confirm with the combination convection microwave? >> right. and there's so many different types of appliances like that today. i looked at the specks on the ones provided for this. my counter tops has more and was larger than what was provided here. i don't think we have a big appetite into delving in to kind of multi-feature microwaves. obviously, when you get into larger ovens and floor model ovens, that's where we're trying to stay away from for group housing. >> right. i get that. my concern with the definition of group housing is when we get to these very large projects and we've got one hundred different units sharing one communal kitchen. we've got one hundred sharing one kitchen, there's a lot of tension between trying to limit

the number of cooking facilities in any unit versus um, staying within, you know, the definition that you're talking about. so i would be in favor of adding a second kitchen. i'm not sure which is best whether it would be, you know, down stairs and moving the laundry is more convenient to each of the units and i don't have a strong preference except to say i would be in favor of adding the second kitchen. i think 100 units so i'm very much in favor of that particular proposal, mr. gladstone that you made today. i would also -- i don't think we should change the rules on this game. i would have liked to see for i

meant space immenity space like lounge space where people can hang outside their very small units and i would like to have seen some of that on more than just the ground floor. so i think that's something we ought to take into account when we're thinking about group housing going forward, but i'm not necessarily saying it has to happen for this project because we're at the last stage here and i don't think we should change the rules of the game on you and you designed it this far. although, were you to find a way to add more immenity space and amenity. we've had a number of state projects in front of us since the beginning of the year. each of common was requiring

less than the amount of open space. so we push very hard to encourage the project sponsors to add balconies. even if they didn't meet the code's open space requirement, we have been very supportive of the notion of just a little bit of private open space where possible especially in a post covid world. here, because you're meeting the open space requirements, you know, i don't think that, you know, we would push that as hard. i will say i'm totally. that seems to me to be a real plus and that's it for my

comments. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i generally wanted to acknowledge that this project is sensitivity designed and i think the challenges we are posing to the architect i'm sure will be well received. that's probably best accommodated where the architect finds the right space and other requirements, technical requirements. it can't just be everywhere. when you have the same amenities, those floors which will carry them have more burden and more foot traffic that might be given the facility too much for traffic. so that becomes another question as to whether or not if it's all on the ground floor, then it's just in the

building anyway. it's separate from those floors in which the individual units find their home address. so these are all interesting questions. i think that all should be brought forward for consideration and i would look for mr. macy to find the sensitivity to resolve. own ability to get into dialog about what that project needs to do for the community. that would be my comments. thank you. >> commissioner: i'll make my comments short. i just would like to ask a question to director hill. as we are delving into the

housing element and i believe next week or within the next couple weeks there would be informational housing elements i think this kind of project gives us a deeper way of thinking now when it comes to whether group housing, the redefining group housing also include the inclusion of the public health aspect into it that also looking in to design itself. i'm wondering in the coming weeks. >> well, certainly, i mean, i think we've already sent out kind of a draft policy and actions and i can't recall if

group housing is specifically called that, but you try to talk about varied types of housing and small, medium-sized projects being allowed in parts of the city that they're currently not. and anything you see from from kind of the maps happens primarily in the eastern side of the city and there are some limitations that will make that accessible in r.h. district. there's limits in some of the -- density limits in some of the n.c. districts. so we don't go into that specificity in the housing, but it's a topic we should certainly touch on in making sure this type of housing is not just allowed in certain

part officer the city. >> commissioner: thank you very much. i'm ready to vote. thank you. >> president: well, if you're ready, commissioner imperial, so am i. there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this motion. on that matter [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and as item 13, 1567 california street >> gentlemen. let's get off this line and call each other on a separate line. >> president: indeed. good. that would be good. >> okay. apologies, commissioners.

juggling multiple buttons. but as i was saying that 1567 california street has been continued, that will place us on items 14a and b. for item zero 7798. at 48 stockton street. you will consider a conditional use authorization as well as an office development authorization. linda, i see that you're on with us. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, jonas. thank you. >> okay. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners. planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to allow a change of use on floors 3 through 6 from retail to office use at the site of the former barney's department store. the project would convert

37,432 retail space on general office over a 6-story basement building. the project is located in the downtown retail zoning district which requires conditional use authorization for nonretail sales or service uses on the third floor for any use size and when greater than 5,000 square feet on additional floors. a small cap allocation is also required. as of december 10th, 2020, there was approximately 728,338' section 321 and would not undermind the core retail function of the c.c. rvmentd district. the project would not affect

the retail shopping experience at the pedestrian level. the subject building is an article 11 historic resource. a minor permit to alter has been submitted to make alterations to an existing entry door along the street frontage. this permit is being processed separately. to date, the department has used one comment in support of the project from the union square district. the project is unbalanced, consistent with the area plan and objectives and policies of the general plan. although the project results in a loss of retail space, the project reserves the retail space on the first two floors of the building and the office use with flexibility that would allow one or more tenants to occupy the space. the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties

in the vicinity. i would now like to introduce clark miller from the team who has prepared a presentation. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> mr. miller, your slides are up and you have 5 minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. i'm clark miller, managing director at strada investing group on the repositioning of 48 stockton. we appreciate the opportunity to present our proposal to you today. next slide, please. i'm going to walk you through the location and proposed program for 48 stockton and share with you the alternatives we consider for this building and why we believe office is an appropriate use for the upper used floors. the building is located at the

corner of stockton and farrell. it's a 64,000 square foot 6-story building. constructed in 1809. most recently occupied by barneys. the building remains vacant today. next slide, please. as you can see in this building section, our proposed program provides 22,660 square feet for retail use. and offers 37,402 degree on floors 3 through 6, plus a new office lobby entry off of o'farrell. this proposed retail shopping experience while providing additional flexibility and leasing the upper floors of the building as office. next slide, please.

we carefully considered several alternative uses and first and foremost was retail. and had been before covid made retail performance worse. as this map depicts, there are six spaces currently vacant and available and there are an additional three spaces which are occupied but will become evacuee cannot soon and are available. based on the number of store fronts, that translates into 25% vacancy and 37.5% availability. stock tan's been challenging for some time and it's great that pedestrian traffic can return once life reverts to some post-covid normalcy. >> the latest queue has just been released. overall union square vacancy has gone from 4.2% in q1 to 13.6% as of q12021. and interestingly, the vacancy rate had already risen

significantly before covid hit where it doubled to 8.4%. so we've been careful not to make a knee jerk reaction. for 48 stockton, we're hearing from tenants that multilevel retail is challenging and we're seeing decrease demand and retailers typically won't consider the third floor even for significantly discounted rents. next slide, please. we carefully considered residential and found the twofold challenge. first, our building has exposure to light and air. the other two sides are blocked by 2 stockton and the sailing building and even the light and quality of that air is highly compromised and those views would be restricted to the back of the building. the second challenge is that the lightwell and necessary

circulation would result in a 26% loss in rental square footage. next slide, please. lastly, we studied office and determined it made the most sense to add office for leasing the upper floors and provide us flexibility as we pursue tenants. it gives the space a unique feel with 16' plus floor and other creative users. plus it has great access to bart and muni. and, lagsly, office use up stairs will help activate the lower floors and allow us to pay for the necessary infrastructure improvements of elevator and to help make deals on the retail floors. all that said, as this slide depicts, our proposal has been designed to maintain the ability to use the third floor

as retail. the building's third floor maintaining the ability of a single retail tenant to occupy these three lower floors. next slide, please. thank you for reviewing our proposal today. we believe our approach will help revitalize union square and enable it to succeed. thank you and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. if there are no questions, we should take public xhen. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to is this matter by pressing star 3 to enter into the queue. have you two minutes. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. excuse me. >> yes. good afternoon, planning commissioners. can you all hear me? >> we can. >> great. my name is karen have you had.

i'm the executive director of the union square and i represent property owners and per chants in and around union square. point in time we are very much in support of this project. the project sponsors presented to us earlier this week and when we looked at our development policy, they meet all of the criteria that are important to us. mainly the use of the building is consistent with the other uses on the block and the district. the architectural design sounds like it will be unaltered other than the small office entrance on o'farrell street. there will be active uses on o'farrell street with the retail. we certainly welcome the office uses on the upper floor. we believe as retail is shrinking. demand for that is shrinking in our area. we obviously have been impacted

by the central subway construction. we want to make sure the planners mitigate any impacts to construction that we've been living through and they said they would agree to that. so we are in support and we look forward to having a project in the area that will help us revitalize and pull you out of this pandemic. thank you. >> thank you. last call, members of the public for public comment. okay. seeing no additional requests to speak >> you pretty much explained it

all >> commissioner diamond. obviously, the revitalization of union square is absolutely critical. i put it in the same category as our other major tourist features that it's an economic driver for the city and that we need to make sure that there's localities of life going on. i don't know how much of the second floor square footage is being proposed office space. are there any proposals for residential. are there plans on the books that you're going to bring us as a planning commission for how you think about encouraging

additional developments. i feel like i need context in which to consider this particular project proposal. >> commissioner rich hillis. you may want to take a little bit on kind of what you see in the pipeline in union square. but commissioner diamond, definitely a challenge and one we're working with oewd on and that retail and the property owners in union square and kind of what the future is for union square and certainly in the challenges that retailers are facing now is not necessarily new it's something we were seeing even prepandemic having this discussion about the second floor and how those spaces that were formally retail could be reused. and i think the good news is

our zoning is flexible. so housing is allowed. hotels are allowed. office space is allowed so it's one of the most flexible units around. some are challenging to reuse and i think what we're hearing from retailers in the union square community, they want the ground floor of the space, they can market the easiest but they need people around and hopefully we're going to see an uptick in that as hotels re-open and tourists come back. but this is the type of use that could activate those upper

floors and provide people in that neighborhood and hopefully we'll start to see more of these uses on the upper floor of union square. >> yeah, any pipelines. >> yeah, we definitely have seen an increase. i think we have started to see an increase prior to covid and even afterwards now. we've seen additional applications being filed. it's very much, i think there's a number of issues going on with union square and i think it has to do with some things we can't control through zoning. you know, the cities everywhere have been dealing with the housing crisis, drug epidemic, all sorts of quality of life issues that are really impacting the downtown. i think the fact that the

construction is wrapping up on the subway, i think that's a huge plus for this particular area, you know, it's very much needing activity and i think we're seeing a lot of people wanting to convert the upper retail floors into other uses like the macy's, the corner, right at stockton and o'farrell is being -- is a proposal for residential with office use as well as retail at the ground floor. so we've got i want to say about between 5 to 10 projects and we're evaluating as they come in. i know that commissioner diamond, you mentioned that you would like a more wholistic approach to these and we are reaching out to o.e.w.d. and others to get a bid to get an

idea of how we can stat jiez moving forward. >> yeah. there are limits to [inaudible] -- because of the prop m, prop e caps. there's no availability on the large caps. so a conversion of 50,000 square feet, you couldn't do it because it's not available in our large cap. >> right. [inaudible] one of the other obvious questions is a question that needs to -- >> commissioner, you're breaking up. >> i think we lost commissioner diamond. >> president: commissioner diamond, we will come back to

you. but commissioner fung is up next. >> i pressed my name in there. >> president: i'm reading the names i see on my chat list, and that's all i can do. >> okay. >> they're not coming through. >> president: go ahead, commissioner fung. >> commissioner: a question to the project sponsor. >> yes. >> commissioner: you've indicated the vacancy rates for retail. any idea of vacancy rates for office? >> i don't know the vacancy rates for office in union square. let me try to track down that information for you. it's a very small market compared to the broader san

francisco market. versus the 90 million that the whole market offers so it's only about 90% of the entire market. i'd have to understand what that would mean for office vacancy in union square. >> president: i'm seeing commissioner tanner next. >> commissioner: thank you. i just wanted to hear from the project sponsor if can you kind of follow up on the question. you've got an appetite, customers who want to rent these office spaces or you're hoping that as the economy recovers that these will be leased. do you have tenants that are already identified? >> thank you for the question, commissioner tanner. just to step out one second for commissioner fung, 17% is the current vacancy in union square

for office we wanted to get through our approvals with the planning commission before we get too far ahead of ourselves. but we do think that the nature of the building, the unique historic nature of it, we think it will be very attractive to a set of tenants that aren't necessarily interested in being downtown and so we're optimistic we'll have pretty good traction and activity. >> commissioner: okay. and you mentioned there's an appetite for different size retail. are you concerned about a tenant for that size of space or do you feel those retailers. >> yeah, the remaining amount of retail that would be on the

basement and first level and second level is 22,600. >> commissioner: okay. >> and, it is still certainly a large space and there are a number of competitive retail spaces in union square that we will be competing with, but we're going to be aggressive and we know it's an important location for union square as of the foot and the gateway to the rest of the neighborhood and so we certainly are looking for activity on that and we have one of the best brokers in the business and we're looking forward to getting some tenant act it there soon. >> commissioner: yeah, i think we're all looking forward for any vacant place to get activity and then the customers to follow for really all of our uses across the city. just wanting to both think comprehensively about the future of union square and sure

what the vision is and trying to do our best to understand where retail goes what the area looks like residential is really challenging for so many reasons and then you get into the age of the building and these updates and all the reasons why it's hard in some cases it's more financially feasible to demolish the house than it is to convert an existing office building or retail building. that said, having a mix for hotel and retail office and residential to really give it that 24/7 customer base that

retail can survive. i hope that i know you guys are on the job and i look forward to hearing more. >> president: i know commissioner diamond got cut off. let's see if she's available. >> commissioner: can you hear me? >> president: yeah. >> commissioner: what i was just going to say is even it's important we will get a presentation soon like in the next few couple of months about sort of the grander vision for

the rejuvenation of the union square. >> president: commissioner chan. >> thank you. i really appreciate the possibility of converting the office to residential. we're not there yet, but many many cities are grappling with this very issue and exploring the possibilities. so i think it would be prudent for the department to take a more proactive look. take a look at the investigation. i just want to pose a question and i'm wondering if you can confirm. so office and retail is not necessarily usually exclusive in this case, so while they'll be the option for office, it

can always go back to retail. >> that's correct. the only instance where retail would require a c.u. is if it's 90,000 considering the building is 90,000 square feet. that would not be the case here. >> commissioner: perfect. in that case, i'm very supportive. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: just like the other commissioners, the obviously gaps of office space, ultimately, the concern is how do we maintain a viable city. i am flad to have had the presentation by mr. miller really exploring the potential and the strengths of this building as article 11 this building has extra protections

giving a lot of meaning to the lower part. but as an anchor, with maintaining retail on the floors indicated, i think we have a lot of meat left to bring something back which always transitioned us from post and upper stockton to this particular part of union square. i am encouraged that the spaces as office will attract users that will bring the necessary foot traffic that is expected to bring office back. i have a question and that is since this particular project falls under the retail conversion legislation, nobody talked about a conversion fee

will this project be subject to the conversion fee. >> it is subject to that fee. >> you know. i'm just delving into my pandemic mind. it's basically to improve open spaces within the c3r district. it's separate from the park fee and it's separate from there's an open space fee that's part of c3s in general sort of what

the bid is currently trying to do and to provide open space. >> commissioner: thanks for saying that because it would be interesting to hear as to the commissioners questions on how to create excitement. the exceptionally long construction period has not decimated any feeling of excitement about that part that part of stockton street. i would not know what it is.

i would love to hear the union square bid come and discuss what their ideas are and here also by us being on the front line to making these critical decisions such as converting retail space to office. i'd like to just put that out there as an exciting prospect to further the discussion, but i am in support of the project as it stands today. >> president: i think commissioner tanner also brought up a good point. office can bring traffic even maybe 24 hour timeframes would be even more successful. i would entertain a motion to approve. >> commissioner: move to approve. >> commissioner: second.

>> president: would anyone like to second? >> commissioner: second. >> president: thank you. on that motion then, commissioners to approve a conditional use authorization and office allocation [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item 15 at 1428-1434 irving street. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes i am. thank you. >> president: okay the floor is yours.

>> good afternoon. sharon young planning department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization. the project site at 1428 irving street and 1434 irving street is located within the inner sunset neighborhood commercial zoning district. the project in approximately 2,732 square foot vacant commercial space located on the 1st and partial twond floor of the two-story mixed use building. 1428 irving street was approximately 3,081 square foot commercial space of the two story building occupied by an existing animal hospital in business irving hospital at

1434 irving street. the combining commercial spaces of approximately 5,813 square feet of floor area. the project will involve improvements to commercial spaces and interior will be provided in the two existing spaces. there will be no expansion of the existing [inaudible] proposed. the existing residential meter on the partial second floor will remain with the project. the existing hospital has been on the project site at 1434 irving street for approximately 57 years. it was established in 1954 under conditional use

authorization case number cu62.19 under numbers 6238. according to the project sponsors, veterinary services and treatment services will be located was the proposed renovations. not proposed under the current project and just to note that most operation will be within the interior of the building. the existing rear yard application meeting was not required for the project. the project sponsors have indicated that they have conducted community outreach

efforts and have approximately 185 signatures in support of the project. the project sponsors have indicated that there's currently one tenant in the residential unit at 1428 irving street and there were other projects. the planning department's recommendation was approved and this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> president: thank you. sharon, does the project sponsor have any slides? >> president: sharon, does the project sponsor have any

slides? >> only if needed. he was going to give his presentation verbally. >> great. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> fantastic. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is david pen with dba on behalf of the project sponsor. irving pet hospital has been serving the community generally for over 60 years. 1963. an active member of the community, a regular judge. he brings a renewed focus of individualized medicine and continuity affair to i.c.h.. the increasing trends of corporation, dr. fong is an avid believer in specialized

health care for sf's favorite residents. dr. fung has also led the practice of accreditation which places it at the top 15% of clinics around the country. in addition to the 700 evaluation required for this accreditation, there's also an annual inspection for the accreditation. i just wanted to reiterate of the 1334 into the adjacent building via the opening across the property lines which would be done in accordance with sfdbi and sfd standards. the additional space in 4 teen

28 irving will offer the ability of the clinic to build out additional exam rooms. specialty procedure of dental suite. shipping and receiving storage area and state of the art hvac. irving pet hospital has really done a remarkable job in reaching out on this project. back in august, they mailed letters to the entire neighborhood and neighborhood association. they walked five blocks down and up each way irving with fliers. they walked around the block and talked to residents that are share adjacent backyards, fences with the property and they received an overwhelming number of support. the hospital is really an

integral the support will be reflected in this large document of letters and support that each of you will have received. but, you know, both specific retail businesses and residences and residential neighbors both signed on and expressed support of the expansion. i.c.h. has operated for decades without any neighborhood complaints. measures will be taken in the build out of this new space to ensure this continues to be the case. there will be a separate entrance for dogs and cats which will cut down on barking. construction will be dry wall with resilient channels and sound insulation. animal waste will be picked up immediately and stored outside as it always has been. and transported off site.

there are no overnight stays. in addition to being an obvious benefit to the community, this expansion will provide, it will also benefit the community in terms of activating a currently vacant retail space similar to the last agenda item. parking section of this and the hospital will activate the space in a similar way in terms of street traffic as would any other principally permitted use. rates of pet ownership obviously everybody knows are very high in san francisco. has balloons during the pandemic. and irving pet care has been at the center of that and that's what this expansion is all

about. dr. fong is on the phone. if you want to make any additional comments? >> i just want to say thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to possibly help the community. it is really true that during this pandemic and isolation that people have found some part of their humanity through their pets because they don't judge you, they don't care about the pandemic. there's something that's stable that you can come home to. and we've seen in the city emergencies. >> president: thank you, sir. unfortunately, that is your time. thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> president: members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star 3 and you'll be added to the queue. seeing now requests to speak from members of the public, commissioners. public comment is closed. the matter is now before you.

>> commissioner: i'm in support of staff's recommendation commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: yes. i think it's wonderful to see neighborhoods that are expanding, they're clearly critical to all of us pet owners including myself and probably many of the other commissioners who own pets, you know. but i do have two particular questions i wanted to address first. you mentioned that you talked to the res chapel hill tenants, did they have any concerns? >> to the contrary. >> commissioner: okay. so no issues about noise or odor or hours of operation.

>> commissioner, no concerns at all. >> commissioner: okay. and then secondly, staff indicated that you will not be using the rear yard. is that for pets from the animals? is that correct of either rear yard? >> there's only a rear yard at 1428 irving and that is correct. that space will be used for employee kind of break area and lunch area. >> commissioner: okay. so fellow commissioners, given all of the issues that we had last year with the doggy day care in the marina, that arose from use of the rear yard and the concerns that neighbors had, i would like to propose or i'd make a motion to approve this project, but i'd like to add a condition that indicates they can't use the rear yard for animals without coming back to us for an amendment because

then we could craft conditions probably similar to what we impose on that project to mitigate the issues that were of concern to neighbors. >> i think that sounds okay. commissioner moore. >> president: commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> perhaps, we can ask dr. fong briefly respond to your question and see if he has any thought about that. >> commissioner: yeah. that's a good idea. >> commissioner: dr. fong are you available to address commissioner diamond's question regarding the use of the yard? >> yes, i am. can you hear me. >> president: yes. >> perfect.

we'd rather have that yard be used by staff. we're a hospital, we'd rather keep our sick patients inside and not have them outside. so we would never have any animals out in that yard especially from a hospital standpoint. so i'm absolutely i'm saying okay with what the commissioner said. >> commissioner: commissioner diamond, if you're comfortable with hearing that as a response i would like him to give staff the opportunity to have lunch out there and be outside. i think that's important for staff health and if no animals are being allowed there, then your question is being answered, is that correct? >> commissioner: yes. my condition was only limited to animals i'm fine approving the project, i just wanted to add a condition that indicated that animals couldn't have use

of the rear yard without coming back for an amendment. >> commissioner: with that clarification made, i'd like to make a motion to move. >> president: i believe that was commissioner diamond's motion. >> commissioner: then i would second that. i didn't know. thank you. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: the only thing i want to say is it's exciting to see an expansion of a small business and i'm just really in support of this project and glad that it's maybe a silver lining that the pandemic that more animals are finding homes. so there's a bright spot in our agenda. >> president: okay. if there's nothing -- if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with

conditions as have been amended to include a condition that no use of the rear yard outdoor space for patients. on that motion [roll call] so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. placing this under your discretionary review panel. drp-2. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow. >> i'm here and i hope you can

see and hear me. good afternoon, commissioners. david winslow staff architect. the item before you is a discretionary review of building applicant 2020-001578d.r.p.-02. for the construction of a 505' vertical addition to create a new second floor on an existing one-story over basement, two-bedroom home. 1,866 square feet and no off-street parking is proposed. built in 1906. the project is by two people. first is kevin fox, a resident of the property who is

concerned that the project will impact the light to his apartment and open space and the second request here aaron stone of 44 reed resident of the property across reed street to the east is concerned that the project will impact privacy and light and will result in the elimination of what may be few of the earthquake checks. there have been two letters of opposition to the project since the project was noticed. and since the 311 notification, the project sponsor has revised the project to lower the height by an additional 2' and 3" and to modify the size and location of the front windows to reduce privacy impacts. the department's review of this proposal confirms support for this project as it supports the building code and the residential guidelines.

staff does not recognize the circumstances. the second story vertical addition is lower than the surrounding buildings. the additional vertical massing is just more than the existing cable roof. the rear wall is set behind the rear wall and the rear deck is set back 3' from the sidewalk line with an open railing. and, as i mentioned, the project sponsor has modified the design to lower the overall height by 3' 2" and modifying the locations of the windows in the front. with this, staff recommends not taking discretionary review and proving what's proposed. i will be here to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. winslow.

let me see if i can't find these dr. requesters. ms. holly yes. >> you have three minutes. >> okay. thank you, jonas. and, good evening, commissioners. deborah holly for aaron stone at forty-four reed. one of the dr requesters. i'm happy to confirm that we've reached an agreement with the project sponsors on a modified plan and construction mitigation. since our concerns were addressed, we no longer oppose the project and thank you for your time. i also understand that the second dr requester kevin fox will be calling in on the public comment line. okay. and i'm available for questions

if needed. thank you. >> thank you, ms. holly. unfortunately, mr. fox, did not provide a phone number to unmute. >> jonas, i had added his phone number as of late this morning around 11:00 into the spread sheet. i don't know if that's available to you or not. >> i don't have it. no. it's not here. um, we have his e-mail address that is not visible on the information provided to me. so let me try unmuting those people who have their hands raised. there are three of you.

is this mr. fox? >> it is. thank you. >> okay. good luck. three minutes. >> thank you for finding me. and, good evening to the panel. provided that the modified plans are what is approved, i do not object to the project as modified. >> does that conclude your presentation? >> yes. i had some concerns about the sincerity of the project sponsor. but [inaudible] the modified plans. >> okay. well, project sponsor, i'm not sure there's much of a presentation that's necessary

here, but you have 6 minutes. i'm not sure you need all of that time, though. >> hello. good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm sponsor and designer for this project. the addition is very important to the future for mr. dew and his family. it will be for the lay-out up to the current code. the proposed project will increase the existing two bedrooms and two bathrooms to four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. the second floor of it includes the living room and the two bedrooms placed in the rear with a total building area of 1,866 square foot.

we made the adjustments as i mentioned. we lowered the building height. we have relocated and the. we also revised the design of the front to put in the privacy. and also as david mentioned, the rear setback is for the additional floor is actually the balcony on the top floor this allows light to pass through from the south side we also did asia doe study which shows there's minimum impact into the neighbors. we believe we have made concessions to adjust the concerns and i wish the commission can approve this project. thank you. i'm happy to answer any

questions. thank you. >> great. thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star and to be entered into the queue and the dr requesters in the queue and i don't see any reason for rebuttal. so public comment is closed. commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> commissioner: move to take dr and accept the modifications as agreed upon between the parties. >> if i can clarify please, the recommendation was not to a take d.r., we will honor the modifications since we have the revisions inhand and can do so without having taking the d.r. >> commissioner: then i change my motion to not take d.r. >> second and commissioner.

>> does that require further direction that mr. winslow's interpretation of what needs to be done is what guides the problem because normally when a d.r. is formed, we do not vote on it. >> right. in this particular case, the d.r. was not withdrawn but as you heard from the d. rvmentd requesters they are not proposed to the modified plans that have already been submitted so staff is not recommending any modifications to those plans. so i think commissioner fung got it right that there will be no d.r. approved as proposed and the dates will be cited as -- excuse me -- plans will be cited as dated. >> >> commissioner: and then i second that motion. >> okay. very good. on that motion, then, to not take d.r. and approve the project as modified, commissioner tanner [roll call]

so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and we'll place this on the final item on today's agenda that was pulled off of consent for item 6 case number 2020-00850729 castro street. this is a use authorization. >> commissioners, i just wanted to introduce ryan volvo before he starts. he's the new planner one on the southwest team in the planning department. ryan uses all pronouns. they had joined the department about a year ago starting work remotely and then serving as a disaster service worker.

ryan graduated with a bachelor's in urban studies in san diego, california. >> thank you. i'll start my presentation now. good afternoon president koppel and members of the commission. ryan balbo planning staff. a conditional use authorization pursuant to section 317 to demolish an existing two-story two-family residence the project will construct a new three-story over basement two-unit residential building. i'd like to read a correction to the record. the proposed structure would be

four stories tall. the new building is three stories over basement. the new two-unit building will provide two family-sized units with a two car garage. one is 1,nine hundred thirteen gross square feet and unit two is 1,square feet. the letter expressed support for the project's compatible design and creates density with two family-sized units. two letters of opposition were received following the case position of the report. issues what they consider an internal lay-out for unit one as well as concerns for light and neighbor. the department recommends the approval as listed in the packet circulated on april 13th and believes the project is

necessary and desirable for the following reasons. consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. while simultaneously enhancing and preserving the immediate neighborhood's character, the project will be developed to meet the needs and necessities of the family. the project will provide a youth compatible and that the proposed residential building will be compatible with the density and height of the neighborhood. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, ryan. mr. shaw, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> you've got 5 minutes. >> thank you. >> your slides are up.

>> all right. dear president and commissioners, my name is jeremy shaw of shaw architects. this project wasn't originally on the consent calendar. so i'll move into some of the neighborhood concerns. we're here today to propose a demolition and new construction project. slide two, please. the existing building is a small single family dwelling that has been owner occupied since 1975. slide 3. the existing home has a large front setback as well as setbacks on each side. slide 4, please the existing floor plan is awkward with only one official bedroom. the rh2 lot. a full demolition instead of an alteration permit. slide 5. this is our proposed site plan

with the original building profile in green. and footprint with the main addition being towards the front with a 12' pop-out in the rear. slide 6, please. this rendering shows our proposed building due to the typography, we are proposing a three story building over the base am. each of the stories will have separate entrances from the street. unit two thousand one hundred twenty-one comprises the lower two levels. roughly one thousand nine hundred square feet with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. private open space is provided in the rear yard. slide 8. unit two thousand one hundred nineteen is on the upper two levels. the exterior front steps bring you to the main living area.

slide 9, please. the roof has a proposed deck that complies with the commission's new roof deck policy. the railings are set back 5' from the sides and that's also approximately 1/3 the size of the roof. slide 10, please. the section helps show the relationship between the two units. the lower unit is 87% the size of the upper unit and this also demonstrates the slope of the site showing the need for the basement area. slide 11, please. the front and rear facade are articulated to the assigned buildings. with accents of natural wood siding at the entries. slide 12, please.

this photo montage shows the rear yard. the project maintains mid walk open space for all adjacent buildings. slide 13, please. this rendering shows the building from uphill on cast trudeau street near its intersection of 28th. the height follows the neighborhood maximizing the density on the site. and last slide, 14, our neighborhood meeting was held on zoom last september, however, no neighbors attended. at times with our building owner to the east and she sent you an e-mail of support as ryan mentioned. we have only heard from other neighbors this week. recording the homes for south, that was rebuilt in 2013 as a large expansion to a family dwelling. they have expressed concerns

about light and views as well as placement of our doors. this image shows the door alignment along the streets, you can see there's varying patterns but ours do more or less correspond to the doors on neighboring buildings. and, further, we are also only 2'3" in front of their building. we have stated both units will be for sale but we don't know what's going to happen after that because we don't have the ability to monitor that. and the rear yard accessibility only makes sense for the lower unit based on the slope and a more efficient lay out. the upper unit will benefit from a comparable amount of open space and while perhaps not common in the area. thank you for your attention

and i will be happy to answer questions you may have. >> thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your public comment by pressing star three. okay. you have two minutes. >> thank you for taking this off of consent. this is not a typical stacked flat that san francisco uses that's provided housing so that sort of caught my intention and what also caught my attention was 2.and i'm not accusing them

of doing this, but this is what's gone on happening recently in noey valley where two units are sold as a single family home. i don't know if they've got condo papers or what, but my point was that it seems reasonable within six months of the cfc that this developer send a note back to you and your staff and just let you know what the occupancy is and what the tenure is. i don't think it's too much of a burden. the other thing i'll say about the roof deck is the open space requirement with the deck off unit 1, the main unit, they don't need that roof deck up there and the thing about the roof deck is it's good they

took off the stair penthouse, but this is an extremely steep hill and it will be very visible from the street and i didn't know there was a roof deck policy officially. but that was kind of interesting news to me and i'd love to see it written down. that's basically it. i want to just thank ryan and maggie smith for their help with this and, you know, i think that that's really my main point is to get some information back to the commission, to the staff what's going on as you densify the neighborhood. i guess that's it. . thanks. take care. >> okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak from the public. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you.

>>. >> president: let's hear from commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: i hope you're enjoying your time here at the planning department. i appreciate this project. i appreciate the reasoning behind the rear yard only be accessible to the lower unit. i did have that as a question, but the architect did explain why that is the case. i think the project is well designed and will be a great addition to adding two units on the lot which has just been fantastic. so i would move to approve this project. >> commissioner: second. >> okay. seeing no additional requests to speak from commissioners. there's a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion, commissioner

tanner [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and concludes your agenda today. >> thank you. >> commissioner: take care. >> commissioner: bye everybody. thank you.

>> this is the april 15, 2021 treasure island development authority sustainability committee meeting. due to the health emergency board members are participating remotely via video conference in the same extent as if present. public comment is available for each item on the agenda. for members who wish to comment the phone number is 415-655-0001. the access code (187)659-2091. then press pound and pound again. when your item of interest is

called dial star 3 to be added to speak. please wait until you have been unmuted to begin your comments. you may address the board once per agenda item two minutes. 1. call to order. director kwon. >> here. >> director tsen. >> here. >> director richardson. >> here. >> thank you. we have a quorum. >> do we start with general public comment? >> yes. >> 2. general public comment. there are no callers for public comment. >> thank you. >> item 3. consent agenda. 3a approving the minutes of the

january 21, 2021 meeting. >> i move. >> second. >> roll call vote. director kwon. >> yes. >> director tsen. >> yes. >> director richardson. >> yes. >> three ayes. >> do we need any discussion? okay. next item, please. >> 4. treasure island sea level rise design and adaptation strategies. >> we have a special guest to do a presentation today which i am excited about. we would love to hear more from our guest. if you would do a brief introduction please. the floor is yours. thank you for being here today. >> am i good to go? i am a coastal engineer.

i have been involved with the treasure island project for about 14 years. since the property was culminated. we had over the period of time prior to myself much of the work was done in advance of the studies that were published. we took the approach and let me share my screen. i have a few slides here that i would like to share with you. you can see my presentation, hopefully.

with the presentation here. the genesis of this work, the sea level rise is different compared to some of the other areas that we use in engineering such as seismic and building designs and those kind of things. what was the design basis for the project itself and the strategy in case that sea level exceed whatever the numbers suggested estimates have been.

at the time of the document itself and going to the community meetings, the citizens stakeholder meetings, the issue -- two issues kept coming up. low elevations of the island and the other was the nature of the soil the compaction and those things. this is an example at the time fema was remapping this is post katrina work. it was remapping and doing digital map modernization which incorporated whatever sea level rise occurred since the last fema maps. this is san francisco basic bay.

the wined surges which is the action that comes through the golden gate the pacific swell, and then just normal low pressure anomalies that we get that results in super-tides. two feet higher than what they predicted tides are with the surge. then the bcdc was the other agency shining the light on the vulnerability of san francisco bay and the urban communities. these were maps they put out after we had already gone through the first round of planning for treasure island. these showed what will happen with 16 inches, which was a number that was the best

available by 2050. the level were projected to be 16 inches. by the end of the century 55 inches. coming to treasure island, this is not the best graphic image. this is what the condition that was delivered by the navy itself to tida. the contours there indicate the magenta is significant. that elevation is about today's 100 year elevation or what fema caused the base foot elevation. it is the extent of flueding f100 year treasure island f100 year tide were to oker. the north west portion would be

flooded and a small little tongue at the southeast corner. the other portions were elevated higher than the 100 year tide. in general they were about a foot to two feet above hundred year tides. when we started looking at the proposed programs there were two choices to be considered. they are going to have to build a levee around treasure island and protect it like redwood city or portions of the delta. to our thinking and working with the development team, it was an extremely progressive group of people that did not want to build a project that would have taken 20 years planning and

design and construction and at the end the protected communities. we saw what happened with katrina and others and since then. the decision was made and commitment was made that all of the development parcels are going to be elevated. not only are those the 100 year floodplain but it will occur a good amount of time in the future. that is where the scientists and the technical analysis ended up focusing on that number that we should design for at a minimum? the next few slides i am showing how curbs do not exist.

it is a big plan. it has gone into being a requirement. in many ways the designs are occurring. the numbers we have now still have not been updated for the past 21 years. all of the sea level rise estimates today in the newspapers or in the publications and usds use data up to the year of 2000. they haven't been updated. low, medium, high we don't know. we will know next year when they update. it is still maturing. the guidance in 2008 was not enough to support the code like the building agency or fema map would be.

these are examples for other phenomena. in this instance i am using this how you would typically design and based on the vulnerability and the consequence of the problem derm where the risk is the consequence of a failure is significant. the low bar for risk tolerance. the numbers down there are probability numbers which we as engineers use in our analysis. this one number here 475 years. what does that mean? the risk of 10% in 50 years. designing to an earthquake that

with have a probability of 10% of occurrence over the next 50 years. we don't have that sea level rise. this is information and estimates that existed at the time. with the ipcc and the national resource council which which develops estimates for the west coast. you can see the danger. the range of 8 inches to a projected estimate which nrc has given of 66 inches. how do we as planners make a decision about what level of sea

level rise to put into the plans itself? first thing as social engineers who worked both in the gulf and east coast and west coast, there is a big difference in the way our storms and properties are subject to flooding. that is a problem. east coast have very large variations in sea level which we don't have. our issue has been height, weight. we explained a typical shoreline around treasure island. what does it look like. this is typical. it is to scale where the elevation around treasure island is 12 to 14 feet elevation. that is the standard data used.

it matches the same as low tides. if it was 14 feet buffalo tied, this is 6 feet. someone could say you have 6 and the other 12, no problem. you have strong surges, it all elevates that to elevation of 9.1 which is what the fema number was when we started doing this. above that is potential for waive energy from the golden gate. what we see is very little left. no allowing for sea level rise. that is what started us to

think. build a levee. other communities adopted to move higher, abandon first floor elevations. move to the second floor. that is number 4 create buffers and adaptation strategy along with high capital investment to raise properties was the method deployed. we went through the consequences and risks, what will happen to the open space. there was a difference if the open space such as city waterfront park were to see a few inches of water 50 years from today, 800 year tied it may be acceptable. it is an open space and we would be okay. we cannot afford to have our streets and parking lots subject

to parking. the modeling analysis. this is the summary how we arrived at what is a well established fact of treasure island. this is the basis. 70 years was a time by the partners, development team and tida. 70 years is a good period of time. beyond 70 years it may be time to do some improvements to the assets that exist there. let's look at the high pest number that existed which happened tube in the year 2017. that was the driving factor.

we wanted to ensure beyond 2007, 70 years is not the end of the community. what happens at the end of the century. that would have been two feet higher. what can we do. that is the thinking for the post project as you see it. the 300-foot set back from the east shoreline -- west shoreline. the open spaces are all around. that became the design criteria this is the initial construction, existing perimeter at the time of development already what has happened phase

1a and b. the perimeter isvationrd. the elevation of the rocks that you see there and the difference between what has been done that you see here. this was also elevated for the promenade. the setback of 50 feet can now accommodate the sea level rise beyond today. without any improvements needed. in the future beyond three feet of sea level rise, what could be done. niece are potential options we are made of. it is for the western shoreline and this is the northern

shoreline. it is a mix of urban and more natural habitat to be utilized. we start out with what exists as you see here. this is being constructed as part of phase 2. the options beyond 36-inch chess. the community would want to have a say. 70 years from today what should be done. we give them options. you want to set back the open edge and pass, you could c this space more subject to storm related topping. those could be leveraged for weapons and habitat. we could do that. the other options were removing

the levee. portions of the island the levee would be taken down. when you take down a steep slope and rocks and replace with a shallow slope, the action is absolved by the flattening of the scope itself. the beach would be possible, marsh ems would be possible. the overall strategy for the sustainability portion was elevate the development area. in this case so many years at minimum. ensure there is a set back area with numbers exceed what is projected or planning beyond 70

years. the most important part. it was put into place which early in the next presentation i will talk about seeing it. we talked about all kinds of financing mechanismses, as a result of that there are plenty of options the community can use. money in place. there is space and there is time.

we could still very comfortably say that strategy was conservative enough with the new numbers the project design basis. i will open it up to questions. >> thank you so much for the presentation. i have a couple questions. i want to open it up to my fellow commissioners first if they have any questions. >> yes.

good afternoon. i had the honor of walking with you on the part of san francisco waterfront planning years ago. i am glad that you are here today. unfortunately you cannot see me, but i am taking notes. i think the timing of your presence here today at the beginning of the committee is crucial. there has been a lot of conversations among san francisco. again, our commission has not done a great job in actually letting the public know about how the process and the years and years of deliberations of the planning of the treasure

island and yerba buena development. you mentioned in your presentation that prior to the establishment of the plan there was extensive adaptability study and it was recommended for the elevation of development in some of the areas. my question on what you have seen so far is tida actually following the process that the engineering group and your group have suggested? i ask a question. i think i should hear from you your assessment as to how these developments are going. thank you.

>> i was trying to cover some of that. whatever the pleasure of the board is. >> those numbers were written into the permit. there is very little room we have to deviate from the strategy. the strategy became the basis for bcdc to establish climate change addendum that occurred in 2011. the numbers and strategy deployed for treasure island and working a lot during that day with world travelers. they like the idea, the approach.

they put it into the statement. that was the very first project approved after the 2011 guidance was issued. whatever we showed you in terms of the numbers, the options, the commitment for the project generated funding were all written in. these numbers i have shown became minimum numbers on phase 2a as we expand we are acceding the standards we had explained in the department fests. yes, the answer to the question it is being followed. the individual phases developed and the grading plans have all been approved using these

numbers themselves and deviate from that. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to ask a question. thank you for the presentation. we have been waiting for this presentation and there is so much factual information which i really appreciate. i understand the numbers you had in 2008, three feet at that time seemed like a lot. it was a time when we did not anticipate the say level lies. i believe you came up with the master plan was very small. you did have the setback from

the edge for development. the development was on higher ground you have a wild wetland that could be inundated. that would not affect the future tree development. my question to you is given the consequences of climate change and what we know now is three feet adequate? the time for treasure island if the sea level rise is more than 3 feet. now people are talking about five feet becoming standard. if it is 5 feet does that plan we have the developments that we are planning are they employing to be able to be protected?

>> one response i would have is at the time when all of the sign assists had come up -- scientists had come up with 69 inches there were any new medical estimates of probability or certainty assigned. those became model-based. global ocean instruments with no validation as to the risk. what happened in much 2018 was o pc. it was a fundamental objective to have the best availability time and bring in a new body ocean protection council. what they did even these numbers

that have guidance the good part and i will tear up the page of strong. they are fine numbers. what is the extra probability inform a number. 4 feet or 5 feet. this is the sea level rise shown as the guidance they look at the low and high commissions denial. we are not looking to be sure it is trending away. they assigned probabilities. pick a number. 5% probability sea level rise could exceed this number.

in 1995, the chance is the sea self-rise. in 2050 he will not exceed 1.4 feet. 9% chance in the year 20/planning was our planning number. we did not want to make any improvements some is 95% probility the sea level rise is below is 2.4 feet. november the the street for the buildings. the year of 2100 when you look at this. there is a 95% chance in 2100 the sea level rise is below 4.4 feet. >> what is the 2018 number?

>> these are 2018 numbers. 95%. if you start looking at the half percent, if there were a school orsive vision subter. they have be saying 95% is not enough. look at 99.5%. then we look at this column. if we look at 2.5 feet. guidance shows 99.5% probability that the sea level rise projection keeps going underneath the 3.5.

>> that validated the initial capture environment. someone could argue it didn't have five feet. can the project accommodate 10 feet? sure. tracking. that is what the department imposed upon the project. every five years they have to tell us what they owe as a footer. it turns out sea level rise has not occurred. >> it gives me comfort. i think the master plan was well

designed. we did receive accolades for both bcdc. thank you. >> your third-to-last slide, please pull that up. it showed the concrete barrier versus the gradual slope. >> a couple questions. you have been to the chicago lake front. it is a fresh water lake that is not exposed to the same conditions. a couple existing grade that is flat with the blocks to break the tie.

call in chicago the maintenance of the existing grade was high near. the south side on the southern part of lake how type. it had a lot of benefits. it was able to preliminarily absorb the waives there. thissy it's more. what is the ideal for the resident 100 years from now between these two? what are the big trade-offs? >> it is property. if you retreat and you flatten the shoreline, the more you flatten the more options you have to put into use more nature

base. we are showing sandy beaches. if i look at the exposure off the treasure island to exposure out at the open ocean. there is a big difference. do you see 25, 0-foot waves do not see it because of the beach. the sandy beach 20-1. our navy created the slope of about two horizontal to one vertical. that is the slope. ocean beach is 20 to 1.

marshes about 90 horizontal. the flatter i go, same exposure. the material is changed. is it possible to do this? yes, it is space. that is the reason for 303. maybe there is a happy medium. 5-1 can be accommodated. just laird bamthe renovation of the perimeter bracelet need to go as high and looks like this. we could do exactly the same or .it is the thing above the tide.

it is the tsunami and the surge that can be accommodated by flattening the shoreline. the tides with 6 feet of sea level drive which is essentially. from 6 to plus 12. tidal flooding did not occur. strong flooding would occur. >> if i wear hat. it is a boom for biodiversity, for the ecosystem itself. if treasure island wins the lot to, thank you very much. it is very insightful.

any other comments or questions from this body. >> yes. >> i know this is an irony comparing treasure island and we know the group studied not only treasure island but san francisco in general. what will you say to people listening how safe treasure island is. i read in the data that you are better off on treasure island and san francisco. from your assessment to let people know we are having all the recommendations. that is great. how do you assess the risk of

treasure island compared to mainlands san francisco? >> treasure island will be the model for a lot of the studies and plans that are going on not just in the bay area but beyond. fortunately, they are not comparable. 150 is 150 years old. middle of 19th century we are creating ashore line going to be sure for the next 20 years there will be flooding. 100 year tide, you might see a lot of emergency services and

starting to build up. >> any other questions or comments here? thank you for all your work and educating us on this project yourself. we hope to be interacting with you a lot more as we move ahead. thank you very much. public comment or questions. >> we have two callers in the queue. i will open the line. >> hello, commissioners and staff. eric brooks with our city. commissioner, it is good to see you even though you can't see

me. >> it is good to hear your voice. >> i don't know how many minutes i have got. i have a lot to cover. the key thing i am not hearing discussed at all is toxic and radioactive waste which has recently been discovered to be sure pricingly worse and cleanup scandals that have arisen around the cleanup contractors that worked on the island. you can talk about your projections for sea level rise how high you need to build things. you need to build to 60 feet, not 20. that doesn't account for after a couple feet of sea level rise water mixes with the toxic and radioactive chemicals in the ground water and will spread

those chemicals around. then if you add an second an eae and you have a tsunami from alaska. you have a katrina disaster on treasure island. your projections of sea level rise need to bereorganized dramatically to introduce the concept. especially in light of the fact they are not properly cleaned up. at the hearing on february 8, held at the board of supervisors land use contamination. even the stated department of public health admitted there were problems with the cleanup records. until we get a real school on

that, this is not add -- until we get a rescoop on that, this is not applicable. >> your time is up. next caller. >> bradley angel executive director of green action for health and environmental justice. thank you for discussing this important issue. it is very timely. since i just have a short time. i want to flag a couple of things. there is a set back and how to protect the building and environment. there is radioactive and toxic waste on the island. some removed and some kept by the waterfront. this is a train wreck of a disaster.

by failing to that's this in the presentation. i heard buildings. how about the radio use active waste our government thinks it is okay to leave by the waterfront. it can set back everything else but unless the toxic waste is properly testrd removed it is a disaster for all of san francisco bay. the sea level rise projections discussed are wrong r.i refer you to calcoastal -- california coastal commission and documents that say there is a significant risk of sea level rise at 7.6 feet quite.

i appreciate you discussing this. i would like to hear and not just in san francisco but the mill unions want to know to prevent sea leveling rise from gobbling up the waste. capping will not protect anyone. thank you. no other public comment. >> thank you, callers. ready to next item. >> item 5. treasure island geotechnical program.

>> good afternoon. members of the committee i am with mgm incorporated. we have been the geotechnical engineer on this project for a long time. we first started studying it in 003. -- 2003. what we are looking to present is an update on the program. we will start with a little bit of history and move to sort of what the implementation has been

of the plan that was many years in the making how to stabilize this island to make it suitable to support the proposed development and of course assure the life and safety of the occupants. a bit of brief history. treasure island was built by sand that was around the bay. we will get into the source of that sand. off the base floor and placing it in this shape on the island. where did that sand come from? this is the proposed development. it was a good exhibit to show that exact laying there before

the island was built was the result of natural giomophic process of what was occurring on yerba buena island. it was larger. after the sea level came up it was waive erosion and land slights out of in and depossit is on the baseboard. the island was built with the sand around here on to the shoulder existed. there was a big sandy possit is here. that was pay good foundation to build the island on. how did they do that? they put a dies on the floor

that was the natural floor or the base floor that exists because of the depositions. then they were to pump the sand behind it until they got to the top of the dike and another dike and another stage of fill until they achieved the elevation that was 13 or 14 feet above sea level. which they armored is the before. it should be noted in 1987, two years before the u.s. army corps of engineers placed another layer of rock which is what is there now on top of this. it was larger rock.

that rock was very helpful in containing the island without slows into the bay. here are exhibits of the construction. this is a dike, pump dresses, they are pumping it in the baseboard and tossing it. beef april. -- there are buildingsbeing bui. before we began the workout there, before we started, this is what it looked like. much of what we are talking about is related to the work

done to date in the first stage. give us a perspective of the size relative to togom footprint. the oils that exist the layering of the soil is very complex. there is work to identify precisely as to elevation and soil type. one thing to note on this exhibit if you can see this red line. that wobblevation of the floor before this yellow stuff is the pill. the base floor was here. because of the addition of that

waste, the weight of the fill it squeezed this gray stuff such that the old surface went from this red line to about right there. for the purpose of this presentation we oversimplified all of this. think of the layers of treasure island three categories. we have the fill placed on top of the show. we combined that to one thing. this is the natural bay deposit that is everywhere on the bay. they have the same mud that is

less than 50,000 years. beneath that we have a stiff clay. this is suppressible. this is liquefiable. what is the difference? this material will be in response to dynamic energy like an earthquake. it won't dense fifor static loads. we could pile dynamic tory range the article. this is just the opposite. you can shake it all you want. if we add any new loads it will

squeeze the water out and go down. that is why on the previous exhibit this line went down as it added the weight of this fill. for the first stage of development, mavof this is drudge trail and lower help. they are both home. what is the cure? we developed a program to identify this which we will go into. we developed a need to dense fior consolidate this through static loading. the situation before we started the work was that most of the

settlement on the right side which is the you are babanena side. at the north ends where it is thicker to up 22 fit. it is still settling will 5 years after contradiction. the objectives of the program are to identify the sandy sale. to make it earthquake proof. to compress the layer underneath, the mud. when we add the fill we are elevating the island to guard against sea level rise. we are going to add weight. we are going to pre-compress so that we had no longer have to

said you proceeds. we need to strengthen the shoreline so in an earthquake it does not laterally deform to the bay. here is a graph cal depiction of the program. everything in the light yellow color is dense fid through dynamic energy which we will go through. everything that is cross hatched will be sure charged. temporary static mode to squeeze

water out of that layer to precompress it. along the shore lime we have a very robust strengthening tram to protect the edge we have proposed near the edge such as the ferry terminal and marina and only bites closer than the edge than the rest of the development. this is a lot of thought and collaboration went into this. we originally convened a blue ribbon panel in 2007 to validate the concepts that had been proposed. during the very long studty period and design process there were many collaborators and of

course many public agencies reviewed and ultimately permitted. we each had to go back. the sequence of ground improvement. first, we install bricks into the ground. a generic name. i thinksy better name would be straws into the ground. either is right. it is like a straw that has holes in it wrapped by a fiber. it goes into the ground and its only purpose is to fasilsaid sessescape of the water. it doesn't provide long-term benefit. it speeds the process.

at the north ends we are 80, 85 years down the road and we don't want to wait decades. to speed it up we put in the huge witch. that is the fell that was displaced. then we placed the static load on it and let it it is there for a while and monitored that. finally the edge treatment to arden the em prevent it from receiving that or -- to the edge to prevent it from receiving that. this is the wick rig. it pushes these 150 feet to the

ground. the bottom of that young bay must then we follow with this program. there you have what vibrates the four columns and displaced the sand so you can see in this cartoon make up sand is placed in there to create the suppression. in 2015-16 we mobilized this proprietary advanced technology from japan where they had experience, good experience, for many years. we needed to validated so we

chose a test site for a series of sets. the test side is the four quadrants. we installed many, many strums in this area. we apply liver present edges of energy to fine tune and two days the result. this is the test area. this is displacement and densification. it is hard to get a sense of the scale here. this piece of equipment is a large expediteter. you can get a sense of it a little bit. this was out of the winter of 1819, i believe.

we were just going along doing this improvement over vast areas just to give you a sense that we had 50,000 of these probe elements just in phase one. we have 7 million linear feet of wicks. end to end they would reach halfway across the country. then we followed up with the chaplain. 16,000 of he's. we followed with the tamper. the process leaves the surface loose. we had to prepare the surface to receive the new fill. you might note by the time we were finished. the elevation of the ground had

dropped significantly. it was up here when we started. now we are down here. which was expected. then we surcharged. you can see the two large temporary. we monitor with extensive instrumentation. different garths with instruments to monitor but also to the efficacy of the sale matter. the predictions were spot on because of the analysis we defor years before that. it was accurate. these surcharge with the amount

of time necessary to achieve the settlement targets. again, we removed that material down to wherever we want the finish elevation of island to be. you can imagine when we placed these they start out at certain elevation then settle down and we remove the upper portion and leave behind the elevation we want. if h the last step is deep soil mixes to protect the edge. this is on the causeway. the causeway got personal treatment. it is the ingress and egress point for the island and major utility corridor. we did the compaction

extensively on the causeway. this particular machine has four augers each five feet in diameter. it mixes down to as much as 90 feet to give us that extra protection that we need. the soil is now in place. we are not removing the soil. we are mixing it in place. that is the end of the major part of the presentation. we can entertain questions or talk about the other things that have come up. >> thank you. this was terrific. bob, did you have something to add to this?

>> no, that is the presentation for now. >> director richardson has some questions? >> yes, thank you. we should make it a point to invite you regularly and at some point this topic is so important that i think we have to let the education process so that everyone in san francisco can understand. in the last presentation, he mentioned that treasure island development sea level rise is a model for the entire country. that was very significant. your presentation you went through this lengthy process of the state-of-the-art technology

that is not used anywhere in the country and world and outlined the des fiction, deep soil and you hear about the community concerns about what is going to happen. how do you say how safe is the development of treasure island? i am reading the data but hearing from you and the experts, i think, is very helpful. if you could just answer those questions. >> yes, thank you for the question. the standards here are the highest standards that are promulgated today for safety and stability. there is a new building code that went into effect january 1

of 2020 which among other things increased the seismic demand on new construction. this meets all of those standards. i would say in regard to your question earlier about how this compares to the embarcadero there is no comparison. the embarcadero was built a long, long time ago. similar to treasure island it has fill, it has fill that was placed on the bay floor. these techniques and safeguards were not in place. they didn't know about it back then. it is much more seismically

susceptible than treasure island. treasure island is built to the very highest standards today in terms of building codes and regulatory requirements. the work that has been done here to stablelize the island and analyze this, you can imagine i love to talk about this. i could talk for longer than anyone is interested. it is published and well recognized internationally. >> thank you, sir. >> i don't have any questions, but i have praise. thank you for making it so clear, especially to lay people

like us. it was a very clear presentation. it gives us insight on all of the different things going on geotech nickly. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. i will make one more point. in terms of resilience and sort of long-term operations, there is a very, very robust data set. can you see myceen now? >> yes. >> this green area is where we install the layer on the gif. >> your power point is still up.

very quickly. it is valuable to note that all of these activities are extremely well recorded and documented and there is a database that tida has access to. this green area is where they

were. it is not a solid green area. it is made up of hundreds of thousands of dots. every dot if we click on any dot, what we have is information on that particular wick. lots of data on everyone of these dots. each one represents a wick that went into the ground. there are 70 million feet of these wicks. you can see all of the various attributes of each wick. this is something that will be kind of a living record for the future so that we know where everything is and we know a lot about everything. similar to the wicks, we have

one for the compaction. same sort of thing. we can go in here and click and learn a lot about when it was done and many pieces of information about it. lastly, just to give a sense of the mixing which is that which hardens the edge and gives us protection about sea level rise and wave action. let me turnoff this layer and go to this one.

we have multiple methods of stabilizing. in some areas there was no room so we did resort to structural solutions. you can see we are nearly complete now at 98% complete with that work. if we want to know where each of these are, these are sheer walls buried in the ground to give rigidity to the edge. to stabilize it from lateral movement. with that i will stop sharing and stop talking.

>> i think there was a question. >> this is so impressive to see the great work you have done. if you could have done something different or the money to allow you to do something with new technology, what would it have been? >> that is a great question. i think in terms of the methods applied, i don't think we would have done anything different. further sequencing in terms of sort of preparation for unknowns, we did have some delays related to the inability to install the deep soil mixing.

i hate to do this but i am going to pull it up again. these columns, as i said there are 10,000 of them. see where they are red here? that is because when we drilled down, when the contractor did, we hit that old dike that we talk about in the very beginning. it was very difficult. in some cases we couldn't get through it. we had to sort of quickly design and implement a structural solution which is much, much more costly to take the place of the deep soil mixing that didn't get to the design depth. i think that we lost a lot of time in that.

we probably would have been better off having some designs in our back pocket. there is nothing you can do. it is what it is. if we would have anticipated it we could have johnny on the spot and implemented that. i can't think of anything else. i will tell you that when we had the rig from japan to do this. we learned an awful lot. that is one thing we would do again on every project. in terms of which laters were identifiable and what amount of energy was optimal for densifying the sand? that was a god send. we had the luxury of things that tida and the project developer

and the area was carved out for us and we had free reign to do what we wanted. being able to do a full-scale test like that is just invaluable. >> thank you. >> any other questions from this body? >> i would just like for you to maybe summarize for us without these geotechnical improvements, without any improvements to the island, in fact, the island would be forward in being exposed to the geotechnical events?

>> very much so. there are two distinct issues, geotechnical concerns here. both of which would have not been mitigated would result in unacceptable performance. one is as you mentioned the liquid. that is seismic, not static. when the big one comes, which it will, that fill layer would liquefy. it turns into a liquid. it would have certainly slowed laterally into the bay. the improvement with the vibration is to eliminate that concern.

the second concern is when we plan for sea level rise, we have to elevate the island a bit. more so as we go northward. that adds weight to the island and would induce a new round of settlement. that compressed layer under the under theliquid layer. that would be static settlement. all of the surface improvements would settle. you could put every building on piles and the buildings wouldn't settle. plaza, utilities, park facilities would settle.

with this comprehensive mitigation program to address both of those concerns. related concern is the lateral stability of the shoreline. it would only be triggered in a seismic event. that is yet a third concern that we have to mitigate. >> thank you. >> anyone else? >> thank you. we need to bring you back again. >> thank you, board members. i have to say, you know, i appreciate the kind words. i just get to be the mouthpiece. there is a whole team that did the real work. they are very, very passionate about this project.

i wish they could all be here. >> we are passionate, too, and you made a great presentation which is clearly understandable. thank you again. >> please give our thanks to your team on our behalf. thank you very much for this. with that do we have any public comment? >> yes, we have two callers in the queue. i can open one. >> welcome, please go ahead. you have two minutes. >> i am james pepper. i am looking at the 1994 u.s. geological survey deep instrumentation array at the treasure island naval station. the lateral stress was six times that of -- because of the sand.

the effect of the earthquake was six times that of other areas in the bay area. i hope you all address that. it is in the name of the overall report as being the october 17, 1989 earthquake. ground motion and ground failure report. the other thing when you were pounding away on the causeway. did you all file a permission to do that with the fish and wildlife and the marine mammal commission? that is the area where the seals feed. >> sure. may i address the question? >> yes, please.

>> with regard to the postponement. the u.s. gs seismic array north of the stage one area and towards the west age of the island. it recorded ground motions and other less significant earthquakes. the seismic response, lateral acceleration that occurred at the surface of treasure island was significantly greater than yerba buena island because of the amly fiction from the bedrock. in perspective, the peak down acceleration recorded if i recall correctly was .12g. that is .12 times acceleration

of gravity. in that range. the design that we design to is four times that. .460 because we are designing for a much higher intensity see haven't. we are between the hayward and san andrea fault. we are beyond the measured ground motions in the bay area. as to the second question about the causeway. we have said in the beginning that sand needed to be dense fid with dynamic energy. there are two ways. one is impact which is what the caller is referring to. the other is vibration. we chose vibration and not impact. a significant part of the region

is what we stated. we didn't want to have effects beyond the soil that was being improved. to put that in perspective did he have cassie of that system is only about 6 feet away from the vibratory recolumns in the presentation. it only improves the specific area where it is applied. unlike impact energy which has waves that propagate much further out. >> one more caller. i will open the line. >> good afternoon, commissioners and staff. eric brooks with our city san

francisco. i respectfully have to take issue with the idea that this plans is a model for the united states. i think that if that is the case that is the fact the infrastructure plan anything the united states is bad and lacking. i will use sea level rise which affects this item as an example. what i was not able to say in the previous item the projections of sea level rise of bradley angel of 7.5 feet are exceeded by those of former nasa scientist james hansen who said we could get five to seven meters of sea level rise by 2100. meters, not feet. what that brings to crystallize all of this. in none of the projects that i have done comment on the

environmental impact reports have i seen the standard engineering practice for project safety of 100% margin of error beyond worse case scenario. that is standard practice by engineers. if we use 100% margin of error on sea level rise your standard would be your 5 feet plus possible 8 feet of inundation from tsunami you need to build for 26 feet. under bradley angel 31 feet. james hansen it is up to 6 feet -- 50 to 60 feet. the fact in regard to sea level rise the plans is dramatically inadequate even by bradley angel's standards which are a safe metal ground. i have to assume 100% margin of

error is not in item 5 either. the sea level rise what level of permanent intundation would change the assumptions in item 5 and make them have to beredone. a lot io more work needs to be done not including the toxic and radioactive chemicals. >> thank you your two minutes is up. thank you. there are no more callers in the queue. >> i think that mike had to leave for another meeting. this brings to the end this committee meeting. any other item on the agenda? >> item 6 discussion of future agenda items by directors. >> the directors have any future agenda items to bring up?

hearing none. >> i would like to circle back to the work we are doing with the requirements of san francisco county and the state permitting energy zero and some of the other districts that we have spoken about before. >> for me to be clear it is on the the energy you want to bring up the san francisco standards on energy? >> the county use of not just energy but the entire sustainability goals, energy zero. >> if that could be a future topic. how we compare to the san francisco requirements or goals.

>> anything else? hearing none. we can add june. this was very informative session. really appreciate this. you did a wonderful job. thank you so much. >> thank you everyone. >> thank you.

>> when i open up the paper every day i'm just amazed at how many different environmental issues keep popping up. when i think about the planet i want to leave for my children and other generation, i think of what contribution i can make on a personal level to the environment. ♪♪♪ clean power sf is san francisco's key way of fighting climate change by renewable energy and offering it to san francisco customers. i'm from the san francisco public utilities commission. the program came about with state wide legislation in 2002 to enable people to take more control over supplies. i first heard of the program

when the organization was advocating to launch clean power sf. what i'm most excited about, it's going to bring 100% renewable energy to my home and reinvest into renewable energy infrastructure and jobs. i had gone to a lot of street fairs and heard from the staff at the san francisco public utilities commission to sign up for clean power sf even before it launched. >> we learned about clean power sf because our sustainability team is always looking for clean operations. linkedin is the largest online network. there are about 530 million members using our site. in this san francisco office there's about 1400 employees

working in roughly 400,000 square feet. >> after signing up for the program we heard about the san francisco program and learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. i'm the co-owner of the new wheel electric bike shop. we opened this store in 2012 and the new wheel sells and services electric bikes. 11 people work here in san francisco and our store is about 2,000 square feet. electric bikes are fantastic for transportation in the city, they're clean and green and you get places faster than any other form of transportation. it amplifies the power, it doesn't replace it. it makes it easier to get places by bicycle and it's so enjoyable and environmentally friendly way to go and more convenient in san francisco. >> clean power sf requires two

products, green, 40% renewable and competitively priced with pg and e. for those who want to fight climate change more, 100% renewable at $0.02 per kilawatt. >> i decided to go with the super greens, after finding it only to cost about $5 more a month to have super green, that's a no-brainer, i can do that. >> we were pleased that clean power sf offers the super green 100% for commercial entities like ours and residents for the city of san francisco. we were pleased with the package of services for linkedin and now encouraging our employees who have a residence in san francisco to sign on as well. >> clean power sf buys its power

from renewable plants that feed the energy directly into the grid. >> there's a commitment to sustainability throughout the entire organization and this clean power opportunity reflects that. >> one of the wind farms we use is the shilo wind farm and that is large enough to be able to provide energy for up to 200,000 homes. >> our mission is sustainability, even though our bikes are minimal energy use, it still matters where the energy comes from and part of our mission in sustainability is how we run everything -- run our business. having the lights come on with clean energy is very important. >> the sunset reservoir has solar panels that take up about four city blocks covering the reservoir and the solar power generates energy for city

resources and clean power sf for residents participating in the program. >> it was easy to sign up for the program, i went online to cleanpowersf.org and i started getting pieces in the mail letting me know i was going to be switched over and it just happened. when i pay my bill, i still go to pg and e and i don't see any difference between now and a year ago. >> sign up online, just have your account number ready and it takes about two minutes and there's nothing to install. no lines are getting connected to your home. all the power goes through the existed power grid. >> we haven't had any problems with the switch over to clean power. >> it's super easy to sign up. our book keeper signed up online, it took about 15 minutes. nothing changed but now we have cleaner energy.

>> we see clean power sf as a key strategy to meet renewable energy goal, we have a goal of 50% renewable energy by 2020. currently we have enrolled about 86,000 customers across the city. about 20% of what we hope to serve in the future and in the next two years we'll offer service to all san francisco electricity customers. >> an easy way to align your environmental responsibilities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. >> joining clean power sf is one of the easiest ways to fight climate change, receiving cleaner energy at low and stable rates, you're helping to support a not for profit that helps influence the energy grid and produce more production. >> i would encourage any

business to seriously convert to the clean sf service. it's good for environment, business and the community. >> you can sign up online our call and the great thing is, you'll have the peace of mind that you're doing your part in your household to help the environment. ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪

>> this is the public utilities commission. madam secretary, take the roll, please. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: we have a quorum. before we get started, madam president, i would like to make an announcement. due to the covid-19 emergency and the public health recommendations issued by the san francisco department of health and the governor and the mayor have looked into restrictions on teleconference. this meeting is being held by teleconference and televised. for those of you watching the live stream, be aware there is a lag. on behalf of the commission, i would like to extend our thanks