>> clerk: welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, march 4, 2021. on february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of

emergency related to covid-19, and on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to recon convenient remotely until the end of the shelter in place. this will be our 44 remote hearing. remote hearings require patience. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 187-569-0537. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, please press star then three to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up

to three minutes, and when you have 30 seconds, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your time is reached, i will mute your microphone and take the next person to speak. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly, and turn down the volume on your t.v. or computer. i'd like to take roll call at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is items proposed for continuance. ice 1, 2020-003042-ahb at 4712 third street is proposed for continuance to march 18, 2021. item 2, 2020-006525-drp at 1990

lombard street, is proposed for continuance to april 22, 2021. item 3, 2013-0846-drw at 140-142 jasper place is proposed for continuance to april 29, 2021. items 4 a and 4 b, 2013-0511-dnx at 1125 market street are proposed for indefinite continuance. members of the public, this is your time for public comment on the continuance. press star, three to enter the

queue. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. commissioners, the items are now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to continue. >> commissioner tanner: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there is a motion and a second. on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0 and places us under your consent calendar for one item. all mattered listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are consider today be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and

considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 5, 2020-010157-cua at 1100 vanness avenue. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak. press star, three to enter the queue, and i see we have one member of the public. as a reminder, you are requesting this item to be taken off the consent calendar. >> i'm sorry. i was wanting to speak on another item. >> clerk: okay. members of the commission, seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak on this item, it is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: move

to approve. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to approve your consent calendar -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us on commission matters. item 6, consideration of adoption, croft minutes for february 18, closed session and regular hearing. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes. seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, public comment is now closed, and the matters are now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: move to adopt the minutes. >> commissioner tanner: second. >> clerk: thank you,

commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes from february 18 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us under item 7, commission comments and questions. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: hello, everyone. just wanted to wish everyone a happy women's history in march as it just began. i hope you recognize the women in your lives and also historical figures, so moving into a really fun month. happy to see us moving into the red tier.

i'm just curious if there are any developments afoot with the shared spaces and recovery programs? >> director hillis: yeah. obviously, in indoor dining and easing of restrictions on indoor dining, the shared spaces will be coming to you in the next couple months with the hopes to make that program permanent, so, you know, hopefully you can continue to enjoy shared spaces post covid and allow businesses to occupy the spaces formally used for cars, so we look forward to that discussion in the future. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> director hillis: sure. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: question. there were two articles in the press recently, and i'm wondering what the planning department's role in them is. one had to do with the large

number of vacancies in japantown and the concern about ability to retain the cultural integrity of the place. you know, when i first joined the commission, one of the first items was heard was the adoption of the cultural heritage district, and i wondered what the status of that was and the involvement of the department. and then secondly, there was an article during today or yesterday's paper about a developer having submitted an application for a project in the fillmore, and i'm wondering if that was an application to the planning department or to some other entity in the city, if you could give us some background on that. it sounded like a very, very large project. >> director hillis: yes. so taking the last one first, ian west, which is a four-block -- it's in the western addition, they did submit that project application to planning. obviously, it's in initial

stages. we would have to go through, you know, the project's mission and the application, changes to zoning, probably an environmental review. so that process is starting, and there's a submission of the application, but yes, lots more to come on that, and there are certainly other agencies involved. >> commissioner diamond: director hillis, for that kind of project, i was hoping you would set up some kind of study session so the commission gets to ask questions rather than waiting until it's brought to us for approval? >> director hillis: sure, we can do that. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> director hillis: and then second on japantown, there are a couple of things happening or a couple of things in place. one is the existing property owner [inaudible] i think a

decade ago, there were negotiated covenants between the city and the property owner to help preserve the heritage of japantown and the types of businesses that are there. those covenants expired, so the city is working with the community to possibly reenforcing those covenants, but some of those were done voluntarily by the property owners. [inaudible] a special use district, and so we are working with the community to kind of analyze how effective that's been and potentially revise that, especially making changes [inaudible] where they have to come back to you for adoption, but working with the community on both those to assist in the

continued vibrancy and preservation of japantown. >> president koppel: commissioner moore?

>> vice president moore: [inaudible] because people are still shopping. it's just difficult when there's only one store open when the next few other stores is what attracts people to come. i just want to hang that out there, and it's something that we may want to entertain in our city parks here, also. thank you. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move onto department matters, item 1 -- or excuse me, item 8, director's announcements. >> director hillis: thank you all. just want to recognize planning anniversary of sorts. this is a portion of the meeting where i'll be doing. this month marks the five-year anniversary of your unanimous adoption of a resolution that reformed our transportation review for ceqa, and i think some of you recall that i was

on the commission when i was. we changed our level of service, l.o.s., to v.m.t., vehicle mileage travelled. it was somewhat of a technical change but somewhat revolutionary and made us more aligned with our environmental and transportation policies, so just wanted to recognize that. it was a huge undertaking and something that was underway for probably a decade or more, and kind of our staff and m.t.a. and c.t.a. and city attorney and oewd staff and you all adopted it. i think we were able to streamline the ceqa approvals for transportation safety and housing and mobility projects. and while we were the first county to adopt the v.m.t.,

others have followed suit: san jose, oakland, l.a., and san diego. i just also wanted to kind of recognize and thank commissioners hyland and pearlman who had their last hearings at h.p.c., historic preservation commissions over the last couple of weeks and just thank them for their service with the department over the years. welcome commissioner nagaswaran to the h.p.c., and the mayor also nominated christina [inaudible] and she's working her way through the nomination process. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that will place us on item 9, review of past events at the

board of supervisors, board of ael pas, and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, director of legislative affairs. [inaudible] down in the victorian stick or east lake style and the earliest building in the parkside district. the item was sponsored by supervisor mar and cosponsored by melgar, preston, peskin, and chan. the committee voted unanimously to send the landmark initialation resolution to the -- initiation resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation. next, they considered [inaudible] this property would change the property subject lots from r.e.d. to redmpx. commissioners, we heard this item way back in october 2018 and voted to recommend approval of the conditional use

authorization and zoning. it was contingent upon the zoning map change. the project was delayed a couple of years because of a ceqa appeal that was ultimately withdrawn. at the land use hearing, project planner alex westauf gave a presentation on the hearing. there was very little discussion and the committee voted to forward the matter to the full board with a positive recommendation. at the full board this week, the board considered the tentative map appeal from 424 to 434 francisco street which is a condominium conversion of a three-story six-unit building

into residential condominiums. commissioners, you considered this item on october 1 of last year and ultimately denied the application because the planning commission was not able to pass the motion approving the application. staff recommended approval of the application, and at the hearing, a motion to approve was made by commissioner fung and seconded by commissioner diamond, however, it failed on a 3-3 vote. a motion to continue the item also failed. during the hearing at the board, staff made a brief presentation on the board, various attempts to pass the motion, and why it was disapproved. staff had no basis to support or oppose the appeal. there was some public comment on this item. many of the speakers also spoke at the commission hearing -- many of the people who spoke at the commission hearing also spoke during the board hearing and brought up similar issues and concerns. once the presentations ended on both sides, supervisor peskin

indicated he was going to vote to uphold the appeal. his comments were echoed the same way by commissioner chan at the hearing on october 1 and later endorsed by commissioners moore and imperial. he also brought up the issue with some questionable short-term activity on the site but never explained why this should be used to deny the condominium conversion. at the end of the presentation, supervisor pes tin made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the denial. the board approved and supervisor preston recused because of his previous work on the case. and that is all i have for you today. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr.

starr. on behalf of the deputy zoning administrator, the board of appeals did meet yesterday evening and considered two items that may be of interest to the planning commission. 1812 through 1816 green street. the board made a jurisdiction request for notice of violation issued by the department on january 26, 2021 for an illegal unit merger and deck on the subject property. these violations have existed since 2003, and the planning commission denied a conditional use authorization in november 2020. the requester argued that she should be given more time to file the required permits but were unable to explain why they didn't file an appeal within the 15-day appeal period. the board voted unanimously to deny the jurisdiction request. at 27 17 avenue, the board heard an appeal of a building permit to document the restoration of a three-story bay window at 25 17 avenue.

the bay window had been removed without a permit and the owner had been ordered to restore the window. the window straddles the property line between 25 and 29 17 avenue. the appellant and several public commenters expressed frustration with the permit holder and concerns that the project holder will not comply with the commission's decision. the board of appeals unanimously denied the appeal and approved the permit as proposed. the historic preservation commission also met yesterday and welcomed new commissioner nagaswaran. they also adopted recommendations for approval for several legacy businesses. the san sun restaurant on washington street, uko on hayes

street, yadav diamond at -- diamonds at 888 brannan street, and central drug on mission street. finally, they considered the extension request from rec and park for the observation wheel on the music concourse in golden gate park, and the commission unanimously extended the temporary installation for an additional four years until march 1, 2025. if there are no questions, commissioners, we should move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will 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 the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit,

general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on items not on the agenda, and through the chair, you'll have two minutes. >> oh, hi. good afternoon, it's georgia schiutish. there was an article in the paper about the property out on 27 avenue in the richmond. one thing that struck me in the picture was the roof deck, and that reminded me of the meeting a year ago in person, and i reminded you of that not being codified in the planning code or anywhere and suggested there should be a formalized roof deck policy, and that policy should only be on multiunit buildings such as this one, in the richmond, and that they did not have anyplace on single-family homes, whether

they are brand-new or alterations for various reasons, especially if they could meet the open space requirement with a rear yard, then they didn't need the roof deck, and the negative aspects of that. i just want to add about this project on 27 avenue, that the lot size there for the four units is 3660 square feet, according to the p.e.m. it's not on the address, but it's somewhere outside the number, and i did find it. that size, 3660 square feet, is about 35% larger than the average san francisco lot size cited in the article. i sent you an e-mail about it with some more information and also talking about the roof decks, and i also hope you had time to review it. i sent it to you on march 1, and happy march.

thanks so much. take care, and bye-bye. >> clerk: members of the public, last chance for public comment. seeing no other public comment, comment comment is closed. we can move onto item 10, 2009-3461-cwp. this is an area plan implementation update and interdepartment plan implementation committee report. this is an informational presentation. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. hi, commissioners. i am matt snyder, and i am here to do the air plan implementation update and interdepartment plan implementation committee report, and i will share my

screen. and i will do as i do every year, remind you of what the implementation team at the planning department, who we are, and who ipic is, what it does. we'll provide some highlights over this last year. we'll look at the revenue through this coming end of this fiscal year and what the projectstions are for the next five years, and then, we'll dive into each -- projections are for the next five years, and then, we'll dive into each project and some highlights. implementation team was in the citywide division of the planning departments. again, we were created about ten years ago to help look after the implementation of area plans that had been created since the mid 2000s. we've also had the zoning. what we do is look at aspects around plan implementation

around community investment and infrastructure, and what we look at to do that are the geographically-based impact fees, created on rincon hill in 2005. by contrast, the ipic is an extension of that implementation team. it's a city family wide team. our major partner is the office of resiliency and capital planning. the agencies include those that help us with administration but also perhaps more importantly, the ones that actually create the project, such as rec and park, public works, m.t.a., and oece. so real quickly, for most of the project areas, what we do every year is that we're looking at projects that originally came out of the area projects, their implementation

documents, their community packages, and then we have a five-year cycle that we sort of look at every year to sort of strategize. the ipic helps us do that. up on the screen are the five categories that are generally consistent through the area plans. they're slightly different. when i was going through these slides, i remembered there were some new categories that came out of the central soma plan which you approved about a year and a half ago that are not included, including environmental resiliency and community facilities. so some of the key issues and considerations at this time last year, i think i was reporting that unfortunately, when we were looking at last year, we noticed a slow down in revenue, that projects in the pipeline were not getting to -- construction documents is when they pay the fees, as quickly as we had projected or

experienced. unfortunately, that was exacerbated this year. really, we are -- our impact fees really came in at a trickle, and we believe that's largely because of covid. because of this, we have not been identifying new projects for most of the area plans. this is, of course, outside of soma, which now has, we're anticipating, a fairly robust revenue stream, out of the central soma project and those other revenues, and then, the hub projects for -- and the proper plan for which you approved last year. and part of what we're doing is integrating those new plan areas into our work, specifically around central soma and the hub. again, new funding categories in central soma around environmental and resilience fees, and i should also indicate the community facilities will probably be implemented perhaps through ipic but through soma stabilization c.a.c. which sort of preexists this.

they had implemented the -- anticipated some fees coming out of rincon, so this is a new resource for them to fund projects. and just again, i think reported last year, because of central soma, we're looking to break up eastern neighborhoods. eastern neighborhoods is a single fee across -- that had been across five areas with central soma. we decided that needs to be broken up. we created a new c.a.c. specifically for soma so that they could look after the -- that new set of community benefits, so we now have two c.a.c.s looking at the eastern neighborhoods impacted. and just looking really quickly at what we expect our revenue to be at the end of this fiscal year -- that is this coming june -- so this chart includes our revenue actuals through the last fiscal year and then extending into just the

finishing up. this fiscal year, we think we will have collected about $333 million. through this fiscal year, much of that coming from transit center because of the size of those projects and the fairly large fees that those projects pay. through the next five years, we anticipate also roughly about $333 billion that you'll see that now shifts to soma, now coming out of the central soma and the new revenue that's coming from that plan area. i'll go through each of these plan areas. so balboa park is the first one. balboa park, certainly, a lot happening in terms of land use. you approved the balboa

park land reservoir development agreement. a lot of these projects don't actually pay the impact fees. it's a fairly modest fee, so we never anticipated a lot of revenue coming from this and, in fact, i don't believe we saw any revenue this past year. we offer the revenue as it happens to the agencies to meet sort of lasting demands for their projects. eastern neighborhoods, again, now we're just looking at the mission show place and central soma. this is still a very broad area, a very complex area. this project area, we're looking to -- we've been looking to fund roughly about

30 projects within this area, and this project, i think more than any other, really took a hit in terms of revenue this past year. again, we're separating them from the soma. what we noticed was that there were a couple of projects from which we had been expecting fees that changed the revenue from where they were. in previous years, you'll see a negative number there. just as a reminder, that negative number doesn't mean we're in a cash deficit. it means in previous years we had authorized projects to start with the understanding that they have to wait for the actual impact fees to come in. a negative number indicates that the impact fees did not come in, and as i mentioned, we're not looking to authorize any new projects in that area.

i think last slide, i showed you the middle slide at garfield aquatics center when it was under construction. jerry commons, its skeptical design before it was under construction -- it's conceptual design before it was under construction, and now it's under construction. and then one of our smaller scale projects that came from the community that's sort of in the last stages of design that they've been working with the community. it's one of the projects that are probably next up to start construction, what we've probably called the loop or the potrero gate way. it's a set of improvements under the freeway at 17 street.

my slides aren't advancing -- okay. so south of market, again, new projects here but largely because of the central soma plan that you approved a little over a year ago. and so some of those projects, you know, as it -- when it was a part of eastern neighborhoods, it was a project between neighborhoods, and it was something that we've been planning for a number of years with a new revenue from central soma that's going to become -- we're going to be able to fund a big chunk of that. that's first priority for the soma. 11 street and natoma, as you may recall, eastern neighborhoods looked to create a new park in each of the plan areas. this is the new park for soma. they've cleared the site. they're looking to start conceptual design for this project this year. i should also mention that the

market octavia contributed to that project, and the [inaudible] annex aquatics center and community center [inaudible] chief site in soma. and then, streetscape projects, central soma look to make improvements in all of the major streets in the central soma area. we decided to keep this as a flexible line item. two of the projects will be market and 7 and folsom and howard. with the new projects in the hub, we do anticipate some additional revenue, and we are doing some additional planning for the revenue that will come

in on that. throughout the history of the hub -- excuse me, market-octavia, we've looked to make improvements of about 25 different projects of varying scales. last year, i showed you a photo of margaret haywood under construction. it was completed last year, and these are pictures of it completed. i showed you slides of this last year, as well, and i wanted to show you again just as a reminder it does fund major large scale projects. we do these at all kinds of different scales. we have several sort of community based programs, on going programs, both in market octavia and we partner with public works on similar partnerships with public works as a living alleys program for which we've funded about $5 million through the next five

years. rincon hill, one of our first area plans with impact fees, just real quickly, one of the things that i did this year, i showed you the slide on the left, the second of the parks in rincon hill, under construction, and this year it was completed. a transit center right next door to rincon hill, similar scale geographly with large-scale projects. transit center had a defined set of improvements in its implementation documents which are on going. one of those similar to soma or central soma where you were looking to make streetscape improvements all in the major streets, similarly we're doing that here, as well. and then finally, visitacion valley, it was one of the areas with geographically based impact fees after rincon hill. it was created by

then-supervisor maxwell to leverage the high intensity development that was happening in executive park. similar to balboa park, because these are fairly modest fees, our intention is to kind of work with the agencies and the community to identify projects as those fees come in. having said that, the fees have not been coming in. i think i reported that we anticipated fees coming in from both executive park and the [inaudible] development site. we've continued not to see those fees come in. we understand that schlage has a phased development, so hopefully, we'll see that in the next year. the good news is that some of the projects have been able to find other funds to help move those along. one of those was a mural project under the 101 and little hollywood. and so just as we do every year, we'll work with the

agencies to get the budget requests in the next fiscal year, f.y. 22 and the one after that, f.y. 23. so hopefully when those revenues start coming in, they can start working on those projects. i should also mention that we're completing the levels of nexus study, what we do about every five years, where we help justify the fees. that'll be done hopefully in the next couple of months. we'll incorporate some references probably in the spring, and as we're always looking to improve our process with the agencies, we'll be more integrating other sources that these new plan areas have created, including the c.f.d.s from central soma and the one that's been on going in transit center. commissioners, this concludes my presentation, and i would be happy to answer any questions

that you have. >> clerk: thank you, matt. members of the public, if you would like to speak to the ipic report just provided to all of us, you need to press star then three to be entered into the queue. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: mr. snyder, i had a question regarding both the report and in terms of how does this program handle social and racial equity in terms of contracts and vendors, local

hires for those programs? >> we really leave that to the agencies. it's not sort of our jurisdiction to sort of determine what those requirements are. we trust our agencies have their own policies to make those assurances. in short, i don't know if i can give you an answer because it's generally not something that we have expertise on. it is more of just sort of coordinating that revenue in between, you know, when the revenue comes in, what projects has priority and so forth. >> commissioner fung: understood, but this -- that issue brought up, then, by the

other agencies? >> it's a matter of policy, i think, for each of those agencies as a part of their contract. we do have -- i mean, we do -- you know, when we're looking -- one of the things i think we will look to do this year is that as the money comes in, we've had sort of a process as to who gets the money first. generally so far, it's been more about which project is kind of shovel ready and which one is needed for sort of a particular -- to meet a particular worth. so how -- you know, questions about what communities these particular projects are serving. >> commissioner fung: i would request that staff, that since planning is handling the management role in this program, that that issue be brought up at the meetings, and

that it be addressed in the reports in the future. >> okay. >> director hillis: commissioner, we've got the directors working group which discusses, agendizes some of these topics. we're happy to bring it up there. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you, and thank you, mr. snyder for this comprehensive report. my question is under the report and transportation challenges that were identified. [inaudible] so i'm trying to [inaudible] of a possible fee

deferral and whether it would affect the anticipated funding that's going to be coming in. how is that going to be affected? are you saying that, let's say, in the eastern neighborhood, that there's 45 million coming up in the next five years with a possible fee deferral [inaudible] or [inaudible]. >> i don't -- i don't know if my understanding is if that's not going to happen, but if it did happen, just as a rule of thumb, i would assume or take the way it had worked previously is that a project would be able to defer 80% of its -- 85 to 80% of its fee

when the project was completed. the way we would have budgeted that or assume that in any given year, 80% that we may have expected in the first two years, we'd now have to wait another two to three years for that revenue before it was initiated, and then, it catches up with itself, but for the first two years, it would have meant delayed revenue, and fairly significantly. >> commissioner imperial: so i guess this is my question to director hillis in terms of this fee deferral proposal. is this coming to us on the planning commission for consideration? >> director hillis: right now, there's no specific fee deferral that's being advanced. i think the tricky part is

figuring out what would happen next year regardless of a fee deferral or not, and that's what we have some difficulty with. projecting what projects will be going forward next year. so even if there was a fee deferral, here's what would be put forward and here's what would be deferred is difficult not knowing what's going to happen, but right now, there's no fee deferrals on the table. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you for that. i guess just echoing what commissioner fung has mentioned about which projects are being prioritized. as i look into the [inaudible] toward the end of the report was the appendix and the c.a.c. where some of these projects were prioritized. and i guess, again, the

question is how do you prioritize in terms of the racial social equity lens, and as i look, as well, into the visitacion valley, visitacion valley seems to be underfunded because there's only three coming in. i understand there's communication with the community on this, but i think, as well, looking into racial and equity framework, i think the agency needs to create form work to -- framework to get a look at this. those are all of my comments. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond?

>> commissioner diamond: thank you. i first want to commend staff on this report. this is very helpful to understand, on a citywide basis, what all these fees will ultimately result in. a very well organized report. pictures were a wonderful addition, so thank you very much. two questions. one is -- and this is a follow up on the question that

director hillis answered. did you assume that all projects would wait three years before they get the approvals? in light of what we're seeing of projects getting extensions to their start dates, i'm curious about the underlying assumptions or whether we should assume that some of these projects will be pushed back by several years. if we could get a global picture on that, i'd appreciate it. >> sure. we start with a formula if it's in the pipeline. if they get the approval, one to two years, and one to two years to the time they get their first construction

document. we'll go in and look at some of the larger scale construction projects. one of the things that i sort of indicated, when something was done with the planning commission, we would say okay, we can expect the fee in one or two years. what we started noticing last year is that even after when they get their site permit, we can certainly expect a fee within the year when they get their first construction document when the first structure goes in the ground. we noticed that lag was happening, so i'm sorry, just to answer your question, we do give some of these projects a closer look to see what's happening on the ground, and then sometimes we'll actually talk to the project sponsor, so it's not a super easy answer to your question. we do make some assumptions just in terms of timing where they are in the pipeline, the

size of the project, but we do go in and look more closely at a project and where they are and where they anticipate to start construction. >> commissioner diamond: so if those projects ultimately don't go forward, do the improvements get removed from the plan or do we get sources or how does that happen? >> yeah, that's a great question. just from the nature of impact fees, that's what happens. you don't get the revenue until the projects move forward, and then, you do have sort of a question as to how to backfill those projects and how to prioritize. we just assume that the projects will happen, but they'll happen at a slower time scale with the revenue scale with some of the projects that we have planned. >> commissioner diamond: so

when this report is published next year, it's important to understand the economic recovery and the impact it's had on these projects and whether reality needs to be used on adjusting some of these projects. i think that needs to be paid attention to for next year's report. >> sure. and what our general approach is to projections and revenue, when i started this -- i think i started this about ten years ago, and our initial approach was to be conservative in our projections, was to assume a certain amount of projects don't happen. as we came out of the last economic downturn, and one of the things that we were hearing from from the c.a.c.s was the infrastructure wasn't happening with the development, and what we found is we were underprojecting, so we would have a roster of projects, and

we have more revenue that we'd be able to -- than what we'd be able to move forward on. so our approach kind of changed, that we'd be purposely aggressive about our projections so we can shore up the projects so if the revenue comes in, they'll be ready to go as soon as we get the revenue. this year, we did go back to being more conservative. we did assume some of the land uses like hotels, would probably take longer, but i think you're right, that he with need to take -- that we need to take a closer look at how the projects progress over the next year. >> commissioner diamond: and i want to tack onto commissioner

imperial's projects about vis valley, particularly the greenway. walking through there, it's just important that this part of the city ends up being the beneficiary of some of these funds, as well. >> commissioner tanner: -- >> i think one thing, commissioner diamond, if i could add one statement to your question, [inaudible] they've agreed on these are the types of improvements. so for vis valley in particular, while the impact revenue has been slower than anticipated while the development is slower, we've actually been able to fund a number of projects that were

identified with the community. so there's a silver lining just because of coordination among the city family. >> commissioner diamond: yeah, that's what i was thinking. thank you for adding that. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: thank you to all of our ten-agency team. a wonderful job. normally, i consider all of these presentations being on a major holiday, which is really sad. however, this is well done, and while it's a difficult question to ask, it's a necessary question to ask. has there ever been as high a high and as low a low as to what we're experiencing? it seems to me that i've never, in my entire life, seen the

whole world standstill and downtowns and cities not happening. is there an element that you've factored in [inaudible] have we ever seen anything like it? >> i mean, i can just comment on that from the perspective looking at the fees as they come in. no, we've not seen a year this slow in terms of revenue for the impact fees. you know, when we started this, we had a dramatic impact on development on projects coming down the pipeline. it's hard to compare because the scale of projects aren't what they are today, but just from where i'm looking at it, it has been particularly slow this last year.

i don't know if i can comment, as well, just on the dynamics of, you know, the changes of land use and construction and how things might -- might improve over time or what the nature of this is relative to what it has been or what it will be. >> vice president moore: i do think that the comment made by commissioner fung, imperial, and diamond regarding the social and racial equity is something we need to be -- actually be more sensitive to in those changing times more than ever before. we're not delivering any new buildings, new projects. i think we have all the mapping, all the information to

quickly jump start this discussion. nobody has experience how to quickly, properly, and in a balanced way, handle it, but we have tools that very few people have, so i strongly encourage you to consider adding this as an expertise in your future deliberations, and i thank you. >> clerk: seeing no additional requests from commissioners, we can move on. item 11, case number 2021-000317-crv for the tmasf connects, request for transportation and employment brokerage services. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am, and just quickly, president koppel and

commissioners, i'm going to take the opportunity to introduce a new staff person at least in the sense that this is the first time that he has had a case or an item before you as a commission. you can welcome justin kran. he joined the department in april of last year, just after the shelter in place order was issued, so he doesn't have a lot of office experience. but prior to joining the department, he completed his master's in urban planning and development, and while in school, he worked for the greater cleveland regional transit authority nod to his experience in transportation planning, he also worked with various nonprofit redevelopment corporations both as a student and as an intern to help facilitate development of affordable housing. >> good afternoon, commissioners. justin kran for the tmasf and

zoning complaints administration. so as indicated by the commission secretary, the item before you currently is the authorization of tmasf community work programs and their 2021 to 2030 work plan. a copy of the draft resolution, the 2020 status report for tmasf, and the 2021-2030 work plan were included in your packet. i'm going to give you a little background on clinical and [inaudible] the services they provide, and then kimberly martinson of tmasf will give a brief presentation to inform you about their 2021-2030 work

program. [inaudible] these sections commonly apply to buildings in the c-3 district with at least 100,000 square feet of commercial office use. in 1983, commission adopted [inaudible] or the implementation of planning code 163 in recommending the creation of a private entity to coordinate the provision of transportation building services for buildings in the downtown area. tmasf connects was founded in 1989 to provide transportation

brokerage services in compliance with planning code section 153. their services are broken into three different sections: commute, work, and community. the commute program facilitates compliance with planning code 163 for transportation brokerage services. the work program facilitates compliance with planning code section 164, and the community program facilitates compliance with planning code 165. today, the item is only focused on the commute and work programs. today, tmasf currently offers member services to 82 buildings that represents over 26 million square feet of commercial office space, more than 1,000 employs and 130,000 employees. currently, they have shifted to providing vital resources to their members in light of the

shelter in place order. tmasf has been closely monitoring the situation and has provided frequent updates to their members. tmasf plans to continue to monitor commuter behaviors and inform employees when they can plan to return to work, to utilize electives to driving alone, such as public transit. [inaudible] authorizing tmasf connects. 2011 to 2020 work plan for the commute program to satisfy planning code section 153, and the 2011 to 2016 work plan for the work [inaudible] the planning commission adopted resolution 19911 authorizing tmasf connects 2017 to 2021

plan for the work plan. today is authorization of an adoption that would authorize tmasf to continue to provide services for brokerage services programs. this would allow both programs

to be on the same ten-year authorization schedule. and the staff have reviewed the current status report and the 2021-2030 report and have determined that tmasf is in compliance with both planning code sections 164 and 16 -- or 163 and 164. tmasf connects is committed to [inaudible] for buildings in the downtown area for san francisco, and it is on that basis that we recommend you adopt the presentation before you. this concludes my presentation, and i'm going to turn it over to kimberly martinson of tmasf for her presentation, and after that, we will be available to answer any questions. >> clerk: miss martinson, you have five minutes. >> thank you. >> okay. sorry, and let me share my

screen for that presentation. okay. >> i just want to make sure, can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you, and your presentation slides are up. >> all right. thank you. good afternoon. i'm kim martinson, executive director of tmasf next. we are here on behalf of [inaudible] and encourage local employment through education, training, and hiring. we are pleased to have the opportunity to provide members of the san francisco planning commission with an update of our efforts to support planning codes 163 and 164. next slide, please. on behalf of our members, board of directors and staff, we thank you to the planning commissioners to take the time to review the extensive documentation that we have submitted. we appreciate your consideration and time, and we thank you again. we also thank the professional members of the planning department, justin kran,

matthew perry, and jonas ionin. [inaudible] is a graduate of san francisco's abraham lincoln high school. when we began the program [inaudible] he went onto graduate from ucla and returned home, where he completed an externship with us. we are now proud to call him our program manager. our program fur -- further includes [inaudible], both proud graduates of san francisco [inaudible] from 23%

in 1990 -- slide four, please -- to less than 7% in 2020 prepandemic. now as we look at the covid disruption, we are bombarded with speculation about the disruption of trip patterns, levels of service that will be acceptable for public transportation patronage, and school levels of student attendance. slide five, please. we, like most people cannot

predict [inaudible] what levels of comfort people will have if they leave their bubble. we expect the argument to be using public versus private transportation to be more complex, and we are prepared for that future. slide six, please [inaudible] and investments in our infrastructure, education, and workforce which will lead to a 22 century workforce that is more prepared for our mission. [inaudible] transportation and resources. to that end, we must develop a relevant message. slide seven, please. we will begin with an assessment of our local transportation, education, and employment resources, analysis

of hiring and community trends, and research [inaudible] surveys and focuses. this information will help us form the strategy and create the synergy [inaudible] that contribute to lifelong learning, competitive employment, and a more mobile city, and through clx and partnership of like minded organizations, i expect to increase the reach beyond the t.m.a. we are truly fortunate in san francisco that we are able to truthfully and realistically focus attention on the abundant transportation community resources that are available. and in conclusion, slide nine, we have been implementing services on behalf of our membership for 31 years and are looking forward to the next ten years of program authorization that allows us to keep san

francisco's workforce mobile and competitive. thank you for your time today. >> clerk: thank you, miss martinson. that concludes your presentation. we should open it up to members of the public. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star then three. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, commissioners, public comment is now closed and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: welcome to mr. kran, and i'm in support of this and would accept a motion to adopt. commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: i just have a few comments that i'd like to make. thank you, mr. [inaudible], thank you to the planning commission, and thank you, miss martinson, for your presentation. [inaudible] among the member

buildings. i think that was quite shocking for me, and i think in the past few weeks commissioners have brought up concerns in the financial district recovery, and this helps us understand what the trends might be. certainly glad that s.f. connects is monitoring the effects of covid, and i look forward to the next ten-year plan. i'd like to encourage gathering data from businesses and commuters. i think it's two-fold on the business side. we need to understand what companies are currently planning for in terms of their staggered work schedules. are there going to be new peak commute times, what does it look like, is there an option for workers to work remotely indefinitely, and what does that look like for you?

we are trying to prioritize jobs to san francisco residents to encourage employers to do kind of local hiring, and to the employee side, we've seen an increase in car ownership, particularly during the pandemic as [inaudible]. demand is very high right now, so i have questions about those people who purchased cars, how many of them still want to continue to drive to work in this post covid world. [inaudible] so they can be kind of restoring confidence in public transportation. these are just my thoughts, and i know your plan does address some of those, but i wanted to point out the types of data and information that would be useful as we prepare for the

future. yeah, those are my comments. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: yeah. just a few comments and questions. first of all, thank you, miss martinson for your work and your report. it's really tremendous and exciting to see the really great share of folks that are able to commute to work by choice. so if you look at the numbers without the -- there's a number that you say need to have their car for their job. do you know what percentage of folks that is that need a vehicle for performing their work? >> clerk: i'm sorry, commissioner tanner and miss martinson. let me unmute -- >> thank you for the question. over the past ten years, that number has sort of moved between 9% to 10% purchase drive alones. it doesn't matter if there's a

bridge or a herd of cattle, i'm going to drive my car. 9% to 11%, and then another 30% are driving a car with a company logo. that's a constant trend. we're happy to send that information over to you if that would be helpful. >> commissioner tanner: certainly. i think [inaudible] drive alone by choice rate, but what i'm also concerned about is what you are looking at as the world continues to change and evolve, and i hope you can continue to promote commuting and provide education around safety. i'm just curious if you have any insight among folks that are commuting right now,

[inaudible]. >> well, [inaudible] from our members, most people are interested in the community aspect of the program right now, all of the information about where to get computers and meals, those have been the real demand questions. there's been a great deal of information requested about how to work from home and remote. there hasn't been much speculation and we were waiting until after the rollout to start doing some of those integral services, you know, what do you think you'll do? that was a big unknown, but in the past, we've done field trips, like after the earthquake [inaudible] that was afraid of terrorists, and we work with the transit agencies to really focus a spotlight on what they're doing.

so there's nothing off the table on this one. we're trying to get prepared, get our members energized, keep our funding in place. >> commissioner tanner: i'm excited to see how you will serve your members, and i think that attitude will continue to serve you in the future. just curious if there's any connection between all the great information that everyone has built up downtown and ways that this organization could serve those other institutions or that those other institutions could be invited in or if that is more under our other t.d.m. programs that

would serve things that are outside of the downtown area? >> sure, i'm happy to jump in just quickly on that. this specific program was created very much out of the downtown plan, and it's very specific to downtown. obviously, tmasf as an organization, they are able to grow and take on a larger community as they, you know, would deem appropriate for their organization. there is another t.m.a. for mission bay, but it's a different type of organization. and then, we can have disparate campuses, other organizations throughout the city. there's no requirement through the planning code that they do something like this. that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen at some level within those areas and within those institutions. and then, specifically to the t.m.a. program that applies to

specific projects, one of the requirements of a nonresidential project is to work with an agency like tmasf or provide yourself those types of services. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you, mr. teague, and miss martinson, have you been approached by other institutions that have wanted to jump on what you're doing? i know there's a geographic nature to your work. i'm just curious if you've been approached or if it's collaborative, not necessarily membership based of folks that want to join in what you're doing? >> yes, and we work closely with the mission bay t.m.a., for example, even on surveys. we do work closely with them, so we have been approached, and we, on many occasions, send information to people who ask

for that. and you know, i think going forward, we learned from this last year that local has a new definition, and, [inaudible] downtown only, it's pretty hard to argue that it doesn't have some applicablity throughout the city, and just giving them information for free to be helpful and [inaudible] there's absolutely nothing that will stop us from doing that, nothing. >> commissioner tanner: great. yeah, great. i think it's just such a great model and just hope that we can continue to make strides towards decreasing our s.o.v. use across the city, especially to meet our state and our local climate goals in reducing g.h.g.s but also reducing congestion, making it possible to have our shared spaces programs and safer streets

program in areas around the city. just really, really proud of the program and happy to support it. the organization changeover, i'm happy to see that five of the eight board members are women. i'd like to see some members of color on that. i know sometimes it can be a hard sell, to ask people who have a job to give more, but i'm happy to support this motion. and i don't know if there's other commissioners who want to speak before i would make a motion regarding this matter. >> vice president moore: i think commission president koppel made a motion. >> clerk: he did not -- as the chair, he cannot make a motion. >> president koppel: i would

accept one. >> commissioner tanner: well, seeing no other commissioners remain in the queue, i would make a motion that we adopt the resolution as proposed. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. seeing no additional requests to speak from commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to adopt a resolution extending the resolutions for tmasf connects. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and places us on item 12 for case number 2019-012820-ahb at 4 # 42 mission street. this is a home-sf project

authorization. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> jonas, i am. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is linda hoagland, planning department staff. before you is a home-sf project authorization located at 4742 mission street. the project includes a dwelling unit mix consisting of two three-bedroom units, 16 two-bedroom units, 12 one-bedroom units, and 16 studio units. the project would consist of

4,670 square feet of useable open space. seven off-street vehicle parking spaces and 46 class one bicycle parking spaces will be located on the basement level, which is accessed from leo street via a recorded easement that is located at the rear of the property, and four class two bicycle spaces will be provided in front of the building. the project is receiving development bonuses to allow more base density of one additional story of height in exchange for providing 40% affordable dwelling units. the project is receiving unit modifications from the rear yard and planning code sections 130 and 134 respectively. to date, the department has received four letters in support of the project and one

letter in opposition, expressing concerns about the proposed height of the building, traffic, and the amount of construction occurring within the neighborhood. the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all of the requirements of the planning code. the project will maximize the use of two under utilized lots with commercial space and 46 dwelling units, 12 of which will be designated as on-site affordable housing. i would now like to introduce john kepland from the project sponsor team who has prepared a presentation for the commission, as well. this will conclude my presentation, and i will be available to answer any questions. >> clerk: mr. kepland, you have five minutes, and it appears as though your slides are now up. >> yes, thank you, and miss

ajello, i'll let you know when my slides need to be advanced. i'm with reuben, junius, and rose, and i'm happy to be here to present our rendering of these units. as part of home-sf, the project increases its on-site affordable housing requirement from 20.5% to 25%, which is higher than any of the other projects in the city's affordable housing program. in exchange, the project has received bonuses. miss ajello, next slide, please. one of the bonuses is fore increased bonus density, and additional height increase. we've got a reduction of the rear yard on the right half of the project from 25 to 20%,

which actually works out press nicely to create a natural step between the two adjacent buildings on either side, one which is deeper than our project and one which is less deeper than our project. [please stand by]

>>caller: less than a block away i believe it's 137 units under construction so i really feel like this area is being targeted. i understand that the city wants to build more units but i feel like our neighborhood is more than contributing to this so i believe the proposal of

eight stories is really over-the-top. for stories i would be fine with. >>jonas ionen: thank you. last call, members ofthe public . seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is close on the matter now before you, commissioners. >>joel koppel: great presentation, looks like all the is and ts are crossed and it looks like this is where the project belongs due to thewide roads and i am in support of it . commissioner mar. >> i'm interested in the

experiment of high density housing. unconcerned the transition to adjoining buildings is lacking and i have some issues with the car access for single-family residential space. the reason i'm saying it is that cars going in and out at night were into the single-family homes can be quitedisruptive . in our packagethere was no indication that this area would be landscaped . in the best of all worlds it would be a shared open space of some sort but there's no mention in the presentation so it struck me that from the site planning point of view notwithstandingwhat mister kaplan said minutes a few minutes ago , there's a little bit of context here. the other question i have is it's more a dvi directed question i'm seeing over 75

eight because of a fire code or anticipation of fire code cannothave a roof deck . how does that apply here i think we could talk about that for decades. i'd like to see a clear answer to that question because it would change this project in a significant way. >>linda hoagland: the project still has 16 noncompliance issues relative to yard exposure but the majority of these do have theproper exposure which is good . i have a question regarding the size of the roof deck and why is the roof deck forwarding back in a more concise way from adjoining properties because we don't do not know as well in the future that there will be a similar building from the left to the right so my ask is when you go todraw 8.2.5 , will that

be present? >>joel koppel: do you have a roof plan there? >>kathrin moore:it's called 418245 . you see the planter areas on the left side and on the right side of the project? i'd like to see that the railing is held inbound to the planters so that you will not see from the adjoining sites that there is a roof deck. move the railing to the left

and the roof deck hold back from the building edge and if i had my druthers i would like to see a reduction on the roof deck, i would like it to come straightforward and i don't think five feet. i don't have a pencil to draw that for you but on the left and on the left side place the railing on the inside, to the left of where it is shown. from top tobottom and on the right side , push the roof deck back by a minimum of five feet from the edge of the building and put the railing also on the inside to the right of the

condition. i have a question for mister kevlin and that is accessibility of bathrooms. since there are no dimensions in thisparticular drawing , it's more drawn like a stick drawing one doesnot even see there are 2 construction sites with the lower part of the building . you have 2 floors and you probably have five floors of new construction. but bathrooms need to be universallyaccessible, at least one in every unit . your selling the dual strength of the outside but the shape of the bathroom does not look accessible and the reason i'm saying it is not to make you wrong but when those changesare called later on , that is when the unit design which is

already tight and just not a bad unit design butwhen your unit design gets higher , it has less of the qualities we as commissioners would like to see clearly directed in the drawings that we approve. so i'd like an answer to that question and anything you have. >>john kevlin: the bathrooms in the building are required to be adaptable for accessibility, all of them are getting the specific violence, by the by eight feet so these are compliant with the accessibility requirements to be adaptable. so yes, we've taken care ofthem . >>kathrin moore: what areyour comments on my pushback on the roof deck ? >>john kevlin: thecomments on

the railing i think that's totally appropriate and we're more than happy to incorporate that into the project . the one thing i'll say commissionermoore is where a little bit close on open space right now. we are going to be providing some open space at the rear on the left side as i mentioned . if we're going to cut into the roof deckmaybe i would ask that we could make a comment that should agree that this requires a home exception to open space , that that is granted as per your condition.>>kathrin moore: i love to see that part of that easement in the interest of all to become a bit of traditional space. there's obviously a landscaped area but the way you would proceed is more like an estate line so he composed granite for paper that looks more like a natural open space. so that people can walk to the building from the back as well as proceed as an open space for

the rest of the community. >>john kevlin: that's right and to your earlier point, i hadn't thought about it for in terms of how this hired density mixed-use building works for the single-family home on leo . these are all easement holders so there may be appropriate treatment along that driveway in addition to what you're mentioning right now. i also say there is only in cars parking spaces at the project too so is not fully parkedproject by any means . >>kathrin moore: i appreciate that. it's just at night when people come in and out of the water, it hits you right when you're used to be in a dark bedroom from those buildings. i'm really happy for you to be accessible and exploring that and i'd like to see the landscape considerations for this project coming back to us

including what ultimately would bethe roof deck . >>john kevlin: let me mention one other thing about the roof deck commissioner moore, the height if we go to ... despite being eight floors the building is 74 and a half feet so that how we dealt with the roof. >>kathrin moore: it's a little bit hard because as these criticisms get going it's not really a drawing of how we build, that would be a more, it's how you build drawing i wouldn't say anything but courseyou know somebody will ask . >>john kevlin: i'm working with the address on this.

>>kathrin moore: unsupported theproject with the condition that would can come back to be reviewed for the easement as well as full consideration of what happens . >>joel koppel:commissioner tanner . >>rachael tanner: i want to support commissionermoore's comments and i agree with those, i'd be happy to see this come back. one is regarding the easement , can you describe the fact of reported easement that is known to all parties that property essentially is existing to add access to it looks like for properties total, is that accurate ? >>john kevlin: yes commissioner tanner, it is arecorded easement .to the degree that individualhomeowners , to what extent they are aware of it i'm not sure obviously we are having to design and move

forward with this project consistent with what those legal documents say because we obviously need to build a building here . >>kathrin moore: >>rachael tanner: i'd be more concerned with not a recorded easement and something that we would rely on that would be troublesome for you and future projects on here is 40 even if everyoneisn't aware of it, it's something that would be at least a foundation to build on for the awareness of the surrounding properties >>kathrin moore: do we have a surveythat indicates it will be recorded . >>rachael tanner: i assume that we haveone . >>kathrin moore: we do have one . >>rachael tanner: great. i wanted to check on the outreach with theneighboring childcare consortium, humans and even talking to them, what were their reactions to the project or any concerns they had ?>>john kevlin: thank you, i've got resident on the

phone here watalking with them directly . we did receive a support letter from them this morning as i mentioned but let me see if he's got anything else to add about those conversations . resident, are you there? >> we've been working closely with the childcare center because the project with. [inaudible].. we have acceptall the easement with them . they're going to provide access and get accesses for emergency risk and also to get the garbage off the leo street.so we've been working with them for last couple of years and they are exclusive on the project.

>>rachael tanner: could you talk a little bit also if there are other amenities that will be provided forresidents that you know about in the space of this project ? i know there's a roof deck which is great to see but if you're thinking about any on-site facilities or even if the idea for the decal mightbe on the ground floor ? >>john kevlin: reza? >> we have a commercial space with a mezzanine out there and up and down themission you will see are a lot of commercial units with mezzanine space up there . right now i don't know if you could find atenant that would take over a space this large . it could be provided at that mezzanine level if needed so there is room for us to add someof them .

>>rachael tanner: certainly that's something that will evolve with the project and our overall economy so this is still kind something in the future as things continue and i understand that the walls that are there that are shaped to bring property, there are other properties and i'm curious if there are any thoughts whether it would be temporary or any art that could be there in the interim period unless and until neighboringbuildings would be developed . any thoughts what might happen on those blank walls ? >> we have a number of buildings to put their art there and they're always looking for candidates and i'm more than happy to accommodate that . >>rachael tanner: go ahead. >> we would be looking for an

artist who could help put their arton that wall . as commissioner mooresays , we would be happy to have part on those walls. >>rachael tanner: last i'm just curious, the little area that is the covering for the garage entry, i'm curious if the location of that and the size of it could accommodate that becoming an additional outdoor space or getting more space on that outdoor area, there may be a reason why doesn't work but it seems like it's an opportunity to provide some enhancements and bringing some type of i guess area, maybe if not accessible maybe it can be a green roof or something like that to have thatbe useful in providing some benefit, any thoughts on that ? >>john kevlin: we actually have it designed and is not in my presentation but in the floor plans if you look at the first war plan we do have landscaping and it does provide a private

open spacefor the two units that faces . >>rachael tanner: i was trying to see it and i was thinking i was not seeing so it's good to see that will be a usable space so i'm supportive ofthis project as well, thank you . >>rachael tanner: commissioner nine and. >> i am interested in seeing what the landscaping is going to look like. the question is if commissioner moore's suggestedchanges result in the project not meeting the amount of open space and it's required to , can you use easement space under landscape easement space tomeet open space requirements, would that even count ? >>linda hoagland: in this one i believe is the killer that

would have to remain clear until that occurs. in instances where that's been fired easement i've had projects in other jurisdictions that have worked for where there is different landscaping and that could be put in, that would double as open space and one would provide access needed if fired is desires remove whole bars that canbe put in as well if it were strictly just access . this would prevent other vehicles from going in . so the answer is yes. you can't build on this area but they can do generally service improvement to allow some additional open space provided it does not interfere with the easement itself, with the ingress and egress. >>sue diamond: i guess i'm asking a more technical question which is assuming they put in the appropriate landscaping the drive across or

walk across itdoesn't interfere with the easement allows people to enjoy it, with that count towards open space requirements ? >>linda hoagland: we can still count those toward usable open-space. >>sue diamond: and also very much in support of this project and i'm fine with commissioner moore's suggested that we had a condition asking we approve th project with the condition they come back and show us how the open-space has been redesigned . >>rachaeltanner: commissioner imperial . >> thank you. i'm supportive of them, i think the first thing that i notice when i look at this project was the open-space. and with the public comment mentioned earlier about behind this is just my comment. it is quite high for this even

though this is in the mcd. it is something that is peeking out. i am quite in terms of the commercial space and looking into the surrounding areas, one of the public comments was that it's mainly an immigrant area and i would hope that the project sponsor can be extra sensitive on the needs of the residents around the area from what i'm hearing. businesses that tend to be still open right now are the ones that are serving the community directly.that means groceries oranything that is needed . i hope the project sponsor would take that into consideration in terms of putting the commercial space and of course finding one at the same time not just getting a tenant that would just fill in. so those are my comments and

i'm generally supportive of this even though i do have some concerns but yes, thank you. >>rachael tanner: commissioner moore. >>kathrin moore: i wanted to mention to commissioner diamond easement with this 40 feet was an existing one accessing what i understand to be three others in the adjoining building, the industrial building next door so it seems to be a pattern of 40 foot easements leaving room foradditional open-space . i'd like to make a motion to approve the project with the caveat for it to come back to us for further review of the landscape plan for theeasement and the roof . >>theresa imperial: second.

>>joel koppel: there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions of having a condition that the project returned to the planning commission for a update to the design related to theopen-space roof deck and railing . >>kathrin moore: i'd like to add commissioner tanner's addition that there will be sidewalls with some formal art or color variation that makes those walls not look so bland. >>joel koppel: as well as to the perimeter walls are white. on thatmotion commissioner tanner . commissioner chan. [roll call vote] so moved, the motion passesunanimously .

and that places us on item 13 for case number 20/20-032cua , a 249 texas street, a space authorization staff are you prepared to make an authorization ? >> yes, thank you. good afternoon president koppel and members of the planning commission. alex went stock, department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 303 317 to demolish an existing three-story 30 foot tall one unit residential building measuring approximately 3098 square feet and the construction of athree-story , 30 foot tall residential building at approximately 451 square feet and with to do all units, two below tanning

parking's parking spaces and to class onebicycle parking spaces . one unit measures approximately 3595 square feet and has four bedrooms. the other unit is a studio measuring 764 square feet. the site is located at 249 texas street which is within the rhu zoning district and the 40 x-.district. prior to the permit location being submitted at historic resource assessment was which determined the existing building is not a historic resource as noted in the planning, as noted in the staff of the department has received much public comment on the proposal. the comments have included concerns over the buildings character , impactsthe light and air circulation and privacy , traffic and debris which may

occur during construction, environmentalimpacts from that moment on the slope , concerns on potential tenant displacements from the subject property and general challenges with sponsorcommunication . the proposed project is not under character and is compliant with planning code . the basement has direct exposure onto the complying yard and both units will have access to the common open-space in the rear yard while theupper unit has exclusive access to the removed x . overall the department finds the projectto be necessary and desirable with the neighborhood . the proposal will add one new housing unit and is compliant with the planning program. the department recommends approvalwith conditions . the project answer, john noticed although will now make a presentation. thank you thank you

commissioners. i am the project architect for the home at 249 texas street. the proposed project raises a nonhistorical dilapidated single-family homerelocated to the site in 1951 and significantly modified over the years . next slide please the project sponsor is the san francisco family are building a home for their futureincluding elderly parents expected to live with them when the home is finished . the home is composed of a primary family unit and a second unit which is a 766 square-foot garden studio. the project is designed as representative of resilient single-family housing . next slide. the site is situated on texas street which slope to the north and also slope over 17 feet from the rear yard. our uphill neighbor to the

south is the three-story apartment building composed of four stories of interior yard and our downhill neighbors is a two-story street which rose to three stories per yard. next slide. the proposed project a contextual approach to createan appropriately scaled structure . next slide please. the scale of 249 texas deviates between the scale of the two adjacent structures at 2 and a half stories three days area of the yard setbackaverages the sum ofthe two neighboring structures . next slide . looking at this in elevation, next slide. amassing steps down the block to follow the topography to the scale, amassing preserve a two-story overbroad pattern represented throughout the architecture of the neighborhood . next slide please .so the height of the property is 40 feet and after an initial proposal that included a fourt

quarter we remove the entirety of the fourth floor and lifted up the height of the home to 30 feet . next slide please. the roof of the proposal is for the and the feet of the existing order twoinches lower than our uphill neighbor's roof . next slide please read our upperfloors are set back for the from the property line . next slide please. when the existing house rents the property line for its entire read proposal improve the conditions by setting back working from the north property line matching the set. next slide please. on the hillside we packed the length of the white will increase with the typical preheat five feet two in wit by 50 foot sixin life that they access the light and air . next slide please. project sponsors attended the product review meeting with planning staff and the project reviewed at that meeting was losing with increased setbacks from the property line, the

santa barbara debt read that person was presented at the reapplication meeting where concerns were expressed on the fourth floorand we revised the design again by removing the entirety of the fourth floor prior to submitting the site . planning staff review the project responded with revisions accepting those requestedmodifications including removal of the rear portion roughly 1/3 of the roof deck , that setbacks to protect privacy in therearguard . on january 21 editors revisions which is the site permit before you today. after putting final revisions reached out to neighbors who had expressed concerns planning via phone email videoconferences preparing clarifying diagrams as requested by neighbors. some of the concerns discussed clarified excavation for an on the limited potential for a serpentine rock .

the configuration of the matching white well at 251 texas and clarify that with detailed diagrams. we express construction schedule, mitigation of disruption and communication once constructed to limit disruptions. also study the life and shade to our lower neighbors benefit that six of the skylights on the roof impact by the proposed was limited to two of those skylightsduring portions of the day during limited times of the year . we consider the impact to be limited in the project offered substantial skylight as addressing the perceived impact. that offer. we would technical aspects and the neighboring deck into the surrounding yard at 249 texas.

the significantreduction of the project sponsors roof deck should go far in reducing any privacy issues . in conclusion proposed project at 249 texas is a reasonably scale to unit structure compliant with the product code and guidelines and itreplaces poorly constructed maintain housingwith a sustainable resilient family housing . it proposes , it proposes address this retail is far below the height limit and provides matching light well and set to the scales. we ask that the commission approved the conditional use authorization ofthe project be approved as designed and submitted . >>jonas ionen: members of the public this is your opportunity to address this matter by pressing á3 to be entered into thequeue. you have 2 minutes . when you hear that your line is onmuted, that's your indication

to begin speaking . >>caller: i'm a longtime tenant and neighbor control 49 texas street and i work from home which is a situation that may become permanent and that's very common. many given that corporations suchas salesforce and twitter are required to work from home . both the construction project involvingdemolition and excavation to be detrimental to my ability to work and i may have to move out of the neighborhood . tenants move due to the construction and we chose a modest neighborhood because we want to live in historic neighborhood was to the amenities of the city which is akey feature . we want to be surrounded by people of all agesand comes . i am not against all the construction, and also neighbor to another single-family home which has undergone construction in the past year. instead of demolition and excavation, read infrastructure

and rebuild the interior. this resulted in nonexistent disruption to my work on confused as to why free people and that most people do intend to enter the studio require building the size of a four unit apartment building and this is the direction of the quiet enjoymentand ability to work on the entire block . consider preventing building and is lower in height and the entire building and maintaining the ability of precious light to enter my home. i understand is a two-car garage andi reminded commission texas street as plenty of parking for everyone . perhaps they can compromise as they are planning such a huge home. and clearly still enough space to build the tower. >>caller: my name is catherine

roberts and i'm the owner of the adjacent four unit rent-controlled apartment at 251 texas . since its inception in the history of non-acknowledgments of my concerns , lack of communication and inaccuracies in reporting on the part of the sponsor especially the relation to the proposed buildings almost complete allotment of my building . which would cause severe reactions to the access to life inside that has exhibited so much to my tenants quality-of-life although the proposed building would have a somewhat mirrored well that starts for the higher than mine will not mitigate concerns. alex westhoff has provided you with photos of the light well from the interior so youwant my tenancy from their perspective . the natural light and air flow comes from the east and west will be entirely affected by the proposed buildingarea the majority of my buildings natural light comes from indirect light coming from the east and west . from the vantage point of my tenants they won't see the

light and sky beyond any natural airflow that comes from the east and west will be blocked by walls onall sides extending all the way up to the top of my building . the proposed buildingwill also be as tall as my , completely blocking my tenants northern views from the upper apartment . this will affect my ability to retain and attract tenantsand subsequently threatened my sole source of income . for more than 70 years to 49 texas existing design along with my functionally independent and cohesive provided democratic access to life and air fundamental to my tenants quality-of-life. the design will disrupt this democratic access and provide one family with an abundant amount ofair light and sky depriving my apartment building of these benefits .read. >>caller: my name is teresa

landau, i've that 51 texas street for 15 years and i have many concerns aboutthe new construction occurring directly next to me at 239 texas treat . for 15 years windows have provided light and air significantly into my quality of life.i'm not sure how these windows meet the mckinney nature of the owners of the next building. at the next meeting they were vague the effects and changes they would make to their plan based on my concerns. i did not receive planning documents despite requesting them on the sign in form . additionally i did not receive any notification of public hearing nor did i see it posted on the building in question. further were vague about my concerns aroundnoise , working hours and construction crew and as i had on the length of

construction. they stated it would be to take between 12 to 16 months which is a significant amount of time and due to covid restrictions i am confined to my home. i'm concerned about my privacy as there will be a large roof deck that will be at the level with my bathroom and kitchen window. i've enjoyed a quiet apartment and i'm worried about losing amenities my hope is construction will be postponed until clarification can be provided . >>caller: hello. i'm the owner of the home that stands at 249 texas street. i'm speaking with hopes you will reconsider demolition of this original home. i was completely shocked to

find out what is going to happen to this home built in 1910 that was in my family for three generations. the buyers had no indication they were going to tear down this home or i would not have sold it to them and wrote a letter to me saying we have received multiple offers saying they were going to live in the home. i sent a letter tothe planning commission . the home is being described in the current plans as in disrepair to justify this demolition but i assure you that it is not. my family lived in the lower deck for many years comfortably. we even remodeled in2002 . the house as i understand it was currently occupied with tenants at market rate prices which is further evidencethat it is not dilapidated . if this was an apartment building developed to supply affordable housing to the community perhaps i can understand the commission needs

to approve the plan. however to tear down onefamily home that is the size of an entire building does not seem right . although i no longer live on texas street i feel invested in what happens to the property. i stood by this home and made ends meet for me and my family. the neighbors who live on texas street and are part of this community do not believe the home outweighs the cost of compromising the character of the homes on texas treat . my family asks that you consider a compromise for the complete demolitionof this whole that is more than 100 years old . >>. >>caller: i lived two houses down from the proposed construction with my husband and four children. my house is pictured in someof the slides you viewed .

three of my children attended public school while the fourth attends virtually due to the pandemic. i am a teacher at a public community college here in san francisco area city college of san francisco where every year i serve up to 300 of the cities most disadvantaged college students with requiredenglish class must receive in order to graduate . the prioritizing programs other than my own so that programs are still requiredin person instruction like nursing can return to campus first . it may be years before i teach in person or work inmy office again . additionally current sf union considerations mention the recess of my children until july 2022 and our oldest studies have not yetspecified a post pandemic returned to the timeline . here's what i foresee for our

family. five people with public education and notparticipating from home will be significantly affected by this bill . further up to 300 students a year will have their classes disrupted by this bill. a growing number of my students can't afford costs in san francisco will have their education disrupted by a three person family that is demolishing a one family mansion with other single-family homeson the street . this massive project must not be allowed to move forward until the pandemic has fully resolved and this proposal has been resolved to align with the character and scale of the block. the planning commission does not account for a pandemic yet we are in one. as vice president we are living inunprecedented times .

[being] >>caller: i am a neighbor to 249 texas and i've been living in this neighborhood for many years. up till a month ago the plans and permit applications made by the houses owner occupied but the owner isn't a resident in thevalley. in fact he is currently occupied with tenants . since the owner bought the home there has been two successive tenants, i became friendly with the first set but they told me another neighbor who i hope to come forward they had to move after the owners denied them a rent increase to cope with pandemic hardships. i say this only to highlight the plans brushed on an recitation that the bill is providingextra housing when there is no actual history there to suggest that renters are being considered at all . as a pre-application meeting the owner it outright thatthe

press purpose of this home was to be new for their visiting family members and not for renters . in 12 years the boyd and valencia families moved lived in the two unit home and now the home is going to be demolished with the action of an unclear amount of square footage for one family. i respectfully ask the planning commission to consider the needs of the neighborhood and not just one family. consider how many other middle andworking-class families in pre-existing rent-controlled buildings will beseverely impacted. there is an internet dependency on the houses of pre-existing apartment buildings on our street , which held our most valuable mixed income and elderly citizens . please do not allow this kind of gentrification to compromise the character and architecture of ourstreet. we support the owners having

their home but our remodel would be more appropriate here, not a 4000 square foot model modern building that would impact several families on a permanent basis .at the very least please allow for a delay while the community can understand more thoroughly the impact that has not been communicated with all the past 14 months and the founders did not reach out until they were asked to buy the planner after families reached out to planner alex westhoff. >>caller: time. i am kim about that 252 texas street across from theproposed demolition and construction at 249 texas . i was only informed of the proposed 16 month project recently. and i am concerned about on the quiet enjoyment of my property or myself and my tenants. i understand the owners were only required to reach out to direct neighbors but i find it strange that a project with this magnitude is not introduced by the owners who

live there. this will be the first single-family that has this level ofheight and when . the modern design will replace an original victorian home. it will also be the first angle family home that does not conform to loping topography of the street as it will be almost identical in length to the four unit apartment building next to it. furthermore the land beneath it is so full of serpentine rock i can find it within less than a foot down in my own garden. and the plans say it is unlikely and hard to believe. excavation into this type of land can easily release toxins and allergens and as a construction professional, i know how difficult it can be to manage the dust and dirt excavations. this windy corridor i am concerned about the toxic dirt and exhibition becoming airborne. i have to the planning commission consider approving that charming victorian character of our blog, a topic with which i am intimately in

quit appointed . i have 30 years the plane to san francisco and have recently finished restoring my own home at 262 texas. i know there are many solutions the families need without creating undue disruption completely is demolishing a beautiful building including restoration and interior remodels thank you. >>jonas ionen: go ahead, call her. would you like to make your testimony? okay, we will take the next caller area. >>caller: my name is alyssa and i live here on texas street, three houses down from the proposed bill.

my it's my father's own, it was my grandparents home. he's lived here for 70 years. my family has a very long history here on texas street at hundred 16 years dating back to my great ran father who built the building at the corner of mariposa and texas and the little house coming up more towards the proposed demolition and rebuild. i would like to ask the planning committee to wait to approve the excavation, demolition and construction of a new three-story single-family home with the basement studio apartment at 249 texas street. until we can reach a compromise with the owner for a more reasonable bill for a single-family home family was never directly notified about this bill. there was no outreach to us by fax years longbilled with noise and parking constraints.

i would also like to point out that a two unit home that once house our old neighbors does not need to be destroyed to make more housing. it simply could use a remodel. we have acharming street , the koreans and and guardians that slope downward. please consider eating the character of our street intact . my father has lived here for 70 years. he's had two strokes, he has breathing issues and i'm very worried about the environmental impact it's going to have on all of us including him and the other elderly neighbors that live here with us. i'm asking for your consideration of all the people that consider this street are home and not just be the interests of the developers. thank you, not only for listening to all of our words but for considering our needs.

>> georgia shoot. i don't really comment on things in the valley but i think there's a real policy issue here and i hope you consider that if you have this yard, this is your yard, do you need that roof deck on the top of the building. it's a policy issue that's very important area to meet the open space requirements of the planning code. without the roof deck and i think it does. that's a policy question that's really important. thank you and take care. >>caller: i live down the slope next to the building and i'm the family most impacted by the potential build. alex referenced the massing diagram, i'd like to address a substantial compensation that was offered to us that the

architectures thought of recently. the way that deal was negotiated with us was not in good faith and i can submit evidence afterwards to the planning commission in support of this area in fact the owners asked me to keep the deal secret from the other neighbors. so i was not planning on bringing this up today but now that is convenient for the sponsor to bring it up in our favor, i am compelled to do so. we were given two hours yesterday to accept the first form of a reasonable deal from the neighbors undue pressure. it was a compromise to our integrity and our commitment to neighbors that we were not going to accept for a small sum of money. this is another instance the other neighbors who live here have been treated like this from the beginning. with its owner. i've lived in sf for 25 years and years ago my partner and i enough to buy the home that we enjoy.we plan to livehere forever. i've seen property taxes alone

what i used to pay in rent but until now it always felt worth it . two months ago these adjacent neighborhoods and new york promised an ongoing discussion. plans are underway for this bill but this never occurrednot even once. the last three weeks have been filled with confusion, miscommunication and more as we scramble to understand impacts . the diagrams are clear. they reduce angle family homes towering overhours. saint it's only fortified more than the current building is misguided because of the modern shape of the building . without sounding self-righteous it's important to highlight my husband and i work in public health. we are appointed guardians through children in foster care and one of us works on a covid task force. can a balance be achieved between members of this committee? one families desire should not trump the means of everyone else had this family has the means to afford several large residences and to demolish an existing home to build a new

one to their liking. please consider the needs of all. >>caller: i'm matt bowden for the owner of the adjacent property downslope at 1249 texas street and i want to pointout we are opposed primarily to the size of this 4300 square-foot single-family home . home that size doesn't seem like it's needed especially given its a rental unit that will most likely not be used as a rental as pointed out by the owners of the november 2019 planning commission and on other occasions. it's consequential they proposed this unit encoded section 2.192 family homes in the arctic 2 zoning district and as you heard alex suggest the building of this additional unit seemed an asset that offsets the cost of the neighborhood including its inordinate size but this unit will not actually be a benefit to the san francisco residents.

i want to also note the existing home 249 texas street includes 2 units which is not mentioned in the report the square footage for 2 units are included in the codes provided to the commission justify the 40 percent increase in square-foot and rather than a 425 percent increase if you were to ask that unit of the existing structure.that second unit is not permitted and it would be impactful on the neighborhood renovated to be permitted by the end of all entire building and construct a new one. and i'm just asking the commission to require the plan so you fight between our home of the apartment building 251 texas. the home the size of the planned project is not needed especially if the additional unit is not truly arental . the owners are truly planning to rent the unit, why not ask

them to put it in writing since this is a fundamental selling point for this overly single-family home is assuredly going to negatively impact her own despite what the architect says thank you . >>jonas ionen: members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter . okay, seeing no additional requests to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter isnow before you . commissioner in. . >>theresa imperial: i have a question to the staff. one of the comments from the public which compels me was that it says that the current building right now is a 2 unit. is that correct or isthis only a single family home with only

one dwelling ?[please stand b

. >> i'll have alex just confirm the number of units, bedrooms, in the existing building. >> i guess while you're looking for that, my other question is about the services around the tenant and in our package it says that they are renting for the short term. i'm wondering if the owner has -- what kind of discussions or -- if there is any with the current tenants right now and if the current tenants -- i'm wondering how many people are

the current tenants right now. >> commissioner, we're probably ask the applicant to address your question. >> okay. >> okay. commissioner, just getting the information from the project sponsor. so there is a one-year lease right now with current tenants. at the start there was a question about owner occupancy versus rental. when we submitted the application, the building was empty and the owners intended to occupy it. in the time that followed when we realized the length of time the process was going to take, they decided not to move in but to rent it. this is really only from the original submittal to a change in terms because of the length of project processing due to covid and they rented it. the renters that were in that

unit decided to move out of the city, asking for -- i'm looking at this just to be clear. they wanted to go out of the city for more space for their dog and a lower rental price. they were offered a lower rent and did not accept and moved out of the city. in terms of a unit count, there was an illegal unit which had to be abated upon purchase. there was an illegal unit that had been converted without permits. that legal unit had to be abated right after purchase. the building records should show that. >> currently it does just one unit and there are no tenants as of now. >> no, there are tenants in there right now. just to be 100% clear. the first tenants that they said

were leaving the city did on their own volition. there is a couple living there now under a one-year lease. >> can the project sponsor describe what is currently going on with the current tenant. were there agreements with the tenants about what would happen? >> their agreement is october 2021. >> that is the end of the lease? >> yes. >> and another question is that -- one is the -- with the open space. it looks like there are already -- there is an open space, 706 square foot on the lower unit and 849 square feet

which i would assume is the roof deck. would that be required for -- is that -- does that meet usable open space? >> so contrary to the way it was described in the call, the lower garden is only accessible to the lower unit. there is no access from the upper unit to the garden. the upper decks which are broken into two different decks, one which is at the garage level and one at the roof deck are different scales. the roof deck is 484 square feet and the lower office is 344 square feet. the lower unit's open spaces is being satisfied in the rear garden. they are separate zones accessible independently. >> then there is another question too from me in terms of

the -- this was built in 1910, but for some reason it does not part of the historical resource. the previous owner mentioned that. >> i would encourage you to look at the historical research report. the house was moved to the site in 1951. it lived on 22nd street and was moved to the site in 1951. the evaluation report and assessment was completed to say it did not retain any of its character and it has been significantly modified over the years. so that's the current status of it as a resource. the records show clearly it was not built on the site in 1910. >> thank you for that

clarification. those are my initial questions. if they are to ask for a remodeling and not a demolition and really to preserve the nature of the single-family home. those are my comments right now. >> i have a couple of questions, please. my first question is a very simple one. there is a beautiful tree in the front of the building. what are your thoughts of maintaining and preserving that tree? >> our current plan is to maintain the tree and preserve it. >> with the amount of demolition going on in the front, what steps have you taken to go and see that this tree will survive? >> we've had an arborist report

done on the tree. the driveway will rake in the current location so we're not tearing up the sidewalk. there has been a lot of description of the excavation, but it's not substantial as it goes downhill. the aim is to preserve the tree and its character. >> i would like to direct your attention to 2.2 and i would like you to explain to us about the amount of blading that you are providing alongside the light well, that is alongside the stair or up and down. i am concerned that the rooms in the adjoining building with that much glading will be that much affected by lights going on and

off at night. >> so there are -- this is one floor of glazing. >> the first floor? >> yes. >> we can see this a little bit more clearly if we look at a 3.11, we can see the stairs sitting adjacent to the glazing at the skylight in the section. >> yeah. >> and that glazing from my discussions with ms. block will be opaque glass and reduced light transmission. ms. block's well has six or eight windows over those two floors. we're going to have similar concerns in terms of property in terms of transmission. ours are going to be opaque and there are no windows on the ened end wall at all.

>> my next question, the commission talks much about the unit equity and when they were building and rebuilding to have two panels. however, this 766 square feet and 3,995 makes me wonder what your thoughts are generally on unit equity. >> i would really like to have a discussion of the specific square footage of the unit, if we could go back to 2.2, the upper unit that exists on the upper two floors above street are composed of entry level three bedrooms and two baths about 1,270 square feet. >> are you projecting the flat

space? >> thank you. so, alex, if you could move that up a little bit so we can see the bottom portion, that would be great. the lower floor that has the entry of the main unit is about 1,270 square feet and has three bedrooms and two baths. the bedrooms are 12 by 12 with a master bedroom 12 by 16. and that is oversized bedrooms and the primary circulation going up. the living floor is set back further and is 1,040 square feet. the total is 2,410 square feet. when we go downstairs on down-sloping lots, we get square footage on floors below us, we can look at sheet 2.1 and we

will show that the area for this unit, the only area that daylights is a home office and an occasional guest bedroom and a lot of circulation to get us from the glage up to the house. the last bit of square foot footagearage up to the house. the last bit of square foot footage, we call this an exercise space. the top two floors are the primary living spaces with the downslope and spaces of upgrade that we've captured as part of this experience. it's roughly 2,400 square feet to 766 and then on the lower floor we pick up smaller cases that are the result of the down

flow. >> this one looks more like an avu, but i do not consider the positions to be building equity when it comes to a new building in rh2. why didn't you go for an au here? >> we're already satisfying the second unit down here, so we didn't feel the need to introduce that. >> this size of deck on the office floor, on the third floor -- on the second floor with what did you say was 200 or something square feet and then the upper floor being 400 square feet which is the size of the design of the unit.

this office level is up from the adjoining building. >> i have a few questions for staff and the project sponsor. some of the public testimony at best at noticing, can you confirm that the project had adequate notice required? >> yes, we have confirmation from the project sponsor that the poster was hung

appropriately and all of the other hearing notice was conducted by staff appropriately, yes. >> and so that the public can understand, we require a photo a poster. do we get that or an e-mail of the poster being hung? >> the project sponsor prepared an e-mail and a poster. it needs to be up until the day of the hearing and they should follow up with that. >> correct. >> the project meeting was in 2019 that they had the meeting with the neighbors that were nearby, correct? >> yes, they submitted the preapplication material along with their application. >> great. thank you very much. as far as the unit, i was looking at this as the

conversation was going on. the record is unclear to me if i do see that there is an unauthorized dwelling unit that is noted that i'm seeing there. what i'm not seeing and maybe it is a matter of timing if that unit should have come to the planning commission or in some way. i see they're saying that needs to be removed. that was filed and then removed. some other things. i see this as a status filed. can you give more information if we're sure that the removal of that dwelling unit happened in accordance with the policy at the time or what the filed status means, should it not be completed if that happened? >> commissioners, i'll chime in here. that old permit that was there meant that they were removing

some illegal construction that likely happened or might have happened at some point in time. in march of 2019, we had the applicant file a u.d.u. screening specifically to try and address -- actually, that's the -- that 2012 permit was for an illegal construction, not necessarily an illegal unit. during that time removal of an illegal unit did not require a conditional use obfuscation. >> is there testimony that they had to more recently remove it, would that have been done through the planning department to remove that unauthorized dwelling unit? i'm concerned that we don't know if there was a second unit and whether it was removed properly. for me that is a big issue i would like resolved before we can advance this project.

i don't know if we can do it here. i would hate to suggest a site visit in covid. can you help me understand if we can get to the bottom of that? >> we can try. we do rely on the three r record. up until recently, we needent have any discussion of an illegal dwelling unit aside from comments of concern. when we look at the three r report which is our legal record, we do that. our normal path of documenting unauthorized units is through a screening. i do not see one that is present on the site. i'm curious how if a unit was removed or something did happen, i'm not seeing any permit records on the file that might suggest otherwise. it would be something we have to research and it would take us

some time to examine the issue. >> thank you so much. to the project sponsor or the representative, can you speak to the removal of this dwelling unit and when that occurred and how you understand that took place. >> to the best of my abilities i will. the home was purchased unoccupied. the units were empty, to be clear. as part of their bank loan process they were required to clean up the permits and abate them. the abatement was completed in june or july of 2019. i can't speak to why that was or was not entered into the computer or was not entered in pim, but that was the sequence of events. a building inspector came out and abated it in june or july of 2019. >> do you have any records from that visit, inspector? >> i do not. >> maybe not now, but maybe we want those to be available if they can be located.

>> yeah, that would be no problem. >> following up on commissioner moore's comments. i'm concerned about the sizing of this unit. for me adding additional housing is an imperative for our community. i know you represented it in a way to me was disingenuous, but i don't think that was your intent. i'm not clear why the ground floor or maybe the first floor if that koufs access to or included in its square footage the exercise room.could have ac included in its square footage the exercise room. or if the unit could be connected to the floor below it i believe which has the guest bedroom. i'm concerned about the

differential in size and space that one unit has these exercise rooms and guest bedroom and one is a studio that has no differential of space. to me that is concerning. can you speak to whether any modifications would be acceptable to increase the space of the studio unit? >> yes, i certainly can. the office is a critical part of the program. the bedrooms are small. the living space is open and limited in scale. the guest bedroom is a critical part of the program. the exercise room being incorporated deeper into the unit is certainly a possibility. the idea of adding it into the usable space of the lower unit is certainly a possibility. >> that's something that, commissioners, i would like to see happen having the current exercise room for the main unit

of the house become more space for the second unit. to the planners, i know there is no access to light. are there any concerns off the bat of having that space become habitable space for the second unit because it can be used as an office or as we're all living from home, it could be used for storage or other use by that occupant? >> it would still need exposure requirements for the open space. >> commissioners, i could add one last thing. someone in my office just e-mailed our copy of the job card for the abatement which i can send to mr. west if you like. >> to me, i don't know what the other commissioners think, i would like to just be sure about the history of this site and the

removal or not of the dwelling unit. if the dwelling unit was removed and the city followed up on it, to me that's not the fault of the home owner, but the city. now restoring these two units into one is a benefit. i would like to see the size of the second unit expanded. the question of access, would it be possible to provide access to the laundry room for the occupant of the second unit? i don't know if that would be -- >> we could potentially add a second one in that reconfiguration. >> those are my questions. i'm less concerned about the deck, but open to other commissioners' comments and if they want refinements to the deck, i would be open to considering them.

>> thank you, commissioner tanner. i'm in agreement with your concerns and also would support including an exercise room with the lower unit and adding access to the laundry room. >> i have some questions for staff. could you help clarify. if the current unit subject to rent control and would two new units be considered [indiscernible] -- >> i'm sorry, rent control is outside of the purview of the planning department, so i cannot speak to that. >> okay. i think normally the commission has been wanting to -- >> commissioner, just to clarify. i think a lot hinges on whether that is a -- we've heard some discussion and we can certainly do some more analysis on whether that is two units or one or a single-family residence would be

subject to the rent ordinance but not the price control under the rent ordinance, while a building built in 1976 also subject to price control under the ordinance. we have to consider those two things that we talk about being under rent control. >> thank you for clarifying that. i just want to clarify, the two dwelling units would be considered market rate and not subject to the rent ordinance? >> correct. >> okay. i think also just a quick comment. i think the commission has been asking for more information on the history and it would help us to plug in that information as we make our decision. moving forward it would be great to have that information and to see that information for the commission to make their

decision. i also wanted to ask the province sponsor mentioned a historical evaluation report. i want to clarify if we actually received that packet. i want that information presented to us. >> it was not in the packet, it was not in the case report. we did conduct a historical resource assessment. it should be available. we can certainly provide that. we did do the research on this subject property, the owner occupancy research, as we normally do and did not determine the subject property had any historical resources. >> this seems to be puzzling. there is information coming up

in the hearing and some questions around the dwelling unit. i would be open to taking some time to really understand the history before we move forward with the decision. generally i'm supportive of adding density, but i also feel like there are unresolved issues related to the building records. i'm not fully understanding the tenants' situation at this moment. i wouldn't want to take an action which results in an eviction. weighing the pros and cons, yes, we are adding a dwelling unit, but these are not equally sized units. i'm trying to weigh in my mind, what are we giving and getting in return. those are my thoughts for me.

>> i wanted to ask about incorporating the exercise room into the lower unit, unit two, by rearranging where things are. i think if the bedroom could be moved forward while other parts of the unit went to the back. do you see that to be a difficulty? >> no, it's not a difficult charge. my only concern about that space as a bedroom is ensuring egress. >> no, a bedroom is impossible, but if the bedroom slides forward and partakes in the garden side of the unit. >> yeah, i believe that's right and we can end up with a bedroom space on that side that we could potentially daylight some side

of it and create light and air in the window that's currently in the shadow underneath the stair. we would be stretching every inch of this, but would be arranging this in such a way and open to reconfiguring. >> i thought that the storey was well described, that at this moment there are people living in the building with a one-year lease to be expiring october 2021. in standard leases, rentals have to have a minimum of one year which this one has. i'm not sure if there is anything the tenant is doing other than the acknowledgement that there is indeed a record of an unauthorized dwelling unit

existing. >> correct, commissioner. we don't have any record of an unauthorized dwelling unit, but given the comments from the architect today, we would likely want to research it further and make sure that we're firm that nothing exists on the site. >> would you recommend that we take that step first or -- >> yeah, i would recommend that you give staff time to make sure we put the unauthorized dwelling unit issue to bed. it was news to us obviously and we want to make sure that we give all of the right information to the commission up front and that any proposal follows all the processes and

procedures that the department and the city has in place particularly surrounding unauthorized dwelling units. >> that having been said, i would like to see the sketch overlay of how the unit reconfigures itself to the size we discussed today. i would also like to see that the upper roof deck holds back 5 feet from all the sides adjoining the building, both sides east and west. >> it already does hold that on 5 feet. point taken. on all other sides this should be at 5. >> i would want that.

>> thank you. appreciate that. i'm prepared to ask for the drawing revision and the project to come back to us with what we discussed today. >> is that a motion? >> how about other comments, mr. president? >> i was getting to you. >> you know, i think we need to clarify a point. this commission did not have a policy where the creation of two units required an equity of size between those two units. what occurred was a lot of discussion where if there was two existing units roughly the same size rare flats which

occurs in much of san francisco and either the owner or the developer felt the marketplace was looking for a larger unit similar to a single-family home, but faced with the issue of comments on this commission regarding the elimination of one housing unit led to discussion of instead of allowing one very large unit and one small unit just to be able to maintain the two-unit count was something that was desirable.

that occurred in in front of projects that did not become a policy by this commission. here -- and i accept the fact that if somebody wants to verify whether there was two units or not, that's fine. but the fact is the documentation from 3r shows one unit and this is now going to create a second unit, there is nothing that says that the second unit has to be more equitable in size compared to the other unit. i'm not acceptive of that approach. >> commissioner diamond. >> i want to indicate agreement. this is a code-complying project

and staff has confirmed they complied with all notification requirements. if they want to modify the exercise room in order to have it be part of the lower unit, that's fine with me. i wouldn't require it. i think it's a great idea to add a laundry for the lower unit. i wouldn't require it, although i would encourage it. i am prepared to go with staff's recommendation. >> commissioners, after public comment was closed, there are additional members of the public who would like to speak. we will reopen public comment, but i will advise members of the public, if you have already spoken, you will not be permitted to speak again and some of these numbers look familiar. i will reopen public comment.

you will each have two minutes. when your line is unmuted, you can speak. but if you're spoken already, i'm going to mute your mic. go ahead, caller. >> hi there. i have been unmuted once again. i want to bring up that there was an inconsistency of -- >> go ahead, caller. >> for over 20 years there has been a second unit there.

has anyone addressed the water table that runs under texas street? i've had my house flooded due to the neighbors doing work on their home. is this going to affect any of that? i have an 1,100 square foot home and i don't understand the justification for such a large home. >> go ahead, caller. okay. we'll take the next caller. >> hello. my name is gaton. i live on texas street two doors

downhill and to the north. i do want to mention the whole time i've lived here which is 15 years, that has been two separate units. whether or not that makes a difference, there have been two separate families living there the entire time. as far as notifications go, there have been questions about that. i live two doors away. i think i have received nothing other than from friends and social network. i believe it was mentioned in previous hearings and reviews that the intention of the lower unit was for parents to visit. so i don't see how this as a housing unit to san francisco. i'm going to end with that and add those details to the discussion. thank you. >> members of the public, this is the final last call for public comment. you need to press star 3 to be

entered into the queue. public comment is officially closed and you can go back to the commissioner deliberation. i see commissioner moore is up next. >> i just wanted to add a clarification to commissioner diamond. the comment about unit equity is not derived from the fact that there are one or two units. the staff said there was one unit. it was only coming up in the discussion that there were two. and as we have rh-2 rather than rh-1, our policy is when a single-family home gets torn down that it's rh-2 zones and provides two units of similar size. that is a slight interpretation of what policy applies and it is not because of what is currently in the building, legal or illegal.

that is not the issue, but what zoning allows you to do and what we as the commission have to acknowledge in a single-family home from a rh-1 to an rh-2. >> commissioner imperial. >> i believe commissioner moore made a motion and i would second that motion. i also think that in order for us to make a fair decision that information being prepared for us are complete and correct. so that's why i also, just like with commissioner tanner, i also would like to know the history of what happened to udu. so for that matter, i support commissioner moore's and

tanner's comments. >> commissioner moore, you made a motion and it sounds as though commissioner imperial is seconding that. how much time do you think they should need, one month? commissioner moore? >> between the two, two or three weeks i assume is all it would take, right? >> commissioner moore, thank you. i feel confident we could do the udu screening in two weeks. if we did a three-week or a month continuance that would be more than enough time to work with the sponsor and to help respond to any comments, express that to the commission and make

sure that the udu component is well taken care of. >> how about a continuance to april 1, commissioner moore? >> that's fine by me. >> if there is nothing further, there is a motion to continue this to april 1 -- >> commissioner diamond wants to chime in. >> could staff clarify, are you recommending a continuance? >> no. >> hi, commissioners. yeah, i think given in light of some material the arctic tech disclosed at this hearing, we want to make sure that our staff report and material provided accurately reflects what is before the planning commission. news about the u.d.u. has not been disclosed to us so we want to make sure that all of that is well documented and provide research based on the procedures

that we have in reviewing unauthorized dwelling units. >> thank you for clarifying your support regarding the continuance. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this to april 1. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. and weer on to the next item on the agenda. number 14, 2017-05988cua, 501 crescent street. >> commissioners, you have before you a request for

conditional use authorization under planning code sections 303 and 317 to legalize the unauthorized demolition of a two-story, 2,432 square feet, single-family dwelling and to construct a new, code-complying, three-story, 2,243 square feet, single-family dwelling within a rh-1 the project has received letters. there has been an update meeting on december 11, 2020. the project sponsor informed me that the adjacent neighbor on crescent avenue is concerned about impacts to their solar panels. the department staff has not been contacted by this letter. i have draft motion page 6,

number 8 finding (v) the previous structure was a single-family residence that collapsed and has been vacant. the project does not entail conversion of the rental housing to tenure or occupancy. the executive summary states that the house was fire damaged and demolished. the publicity property was under extensive renovation and collapsed due to a wind event. the property owner can speak to the timeline in your package if you have questions. the site is vacant. the department finds this project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and complies with the planning code. developing the vacant corner lot is necessary, desirable, and compatible with the slowed

downing neighborhood. thank you, commissioners. this concludes my presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. the property owner will now present the project. >> are you prepared to make your presentation, project sponsor? >> good afternoon -- >> could you please mute your computer or your television? you can hear the noise in the background. >> i should mute it, i'm sorry? >> clerk: i heard some echos, but i don't hear it now. go ahead. >> my name is savina and my husband and i are the owners of 501 crescent avenue property located in bernal height.

we are a four-person family and we started living in bernal heights four years ago ago. we are from bulgaria. this property was purchased in february of 2018 after the demolition. we wanted to bring the site into compliance and build a new house for our family. this is the existing house. as you can see, it covers almost the whole block [indiscernible] that was covered the house did not comply with the current requirements and was incompatible with the adjacent houses in terms of height and location of the lot. here are the existing plans.

there was seven bedrooms in very small -- but floor plans were large. so the area was almost 2,450 square feet. also, the demolition occurred in 2016 of the renovations with the previous owner. we've prepared this property timeline that shows what happened before the demolition. so the existing house was vacant at least since 2014. a few owners were changed and every owner was starting and abandoning the renovation work. after the house collapsed, the previous owner one year later submitted the conditional use application and this authorization was now

transferred to us. the previous owner also had a clarification meeting with the neighbors. next slide, please. this is our first design that we showed to our assigned planner. the house that was proposed allowed the depth which was 45.5 feet. we had a roof deck and a staircase. after discussions with planning, we removed the stair which was above the required height. this was the application we showed at our first meeting with the neighbors in 2019. in this design we had a roof deck with a railing and we had a roof pad for access and the depth of the house was 45.5

feet. we generally received positive feedback from the neighbors. we had 10 people attending. there were a couple of concerns. there was a view from the third floor and we provided a rendering for that. and one of the neighbors had concerned for his newly installed panels. after the meeting we had many discussions and in an effort to address the concerns we had a slope through, we lowered the roof decks and lowered the building by 6 inches. the top of the roof is 4 feet under the allowed building height. since then we have been in communication with our neighbor in regards to his continued

concerns. we believe we have done everything to provide great access to the roof. we had three rounds of comments which basically talked about the proportion of the bay window. these are images of all the operations that we had. we provided the rendering for the view for our neighbor and she was actually pleased that her view is not blocked and she provided more support later on. so these are images of the final design that we are submitting.

we provided the prominent entry to the building and the proportions -- >> clerk: that's your time. the commissioners may have additional questions for you later. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star and then 3 to be entered into the queue. you have two minutes and when you hear that your line is unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hello. my name is morgan weiss. i am the owner and resident of 503 crescent avenue, the next door neighbor. i have lived here for 20 years and have lived through all different kinds of things people wanting to do to the property. i apologize for not writing

before now. i hope that the neighbors and i have come to an accommodation. in recent days it became clear that was not the case so i scrambled to get up to speed and to bring documentation to support my concerns. i want to speak in opposition to the proposed construction. to be clear, i do want neighbors. i want this to be built and i want neighbors. i cannot accept the current building without changes due to the fact that it will impact on the solar panels. in this document, as announced at the beginning, this is not 501 crescent street. everywhere it says ebb and flow,

but it should be there for the record. there is a repeated reference to this home --. [bell ringing]. >> that is not the case. i will speak to that more in just a moment. i want to get through the irregularities. the previous fire damaged the structure. i lived there for 20 years. there was no fire. i saw a lot of things, but none of it was fire damage repair. the property was said --. [bell ringing]. >> >> clerk: thank you, sir. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star and 3 to

be entered into the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you -- i take it back, commissioners, one more caller. you have two minutes. >> i apologize. did i run out of time? >> clerk: yes, you did. go ahead -- i mean, i'm sorry. commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you.

>> while waiting on other commissioners, supportive of staff recommendation. commissioner jenner. >> i'm also supportive of the recommendation. i did want to understand if the project sponsor can speak to the orientation of the building compared to the solar panels. my understanding of what you had been saying and also the design was that there had been some combination to try to provide some light to those panels. can you comment on that? >> yes. i prepared some additional slides that illustrate how we will reduce the impact. yes, thank you very much. so this is -- i mean, you're looking at the elevation to the upper leflt corner which was the design for the first meeting.

after the meeting we had discussions and we came up with the proposal to add this. you see the adjacent house and our neighbor has panels on both sides. the panels that are facing our property were significantly affected by the previous design, but this design would feel like it greatly reduces the impact on his solar panels. if you look at the lower image, this is the street that you see. there is a slope to the street. every house on the slope is placing a little bit more shade to the other house. so it's indicated on this elevation, there is a point which indicates the maximum building height which is 30 feet from the middle of the sidewalk at the property line and we're

under this height and we really wanted to have a roof deck because there are beautiful views -- because we really like our relationship with the neighbor. he is a great person and we wanted to accommodate his concerns that we remove the roof deck. we are now 4 feet under the height that we can have. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that explanation. i would be prepared to make a motion to approve the project as recommended by staff with the corrections that have been read into the record. >> second. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that is seconded to approve this project with conditions as amended by staff on that motion, commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner tan. >> aye.

>> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> clerk: and chair. >> aye. >> that motion passes 7-0 and concludes your hearing today. you're all spoiled by ending so early.

>> president lopez: great, thank you. i want to thank everyone for being here today. we are excited to continue to come together and wanted to be clear about our priorities which are centered around three important areas. returning to in-person learning, budget stability and continuing our anti-racist practices. we look forward to that work together with partnership and collaboration from all of us. let's get started. section b opening