what the different issues are. that is helpful for me as commissioner. i appreciate you pointing that out and helping us come to further understanding what is going on in the delta and with that, madam president. >> thank you. if there are any other comments or discussion from our commission? seeing none, then i think this meeting is adjourned. madam secretary, is that the case? >> yes. >> thank you all for your -- we are going to have a third workshop. thank you to everyone for participation. this is what it takes to bring us altogether. i think we may find hopefully

some way to go forward. thank you all very much. this meeting is adjourned. >> welcome to the remote hearing first, february, 4, 2021. on february 25, 2020 the mayor declared local emergency and authorized the planning

committer for shelter the place. this is our 40th remote hearing. if you are not speaking, mute your microphone. for public participation we are streaming this hearing live at sfgovtv. comments or community goes to speak are available at 415-655-0001 access code (146)503-3971. when we reach the item you are interested in press star and 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted begin speaking. each superior is allowed up to three minutes. when your time is reached i will take the next person in the queue to speak. call from a quiet location,

speak slowly and mute volume on your television or computer. take roll at this time. >> koppel. >> here. >> vice president moore. >> yes. >> commissioner chan. >> yes. >> commissioner diamond. >> hear. >> commissioner fung. >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> commissioner tanner. >> here. >> thank you. first is consideration items for proposed continuance. 1. 2020-003223 c.u.a. at 249 texas street. this is to continue to march 4th, 2021. 2. case 2019-021010 c.u.a. is withdrawn. further under regular calendar

item 10 case 2013.1535 at 474 o'farrell street street and 532 jones street conditional use authorization is requesting continuians to march 11, 2021. item 11. 2018-014795 at 1516 folsom street requests continuance to february 18, 2021. i have no other items for continuance. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak for any items proposed for continuance. press star 3. one member of the public. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon. this is ella strong, president of the executive board of church

of christ scientist. cosponsors of o'farrell street street and request continuance of our item. thank you. >> thank you. >> last call for public comment on items to be continued. no further requests or additional requests for public comment, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to continue items proposed. 1, 2, 10, 11. >> second. >> thank you on that motion to continue all items. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung.

>> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> that passes 7-0. that puts us on your consent calendar. only one item on consent. that is your consent calendar to be routine by the planning commission by a roll call vote of the commission. no separate discussion unless a member of the commission or public or staff requests. then it shall be removed and considered at a separate item. 3. 2020-007346 c.u.a. this is 2284-2286 union street. we will take public comment for anyone wishing to pull this off

consent. members of the public press star three. no members requesting to speak at this time public comment is closed. your consent calendar is now before you. >> commissioner moore. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. that motion to approve item 3 under consent calendar commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously. that places us on commission matters. 4. consideration of adoption draft minutes january 21, 2021. we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the minutes. no members of the public to

speak public comment is closed. minutes are now before you. >> commissioner diamond. >> move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt minutes from january 21, 2021 commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> item 5. commission comments and questions. okay. moving right alongying no requests to speak from commissioners. department matters. item 6. directors announcements.

>> no announcements today. >> all right. item 7. review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals did not meet and historic preservation commission met yet yesterday. there is a brief report. >> manager of legislative affairs. at the hearing no planning department items. the full board approved the landmark des designation by supervisor haney. supervisor mandelman introduced review of large residence development and issued four units in rh districts on corner lots and lots within a half-mile of gated transit stations. as the ordinance is not drafted i don't have that one. the large home ordinance

requires conditional use authorization on any projects in rh with more than 2500 gross square feet less is increasing more than 50% or up to 2500 square feet. it does provide exception to the 50% rule so long as the project increases density. no resulting units over 2500 square feet less than a third the size of the largest and subject is not historic resource. allows 10% increase for buildings 2500 square feet or more. members of the berkeley city council announced they are introducing a resolution end to exclusionary zoning laws in addition to sacramento and portland is positive trend in the housing policy on the west

coast. that is all today and i am happy to take any questions. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. the regulation or proposed legislation no house over 2500 square feet in the city. that property could add another unit and that is no unit over 2500 square feet? i am confused how that would relieve the limit of the size. >> it only helps with a 1200 square foot home and you want to increase more than 50%. you are below 25 but below 50%. that is the only exception. >> thank you. >> if there are no additional questions regarding the board of supervisors, historic preservation met yesterday and

considered the department 2021 budget and add adopted recommendation for your approval today. they considered two legacy business registries agcr body. second for g and son hardware. the only important thing here is both of these legacy business applicants are in district 10. they considered the preservation alternatives for proposed development project at 1101-23 sutter street. if there are no questions related to the historic preservation we can move on. general public comment.

each member of the public may address commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed 15 minutes it may be moved to the end of the agenda. this is your opportunity to speak to general public comment by pressing star 3. you will have three minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners, this is georgia. i sent you an e-mail yesterday with an attachment. i want to clarify something i wrote in the e-mail about the quote from the president of the planning commission a year ago january 23rd at a hearing on the budget about housing affordability. his actual line that he said was is there some way we can take a look at it? it was just referred to staff,

but that is a year ago. i go back to the attachment i sept to you from the staff in 2009 about march 26, 2009 about how they were going to come back to you with adjustments that never happened. it is unfortunate. there was everything in nowi valley. now we are in a situation similar to where we were back in 2008, 9, 10 as we came out of the economic town turn. we have in an economic downturn now and all of this explosion of these projects taking advantage of this big loophole. i worry about that happening again. i remind you one other thing.

back in 2015, the staff did look at a sample of five projects in nowi valley. 40% should have been analyzed and reviewed per the original demos from 2019 not adjusted. that is all i have to say. i hope you read my e-mail. have a nice break and happy valentine's day. be well, be safe. good-bye. >> thank you. members of the public last call for general public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed. we will move to the regular calendar. item 8. 2020-0104c r.v.

fis dal year 2021-2023 proposed department budget. ms. landis are you prepared for the presentation. >> we have a few slides for you today. director hillis will start us off with an overview. i will run through the numbers and go over what changes there are since two weeks ago. >> thank you, commissioners. as you know, we were before you a couple weeks ago. we are here to answer any follow-up questions we sent in the memo that addresses some of the questions that came up. i just wanted to hit some of the highlights from the budget that we are proposing. we hope to get a full recommendation for the 21-22 and 22-23. as you know it is a challenging

budget year. we are asked to reduce our general fund support by 7.5%. $500,000. we are looking at $2 million reduction off our base budget based on the look ahead of where the economy is going as we talked about in the past somewhat difficult to project. those reductions in expenditures mostly focused on vacant positions and with this reduction it will leave us with some 20 plus vacant positions to kind of hedge against potential future reductions in fees. some of the problematic changes to the budget as we talked about were implemented the equity assess meant tool we utilized

for this year's budget. we created the community equity division and continue to build the capacity throughout the department for our work on racial and social equity. we prioritize planning efforts we have been talking to economic recovery in protecting priority populations in the city. i wanted to thank debra for continued management of the budget putting us in a good place to absorb reductions. we are developing the equity assessment tool. i will turn it over to deb. >> thank you, director hillis. looking at the revenue for next year. main change here from two weeks ago is that the impact fee budget is going down from the

current year in the next two years reducing each year. because of fewer transfers to non-city agencies. we were with planning in the budget then distribute that out. in the current year we have more projects going outside of the city and next two years fewer of those. that and the expenditure is slightly different. how this is working for other city departments requesting services and recovering costs. those numbers will continue to change over the next several months including after we submit the budget to the mayor's office based on what other departments expect to request of the projects we could support with them or for them. a note again. the reduction from the base budget. we open up the budget system and

general support with $8.2 million and we are taking it down to 7.7. the other lines are unchanged. the charges for services are fees, and out year we don't know what the grant opportunities might be. the out year is lower whatever we budget. it will almost certainly increase when we come back next year and it is in the budget year instead of the out year. the revenues only big change is impact fee budget. on the expenditure side you can see the impact fee budget is reflected in the project. nothing else has changed since the last time we were with you a couple weeks ago. the overhead number controller's office in the budget system and

that happened after the planning department is done. we do know that number will change we don't know what that number will be. nonpersonnel services, contracts and leases and any nonmaterial expenses. materials and supplies we had raised the budget for 2021. we are reducing it for next year and the following year. reminder capital and equipment is anything with a lifespan more than 3 years and costs more than $5,000. we are in a new building with new equipment i.it was in our budget last year. we don't have any projected expenses in the next two years related to equipment. projects is where we generally budget both impact fees and grants because in particular with grants the incertainty with

what we are funded for and that gives us flexibility to spend it on salaries, services supplies. inter-department mental services is what we are charged by other departments. our represents, city attorney costs and department costs. again, not very much change from last time. schedule remains the same. we were at historic preservation january 20 and yesterday. with you january 21 and today. in a few weeks we will submit the budget. twenty-first of february is a sunday. we will present it on monday this year, the 22nd. the mayor publishes her budget june 1st when we work with the board of supervisors and they consider the budget during july.

that concludes my presentation. i believe we have an opportunity for public comment. if there are any questions, i would be happy to take those after public comment. i apologize if you hear the hammering outside of-front door. let me know if i need to repeat anything. >> we do hear it. we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to speak to the department work program and budget by pressing star 3 to enter the queue. no requests from members of the public at this time public comment is closed and it is now before you.

>> great job, debra for the valuable information and sound effects. we would entertain a motion. commissioner imperial. >> thank you. the budget looks generally okay with me with the priorities that we have, i also. [indiscernable] nothing has changed from the last presentation. if i move. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. seeing no additional requests to speak from the commission there, is a motion seconded to approve this matter. on that motion commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan.

>> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously 7-0. we are on item 9 for 2017-015181 c.u.a. at 412 broadway. this is a informational hearing. staff prepared to page your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> good afternoon. department staff. the item before you is an informational hearing regarding the conditional use authorization granned to the restaurant and nighttime entertainment at 412 broadway allow operating hours to 4:00 a.m. daily. it was approved by planning commission on october 25, 2018. extended hours operations first

began for the penthouse club and restaurant on march 7, 2019. the commission required the sponsor for ongoing engagement and responsibilities from the liaison requirement for performance update based on the first year of extended hours of operation. that is the purpose of this hearing. the project complied with the conditions of approval. the interested neighborhood groups met twice. we met with others in the community. the business circulated a maleler to the neighborhood prior to the extended hours operationallerting to the creation of a phone line monitored by the business that neighbors could call if they experience issues with the business or patrons or general issues. there was an intent of the

performance update to evaluate the extended hours of operation on the surrounding neighborhood. as discuss understand the memos, there were no formal issues from the entertainment commission that affected the extended hours. the sfpd did not report any incidents specifically associated with the business during the first year following extended hours change nor has staff received e-mails or phone calls from the community since the change has taken place except for e-mail conditions with primary neighborhood represents. the staff conducted in depth analysis of the incident data from mar2018 through march 2020 to capture one year prior to and after the extended hours change was made. the staff memo contains detail. there did not appear to be

evidence the extended hours resulted in increase of sfpd incidents. if any there was a decrease in the incidents for the year following the extended hours change, particularly during the period from midnight to 5:00 a.m. no action is required from the commission at this time. that concludes the staff presentation. i am available for questions. thank you. >> commission chair, do you want to afford the sponsor any presentation time, three minutes? >> yes, go ahead. >> okay. mr. paul, if you would like, you can have three minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you, president koppel, director hillis and

commissioners. on march 7th of 2020 was our anniversary of first night of operations after hours under a conditional use authorization. in our first full year nothing surprising or unexpected happened. one week later covid-19 shut the entertainment industry down. that was unexpected. last day of operation was mar14, 2020. two days before mayor breed's shelter-in-place order. no public activity at 412 broadway since that day. our operations went smoothly on march 7, 2019. 4:00 a.m. closing was popular with both guests and workers. on most weekends we observed few guests actually leaving the club directly at 2:00 a.m. following cessation of alcohol service. typically groups trickle out

2:15 a.m. to 2:45 a.m. especially those who ordered drinks at 1:40 a.m. last call they are sticking around to let the alcohol wear off before heading home. this is the effect we hoped to realize. during the year of operation, we operated with extended hours every thursday through saturday night and have occasionally stayed open after hours to accommodate large parties or unexpected convention groups on other nights. ability to remain flexible in the interest of customer safety and neighborhood tranquility is a tremendous benefit on the permit. in addition to remaining open past 2:00 a.m. on thursday, friday, saturday night from march 2019 to mar2020 we opened late saturday night on all three

day holiday weekends. of the estimated 170 nights the business remained open after 2:00 a.m., less than 20 nights did the club remain open until 4:00 a.m. typically at 3:00 a.m. the manager on duty walks the premises to evaluate how many customers remain and disposition of employees. the manager may decide how much longer to stay open. i guess my time is running down so i want to conclude by saying this has been a very successful launch of after hours. we have had no problems with neighbors. the community likes it. the crime incidence dropped as a result of people not wandering out drunk after the last couple shots. we are careful to make sure

people know where they are going when they leave the club if there are signs of anniebryation. thank you to mr. perry. his work was helpful to make this a success. >> members of the public this is an informational item but you need to press star 3 to get in the queue. no requests to speak public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> it is only informational. deliberations haven't begun yet. there is a member of the public to speak. should we re-open public comment? >> yes. >> member of the public you have two minutes.

>> i am terrance allen, original and founding president of the entertainment commission. i heard clearly and loudly. it was an honor to speak at the original hearing for this location, and to underscore the necessity of careful overlook for after hours permits, as our city grows and changes. covid struck a major blow to everyone, and the entertainment industry is especially troubled by the inability to gather in any way, shape or form. however, we are all looking forward to the pay when tourists and conventions and the music and art community return to their venues and begin the practice of normal life. having venues open after the

final hour of last call is critical to the public safety experience on the street. we encourage you to use this excellent example as a template when other businesses are getting ready to open and asking for extended hours to make it safer for customers that you remember the positive nature that this had on all neighbors, patrons and employees. thank you. >> members of the public last call for public comment. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i wasn't here when this item came before the planning commission. i want to commend staff on the excellent reporting and thank you for bringing this back to us this year. i am sad that the pandemic

caused the activities that were going smoothly and i am pleased at the collaboration with no negative impacts but positive impacts. thank you staff and project sponsor as well. >> commissioner moore. >> just a quake view in the rear few mirror. it was very controversial at the time not because of this operation but because of disturbances in the broadway corridor are many and the lines to delineate who did what are impossible. there was a lot of push back at that time. as the discussion and the conditions make it clear it would be a good experiment. as we hear today that experiment has paid off and we will move to

the future i don't mind establishing conditions after the fact or one year revisiting of the subject matter as we have today. i am glad to see the report came out as positive as it did. thank you. >> thank you. if there is no further deliberation, commissioners, we will move to the next item. i apologize. we had intended to call up the first dr out of order at the beginning of the regular calendar. we will call item 14. 2020-0011229drp at 73 fountain street. original intent was consent calendar. both parties have come to an agreement. the request of you now is to

take discretionary review and approve as modified. david, i know that both parties were informed this would be the case. i do not believe it is necessary there are any presentations. we certainly will open this up for public comment if any member of the public cares to speak to it. >> that's right. neither d.r. request or project sponsor had intended to testify. they were content with the agreement as stipulated in the report. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter for item 14 at 73 fountain street by pressing star 3. seeing no request to speak public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. the request is to take the project as modified.

>> move to approve as modified. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. to take dr and approve as modified commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. thank you for that. now going back to the regular order of business items 10 and 11 are continued. we are okays 12. 2020-001286 c.u.a. at 576 27th avenue conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners, planning department staff. the project is requesting

conditional use authorization to demolish existing single family dwelling at 5767 27th avenue and construct a two family dwelling. this is in rh-2 zoning. the existing dwelling unit was constructed the year 1912. it is age eligible not a historic research. replacing the structure is a four story over basement two family dwelling totals 4700 square feet. one dorm unit in the basement first and secretary con. second is on third and fourth. it includes two car garage and roof deck. the department has not received any public comments regarding this project. existing structure is proposed for demolition because the size, layout and condition of the building on the lot is not conducive to maximizing density

nor the rent controlled unit lost as single family dwellings are not subject to rent control. this will create one dwelling unit to maximize the density in the rh-2 zoning district. while the structure is larger than the surrounding building the design review has determined any negative impacts to adjacent properties is not significant. it is compatible and necessary and desirable for the community. we recommend approval with conditions. additionally i would like to read two corrections in the draft motion. on page 6 of item p six bedrooms in eight dwelling units. this should be two dwelling units. page 14 under authorization the motion states eight family dwelling. this should say two family dwelling. i apologize for these discrepancies. this concludes my presentation.

i am available for questions. thanks. >> thank you, mr. dito. >> project sponsor you have five minutes. >> good afternoon. i am amy lee i represent the sponsors at 5767 27th avenue two families with an additional set of grandparents. they purchased in late 2019 with the intent every siding together. after hiring architects and structural engineer it was apparent the current condition of the home with dry rot in the floors and ceilings and louchelyings could not support any expansion without becomes a demolition. sponsors worked with the planning department completed review and determined it would be best complete demolition and construct two new family sized units. prior to the purchase in 2019 it

was vacant over 5 years after the death of the occupants who live understand the home since 1952. they had neighborhood meeting and there is no opposition. the immediate neighbors have expressed support and would expedite construction despite efforts to prevent trespassing. the proposed structures meet the residential design guidelines, code compliant and not seeking variances. the architecture windows and the stucco and siding will be utilized to be consistent with neighborhood. this family project was to contribute to the existing neighborhood of two to four story buildings. it is the best features of the surrounding buildings and enhances the area. we request the conditional use authorization to demolish the

deteriorated building with no historical relevance to construct two new family sided dwelling units. >> thank you. does that conclude your presentation? >> that concludes my presentation. >> members of the public we should open this up for public comment. press star 3 to enter the queue. no members of public requesting to speak at this time public comment is closed. the matter is before you. >> the project seems straight forward to me. i am in support and would entertain a motion. >> commissioner fung. >> move to grant the conditional use. >> second.

>> thank you, commissioners. commissioner tanner did you have comments? >> i wanted to second that. >> thank you. in that case there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the conditions on the motion commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously. we are just moves right along. item 13. 2019-020049 c.u.a. at 1131 polk street conditional use authorization. staff make your presentation.

>> good afternoon, i am staff. this is conditional use authorization for property located at 1131 polk street at southwest corner of sutter street. it would establish a business containing bar, restaurant and nighttime entertainment uses. considerable use specifically required for the nighttime entertainment and 2000 square feet. zoning changes were passed several years ago within the alcohol restricted use district to return to the site without separate authorization. in addition the proposition of proposition h during 2020 make this a permitted use without authorization. the site is under construction with a project approved in 2017. when complete the new building will reach six stores with 54 dwelling units and 88800 feet of

commercial space of the previously there was the hem lock tavern a bar hosting live music and entertainment. the actions before you today are to allow establishment to return to the site. the business will measure 3570 square feet in two-story space in the same location of the tower. as noted in the staff report, the department received one e-mail opposition to the project. following publication of the staff report we received communications in support from residents and business owner in the area. they emphasize the business will revitalize the polk street after the pandemic. inconclusion approval will allow liven betertainment compatible with the polk street corridor and contribute to culture and nightlife of the city. the two-story of the space

allows larger use without dominating the block face. staff recommends approval and i am available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you, mr. guy. project sponsor make your presentation. you have five minutes. >> thank you so much. good afternoon, president koppel and planning commissioners. i hear an echo. >> we are not. >> good afternoon. i am alexis pelosi i am here on behalf of the project sponsors. i thank the planning department

for the hard work. we are seeking conditional use for nighttime entertainment and non residential use greater than 2000 square feet in the polk street. i want be to give background on the project and explain why we are here. it was started in november 2014 when my client began demolishing the structure on the site replacing with 54 units in six story mixed use building with ground floor retail. that was approved in december 2017 is 85% complete. during the process of the new building a key issue raised concerns about the hem lock tavern, a bar at the corner of polk and hemlock. because of the lower polk street alcohol controls -- there is an

echo. >> are you still there? did we lose ms. pelosi? it does appear as though we lost ms. pelosi. i suggest that we take public comment and hopefully ms. pelosi can rejoin us shortly. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star 3 to be entered to the queue. there is one member of the public requesting to speak. you have two minutes.

>> hello. i am david, president of the lower polk business collaborative calling both as president of that merchant association and resident adjacent to the subject property. we are in opposition of this c.u.a. and asking for a continuance. we tried to reach the project sponsors for community outreach. they have refused to return our calls and e-mails. we have some concerns and issues regarding the subject project. we think they can be resolved through community outreach but again we ask for a continuance until the project sponsors are willing to perform community outreach which has not been performed. we learned of this by the notice from the planning department this was up for hearing. that is about it.

there is some issues. the previous business there was extremely problematic. we want to try to avert that from happening again with the new project. if we can get community outreach from these folks that would be greatly appreciated. >> so kay. thank you. i do see that ms. pelosi rejoined us. >> so sorry. i have a terrible echo. i dropped off thinking that was it. i will go through my comments. >> you have three minutes. >> the project is under construction approved in 2017. it is 85% complete the key issue had to do with the hem lock tavern at the corner of polk and

hemlock. because of lower polk street controls there was no way to close and re-open in the new building. we were working with supervisor peskin. this legislative change limited to the liquor license is it now possible for the hemlock tavern in a new building. the project sponsor thought they completed the steps necessary to return the use to the new building. as evidenced by us here that is not the case. to return a bar entertainment use to the same location in that building two authorizations needed first for the size of the nonresidential space and second nighttime entertainment use. regarding the de stein additional soace for the hemlock tavern was below grade. the space is now split with approximately 1700 square feet above grade and remainder below

grade. approximately 3500 square feet for entertainment creates a entertainment area that is functional. the hem lock tavern's history has losted live events and bands and performers. the two level space was perfect and provides flexibility for the operator. in the polk street entertainment use requires c.u. authorization. because of the two authorizations are required to return use to the knowledge the project sponsor seek to make it easier for the operator to come in. in the letter we sent to you it is to address any issues related to noise in the building. we are seeking that any future operator needs a permit and necessary permits. regarding whether the operator will be the hem lock tavern an

issue raised. we do not know. at the time of the legislative change in 2018 there was an operator to operate the bar and nighttime entertainment venue. that operate's license changed and adding covid and the impact of the bar and entertainment business it is uncertain. the property owner is committed to reintroducing the bar to the new building if it is her or someone else. i did hear the public comment and michelle from the project sponsor's team is on the phone and she can address any questions regarding outreach. there has been outreach to the neighborhood. four letters of support the city received as well as verbal nonopposition from the lower polk neighborhood association. we are happy to talk about that. thank you to are your time. sorry for the technical difficulties. if you have questions let me know. >> thank you. that concludes project sponsor's

presentation. we should re-open public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter. no requests to speak, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you. >> there is one person to speak. you have two minutes. >> i just have a quick question. i kind of had this question when you were talking about item 11. it has to do with any item that has to do with condition permits. i am just like trying to learn more how the planning commission works. i am wondering if something is approved with conditions when are those conditions discussed and solidified.

>> if you want to shoot me an e-mail i will help you out with a better understanding of that. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. members of the public last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. it is before you. commissioner moore. >> this was approved in 2017 was a much supported project right size and light location. as always, particularly today ground floor commercial uses are extremely important. i am in full support of bar and entertainment use back to this location including the legislation which supports that use to return once it left the vacant site. the project has a lot of support and i will move to approve.

>> second. >> commissioner diamond. >> question for ms. pelosi. is she still there? >> yes. >> there are two references in the findings to a locally run business operated the bar. could you talk about that? >> again, thank you so much for the question, commissioner diamond. this gets to the hemlock tavern and original legislation and prior use that was there. as i noted in the comments the intent was to return the hem lock tavern to the space and there was a local operator to do that. in the intervening years that person may not be able to operate. it is our intent to operate a bar in a venue and entertainment space in the location whether or not it will be a local operator is not something we know at this

time. of course, that would be the intent to find someone locally to take over the space. the key is to get as close as possible so when things can pick back up and we are able to identify an operator they can hospital in to work with the commission to get entertainment and those types of things. >> follow-up for staff. there is no requirement this be a local -- no condition of approval it be a locally owned business. >> correct. >> no requirement in the code for this use at this location to be a locally owned business, is that correct? >> correct. >> it would seem given the current tenant in mind is not likely to be the tenant i am not sure why we are inserting language of locally owned 10nants. -- tenants. it is not applicable to what is likely to be the case. i am finding it confusing.

i am also in favor of this project. i would suggest if we approve it that it be done in the language in the findings about a locally owned business. it confuses the decision we are making. assuming the commission wanted to go that way is that a problem from staff's perspective? >> no, thank you commissioner diamond. as we discussed earlier there are policies in the general plan which point to independent businesses which aren't necessarily locally owned. we look at the construction of the findings if you are inclined the substitute language substituting independent in place of locally owned could be appropriate change. there is no problem striking the language out of the motion. >> i would be inclined to strike

it without coming back without a permit. i don't know what we mean by independently owned. it muddies the waters. we should approve based on the use, not the user. if we don't want to limit to condition of approval i don't understand why it would be in the language of the findings. i would be in favor of approving this project subject to deleting that language from the findings depending on what the other commissioners want to do. >> is the maker of the motion amenable? >> i would like to hear other commissioners weigh in. i have my own thoughts i will express when it is my turn. >> commissioner tanner. >> the thank you. that topic we were on. i don't have strong feelings. i would agree with commissioner diamond if it is not required to be locally owned it is unclear

at this time whether or not it will be or if it will be independent. it doesn't seem to be a problem to strike the language. any formula retail would need to return. we would be aware if it is that situation. i have a question for the project sponsor, ms. pelosi. you said something on the line could describe what would take place. i am curious to know nip notices the planning -- any notices the planning department mailed out what occurred to reach out to the surrounding area. >> michelle, can you talk to the outreach under taken? >> that is not audible. >> we are on the line. i added her in.

michelle do you want to tell me about the outreach that you did. i will relay it. >> they reached out to the neighboring businesses and also to the lower polk neighborhood association. >> are you aware if it was mail, door knocking, how? what was the response from the folks that were reached out to?

>> e-mail and verbal. they weren't able to take a formal position. in the conversations with them there was no opposition expressed. >> thank you very much. appreciate that. i am supportive of this project. >> commissioner moore. >> i would like to get clarification on the suggestion of the language regarding local leoned. my preference is to give local entrepreneurs the ability to open in this corridor. having a location, a liquor license and i think for me an invitation to promote local entrepreneurs versus leaving it generic. ms. pelosi could you comment and qualify what it means to leave as it is or take away. >> thank you for the question. in talking with my client, if

there is an intent to ensure the business is owned by a locally owned business operator, that is language that is fine to continue in the coped. that the always their intent. we agree it is better to work with local businesses and give them the opportunities. the language in the question was just at this point it is the project sponsor proposing, not the operator which is why we can't, you know, we are not a local operator. it is our intent to work with someone local. >> you are not objecting to simplify that language in that particular portion of the approval but leave it up to the owner to give local operators preference? >> yes. >> thank you. with that said i am prepared to amend the motion to follow commissioner diamond's

suggestion. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> commissioner diamond. >> i wanted to point out the two sentences causing confusion. at the end of policy 6.2 on page 7 of the motion it says in addition the project would be a locally owned establishment to provide employment opportunities for san francisco residents. in section 10a the last sentence the project would provide opportunities for residence employment that is fine. then it says would establish a locally owned business. it is those two things where it says it would be a locally owned business that are inappropriate. i am delighted to hear the owner wants to give preference to locally owned businesses and

that is wonderful and we would love to see that happen. the language in the findings makes it sound like it would be a locally owned establishment. i am believing this should be approval of the use, not the user. >> commissioner diamond thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> no questions. my questions are answered. full support. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to improve with conditions relating references to locally owned businesses. tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 7-0.

that places us under discretionary preview for 15. 2018-011022drp. 2651-265 3:00tay regentleman street. >> good afternoon. david winslow staff architect. the item before you is public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2017.08 to construct a fourth floor vertical addition rear addition with decks and roof deck to an existing three story two family house. this project was heard on february 6, 2020. almost a year ago as public

request for discretionary review and approved by 4-1 with commissioner moore dissenting. the exemption issued was apbe would to the board of supervisors on -- appealed on july 28, 2020. the board overturned the september 5th exemption in the motion the board directed the planning department to analyze history of the text the ad adjacent golden gate branch library to consider if the potential impacts of lighting inside the main reading room would impact those features. as a result, the september 5, 2019 review was resended on jan

27, 2021. no changes are made since the july 28th appeal hearing before the board. on behalf of the 2063 4:00 tavia association and green street homeowner association neighbors across the street to the east are concerned the proposed project is out of character. specifically with impact the scale of block face goes against the climate change policy by blocking solar access to the library solar panels. elevator roof deck exceeded allowed height restrictions in the proposed roof deck will create privacy annoys impacts and result in light, view and real estate values for the neighborhood. the alternative is to remove

the additional fourth floor from the project. since this report the department has received 11 letters in opposition siting impacts to light compatibility with the library and one letter in support. it meets residential design guidelines with scale and preservation of light, access to light. project sponsor designed the building to add to the existing building to maintain the scale of the street and access to light. furthermore additional analysis finds that the golden gate library was designed with 15-foot side set back south to ensure access to light. as document understand the january 27, 2021 exemption,

department determined except for class one for existing facilities. department determined the project would not results in a significant impact on historic resource including golden gate branch library. in terms of project meets secretary standards for rehab participation. it is retaining the character defining features as outlined in the standards and losses. it does not require further evaluation. as discuss understand the preservation memo prepared january 26, the adjacent golden gate by liar reis a historic resource and is currently undergoing landmarking. the department determined that the libraries reading room is a character defining feature of the library. inferior light level are not.

the proposed project will reduce some natural light through the half windows on the south elevation of library. the department determined the project would result in minnesota mallorie deduction of natural light and no significant impact to the character defining features. to fulfill the board direction the study was prepared and supported the conclusion the project would not reduce the indoor light level in the reading room. the proposed project will not result in any other changes to the adjacent library. because the 2019 approval relied on the september 5th ex else constituted approval action we are asking the commission to review the project in light of the new exemption and approve relying on this new exception. in addressing other issues by

the d.r. requesters the proposed design extending the roof to incorporate the scale of street and features of the existing building front. the 10-foot wide at the ground level and entry is widened. window sizes answer proportions are similar scale as neighboring buildings. furthermore solar panels are not protected by state or local laws. doing so would allow them as de facto impediments to development. the code allows -- [indiscernable] >> we are moving right along there we lot your audio and video. are you still there? turn your video off.

>> i turned video off. >> now we can hear you. >> very good. i will pick up where i think i left off. solar panels are not protected by state or local laws they would impede development. the code allows certainly projections to exceed height. roof deck is five feet from side, front, rear building. the roof slope is set back 20 feet from the front building wall to impose minimal impacts to neighbors with respect to noise and privacy. from loss of light to other neighboring properties is not exceptional or extraordinary. as the proposed set back and width of the street provide more than reasonable distance for the additional story with respect to light. the dr does not present any

extraordinary circumstances. staff recommends approving the project as proposed. this concludes my presentation. i am joined by ally son and kay from staff. we are happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we should go to the d.r. request. you have three minutes. >> thank you, i am representing the group of residents and neighbors on behalf of the golden gate valley branch library. they received -- the public and planning commission received the daylight impact analysis report one week prior to this hearing. not enough time to review the complicated and detailed study. we request more time to fully review the materials and from each commissioner who did not approve the previous dr to

approve the board of supervisors packet. we would like to speak to wishes. it impacts solelar panels and light of the library. it alters street scrape with the rooflines on octavia. increases the foot present without contributing additional housing. we request clarification that the project applicant will reimburse the city for the cost of daylight impact analysis report. this is a picture of the interior of the library showing the reading room, a key defining future. the windows and light contribute to the experience of the special volume. no one can argue natural light is not integral to the library. this was designed with windows for maximizing the right to the reading room. it may not be material entity it

contributes to the reading room. to obstruct light would alter the reading room as much as physical. the renovation in 2012-inch stalled high performance windows controlling solar heat and solar panelings butt the south windows ensuring the light is converted. the library windows will be blocked. solar panels are directly above these windows. regarding the streetscape. the city residential design guidelines state buildings should respond to articulation of the buildings. the impact analysis makes the roofs look boxy. the actual conditions are that the roofs are varied. the proposed project does not meet city guidelines. it is larger and boxer.

>> summary. this expansion negatively impacts. the review of the studies reveal it has negative impact on the library. it shows decreased natural light to the south windows and reduced function of the solar panels to meet the clean energy goals. expansion changes roof gain. project does not provide additional housing. we request the planning commission to take the dr and encourage the sponsor to modify to lessen the impact. thank you. >> thank you. >> project sponsor are you prepared for your presentation? >> yes. >> you have three commits. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is the second time we are before you to defends our proposed plan. we are in the process of obtaining permits for the

projects since august 3, 2018, two years and six months. the plans are to enlarge the buildings to accommodates ada compliant living for our families. at our first hearing it was 4-1 not to take dr. the maybe neighbors stated it would have adverse effects to the gold ten gate valley library. the board of supervisors upheld the appeal and requested the study be performed on the interior of the library p.specifically i am going to talk about our impact on the library because it was already determined from the previous er the other points the requester brought up today have been agreed to.

the space is 25-foot wide building with workstations surrounded by windows. north east and west are nine windows. they flood the space with natural light. there is a large light bulb between the two buildings which allows the light to the windows. i want to discuss the interior study and environmental department did on the request of supervisor stefani. evaluated skies for september and june. three times of the day 9:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. the library concluded the

vertical addition reduces the light level. overcast sky mines 4%. partly cloudy skies 11.1%. clear sky -1.8%. is important to note for all times of the day for existing and proposed conditions on partly cloudy skies and overcast skies electric lighting is required to meet the idf standard minimum for libraries. the small difference in light during these times are irrelevant. the next three slides show the existing and proposed conditions side-by-side. visually you can see there are differences in light level. this is the first clear sky scenario. difference 1.8%. you can see no difference in

light values in the existing and proposed. very little difference between existing and proposed. >> thank you. that is your time. you have two minute rebuttal to tip the presentation. public this is your opportunity to speak by pressing star and 3 to enter the queue. you will have one minute each. >> hello. this is bridgett i am the author of the landmark designation report. i did send in a letter that you should have received. i wanted to point out two key points. i really believe that the light is a key component to

understanding the volume of the space. it is flooded with natural light as the applicant just noted. the space is further impacted with the increased development. secondly, the other libraries are landmarked only one hads a slightly taller building adjacent to it. it is the building adjacent to that was probably constructed prior to the library. thank you. >> members of the public last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star and 3 to enter the queue.

go ahead, caller. >> hi, i am calling in support of the project. is this the correct time? >> yes. >> i am sarah. i am part of the design team for the project. i just wanted. >> ma'am, i am sorry to cut you off. you are part of the project team. your time to speak is during the project presentation. next caller. >> hi, i am calling to register concerns about the project. i am a neighbor living on green street. i just want to reiterate how important the library is. it is historic and landmark resource. significant fund-raising was done in the city and from the community and our family like many other neighbors contributed fairly significantly to the library. the design and restoration of it

really accounted for such light. i really -- light is such an important issue in san francisco. it would be a horrible shame to lose what this library enjoys. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. >> hello. i am a neighbor a block away. i want to call to register concern. i want to underscore that we are not talking about one private residence next to another one. we are talking about impact on a very important public resource serving visitors of all ages

offering high-quality programming at no cost. this is one of the most beautiful library branches that draws people from all over the city. the light study you have been delivered focuses on models, not real life experience. this modeling talks about not the quality of the light. we know that natural light is different from artificial light. the park a block away if we cut the natural trees and replace with plastic trees they would have the same experience. same is true with natural versus artificial light. >> members of the public last call for public comment. seeing none, public comment is

closed. we should go to rebuttal from the d.r. requester, ms. holt. you have two comments. >> since this is complicated study and detailed. i have a background in statistics and i am not a light expert. we need more time to absorb and review this study and to look at some of the conclusions that were forwarded that seemed that they could have been interpreted multiple ways. that is the first thing with the study. second thing is the caller just called to bring up the quality of light. that is huge. light is not the majority light in the room. this was designed to maximize natural light coming in.

on the planning department's website there are archives speaking to a 1915 pamphlet which says the site is chosen to emit light on all sides. there is a 2001 document that says all carnegie libraries contain natural light from tall windows. light is a characteristic and defining feature of this. in terms of otherrish views, we are very concerned why the city allows the development to compromise investment in renewable energy. why are private citizens. [indiscernable] it only benefits private developer at the expense of cultural public city asset. why aren't other city departments weighing in? we would like the city to confirm the daylight impact

study was reimbursed by the project sponsor and not a city and taxpayer expense. finally, we did receive 19 or 20 letters of support sent to the planning department. we have broad support across the community. from individuals and groups as well. >> thank you. sponsor you have two minutes. >> slide 9. regarding the light in the library. the study was done with no electric light proposed. look at this slide. the daylight calculates the difference between existing and proposed light.

[please stand by]

>> clerk: great. thank you. members of the commission, that concludes the public hearing portion of the project. the matter is now before you. commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: happy to jump in. thank you, mr. winslow for our work on the project and the project sponsor. i want to say i agree this is a huge asset. it's an important location. and the design does having light and the access to the sunlight is a huge feature really of the library and the way it was

designed. a similar review of the extensive and informative information regarding the shape of two solar panels and shading impacts of light to the windows itself, i don't see that this project has a significant impact in reducing the light for the solar panels or the light into the interior of the library. i would be prepared to not take the d.r. and approve the project, as proposed. i would like to hear from other commissioners. >> president koppel: i would second that and call on commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: i would say the same. reviewing what is in front of us, there is no -- aside from the fact that the study itself is difficult to read partially, [indiscernible] question of

quality of light. it's tonality, its shape. it's not clear to me. the objections that i have before is that i do not believe that private development should be impacting on public resource, public asset. further to that, the fact that this project does not observe the typical stepping of building from the entire block. and impact both on space. and i find that a negative. and since the units in question are already sufficienty large, the project is basically enlarging without adding density, i find that objectionable, especially since

it was more focused with the project first around. private interests impacting the public spaces is a concern. those neighbors supporting the library and renovation and conserving with private resources, i can only stand with them. and basically not support this project that is in front of us today. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: yeah, i was reading this. and thank you mr. winslow in forwarding the golden gate landmarking document. and i find it interesting reading the historical background of the golden gate library and architectural history. one thing that noted to me that stands out the most, is the

shadow impact. and even though the shadow impact analysis, you know, mentions that there will be -- in different day cast, like 1.8 on clear days. negative impact on it. however, when looking into the existing daylight there's 47.8%. that means almost half of the library right now doesn't receive natural daylight. when you look into the history of this kind of library, that is designed to have natural daylight -- i agree with the public on this. it is designed to increase natural daylight. even though the negative impact will be 1.8, that's still significant. when we look at given the shadow

impact a .01, .02 is already significant. depending on the uses. and not because a library -- also, this library where it's also affecting the children's library and a -- i mean, the children's reading room and adult reading room. so i am more inclined to take the d.r. to just the bulk that would not place more shadows significant on the historical building itself. i'm happy to see -- i mean, also on top of that, since this is in the proposal for landmarking, i think we need protections in terms of historical buildings in our city. so those are my comments.

>> president koppel: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner diamond: the library is an extraordinarily important building. and light in the library is very important. but i feel like the staff did an exhaustive drive with the shadowing light analysis. and that the impact is minor. and that the sequenalysis is sufficient and not resulting in exceptional or extraordinary circumstance that result in taking d.r. i don't believe it would use the solar panels as a way to say no to this project approval. otherwise, we would be setting a precedent for all over the city allowing anyone putting in solar panels to prevent construction next door to block light to the solar panels. so i am prepared to accept staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: commissioner chan.

>> commissioner chan: thank you, president koppel. i want to take a closer look to the project and thank you to the members of the public for your comments and especially for your concern for the library and assets. i have a few questions for planning staff. i'm wondering if the library has weighed in about the potential impacts? i don't know if that's a question mr. winslow could answer. >> it's not. not that i'm aware of. i'm going to ask our staff that are on this call of this meeting as well if they have had any input from the library? allison or jake, was there any input from the public library staff or administration with respect to this project?

>> not that i'm aware of. >> commissioner chan: okay. thank you. i was curious. and i also wanted to clarify if staff has done a site visit? i think in the packet, a sponsor mentioned half the windows facing this property were already covered on the bottom half. i want to understand if this is something you observed and tie in about the potential impact from your site visit. >> yeah, thanks for the question. in fact, we did a site visit with preservation staff, who are not on this call, prior to the last hearing. while it's anecdotal evidence, but we observed in early february, middle of the day, was a very light-filled room with the shapes that come from the

bottom up, about halfway, if recollection serves, halfway up three or four of the, i think five or six windows in the great hall that face the southern exposure. leading me to anecdotally again, observe that light might be a problem from the standpoint of over abundance in some instances. i think it's certainly filled with light. and i believe it was a clear and sunny day at that time. >> commissioner chan: thank you, mr. winslow. i think it's helpful to have the anecdotal evidence. and then, on top of the study with more statistical evidence. so i appreciate hearing get other commissioners' comments. i think it's important with the natural lighting to the building. i think it's really clear these main reading rooms are like any part of the library, you use the

library as the various reports stated for having sufficient light and ventilation from all sides. i don't think given the evidence that we have before us, we have to respect and include the potential impacts of the project do not lie [indiscernible] those are my comments. >> president koppel: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: i'm acceptive of staff's position on this case. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. on that motion, commissioner tanner. [roll-call vote] >> clerk: commissioner

imperial. >> commissioner imperial: no. >> clerk: commissioner moore. >> no. >> clerk: this passes 5-2. with commissioner moore and imperial against. that concludes your commission today. based on your perfect attendance, you all deserve a break and i'll give you next thursday off. >> thank you. >> we're adjourned. >> thank you. >> for the afternoon. [adjourned]

>> president cohen: please take roll. [roll call] president cohen is in route. vice