we will get through this and we appreciate everything that you all have done to follow our health care orders. looking forward to seeing you all in person fairly soon. thank you for joining us. [ ♪♪♪ ] >> welcome to the san francisco planning meeting remote meeting for january 28, 2021. the planning commission received

authorization to reconvene remotely through the shelter in place. this is our 39th remote hearing. they require everyone's attention and patience. if you're not speaking mute your microphone. to enable public participation we're streaming live. comments are available by calling 1-415-655-0001, entering access code 1469321095. when you reach the item you're wanting to speak to and indicate. when you are allotted time is reached i'll announce your time is up and take the next person queued to speak.

best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> first on your agenda is items proposed for continuance. item two. [reading item] item ab.

[reading item] pre opposed for continuance to february 18, 2020. under your discretionary review item 13, [reading item] a discretionary review it is my understanding the parties are cles to an agreement and requesting a continuance to february 18 to finalize the agreement. i have no other items proposed for continuance so we should take public comment on the matters. this your opportunity to speak to any of the items.

i do see one person in the queue. you have three minutes. >> caller: i'm calling regarding number 1 proposed for indefinite continuance and use hotels and motels for a permanent form of housing. funded a lot of money over the weekend to do an extension for homeless housing in temporary hotel i ask you continue to a date certain like a month out so the staff has ability to find out exactly where the legislation is and is going rather than taking it off calendar. don't think taking it off calendar is the right thing to do in the current circumstances. this is needed housing.

thank you, bye. >> caller: this is mary aliza. i'm speaking about items 8a and 8b. i want to thank the commissioners for putting this off until february 18 because we have issues to do discovery and that will give us time so thank you for doing that. >> commissioner: thank you, members of the public, last call to speak to any of the items proved for continuance. commissioners, seeing no further request from the public to comment on matters proposed for continuance, public comment is closed. and the matter is now before

you. >> commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: we'll come back to that but the amount of time is to be determined on the item on hotels, is that correct? it's our understanding we don't know when it will be prepared for our hearing it. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. department staff. we want it take the time to speak with the stakeholders and hold to bring the item in front of you in the near future. we don't have a date certain at this time. >> commissioner: thank you, ms.

flores. >> i move to them as proposed. >> second. >> [roll call] >> so moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us under commission matter consideration of adoption of minutes for january 14, 2021. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by suppressing star then 3 to enter the queue. seeing no requests the public comment is closed and the matter is before you. commissioner imperial. >> move to adopt the minutes.

>> on that motion. [roll call] >> passes unanimously 7-0. item 4, commission comments and questions. seeing no request to speak from commissioners, we can move on to department matters. item 5, director's announcements. >> thank you. good afternoon. just a couple things i wanted to follow up on my report from last week regarding the plan bay area in response to the most recent draft of plan bay area in december. i think if you take a look

there's been media coverage on this as well we'll get to the allocation of the bay area's growth and we'll continue to be a leader in the development involving affordable housing but raise concerns about allocation and most recent allocation which is units and they met over the past week since the last two commission meetings and there was a good robust discussion about the concerns at both meetings. ultimately the commissions adopted the draft plans a preferred alternative in the e.i.r. and ceqa review and they requested an alternative be included in the i.r. that

addresses the concerns we laid out. i also want to mention prop h which allows for permits for be reviewed and acted on by the city in 30 days that includes our review. we've started implementation of prop 8 and some businesses that qualify can apply for a permit. qualify can apply for a permit. qualify can apply for a permit. thanks to our staff and across agencies would put this together and got it up and running. that concludes my report. >> item 6, review of past events

at the board of supervisors and board of appeals historic preservation commission -- did you have a question? >> the arena allocation you were speaking about. we still have the amount of time of housing units but seals to be maybe shuffling will get different affordability is that correct? different income levels may be allocated to us? >> from the summer draft of plan bay area to the december draft are allocations for about 70,000 units and that's a factor but not the only factor in the arena methodology. because of that we ended up getting 1,000 units for household increase in

construction and >> thank you. >> now item 6, review of past events at the board of supervisors and board of appeals. >> good afternoon, commissioners. a quick report. only one item at the land use committee this week pertained the initiation of the landmark designation for the eagle bar and that's sponsored by supervisor heaney and they forwarded that to the board for positive recommendation. that's all i have for you today. >> seeing no questions, thank you, mr. star. the board of appeals did meet

yesterday and on behalf of the deputy administrator the board held an election of officers where the commissioner humberg was elevated to president and there was an appeal of a variance for 947 minnesota street and they considered the same project but a joint hearing with a zoning administrator in 2020. the appellant raised concerns about the legalality of the existing structure and portions are visible on aerial views from 1938 and that a permit from 1952 which did not include plans has a structure at the rear and it and it appears to be legal and existed more than 80 years without complaint.

the department also advised the project sponsor any demolition of the rear beyond what was authorized by the variance may trigger the need for a new variance. the board unanimously denied the appeal and approved the variance. if there are no questions we should move on to general public comment. at this time members may address the commission on items of interest to the pub within -- public. the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded from the items reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. this is your opportunity to get in the few by pressing star then three. >> caller: thank you. good afternoon, commissioners

and i sent an e-mail and showed the project since section 317 and there were alterations were not what was intended when i section 317 was added to the planning code back in 2008 and if you look at the findings of the section you'll agree based on the photos. i hope you'll have a chance to read the e-mail from tuesday. and what can be taken away from looking at the photos these projects are not considered demolition or de facto demolition even with the revised demo calcs which we reviewed by

your enforcement staff didn't pass the threshold on the sections. therefore the calcs should be adjusted per section 317, 32b and take care. bye-byeful dp >> caller: i hope i'm speaking on public comment. i want to request support for the parcel f project. it's going bring a lot of work to construction trades and brothers and sisters here and who lived locally in san francisco during a time when there's a lot of uncertainty. i'm asking for your support on that project. thank you.

>> seeing no additional request to speak from the public the general public comment is closed and we can move to the regular calendar items.

>> [indiscernible] there seems to be a lot of feedback from your computer.

>> it should be hard wired. can you hear me okay? >> we can hear you. >> i'm from plan staff. the subject is 542-550 howard street known as parcel f. if memory serves me well at least for commissioners the project is materially the same as last january. and this is four lots in total between howard and three primary uses, residential, hotel and office. the residential is 165 units and the hotel is 189 hotel rooms and

the office portion is 275,000 square feet of office. the primary difference between last year and now and the reason we're before you is a change in how the project would go for affordable housing and the proposal was to bill market rate units within one mile of the principle project between trans bay zone 1 and 2 and now here before you for an agreement that would stimulate 150% of the fee otherwise required by section 415 of the code. it's a pretty significant contribution given it will go towards funding upwards of 19 below market rate units within

the sites of trans bay zone 1 and 2 and we what's before you is the agreement resolution which is new to and amended resolution and motion which are the planning code amendment and downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization and making sure they'll cross reference the same affordable mechanism and physically the downtown plan in transit center plan. i will note the majority with colleagues of mine of the office of economic and workforce development can answer questions tone development agreement and

on the development agreement and the office of team investment and structure will all be able to answer questions should you have any. with that i'll stop and hand it over to project sponsor. thank you much. >> project sponsor? >> the share button is unselected and i can't seem to select it.

>> i need to make you a presenter >> i'm council for the project. i have been before the commission a few times now and won't spend a lot of time describing the project itself and our team is on hand to answer any questions so let you know if you have questions. in that regard there's been no changes to the design or program since this commission approved the project last january. we're returning to you today solely for the purpose of a technology change to the affordable housing obligation. when the project sponsor purchased it in 2015 there was an option agreement with ocii for the purchase of trans bay

lot 4 and block 4 is part of a larger residential project and that remeans the -- remains the plan and we're engaged with staff and negotiating the final form of disposition or dda. as i said we're here to make a technology change that will allow parcel f to be in the legal sense a stand alone development project distinct from the block 4 project. financing will require a ser cat of occupancy at parcel f. this is partly due to the design and construction schedule and relatively timing of the two projects and construction documents have undergone parallel review and reviewing

sign on and project sponsor will be able to pull aside permit and shortly after break ground on parcel f. we're anticipating quarter fur four of this year and we're completing the design process and it will take almost north year after that to -- another year to work through the permit process with dbi.

and together general economic uncertainty brought about by covid including with respect to the real estate market made for a more conservative lending market. parcel f and block 4 are both large complicated projects but the risk associated with each goes up significantly if the projects are legally bound to one another. it would be catastrophic for the parcel f viability if it was fully constructed and ready to occupy but there was an unanticipated construction issue that blocked the block 4. for financing reasons, parcel f needs to stand on its own.

one of the challenges our team has is working closely with city stakeholders including notably ocii, city attorney's office and supervisor haney. we propose 150% of the typical affordable housing fee. this fee will be paid to oci and used for affordable housing in the trans bay district and loaned back to the project to support our development of the affordable lot 4. it's a down payment on the project's commitment to construct the sister project. the result the same but the technology change makes each project legally independent and feasible. the fee proposed by the

development agreement before you is massive. they ultimately agree to paid 150% of the frankly already very high city affordable housing fee. and the fee will be enough to fund between 170 to 235 affordable housing unis in trans bay. and under the planning code and development plan requires 20% on site affordable which would have resulted in 33 units. the approval in january required 33% off sight or 54 units.

the fee will be used to pay approximately 192 units in the block 4 podium not including the additional bmi of the block 4 project. in other words, the development agreement unlocked the ability to provide six times the national of affordable housing units by the planning code and four times the number required by the planning commission approval from a year ago. we absolutely plan to move forward with block 4 because walking away from this extraordinary down payment would be unthinkable but for the sake of argument even if the block 4 proceed doesn't currently prode as envisioned they can use the fee for far more affordable housing and existing law would require or allow. we think the proposed down payment on the sponsor's commitment is a win-win and hope you agree.

the slide shows aside from the housing benefit, the project provides truly incredible economic benefits to the city at a crucial time. the typical city impact fee for a project like this is substantial to say the least. in addition to the usual fees the project will be subject to the trans bay mel la roos that and this expected to generate half a billion over 30 years. that doesn't include the $288 million anticipated property taxes, hotel taxes and sales and parking taxes. the total benefits are in excess of $1 billion. and over the four to five years

of construction, the project will create 5,000 construction jobs and 1500 permanent jobs and they're come at a good time in light of the uncertainty one of the public commenters has raised around the times we're in now. we're proud of the building trades and proud of the economic engine and threw -- through the efforts we supported the trade and coalition of groups in chinatown who initially raised concerns about shadow impacts from the project.

>> thank you that con cosh didn't includes project sponsor presentation. i have several members requesting to speak. >> caller: my name is cynthia gomes we represent the hotel workers in san francisco and san mateo county and supported the project towards approval. hard to hear it's been a year. we continue to support the project approval. the project comes at a guarantee the permanent job that will come

with a guarantee that allows those workers a fair and neutral path to join the union and therefore have a shot at getting the living standards that will allow them to live here at the project sponsor has been cooperative and reaching out at all stages. we ask all the approvals they're asking for today with respect be granted and ask for your support. thank you very much. >> caller: cory smith on behalf of the housing acting coalition. as reiterated from our mayor at the city address this is the time and investing in our future and doing everything we can to get this project going forward. right now is a great idea.

we hope a shovel can get in the ground as soon as possible and are very much in support. thank you. >> caller: we stand in sol dared with the project and developed with the project sponsor the greement that will benefit -- agreement that will benefit families living with minor children in single-occupancy hotels and if this is approved by the planning commission and can't wait until the affordable project at block 4 is built.

thank you very much. >> caller: commissioners. i'm john corso on behalf of pipe fitters in for instance in support of the project for the revenue and construction jobs and permanent jobs that the project will create. thank you for your consideration. >> members of the public, last call for public comment. again, you must press star and 3 to enter the qua. -- queue. seeing no requests for comments from the public, public health is closed.

commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> let me start off. this is one of the first meetings i ever accepted four and a half years ago after being appointed the commissioner. that goes to say how long the project has been in the works. they have great community support. a lot of good local businesses downtown will start thriving again after we filter back in our construction workers and city workers. commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i'm in full support of the project then and now. bound or unbound, the project is remarkable. more importantly, all people are behind it.

they have successfully implemented project and have gone through every possible hoop to bring the project forward. >> commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: i'm also in full support of this question for the project sponsor based on his presentation. you mentioned the fee which is about $45 million or $47 million a portion is a down payment for the affordable housing on block 4. do you have an idea what percentage it will be? >> i'm sorry, what percentage it will be of? >> you mentioned the money will

be a down payment. >> the way it will work is the money will be paid to ocif. ocii as part of our disposition in development agreement for the block 4 project will loan it back and represent a portion of the project financing that will go to the 100% affordable podium project at block 4. that money will be combined with other sources including tax credits, state grants and other typical affordable housing financing not enough to fund the project alone but the lion's share they typically can get

through other affordable housing means. >> i'm in full support. if there's nothing else i'd lake it make a motion to sudden we do it as a, b, c, d, e? >> you made a motion to approve with conditions it would be understood unless you want it take them and separate them >> seconded to approve the

development agreement for approval of the planning code. approve the planning code and zoning map amendments to approve with conditions the downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization and office allocations. on that motion. [roll call] . >> case number 9. [reading item] staff are you

ready to make the presentation? >> yes. >> i'm kevin guy with planning staff. we have a request for conditional use authorization for a property at 77 geary street and would establish 12,000 square feet of office uses on the third floor and in the downtown zoning district and applies to the area known as the square. it emphasizes its role as a regional center for regional offices and services to that end retail are permitted subject to specific requirements. because the space in question is located on the third floor it's visually disengaged and difficult to market such a space for retail sales which rely on

the informal merchandise of storefront windows and would not be readily be available for customers and accessed by a common elevator past a security desk and discourage the casual engagement between retail sales that makes for a successful urban shopping district. at approximately 12,000 square feet the space is relatively small allowing office use if the space would not detract from the primary retail character of the district. in addition the union square area is experiencing a substantial number of vacancies is approval woul not be closed on retail opportunities in the ground floor spaces which are typically more desirable for retail tenant. staff has received one e-mail about noise from construction and other activities associated

with the office use however, the e-mail did not indicate opposition. in conclusion, approval of the project currently vacant with an office tenant to provide a revenue stream to maintain the category 1 and will not diminish the character and support retail businesses as employees will shop at the restaurants and stores. staff recommends approval and i'm available to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you, mr. guy. mr. tony, are you repaired for your presentation? -- prepared for your presentation. you have five minutes. your slides are up. >> good afternoon, president koppel on behalf of the property owner.

with me is todd perlman. she's been associated with the property almost 35. we appreciate the opportunity to present for your consideration. we come today but not just retail but the entire world economy. our building is almost vacant and most tenants will not be returning. our request is to lou office uses on the third floor. we want to be clear, this request is not about the present state of affairs but certainly is a factor but instead forward looking to the post-covid economy and recovery and revitalization of union square. we're seeking approval of office uses because finding retailers for the third floor has been difficult, if not impossible for years now and having office use on the third floor will bring

more foot traffic and potential patrons to the district. the first slide shows it from the corner of geary and grant and towards market street. here's the build from the street. you can see the third floor very lilt visibility from the street which is key for retailers.t vi which is key for retailers.t vi which is key for retailers.t vit which is key for retailers.lt v street which is key for retailers.et visibility from th street which is key for retailers. visibility from the street which is key for retailers. access to the third floor is a constraint on retail and accessed by the entry on geary side. this small recessed entry does not invite patrons and any alteration of the entry or windows above would be prohibited due to the building significant preservation status as a category 1 historical

building. once inside the access gets more challenging walking to an elevator bank to the get to the third floor. one more factor, working against retail on the third floor, 12,000 square feet as stated, no retailer wants a space that size and it's divided into smaller spaces and too many to fill and for the reasons we discussed, no retailer is interested anyway. and there's broader challenges in union square. this map shows the ground floor retail spaces in union square in red and pink is 88 of 237 spaces in total and mer than a third. -- more than a third.

todd will talk about his efforts to market the third floor to retail earned a little bit about the -- retailers and a little bit about te planning history and the commission approved office use in the late 1970s on the third floor and above. for many years the building had office uses and yet union square still became the international retail destination it is today. one could argue the decision contributed to union square's success and submit making that decision again will contribute to its new success.

>> the architect is inaudible. >> you can't hear him? >> i can hear a slight muffle. >> you can't hear? >> i can hear you. >> but not him? i can hear him fine. he's conferenced in on my phone. >> is his conference line you're computer microphone. >> no, we're dialed in on the phone line.

>> i believe you're unmuted through the computer and phone line. the first three digits? >> 655. >> 415-417. the 001 number. >> i unmuted your 517 number. want to try again. >> can everybody hear me? >> now we can hear you. >> thank you very much. >> i appreciate it. as todd stated we had no luck in getting a retail tenant and worked tirelessly marketing the vacancy. the extent we've had interest is

the inability to the access through a long corridor and elevators are deal killers. if there's no visibility from the street you can't direct clients to your space and takes real effort to get there it's not viable for retailers in this day and age. incidentally, we've in the generated any interest from retailers for the second floor vacancy primarily due to the same issues affecting the third floor. [background noise] >> in this case we will extend extra time. >> for decade we made efforts to help our tenants thrive and offered below market rates when we hosted a gallery is an

example. we appreciate your flexibility to allow us to lease to an office tenant. without the flexibility our fear is it will remain vacant for years which doesn't benefit anyone. thank you for the time. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the matter to press star 3 to enter the queue.

you'll see it will help with sales which in turn over time will certainly help with sales tax revenue for the city. we have worked on so many buildings like this with upper floor space and a could not agree enough with how challenging this is. you'll probably have a lot of people on the call that will say the same thing. this is the reality we were in before covid and going to be more pronounced now that we are facing what we're facing post-covid. thank you. >> >> caller: the is ray jackimo from union square. can you hear me? >> we can. >> caller: i was the one that sent the sole e-mail. i live across the street the

property in a single-occupancy hotel and we're the only residential in union square i believe and want to make sure there's 70 to 80 people living in the gray stone hotel. it's not really a hotel and now it's a residential s.r.o. we ask for early morning deliveries and we had issues behind our hotel with some of the buildings also there's a lot of dumpster divers so blocking those woul help and anyone that would like to chat with me online, you're ask -- free to

ask the facilitator for the e-mail address. the only question i have was on the document it didn't really say what business was moving in. do we have any idea of the name of the business scheduled to move into the property? >> may i speak? >> it's not a question and answer period just public comment. if the project sponsor wants to get in touch with you after the hearing he's free to do so. >> caller: okay. >> does that conclude your comments, sir? >> >> caller: yes, sir. >> thank you >> caller: my name is karen grub and i'm speaking in support of this project.

for 77 gear yo -- geary it make the converge from retail to office. even pre-covid we were having issues filling our retail space. much of the move for retail has been online which means there's less demand for the retail spaces. and retailers are looking for smaller spaces. even on the ground floor so by the time you get to the third floor there's little demand as stated. i also sent comments via e-mail but we need it bring people back to union square. our pedestrian counts have dropped 90% year over year. filling the upper floors with office workers that will in then turn shop en our shops and dine in our restaurants will be a huge help to bring back this area and boon tote city. thank you. we urge you to support this.

>> caller: good afternoon, thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm pamela mendelton and realtor and i would like to say retail tenants are dropping like flies in union scare. retailers -- square. retailers hold all the cards and can locate on many ground floors at rates right now that are cheaper than they've ever been. so there's not aisle of takers -- fot not a lot of takers for upper floors, there never really have been. we need to figure out our daytime population and support our existing mer chants and keep our streets safe with pedestrian traffic. we're having huge crime issues and i think this would be something that would help union square out. thank you.

>> go ahead, caller. >> caller: hi, thank you. this is alex a resident of san francisco and real estate broker but not involved with this project. similar to what laura and pam have said but expanding on that one of the things an office tenant will do is drive food traffic to benefit food and beverage and upper floor vacancies don't help and retailers don't necessarily drive traffic to food and

beverage office tenants do. [ple

the concern of what i'm speaking about, currently in san francisco, roughly 14 million square feet of vacant homes.

that is about -- that's about 10.5 buildings if you put them next to each other. sounds like a lot. why would we dedicate the space when we should be exploring other creative options for that use. what that means creatively begs the first question, residential. is it a way to activate union square in downtown? yes. downtown is mixtures and as we are doing new parts of downtown, residential and retail can co-exist. that is the idea of the pvr, the

type of occupancy. >> we had this issue in a strong manner before the pandemic hit us and it was a discussion back then. now i think my reasons for supporting the office use are even greater. we heard from a lot of the merchants and neighborhood organizations directly and union square and they're in dire need

of the foot traffic and i literally think the office uses are going to help preserve the retail. i'm a huge fan of union square. i love the environment, you get to walk around and see stuff and experience san francisco and retail and shopping environment. the third floor, i'm more than okay. >> i appreciate commissioner moore and president koppel's comments. this is something we debate here at the planning commission. we were presented with the economic recovery strategies and you talked about the vacancy of office in the downtown.

we have not gone deeper into what is going to happen as a recovery strategy for the vacant offices. again, that 14 million square feet is a huge -- i think it's a huge amount. i mean, what does the downtown look like right now? when i go to downtown right now, it's pretty much a ghost town, you know. and there's a lot of -- you know, vacant spaces or vacant -- you can just see it. so as we are having this kind of discussion and this project is coming here right now, the issue about the retail, i also hear about, you know, we know about the changing of the retails from the building to the online and now it's even hit more in this

pandemic and also at the same time, we have not looked into incorporating help into this building environment. so i am, you know, even though this is a small development or this is -- however, we may be taking precedence or we have not made a real discussion yet or i would say even deeper analysis on, you know, the foot traffic and whether the retails or even the office spaces will be actually the answer and how to incorporate health at the same time. this is interesting for me to hear about this because i don't think we have created or assessed a downtown plan

recovery. if we should see about that. but there is that. so, you know, i'm -- you know, i am in rethinking about how offices spaces should look like and what kind of uses maybe we should rezone, i think this is a new problem. not just in san francisco but in other cities as well. i think it needs to be looked at as well. those are my comments. >> commissioner diamond. >> i want to thank my fellow commissioners for their thoughtful comments, all of which are very important points. the map that they showed with all of the red and pink on it is frightening. i believe that we had a problem with limiting third floor used to retail pre-pandemic and we have a crisis with respect to it now. i am fully in support of either

residential or office third floor and above. i believe mixed use districts are healthy districts and economic recovery absolutely needs to be studied, especially with respect to what happens in the cbd and in the union square area. i want to make the process easier for this kind of project to move forward in order to generate foot traffic to provide some hope that some of the retail that is still in union square will survive. i am in favor of approving it. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you president koppel. i agree the comments of fellow commissioners and generally supportive of the project as well. i did just want to ask to

department staff to get a little more global picture of trends, do we have a general idea of how many of these requests we have been seeing to convert above ground retail spaces into office space? is there a way to get a global sense of total square footage converted? >> thank you commissioner chan . i don't have the numbers in front of me. i know that a lot of these applications have been coming in. there's certainly some high level discussion given the number coming in. there might be additional information on the numbers but we do have a number. we haven't in recent years

granted very many of the conversions. they were on the smaller side of things but we have recently seen an uptick and the need to convert spaces that have become vacant. we do have a couple applications that have been submitted. not virgin records but i think forever 21 site and we are trying to think of creative ways to occupy the spaces and not just necessarily have it be simply office use. we are working with project sponsors to try and figure out what's happening these days. >> thank you. i appreciate your thinking. it seems we probably need to have a larger broader discussion about this once we have some

numbers and trends to be able to evaluate where things are going. it is difficult to look at one project on its own and helpful to evaluate the big picture as we move forward. >> commissioner chan, if i could add, i think you're exactly right. we have to look at the larger trends and i think even pre-covid we were seeing trends that retail was very difficult. i think we have to look at as commissioner moore pointed out, residential is permitted, it's not necessarily an option we see project sponsors pursue on upper floors. maybe understanding what it is about the building types and size and floor plans that is leading to more requests to convert to office or residential.

it's something on the work program. there's clearly -- you know, union square, as a retail district, it's something we have to look at. i think it is going to be more post-pandemic. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to ask one additional question. that is, this project is being permitted for office today, is that irreversible decision or could it be returned to the original use. the reason i'm saying this, i consider this particular building in good stewardship, the fact that act is a tenant in

the building, i am just concerned that by turning it into office and coming in like a piece on a chess board, can they be reversed in the future? >> so commissioner moore, in a zoning sense, no, it would not preclude other uses in the future or request for other types of conditional use other than office. in a physical sense, there would be improvements associated with the office but those are likely not to be so extensive to retro fitting to a retail, sales, service or other type of use in the future. >> so i'm looking for -- i want to pick up on a comment that commissioner chan made. has a tenant been identified or is this speculative approval

today. >> we have no lease out with anyone. we were hoping to just grow our list of prospects in the hopes of filling the space. >> a stacking diagram accompanying your application today and i notice there's quite a bit of unoccupied space in your building already that could be used for office. why is the application in front of us adding more vacant office space in the stacking diagram indicates there's efficient space for you available to market. >> so great question, we do not today have space for market.

we recently had american conservatory theater vacate and we're working with them to figure out status. their lease doesn't expire until august 31st, 2023. but when you look at the stacking plan, you're right, the notes listed, largely vacated. those spaces are leased in a contract but we're having issues with those spaces as well. we hope to -- we obviously hope to fill the spaces. this particular space on the third floor being direct space with a landlord, we're going to -- we're hopeful, we'll be able to lease it quickly while we continue to work with our tenants and help them. these are tenants that are hurting. they don't want to leave, they're forced to make difficult

decisions. we don't know the outcomes of their situations. the only direct space i have at the moment is what you see in gray on the stacking chart. i can't see what you're looking at but if you pull up the slide, it would show you the vacancy that is direct, not just on the ground floor and on the second floor, but also of course the space in question which is the third floor. and there's been a number of references to whether or not we have a tenant ready to go. we do not. we don't have a tenant ready to go but we know by opening up the opportunity to lease to either retail or office, it will give us a much better chance. there will be many more prospects to try to recruit to tour the space. >> thank you for the

explanation. what we all forget is obviously tenants because of covid not occupying the offices still have to pay rent but basically are forced with no income coming in at all, to find a way to hope they can return. these are very difficult times and i appreciate the thoughtfulness in that situation. thank you. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> commissioner tanner. >> a couple of questions for the project sponsor, i believe it was the one you submitted, there was a previous office tenant in the space. is that correct? >> that's right. >> what caused them to leave if you're aware. it seemed it happened before the pandemic. were they looking for a bigger space, did they leave san francisco, are you aware?

>> they were purchased by salesforce and moved. >> okay. there's that. and i noted there was a jeweller -- you had shown the space a couple of times and people didn't move forward, looking foreground floor space primarily and a jeweller was going to be there which would be primarily office. are you concerned it would still require office use for the jeweller to be located there? >> it was a little bit of both. it was more that they didn't pursue the space. but there was some concern that it wasn't enough actual retail use space, use of the space. >> to qualify as a retail -- >> right. yeah. >> okay. so i think my fellow commissioners have made a lot of great comments that i agree with. i'm very supportive of the

project, although to commissioner chan's point, to think about the bigger picture of union square and in particular, seeing the act vacate the floors, hopefully they're able to find places in the city to occupy when we can have in person arts activities. so just thinking carefully about how we go about these for office on different floors and the future of this part of the city, it is concerning to think about the number of vacant office spaces and how or why or when they will be filled. looking at the vacancy rate in the city, your client is confident office use will be preferred during this time or wanting to have more options, it

is hard to see how office seems better -- i see due to the third floor location but office seems like a hard sell at this point as well. can you speak to that. >> it may be. that's a good point. it gives them flexibility and goes to the reverseability question, it doesn't mean it's automatically office and will always be so. they're not sure, they're going to find out as the market comes back. it is different than the office vacancy numbers we think that are market wide. this is a relatively smaller space in that regard and more specific and so we think it has a good opportunity as an office

tenant but that may not be what happens here. >> is that a motion? >> sure. i move to approve the project as proposed. >> second. >> commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded. to approve with conditions on the motio (roll call)

passes 6-1. commissioners that will place us on item 10. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. the property is seeking conditional use authorization for demolition. the subject property previously contained two residential units and underwent an unauthorized merging. new management and ownership, the current proposal seeks to

reinstate the two units, restore the properties and provide off street parking and use of open space for each of the units. the department received correspondence from two community members about the timeline and site conditions. neither had objections to the scope or use. and both were supportive of the property being brought back into compliance. i received an e-mail moments ago regarding to findings number 6 under the residential demolition findings. the project does protect the relative affordability of housing. the department finds the project to be necessary and desirable aligned with the goals and policy of the general plan and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood of the district. for these reasons, staff is

supportive of the proposal. i'm available to answer any questions you may have. the project manager has a brief presentation as well. >> thank you. project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation. you have five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for all that you do. we're here to help rectify the unfortunate mishaps made by the previous owner. the reasons unknown to us, the

previous owner demo'd way too much and this resulted in a number of planning violations and other complaints from other departments. our clients purchased the property knowing they had to address these first and now we're here requesting to have the project fall back on the initial track. by our encouragement, they are going above and beyond and do a restoration at great cost. you probably see historic details and brackets in the corners here but there was not much else on what was already demo'd. it had all been stucco ed over probably in the 60s or 70s.

we worked closely to replicate what would have been there originally helping to bring some charm back and increase the number of historical structures to how special our city is. most importantly, returning to construction promptly. given the financial burden they accepted to take on, we respectfully ask that you help us expedite the remaining steps to return to construction as quickly as possible. no doubt the neighbors would be delighted to see this blight turn into another san francisco jewel. thank you for consideration. >> thank you. we should open up for public

comment. members of the public, this is your time to speak to the matter. you have two minutes. >> hi. i just want to comment on this in the context of my tuesday e-mail and my general public comments from earlier today. if you look on the packet on page 25, those are the demo counts done to bring this back up so you could approve it today. and i hope to take a moment if you can to compare those to this project with the two i sent in earlier.

the first one i sent in, project one, that was an a-rated building. the second one, project two that i sent in my tuesday e-mails, that had a tenant in it. that's all i want to say. just to compare and contrast. looking at the numbers. i mean the numbers represent the building but they represent the issues that i think you need to deal with in terms of the whole section 317 demolition. calculation, adjustment issue. thanks. take care. >> members of the public, last call for public comment. you need to press star 3.

>> hi. this project is -- i mean looking at the project, it's only two units and i believe that the planning department should encourage the developer to build as many units as possible in this zone. sort of in line with the temporary controls passed by the board of supervisors, the planning department should encourage the project sponsor to build as many units as possible. the fact that it is only two units seems to be in line with the planning commission's previous attempts under dennis richards during the cua process when they had done something wrong. i believe this was a misguided position from dennis richards to

punish people during the cua process. the cua process for 317 shouldn't be used to punish developers. it should be used to determine if appropriate land use given the conditions of the lot as they exist today. the remedy for illegal construction is for zoning administrator to refer to the city attorney and district attorney. the planning commission asking if it was referred, but as planning commission, for the cua process, this should be about what's an appropriate use of the land and not trying to waste the land as a way of punishing the developer. thank you. >> thank you members of the public. final last call.

commissioners, public comment is closed and is the matter is now before you. >> commissioner tanner. >> question about discussion of possibly adding an adu or third unit as three are allowed on the property, not withstanding, i'm thinking there's probably limitations in terms of size of where the unit would go. i don't know if there's enough access to light and exposure on the ground floor to have an additional unit. if you could speak to -- if that was discussed or a possibility. >> i can probably answer this one if you like.

so perhaps it is not obvious, there was already a lot split before. on what used to be a larger lot, now there are actually three units. the lower level appears to have a garage in the front that is almost entirely subterranian and i don't think it would meet exposure requirements. >> so if there were to be another unit, it would need to be vertical or something like that. just looking at the plans, there wouldn't really be a way to accommodate an additional unit without further variances. >> so as the project sponsor mentioned, this site has had previous projects. it was subdivided, the current lot that we're looking at is

substandard now because it was subdivided and the other piece is already developed. so we have a substandard lot, the useful open space, they did a variance for that, if they did any vertical or horizontal construction, they would probably need a rear yard variance since it is a substandard lot. and although there's only two units currently in the structure, they are considered family size units. >> how does that compare with the legislation that is at the board recently that passed regarding the unit size and things like that? >> it's my understanding that that does not apply to this building district, although i'm not entirely familiar with that legislation. maybe someone else can jump in. >> it doesn't apply here but i

think your question is consistent and the kind of unit size that would trigger a cu in that case was 2,000 square feet. >> that's correct. >> excellent. thank you. i am -- thank you for answering the question. i'm glad to see the project coming forward and glad to see the restoration as much as we can do, fixing the bad behavior of the previous owner. i'm very supportive of this project. >> commissioner moore. >> i'm very supportive of this project. particularly family sized units. it's commendable. i would like to ask the architect or miss wilber a question, it has to do with the deck on the west side sitting on

property line when we normally hold back -- without seeing this project in context, it's hard to see but generally we prefer decks -- balconies to stay off property line. >> i can speak to this. the project dates back to 2013 and maybe those guidelines did not apply then. it was the effort of the planning department to basically restore the project to where it was previously approved almost in its entirety. >> we have the understanding of privacy of buildings, so that's why we like to hold back --

you're sitting right on property line and there is concern people standing on the edge would be able to look into adjoining people's homes. has that been investigated by planning, are there any comments? >> we're looking at blind walls in both conditions. >> okay. thanks, i'm in support of the project. >> commissioner imperial. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. seeing no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve the matter

with conditions. (roll call) the motion passes 7-0. that places us on item 11. this is a conditional use authorization, are staff prepared to make their presentation? >> yes, i am. >> okay miss campbell, you have the floor. >> great. it looks like my camera is not working. i'm going to go ahead with my presentation. good afternoon commissioners. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to establish doing business as the academy. in the upper market street

neighborhood commercial transit district which requires a conditional use authorization for any project which proposes a bar of use. the project sponsor the academy is a social club which has occupied the space since march 2017. the club is membership based and offers many services including art shows, limited live entertainment performances, discussion group, game nights, receptions, catering and wine tasting. the proposed use will allow general entertainment used to seek a type 57 liquor licence and type 58 catering permit. the hours of operation will continue with 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on wednesday and

thursday and 3:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. friday and saturday. they also offer a barber service open to the public at the front of the tenant space in about 100 square foot area. the subject property is located in existing two story over basement commercial building on market street. the bar use is proposed for the first and basement level with the general entertainment use. the existing outdoor activity area is approximately 500 square feet. the department has received two letters of support in which members of the public expressed support for the proposed bar use and continuation of general entertainment use as a benefit to the community. one of the letters was received after the publication of this

packet. the department received one letter of opposition for the project by the homeowner's association of 151153 sanchez describing the condition of a permanent liquor licence may contribute to additional noise in the outdoor activity area. the staff recommends approval for the request. the project promotes the continued operation of an established locally owned business and contributes to the viability of the overall upper market street neighborhood commercial transit building district. the district is well served by transit. the project meets all applicable requirements in the planning code. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available to answer questions and the project sponsor is present and available for questions.

thank you. >> thank you miss campbell. project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, hi. this is nate borg. >> you have five minutes. mr. borg we cannot hear you or your partner.

>> but you can't hear paul when he's speaking? >> no. >> he is conferenced in on the phone like we were advised to do. >> what we really found lacking was the idea that you would be

able to go to a place and interact with other people and not necessarily have to buy stuff you don't want or drink drinks you don't want. we came up with a new motto which is a community organization to play games and hear speakers and engage with people in a way that wasn't sort of loaded with sexuality and you could interact with people and meet people in a different manner and that was the birth place of what the academy is. i think you're probably looking at slides to see what we created. this process in particular got started because in the occasions we did have alcohol service for the wine tastings, events or when we had numerous fund-raisers, you know the cost of the permits is high and the paperwork requirements are high

to do catering and stuff like that. they suggested a type 57 licence that we should apply for. which we did. we have spoken to the police department and permitting and they were in support of it. we spoke to the neighborhood groups in the area, which have all voiced support and so then we decided to move forward and present it and that's why we're here today. we're not attempting to create a new use or do something different than we're already doing. we're here to stream line the process so each and every time we don't have to book through a catering and get approvals each time we do an event of any kind. our goal at the academy is to be a hub for the neighborhood. we worked extensively with the aids foundation, with market

street youth which holds meetings with us. we are overall like reason for being is to promote history and culture which we do through neighborhood history walks and so forth. and this would just simplify the process and give us the opportunity to create a place where people can gather together and interact together. my partner nate is here. we were able to reach out to the person who sent the letter of complaint and nate will address that. >> hi. so yes, the neighbor who is represents the homeowners association, we spoke with him on the phone and we talked about wanting to address the concerns of course. completely valid. there were a couple of existing conditions from the previous cu that allowed us to use the

outdoor space. this neighbor in particular is talking about the outdoor spaces. not about what our business is as paul described. the couple of conditions we already had were the 10:00 p.m. curfew, which is not related to covid. we have a 10:00 p.m. curfew for any activities in the outdoor space. there's just certain days of the year like pride and new year's eve and halloween we're allowed to go until midnight. that was one of the things that the commission approved as well. we're also not allowed to do amplified music outside on a daily basis unless it is a special day like i mentioned. in addition, we spoke about things we can institute that will hopefully alleviate concerns about noise with the

neighbors. one being a decimal meter that we can constantly monitor and we're alerted if it exceeds a certain level. and then we have staff that are always greeting members and guests when they come in. they obviously have a lot of -- extensive speel they give to guests right now related to covid and social distancing and it would be easy for us in the training to add something related to keeping quiet and making sure we are respectful of neighbors in the outdoor space at all times. so, those were the issues we discussed with our neighbor and we're happy to take any questions. >> thank you. that includes the presentation and members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star

then 3 to enter the que. i see one member of the public. >> hi, can you hear me? >> we certainly can. >> hi, i live about 50 feet from the academy. i'm just here to voice my support for the academy and the endeavors they are trying to continue. to paul's point that he spoke about, everything that the academy sets out to be, they have achieved. they've been an important part of my life and an important part of my brother and sisters. they truly are a community organization group and a fun and social group. i came to them because i live on this block and i was literally walking by and they have become a really important part of my life. as far as the neighborhood, this

block, the 2100 block is dead. i think its death is supported by empty lots, driveways, even pro-covid, this block was really struggling, leading to the struggle of church street, no longer being the social and retail hub it used to be. the academy draws people from all over the city, in fact all over the country, i have met them there myself. it is civilized, it is quiet, social and unique and we should all support them. i'm here to voice my support as a neighbor and member. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> i remember this project from

previous years on the commission. glad to see it is doing well and glad to see the store fronts and businesses in the upper market district are doing well. commissioner moore. >> i remember the projects from previous meetings with the planning commission. i'm in full support. i make a motion to approve. >> second. >> seeing no additional requests to speak by commissioners. on the motion -- (roll call) that places us on

item 12. this is a conditional use authorization. please note on september 17th, 2020, after hearing public comment, they continued it to november 19th, 2020, and then subsequently continuing the matter to today's date. commissioner tanner you had not yet be seated on the commission in september of 2020 and so in order to participate, you need to acknowledge that you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> yes, i have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. >> thank you for that. this is the second hearing on this matter. project sponsors will be limited to a three minute presentation and public comment limited to one minute. staff are you prepared to make your presentation.

>> i am. thank you. >> go ahead ashley. >> good afternoon commission. the case before you is a request for conditional use authorization to install a new at&t wireless facility at 590 second avenue with 10 panel antennas and equipment as part of the network. antennas and ancillary equipment will be screened within two closures. on september 17th, 2020, the san francisco planning commission continued the cu a to november 19th, 2020, and after hearing public comment and further continued to this day. commissioners requested that the project sponsor conduct a second round of outreach to property

owners to determine if other viable locations could meet the coverage needs and or meet a higher preference site for section 8.1 of telecommunications services guidelines. the sponsor identified the site as not a good candidate and explained why it was unfavorable than the proposed design at 590 second avenue. i would like to note the sponsor did conduct an initial outreach

prior to commission's request and application submittal that is detailed in the staff report. the proposed project has been designed to be -- has been designed to minimize visual impact and comply with the design of the neighborhood and subject building. maintaining compliance with public health and fire as best feasible. it will not approve unless they show location site or other preferred location site in the geographics in the area. show by clear and convincing evidence what good faith efforts to secure the preferred location sites were taken. explain why such efforts were unsuccessful and demonstrate that the location for the site

is essential to meet demands in the geographic service area and applicant's city wide network. to date, the department has received three letters of support and more than 40 letters from the public in opposition. much of the opposition is concern over radio frequently, design and noise. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant a conditional use authorization pursuant to section 209.2 and 303 to allow installation of a wireless telecommunications facility. facility citing guidelines and objectives and policy of the general plan. the project will enhance the ability of the city to protect property from effect of fire or natural disaster by providing communication services.

and the department finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to adjacent property in the community. this completes staff's report. the project sponsor is available to share presentation and answer questions. thank you. >> thank you ashley. we should let the project sponsor speak. mr. turner. i see that you are logged in but i don't have the ability to unmute you. let's see if i can look up your phone number. okay, project sponsor are you prepared to make your

presentation? >> yes, we are. good afternoon president koppel and commissioners. it's tammy blackstone from at&t. thank you for hearing about our proposed project again. we have been trying to fill this gap in coverage for a long time. you probably received a letter from at&t legal describing the journey but we have been working really hard for two years closely with the planning staff to design a site that is as low impact as possible. there have been redesigns to address neighbor concerns and planning staff recommendations and we know there are tenants still opposed, we hope the commission will understand this site will serve all the residents in the neighborhood and we have revisited every potential building over the last two years and worked to develop a low impact design to meet the coverage and capacity demands of the neighborhood. we respectfully ask for

approval. i'm going to turn you over to our project manager and we have others here for projects about network and health concerns. take it away derek. >> thank you planning commission for the time to speak on the site. this site represents an at&t coverage gap and all properties are residential. unfortunately there are no commercial. we have gone through several redesigns and along the way with correcting city's preferences and taking into consideration the neighbors next door and their concerns. every street was walked with our rf team and we tried to expand the search ring. there are approximately 72 properties in the search ring. only 18 have non pitched roofs.

(please stand by...)

>> it is unheard of. we've looked at every site in the city. none are on the edge of the building visible to the north, looming over our home with full radiation. why do we have guidelines if nobody has to follow them, if they can just do what they

want? there are two sites to the west, there are many to the east. there are many sites in san francisco. if we are forced to move from our home, we will lose 30% of our value, and no one will even by. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. you've used your time. >> hi. this is going to be a blight on the neighborhood, and this entire process has been for our family how much more

devastating if it went through. [inaudible] . >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. that is your time. >> please don't do this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hi. my name is brook tiern, and i live at 614 second avenue, just a few doors down, and i want to

express my strong opposition to this project. it's my understanding that the safety of these kinds of antennas are not completely understood. i have two young kids, and i believe this is an unnecessary danger. my two kids are ages four and one, and i think this kind of exposure at younger ages is probably even more serious. i'm also concerned about the blight, and i do understand the property values decrease about 20% with the installation of this antenna. this proposed location is not a tall building, so it won't hide the antenna very well [inaudible] in a commercial district. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. you need to press star then

three to enter the queue. okay. you have one minute. >> commissioners, my name is david green. i live to the north with my wife and daughter. the screen on the northside is going to add 6 feet to the 44 feet of the building. at&t has asserted they can't relocate it on the roof, and i believe that they can. they said that they have made every effort. they have not. they have not moved it back or made any effort to reduce the impact on us. the guidelines require [inaudible] and i request that you turn it down on those grounds. thank you very much. >> hello. my name is julia. i'm calling to voice my

position to this project. there is no clear and convincing evidence. to say that it is needed for emergencies is ludicrous. it is out of scale with the neighborhood, it is intrusive. it has a huge negative impact. it is out of character with the richmond, and most importantly, it is opposed by the neighborhood. i strongly urge you to follow the wishes of the neighborhood, vote no on this project at 409 second avenue. thank you for your time and stay safe. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, final, final, final call. okay. commissioners, seeing no one else wishing to speak, public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you.

>> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i have a question for staff and the city attorney. city attorney is present, correct? yeah, i see that he's on. so i am loathe to approve a prevalent southern location unless we have no other choice, and we'd already asked them to go back and take a second look. they have done that, but i would like to know what the legal grounds are upon which we have the right to turn this down, given that it is -- seems to be regulated not only by traditional conditional use standards but a state of federal law. so if you could just articulate for us what the grounds are that are available to us for turning this down, and then, i'd like for staff to comment on whether or not there's

evidence to support that. >> sure. thank you, commissioner diamond. i'm not sure there's enough time to go into telecom law. any commission decision needs to be based on substantial evidence, and we would have to have the basis in the record, which staff can more -- get into more detail of to make a finding that would withstand any sort of legal challenge. there are a number of

challenges, but i believe the issue before the commission today is if the conditions satisfy the requirements for conditional use authorization. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so what are the conditions we should be focused on for conditional use authorization? >> thank you [inaudible] and commissioner diamond. so the findings that we would be able to make in order to not approve is if we felt the applicant did not show enough evidence that they did their due diligence to find [inaudible] or other preferred location sites in the areas? they have done that. they included this information with their alternative site analysis and with their second outreach. they provided clear and convincing evidence that they

did reach out to publicly owned, like, city owned publicly owned park areas as well as various private properties, and they explained why other alternative sites would not be viable, and then, they stated that there were various criteria in this specific geographical location . >> commissioner diamond: did you work with them to see if they could move facilities on the roof to a less concerning location that the applicants spoke of? >> yes. they said they tried to [inaudible] as well as ensuring

that the antennas would provide service. [inaudible] while also maintaining our citing guidelines. >> commissioner diamond: do those include moving the antennas farther away from the property instead of just putting it on the collect? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner diamond: so there's no choice, it has to be in that location? >> that's correct. >> commissioner diamond: okay. i'm interested to see what my fellow commissioners think about this very tough decision before us.

>> president koppel: so waiting for other commissioners, i will say that at&t is often here, facing criticism for other projects. we sent them back, and to my knowledge, they've done everything they ca to accommodate, so i'm in support. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: you know, what this commission can do with cell sites perhaps can be directed in questions a slightly different way to the city attorney, and should staff want to voice their opinions,

they can, also. so some of the issues that have been brought forth relates to health hazards. i'd like to separate that portion of the discussion away from the conditional use issues of location. perhaps the city attorney can bring forth the litigation that has occurred with respect to looking at the e.m.s. emission as a health hazard. and then, the second question related to that is is that cell companies have severely litigated both the city and

other jurisdictional issues throughout the state. do you want to address that, austin? >> sure. thank you for the question. the issues have been well established that radio frequency emissions and e.m.s. are regulated by federal entities, by the f.c.c., and they have set forth certain standards. the initial standards, i believe, were adopted in 1996, and most recently, they were updated or reincorporated in 2019. so the city is preempted or unable to regulate based on health concerns stemming from those types of emissions, and so i appreciate your direction here or your question to separate the two issues between

the health and the siting. i don't believe i can give you a summary of all the litigation and administrations that are happening in the world of telecom. that's beyond my expertise, but that's something we could brief the commission on if you would like in the future. >> president koppel: anything more, commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: not at this point. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i am concerned about, obviously, having that strong opposition for civic, health, and other reasons. on the other hand, i'm asking myself public safety is involved and so is the need for coverage that it has to be more and more reliable as covid forces all of us into more

different ways of working. i am torn, however, given that we have been in similar battles in the neighborhoods, and seeing that at&t, i think, has tried to do the right thing here, i am inclined to support this. >> thank you. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. there was concerns about the access to sunlight. perhaps the planner or at&t can clarify or describe the kinds of actions that they did when it comes to this complaint or kind of issue? >> sure. i'd like to defer to the

sponsor as they were in direct communication with a different neighbor about relocating with the antennas and the screen. >> clerk: project sponsor, are you able to comment? >> yes, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> yes. during the community meeting, we actually took that into consideration along the way, and we moved the screen over approximately 2.5 feet, and we moved the screen down approximately 3 feet. we reduced the capacity of the antennas on those two sectors, and we tried to minimize the sector count and just the space in general as much as possible, and that's pretty much what we could do to keep the site

still, the coverage, but we tried. >> commissioner imperial: and when you're doing that analysis, did you get to the point that it will take -- that that will only about -- i don't know, about 2% to the nearby adjacent -- what would be the shadow impact or there is none shadow impact on this so it would help the effect of other residents? >> we took into consideration long-term needs, and we took into consideration the two sectors in one as much as possible, and we didn't have any shadowing. we weren't really looking at sunlight per se, we were looking at health and coverage needs along with the neighbors' concerns. >> commissioner imperial: and i guess this is my concern. they're not required to do shadow analysis or are they? >> they're not required to do

shadow analysis for the scope of work. >> commissioner imperial: okay. i'm also torn, and i believe that commissioner fung brought up a good question when it comes to the health and the telecommunications. and as far as what i've seen from the documents in terms of the radio frequency or level of the frequency that could be described healthy for [inaudible] but at the same time, you know, there's always concerns about the 4-g or 5-g radiation. i'm not sure even if there would be such -- you know, as

to what we know, these things are safe to the residents nearby into the radio frequency, and that would not be in the purview of the planning commission. and i also believe that the at&t also did its due diligence in looking for other sites, as well, and unfortunately, what the planning commission -- we can only decide on whether they did their due diligence and whether this is appropriate for this area. so i am supportive of this in terms of the public health issue. i think that will be a different discussion, and i'm also looking forward for the attorney city to give us some, you know, cases, previous decisions that were made

before. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. what would be the impact if this site was split into two sites? i notice they're in different locations. some seem to be further back from the edge of the property, some seem to be closer to the edge of the property. would limiting these two sites minimize the impact to the area neighboring residences if it were split? >> cammy, can you speak to that? >> yeah, i will speak to that.

so that will not be possible only because the equipment that we need to operate the antenna needs to be located at one single site to operate the equipment. basically, you need to have all the equipment that powers the antenna right near the antenna. so in order to split it into two sites, it would need to power up the equipment and get the equipment by the bay station. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. and then, miss lindsey, if you were aware at the installation, if we were to approve it and it was able to get installed, would you be able to get any frequency readings to show that the emissions are within the allowed amount? >> thanks, commissioner tanner.

yes, so prior to installation, any residents can request r.f. testing be done before installation and testing can be done after the installation, as well. that can be conducted through the department of public health. >> commissioner tanner: okay. and if they were to reach out to you for connection from the department of public health, would you be able to connect them with the right person? >> yes. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you very much. i would -- i think like many of the commissioners, and i want to really acknowledge the members of the public and neighboring residents who have called in, and i know that the location's equipment for many is not seen as ideal. i don't see any evidence that at&t has not investigated other preferred sites that are higher on the list, and i believe that we're in a position to support

this project, and that's where i am at this moment. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yes. one additional question to staff. is the level of screening that they're proposing consistent with what we have required of other similar installations across the city? >> yes, the screening is consistent with past projects that we've seen in the past [inaudible] and entitlement. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you very much. >> clerk: commissioners, i heard a motion to approve the conditions, but i did not hear a second. >> second. >> clerk: commissioner moore, you cannot second the motion. you made the motion. >> vice president moore: no, i did not. i think commissioner tanner was trying to make a motion, but i

did not. >> clerk: i'm sorry. >> commissioner tanner: well, why don't i go ahead and move to approve the project with conditions. >> commissioner diamond: and i'll second it. >> vice president moore: and i'll second it. >> clerk: have you good, commissioners. on that motion to approve the permit with conditions -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners, that'll place us on your discretionary review calendar. item 13 has been continued, placing us on item 14, case 2018-017283-drp at 476 lombard street. this is a discretionary review. staff, are you prepared to make

your presentation? mr. winslow. >> i am. how is the commission? is the staff all right? >> clerk: all right. we can hear you, but your video is a little bit slow. >> okay. i'm going to go ahead and turnoff my video because i'm been having connection issues. good morning, president koppel and commissioners. the matter before you is a request for discretionary review of 476 lombard street. it will result in a 5250 square

foot residence, including an elevator, a roof deck, and two parking spaces. the residents of the property to the east of the proposed project, are concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the retained elements guidelines and detracts from and is outside of character of the historic building. it is not articulated to minimize impacts on light, area, and privacy to the adjacent neighbors, and the roof deck and spiral stairs accessing it presents a significant loss of light and privacy. their proposed alternatives are to reduce the footprint of the third story addition by reducing the set backs on the front and sides and to eliminate the roof deck. to date, there have been four letters in support of the project and four letters

opposed. the department's review of this conforms with the review and residential design guidelines of the scale of the street, preservation of light and air, and minimizes the changes to the historical resource pursuant to the secretary of the interior standards. the front set back is set back 10 inches to be minimally visible from the street. in addition, the department's preservation staff reviewed this proposal and determined that the set back in combination with the height of the existing front parapet adequately maintains minimal visibility to the addition to preserve the resource. it's also important to clarify that the retained elements guidelines that seek to

preserve some existing features of buildings that are proposed to be demolished, this is not a building that is proposed to be demolished by our planning code. the roof deck that are solid parapets is set back 5 feet from the adjacent neighbors and over 30 feet from the front wall. this effectively screens the deck from the back wall and reasonably impacts minimizing to light. staff deems that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances as the building has been designed to respect the historic resource and the adjacent neighbors within the context of the residential design guidelines. there are, staff recommends not taking d.r. and approving. this concludes my report, and i'm available to answer questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow. that concludes staff presentation. we should go to the d.r.

requester. miss bradford bell, you have three minutes, and your presentation is -- >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. you should mute your computer -- >> i'm sorry. what? >> clerk: you should mute your computer because there's a small echo. >> i don't know. it is showing as muted, so i'm not -- i'll use the computer and not the phone. i don't know what's happening. >> clerk: you have to mute one or the other. >> okay. the computer is muted. i have muted the computer -- you know what? i'm going to step away. maybe that'll help. i don't know why it's doing that. all right. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can just barely

hear you now. [inaudible] >> do you have my phone number? >> clerk: sure, let's try that. what's the -- what are the first three digits of your phone number? okay. there you are. okay. i'm unmuting your phone number. >> okay. is that better? >> clerk: yes, much better. okay. you have three minutes. >> okay. good afternoon. my name is shelley bradford bell, and i'm asking that you take d.r. and not approve the project. the correct plans are not before you, it's a significant north beach statement, and it's

not built for the neighborhood. the west lot is a garage, allowing for a larger build. this first meeting was the night before thanksgiving. the second was the first sunday of nfl playoffs, and no further requests were acknowledged in the -- until the d.r. was filed. should you approve, the roof deck should be reduced, and no expansion into the backyard. five, the existing light well is already dark in the lower units. the new third floor will add to the loss of light. six, the staff requests room dimensions are not shown in these plans. seven, there are environmental impacts from asbestos and lead removal during construction. what are they.

eight, red square shows rooms that can be reduced. [inaudible] ten, remove the rooftop. fire code would not allow for more than ten people in the rear yard. it's huge. 11, this is the existing rear yard. all the rear decks should be removed. 12, the north beach context plan and the retained element guidelines should be used. 13, pages in the north beach statement confirm this building is a significant resource. 14, ceqa lists the wrong owner and says there were no known tenants, but july 12, 1934, supervisor's journal notes mr. lagamaracino requests to reduce his property assessment. ceqa says if it were part of the north beach statement, it would differ in significance.

15, no indication staff signed off on the changes. the shadow studies were not done by a reputable firm but by the architect. thank you, commissioners. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have during deliberation. >> clerk: okay. you have, well, 15 seconds, but that's fine. if that concludes the d.r. requester's presentation, we should go to the project sponsor. mr. zucker, are you able to make your presentation?

>> yes. first, we would like to thank department staff, specifically david winslow, for facilitating mediation as well as director hillis for helping facilitate a second mediation. while we were unable to reach a resolution, their assistance has been truly appreciated. the tannenbaums have owned the property for nearly a decade the proposed outdoor safe will allow for safe places for the family to gather with loved ones during these uncertain times, which the chronicle says this week may linger for many years to come.

next slide, please. the same concerns continue to be asserted, and reasonable offers in compromise are rejected without counter, creating an impediment to finding a reasonable common ground to resfl this outside of this hearing. the tannenbaums have been mindful of the neighborhood and the historic elements of the existing home and from the outset have proposed to retain every single character detail of the home, and the third floor expansion is set back from the front facade such that it is not visible from any public right-of-way. slide four. we acknowledge that there are some shadows that exist from the project, however, the project sponsors have removed some features from the rear of the home, allowing light and air to reach down to the d.r. requester's property. there's nothing exceptional or extraordinary about the proposed project shadows. slide five. in this case, the d.r.

requester has a light well down to the second story as well as property line windows on the second and third story of the property line. respecting those features, the d.r. requester's building, the tannenbaums have a fully [inaudible] and allow light and air to pour down to the light well. that concludes my presentation, but i will allow the tannenbaum to comment if available. i now turn it over to renee the last 30 seconds. >> thank you. thank you, commissioners, for allowing me to speak. my name is renee tannenbaum, and we have owned the home for over ten years. come the moment we saw this house, we knew this is where we wanted to live and retire and make our home for ourselves and our extended family. i am a wife, a mother of three

kids, one of whom lives with us [inaudible] leaving him disabled, and using that in the design of our home. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. that is your time, but you will have a rebuttal. [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your public comment by pressing star then three to enter the queue. you will have one minute. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is linda frank, and i'm speaking today to request that you take the d.r. review and deny this project. 476 lombard is a historic building in north beach. since the historic preservation commission had to put the review of the plan on hold because of the covid pandemic,

it stands to reason that the project should have also been put on hold. with all the confusion and lack of transparency around the plans, no one can be sure of the impact of this project. it claims to be a single-family home but is designed as a multifamily multiunit residence. it may even become an airbnb since there's documented evidence that the owner will not be full time residents. it's also clear that the project will destroy most of the building, leaving a token front facade. the project will see light and air and sun light in the space from the other neighbors -- >> clerk: okay. thank you, ma'am. that's your time.

[inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you very much. >> my name is bill sherlock. thank you for the opportunity to comment. the neighboring house up the hill, 468 lombard, was built with two floors. the middle two rooms on each floor rely on light from windows in the light well halfway down the west bordering -- i was asked to take photos through the windows of the inner room, showing the existing blocking of light by the sponsor's house. i was shocked by the existing restriction of light. can't imagine what it would be light if 476 was built above the existing roof line or the proposed stairways added. for the sake of the neighboring

tenants, please don't allow this to happen. another major issue is the impact to the project on the historical identity. the plans and status hold out that there is no historical impact. they tried to show this with site line drawings -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. your time is up. >> hi. my name is lance fulford, and i'm a long time residence of san francisco and have had my mother living with me and my family here, and i would like if the commissioners would approve this project because the city's been losing so many families, and i've known the tannenbaums for over ten years, and i understand their needs for the mother-in-law and for the elevator for steve tannenbaum. so for the quality and character of our neighborhoods, i would vote that you or ask that you would approve the

project. >> hi. my name is dave tobias, and i'm a long time resident of the city, originally from the sunset district. i remember going to north beach with some of my friends to visit their grandparents and family who still live in north beach, and as i walked up lombard to coit tower numerous times, i almost admired the old world feel and terrific views along the residences all the way up to coit. i feel that the plans for this addition would be in stark contrast to the rest, and -- the rest of the neighborhood and would block some beautiful

views and air and light to both sides of the property. i would wish that the planning commission would not agree on this. this does not fit in with the neighborhood. thank you. . >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. you need to press star, three to enter the queue. >> hello, and thank you, commissioners. this is maxwell graham at 364 lombard, up the street from the tannenbaums. i've viewed the planned and visited the property twice, and

i disagree with what some of the people are saying. it's a positive addition to the neighborhood. it's not overstated, and i've looked at the complaint and don't agree with it. i would urge you to approve this project. thank you so much. >> hi, can you hear me? this is jackie chan. i'm a neighbor who owns a condo two buildings up on the same side as the building in question, number 454. i'm not an expert on north beach and historical information and all that. all i know that this is a block

on taraval hill, and i'm sure that the city has gone through all of the information of what is being permitted and what is not as far as building code, permits, all the requirement and all that, and i believe that the tannenbaum has complied with all the necessary research and information and done all the research and work before they applied for the change and modifications, so i'm in support of the project. >> hi. my name is michelle, and i'm a fourth generation san franciscan, and i am very much against this project. i think it's out of scale, i think it's out of character, and i think it's going to affect light into the both sides of the building that will affect, i think, a lot of

neighbors? and i'm also very concerned about the toxic problems, the asbestos that's going to get into the environment? and like i said, i think it's sad that the character of north beach has changed so much. thank you. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to make your testimony? last chance, caller. okay. members of the public, final, final call for public comment. seeing no other -- of course. go ahead, caller.

okay. caller, i have to take the next person queued to speak. we cannot hear you. >> okay. how about now? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> my name is [inaudible] i've lived in the sunset for over 80 years. san francisco has always been a city with unique neighborhoods [inaudible] and what i've learned about 476, the renovations [inaudible] there's no room for such a monster of a building in this neighborhood. the planning commission should deny or modify this request.

thank you. >> hello. i'm gail maderas, a third generation san franciscan living on lombard street. i'm speaking in favor [inaudible] very much in keeping with the size and renovations in the neighborhood. most importantly, they are renovating this to make it [inaudible] and that is very rare. i live with m.s. it took me two years to find a house that was acceptable, and we need more houses that are acceptable to the disabled in

our neighborhood. lastly, we're losing many [inaudible] and to have a committed couple [inaudible]. >> clerk: go ahead, sir. your line is unmuted. sir, are you ready to submit your public testimony? this is the fourth time i'm

unmuting your line. okay. so we're going to move onto the next caller. >> hi. this is terry rosseau, and i'm calling to say that i'm very concerned about this project. it seems in direct conflict with san francisco's initiative to preserve our historic architecture, so i don't know how this project is allowed to move forward. the building has a massive expansion, including a spiral staircase. i have lived in san francisco for a long time, but i've recently moved to the east bay. i'm there often, though, hosting gatherings and seeing friends. the fact that this building is allowed seems so out of what we

have been promised as community members, and i'm really disappointed that this is moving forward, and i'm hoping that it can be stopped immediately. thank you. >> clerk: okay, so i'm going to try to unmute your line one last time. so would you like to submit your public comment? caller with 415-218, would you like to submit your public comment? okay. that's it. members of the public and commissioners, public comment is now closed. commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> rebuttal, jonas? >> clerk: thank you, mr.

winslow. i got a little frustrated with that caller, and you're absolutely right. we should go to rebuttal. miss bradford bell, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> oh, can you hear me? i'm on my phone. >> clerk: we can, yes. >> okay. a lot of information is provided in the slides for your review during deliberation. staff asked for the third floor to be angled and set back at an additional 5 feet, and it was not done. when did the ceiling height change? were changed reviewed and approved by staff? what happened to the july 20, 2020 plans? the shadow studies should not be used. the owners live in san diego county, not here. they own five homes, and they'll be living part of the time in saratoga springs, new

york. he states, we see how lack of response by the political leadership have allowed issues to fester and worsen. we must show that san francisco do things right and will not allow this project to foster deplorable consequences on a historic property. please take d.r. and deny this project. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> the planning department has confirmed the plans are accurate as well as finding the project is compatible with the neighborhood. to address concerns addressing the actual construction and

renovation, the project is being managed by d.b.i., which is the appropriate department to manage the concerns. miss tannenbaum's mother will be living with the family. [inaudible] covid has had on most everyone, and our current reality, which is not likely to change overnight, the project seeks to provide functionally adequate outdoor space for the

family. [inaudible] that concludes my presentation, and we are available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you. okay, commissioners. now, that concludes the public hearing, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: i am on board and supporting staff's recommendation on this one. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i have a -- i have a question for mr. winslow. mr. winslow, could you please explain the need for the spiral staircase in single-family

homes unless the exiting corridor is unusual long, that spiral staircase is, in its own right, undesirable. could you give us some indication of why you have not flagged that? >> sure. if you look on sheet a-17, the spiral staircase i think that you're referring to is not -- it's set up 5 foot from the property line at the rear. >> vice president moore: nope? >> which spiral staircase are we looking to? >> i'm coming down -- >> okay. it would be the plan below that. so that spiral staircase is set up 5 feet from the adjoining property line of the d.r. requesters, and it serves to go

up to the roof deck. i believe a spiral staircase is allowed to serve the purpose of a limited occupancy load by d.b.i., and the limited occupancy load i think is ten or under, that is to be determined by the area served. so if this deck, for example, were 500 square foot, that occupancy load would be ten people, and that would allow a spiral stair to serve the occupancy load for the purposes of egress. >> vice president moore: it's quite awkward no matter where it is, and i still think it potentially has privacy issues. what is bothering to me, more of a general comment, not addressed to mr. winslow is the enlargement of single-family residence by 2,558 square feet without adding another unit.

in north beach, where average units are 800 and 1200 square feet, a family home of 5,250 square feet is something i question. i'm interested in hearing other commissioners speak. in addition to that, mr. winslow, isn't it something that we normally hold to a front set back of 15 feet? we have basically held to that many times over the years, and you're saying that 12'6" is okay here. >> the real criteria is visual

subordination or visual ability of the project. in this case, because the roof parapet is so high, it basically obscures the addition even though it's set back 12'10" instead of 15 feet. >> vice president moore: i don't like to argue with you. >> i'm giving the department staff's criteria and the application of that. >> vice president moore: right. again, we have battled with many other buildings of similar importance of making them 15 feet, particularly a category a building, and in my book, it would say it should be 15 feet. those are my comments, and i'm curious to see what other commissioners have to say. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i do agree with commissioner moore in saying that this home

being large is certainly understandable with everybody spending more time at home, but i would like to see an additional unit. it seems that there would be space on the first floor. in the rear of the garage, there's currently a guest bedroom. i wasn't able to figure out the dimensions of that room or that space, but to allow a studio or a.d.u. unit while still providing access to the elevator and other items that make the upper floors accessible to the owners and occupants. mr. winslow, was that discussed at all in the review of this project, and can you shed light on any of those discussions? >> i am not sure if that was discussed in the early stages with the planner, but he is here and ready to talk about

that. the room that you're talking about is 24 feet by 19 feet, and there is a bathroom en suite with that. we do encourage property owners to add density when possible. we don't have means to enforce it, especially in this zone, which is an rh-3, which does not fall within the recent controls in r.c. and r.m. districts. >> miss [inaudible] do you have anything to add to that? >> that's correct. it has been our policy and has been for a while that we encourage an increase in density, but at this point, there's nothing that we can really do, and short of that, we make sure that we get the massing of the building such that it's not having any impact

on adjacent residences. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i was having a concern with the set back in the front. i was finding it, at least for the visuals that were provided on the front a little bit jarring and concerned about having both a front deck and a roof deck, and i'm not sure that both are necessary. in regards to the spiral staircase, was there any thought about moving it to the other side of the platform in the rear which would move it from 5 feet set from the neighboring property. has that been discussed at all? >> i would look to the sponsor for that. >> commissioner tanner: can the sponsor or architect comment on that spiral staircase location? >> the spiral staircase location was chosen to allow

the most accessibility for those in the home. after our comments from planning, that was removed, and that spiral staircase was put in so that we can get the rest of the family members up there. >> commissioner tanner: yes, but it seems that it's outside, and it seems like there's a platform that's on, and i'm just saying, could it have been moved to the other side of the platform, towards the other property, and it seems that the other property, as opposed to the d.r. requester's property, might not be as impacted as the d.r. requester's property because it faces the other street. >> if we push it to the other side, that go to see what i'll call -- goes to what i'll call the open side of the building.

if we put that spiral staircase on that side, it would really be visible to the rest of the community, and that's not something we wanted to impose, so it was strategically designed to be put there, and that was why they also included that five-foot set back to the d.r. requester, to be mindful of their property, as well, in addition to the community. >> commissioner tanner: and then, while i have you, can you speak at all if there was any consideration to adding an additional unit in this building? i understand it's for multigenerational living. that's the proposed use. part of the concern i would have is that as the future goes on that this becomes a very large and very expensive house with just one single-family home as opposed to possibly having an additional unit. can you speak to that? >> you know, i hear where you're coming from and certainly aware of the desire to increase density throughout the city, but in this instance,

the home just isn't programatic sizeable to accommodate the needs. the tannenbaums have three children, two of them with children, and one of them will be living with them. the mother will be in one room, the father in the other, the mother-in-law in the other, and the other one will be oscillating between the other family members. >> commissioner tanner: well, certainly the family wouldn't be obligated to rent it out, but certainly in terms of the city and providing long-term density overall, the daughter could live there or other family members could live in the additional unit and not be rented, but it helps us shore up future density in san francisco. so commissioners, that's my questions.

i think there are some items here that perhaps could be addressed but i'm open to hearing from other commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i have questions on the terms of preservation. since this is qualified in california register, and looking into the preservation team's comments, i believe this building under criteria 3, my question's about the amount of alteration under the california register and under as it is in criteria 3. the amount of addition in square footage on third floor is about 3,192 square feet. is that something that, under the historic preservation, that feels like it's too big because the analysis is that it will not create a significant impact

on this historic resource. do we have a cap on alteration measurements? >> not per se. i think the criteria is of visibility subordination such that the visual impact is not an impact to the historic structure. the typical means that we achieve that, as commissioner moore and i were discussing, can it be seen from a public right-of-way? and less so are we concerned about views of it from other private properties. just as a point of clarification, this is listed in our system as a category a building. it's in a survey, a historic

survey district area that has not yet been adopted, so i'm not quite sure if that criteria that you're describing applies, but that's in general the criterias that are visible. >> commissioner imperial: yeah. it's not yet been adopted under north beach historic district. but there were comments that if it was within, it would contribute to that district, as well, so there's question of that not being adopted, but it's also within the criteria of a historic district, so i'm baffled on this. >> so just to speak to that issue, this would need to be analyzed per ceqa for preservation. this is a category a, and it

was reviewed by our preservation staff to ensure that it was consistent and that it wouldn't be an impact to it. it was evaluated as such a resource. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you. those are my comments. >> and they did actually make some changes. the preservation planner is not on the call here, but the applicant did make changes in response to requests by our preservation staff. >> commissioner imperial: those are my comments. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? i have one additional question for either miss aspaugh or mr. winslow. this is a massive project. have you seen the percentage of

the demolition? >> well, i can tell you that this is not a demolition on its face because the front, back, and sides are being retained, so as far as 317 demolition, it doesn't even come close, and i will defer to -- maybe claudine, you can answer that question about review from the previous planner. >> and i think that we can also look -- i do know that we also use as a general guideline article 10, i believe, demolition calcs for historic structures, and i don't think -- so we looked at it from both angles, and it didn't -- it didn't constitute a demolition. >> vice president moore: but you had plans because we don't see any on the subject. >> correct. >> vice president moore: okay. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: based on staff's analysis, i'm not

seeing that this meets the standards of exceptional or extraordinary as provided by d.r., so i would be supportive of staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: is that a motion? >> commissioner diamond: yes, i move to approve as set forth in staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. seeing no additional requests from commissioners to speak, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion

passes 4-3, with commissioners tanner, imperial, and moore voting in the dissent. thank you, commissioners, for your attention and patience. that concludes today's agenda. >> candlestick park known also as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it

was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015. mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999. fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9. during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers

played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the 49ers moved to santa clara in

2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. (♪♪♪) virtually... good

morning, twice before we've gathered in late january. first at the national lgbtq center for the arts. then, last year in the rotunda of city hall. so i could share with you my view of the state of our city. as we gather virtually today, you don't really need me to tell you the state of our city. we are anxious. we're frustrated. we're impatient. and we are lonely. i know it, because i feel it myself. and i know in many cases, folks are hurting even more than that. but if i can impart anything to you today, it is