain their subscriptions. the hub plan is designed to improve that and this building particularly is designed to work that way. i commend them for not trying to shove a whole lot of retail on the ground floor of their building and pulling the sidewalks back and creating this beautiful atrium at the corner which i think that will include at -- at least one corner. and we are going to talk about the honda projects later, which

will improve another corner. all of this is terribly important to making the entrance to the civic center a great and a safe place. thank you very much. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> very good, commissioners. that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing. through the chair, if i may, i have been advised by the city attorney's office that once you complete your deliberation that they should call item 2b out of order. (please stand by)

you may need to unmute your mic. >> move to adopt the findings. >> a second. >> if there is nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the ceqa findings. on that motion. commissioner diamond. commissioner fung. commissioner imperial. commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore.

commissioner president koppel. >> so moved, commissioners. that motions passes unanimously 6-0. and now you can take up the joint action. >> it might help us with the procedure here. this is commissioner buhle. how do you want to proceed with the joint vote? >> the joint vote should essentially receive a motion from each commission separately. whoever goes first, it makes no difference. then i will call the planning commission roll on the vote. and then stacy will call the vote for the recreation and park commission.

>> then perhaps let me suggest that the rec and park commission start by entertaining a motion to move that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the six parks and is there a motion to that effect? >> so moved, commissioner harrison. >> second, commissioner anderson. >> been moved and seconded. could the secretary please call the roll? >> yes. [calling of roll of parks and rec commission] so moved. very good. planning commissioners, do i hear a motion? so moved.

yes, i made a motion -- so moved. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. then on that motion to accommodate new shadow cast by the project at 30 van ness, we will take the roll. so moved, commissioners. that moves 4-2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. recreation and park commission item 1b is now before you.

>> the chair would entertain a motion on 1b. so moved. >> moved and seconded. would the secretary please call the role? [calling of roll for parks and rec commission] the ayes have it. and i appreciate your joining us for the joint hear. i believe this would be the first in the city and county's record for a virtual joint hearing and bearing with us until we completed our other business before starting the joint hearing a bit late.

so this is commissioner buhle and i want to thank you you as well. and thank you my own commissioners for listening in for two hours on the planning commission meeting if before we got to business and it is a major project and we voted that we had no negative comments in the public hearing, and felt that the affordable housing components are with the project to outweigh any adverse effects and we appreciate the work of the planning commission and will entertain an a motion to adjourn the recreation -- >> could i ask a quick question, mr. president? >> it is great to be together even in this virtual format. would you and your commission

entertain a potential future discussion on the thoughts on post pandemic park use. i saw a very interesting diagram of how you very proactively subdivided the park into the pods and an impressive picture in the paper, and i was wondering if we could have a broader discussion about strategist and how park uses change under that experience. >> i would hope you would lead it on behalf of the planning commission and i would love to have that. >> thank you so much for saying that. i have a lot of highly qualified commissioners and friends who would be interesting in hearing it. and this diagram of the photo of delores park raises a lot of questions. i will forward the picture to the secretary to share for those who haven't seen it. >> thank you so much.

>> thank you. >> with that, stays stacy, we will entertain a motion toed a journ. >> so moved and second. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? i believe that is unanimous. >> very good, commissioners. now the second item is before just you all, the planning commission. >> we have adopted the ceqa findings on 2b a bit out of order, so what we mains are items 2a, 2c, 2d, and 2e i believe.

commissioner fung. >> move the adoption of the shadow finding. >> second. >> did you want to take up the remaining items as one roll call vote or separately? >> i would be prepared to do all of them collectively. and if any other commissioner wants to discuss them individually -- >> is that a motion as such then? >> yes, that would be a motion as such. >> thank you, commissioner fung. >> commissioner moore? >> i would love to hear some comments on this project. it is a very exciting project. i would like to hear how people feel after very good presentation. i would be interested in taking it separately and to your brief discussion on this project. >> commissioner imperial?

>> i also feel the same way when it comes to the affordable housing part. i feel like just to address some of the questions from the public, i would like to do it separately. >> commissioner diamond? >> i particularly want to commend the developer and staff on the number of two and three bedroom units. >> a commissioner johnson.

>> great. it is a creative design and with some public commenters, i appreciate that the ground floor will be public use instead of thinking of huge retail for the development on the bottom and appreciate the 25% affordable housing and the history shared by mr. hoss on how we got to that point. specifically there was a question from the public related to the breakdown of affordability and how many of the family size units would be affordable. and commissioner imperial brought that up as the benefit of public discussion. i think it's wore vi to just taubt talk about it.

-- i think it's worthy to just talk about it. >> the questions and i know there are 25% affordable housing on site and sounds like there's going to be offsite fees as well. wondering if whether the project sponsor or the planning staff can enumerate the a.m.i. levels, what are considered i believe a very low income and middle income part of it, too. how many percentages are those? and in terms of a.m.i.. and also asked how many units. i know we are saying 25%, but is it from -- good to hear how many units are in there. and yes, and where will that go.

>> why don't you chime in, nick foster, and then back to commissioner moore. >> thank you. bear with me while i try to share my screen. in terms of the unit mix breakdown for the bmr units are 83 total units and that equates to seven studio units, 24 one-bedroom units and 42 tw two-bedroom units and how we arrive at that is no different than other compliance and it is a formula based on the percentage of units and a multiplier, so it's considered co-compliant. commissioners, what is on your screen -- i did this to try to simplify in layperson version

because it is kind of a complicated mess for 415 compliance. on the left you see various a.m.i. level income brackets from low income at 80% a.m.i. through middle. and you will note there is two middle incomes. one is italicized. there is -- i'm sorry, we should say moderate. commissioners, can you hear me now? >> yes. >> i am so sorry. have you heard nothing i have said? >> we have heard everything, nick. >> oh, i am super confused. >> nick, go ahead. >> and kim is here as well in case i can help. >> thanks. >> i think it's i.t. connectivity issues on my end. i apologize for that. >> we heard everything you had to say, nick. >> thank you, jonas. basically the left column shows

the a.m.i. breakdown. section 415 plan shows 10% of the units must be provided with the 80% a.m.i. level. five at 105 and five at 130. and that would be a total inclusion of effective rate of 20%. the 2017 purchase and sale agreement which i referenced which this project is subject to and did stipulate a different a.m.i. level and envisioned two a.m.i. trenches as opposed to three which we have today. this is trailing proxy which complicated matters further, but what we ended up with from the far right that is compliant where there is a conflict between the p.s.a. and existing 415, 415 shall prevail. this project meets the compliance through 415 and you can see as you line those up

there, you see 10 at 80%. and five at 105 and an additional 5% thrown into the 130 a.m.i. rate which is the requirement in the purchase and sale agreement. i am happy to elaborate further on a.m.i.s or unit breakdown. i think commissioner -- i'm sorry who asked, but it was about fees. and the payment into the van ness and market residential special use district, affordable housing and infrastructure district is based actually on floor area ratio. the basic ratio is 6:1 and to build above that 6:1 ratio, you pay, i believe, and jim, correct me if i'm wrong, but $30 per square foot up to a ratio of 9:1. and about 9:1 it is another tier

of fee. i think it's a half of that and these are significant impact fees clait claited calculated on f.a.r. which is higher than the base at 6:1. >> this is jim abrams. and lay counsel to the project sponsor if affordable housing fees are two buckets as the market and octavia and a van ness and market affordable housing fee. they total about $10 million. so in addition to the 25% on site which is 5% higher than the existing code requirement of 20%, the project will be paying a $10 million fee. >> commissioner: can i jump in, too, and add there has been discussion to try to prioritize soom of the additional fees for

the fees for the market and octavia to be used for projects in adjacent neighborhoods. there has been discussion and we have a letter and i will forward it to the commission from eric shaw the new director at mocd to prioritize projects on 4th street, 266 4th street and 921 howard which the city is committed to funding and also as far as we can using some of the additional fees to fund gaps in that financing. i will forward that letter as well. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore, did you have another comment? commissioner moore, you microphone may be muted. >> so sorry. i wanted to thank mr. hawes for

commenting. his voice has been a consistent one reminding us about the importance of the long history of civic center and this particular site. i am actually very much in support of the building which i think is really well designed architectural building and good neighbor to 100 van ness. great relative to the civic center and van ness market street corner. it's just -- i have to comment on the fact that i believe it is a quiet building. a strong, quiet building which does not try to compete. it puts the real value on the way it feels with the intersection and mr. hawes very much mirrored my thoughts about this being the worst intersection in town and by curating this intersection,

hopefully it will make it a completely different experience. i would like to hear at a future point of how the architect and land lease will be dealing with potential changes in social distancing and other afteraffects of the current crisis. and it will have certain effect on the activeness of restaurants and other public uses on that particular corner. thank you. >> very good, commissioners. if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the shadow findings. on that motion -- [roll call vote on item] so moved, commissioners.

commissioner moore voting against and 5-1. there was a request to continue these items in order individually. that will place us on item 2c for the downtown project authorization. do i hear a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve the downtown authorization with conditions, commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner jon johnson. >> aye. >> a commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. commissioners, that motions passes unanimously 6-0. item 2d for the conditional use

authorization. commissioner johnson. >> move to approve with condition. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve the conditional use authorization with conditions, commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> a commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> and commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 2e for the office development allocation. do i hear a motion? >> move to adopt the office allocation. >> second.

>> and to approve with conditions office allocation. and commissioner fung. >> commissioner imperial. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner moore. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. congratulation, commissioners. that concludes the special joint hearing and we can now reconvene into our regular hearing. i know unprecedented stuff here. miraculously we have gotten through most of your agenda today. so returning now back to your calendar, we have two items remaining. and the first is item 23, case 2015-004568env for the 10 south

van ness mixed-use project. this is also a final environmental impact report. please note that the public hearing on the draft e.i.r. is closed and the public comment ended on september 11, 2018. we will receive public comment on this matsudaer, but they may not be included in the final e.i.r. is staff prepared to make a presentation? >> yes. >> fantastic. >> good afternoon, president koppel -- or should i say good evening at this point. president koppel, vice president moore, and commissioners, i am coordinator for the environmental review of the project. several team members are joining remotely as well. i do believe we have colleagues from the sfmta still on the line. the item is certification of the final environmental impact report or e.i.r. proposed 10

south van ness avenue mixed-use project. as a reminder, this is not the approval hearing. the approval hearing is currently scheduled for june 4. if you could bear with me for a moment, i will share my screen. are you able to see my screen? >> yes. >> great. thank you. so i wanted to provide clarification with the hub e.i.r. and why 10 south van ness hat its own e.i.r. and i realized that the colleagues discussed that at the begin of the hub item, but for any member of the public tuning in at this point this, slide shows the timeline for the environmental review prort for 10 south van ness in blue and the hub plan eir in gray. the environmental kick off for the 10 south van ness occurred in september 2016.

the environmental kick off for the hub e.i.r. was in december 2017. at that time the project sponsor was approached about joining the hub e.i.r. effort and along with 30 van ness and 98 franklin street project. however t project sponsor declined in favor of pursuing this project specific environmental impact report which had already been underway for more than two years. the 10 south van ness project was considered problematic with how the e.i.r. received the project level review. commissioner, before i walk you through the environmental review process and the ceqa findings, i will provide a brief overview of the total project and the evolution. the last informational hearing before you was held on january 17, 2019. and however, i realize this is more than a year ago and we have new commissioners that have joined us since that time.

so if i look at the project at the southwest corner of southwest market and south van ness avenue -- sorry, south of the market neighbor and the hub plan area is comprised of two parcels. 3506, lot 3a and 4 and is 1.71 acres. there is a large building on the site constructed in 1927. you can see it it in these images. it was recently occupied by a dealership. the building has an interesting history. a portion of the building was used as an automobile show room for almost 90 years. however t building also includes a large open band call on the second floor and originally from a ballroom which remained open through the first and second world wars. by 1963 el patio had become carousel ballroom and in 1968

bill ram repurposed it. it was open for less than three years and according to bill ram hosted more than 1200 shows attended by four million customers during that time. and as described in the e.i.r. is closely associated with the late 1960s. given that history t building is considered historically under ceqa for the association with those events. >> rachel, i am going to interrupt just for one moment. i apologize inned a vance. -- i apologize in advance. there seems to be background noise from the my cophone. is there a window open or a fan blowing or something? >> no, although i am getting sort of an indication that i have poor network connection right now. >> go ahead and proceed then. sorry. >> okay. so originally the first project included two 400-foot tall

towers to be with the split on the parcels. you can see that in the image on the left. however, the planning department felt that the single tower would be more desirable from an architectural and urban plan design and encouraged to pursue a single tower design. to achieve the maximum number of residential units, the single tower design had to be compared with the tower rising to 590 feet which is the image on the right. ultimately we analyzed both designs in the draft e.i.r. in the document, the single power version is identified -- i am going to turn off the camera to see if that helps. i don't know if that will be better. following the publication of the draft e.i.r., the project

variant was further refined. you can see the revised variant here in the context of some proposed and improved projects that are located in the area. the primary changes include the reduction in the power core plates and increase in the podium heighth. this reaction in tower massing slightly reduced the number of residential units. under the current design, 966 current residential units with 30,000 square feet of retail. the number of residential parking spaces was reduced from 491 to 242 and the numberover freight loaded spaces was reduced from seven to six. these refinements will be presented in more detail and the approval hearing. in terms of the environmental review, chapter two and the response of the commerce document or r.t.c. provided the complete environmental review of the project variance. ultimately we determined that the impact of the revised project variant would be the same as those we identified for the original proposal.

the major comments on the draft e.i.r. were related to historic preservation and tribal cultural resource. the comments resulted in changes in key mitigation measures and augmented discussion of the phil more west and offered some comments to the wind and shadow, pedestrian circulation and construction-related impacts. all of these comments are addressed in the responses to comments document. i will now provide you with a brief summary of the e.i.r. findings. the final e.i.r. concluded that the revised project variant would project in three with significant and unavoidable impact as follows. in term of historically versus the revised project variant would result in the demolition of an individually eligible resource which is the former home of the filmore west and we have included measures and surveyors have documentation and material salvage and a permanent

interpretive display. however, these impacts could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. and the proposed project and variant is revised would are ultraviolet in a project level and significant and unavoidable impact. for transportation, the duration and magnitude of construction activities to the revised project variant with other planned and proposed construction in the area could result in substantial interference with local, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation resulting in increases to potentially hazardous conditions during construction. several mitigation measures are included as shown on this slide which are designed to reduce construction worker vehicle trips, confined truck access and deliveries to off-peak hours and particular routes and generally coordinate lane and sidewalk closures among the various projects. however, despite this mitigation, the identified impacts remain significant and unavoidable if multiple projects are under construction at the same time. lastly, significant and

unavoidable wind impact could occur for an interim period before the area is fully built out or the cumulative build-up does not occur as anticipated. mitigation has been incorporated as shown on this slide. however, we conservatively determine that impacts remain significantly and unavoidable. to recap, you all received the responses to comments document. and got the e.i.r. certification motion and is there before you for your conversation. the draft e.i.r. was published on october 17, 2018. the public hearing on the draft e.i.r. was held before you on december 6, 2018. the public comment period closed on december 11, 2018 and responses to comments document was published and distributed on march 3, 2020. the responses to comments document in combination with the draft e.i.r. that you received previously constitute the final

e.i.r. we believe, therefore, that the e.i.r. is adequate and provides decision makeers and the public with the information required pursuant to ceqa to understand the potential impact of the proposed project. on this basis we request that the commission adopt the motion before you which certifies that the contents of the report are adequate and accurate, and that the procedures through which the final e.i.r. was prepared comply with the provision of ceqa, the ceqa guidelines, and chapter 31 of the administrative code. this concludes my presentation on this matter. unless the commissioners have any questions. >> thank you, rachel. turning off the video has helped. >> thank you.

so we should take public comment. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to hit 1, then 0, and enter into the queue. >> you have three questions remaining. >> sue hester. i am noting that the response to comments was issued march 3. right before we were in lockdown. circumstances have changed at this intersection, particularly in transit in the past couple of months. i don't think the e.i.r. gives you the information you need on

the situation right now. these are three buildings on this corner and 1 oak and 10 south van ness that is a big intersection for transit and track and the city and the comments in the certification and the hub and regarding traffic changes and patterns that will be evaluated and there is a lot of pedestrians trying to get across the intersection and the other thing you need to know is you will have another project next week. the last project i requested two

times and given the current staffing situation in a one-week period makes it impossible for informed comment and suggest it makes it hard for you to do your job.

so to ask the commission to say, a., this e.i.r. is not ready to go. there is current -- in circulation that are needed. and two, instruct a two-week staff report for this project. if this project to 98 franklin street as well. to remain as well to the public. >> caller: i am jordan langer, the president of a company called nonplus ultra who is the near term tenant and i am calling in today so thank you for expressing support for the

development project and the experience has been a fantastic one being a small business and that much more in a time where there is a crisis in our city and world and a wonderful partner and hugely supportive of small business. in addition to that, this development from being a long-term resident right down the street at 9th and mission for a number of years and the overall change this will go to the neighborhood and significant in a positive light and the studies and examples and bring many more people, more business, and more amenities to the neighborhood. i think this will be v very useful with the with the massive

amount and i am in full support of this project and also has a community centric arm to them. i am proud to play a part of that with my company to activate the space in the short term as we have to do community events that continue with the to bring that area specifically up to the level we all want to see it in san francisco. thank you for your time. >> you have five questions

remaining. >> caller: well, commissioners, mr. director, mr. secretary, my name is larry and i am speaking in support of the project. my interest is the carousel ballroom which was changed to name of filmore west by bill ram. if we can't preserve in it reality, maybe we can preserve it in spirit. my credentials, so to speak s i am a former planner for the san francisco planning department and giving away my age when i tell you that i listened to music at filmore west and less important, i purchased and accord at the property back when it was a honda dealership. i have spoke on the the commission before in december

201 and that quickly spread nationally and internationally to the point where i had to get a new server and email account. people were emails so much information to me. and you have to give credit to rachel because i took that information and i passed it on to her. and i think it was real important about that information was that much of it highlighted the african-american performers who played at filmore west. i can also tell you around the country and around the world the identity of san francisco is still tied into that era. for those who go to the music festivals that we are fortunate to have here in san francisco, whether it be outside from last year and i heard many of the staples perform. she also performed at filmore

west later on at hartley strickley and robert plants of led zepplin and it was packed with 20 something's so interested in that era. also look at the opening acts at the chase center. eric clapton, elton john, the dead, the who, and most importantly, carlos santana. he is important because he also is a graduate of mission high school. and the reason i bring up the names is all the performers played at mission west. ideally, the ballroom will be preserved, and the developer was kind enough to give me an in person presentation. the only thing i can ask of the developer is if he could give details regarding mitigation measure to require the project

with the permanent and interpretive display conveying the historical significance of filmore west and bill ram and from the the time and history. >> thank you, sir. your time is up. >> thank you for your time. >> the cumulative impact of the upscale earnings column and more closely tied to the increase use of services and live and with the uber and lyf and take a

closer look at the preservation if at all possible. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. cory smith so excited and with the final e.i.r. and to go with the potential for another off site project to be so if that is coming to fruition igs, what is before you today doesn't seem adequate and we request you certify it and continue to move the project forward today.

thank you. force >> it is jim hess again. you have heard my comments about the pedestrian experience. the design of the building will enhance the experience and i am excited about this having a pass through from the corner of market and van ness over to 12th street. and the developer has told me that they are planning to negotiate with m.t.a. to rebuild the entrance that is outside on

the sidewalk and into the building and into the passageway. the four entrances are really an impediment to pedestrian convenience because they are made out of cement and they get in the way. and to have one of them gone, i had hoped originally we would get two or three of them gone, but to have one of them gone will make a big difference in terms of the experience and also pulled the pedestrians into the passageway which will make it easier in inclement weather and otherwise. and i lived in the area and go across those various streets all the time. they're currently muni platforms on market street and so you can stop at those. when the van ness brt finally gets done, there will be platforms at either end.

getting across the intersection is not that difficult because they're going to be places one can stop and wait. several buildings will increase the population and foster retail in the area. it is actually very hard to get more retail in this area. we have a number of empty spaces. and we have some existing spaces and bookstores and others which have been having a hard time. so i look forward to having more people in the area and therefore, more retail choices. so i am in favor of this building and i think it's an edge to the pedestrian enhancement of -- and enhanced with the pedestrian experience in the area.

and thank you. >> you have two questions remaining. >> caller: hello. also concerned like ms. hester and others about the e.i.r. set of the transportation, the increased transportation and traffic in the area and i don't know if the e.i.r. has criteria to address these things and the air quality and health effects -- that were brought up by some of the commissioners. it just seems a little bit distressing that all these factors are not taken into

account. just my opinion. thank you. >> you have one question remaining. >> caller: president koppel and commissioner, i am victor sanchez and i am speaking on maf of carpenters local 22 who are in support of this development at 10 van ness. we have been working because for several decades on multiple projects and we are supportive of the development at 10 van ness and these will generate numerous jobs for our members. this project is a clear benefit to the community and any further delay will jeopardize our jobs in housing for the city. like i said, the timing is critical. we share and the city's goal to produce more housing and more

affordable housing. we fully support this e.i.r. project moving forward to generate jobs and transform the corner of market and south van ness and provide a significant improvement that will benefit the people of san francisco in support of local business. on behalf of the carpenter's union and represent 3500 members. and thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. the mater is now before you. commissioner imperial. >> thank you. yes, i would like to ask as we are looking to the e.i.r. of 10 south van ness and earlier we approved the hub plan, in terms

of the transit analysis, is that something that can still be -- is that something that the planning staff can still provide in terms of the pedestrian safety and staff recommendation and to this area and in terms of transportation. and the department staff and the manage arenaed transportation and just to clarify, commissioner, are you talking about pre-covid conditions and what the e.i.r. studies.

and to what we had earlier discussing, too, in terms of the information being provided to us and before covid-19. and i think that will be something good to think about or something to analyze as well to go through this pandemic and around public health issues. and to include also analysis on how are we affecting when it comes to especially the pedestrian safety, the bicycle uses and those kind of information during the covid-19 and where we are right now. and is that something that the staff with analyze? >> so first let me just briefly just touch on what the e.i.r. covered because that was pre-covid conditions. that is what the information that was available at the time.

our transportation analysis and i can be honest here is the most robust in the state for ceqa. we analyze several topics including safety, accessibility, transit, vehicle miles traveled, construction, and that was done here for this e.i.r. as rachel mentioned, the only impact that this project and the e.i.r. showed as it relates to transportation was construction and that was because of a lot of the activity that's going on now and is projected to go on and potentially in the future with this project. as it relates to safety, there weren't any identified transportation impacts seen with transit. and we did identify what we call improvement measures to kind of further reduce those impacts to vehicles accessing the site.

then i just want to acknowledge what commissioners have said and the public have said. this is an unusual period. it's affecting the transportation system. myself, my team, and my colleagues at the sfmta are trying to understand the effects this will have on our system both in the short term and long term, but as it relates to kind of the action before you, there is a number of different ideas or not ideas but guidelines in ceqa that state that we use the best available information at the time and then also it talks about speculation. i have read numerous articles about what could happen in our transportation system, but it really is speculation, and at this point it would be speculative to change any

conclusions because we just don't know what's going to happen. so i hope thatens as your question. i am sure there will be further conversations about transit, transit to development, transportation, but i believe my m.t.a. colleagues are on the line, too, if you have further questions on that. >> commissioner: thank you. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: thank you to so thoroughly explaining the position of staff regarding coronavirus and very much touched by your considering it, knowing that the tools and the evaluations are not there, but i no ethat the department will carry this forward no matter what. i personally believe that the e.i.r. is extremely well done and accurate and complete and does exactly what we ask e.i.r.'s to do. again, my concerns about transportation and the hub

district potentially becoming zero car free zone have been previously expressed, but that is not what i am supposed to consider at this very moment. the e.i.r. as far as i am concerned is accurate and complete, and i am prepared to make a motion to approve it. >> second. >> commissioner johnson. >> commissioner: thanks. you said that well, commissioner moore. i would just add that while we are in an uncertain time, one of the pieces of analysis in addition is just looking at 2040 projections and considering the future of transit. so while we are all trying to figure out what a new normal is, i think i just appreciate the work that has been done and feel comfortable certifying.

commissioner moore, do you have something else? >> there was one additional comment. the historic resources impact is indeed of concern to me. and i hope that the developer and the department will find a mutually agreeable solution to it not just in term of documenting but potentially finding somewhere in this large project an element that takes music, that shaped generations and into the present because as the music of all the musicians which were mentioned are still as much revered and present in our daily lives as they were in the early 70s. so i would ask that we make a next approach to find a way to make that not just like some kind of a paperer plaque or memorial, but indeed, a live ingredient in how we move forward. i sad to say that and i appreciate if the commission

would consider that as an encouragement to support it. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks. i am not sure if anybody seconded your motion, commissioner moore. i can't remember, but i will. and i will just make that additional push. i think one of the most delightful things about the project is hearing people's memories and relationship to music in that space and the national attention it has drawn. so i look forward to the department working with the project sponsor, working with community, to find a way to meaningfully recognize that beautiful part of san francisco. commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: perhaps rachel should comment. i didn't interpret the e.i.r. as requiring only a plaque. i thought the interpretive

display requirement was far more extense ifr and i would like to hear more about it to make sure we are all on the same page to the understanding to what that very, very important mitigation measure is requiring. >> i believe you are prepared to speak to that. >> good evening. good evening, commissioners. i did the preservation review for the e.i.r. the e.i.r. includes a number of mitigation measures. some of them are fairly standard for our historic resource evaluations including documentation with measured drawings, photography, and historical report, video and a print on demand book, but in addition to that, we have mitigation measure requiring a robust multi-media interpretive

display. we at this point have not gone into details with the sponsor about what the multi-media display would consist of, but we do require a lot of those detail to be hammered out prior to issuance of site permits and demo permits and whatnot. in addition to that in order to assist in the collection of information that will inform the interpretive display, we have required the sponsor to fund the historical study prepared by a qualified historical consultant that will look at significant events and trend and people and buildings associated with 1960s counterculture. and furthermore, the sponsor is required to prepare an oral history in order to inform the interpretive program. and in order to really publicize the oral history, we are recommending that the sponsor

make a good faith effort to conduct public outreach, possibly through hosting a commemorative concert or other event or installing booths that allow participants to record their recollections, hosting a website that allows interviewees to contribute remotely and such things. we have had a few sort of very 30,000 foot meetings with the sponsor or one 30,000 foot meeting with the sponsor at this point where they have shown us their ideas and they are motivated and very excited about all the possibilities that are here for historic commemoration and interpretation. finally, there is a salvage mitigation measure that encourages the retention of certain architectural details from the site into the new project or if they can't be incorporated into the project, then offered for donation to

local historical organizations. >> commissioner: just as a continuation of the question, was it your intent that the interpretive display which i look forward to hearing more about hopefully at the project approval hearings, that it would be on site, open to the public, in the lobby of the building? >> correct. on site, open to the public, hopefully in a more publicly accessible than the lobby of the building. >> thank you. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: -- further to this, does this particular building provide a community room? so there is a possibility to have something that is permanently accessible? or is there an overarching theme

with some of the musicians who were mentioned now playing at chase center. perhaps there is a possibility to link those two so that if one comes to one, one knows already how it's overarching to another location that picks up at least some of the musicians. just an idea. not well thought through. just something which is going through my mind. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. if there is nothing further, we do have a motion that has been seconded. shall i call the question? >> yes. >> please. >> excellent, commissioners. on that motion to certify the final environmental impact report, commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> a commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner johnson. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye.

>> a commission president koppel. >> aye. thank you, commissioners. one more item for your consideration today. item 24, case 2020-000215cua at 4118 21st street. this is a conditional use authorization. on april 23, 2020 after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to today's date by a vote of 5-1. commissioner koppel, you were against. as this is the second hearing on this matter, project sponsor will be limited to three minutes and members of the public will be limited to a one-minute public comment period. is staff prepared to present?

>> good evening, commissioners. the project before you is a conditional use authorization for planning code section 303 and 317 to legalize the demolition of a 3,025 square foot, two-story over basement single story home and the construction of a 4,481 square foot, three-story over basement, two family home in rh-2 zoning district and 40x height and bulk district. unit one will be at the basement level and first floor will contain two bedrooms and two full bathrooms. and one bicycle parking space. and a 213 square foot deck. unit two will be located on the second and third levels and will contain three bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. one vehicle parking space, one bicycle parking space and 140 square foot deck. on april 23, 2020 the planning commission heard and continued the conditional use authorization for 4118 21st

street to the public hearing today on may 21, 2020 with the direction to meet with neighbors. since the last hearing, the sponsors have held a series of meeting with the supervisor's office and neighbors to discuss the neighbor's concern. during these meetings the neighbors requested a reduction in glazing at the rear of the building and the removal of the east window on the rear back to address privacy concern. the neighbors also noted concern of potential construction over the property line at 4124 21st street and have requested a new site survey. project sponsor has submitted revised plans with the following changes. the east window on the rear bay has been removed in response to privacy concerns. and the sponsors have reduced the amount of glazing at the rear north side of the building, also in response to privacy concerns.

since the last hearing, the department has received 10 follow-up letters of opposition from members of the public who had written letters of opposition for the first hearing. the concerns in these letters note the request for an updated site survey as well as recent site survey completed in september of 2019. and a concern that the existing home was a two-family dwelling. in response to concerns about date of survey, the sponsors are willing to work with neighbors and the commission on the potential condition to request and acquire an additional survey and the project sponsor will address this in their presentation. the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. although the project is ultimately legalization of a demolition of a single family home t proposal includes two residential dwelling units resulting in one additional unit added to the housing stock. the department also finds the

project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff's presentation. i am available to answer questions and the project sponsor has a short presentation. >> project sponsor, are you prepared to present? >> yes. can you hear me? >> i can hear you. and once bridget gets your presentation shared onto the screen, i will ask you to begin. great. project sponsor, your images are

on the screen. so you may begin your 3 minute presentation. >> great. thank you very much. my name is jonathan pearlman of elevation architects and i am representing the owners george and jenna karmanos for the project you saw a month ago and the hearing on april 23, 2020. as you know, the project is moving from a single family to a two family home and is very much in keeping and come patable with the neighborhood. i won't spend a lot of time describing the project. i will spend the time talking what about we have done relative to meeting with the neighbors and working with the community since our last hearing. slide please. so the events that have happened since april 23, 2020 planning commission hearing, we did work with jacob bentlis of supervisor manelman's office who coordinated the communication between the project sponsor and the neighbors.

the neighbors concerns were solicited in a meeting with the supervisor and the project sponsor team met with supervisor manelman to present the project to him. the project sponsor was presented with the neighbor's items of concern. and there were four of them. concern one was that there was a possible property line encroachment on 4124 21st street. the house to the west of the subject property. concern two, that extending beyond the stop floors of 4112 21st and 4224 21st was out of scale and negatively impacted the light on the neighbor's properties. the third concern was that the decks and windows area would negatively impact neighbors' privacy and the increased window area produced additional nighttime light. and four that the setback at the west property line for light to the neighbor's bathroom. the project sponsor team and the neighbors met in a zoom meeting with the supervisor, and then

the project sponsor did present a response to the neighbor's request. the first response was to provide a visual marking of a boundary survey, confirming that there is no encroachment. response two, illustrating that the design was in scale. and significantly improves light to neighboring properties. response three, revise the windows to reduce the class area by 19% and improve privacy and reduce nighttime light. and response four, the project sponsor was willing to offer skylight to the neighbor for light to his bathroom. unfortunately despite ongoing negotiations and having addressed all of the concerns, the neighbors reject provisions and file multiple complaint letters with the planner, while the project sponsor continued in a good faith negotiation and discussions. slide please. concern one perceived property encroachment and this survey shown hur was prepared after the

construction stopped. it shows that there is no encroachment at all on the property at 4124 and in fact, is setback 16.5 inches along the west property line. and the owners -- [bell] is that it? >> thank you. that is your time. if commissioners have questions, i am sure they will ask you to respond. >> okay. >> commissioners. >> thank you. >> this is item is open to public comment. i will remind members of the public -- >> the question is now in question and answer mode. to summon each question, press 1 and 0. again, members of the public, if you wish to speak, press 1 and then 0. >> you have eight questions remaining.

i am owner at 278 diamond street adjacent to 4118 21st street. i would like you to please consider the following as a reason for continuance or as a condition for approval of this project. the current project is the second one proposed for this address. problems associated with the first project still exist. most importantly trespassing and encroachment to other property at 4124 21st street. neighbors have asked the owners to perform a formal line to line multiple times since september 2019 and with question that the you require the survey be completed before advancing the approval. and demolished structure to be falsely represented as a single family home and two-unit building that had two affordable units and tenants living in both. this project does not add housing to the city. please support this request and

to support any changes that need to be made. >> you have 10 questions remaining. >> my name is curtis larson and i live on 6th street and my rear house views the rear project. please require a review of the property and the boundaries before issuing any approval. to date we have only seen a location drawing which is inadequate. how can a boundary survey not be performed? and why the refusal to perform one. and ample physical evidence to suggest there is encroachment and what is legally built and what is being proposed. we neighbors are not unreasonable. we stand by the longtime neighbor who owns 4124. he is a vulnerable 80-year-old whose first language is not english. the protection of his property

rights is not and the boundary survey is done before you approve the project. with without this, you may be approving an illegally encroaching structure. thank you. >> you have nine questions remaining. >> caller: good evening. this is kay quam, 4118 21st street with a landscaped yard. both units were affordable rentals after the owners moved to the east bay. now it's an eyesore with a partially built structure that impinges upon the western neighbor's property. the proposed project somewhat ameliorates the project with the mass size and scale and negative impact on the light, air, and privacy. [please stand by]

to stipulate three conditions

for approval in this permit to protect our long time neighbor and san francisco citizen. one, a survey from a licensed surveyor. two, if the survey shows an encroachment on his property, the plan should be redrawn. the owners should be required to demolish their property and remove the debris from this demolition. thank you. >> operator: you have nine questions remaining. >> hello, commissioners. i'm andrew cuoleman, owner at 679 diamond street. i'm concerned about the impact on my neighborhood, carlos ybarra. there was a foundation that was

built that appears to trespass on his property. a traditional line-to-line survey would verify connections. neighbors have requested it multiple times through november 2019. i request that you make a professional line-to-line boundary survey in approval of this project. this building was a two affordable unit rental units, two affordable units replaced by two market rate units. absolutely no affordable housing is being created by this project. please support this project only after a professional line-to-line boundary survey takes place and any changes to the plan can be made. thank you. >> operator: you have eight questions remaining. >> hi. my name is david ross, and i live in 4130 21 street, two

doors down to the west from the proposed project. i'm calling in to voice my strong support for this project. the proposed project adds much needed housing to the housing stock. i would like to add that in my experience, and as has been mentioned by a number of other neighbors who have spoken in favor of the project previously, burge and jenna have made a number of changes over the years not based on neighbor requests. honestly, i'm still having a hard time understanding the values of the specific opposition group, as they seem to be a moving target. at the last hearing, all i heard was arguments and process requests for more time. i understand from communications with supervisor mandelman's office that they

were not able to reach an agreement with the opposition group. >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> operator: you have seven questions remaining. >> good evening. i'm georgia sciutish. i sent you some material this morning, but i don't know if you had a chance to read it with all the material you received this morning. last time, mr. pearlman said the project met a preponderance. just to note, four months before the current owners bought it, it was bought by a mr. epstein. it's in the packet, and it was

a $650,000 increase from the time he bought it in september 2017 to the time he bought it in 2018. there's no affordability there. never mind what happens with the new project if it goes forward, whether it's two bedrooms or two units or whatever it is. i do hope you'll impose some conditions that the rear yard be carbon capturing because -- >> operator: you have six questions remaining. >> my name is joan, and i live at 4101 21 street. this project needs a very specific line-to-line physical boundary survey that shows lines of the subject property and the property to the west, 80-year-old carlos ybarra.

if the current paper location drawing is guidance, there has been severe damage to mr. ybarra's home. a bulldozer rammed a hole in his how el his house, causing severe damage to his home. now, they want to build a home without knowing for whose property they're building on. for nine months, we asked the project sponsors repeatedly to create a line-to-line boundary survey. they did not. i urge the commission to adopt the entirety of the document e-mailed to you this morning, laying positions for san francisco planning commission case current number. its details are meant to protect mr. ybarra from further trespass. >> operator: you have five questions remaining.

>> good evening. the this is carlos ybarra, the owner of 3125 21 street, and i would respectfully ask for a complete survey because if you look at my house, you can see from the street the ridiculous encroachment that the building have gone almost under my roof. so i hope that you get to a decision today, and thank you very much. >> operator: you have four questions remaining. >> hi. this is todd david. i am a neighbor at 386 you'eur street. it is total speculation that the project encroaches on the neighbor's house. i've spoken with the

development team and the planning office, and they've told me that there is a plan to survey the line. i'm confused why opponents say that an agreement has not been reached when it was confirmed by the developer and the planning office. i don't see a reason for the delay. move it forward. we need additional housing in noe valley, and i'm looking forward to having new neighbors. thank you. >> operator: you have three questions remaining. >> hello. my name is richard craddick. i'm a neighbor on eureka street. my back neighbor is the house in question. i'm in full support of the project. i'm very eager to see the project get underway and the house removed.

the project is somewhat derelict. it's an eye sore. i can see it from the back of my house, and of course, as many people have said, it's zero housing units, and we need more housing in the city, so having it complete would add more, too. >> clerk: sounds like we lost the caller. are you still there, caller? let's go to the next caller, chan. did we lose the bridge right before the last two speakers? >> operator: yes, jonas, it appears we did.

>> clerk: okay. so commissioners, we will need to rebridge the at&t conference line, so if you can bear with us. we almost made it through the entire hearing without a glitch, but at the very end here, we got snagged, so bear with us for -- should take us no more than five minutes. >> if this project is approved today, where the -- >> clerk: if someone has their mic on, if you can mute that, please. is the bridge back? okay. very good. so caller, if you want to submit your public testimony, you have one minute. >> hello, commissioners. i'm speaking for cynthia and mark schroeder. we are 15 year residents of

diamond street. a side visit to 2124 25 street shows the foundation and construction work completed to date. several issues, like dirt mounds on the physical boundary line, are existent. has anyone from this commission or planning visited 4124 to see the physical changes from 4118 that have been introduced in past hearings? if not, we urge you to see these conditions firsthand before approving. if this project is approved today, where is the clear accountability for encroachment and any issues that need to be resolved for our elderly neighbors? we respectfully request you issue a full line-to-line survey of 4124 25 street prior to finalizing the plans.

thank you. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> good evening, commissioners. audrey reaume with noe neighborhood council. i am in opposition to this project, as you probably have guessed. more importantly, i would like to urge you to stipulate the condition for approvals of this project. should you approve this project, would be a survey -- and not any survey, a line-to-line boundary survey. mr. perman stated that they offered survey to the opposing neighbors, and that is partially true, but allow me to tell you that the survey that they offered was not the line-to-line survey that the -- that mr. ybarra has asked. so please, stipulate in your approval, if you are approving this project, a simple

condition: line-to-line survey to establish the property line so that mr. ybarra, whose property has been encroached by the previous permit foundation pouring due to previous permit would actually have a recourse. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: commissioners, that will conclude the public comment portion of the hearing. the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: can the commission order tproject

on if they're willing to do a line-to-line survey? >> what we've been willing to do for months is used the license boundary made by a licensed land surveyor that's been given to supervisor mandelman, and we will have a surveyor come out and physically mark the boundary lines of the property. the owner is committed to doing that, and if you want to impose a condition of approval that that gets done before final building permits are issued, we are perfectly fine with that. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> clerk: commissioner, you

may be muted. >> commissioner fung: can the project sponsor put back on the screen the sketch that yhe had of the survey? >> yeah, i can pull that up. >> thank you. i think it was the third slide, bridget. >> commissioner fung: so a question, then, for the project

sponsor is that this is a little difference than most surveys i've seen -- >> good. yeah. >> commissioner fung: does somebody else want to speak? >> if you'd like me to speak, the project sponsor, it was a boundary survey and was only -- it was commissioned to identify where the foundations of the house are to identify if there was an encroachment on the neighboring property. and you can clearly see that all of the corner marks are within the property, set back anywhere from .18 foot on the lower right southeast to 1.38 feet on the lower left, the northwest -- i mean, the southwest corner.

now, the -- like i said, the owners are very willing and happy to have a visual marking of the survey done. >> commissioner fung: i heard you say that. what -- most surveys, don't they have an orientation on the property line? >> yeah, this is a portion of the survey. i mean, this is a portion of the sheet. i just wanted to show where the bound ye boundary survey was done? >> well, there's a bigger sheet, but this shows the property with the addresses on there, and it shows the dimensions of the lot. >> commissioner fung: i hear you, but are you saying the sheet has a more traditional looking survey? >> i don't have -- [inaudible]

>> i believe this is what was provided to the owner. again, we're very happy to have a legal surveyor come out and conduct a survey and make that a condition of approval, and we have offered that many times to the neighbors. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: following up on what commissioner fung was saying, i think it would be well advised to ask for a second survey and show the survey drawing in a manner on a larger sheet that puts it into the traditional way of looking at a survey. i would agree with commissioner fung that what we see is a little bit limited, and mr. perman may not have the full sheet, but i think that is what the commission should see, and i believe that is what the adjoining owner should see so

that we are making sure that there is indeed no intrusion of the front foundation into the adjoining property. and i believe that what mr. perman is showing may be just too limited for a layman to fully understand. >> can that be offered as a condition of approval that the owner can note before the condition is approved? >> vice president moore: i would like to see it that way, but i would like the other commissioners, particularly commissioner fung, to comment on that, as well. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i would be prepared to approve that project with that condition of approval, but it needs to be done -- a survey needs to be provided to the neighbors and also to the

planning department staff, and it also needs to be done prior to the issue of the permit. i don't believe we need to have it done as a condition of approval. >> president koppel: if that's a motion, i'll second it. >> commissioner diamond: yes. >> president koppel: go ahead, commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: commissioner diamond, can i amend that and say with the legal description of the property lines as part of the required survey? >> vice president moore: yes, that is pretty much what i'd ask for, yes. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i guess this is a question for the staff so a reference point in my mind, as well. but i guess i agree in terms of adding conditions of a line-to-line boundary survey to

be added. if this goes to after -- after the planning commission, this will be something heard at the d.b.i. or be looked again by the d.b.i. as we looked into the survey? can you walk me to the process of going to the planning commission and whether this is going to the d.b.i. and where is -- and what's the process in that committee, as well? >> sure. so once -- this is the entitlement. one this is approved, we'll then go through the approval period, issue a notice of restriction. then a permit will be filed, and planning will ensure it meets the conditions of this motion, and then, it will be routed to these other city agencies, which includes d.b.i. d.b.i. goes out there, and once they review the plans and they approve them, they later go out and do an inspection to make

sure that the project was built in accordance with the plans and that it did not crossover property lines -- [inaudible] >> commissioner imperial: and is there a point that the committee, if they have issues, appeal it more or after the d.b.i. inspection? >> yeah, there is the ability to appeal a building permit, and also, neighbors can file an enforcement complaint either with the department of building inspection or the planning department, and we open up an enforcement case to look into that. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been

seconded. shall i call that question? on that motion, then, to approve the conditions that have been amended to include a legal survey with a description of the property and have it done prior to issuance, on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, congratulations on an epic virtual hearing. congratulations. thank you, everybody. good night. >> director hillis: earlier than a normal city hall commission, we're done.

>> roughly five years, i was working as a high school teacher, and i decided to take my students on a surfing field trip. the light bulb went off in my head, and i realized i could do much more for my students taking them surfing than i could as their classroom teacher, and that is when the idea for the city surf project was born. >> working with kids in the

ocean that aren't familiar with this space is really special because you're dealing with a lot of fear and apprehension but at the same time, a lot of excitement. >> when i first did it, i was, like, really scared, but then, i did it again, and i liked it. >> we'll get a group of kids who have just never been to the beach, are terrified of the idea, who don't like the beach. it's too cold out, and it's those kid that are impossible to get back out of the water at the end of the day. >> over the last few years, i think we've had at least 40 of our students participate in the city surf project. >> surfing helped me with, like, how to swim. >> we've start off with about two to four sessions in the pool before actually going out and surfing. >> swimming at the pool just

helps us with, like, being, like, comfortable in the water and being calm and not being all -- not being anxious. >> so when we started the city surf project, one of the things we did was to say hey, this is the way to earn your p.e. credits. just getting kids to go try it was one of our initial challenges for the first year or two. but now that we've been doing it three or four years, we have a group of kids that's consistent, and the word has spread, that it's super fun, that you learn about the ocean. >> starting in the morning, you know, i get the vehicles ready, and then, i get all the gear together, and then, i drive and go get the kids, and we take them to a local beach. >> we usually go to linda mar, and then occasionally ocean beach. we once did a special trip.

we were in capitola last year, and it was really fun. >> we get in a circle and group stretch, and we talk about specific safety for the day, and then, we go down to the water. >> once we go to the beach, i don't want to go home. i can't change my circumstances at home, but i can change the way i approach them. >> our program has definitely been a way for our students to find community and build friends. >> i don't really talk to friends, so i guess when i started doing city surf, i started to, like, get to know people more than i did before, and people that i didn't think i'd like, like, ended up being my best friends. >> it's a group sport the way we do it, and with, like, close camaraderie, but everybody's doing it for themselves. >> it's great, surfing around,

finding new people and making new friendships with people throughout surfing. >> it can be highly developmental for students to have this time where they can learn a lot about themselves while negotiating the waves. >> i feel significantly, like, calmer. it definitely helps if i'm, like, feeling really stressed or, like, feeling really anxious about surfing, and i go surfing, and then, i just feel, like, i'm going to be okay. >> it gives them resiliency skills and helps them build self-confidence. and with that, they can use that in other parts of their lives. >> i went to bring amy family o the beach and tell them what i did. >> i saw kids open up in the ocean, and i got to see them connect with other students, and i got to see them fail, you

know, and get up and get back on the board and experience success, and really enjoy themselves and make a connection to nature at the same time. >> for some kids that are, like, resistant to, like, being in a mentorship program like this, it's they want to surf, and then later, they'll find out that they've, like, made this community connection. >> i think they provided level playing fields for kids to be themselves in an open environment. >> for kids to feel like i can go for it and take a chance that i might not have been willing to do on my own is really special. >> we go on 150 surf outings a year. that's year-round programming. we've seen a tremendous amount of youth face their fears through surfing, and that has translated to growth in other facets of their lives. >> i just think the biggest

thing is, like, that they feel like that they have something that is really cool, that they're engaged in, and that we, like, care about them and how they're doing, like, in general. >> what i like best is they really care about me, like, i'm not alone, and i have a group of people that i can go to, and, also, surfing is fun. >> we're creating surfers, and we're changing the face of surfing. >> the feeling is definitely akin to being on a roller coaster. it's definitely faster than i think you expect it to be, but it's definitely fun. >> it leaves you feeling really, really positive about what that kid's going to go out and do. >> i think it's really magical almost. at least it was for me. >> it was really exciting when i caught my first wave. >> i felt like i was, like --

it was, like, magical, really. >> when they catch that first wave, and their first lights up, you know -- their face lights up, you know you have them hooked. >> i was on top of the world. it's amazing. i felt like i was on top of the world even though i was probably going two miles an hour. it was, like, the scariest thing i'd ever done, and i think it was when i got hooked on surfing after

valencia has been a constantly evolving roadway. the first bike lanes were striped in 1999, and today is the major north and south bike route from the mission neighborhood extending from market to mission street. >> it is difficult to navigate lindsay on a daily basis, and more specifically, during the morning and evening commute hours. >> from 2012 to 2016, there were 260 collisions on valencia and 46 of those were between vehicles and bikes. the mayor shows great leadership and she knew of the long history of collisions and the real necessity for safety improvements on the streets, so she actually directed m.t.a. to put a pilot of protected bike lanes from market to 15th on valencia street within four months time. [♪]

>> valencia is one of the most used north south bike routes in san francisco. it has over 2100 cyclists on an average weekday. we promote bicycles for everyday transportation of the coalition. valencia is our mission -- fits our mission perfectly. our members fall 20 years ago to get the first bike lane stripes. whether you are going there for restaurants, nightlife, you know , people are commuting up and down every single day. >> i have been biking down the valencia street corridor for about a decade. during that time, i have seen the emergence of ridesharing companies. >> we have people on bikes, we have people on bike share, scooters, we have people delivering food and we have uber taking folks to concerts at

night. one of the main goals of the project was to improve the overall safety of the corridor, will also looking for opportunities to upgrade the bikeway. >> the most common collision that happens on valencia is actually due to double parking in the bike lane, specifically during, which is where a driver opens the door unexpectedly. >> we kept all the passengers -- the passenger levels out, which is the white crib that we see, we double the amount of commercial curbs that you see out here. >> most people aren't actually perking on valencia, they just need to get dropped off or pick something up. >> half of the commercial loading zones are actually after 6:00 p.m., so could be used for five-minute loading later into the evening to provide more opportunities or passenger and commercial loading. >> the five minute loading zone may help in this situation, but they are not along the corridor where we need them to be. >> one of the most unique

aspects of the valencia pilot is on the block between 14th street. >> we worked with a pretty big mix of people on valencia. >> on this lot, there are a few schools. all these different groups had concerns about the safety of students crossing the protected bikeway whether they are being dropped off or picked up in the morning or afternoon. to address those concerns, we installed concrete loading islands with railings -- railings that channel -- channeled a designated crossing plane. >> we had a lot of conversations around how do you load and unload kids in the mornings and the afternoons? >> i do like the visibility of some of the design, the safety aspects of the boarding pilot for the school. >> we have painted continental crosswalks, as well as a yield piece which indicates a cyclist to give the right-of-way so they can cross the roadway. this is probably one of the most unique features.

>> during the planning phase, the m.t.a. came out with three alternatives for the long term project. one is parking protected, which we see with the pilot, they also imagined a valencia street where we have two bike lanes next to one another against one side of the street. a two-way bikeway. the third option is a center running two-way bikeway, c. would have the two bike lanes running down the center with protection on either side. >> earlier, there weren't any enter lane designs in san francisco, but i think it will be a great opportunity for san francisco to take the lead on that do so the innovative and different, something that doesn't exist already. >> with all three concepts for valencia's long-term improvement , there's a number of trade-offs ranging from parking, or what needs to be done at the intersection for signal infrastructure. when he think about extending

this pilot or this still -- this design, there's a lot of different design challenges, as well as challenges when it comes to doing outreach and making sure that you are reaching out to everyone in the community. >> the pilot is great. it is a no-brainer. it is also a teaser for us. once a pilot ends, we have thrown back into the chaos of valencia street. >> what we're trying to do is incremental improvement along the corridor door. the pilot project is one of our first major improvements. we will do an initial valuation in the spring just to get a glimpse of what is happening out here on the roadway, and to make any adjustments to the pilot as needed. this fall, we will do a more robust evaluation. by spring of 2020, we will have recommendations about long-term improvements. >> i appreciate the pilot and how quickly it went in and was built, especially with the community workshops associated with it, i really appreciated that opportunity to give input. >> we want to see valencia become a really welcoming and comfortable neighborhood street for everyone, all ages and

abilities. there's a lot of benefits to protected bike lanes on valencia , it is not just for cyclists. we will see way more people biking, more people walking, we are just going to create a really friendly neighborhood street. [♪]

[gavel] >> good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i am the chair of the committee, supervisor aaron peskin joined by vice chair supervisor safai and committee member supervisor dean preston. our clerk is ms. erica major. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public t board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. supervisors will be participating in the virtual meeting to the same extent as if they are physically present. channel 26 and sfgov tv are streaming the number across the screen.