>> covid-19, the plans commission received authorization to reconvene remotely. this will be our 42nd remote hearing. remote hearings require everyone's attention and most of

all your patience. if you're not speaking, mute your microphone. sfgovtv is streaming live. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering 1870642720. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, please press star and 3 to enter the cue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted. that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up, and take the next person cued to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and

mute the microphone on your television or computer. i'd like to take roll at this time? [ roll call ] >> thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is consideration for items proposed, at a continuance, 140-142 jasper place, a discretionary review. proposed for continuance for march 4th, 2021. further commissioners under your regular calendar. item 12a and b at 321 florida street are requesting a one week

continuance. actuallyp take that back. i believe. yes, a one week continuance to february 25th. 2021. and even further commissioners under your discretionary review calendar, item 14 i'm pleased to announce drp for 36 delano avenue. has been withdrawn. i have no other items proposed for continuance. we should take members of the public. this is your opportunity to enter the cue by pressing star and 3 to speak to the minutes. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, public comment to the minutes.

for the matter for continuance. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, public comment is closed and the matters for continuance are now before you. >> commissioner imimperial. >> move to continue items as proposed. >> the motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner khan? >> aye. >> commissional fung? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> and commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> thank you, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and places us under commission matters, adoption of the minutes

from january 28, 2021. members of the public if you would like to speak to the minutes, now is your opportunity to do so. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak at this time, public comments is closed and the minutes are now before you. >> commissioner diamond? >> move to approve both sets of minutes. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes. commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner khan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye? >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> and commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> that motion is approved 7-0. item three, comments and questions? commissioner tanner? >> good afternoon commissioners, and i'm just reminding everyone we're about a week and a half

longer, most of the way through february already. even though you have to shelter in place or not get out as much, there are a great number of online events. and also a lot of great films on streaming if you want to celebrate black history month in that way. happy black history month, everyone. >> thank you commissioner tanner. commissioner fung? >> i have a request for the director. recent news has brought forth a couple of programs that are being discussed related to the elimination of exclusionary zoning. specifically in berkeley, sacramento. and i think perhaps it would be also interesting to see what portland is doing, since they are a larger urban setting. would it be possible for staff to provide an analysis and summary of what is being

proposed there in those programs to the commission? >> absolutely, commissioner. we will do that. we're going to be before you too. in -- i believe in march, to talk about our housing element work which will certainly be a topic of discussion during that presentation. but in advance of that, happy to provide you with information on what other jurisdictions are doing, as well as -- we talked about legislation that's been proposed, he hasn't submitted it yet, but he intends to submit legislation that would zone some areas, to allow for -- currently areas zoned rh-1 to rh-3 to allow four plexes around train stations and on corner lots. we'll provide you with an update. sacramento is doing if as part of their general plan update, so they kind of announced it and indicated that's the direction

they're going. i don't think they've legislated it yet. i'll be happy to provide those details. >> great. thank you. >> if there are no further questions commissioners or comments, we can move on to department matters. item four, director's announcements. >> nothing to report. >> thank you. item five. review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation committee. >> the board was off this week because of president's day, but they did meet last week while you were on break. and last week's land use committee entertained the item

was under consideration. last month they considered a six month retroactive extension that would allow temporary uses of motels and hotels, for supported use of housing. this is a clerical procedure to give more time for the author to do public outreach. however, the item was continued until february 23rd of this year, over a disagreement of necessity and the merits of the ordinance expressed by supervisor peston. and there was a request for renewal of applications. that's all i have nor you today. >> thank you, mr. star. i did not receive a report for the board of appeals. however, the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and they had a --

short but -- conversation regarding the san francisco unified school district, school renaming effort, and directed staff to draft a letter on their behalf, addressed to the san francisco unified school district board. basically, expressing their dismay over the proposed effort. they also considered the landmark designation for the lyon martin house on duncan street. the long time home of pioneering activist, phyllis lyon and del martin. they forwarded a resolution recommending landmark designation to the board of supervisors, however, they omitted any reference to the adjacent vacant parcel that was a part of the initial landmarking effort. and then finally, they had a

very long item at 55 tea garden drive, regarding the regulation wheel to extend the temporary authorization for a period of an additional four years. supervisor khan requested that the historic preservation commission continue the matter to allow her to meet with both sides of the issue. and to come to some form of resolution. so the commission after hearing continued the matter to their next hearing on march 3rd. commissioners, if there are no questions, we can move on to -- i'm sorry general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission of interest to the commission. with respect to agenda items,

your opportunity to address the commission the be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when we exceed the 15 minute wlimt, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. this is your opportunity to press star then three to be entered into the cue for general public comment items that are not on today's agenda. >> good afternoon, this is georgia shudus. i sent you all an email on february 14th, valentine's day with some photos and some texts about two projects that happen to be side by side on sanchez street. i actually sent you a photo of one of them before, the aqua sided one comparing it with another alteration project in

pacific heights. i think i sent that to you on january 26th. i sent you the photo of the two that are side by side on sanchez street. and i sent the original demo calcs which is the photo of the houses as they were prior to their alteration permits being put into effect. and you have these -- one is a pair of flats, it was a nice stucco job on it, which is increasingly harder to see really good stucco work. and the other one seemed to have the original parapet. the demo calcs didn't cross the threshold. although the one for the aqua house in slide two. i don't know if you're looking at it now, i don't have a computer in front of me. slide two, which those calcs were sort of close, but not really there. and certainly for the parathreats, those calcs were not closed. then what happened? they had an enforcement action,

because they needed an enforcement action. if you look on slide 4 i think it is. you see the buildings when they're under the enforcement, and you see the revised demo calcs. and one crossed the threshold and you had a hearing on that, a cua hearing, and the other didn't cross the threshold. looking at the photos, it's kind of hard to say, one is more extreme than the other. but they're fundamentally the same. they have the same outcome. if the compare the calcs, you can certainly see that the calcs for the aqua one are -- the siding are pretty close. what's my point? i guess my feeling is -- and i know these properties quite well, because they're very close to where i live, and i've walked by them for over 30 years. i guess my point is that regardless of the enforcement

actions, both -- there goes the bell. if the calcs had been adjusted between sometime between today and going back to 2009 in those years, maybe those buildings would be occupied because they're not occupied. and they haven't been -- one hasn't been occupied since 2015, the flats. and the other one, which is -- underway, hasn't been occupied since 2017, 2018. maybe if the calcs had been adjusted people would have done a simple remodel and put them back on the market. and i guess that's my point. i hope you look at the slides and take care. good-bye. happy lunar new year, be well, be safe. good-bye. >> caller -- >> michael -- >> go ahead. >> my name is michael purdy.

i got a text message just as this began, that maybe items 12 pertaining to 321 florida street has been moved to the 25th? is that correct? >> that's right. those two matters have been continued to next week. >> okay. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony? is there no public comment? okay. commissioners, seeing no additional request to speak from

members of the public. public comment is closed. we can move on to your regular calendar. for item 6, case number 2020 pca, chinatown mixed used districts, planning code amendments. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, thank you. >> good afternoon president koppel and commissioners, veronica flores, planning department staff. the item before you is the ordinance on chinatown mixed use districts, which is comprised of the chinatown community business district. the chinatown visitor retail district and the chinatown residential neighborhood commercial district. this legislation was sponsored by the mayor and we do have a representative from that office of economic development with us here today. i do want to invite her to share a few words with you before i follow up with staff presentation.

laurel. if you're ready, you can go ahead and jump in. hi, sorry about that. my name is laurel this proposal works -- is the mayor's effort to work with chinatown to preserve their longstanding relationship flew proposition h. proposition h was focused on creating changes to our nc, some of the changes were district five.

the mayor thought this was a good improved way to continue that relationship. we hope you will agree. >> great. i want to reiterate the background of that for you, commissioners. >> it's called retail work spaces. it's referring to eating and drinking establishments anywhere in the city. this includes the chinatown moifrmed use districts. however, the retail work spaces are not viable for chinatown, which is meant to be more of a community residential neighborhood and a tourist attraction. so in response, the proposed ordinance in front of you today would amend the planning code to prohibit retail work space as a principle use in the chinatown

mixed use district. to date, the department has not received any public comment. and the department recommends the commission approve the proposed ordinance because it supports existing businesses and additionally the ordinance meets the chinatown plans intent to maintain the traditional specialty retail stores further enhancing chinatown's role as a visitor attraction. and making sure we have existing neighborhoods, which means chinatown and the neighborhood financial districts. this concludes staff presentation. and we're both available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you, veronica. we should go to public comment. you can speak to this matter by pressing star 3. seeing no requests to speak -- i take that back. you have two minutes.

>> good afternoon commissioners, i'm with the chinatown community development center, we are in strong support of this ordinance. and we have worked closely with the office of economic and workforce development to address some of the unintentional changes that prop h had introduced in chinatown zoning. so we ask for your support when it comes to these changes that basically restore chinatown mixed use, zoning to the intentions of the community. and of the chinatown plan. >> thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. seeing none, commissioner's public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner moore?

>> it just, we have tried to prevent the use. i can't count any more. i am grateful to you and the mayor's office for making this happen. and i'm in full support. >> is that a motion? >> that's a motion to approve, yes. >> i'm very much in favor of staff's recommendation as well, and i'll second the motion. seeing no further deliberation from commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve the proposed code amendment on that motion. commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner khan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> and commissioner president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 7-0.

and we'll place this on item 7 for case number 2021-001452 pca for the expanded compliance control and consumer protections where history of significant violations -- end title. admittedly informational presentation. mr. starr? >> good afternoon commissioners. we have someone in the supervisor's office that was going to present on this, we're having technical difficulty getting her on this meeting. i don't know if you want to continue this for a bit -- >> mr. starr an invitation was sent to miss fineheart i'm going to follow up right now with another invitation to her. she seems to have technical difficulties on a regular basis.

so it has been sent yet again. she should look for it in her email. >> miss fineheart, are you able to join us?

>> commissioners it does appear. yes, she can call in yes, if she would prefer. that would be easy enough. i don't see miss fineheart anywhere. commissioners, i don't know if

you would like to skip over this matter and come back to it to allow miss fineheart the opportunity to find the email, and if she's listening, you may want to check your junk email. >> yeah, why don't we do that. we'll leave her -- or leave this open, but maybe move on to the next one. >> very good, commissioners. item 8, case number 2019, 2019-0208938 cua. 1 montgomery street. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am am. can you hear and see me? >> yes. >> good afternoon, planning department staff, the application before you is a conditional use authorization for the property located at 1 monday montgomery street. the subject property is what remains of the historic crocker bank building.

composed of the 1908 banking hall. the department has determined that the property is an individually eligible historic resource with character and features found in the interior and exterior. a landmark nomination for the property pursuant to article 10 of the planning code is also pending. as proposed, the project will convert 7,653 square feet of retail banking to office space as part of the overall provision, where approximately 15,230 square feet of new general office use. the remainder of which will be included at the expanded mezzanine level. this item was continued from december 17, 2020 to allow for outreach between the project responsibler and the preservation community. and any other parties. following this outreach, an agreement made by the property owner, opposition has been withdrawn.

the conditional use authorization which cites already predominant office use, difficulty adapting the interior, the large exterior at the pedestrians level. paired with the fact that the subject property is within the downtown office zoning district, and the new users are anticipated to help activate the area post pandemic, the department found the project to be necessary and desirable. nonbalanced. the department is also cognizant of the fact that if approved, conversion of the remaining retail space would be to the building having an entirely private use. it was regularly accessible to the public from its original completion up until wells fargo recently vacated the space. as such, the project worked with the property owner to reach several measures that would maintain some level of public

access to the historic banking halls. these are detailed in exhibit b and g. the key elements include provision of an architectural tour at least once a month. an interpretation of display in the main lobby. the department staff recommends two additional measures be added to approval 16 of public access. one, in order to support the public visibility of and encourage public access to the main lobby area, the property owner shall incorporate signage and/or other means to promote increase access to the lobby. the property owner shall coordinate with the planning department to develop and implement these measures, and two, as design development is refined and finalized through the building permitting process, the property owner shall work with the planning department to minimize as is feasible the expanded mezzanine and or its

visible intrusion into the historic banking halls. the department, therefore, recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation. project architect rob zerkle is in attendance and wishes to add his own comments. i was not the historic preservation planner on this project, i believe alison is on the call. if not, i can answer questions related to that. >> thank you, mr. zimmer. mr. zerkle, you have five minutes. >> thank you. i hope everybody can hear me. >> we can, and your presentation slides are up. >> good afternoon, it's a delight to be here today i'd

like to begin by acknowledging that in getting to this point, city staff, particularly the historic preservation staff have been great collaborators, additionally, the productive dialogue over sf heritage over the last few months has led to public inclusion. we thank all of them and all of you for working with us to make the project happen. thank you. john, can you -- hear we go. the overarching goal for this project is to breathe new life into the business. and honor the historic character of the two buildings that make up this project. particularly the two banking halls. strategically placed interventions, including new

visual and physical connections to the basement, siding repairs and upgrades will bring new beauty to the area. the continuation of architectural history of the project shall remain in place. next? next? >> the architectual character leaves a lasting impression, additionally, the texture, the pattern of the accent, ceilings, breezeways and metal work are all key characteristics to be preserved, repaired when needed and in all cases on or in the design solution. next? key demolition in the basement and the second floor will create newfound utility that will make the building significantly more functional for modern day use. in the basement, the remarkable main bank vault will be preserved and featured prominently as a space to celebrate for future tenants and a key feature in the architectural tours.

with our partners at paige & turnbull. we have taken great care to research and understand how spaces like this have been changed over time. the treatment of the new mezzanine of st. joseph's church which appears light, and contributes enjoyment to the use of the space. another great example is the manner in which the building creates a greater sense of connection and energy in the building through the removal of the existing floor area of the spatial feature. next? in the montgomery street banking hall, we've crafted a slender and elegant addition that creates enhanced utility and symmetry of the space. additionally, to create links to

the basement, we have created the central work area to visually connect the basement and further harness the organizing feature. an elegant stairs will further connect the basement to the ground floor which creates greater functionality to the future tenant. the post street banking hall will be linked to the montgomery street banking hall, both visually and functionally as it is intended. all nonpartition ceilings will be removed. and the functionality of this level will be enhanced through the addition of the mezzanine. in all cases, great care has been taken to ensure the lightest possible touch in reversibility of the new mezzanine in structural and architectural detail. we want to emphasize that this building is a place to work has

historically been the permitted use. the highlighted areas here represent only a small fraction of the total over all project. access to this property is not only the right thing to do, but honors the continuing tradition available to all san franciscoans for a very long time. the project will protect and preserve, and repair the continuing access to this approximately 7500 square foot rooftop space, which is a remarkable place in the city, and a real access to this building. next? as a last point through our productive dialogue with sf heritage. we further propose the cafe on the ground floor which will incorporate a portion of the banking hall interior with the outdoor space of the rotunda. this will create meaningful energy at the corner, and provide approximately 1900

square feet of space dedicated to public use access. that's our presentation, thank you so much for your time. and collaboration. and i have with me our extended team on the line here to answer any questions or concerns that you may have. >> great, if that concludes the sponsored presentation, and there are no immediate questions from the commissioners, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter, by pressing star 3 and you will be entered into the cue. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak at this time, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> so before i call on other commissioners, i wanted to say that homelessness and housing are often huge important topics here in the city, but something we do look over sometime is the

young town financial district. and the amount of jobs and the amount of commerce it brings into this city just keeping people employed and keeping the businesses that are located down there in business. i'm in favor of giving these buildings downtown the ability to adapt and change how they need to in order to make themselves a little more sustainable for the future. commissioner tanner? >> thank you. i wanted to ask the project if they had a sense of the office uses that they imagine here, single tenant, multiple tenant. if there's a sense of the life of this building? given the proposal. >> i'll take this. this is chris freed from the project sponsor. we identified -- we think it's going to be one to two tenants, not five to ten tenants.

it's really to preserve the historic elements of the building and not create all these exit and egress corridors that really take away from some of its beauty. we think that not only from a feasibility. but it's a -- kind of a viability for the project, we think it will most likely be one tenant. but it could be one to two tenants. >> just curious if you have any sense if it would be a banking tenant. or a more exterior office as proposed would be administrative or whatever is not public serving? >> that's correct. >> yeah, we've -- so we've owned the buildings in july of 2019 and wells fargo was in occupancy

through december of that year. we've been marketing it for at least that entire time. and we've spoken to the bay club and soho house. a whole host of variety of uses that would be logical, publicly accessible uses, kind of like your banking use that you just referred to. the banking use in my opinion, not only from what's happening in the market, but from talking with retail brokers is not only are they shrinking, but they're going away all together. i think the banking use is highly unlikely. we did see financial services firms that were looking at the building prior to covid. but just more traditional office users. >> okay, and do you have a sense -- this is at least as much for curiousity, what do you look for what's happening in the city in the future, with this current change your proposing,

do you see more public facing users to express interest? do you think it was the pandemic that held them back, price point? overall timing? the space felt too big, too small? what did you hear from them? >> yeah, i mean, as you guys know, the city has been on -- essentially market lockdown since covid began. our company moved into the building to have the space to work in, and we've been in there since june. i can tell you that it's noticeably the actiity around the building, the foot traffic. i feel like things are coming back to life down there, and we had our first tour last month. every bit of activity across the board has been on standstill since march of last year. >> thank you. >> generally i'm supportive of the project. i think it's a lovely building.

it's pretty awesome it was used as a bank for so much of its history. it does seem like it might be fine for some flexibility to introduce. i'm really happy to see the access maintained, as well as disposal for cafe to maintain some public access as well as amenities for the workers to be there. just overall supportive of staff's recommendation regarding the tour and public access, a wonderful architectural building and to have access to the public is a benefit. those are my comments at this time, thank you. >> commissioner moore? >> i wanted to briefly ask a clarifying question about the open space. does the applicant of the own -- >> this is chris freeze.

that is not. that is owned by prudential. >> as you probably know, and i'm surprised that is not said more clearly, the open space on top of the banking hall is the public obligation for the tower to have been built. the access needs to provide -- actually we provided by -- i'm not sure who, but it's an unusual question that you will put on your own, the access should be coming, across the galleria. >> there's two access points to the part. there's the one through the rotunda and our elevated elevator. crocker has upstairs, when crocker was full of retailers,

maybe there's two left now in there, people would grab lunch and head up through that access point. there still will be two access points. and it's -- there's -- like a lot of things related to that larger project that was done by lincoln property in the nson, there's a lot of weird exit corridors and pc & rs, it was all related to the entire block. and it was owned by one -- now, through the years, those pieces have been sold off and unfortunately, there's just some legacy weird things we're trying to clean up and remedies. and the mezzanine is one of those things, the corridor. one of the corridors is not connected to crocker, it cuts through the mezzanine and makes it not feasible or usable. and it also did a lot of damage to the historic elements that we

are putting back as part of the project. >> i'm very interested in your taking stewardship of the historic building. i'm in agreement to support the use of office use. not because offices are the right use, but it's -- it is its timing. within very few weeks, the office vacancy in san francisco has gone from 12 million to 14 million square feet. who's trying to be at the table to access office space. there are lots of people all waiting in line to put their space back to market. adding speculative office space at this time seems to be counter intuitive. i understand as a developer, as a realtor, you need to deliver

something to the market because you need to make proactive use of your own holdings. but for the reasons that i believe the discussion on office space per say, i'm at this moment not inclined to add additional speculative space to the 14 million square feet. i understand your stewardship and what you're trying to do. >> commissioner kent? >> i wanted to ask the project team some questions. and planning staff as well. i am wondering how the plans would interact with the

potential designation from december. especially around the mezzanine level and staircase and stuff like that. >> the item was introduced through the board and has been referred to the department. they have recently received a 90 day extension on bringing that forward to initiate a designation. that's to do with balancing the work load from what i understand. that's likely at the earliest, from what i understand, they would bring into the hpc in may, would be the earliest, this project is just a conditional use entitlement application right now, if they were to file a building permit prior to the preservation commission initiating landmark designation, that work could go forward without a certificate of appropriateness. it was subject to cu

application. but as of now, it would not require a certificate of appropriateness following the hpc initiating designation, if the permit were to be subsequent to that initiation, they would need a c of a to do any kind of insteer yore or exterior work to the structure. >> okay, to clarify, the issues we probably won't get to until may and if the agency reviews, the project would be subject to what you mentioned. >> if we don't have a building permit by the time the hbc initiates the building permit, yes. >> that is good to know. i'm also trying to understand and make sure of this coffee cart proposed inside the property. the application is to convert the retail space into office space. what is the mechanism to ensure

the coffee cart will remain in the public setting? would it be a condition of the lease for the office? tenant? or how would that work. >> i can just -- the sponsor could chime in about the leasing question from the department perspective, that conditional approval that you recommended in regards to enhancing public access and relationship to public right-of-way. we envision that as incorporating the kiosk in addition to whatever other components, be it a signage program. it allows for additional approaches as well. the sponsor can speak to leasing. >> yeah, i think it's a discussion point with our to be identified tenants. ultimately, i think it's a third party operator who operates a kiosk similar to other buildings in the city, it would be an

obligation of the majority tenants of the building are shared based on folks whose prorata work with the building. our intent is to -- make it a leasing requirement for our potential end user. and ultimately, based on our conversations to date. we don't think that that would be a problem. i think that folks are excited. people that are excited about the building are excited to show it off. it's a beautiful building. and i think the future home for somebody, i think is -- they're very excited to participate in what we're proposing. >> thank you, i would agree with that. i think for me, it's -- i just wanted to understand if the proposal is to have the kiosk inside the building. i think that is for the enjoyment of the public. i think from the staff report reading, it seems to be outside,

outside of the building, i wanted to clarify the intention is to have this vendor be inside, right? >> the staff report is the same one from december, so it's -- it can pick up some developments through the outreach. first condition of approval that i read into the record is intended to -- it's not specific when i saying that it needs to be a coffee kiosk, but it could include the coffee kiosk. that's what they agreed to. we bundle it with, it can be more than a coffee kiosk at the interior, it could be signage. directing passers by, come in and see this beautiful building. it could be other approaches on top of it. >> okay. >> the commission is slightly flexible. >> this may have been addressed, but is the commitment to the public tour still once a month? >> at the department level we're requiring minimum once a month. it would be difficult for the public to enforce on once a

week. that's really cumbersome if not for the department, but for the sponsor. i believe they have agreed to try once a week with sf heritage. as a department level, we're requiring once a month as proposed. >> okay. i wonder if the project sponsor -- could you speak to that, about the feasibility of having it be once a week? is it something that you're -- >> yeah, we -- we've actually been doing -- during the summer when the world got a little back to normal, the architectural tours that have been going on for ten plus years, started back up again with tourists. we accommodated that in the middle of our construction, even though the building was closed. yeah, we like this, i think it's fun. we want to support it, and to the extent that it makes sense for the project, and we can, we absolutely will. >> thank you for answering my questions. i did hear a comment -- we've

been hearing a lot about the pandemic, and question the value of adding more office space at this time. for me, that's not a super compelling argument, it's almost taking the long view. it's having the ability of ground floor retail to contribute to street life and so forth. that's something that is always the case before the pandemic and will be after the pandemic as well. when i'm evaluating this project, i think some additional conditions around activating the interior, having more frequency of architecture and things like that, we make that more palatable for me, in terms of converting the space. overall, i think you're moving in a good direction, i want to see more of that commitment to be able to keep that ground floor space activated for public use. thank you.

>> commissioner diamond? >> thank you. thank you. so this is an absolutely spectacularly beautiful interior, which can't be enjoyed very much from the exterior, and one of the benefits of retail, of course, has been a public serving and there's a reason for the public to come inside and enjoy. this unique and special space. my concern which reflects the economic reality where we are right now. my concerns around that aren't so much the use as what it does to the public to come in p and enjoy the space. i'm focused on the first condition that the staff wanted to add today.

i'm wondering if you could bring up the diagram that shows the lobby, and i'm wondering if someone could talk with us about what the views would be. if the draw is the coffee cart, the signage? what are they going to see when they come in this public lobby? >> first, is the lobby public and then second what are they going to see? >> john, i think the best slide for you to pull up is actually slide 22, which shows an existing condition of the interior. so commissioner diamond, this is what you would see as soon as you walk into the portion of the ground floor, the dedicated for a portion of which to be used by the cafe operator. this is just after you walk in the doors from the multitenant

lobby to come in toward the space. this is right at the front edge of the left-hand side of the frame, where the existing counter is being preserved in kind, left in place. you'll be able to move a little further toward this column than what's shown in this view, in order to see and peek in and be part of seeing the ceiling, and the details on the column and the breezes and so forth. this is a pretty good summary view of what you get when you walk into the cafe space. >> are we looking here at the post street banking hall or the montgomery street banking hall? >> this is the montgomery street. >> okay. and this lobby that you just showed us, it's public, what's shown in yellow is all public, is that correct? >> yes, yes. >> i believe that the first condition is absolutely critical so that we can allow the public to have some ability to come in

and see this beautiful space. that the second issue for me is the mezzanine. i understand that staff is supportive of it, i understand that you think it's important to create a significant office space that you can generate tenant interest. but for me it is still a detraction from the way the original banking halls looked. so i think it is absolutely critical that through the design process that staff works with you to ensure that efforts are made to minimize as much as possible while serving your tenant needs. to minimize any negative impact of that mezzanine on the space. and i don't know if that means shifting a little here and

there, or changing materials, whatever it is. i would really be counting on staff to implement this in a way that tries to change the overall feel of the banking vaults. with that, i'm supportive of the project, very much subject to the two additional conditions that were proposed by staff today. >> commissioner imperial? >> thank you. yes. my concern, i guess was echoed by other commissioners as well. i entered the building before, i see this as a historical treasure. another thing is, as we are awaiting for the landmark

designation that needs to be adhered by the preservation commission, i feel like it's -- from what the staff has explained. it seems to me that as we are going to approve this as of now, let's say as it is, then there will be -- we are waiting for historical preservation commission. it seems like there's a lot of look around. it's a lot of look around it sounds like to me. in that way too. i feel like we have to wait for the landmark designation. i would like to hear the historic preservation commission hear the comments on this first. so that it can -- really ask what commissioner diamond tried to input the designs and commissioner moore and others, it has really an overall aspect

of the historical preservation, and design aspect and how to obtain good use of this as well. of course, we are all concerned about the public access to this. that's why for me, as of now, it doesn't seem to resonate to me. what the project sponsor also commences, it seems to be the intent is for administradminists opposed to a public space. in that case, i am hesitant to approve this for office use unless it is heard by the preservation -- historic preservation commission. >> commissioner tanner? >> thank you. i wanted to join with commissioner imperial's comments, i'm not fully

understanding previously, the relationship between this approval and the historic preservation commission, it seems premature at this time. to approve the project if that body has not weighed in, they are the folks did you have comments regarding the historic preservation commission? >> the application was in 2019, it was just determining and establishing the character of the features, the department completed a part two analysis. analysis got to the point where it found the standards, we then noticed the cu to bring in december. it was during that window when the landmark designation was initiated through the board. it got continued through

february so the sponsor could coordinate with sf heritage. sf heritage agreed with the property owners that they were no longer opposed. the sponsor would support the landmark nomination. it seemed like their understanding for that community just from the letters i have, was that they with drew their opposition, and we want you to support this future designation. at the department level, we noticed this got continued, the outreach has been completed. and there's -- i mean, it's gone through resource review at the department level. it doesn't need agency at this moment. if it gets postponed, it would go to them. we're already comfortable with this, it's the hpc's oversight. we would present it to them as it is now. we have the staff level, we've

done that analysis. >> okay. that's staff to present the same. commissioner imperial's point, the product sponsor would have to renege on their agreement with sf heritage if they were not to support the landmark designation. do you think that extends to applying the building permit before the hpc gets to renew the designation. by that time, the hpc could have no input. >> i mean, they could, if they found a permit prior to initiating, yes. that permit is not subject to article 10. >> okay. and stacy came on the screen, i don't know if you have something you want to say. >> trying to speak. >> i was trying to listen to our legal council. >> president koppel,

commissioner tanner, we would caution the commission whenever it's thought to delay consideration of a permit in anticipation of legislation that's been introduced that may or may not be passed. although this particular scenario sounds like the project sponsors, to support the landmark -- it's been introduced it will come to the hpc, but we really caution you of delaying permit for an uncertain outcome sometime in the future. and, of course, also i tend to scrutinize decisions like that, project sponsors and projects are supposed to be subject to the law in effect at the time of approval. if mr. zimmer noted if the

building permit hasn't been approved and the landmark ordinance is adopted, it would have to go back and get a certificate of appropriateness. but we do caution the city against delaying a permit for the purpose of an uncertain future action by the city. and it's really a question of fairness when the courts look at those kinds of decisions. >> thank you, stacy. the other question i wanted to pick up on, if you can help -- i'm supportive of the idea of the coffee kiosk, refreshment kiosk, however you want to phrase it, how is that specified? i'm open to flexibility that adds more, but i would want to make sure there's a very clear floor of what the public access is required. so yeah, it can be included. what exactly is it required to have?

people can stand and look around, get refreshments, service provided there. which to me would compliment the -- having something to enjoy and enjoy the outdoor space. how is that explained to create more public access? >> yes, so -- i believe the environments perspective is that the priority is getting people into the space. i think the language is not currently specific enough to say it has to be a bench service or something of that sort. you can obviously amend it and specify it needs to be a coffee kiosk. having to do that, that's what we did with heritage. having it be a little flexible. just amend the language right now, which is support public

visibility and incorporate signage, and other means to maintain a connection. we can specify in there, it has to be a beverage service or something of that sort, yeah. >> yeah, i would -- >> like in the lobby. >> thank you, i'd like to hear my fellow commissioners think about including that type of provision, refreshments and prepared food service. they're not going to have a kitchen that you would need for more substantial food provisions. i'm not sure where the support is overall. but i'm interested in that. >> commissioner fong? >> the commission or use deals with the change in use or allowing the change in use. i'm supportive of that given the

economic conditions that we face now, and what is probably going to carry forth into at least the perceivable future. the other issues related to the adaptation of this new use with the other requirements, whether it's the ability for the public view, i think the improvements that are being made are sensitively done. the removal of today walls that were done at the mezzanine was a fairly transparent rail system would probably enhance the original building as compared to what was done in the changes

made when parker plaza -- parker came in with their tower. i find that the other element that they've added are also sensitively done. and i would move to support the conditional use. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to chime in with a couple more comments. we have heard, we don't want an office in the mission, we heard we don't want office in union square. and now we're here and we don't want office in the financial district. again, i want to give the property manager the tools to keep these buildings alive, have public involvement. work with heritage. as far as i remember, they

worked with the supervisor to work with heritage. and i think this is where the office goes. >> commissioner tanner? >> just curious if commissioner fong would be interested in adding a provision around the refreshments. or if that's not something you want to add to that condition. >> i can accept a memo, though i thought specifying a commercial use would be a greater flexibility. i can understand that either drink or coffee or food would be just fine. >> thank you. >> i'm okay with that too. >> i'm sorry, commissioner tanner, could you specify that condition amendment related to the refreshments? >> yeah, but there would be part of that public access condition

i believe it's one. there would be provision of a refreshment vendor which would be drink or prepared foods, some combination thereof. >> thank you. would you like to chime in? >> yes, i want to be as broad as you possibly could be with it, because we don't want to get ourselves into a situation where the commercial tenant isn't able too get somebody who offers refreshments. i would -- i think that stacy and john worked hard to come up with language that was flexible, if you wanted to say something about a commercial kiosk that would draw the public in or something of that nature.

that's what my recommendation would be. >> hearing that, and commissioner fong's original motion, i would be okay with that type of language. >> i find that amendment, in terms of the commercial use acceptable. >> well. >> yes, i would support a commercial space to be added into the language. >> thank you for that commissioners. if there's no further deliberations, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter as his been amended by staff, and further amended by the commission to include under public access a provision for commercial kiosk. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner khan? >> aye. >> commissioner dime onned? >> aye. >> commissioner fung?

>> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner president koppel? >> aye. >> the motion passes 6 to 1. >> commissioners, i believe plainheart has been able to join our meeting. we will go back to item number 7, 2021-001452 pca. expanded compliance control and consumer protections where history of significant violations. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> legislative aid to hillary roman. i apologize for not being able to get on the call before.

. parden? i'll just keep going. the legs was adroesed to bring forward fraudulent violations of the building violations. permit practices and to draft this legislation. on behalf of supervisor ronan i submitted this last month and received and incorporated input returned yesterday where we received the recommendations for approval. we tend to introduce a number of amendments beforehand use committee next week. i'll describe those to you today. quickly, some background on the scope of wrongdoing that spurred

supervisor ronan to draft this legislation. and these are just samples, in may 2020, a well known structural engineer, and former building inspections commission was arrested by the fbi and charged with bank fraud. the city already had a suit against him. that was amended this year, to add a number of properties as well as charges of forgeries. nevertheless he continues to be an active participant on issues. our office has been working with the city attorney and city departments, including planning for two years to resolve the projects in the portland neighborhood where developers got planning approval and building permits for new construction of ten residential units, but instead created 30. and then just over a year ago, another project sponsor paid the city 1.2 million for unpermitted

work on 7 properties for them in district nine. very justified concerns about damage to their homes, building foundations and more. really, having serial offenders violate the laws again and again with no measures in place is unacceptable. there are laws in place to penalize after the fact. but in order to protect the public. the legislation amends the building code to direct the action of dbi to future applications. i have a quick power point, can i share? >> just give me a moment. i'll have to make you the

presenter. >> here we go. okay. you can all see that? as i mentioned the co sponsors on this legislation are supervisors peskin and haney. the idea behind this legislation as i mentioned is to create a protocol for ensuring that the dbi has a way to approach perspective management of permits that are being submitted by parties with significant records and significant violation. the first step in that is to require that bdi keep an internal tracking of serious notices of violation.

and those that rise to the level of significance for the purposes of tracking -- this tracking are misrepresentation of existing conditions, to circumvent notification or review. structural work or demolition of structural features without a permit. unlicensed work, where a license would be required. and that would not include folks who followed the owner builder protocol. and other substantial noncompliance. if there are three or more significant nov's that are in this internal tracking. it includes expanded compliance control. really a way to ensure that the appropriate scrutiny and this is applied so is that we can keep these projects in compliance. and then dbi inspection services

would prepare a preliminary report. they would reach out to the party who's being considered for this control. and invite those party the to provide any kind of exculpatory examination. the inspection staff would prepare this preliminary report which goes to the dbi director. the dbi director makes the final determination and notifies his new party that's being handed to the list. the dbi would maintain this expanded compliance control list, and dbi would provide quarterly reports to the building commission on splins control. the protocols that would be in place for expanded compliance control, these are requirements for dbi to follow would be first to report to any applicable

licensing board or any regulatory agency. they would require senior plan review staff and multistation review intake and after approval of the site permit. it would require multisections. and this is the one place where planning is called out. i think that was noted in the staff report. it would require that a licensed contractor be named prior to issuance of the permit. and dedicate a senior inspector for the regular inspections and to follow up on any complaints that might come in. and to open the opportunity to consult with the city attorney that any additional enforcement actions that are needed. there would then be ongoing reporting and due process, opportunities for any appeal. building inspection commission. we would receive quarterly

updates. the listee would remain on the expanded compliance control list for five years for any significant violation. and any determination could be appealed to the building inspection commission. we've added also language to clarify that -- that staff needs to be provided with written guidance and training to recognize and flag permits that may signal potential abuse. guidelines for staff to escalate any applications that indicate potential abuse. up the chain at dbi. and sensitivity to the cultural differences of individual agents and other entities, associated with permits and projects. we've received a fair amount of feedback and have responded to that. we tightened the criteria that

is used to describe the significant notices of violations that are being tracked internally. we simplified the language for the internal process, not wanting to get in the way of the department of building inspections being able to staff this as needed. you about the emphasis was on the steps and the rules of the director and the commission. we revised the criteria to make sure that we didn't have to wait for three of these to happen in 18 months, if there are immediate -- if there are violations or serious violations to be implemented immediately. we did add the requirements, name the license contractor for work on the control list. we've extended the dates to give the department of building inspection some more time to get started on the internal training and guidance.

and we added language to co-op the cultural differences. those amendments will be introduced at land use on monday. so they're not in your packet. that is the end of my sharing. i certainly hope you'll be able to recommend approval of this governance legislation and happy to take any questions. thanks. >> thank you, that concludes your presentation. if there are no immediate comments from commissioners, we should open this up to the public. public this is your opportunity to add your input. i have no members of the public wishing to speak. the matter is now before you.

thank you to miss rain heart and supervior ronan for their help today. >> i wonder if you would bring up the last slide that had the proposed amendments on it. i had questions on the first two bullets. >> great. thank you very much. in the order i'm talking about the second bullet first. in the draft ordinance we got on our staff report, it sounded like the chief inspector makes a report to the deputy director who then i believe determines whether or not they should be on the list. but it's the direct -- the director of dbi who makes the final call. and then there's an appeal to the building inspection commission. did that change at all in the

amendments? >> yeah, so the way that that changed was my -- we didn't want to call out the chief inspector or the deputy director. we left that for inspection service. we just went a little bit broader and called it out as inspection services staff. so we're not naming specific titles within dbi until we get to the director. and the director is the -- some staff person will be assigned to the review in the initial outreach and the initial prepare of a preliminary report. when it gets to the director, the director makes the final determination. and then the -- and then building inspection commission would use quarterly updates on that, and then also the body which would hear any appeal. i can read it all to you if

that's helpful. that's the gift of that change. >> right, i wanted to make sure the director is making the decision at the end of the day, as to who goes on the list, the notification goes to whoever the offender is, and they have an opportunity. they get notice and the opportunity to appeal it? and that has not changed is what your saying? >> actually. they don't need to -- the appeal is after they would be placed on after -- the staff would be -- internal tracking, then the accrual of that -- or the calling of that internal tracking. at that point staff reach out and contact and ask for exculpatory information. that could lead to a preliminary determination that says we shouldn't put them on the list. that would be a staff report that goes to the director? and the director would make that

final determination. if the final determination is a yes or a no, any party can appeal the final determination to building inspection commission. >> if the director decides the party shouldn't be on the list, a third party. i assume, is it anybody? is there a standing requirement or can anyone appeal that decision to the building inspection commission? >> i don't believe there is any standing requirement. there are time requirements. >> there are what requirements? >> deadlines. >> right. >> okay. then the second question had to do with the first bullet. it says you tightened the criteria for significant nov's, can you elaborate a little? >> absolutely. so where we had before with this representation of existing conditions, in in response to what we got. we changed that to

representations and that results in circ um vengs notification. so we didn't want it to be accidental -- mismeasuring some very small elements. where we used to have structural work without moving beyond the scope of the building permit. we added structural work or demolition of structural features without the scope of the building permit. so we sort of consolidated the struck 250ural work. the demolition is of structural features. [ please stand by ]

-- it could open itself up to a lot of interpretation. and the nature of the question is to be specific here, but i really appreciate the clarification, it's very helpful in thinking about this. so thank you. >> and i just want to point out -- thank you very much. i wanted to point out that this is not -- we're not saying that other substantial non-compliance is on this list, we're saying that issuing a notice of violation for other substantial non-compliance (indiscernible)

okay. >> thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: thank you for putting this together. and the planning commission itself has been sitting for many years between two chairs when we're describing what is really happening in front of our own eyes. and we never had any tools or any ability except to dig deep to expose it. i was wondering as to whether or not the supervisors discussed among each other a shared database and tracking would

create more transparency on how things are being looked at and how the documents are being filed and who sees what. we all know that d.b.i. is behind jumping on, and they still use basically the paper method as we all know. and how concan be completely overwhelmed or underwhelmed with paperwork and that is something that is lost in translation there. i see a lot of the ability to get a better, more consistent performance, including tracking who does what and who repeatedly together if the shared database and the tracking would be made available and the condition of hour d.b.i. steps into the 21st century and coordinates with planning on the responsibilities for safe delivery and execution

of what is in front of us. i wanted to see if that is part what you want to achieve. >> that is the 64 million dollar question. this particular legislation is focused on creating protocols that will have to be followed in order to prevent the perspective violations, right. and it's giving the tools they need for that. i do think that there are larger issues to be addressed for c.b.i. and i believe that several offices have probably listened to that and i'm not sure what will come of it. and i know that it is a focus of what the building inspection commission is consistently

thinking about right now as well. it was certainly the topic of the discussion yesterday. and so i don't have an answer for you on that, but i'm happy to talk more about it and perhaps have it as a next step. >> vice-president moore: thank you for saying that. i think that it is the right step in the right direction for the sake of everybody -- including the planning commission. i hope that the way that people work with the tools they use can find a more level playing field for the planning department who is way ahead in doing it to (indiscernible) from what has been happening over last 10 years. but, thank you. and i wish you good luck on pursuing this. >> commissioner, if i could, because i think that you bring up valid kind of operational points about, you know, our shared systems and how they

should be integrated. it's not the same system, you know, and, well, not part of this legislation. it is something that we are working on with a.b.i. and i think that the pandemic -- us working remotely has exposed a lot of those issues. and having to say that the new leadership at t.b.i. is focused on trying to fix those in working with us to get that combined system or shared data that you talk about. >> vice-president moore: i am glad that you are saying that and i know that you will make every effort to make that happen. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i wanted to thank for bringing this to us. i think that it is great legislation and i have had the privilege of working for three cities in state of california and this has been a challenge for staff in every city that i have worked in in terms of having knowledge of what contractors and agents do

perform poorly pretty routinely and not having a mechanism to say anything to the public. so really it's a consumer protection i feel like for our city. and i just think that -- i hope that it does what we want it to do and that other cities are able to follow suit because it is woefully overdue and certainly it would be very, very helpful to the public. i think that the amendments that you mentioned having changed, do make the law a little bit more flexible in order to implement it. and taking out reference to specific persons but keeping the director as the final call to make sure that we're not unwittingly making minor violations. even the way that the list has changed what qualifies as a violation in this regard helps to make it a little bit tighter. so we're really focusing on folks who are routinely performing poorly. i did have a question about how we are identifying and maybe this is something that will be

more detailed in the operations and not so much the legislation. but how we're identifying the actor, because it could be that it's a company that is the applicant. there could be a contractor or there could be, you know, just permanent expediters and so many folks. what i worry about is a bad actor and having others in front of him or her who kind of uses all of these other people and so the violation is kind of, you know, this person has three violations and they work with this person and there's three violations. that's obviously a more severe case and a more severe individual, but i don't know if you have thoughts around that how we're tracking -- like is it the individual? is it the entity? could it be both? who is the person and the party that are putting on the list of violators? >> so we felt that it was important for the internal tracking list to be broad, and so -- so once they're putting on

the internal tracking list is identifying all individuals agents and others associated with the projects known to be associated with the current projects once the notice of violation is issued. so it's broad in that sense. i suspect that you might be talking about, you know, the options someone might try and to create some false identity or false operations to hide behind. i can check with the city attorney. i'm not sure what we can do about that. i think that, you know, people can be very devious. and the fact that we are able tn requires letting to get to a point of three violations in 18 months and requires d.b.i. to

report to any licensing agency, i think that maybe where we get to your question -- because even if someone has different identities they're probably using the same license. >> commissioner tanner: um-hmm, that makes a lot of sense. and to your point we can't close the loophole on folks who want to believe badly, they'll try to find a way to get around it. and i think this is a good job of instituting that into your point. but the license number goes back to that one person has that one license number and we'll bring that to that agency. and then one question that i'm curious, if you happen to know if we were to implement this today, do you have any sense of, like, how many folks would be on this list? would it be a lot of entities and companies? would it be a few? what is your sense of that? >> that is a great question. and obviously, the goal of this is to have nobody on the list.

i think that -- i think that since there are -- from what i hear from -- from d.b.i., they sort of have lists in their head anyway and we're between five and 10. what will happen is that more people will get on this internal tracking list but, you know, fewer people will make it to the public expansion control and hopefully that those numbers will stay low. >> commissioner tanner: that's awesome. thank you for that. and a question to director hillis. any questions that you have about how this would or wouldn't affect the planning staff. it sounds like it's not a large number of people. we heard maybe even just anecdotally 10 would be on the list if we made it today. do you think that it's too much of a burden for planning, you feel okay, we can adapt to it? what are your thoughts? >> i think we're able to adapt

to it, if there's some slight additional work. and i think that we'll have to kind of manage. i think that hopefully on the -- you know, in the end we get less kind of quote/unquote, bad actors and hopefully that drives in work. so less of that. so i have to say -- i mean, we'll definitely kind of keep -- and give you feedback once it gets implemented. but if it's a handful of cases, it's probably not a huge impact. >> commissioner tanner: thank you so much. i appreciate this. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: all right. i have a question to miss dinard. let's say that there were many on the list. what would require more staff hours for both perhaps d.b.i. and planning, what do you anticipate in terms of staffing for this?

>> so my understanding is that d.b.i., when they take in a permit, they give an estimate of the anticipated work that is going to be associated with the permit. so if someone submits a permit and the person submitting the permit or a person is on the permit and someone who made it all through the various steps and up to expanded compliance control list, then that would be part of the estimated -- they would -- d.b.i. would be able to give a forecast of the level of permit review and inspections. and that would be incorporated into the fee for that project. or for that permit. and then i think that and

hopefully we reduce enforcement hours with advanced permit review hours and night and session hours. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. yes, i think we need this -- we can use this kind of legislation. and just to what commissioner moore added earlier -- i hope that the board supervisors are also discussing in terms of the permit checking. >> president koppel: commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, this was simply an informational presentation as far as i understand, and if there are no additional comments from the

supervisors, we should move on to the next item. okay. very good, commissioners. as we took item 8 out of order we're now on items 9a and b, for the cases and 1776 queen street. you will consider the conditional use authorization and the zoning administrator was a consider so we should take this matter up as though it has not been heard previously. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. good afternoon, commissioners, chris may of the planning department staff. you have a request for conditional use authorization to permit the construction of a

vertical addition and a change of use from an automobile repair garage to a residential use at 1776 green street. conditional use authorization is required from a two dwelling units per lot in the r.h.2 zoning district to a maximum of one dwelling unit per 1500 square feet of lot area. commissioners, on october 30th, 2019, the planning department issued class 1 and 3 categorical exemptions for the project. on november 7th, 2019, the commission heard and continued this item to december 5, 201, and again to february 27, 2020, and again indefinitely in order to allow environmental planning staff an opportunity to conduct additional review to address the neighbors' concerns regarding the subject property being listed on the california environmental protection agency's list of sites with potentially contaminated soils. also known as the partigilas.

it was appealed but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn. during the additional environmental review, and the environmental planning staff confirmed that the site is listed on the state water resource control board database of hazardous waste sites. the site with the previously leaking underground storage tank. per ceqa quitelines, it cannot be issued for a project on such a site. as such, the planning department rescinded the class 1 and 3 categorical exemptions and issued a new ceqa determination that takes that status into account. and there's an exemption where it's seen with certainty that a project would not have a significant effect on the environment known as the common sense exemption. during ceqa review, it was determined that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this project would have a significant effect on the environment because the department of public health would oversee the remediation of

any soil or groundwater contamination at the project site and with the health code. and it is exempt under the common sense exemption. the project is unchanged from that and there's the exception of the deck measuring 1,369-square-feet which has been eliminated. the five dwelling units have 2,265-square-feet of usable open space on privately debt and the penthouse has no access to the rooftop and is in an overrun of nine feet shorter. additionally, one of the two stairwells providing access to the roof has been eliminated. the proposed two-storey version has a height of 40 feet and a change of use allows for a total of five, three bedroom units. 10 below grade off street parking spaces are retained and five bicycle parking spaces

would be provided. the project includes alterations to the front facade, including two pillars that were removed. while not shown on the proposed plans, the project sponsor has indicated that the 1,017-square-foot shared space on the ground floor will be converted into an accessory dwelling unit once the residential uses have been legally established on the lot. as currently written, the planning code only allows multifamily buildings already occupied by residential use. while the subject property permits residential uses it cannot be add until a legal use is established through a certificate of completion for the five proposed dwelling units. and the rear yard, and the front set back requirements of the planning code to have the intense ifntionz of a non-complaint structure as the

existing building occupies both the required year yard and the front setback area. and the zoning administrator will consider the variances concurrently with the consideration of the conditional use authorization that is at today's hearing. commissioners, since the publication of the staff report, the department has received two letters in support and two letters in opposition to the project. the department continues to find that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and the policies of the general plan. the project will add five dwellings to the city's housing stock, thereby, bringing the property into conformance with the uses permitted by the planning code. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for further questions. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you, mr. may. >> clerk: can the project sponsor prepared to make a presentation? >> yes, we are. >> clerk: okay. you have five minutes.

>> good afternoon. 1776 green street was built in 1914 as an auto repair garage and associated with early 20th century auto retail and repair centered on van ness avenue. the and it has characteristics, this block includes a mix of two to three unit residential buildings and large apartment building and a public park. and local capital group has diversified the san francisco-based real estate fund purchased the building in the spring of 2018 to convert it into residential use. next, please. we have designed five family-sized three to four-bedroom residential units. and it's to respond to the much taller and larger eastern neighbor and the somewhat smaller two-unit neighbor to the west. our proposed two-story additions back from the front facade.

it's to further reduce the (indiscernible) and the windows at the additions designed to be compatible and complementary to the historic facade. and the restoration of the existing building include preserving all four exterior walls, and removing the large roll-up doors. we will replace and add doors and windows compatible to those remaining and those shown in the original drawing. the curb cut will be removed to provide two street parking spaces and include the experience on green street. next, please. the conditional use authorization is to allow five residential units in the h.r.2 zoning. next slide, please. we are proposing to add an accessory dwelling unit after the building is converted to residential use for six units. the a.d.u. is just over a thousand square feet and with exterior closures with living

spaces and bedroom. and it will maintain privacy with frosted glass and higher transom windows. and the setbacks are to convert the existing building volume from commercial to residential use. we are not proposing any -- in the rear yard we have reduced to create a courtyard within the historic walls. we have made significant efforts to engage the neighbors through a series of public and individual meetings, all adjacent neighbors and those across street were invited to the preapplication meeting at the valley branch library in july 2015. for follow-up public meeting was on february 6, 2019, also at the library. following those meetings there were 36 individual and small group meetings and about 16 (indiscernible) were provided at that time. the neighbors voiced concerns about the originally proposed

first floor commercial space. and the first floor we have storage space converted to an a.d.u. since the project was in front of the commission, the common deck was removed and the penthouse significantly lowered. and a few neighbors next door settled all grievances with the sponsorship team in late 2020 and appealed to the board of supervisors over the environmental concerns was removed after supervisor stefani mediated a settlement. there's variance requests from commercial to residential use in the building volume inside of the building walls. the adjacent neighbor, and the neighbors on octavia requested that the walls remain to maintain privacy. during the ceqa review, the planning department determined that there's no possibility of an effect on the environment and so the project is under the common sense exemption. we made the following changes in conversation with the neighbors,

residential design advisory team and the preservation staff. prior to the 2019 hearing, increase the front setback from 15 to 20 feet and remove two (indiscernible) and modify the east side to maintain privacy and two property line windows at the adjacent apartment building. all of the affected rooms maintain light and air with the large existing light wall. the owner of 1770 green is in full support of the project and we removed the ground floor commercial space. after the november 2019 hearing, we lowered the elevator penthouse to four feet above the roof. and we removed the roof deck and one stair access to the roof. next slide, please. in summary, we have worked closely with planning and the neighborhood to develop a project that will enhance the existing block, the existing historic structure, and will add six housing units to the neighborhood. the project team has worked over the last two years to make sure that the neighborhood can support the project. the project has received many written notices of support of

from immediate neighbors and in the 1700 block of green street and the surrounding area. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes the presentation. we should go to the public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address this matter by pressing star and then 3 to enter the queue. through the chair, you have two minutes. >> caller: hi, my name is al macdonald and i'm one of the neighbors directly across the street from the proposed project. i would like to advocate for the importance of having front and rear setback requirements. having a full backyard instead of the courtyard that is presented in the project provides green space it's -- open green spaces -- that are good for the planet and good for the city.

it distances neighbors from each other and mitigating noise and privacy intrusions into each other's lives. and it could be easily be accommodated by having an entry courtyard behind the historical facade open to the sky to make sure that that front setback is provided similarly to the setback to the house directly to west of the building and similarly to the setback that my choice provides to the building across the street. and the setback requirements in the planning code, i believe that this project should be asked to do the same. i understand why they don't want to do that. they want to build the largest bulkiest building possible to have the square footage of the upscale units that they'll then use to maximize their profits. but front and rear setbacks are

good for the city. are good for the neighborhood, and this should not be allowed to go on with those variances. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. you need to enter the queue by pressing star and then 3. go ahead. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners, and thank you very much. i would like to speak in support of this project. i have looked over the staff presentation report, and i just am very excited that this is going to add six units of much-needed housing to a beautiful neighborhood. and that the sponsor has worked so hard on the concerns of most of the neighbors and that they are generally supportive of it. i think that anytime that we have an opportunity to replace, you know, an automobile space with people space is a positive

-- is just a win for the city and it's a win for the neighbors that the community can welcome into -- into this -- into this neighborhood. so i want to share my excitement for this project and i do hope that it is with the staff approved recommendations. thank you. >> caller: hello, commissioners, thank you for giving me the opportunity to call in. i am speaking against portions of this project. i absolutely am thrilled that they're going to develop this into housing and convert it from an auto body shop. that is absolutely wonderful. but it would be truly wonderful if they would keep within the planning guidelines that city set by requesting variances for the setbacks is unconscionable

at this point. everybody else in the city works very hard to adhere to the setbacks. commissioners, you heard my own project about two years ago and we actually worked very hard to not request variances, to work entirely within the code which involved shortening and reducing the bulk of our building in several places. and i really think that this project should be held to that very same standard. the setbacks are critical to the neighbors and the open space is absolutely critical. and, commissioners, you also well know about all of the environmental issues that the neighbors have had with this project. and after all of that, i really think that granting them a variance to continue to expand this project is wrong. please stop that. thank you.

>> clerk: final last call. members of the public. okay, seeing no additional requests to speak from the members of the public, commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> i'm in support of this project today with the staff's recommendation. mr. t? >> good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. i wanted to touch base on the business raised, and to clarify, mr. may made this point in his presentation but to clarify -- the actual addition portion of this project, where they're adding to the building is actually code compliant. it does meet the rear yard and

the front setback requirements and all of the open space requirements are being met. the front setback and the rear yard variances are triggered due to the provisions in the code such that because this is an existing non-residential building within those required spaces and it's being converted into a residential use, that is triggering the variances in those cases. but what is actually being proposed in in addition to the building is a code compliant manner. in terms of just considering the variants, i mean, there definitely are some exceptional extenuating circumstances here. whether it's the oversized lot and the kind of mixed lot and the development pattern on this block that leaves a limited mid-block open space. and there's historic development pattern of the lot itself with this existing building. and so there's a lot of circumstances to take into account there. and then on top of that they are

kind of maximizing the density of that would be permitted. they couldn't do any more density on this site under the current code. so i just wanted to address some of those issues and then i'm obviously available for any questions that you may have related to the variants. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: and to the extent that what is in front of us are units, however, in the location where they are i think that they're supporting the objective of adding ground units and i (indiscernible) was pleasant and i support it. i will make a motion to approve. >> president koppel: calling on commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: i have two questions. one for mr. may and one for mr. cheeg.

mr. may -- the -- just to clarify exactly what has occurred within the existing structure, it appears that the structure has been removed entirely. and the front walls and the rear walls are being maintained and the cut outs for the light wells are being removed. the side walls are removed at those points. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. a portion of the roof structure at the rear is being removed for the addition as well as the interior court at the back. but the front facade and the front walls will be maintained. >> commissioner fung: but the entire roof has been removed -- isn't that correct? >> yes, they're maintaining some of the joists but, yeah, the

roof structure is being removed to accommodate the addition as well as the terraces on top. >> commissioner fung: okay. mr. tieg, i was not quite clear on your comment that it's co-compliant in the sense that the rear portion of this building is non-conforming, is it not? >> yes, and the distinction that i was making is that the variances triggered because those non-compliant portions of the structure and the rear yard and the front setback are converted to residential use. but the vertical addition to the building is within the building envelope. there's no portion of those additional stories that would project into the required rear yard or the required front setback.

>> commissioner fung: then i misunderstood. i see that portion of it in terms of the vertical addition, but in terms of the creation of additional bedrooms and it looks like a bath and a large closets, those are within the non-conforming portion of the building for those units. >> yes, there are portions of the non-complying structure that are converted to residential units and that's what is triggering the need for the variances. >> commissioner fung: okay, and you and i have had this discussion -- isn't that an intensification of a non-conforming structure? >> yes, that's what is triggering the variances and that's why that is required is because prior to this it was a non-complying structure that is for residential use and that's what is triggering the need for the variances.

>> commissioner fung: okay. thank you. in general i'm supportive of the housing project. i do have a portion of me that may not be fully accepting of the non-compliance form of the structure as being intensified. let me give that further thought. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. a question to staff and also to the project sponsor. i am encouraged by the project overall. and one thing that i would like to see more of though -- and it might seem minute, but it's more

of like parking spaces. right now there are five class-1 spaces, even though there are five three-bedroom units. and i would like to see something closer to -- i know that it's not required but to one parking space for bikes per bedroom. so that everybody living in the units, assuming that there's three individuals, which there could be more, there could be less, could have a space to park their bicycle if that's something that we're trying to promote in the city is ultimate modes of transportation besides a car. i'm looking at the basement floor plan right now and it doesn't look like there's room due to the ramp and due to a stairwell, but just curious if there is space to add additional class 1 bike parking spate into this facility? >> that's a great point. i think that there probably is an opportunity to have more class 1 bicycle parking spaces can be, you know, hung up vertically, and not always have to be horizontal. so it could add space that way.

so if you would like to add that as a condition of approval to have x amount of extra spaces or one per each bedroom we can adad that congratulation. >> commissioner tanner: does the private sponsor have thoughts on that in terms of bike parking? >> i think that we can certainly accommodate more bike parking, particularly if it's vertical in the garage and the storage spaces. >> commissioner tanner: if the maker of the motion would be acceptable to adding 15 bike parking spaces as required to this project, i would appreciate that. mr. moore, is that something that you would be open to? >> i am in full support of it, thank you. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> same here and, yeah, anymore comments, commissioner moore? >> vice-president moore: i do not. >> president koppel: city administrator tieg. >> the code limits what percentage of required bike parking can be vertical.

but there would be no such limit for adding additional -- as a condition of approval -- so to make sure that i'm understanding from commissioner tanner, would it be correct to make sure that condition reads that, you know, some or all of those additional 15 bike parking spaces could be vertical? >> commissioner tanner: certainly -- not knowing what the percentage, perhaps we could do that with a minimum of 15 bike parking spaces provided, of which waver portion is allowed could be vertical and i'm not sure what that percentage. >> it's generally a third. >> commissioner tanner: so more than a third, i guess, since -- i'm not sure what the configuration would be, so would it be easier to say that it would all could be vertical or a third be horizontal or -- >> sure. i mean, i think that is going to be up to your discretion. the existing ones that are provided up to a third of the required ones -- so maybe two of

those could be vertical. and they're not proposing those to be done vertically. so any additional required bicycle parking spaces, that is a conditional of approval and you would have the discretion on how much you allowed those to be vertical. >> commissioner tanner: okay, so five are required and so the extra 10 would not be required, correct? so i would like to i guess to suggest that the additional 10 could be vertical. is that fair enough? >> perfect. >> commissioner tanner: they don't need to be vertical -- >> it's whether or not you wanted to allow them to have a higher rate of vertical spaces than what we have for the required spaces. >> commissioner tanner: project sponsor, do you think that could be accommodated or would all need to be vertical? >> this is josh -- you know, the

more vertical, the better. i mean, we do have some room, but adding 15 bicycle spots, you know, we're going to have to -- we're going to have to move some things around. so any accessibility on the vertical side -- >> it would be 15 total, right. we had proposed five. so we'd be adding 10 more. >> 10 would be vertical. >> the 10 could be vertical. >> commissioner tanner: would that be doable? i don't want to put you -- >> we can confirm on this if we have the room. >> i think that we have plenty of space. >> absolutely. >> commissioner tanner: okay, thank y'all. so 5 total and 10 of which can be vertical. if that is acceptable. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: i am in support of the project with the bicycle increase that's proposed

by commissioner tanner. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioners, before i call the question -- >> clerk: there's a late-coming public commenter. shall we reopen public comment and allow this member of the public to speak? >> president koppel: yes. >> clerk: very good. you have two minutes. >> caller: yeah, hi, i just wanted to voice my opinion on the new dispensary on clement street. >> clerk: this is not -- i'm sorry, sir, i'm going to interrupt you now. this is not the opportunity to speak to that. that matter will be coming up later. i'm not even sure that it's on today's agenda. so, anyway, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as has been amended to include a minimum of 15 bicycle parking spaces, of which 10 can be permitted to be vertical.

on that motion [roll call vote] so moved that pass unanimously. >> i grant with the standard conditions. >> clerk: thank you. so, commissioners, item 10, case 2020-008388235 clement street. a conditional use authorization. i think that the director has a brief announcement. >> i wanted to introduce her because it's her first time here. she's from the northwest team.

she joined us last september. and prior to being at planning she was a planner at desmond inc in chicago where she worked with the government and developing transportation management plans and parking management plans and financial and operational studies chts she was previously a planning internal with the city of evanston north of chicago. she's got a master's degree in urban planning from the university of illinois and has a bachelor's degree in architectural design. so welcome taliani. >> thank you, and good afternoon, commissioners. and to the department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 202 and establishing a new 1,470 square feet on the ground floor from a two story mixture building. the site is located on clement

street in the commercial district, and this is a conditional use authorization. the location complies with the rules under planning section 202.2. and the other is 1,500 feet of length from the site at 3407, and there's the george p. body elementary school that are approximately a thousand feet away from the site. and there's preschools and the (indiscernible) and the (indiscernible) from the site. and the locations, however, are not identified under the planning code. in the context, it is designed

to (indiscernible) by maintaining transparency of the facade with a strong security presence. if approval it would provide cannabis products. this, however, would not have the consumption of prepackaged cannabis products such as edibles and topicals. the department only recommends that the commission use discretion in street consumption for smoking and vaporizing the cannabis product, given that people can be under the influence of cannabis. and so the department does not recommend the limitations on type a and type b consumption that allow a person to consume products in the store itself, as it does not hold the same risks as smoking cannabis products. secondly, it would also have purposes (indiscernible) to

have a person explain to them the dosage to help to mitigate the dose of overdosing. in conclusion, limiting type a and b consummittion would also limit in-person (indiscernible) which is why the department is only recommending limiting type c consumption with the smoking and vaporizing the cannabis products. commissioners asked for clarification on how many locations and applicants are permitted to have, and under code section 213 and the city applicant is permitted to have up to four locations in san francisco. this has applications for two locations. and the present location at 235 clement street and another location which is approved in 2019 at 1390 california street. and the department received about 45 letters in support

(indiscernible). since then the department has received one additional letter of support and one letter in opposition. the items of support have backed the development of the retail in the neighborhood, and including the distribution of cannabis (indiscernible) all over the city. and the letter of opposition expressed concerns over parking and traffic issues and neighborhood safety. in summary, the project complyings with the zoning policy plans and by activating the -- (indiscernible) and with the city's equity programs. the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for questions. the applicant has given his presentation to me and i will hand it over to them. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, private sponsor, you have five minutes. >> i think that we're in.

>> clerk: private sponsor, are you prepared to make a presentation? >> yes, can you hear us? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> great. cool. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is tricari donaldson and i'm the c.e.o. for the project at 235 clement street. the store at california and hyde. it was just over a year ago standing here for approval of that location. we struggled and adopted through covid, we were one of the many bay-area businesses that were victims of the organized looting that exploited the george floyd protests that we have thrived at all because at the end of the day we are in the business of serving and helping people. i'm so excited to have an opportunity to bring my experiences and passions to the clement street community. building on the successes of our california street location, we look forward to becoming a staple of the clement

neighborhood. we pride ourselves on being known for our four pillars -- customer service, welcoming vibes, community engagement and a highly curated menu full of options for all walks of life. the majority of our product selection comes directly from the local northern california cannabis eco-system as we strive to support the smaller players in the industry. from the one-man farm in the hills of mendicino, to one of the newest brands. in addition, we have become a valuable resource for our community in our effort to give back. we participate in fundraising and sharable events. we have committed to donating to non-profit organizations such as impact six and enough for us. and we work with the democratic club to develop a compassion program that helped us to donate upwards of $100,000 in cannabis products to low-income h.i.v. positive, lgbtq and veteran

patients from all over california. these are just some of the accomplishments and the values that have led to our success and it will be continued and expanded upon at clement street. furthermore, as a product of the san francisco equity program, i'm confident that we embody the spirit and the law as intended. we partner with equity brands such as high proper, kingston royal, to name a few. we hire locally. i work alongside friends, family and acquaintances. i grew up in the same or similar communities that i did. and in addition to working with first source, every one of our staff members has a friend that plans to apply for our new store. we have almost promoted two staff members and with the opening of our clement street store, not only will we continue the same hiring practices, but it will open up more -- to approve this conditional use authorization for this store and

allow me to continue to build on my successes. i would like to leave you with a recent quote from a well respected cannabis organization, about our integrity of our existing team and the store. it goes, we are all raised with some understanding of the golden rule. and if there were ever physical evidence of the power of treating others as you hope to be treated, this could likely be the only case study needed to drive a reevaluation of the moral code of your cannabis business. this is their words, not mine. i hope that you will give me the opportunity to continue to make san francisco a better and more equitable city. thank you, and we're happy to answer any questions. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, we are going to open up the public comment. and this is your opportunity press star and 3 to enter the queue. we'll take first caller and through the chair you will have two minutes.

>> caller: hi, my name is sebestian kimmel and i am very behind the opening of the second store. i can honestly say that california cannabis company and dre' has most professional group that i have ever experienced in cannabis. i have been working in the cannabis industry for five years now for multistate operators and publicly traded companies in the states of washington, oregon, california and nevada. and i mean it with all of my heart when i say that they do business like it should be done. from the way they treat people, to the way that they build their community, and to the professionalism of everything from the moment that you walk into the store to purchasing to educating. i -- when i interact with them i don't feel that i'm at a cannabis store. i feel that i'm at a community center that has medicine for people. so all in all, this is the most

professional and compassionate group of people that i've ever worked with in cannabis or visited with. so i would greatly approve this motion. and it's an opportunity for drey. >> caller: hi, my name is ron richards and i have experienced working with drey and his team at california street cannabis. and i can echo the comments that were just said. i think that i can highly recommend them for approval for this location, given what i have seen with california street cannabis. i think that a lot of people talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. i find that everyone at california street cannabis not only says that they'll do the right thing and treat people with respect and be part of the community in so many different ways. from hiring to have to participate to how they just promote value in their community. but they don't just say it, they do it. they do it every day.

anyone who walks in there gets treated fairly. they have a very great attitude and the people in the neighborhood around them are their biggest customers. they love working with them because the people are terrific. the staff is knowledgeable, friendly, professional, and they run an operation that i think that you'll be proud to have as part of the clement neighborhood. they're definitely a kind of people that you want to have as part of your business community there. and it's more than just a business, because they're providing a service to the people who live there and giving them access to products that help them with whatever their problems or issues might be. and a way to come to a safe, friendly environment to learn about that. and to be treated with respect no matter what their problem is and no matter who they are. and it's with no hesitation that i say that your decision to approve them is right one and i hope that things will move forward and you'll have an opportunity to do wonderful things in the clement street

neighborhood as they have done in their existing neighborhood. i thank you for the opportunity to provide you with my thoughts. >> caller: thank you, commissioners. my name is graham goodwin and i'm the founder of the san francisco social club. we're consumer advocates, encouraging the expansion of the retail cannabis options available to consumers. i also live in the -- and i'm a medical cannabis card holder. i have worked with drecari, duncan and the rest of the california street cannabis company. and i have found them to be very professional, very community oriented. i'm also a member of the brownie mary democratic club. we worked with them on a very important compassion program, being able to have the option of

low-cost or in this case free medicines for veterans and others. and they've been -- they're a leader in this area. the important thing for the commissioners, we have been talking about this -- we need to have cannabis in every community. i live in the haig. and if give to clement street to get to have lunch, to pick up some other things, i shouldn't have to go a mile away to get cannabis. i should be able to walk down the street, and to get it. and that's what this would provide, especially for seniors and others where mobility is an issue. and it's such a pleasure to be able to go and i'm a customer of the other shop, it is very professional. it would be a great addition to clement. and i urge the commissioners to

approve this without any conditions. thank you. >> caller: hello, i am mark germelo with the weeds for warriors project. i want to say thank you to all of the cannabis california street crew and drecari and others who have been able to get veterans free cannabis. they have been doing this for a few months now. this second location would open it up to help many more patients within the area as well as the patients all over the state that come for their generosity within these tough times. please approve this second location so they can continue to help the community the way that they know how. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david goldman and i'm the president of the san francisco chapter of the brownie

mary democratic club. we're a cannabis policy club. one of our major initiatives is a compassion program. and california street cannabis company has been singularly the most effective and supportive of our compassion program, allowing us to donate thousands of dollars of cannabis products to gay men with h.i.v. and folks with cancer. allowing them to continue this work by allowing them to open up at 235 clement street would virtually allow for more people to be involved in this program. this would be a great boom to us to have more people who we could help and in these times with covid and income loss, many people who are medical cannabis patients such as myself have limited income. and our goal is to help them as much as possible.

i strongly urge you to support this project. these are wonderful people and they run a really professional business at california street cannabis company which i can only assume that would be replicated just as well on clement street. one of my favorite neighborhoods where i go to georgio's pizzeria down the street. thank you. >> caller: hi, my name is ricardo salez and a big thank you to the commissioners to give me the opportunity to support them opening up in my neighborhood. i am a merchant of this community and my shop is right down the street from where hopefully they'll be opening up soon. i guess that my biggest reason for supporting them is filling a vacant storefront that has been

part of every merchant association meeting that we've had. and it's a key issue to us and we welcome a great business like this into our neighborhood to be a merchant. aside from that it really fills a void that is needed in our little clement street corridor. you know, if i had a running list of businesses that i would like to see open up in my community and that is definitely in the top three. i've had the pleasure of interacting with both drecari and duncan and they've been very active in introducing themselves to the community, and i can tell just from interacting with them how -- what a positive impact they have. they're not just interested in opening up a business, but of really being part of the community. and working to do whatever is necessary to improve it. i'm also a regular member of the knot hill location and i'm impressed with what a friendly

welcoming vibe. and you can tell that they really work hard to make sure that the staff is knowledgeable and super helpful and just always feels like a safe welcoming place to be. another big draw for me is that they always have, you know, a security present at the front of the building which is also going to be a little bit of a deterrent for any potential crimes in the neighborhood. so, yeah, as a resident and a merchant, there's nothing that i could say that would show that i cannot wait for them to open up. thank you for listening to me. >> caller: good afternoon, y'all, i'm angus collie and i'm speaking on behalf of (indiscernible) and i'm primarily a business understanding and slightly personal -- i just really think that the future of the california street cannabis company offers to both the

neighborhood and the cannabis industry as a whole is a very bright one. that we can all look forward to coming out of this year, so i do urge you commissioners to please support the project. hearing what they've done for the cannabis community, the donations, and despite the setbacks they faced in the first year and being opened in 2020, and they're an inspiration to all of us. from the cannabis business as a whole they have challenged the current market status quo and it's reserved for people who can pay for it and local businesses and they're really able to build their community in that way. and also for myself, before coming into the cannabis industry, working in apparel and hospitality, primarily. and c.p.g. they approached this (indiscernible) with the

hospitality lens. and they truly built a place for customers to feel safe and get what they need. they offer a bright future so i urge you to support this project. >> caller: thank you for allowing me to speak to you, commissioners. i support drecari and duncan and the team. i'm doug parish, one of the co-founders of the non-profit organization impact six, which was founded in june 2020. impact six expresses -- exposes youth from underserved communities to new ideas, people and experiences. and aim to provide education, mentorship and opportunities. along with opening up this structure, the impact six -- drecari has volunteered countless hours being the san francisco lead of our covid-19 relief program.

a beautiful project in golden gate park. and our latest event where we helped 20,000 families across 10 cities to receive fresh produce, turkey, and p.p.e. resources and school supplies. drecari is one of the first major donors of our mentoring program. which has helped many youth in the bay area. he's a great friend and an even better person who truly cares about helping youth and the community surrounding him. thank you for allowing me to speak today. >> caller: hello, commissioners, my name is llu gray, and i'm speaking on behalf of approving the new location on clement street. i am the host of the cannabis education platform. so i talk to many, many different types of cannabis licensees and retailers.

and the term "community" gets thrown around a lot in this community and i guarantee you that i have never seen another group that has been so community driven. two things that i want to point out. the fact that though they were looted, they have created a compassion program that donates to so many people over $100,000. and also the fact that they are probably one of the only retail stores that has a weekly education system that talks to their local ecosystem brands to help educate the community. i have not seen that in any other retail store across the united states. so that type of program is very essential. and also i want to point out that i am bi-coastal and i'm hoping to use california street cannabis as an example of what a retail store location can be

like to set the example in new york city. we're hosting drecari as part of our speaker series and really excited to showcase this is what the gold standard of cannabis retail stores can be in the community. thank you so much. >> caller: (indiscernible) commissioners, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak. everyone spoke so well, but unlike everyone else i'm a little bit different. i am blessed to be a verfired equity advocate and i have also been blessed to be approved by the same commission to open up my own dispensary coming through for the people. so if anybody had a reason to not like this program, this new venture by them, it would be me.

but i'm the exact opposite. i support this 1,000 percent. these guys have been so supportive in everything, even though i'm opening my own dispensary, they reached out to me to offer help and learning about the business. i'm also blessed to have my own cannabis brand called high purpose that they support wholeheartedly that gives back to the community. i have a non-profit as you guys all know that they call me the people's champ. i'm out here doing what i can to squash violence and bring the community together and stuff of that nature and they've been so supported of my non-profit on every level. they need another spot to just survive from what i have been hearing, just to make a living in san francisco. so i 1,000 percent support this initiative. this new store opening. just like you guys approved me, please, please, please, approve these gentlemen that are doing

so many great things for so many different levels in our city. thank you so much. >> caller: hello, my name is tracy abordamary and i'm a friend of drecari and we went to college together at u.c. merseid. he's prune to be a fine responsible man and a man of character and he's always uplifting his friends, family, and his community. he helped me to learn my first job when i first moved out here, out to san francisco. i had two jobs in order to pay rent. so i recently started a -- co-founded a non-profit called impact six and you heard from doug, geared towards helping the youth from underserved and underprivileged areas. we started it after the

atrocious acts that were happening with george floyd murder and breonna taylor murder, and we decided that the best way to promote change is by educating the youth and providing them with mentorship. drecari was one of our first founding volunteers. he's participated in every initiative that we've had as i have mentioned. california street cannabis also was one of our first major donors and has donated to our cause ever since. this is a group of people who really care about their community, not just nearby neighborhoods, but also youth that they probably don't -- you know, they don't even know. these are -- (indiscernible) and you guys should approve this. thank you. >> clerk: great, thank you, members of the public, last call for public comment.

you need to press star and 3 to enter the queue. >> caller: hi,my name is vicky and i am a san francisco native. and a resident of the neighborhood. i just wanted to call in and to voice my support for cal cannabis opening up on clement street. my reasons for welcoming them into the neighborhood are based on a number of reasons. you know, there is data backed that communities with dispensaries in them are overall safer and they contribute back to the neighborhood. so definitely during a time of a pandemic that added security element is definitely something they would love to see in an area that has been really hard hit with a lot of, you know, smash-and-grabs and other really nefarious activity going

on here. and have i seen the ever evolving realm. i think that recognizing what goes on behind the scenes just lends a lot more respect for somebody who has been in this community and looking to kind of build on it and to give back to a city that it came up in is something that is -- you know, ideal and commendable. on a kind of granular level, they've been a good partner to the community that they're already in. and i would love to see that here in -- excuse me -- and it's a really neighborhood vibes going on here. i have a lot of established relationships with the merchants and the businesses here. they would be someone that would

just fit in so well with that community vibe. you know, it promotes reflective of san francisco values, promotes a lot of those d.e.i. issues that are coming up. and in light of the pandemic, and they are also just a great education resource for just destigmatizing cannabis in communities. and there are a lot of different populations here in the neighborhood, so they would be a great addition for a lot of the older folks that are not able to travel out of the neighborhoods for their needs. >> clerk: thank you, ma'am, that's your time. >> okay, thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael cohen and i'm the secretary of the brownie mary democratic club. i have known drecari and duncan for some time now, since they opened up their california

cannabis store on hyde street in california. and they have -- they have been at the fore of the vanguard of having concern for people that need compassion and medicine. my husband and i have picked up a lot of -- a lot of valuable medicine from them and have helped to distribute it. and we didn't have to go after -- they were very helpful. they contacted us. they're consistently caring about other people. my other point is that with all of the new empty retail locations in that neighborhood, this new dispensary is going to create a lot of great energy and really a good vibe in that immediate neighborhood. and i strongly -- strongly urge you to approve their permit. thank you so much.

>> clerk: okay, final final last call for public comment. you need to press star and then 3. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. first, i would like to welcome our new planner, well, congratulations on your first presentation. and, second, i would like to applaud mr. drecari on his next

venture for 235 clement street. i am impressed of your work in the community, and it looks like you have the general support of the residents as well. my question though is when -- did you present a security plan during your pre-application meeting? and were there -- what were any -- you know, comments or from the residents themselves or what was the general feedback? >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> so we did present a security plan and a nice robust security plan, very similar to the one that we rolled out with our first location here on california and hyde. some of the concerns revolved around some signage and also the fact that the neighborhood is

family oriented. but other than that, we -- everybody seemed to be pretty much in full support. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. so i'm fully supportive of this project. and if there's any other deliberations from other commissioners i would like to make a motion to approve this project. >> second. >> clerk: seeing no further requests to speak from commissioners, there's a motion that is seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion [roll call vote]

>> clerk: let me try unmuting you from my end. i can't. >> she did in writing vote yes, does that help out, jonas. >> i can see her saying yes but it's nice to get it audio. sorry, commissioner chan, i don't know what is going on. [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. and on item 11 for 2018-0147enx, 1564 folsom street. a project authorization. staff are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i'm having trouble getting the video started. >> clerk: i can see you.

>> good afternoon, president koppel and the members of the commission. the item before you is a request for a large project authorization pursuant to the planning code sections 829 and 813, and 244, and 32 # for -- for a project that includes the demolition of five existing industrial buildings emerger of four lots into two new lots and construction of two new buildings, one on each new parcel. the first building fronting folsom street contains 56 dwelling units and 36 off-street parking spaces within the zoning district. the second proposed building is folsom and 11th street, with an eight-story building with 188 dwelling units and 3,516 square feet of retail and service use, and 47 off-street auto parking

spaces. the project also includes a location of a place of burns place at the interior of the block which only serves the project site. the project is utilizing the vacancy of the code sections 65915 to 69518. and a 35% bonus of residential floor area. through the bonus, the project is requesting the request for open space and waivers for height, and rear yard, dwelling unit exposure and narrow streets height limit and horizontal mass reduction requirements of the planning code. the project design has evolved over the course of the review through the urban advisory team. specifically building mapping was shifted in response to the department comments. when first submitted the project had a mass throughout the site, in response to the comments some height was removed from the

burns place and shifted on to folsom street. given that folsom street is a larger street, that higher mass is more appropriate for this frontage than along burns place or kisslifg. they propose auto park entries and a single one-way entry is proposed. at the folsom street they enter through burns place with the new protected bicycle lane on folsom street. it has an off-loading space accessible from burns place. and additionally all horizontal brakes were added at the department's request. and not large enough to qualify as a required masking break under 270.1 code, it does provide a break from the pattern of the largest facade of the building. with these alterations the department found the project to comply with the urban design guidelines and to be compatible with surroundings. the neighborhoods surrounding is

a mix of uses and styles with low-scale industrial buildings. nightlife entertainment uses and small residential properties. the site also wraps around a six-level city-owned parking structure which fronts 12th street. and the project includes a request for street (indiscernible) which is an alleyway that only leads to the project site. it allows the map to be with this northern facade, with the additional dwelling unit, including one affordable dwelling unit. as part of this request, the department of public works requested an additional easement to allow burns place to be widened to allow for sidewalk improvements. and the street location will have legislative action by the board of supervisors, but it is supported by the planning department and other city agencies given that the alleyway has no other uses than for this development site. and the permit has additional

dwelling units. the project does include the demolition of several existing industrial buildings at the site. as is permitted under the state zoning and the western soma area plan. in some portions of the south of market neighborhood, demolition of industrial buildings is regulated by proposition f which requires the replacement of p.d.r. uses when new buildings are constructed and existing p.d.r. buildings are demolished. proposition x does not apply to the general or the residential enclave zoning districts and thus the project is not subject to those requirements. they met with representatives from the local entertainment industry to discuss the project. they also held preapplication meeting to discuss the project with neighboring residents. the site is located within the leather and lgbtq cultural district. and the project sponsors met with the district and received a formal letter of support from the cultural district citing the

positive discussions with the project sponsor and their support for the cultural district's vision. as to the general public comment, the department has received one comment requesting some additional information on construction schedule, and particularly regarding the daytime noise impacts while many residents of the neighboring buildings are working from home under the shelter in place order. and the construction won't begin for quite some time, so hopefully the shelter in place will be done. and additional concerns were with the content of the notifications and the inclusion of townhomes. and the request for open space, and shadow trees issue wind, noise, pedestrian safety during construction, and traffic, transit delays, public services and construction impacts. the final comment expressed a general opposition to the use of (indiscernible) and since the previous continuance of the project, some things have occurred. the project sponsor continue to meet with the representatives from the united to save the

mission and the leather and the lgbtq cultural district. and a sign of agreement with those groups to address their concerns for the project. additionally, the department has worked directly with those groups and the sponsor to craft some additional conditions of approval for the project which are reflected in your packet. and the conditions of approval establish a protocol for notifying the area property owners and residential occupants and places of entertainment and p.d.r. businesses of the community liaison for the project. and the goal is notifying the future tenants of building for the fight life in the cultural district. generally the community liaison is registered with the planning department and it's not something that is notified to area residents that they can reach out to the departments. but these additional conditions provide a direct notice. so if there are any issues during construction or ongoing building operation, they have somebody that they can call and speak to. third, the sponsor also agreed to modify the ground floor plan

to have a minimum height of at least 18 inches above the sidewalk level. this additional condition of approval, plus additional changes to provide clarification to the requirement for a regulatory agreement governing the use of the affordable dwelling units, were inkomperated into a revised motion for approval which was before the full commission after packet publication. in conclusion, the project provides for 244 new dwelling units, including 34 of the below market rate units or 13.9% of the total units for affordability. as it provides more than 40% of those units with two or more bedroom units, as it complies with the western soma area plan, the policies of the general plan and the requirements of the western soma mixed use general, and residential enclave zoning district, the department recommends approval of the request of the large project authorization. adoption of the findings for eligibility for the density bonus.

and the adoption of the findings for ceqa. additionally, on page 11 of the draft motion for approval there was one slight error. noting that 19% of the total dwelling units in the project would be affordable and the department would like to clarify that is 19% of the base project units. for a total of about 13.9% of the total dwelling units. this concludes my presentation and i am available for any questions. the project sponsor also has a presentation for the commission. >> clerk: thank you, mr. christianson. the project sponsor, you have five minutes. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. and it appears as though mr. christianson is pulling your presentation slides up now. so i'll give you a moment to gather your thoughts while he does that.

>> thank you. >> the slides should be displayed now. are they shown? >> clerk: all i see is your folder, michael. >> do you see the slides now? >> clerk: we do now, so project sponsor your five minutes is starting now. >> thank you. hello, my name is eric tal, and i'm the project 1560 folsom street in san francisco. next slide, please. i would like to thank president koppel and vice president moore, director hillis and the commissioners for taking the time. i know that we have continued our project on multiple occasions and i think that it's worthwhile and we are able to work with the committee and address concerns and i think

that this is overall a better project for the long term of san francisco. and i know many of you personally and i have come and appeared before the commission on multiple occasions. my old firm was called a.g.i., and joy o owns group i and we merged a couple years ago. we're a minority and woman-owned business and we have developed over a thousand uses of mix of income housing in san francisco and we pride ourselves in trying to work with the city, with the community. we're here for the long term. san francisco is our home. this is where we built our projects and definitely want to continue to maintain a good reputation and relationship with the city and the community. next slide, please. so here's a location of the site. we chose the site because we wanted to find a place that as michael had indicated that was, you know, we support a lot of the preservation and industrial

uses but we found an area that had long ago and continues to be a place where p.d.r. conversion and housing was acceptable. where we want to protect the p.d.r. and the other places and this was an area that was acceptable. so that's one reason that we chose it. and another reason that we chose it is because no one wanted to develop on this site. it's a very inefficient design so we had to spend a lot of time and effort to make sense of it. thirdly, it's also outside of some sensitive ethnic communities and we worked very closely to make sure that we address the lgbqt cultural area issues. next slide. you can see in orange shaded area what a challenging site it is. trying to make it efficient. as we created a mapping. and this is a map that was the result of working with planning and the urban design to have a larger facade in the building facing along folsom street and

stepping down towards kissling. next slide. this is a real quick picture, monstaj of what you see right now. on the bottom you see facing north a little arrow that points you to the bird's eye. you will see the rental company (indiscernible) and as you come around folsom going east and coming up to 11 street you will see burns alley, that narrow alley that will be serving our building. we'll be widening that alley and basically as described we're going to exchange the areas. we own the alley, basically, but there's an easement for the city. so we'll widen that alley to allow more vehicular turn arounds but we'll get a portion back to allow us to build more housing. as you keep going around 11, you will see a small shop. and then all the way out to kissling you will see a

mercedes-benz parking garage that is used to park their inventory. that is what we'll replace with the housing. next slide. and we have been here on multiple occasions and we worked for over two years with the lgbtq cultural and historic district and worked in some places much entertainment. as we neared our original date we were contacted by meta as they had additional concerns. so we have spent the past couple months working with them and meeting online and i am glad to say that we have reached a full agreement on addressing their concerns. and that's why we're here. next slide. this is just -- i think that one of the interesting parts about this project is that for many of you that have lived in san francisco know how vibrant the 11th street has been and

continues to be. and so there were many concerns about to make sure that the places of entertainment are protected from potentially the complaining neighbors that we talked to. so we talked to many, many proprietors and i certainly hope that they are able to resume their businesses and to bring back the vibrancy of the street. and that's another reason why we like this area. so we worked -- we had a very in-depth noise study done. this was all done pre-covid so we were able to test the noise levels at their full capacity. we agree with the commission to go beyond the required noise requirements in our facade. next slide, please. so i assume that you have most of this in your package but to go over very quickly. >> clerk: that was your time. how much more presentation do you need?

>> one minute. >> clerk: one second, please. commissioner president koppel, do you want to give him that extra minute? >> president koppel: 30 more seconds. >> clerk: you have 30 seconds. >> all right. so this is a facade, next slide, please. and, again, you can see how the building steps down to kissling on the bottom. next slide, please. and this is the ground floor with the retail. and then bedrooms. next slide, please. and some of what we're working with with the lgbtq cultural district is to have a streetscape that will have integrated landscaping that has reflected some of the district's culture. that's it. i'm done. thank you. >> clerk: great. thank you. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star and then 3 to be

entered into the queue. go ahead, caller. caller, do you want to submit your public comment? i guess not. >> caller: hello, commissioners, my name is bob goldfarb and the president of the lbgtq cultural district and i'm a 23-year resident of san francisco and a frequent visitor to soma. we have reached an agreement with the project, and we are satisfied that they are embracing our vision for the neighborhood and we are fully supportive of the project and we urge you to approve. thank you very much.

>> clerk: thank you, last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners being public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: while i wait for the commissioners, i am support of this today and going with the staff recommendation. commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i wonder if the project sponsor

has a slide that shows where the open space is? >> yes. michael, if you don't mind bringing it up. i think that it was the last slide. so -- and i have the architect daniel on the line and if he wants to chime in. now is the time to talk about the open space. and so here's showing some of the open space. and then go up one more slide. here we go. so we have open space here in burns alley. we'll have open space -- i don't know if it's on this slide or not, but on the second floor, there's a courtyard above the garage. and then we'll have open space on the roof of the building.

we're slightly short of the required open space, that is why we're asking for the variance. however, i did want to want to share some of the findings that we had since covid. and we are exploring this and we want to explore this as we do this and we'll come back to you. we found that the number one change in the perception and the needs of people living n that want to move back to the city is they want balconies. and i just wanted to share with you that we're cognizant of what is in the mind of many of the planning commissioners on how to address the changes and the need of a post-covid urban living condition. i wanted to assure you that as good planning and good design, but the market is demanding now that we explore a lot of our projects to add private balconies of some sort.

nothing large and nothing transformative, and smaller juliettes, but enough to go and sit outside. so i do want to just address that now. because i know that it's on many people's minds. chris, daniel, are you on the line, can you jump in now when i explore a bit more of our open space that we do have existing. >> i am on the line. and can everybody hear me? >> yes. >> so there's not -- this slide showing the roof is not included in the presentation, but if you go to the fourth slide, it has the information that shows a mass of the building and you can get a sense of the open space. the slide of the open space from the ground floor, the landscaped areas that are public facing. there are -- the project makes use of all of the setbacks that

have been incorporated in our cooperation to do that. so it's a pretty generous common outdoor amenities in the roof space. with two spaces. one facing kissling street. and a larger one that is kind of at the end of burns place. >> yes, and we're providing 18,700-square-feet of open space through all of those different locations, but it only ends up becoming about 800-square-feet below the requirement. this is chris with the architects. >> commissioner diamond: thank you very much, and i wish it were all on one diagram so that it was easier to understand but i do get that it's a complicated building. i would like to really encourage the developer to pursue the thought expressed a minute ago. i think we have learned a lot about how people use their space

and what is important to them during covid, and to the extent that it's feasible for you to add balconies to some of these units, even if they don't meet the technical planning code definition of open space, but they provide an outdoor area for folks who are in these units, i think that would be a great direction to go in. and if providing open space is also consistent with what the market is telling you that you should do, all the better. it's a very, very dense project. which means that it's providing a lot of badly needed housing which is wonderful. and if there's a way to add additional open space through balconies, then i would encourage you to do that. but i am in support of the project as proposed with the hope that you might find ways to add balconies to some of these units. thank you. >> agreed, and thank you. >> president koppel:

commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. first, clarification -- since it says that there's a reduction on burns place and kissling, does that mean that it's still 7 stories tall? or just getting setbacks? when it comes to massing on the burns place. >> sure. so the initial mapping throughout the site was a full seven story massing. and the massing shift that occurred was taking mostly massing from kissling because that's a narrow alleyway and shifting that on to folsom. we were able to fit that floor along folsom in the same height that it was proposed previously, just by making the fourth floor heights lower. and then the massing along burns

was reduced to a 7-story 73-foot massing from 85. >> commissioner imperial: okay then. so thank you for that clarification. and i have questions for the project sponsor. i would like to get the details on the 34 (indiscernible) as to have you had thoughts about the a.m.i.s that would be -- i understand that it's 13.9%, and i believe that some of it will be for low income and middle income, seniors, is there any discussion of the a.m.i.? >> yeah, we are following the planning code guidelines on the distribution of low-income and middle-income housing. so we'll be following those guidelines. i don't have the exact percentages in front of me, i apologize.

but what the city guidelines we are following. >> this is jim -- the department sponsor. the percentages are 11% to low-income households and we have a total of 19% and meets the planning code requirement. >> commissioner imperial: thank you for that. i also would like to echo commissioner diamond's comment on the -- on having more open space, especially that as we are in this, you know, pandemic. and consider that. i do -- i do find this building pretty massive. and although the massing would be more towards folsom street, my initial thoughts when it first came to us in the planning commission is that the massing of the alleyways.

and also, you know, for having the massing in the alleyways and being reduced to that, i think that is acceptable. but at the same time, having the open spaces i think that is something that probably needs to be more considered in terms of its design. but i would like to hear now from other commissioners on what they thought. those are my comments. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: it's an interesting project. it takes definitely the idea of intensifying the development at the edge of the hub. it is not part of the hub, but will definitely take advantage of the improvements with the open street when it comes to the intervention in the hub. just like commissioners diamond and imperial, i have concern about not only the insufficient

amount of open space, but also about the quality of the open space. because a large open space on the small alley is actually a space that would be in the shadow of the building itself being on the north side of the taller massing of the building. it is a concern to me because there are many units on the market which i am comfortable with saying that -- (indiscernible) and if the design equity that is missing. and that is partially due to the fact for the exception that you will be asking under the (indiscernible). in that case i think that this works against providing equity in terms of open space, unit exposure, a rear yard, massing and bulk of the building. and it is difficult to see us

use -- in the discussion of design equity, when you are asking for those exceptions. having said that, i would be interested to ask you to explain your compliance to the unit mix. i am not properly reading it on page 9 of how you are or not complying with the current amendments. can you please take the commission through that. the (indiscernible) requirement of 98, two-bedroom units with 73, three-bedroom units. you are providing 92, two-bedroom units. and 10, three-bedroom units. is that compliance or not?

>> commissioner moore, i'm just verifying this information very briefly. >> vice-president moore: it's on page 9. i think that it's section -- >> so the project is required to provide at least 40% of total dwelling units of two bedroom. in total that would come out to 97. the project is providing a total of 92, two-bedroom units and 10 additional three-bedroom units and five townhome units. so that would be 92 plus 10, so 107. so they are providing 10 more two or more bedroom units than is required under the code. >> vice-president moore: so the townhomes themselves comes in the larger massing, is that what we are saying? i don't understand because i see

-- (indiscernible) -- i do have a question of why the building could not have been (indiscernible) it would have been a better project. and the massing, extending it over so many sites makes it look to me a little bit like residential warehousing and i'm concerned about that. and what we're doing in the end is that it's not necessarily the unit quality also be the argument here. that sounds critical, but i believe that it's my responsibility as a commissioner to see that we are not only providing the market good outcomes but simultaneously, a very discerning eye on the

quality of what you are approving. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> i want to see if daniel will take that on. it is a very challenging site. but we created two entrances and two -- trying to address the very issue. daniel, do you want to address commissioner moore's question? >> sure. so the question regarding the decision to have a unified building -- >> vice-president moore: that's correct. um-hmm. yes. long corridors -- >> so, i mean, we did actually decide to make a move of separating the building into two structures. so they each have their own separate circulation systems. there was an earlier iteration of the project where corridors

stretched across all the way from folsom up to kissling. and so we basically split the building two separate parks, and we found that it was, you know, reasonably comfortable as far as, you the resident experience of entering the building. and then that also enabled us to provide the additional -- on to folsom street, like michael christensen mentioned. so the other move that we made is basically by introducing some massing breaks on folsom street which are intent to break down the massing a little bit more. but there are -- if you look at

the rendering page, there are actually different facade strat strategies that respond to the different scales of each street. so the largest facade is on folsom street that is similar in height as folsom street is wide. so the intent there is to, you know, to mass scale of the commercial corridor. and then as you go along to 11th street, it steps down and there's (indiscernible) a configuration. >> vice-president moore: i see the improvements that the project has made in the external breaking down of the massing. it's just the internal -- the length of the corridors, where you have up to 21 or more units all operating on the same corridor. there's a difficulty.

we all ourselves know the difference between a hotel and a corridor that has five or 10 rooms on it, with one that has 20 or 30 on it. again, it is the length of how this is together, given the fact that it is not just the number of units, like 21 in the lower part of the building, but it is the number of people, because you have two, three-bedrooms, single bedrooms as well as -- yeah along these corridors. and it's the sheer mass of people operating off a single corridor where i have concerns about the quality of living and equity of design. >> president koppel: okay, move on to commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. and thank you, commissioner moore,for all of your comments.

they're very astute. overall, the project is great to see housing at this location. i think that it's a really good use. i'm happy to see not only the mix of two bedrooms, three bedroom and townhomes which i think that is great to offer more options for residents, but also the two bedroom that gives folks a little more space, even within the two bedroom configuration. and i'm curious and i am sorry if i missed it, mr. christensen,if yoir aware of what will happen with the businesses there and if they continue or cease operating due to covid-19 or anything like that. do we know what has happened with those businesses? >> yes. okay. so a part of what we've been doing for the past two months is working with the (indiscernible) and they have concerns about the businesses being local. so part of our agreement is to

help to provide time, notice and money to help them to relocate. i can't get into details because we're under confidentiality. but that's one of the main concerns, among others, that we have addressed after working with the stakeholders. >> commissioner tanner: okay, thank you. and mr. christensen do you have anything to add to that? >> i was going to defer to the project sponsors. >> commissioner tanner: great, thank you. and then i wanted to just allow myself with the comments that the other commissioners had with open space. you know, having access to open space and i can speak as someone who is in a condo that does not have any private open space, that i would love to have a balcony or some way to easily have access to kind of be outside and to have the common space with the courtyard. so i think that the market is driving towards it, but i think in terms of having amenities that really add to the quality

of life for all of the residents is really important. so i do hope that you seriously consider adjustments that include balcony, even if they're not large. that would really be something that i think that is a needed benefit and it's not just a nice to have, i think that having this type of access is going to be a need to have going forward. and to have a good quality of life here in the city. so the amount of bike parking there is pretty solid and also encouraged to see the configuration and regarding the type of kind of two stacking parking levels for the bikes. that is really, really great. and what i would love to see is more affordable housing and more inclusionary housing and i think that having inclusionary units, i'm happy to see the 13.9%, and having it is a great way to provide housing units in a building integrated into the community, that provide housing for folks who are at this level.

so those are my comments. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: it's been mentioned multiple times regarding the complexity of what is the site and into that complexity in terms of its shape being -- is also the facould that the aspect ratios with portions of the site also provide limitations when you combine that with the requirement for what is a reariard and what is exposure and everything, it does create quite a few limitations on what could be done here, whether it's a single site or whether it's multiple sites.

i would guess that the single site probably creates a level of efficiency with respect to unit space versus non-unit space. and leads to that type of a solution as perhaps a more financially feasible. i'm prepared to accept this design and the project as proposed. and i would support the large project authorization. >> president koppel: commissioner chan. >> commissioner chan: thank you. i wanted to add my support to the project. i understand that this is a challenging site but i do

believe that they have made attempts to overcome the challenges. i am appreciative of the additional community outreach that the sponsor has done. and i think that echoing the other commissioners' comments around really strongly looking at adding the balcony space. so if no other commissioners have comments i would like to make a motion to approve the large project authorization. >> second. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: i wanted to go back to an earlier comment made by commissioner diamond and emphasized by commissioner imperial. is there a way to add... (please stand by)

>> we can push other projects sponsors to incorporate those features into their projects. >> let me just make one additional comment. the house facing the polson street side here, would be a great place for balconies because those would not look into each other but they all would have basically a private balcony facing exposure? it's really right in the double loaded corridors where it is complicated. this is a way of considering it not only would it give open space but it would also create a de-emphasizing of what is still a very bulky massing of the over

all. we would try to mitigate with the necessity of open space and starting to break the building down into multiple parts that is physically different. we would have to pursue that idea. >> i feel confident we can get there. this sponsor has shown themselves to be very willing to make adjustments in their design and we'll work with them to see if it's technically feasible and then financially feasible to focus on the future design. >> is the maker of the motion interested in adding that as a finding? >> yes. >> it would be a finding in the motion recognizing the desire for useable, open space and encouraging then the project sponsor to pursue that endeavor.

is a seconder amenable. >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioners, if there's no further discussion, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions as been amended to add a finding into the motion and socially he can knowledging the commission recognizes the desire for useable outdoor open space and encouraging the project sponsor to provide that private useable open space where possible. with that, commissioner tanner. >> commissioner chan. >> [roll call vote] >> i would like to see that on the south side of the project and with that said my motion is aye. very good. so noted.

commissioner col not. >> president fung: that motion passes unanimously. >> thank you, everybody. >> thank you. that will place us on -- well, items 12 and b were continued. placing us on items 13a and b for case numbers 2017-01372acrb and dpr-02. for the property of 1021 valencia street you will consider concession incentive and waiver of development standards as well as a request for discretionary review. mr. christianson, i understand there may have been some late developing talks, discussions, yes, that if i understand

correctly, may result in a request for continuance from the project sponsor, is that correct? >> that's correct. the project sponsor and the d.r. requestors have discussed a potential solution that would address the concerns of d.r. requestors and the nature of the change would require additional staff analysis including looking at the sequence analysis and a new resolution for state density bon a apps and the project sponsor is requesting a continuance of the project to march 11th. the project sponsor and the d.r. request or has still requested to be able to speak to this and to provide some clarity to the commission if that's possible. >> president fung: do we need to recognize commissioner diamond now or is that ok to let it go? >> >> yes, you are right. if did he have a disclosure, it would be for the week and whether or not you can seen consider tinnance. continuance.

>> wanted to let me fellow commissioners know that i have a business relationship with one of the lawyers at the goldstein-gilman law firm. ivory trained them for legal work. i don't think it would in anyway hinder my ability to be impartial in the deliberations. >> thank you for that disclosure, diamond. through the chair, would two minutes be sufficient for both parties for each party to make their statement regarding the continuance? >> absolutely, go ahead.

>> so, having -- >> they asked me to share this diagram while they do the presentation. it's just showing the massing change. >> president fung: very good. so, i will go to the d.r. requester's representative first because that would be the normal course of proceedings. mr. patterson, you have two minutes. >> thank you. president koppel and commissioners, can you hear me? >> yes, we k. >> great. this is ryan patterson attorney for the d.r. requestors and johnny on the sixth-unit residential building located at 3277 to 3281 21st street and mr. harry lau of the six-unit commercial building located at 1,001 to 1017 valencia street. you have our submissions including our light study and

our team is available to answer any questions you might have. however, i'm very happy to report that we reached an agreement today. and i see that the agreement slide is up on the screen. this compromised improves access to light for my client's tenants. through the terms of our agreement, which we would like to read into the record. project sponsor will enlarge the light wells adjacent to mr. lau's south slide well, deeper and wider as shown in the new plan. the sponsors will give a rear setback as shown in the new plan and the project east wall will align with the east wall. the d.r. requestors will give reasonable access to their reports with a written access agreement for the project sponsors to finish their property line. project sponsors will give access to the d.r. requestors to paint their property walls after demolition and the project sponsors will do the painting. project sponsors will pay for

under spinning and shoring subject to the d.r. requestors review and approval but and the written agreement. project sponsors will repair any damage to the d.r. requestors' property and the project sponsors will provide a pre construction survey and monitoring for ground settlement with a written agreement. project sponsors will agree in writing and record in administrative bullet notice on their property's title agreeing to remove the lot line windows and not to oppose removing these windows as mr. lau builds taller on his property. project sponsors to agree to advise their future buyers and occupants of this obligation with a written agreement. the written agreement will be recorded on title and run with the land and provisions for enforcement. and i understand this will require a continuance to update the paperwork and for final staff review. i would like to thank staff and opposing council for some really

significant efforts to get this done and i want to note, this is one of two d.r.s on today's calender which have been resolved with the great involvement of planning staff and i think thanks in large part to the d.r. resolution program. >> i'll turn it over to the project sponsors. >> right. >> you have two minutes. >> project sponsor, you have two minutes. are you with us? >> i think you are looking for mr. gladstone. he is not in the attendees and

my records show as mr. curlily being the person who needs to be unmute and only mr. curly i see in our attendee list. mr. curly, are you with us? >> we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter. and this portion of the hearing is now moved to simply the matter of continuance. if you would like to speak to the matter of continuance of 1021 valencia press star 3 to be entered into the queue. seeing no members of the public questioning to speak, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you.

>> commissioner. >> i would move to continue as proposed. >> second. >> if there's no further deliberation there's a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to march 11th. on that motion -- [roll call vote] that passes unanimously 7-0. it will now move us to the final item on today's agenda under your discussionary review calender as item 14 has been withdrawn. item 15, case number at 1615 through 1617 make street and it's a discretionary review. mr. winslow or the d.r.

whisperer are you prepared to make this -- [laughter] >> i am ready and i'm going to (inaudible) because of internet connectivity issues. bear with me, thank you. >> good afternoon. staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit number 2019-1024-5503. to construct a fourth floor vertical addition to a three--storey at the street two unit residential building at 1615 the 1617 mayson street there are two d.r. requestors. the first h.a. on behalf of the per deeney family trust and second debra holly on behalf of

benjamin osgoode, a tenant in the building to the north. the first concern is the proposed vertical edition poses a fire hazard with block light and views that will cause financial hardships by decreasing the rental value andt is not with the guidelines to articulate, buildings to minimize on privacy and light and cottage country eight the plans do not reflecting

existence and work performed. the alternative is to deny the construction of the third-storey or shift massing to respect the existing side windows. to date, there's been five letters and receive and the department's review of this proposal confirms support as it confirms to the residential design guidelines. the project also conforms to planning codes sections 317 related to mergers and expansions and demolition and planning departments removal policy since it's not removing the proposed vertical is set 15 back to be visible and retain the appropriate scale relationship with the three-storey context and the

historic charter of the property. the existing adjacent building to the north has a two foot 7-inch side setback which ensures this window exposure. the window serve a bedroom which also have the east facing windows and and they share a wall way. for light access to the existing side windows. the roof deck is sized and setback 3-foot 6 on the building walls and three feet from the front building wall and staff teams that there are no exceptional circumstances and recommends not taking the discretionary routine and this concludes my presentation and i will be here to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. winslow. commissioners, there are two

d.r. requestors in this particular instance, however, we've been informed that one of the d.r. requestors is unable to attend and has yielded their time to the second d.r. requestors, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. >> you will have six minutes. >> thank you. commissioners, my name is greg rainkin and i'm the attorney for the family that owns the building at 1631 mayson. the residential design guidelines on page 16 read in areas with a dense building pattern, some reduction of light to neighboring buildings can be expected when the building expansion. however, there may be situations where proposed project will have greater impact on the neighboring buildings. in these situations, provide set backs and the upper floors of the building. in this precisely this that

we're repeat tend about. the project violates this particular building standard by cutting off light to 1631 mayson from the south. the windows appear on page 38 of the staff report. showing both the windows from the bed rom and the windows into the stairwell. it goes up. to the top floor. it will be two feet 7 inches from the current building, 1631 mayson. clearly, no direct light will be able to be penetrated into this windows. there will be no view from those windows. we tried on three different occasions to suggest alternatives that would fit the

requirements and and the first alternative to move back the bedroom section of the edition of 18 feet. so it cleared both of the windows and leaving in place the additional staircase and the bathrooms and hallway created to walk down from the staircase to the bedrooms. that was rejected by the project sponsor and the grouped that it reduced privacy for both parties and created a convoluted bedroom/bathroom plan. the second alternative was to keep the edition exactly where it is. but to cut out a section three feet by nine feet to allow light in the bedroom of 1631 mayson. project sponsor rejected that alternative on the ground that while the reduction in the area was minor, the configuration in the room was compromised by the

change. in my letter to the planning commission on the 16th of february. i propose a third alternative. which again moved the bed rom back 18 feet but added room to that. so that it wasn't just a quarter that led from the stairway to the bedroom but it would expand the bedroom and still allow light in from the outside to 1631 mayson. i don't know what the project sponsor has to say about this. i have not heard back from the project sponsor. perhaps the project sponsor will offer an opinion today. that's my presentation. >> thank you. >> mr. melendez are you ready to

make your presentation? >> your presentation slides are up. so you may begin your presentation. >> hello commissioners, thank you for hearing our case today. my name is kelly melendez and i'm the architect. this is a two-unit building in the chan family since 1966. my client eileen chan was raised here by her parents. and she spent her life here as her grandparents took her of her school. it's for ka la and her third generation to live here at this location. there are two d.r. requestors from the neighboring report to our north at 1635 mayson street. this property is an l-shaped lot shown here in yellow and contains two detached homes. as you can see the subject property is a small lot,

22x70 feet showing the slide of pale blue. wore wrapped on two sides by the northern neighbor. our building occupies 100% of its lot with only a very small court yard for outdoor use. slide three, please. the chan home is currently two-storeys over garage at the street face. and one-storey over garage at the rear, given a very steep and rocky slope at that location. at the front of the building, we measure about 36 feet in height from the front of the sidewalks. the home is surrounded by taller buildings on all sides, including the d.r. requestors front cottage which stands eight feet taller than us. and the rear cottage, which stands on 11 feet taller than us. during the design process, we did consider a number of fourth floor plans and a few more

options in response to the d.r. requestors concerns. i've noted in the d.r. a notch on the side of our edition was added to secondary the bedroom window. it creates a awkward fourth floor plan for us. and it does reduce privacy for both parties by exposing both of the bedroom inter years and it politicians little in giving them additional light and creates a very -- continues to create an awkward fourth floor plan for my clients at 1615 mayson. we have a number of really important design elements.

and over the garage at the first floor allowing us to utilize the side and rear walls of the garage. to strengthen the foundation. and keep it out of the rear yard setback for maintaining a clear corridor. of the day from both of their front two did he do rooms. next slide. in terms of the two top bedrooms, the bedrooms on the fourth floor and their third

floor and our fourth floor would be going into each other if we were to pull this back and fill that area with deck. now that you are clear as to why we located the addition where it is, it's clear what our neighbors' building looks like and how their windows serve their home. 1635 mayson street is a detached house. the primary views are east facing, not south over our roof line. with the photo is taken at 8:30 on january 26th with the home in full morning light and even the shades are drawn and their master bedroom which they're asking us to move our addition to accommodate. the two front bedrooms of our neighboring property have spectacular views out of their east window. they overlook the bay and they overlook hoyt tower. and they also have peek a boo

views of the bay bridge and the transamerica building. none of these will be blocked. the front bedrooms also have two windows. each facing the front directions. both front windows face east towards the bayview as seen here around 10:00 on january 25th. slide 16, please. each bedroom has secondary windows that face the respective side yard. this is the primary complaint that we have heard from the d.r. requestors is that their bedrooms will be cave like and denied light. this is not the case. both have front bedrooms have two large windows each and a total of four windows facing three cardinal directions. next slide, please. and the rear wall, stairwell, also has two windows facing west and southwest. the south window has its blinds

drawn. we understand that change is for many people but we strongly disagree with the request for a discretionary review. the homeowners and tenants of 1635 mayson have a wonderful building with fantastic access to light on all four sides of their home. we respectfully request that you decline the d.r. and improve the fourth floor addition as it has been proposed. >> thank you. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to address this matter by pressing star and then 3 to enter the queue. seeing no request to speak from members of the public, commissioners, we should close public comment. and go to rebuttals. mr. raykin. you have two minutes. >> commissioners, there is one

window looking east from the bedroom in question. the other window is from the separate bedroom. there is no other light that comes in from the outside that enters the staircase area. so, if in fact the windows are blocked off, the bedroom window will be effected will provide the bedroom looking east will provide light into that room but not from the south. and the light from the outside into the staircase won't penetrate at all. apparently, the project sponsor has decided to move ahead with the project before being improved by the planning commission since you just said, that the structural component

has already been built under the area where they expect the fourth floor edition to be. that would be their choice but it doesn't mean that you ought to be bound by it. also, the address of the building is not 1635, it's 1631. thank you. >> thank you. ms. melendez, you have two minutes. >> thank you. yeah, the addressing is an ongoing problem. your tenant claims it's 1635, assessors maps say it's 1631. it's not really an issue at this point. we would like to say that we have been clear, very clear with both building and planning that we do have a remodel permit pulled under construction for the third floor. it is irrespective of what happens at the fourth floor and the work that is occurring down

at the garage is to strengthen the garage and the retaining walls. it is not contingent with what happens with our fourth floor request. out of of the d.r. representative stated himself that that bedroom does have alternate light sources. it has a light source from the east and views from the east. the side window is a secondary window and we do not feel that shifting the entire fourth floor of our project back on the lot is positive move. it shifts the shadow problem towards the back of the property as opposed to keeping it adjacent to their building mass, which is about what is encouraged by the planning code and for this property.

thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, that concludes the public hearing portion of this matter. the matter is now before you. >> even though we couldn't see him we are hear him and i'm going to staff's recommendation. thank you mr. winslow and let's hear from commissioner moore. >> i'm in full subpoena or the of staff recommendation and sensitive presentation and what would the issues visualization with explanation were very good. i do think this project can be approved without taking d.r. >> commissioner tanner. >> i would second those

comments. thank you very much to the architect and staff for understanding the project and i would move we do not take d.r. and move this project as recommended. >> second. >> all right. then, seeing no additional request to speak there's a motion that has been seconds to not take d.r. and approve the project as propose. on that motion -- [roll call vote] >> so moved commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and concludes your agenda today. thank you. we will see you next week.