i do advice to the apple applelantsyou have not responde. in two weeks this board will make a decision one way or the other this board will make a decision. it would be best if you sat down and hashed this out if you like each other or not. you have millions of dollars of real estate here. you need to sit down. in two weeks this board will make a decision if you like it or not. that is to both parties permit holder and applelant. >> so the parties can try to work together on a solution. >> correct. >> if i may add something that is important to address --

duffy. it would be are you department s the concerns and ensure that you provide detail on structural concerns or anything like that. this might go away there may no longer be a firewall if you proceed. i want to make sure that we are covering our bases in terms of the concerns but ensuring full permit you are talking to the planning department as necessary and things like that so we can put this to bed. >> ensuring that deputy director duffy concerns are addressed and appropriate detail is provided? >> with building and planning. decks and everything requires both departments. >> okay. we have a motion from president honda to continue this matter to may 5th so the parties can work

on a solution. they can address the concerns expressed by deputy director duffy and deputy administrator scott sanchez. commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that passes. thank you 4-0. this matter is kinked to may 5th. to the parties. the president allowed three pages of briefing. your brief is due 4:30 p.m. on the thursday prior to the hearing. i will send out an e-mail with the details tomorrow. this concludes this matter for now. >> thank you everyone. see you in two weeks. >> thank you, sir.

>> remote hearings require everyone's attention and most of all your patience. if you're not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public participation, sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live. we will receive public comment on each item of the ginned. comments are available by calling 415-655-0001, enter access code that's on your screen. when we reach the item you're interested in commenting on,

press star 3 to enter the queue. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining, your time will be up. best practices are to call from a quiet location and mute the volume on your tv or computer. i'd like to take roll. [ roll call ] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposal for continuous. items (a) and (b).

6424 3rd street/188 key avenue - northeast intersection of 3rd street and key avenue, lot 002 of assessor's block 5470 (district 10) - request for conditional use authorization, pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 712 to demolish the existing one-story commercial building and allow new construction on a large lot (10,206-square-foot lot) within a nc-3 (neighborhood commercial, moderate scale) zoning district and 40-x height and bulk district. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of ceqa, pursuant to san francisco administrative code section 31.04(h). newsletter under the calendar item 11. there is a proposal for a continuance for several weeks to june 17. and item 12, 13, and finally

under your discretionary review calendar item 16 at 140 through 142 there is a request for a discretionary review. we no other items for continuance. we will take public comment. public, press star 3 to be added to the queue. you will have three minutes. >> on 50 and 67 california street i think it is vital that you do that because there are some very irregular issues here. for one thing there is the

height map. now, i noticed that it said it was not consistent with the highlighting map, no. it was not just discovered this february. you know, i was informed about a proposal for going beyond the 65 at a meeting, i don't know at 2019. and i immediately called the planner who assured me that the entire district was for this length. a project has been issued for seven storeys or something like that within the 75 feet which at that time wasn't active or something like that. when the project was suddenly on the agenda for 680 feet, i notified you of that fact and it was approved anyway. and then i went on for months

trying to get before the appeal time ran out, by the way, i kept trying to get from your staff the maps. what are the maps? okay. and there i attempted to contact the board of supervisors. i was told don't e-mail, bring it in and then told i might be arrested for being on the street. when i mailed it, the board of supervisors didn't know what to do. for several maps i had been asking for the maps. i was planning to get them because they weren't forthcoming, when the maps came last summer, they had been changed. i kept trying to find out what has happened here? where are the zoning maps that were passed unanimously by the

board of supervisors and scott sanchez, i to -- >> clerk: thank you, ms. chapman, that is your time. >> i am here for the sponsor on 156 california street. we did not request a continuance. this matter was continued two weeks ago and is set for a continuance today, so i'm not sure how a continuance is being considered here. supervisor peskin requested one two weeks ago. the issue that ms. chapman brings up is a mistake in the

zoning. that is why today's hearing is being held to resolve that issue and the staff is prepared to resolve that. i don't see a need for a further continuance at this location and i ask that you not continue this matter and hear it today. >> clerk: commissioners, in case you have staff, i believe staff is online in case you have questions related to that continuance request. >> hello. i have a question about 6424 third street. has it been continued?

>> clerk: yes, that's being considered at the moment. the proposal is for it to be continued to may 13. >> am i able to make comments or questions? >> clerk: only on the matter of continuance. this is not a q&a period. >> i have e-mailed in my questions. i am a resident across the street. >> clerk: if you have no questions on the continuance, they will respond to your questions. members of the public, last call. you have two minutes. >> my name is michael kohola and

i'm a resident on wood street and i want to comment on the 2800 dairy boulevard that's asked for continuance today. i represent sort of a group of probably 15 or so adjacent households to the project and we are in support of the continuance which was june 17. the developer and the neighbors are working collaboratively on a variant design to the project and we would very much appreciate the continuance. thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, that concludes public comment on matters proposed to be continued and they are now before you. as stated, mr. perry is on the line to respond to any questions on the california street continuance. >> i would like to have

mr. perry explain to us what the issues are. >> yes, thank you, commissioner marr. good afternoon, commissioners. the issue with california is a ceqa related matter that was identified just prior to the hearing. the current ceqa document on the project contains a small piece of information that has changed sijsst since it was issued and would need to be updated so we cannot take action on the matter. staff is asking for a two-week continuance in order to address that matter. >> clerk: thank you. commissioner imperial. >> move to continue all items as

proposed. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion to continue items as proposed. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: that will motion passes unanimously placing this under your consent calendar, all matters under this calendar are considered to be acted on as routine. there will be no separate discussion of these items. the item can be removed from the consent calendar. item 4, 2021-00485 cua and item

52021-000389 drp at collingwood street, a discretionary review. this is the chance to ask that these two items are pulled off. you need to press star 3 to enter the queue. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. >> i would move the consent calendar as proposed. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve with conditions items 4 and take the discretionary review as modified for item 5. [ roll call ]

>> clerk: that motion passes unanimously 7-0. that places us on commission matters, item 6, consideration of adoption draft minutes for april 15, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> clerk: on that motion. [ roll call ]

>> clerk: that motion passes unanimously 7-0. item 7 commission comments and questions. >> this is a request to director hillis. in recent months we have had a number of questions before us regarding the amount of open space that is regarding those projects. it instruct me that it might be useful instead of just looking at those projects on a case-by-case basis to look at the overarching policies that are guiding some of our decisions as applied to these projects. three issues in particular instruct me as warranting maybe some analysis to the commission. there may be others, but the

three that jumped out for me are as follows. one, why do we have different open space standards for group housing versus residential? it seems like the standard for group housing is less of the amount per open space is less than residential and i'm wondering what the rationale is for that distinction and if it still makes sense, it's especially in light of the very large group housing projects we are seeing presented on the face of it. the density of those projects makes me question why they have a lower asked than the regular projects. covid has shown us how important it is for access to open space. a number of us have been asking

about open spaces. there is space for residents to have individual open spaces. we've been made aware that current standards for balconies require that they be quite large in order to count as open space and we've seen a desire on commissioners including myself so that balconies are large enough for one or two chairs so people can at least sit outside. i wonder if we can take a look at why it is that the standards discourage people from adding private balconies. it seems to me we are doing just the opposite. thirdly, and i'm not sure there is an answer to this but i'm worrying about it a lot.

is there a way for the city to look at its own regulations to preserve the argument that there is some bare minimum that needs to be provided? we've seen varying degrees for concession on open space and as we look into the future i think we will see a lot more state and city bonus projects. i'm not suggesting if we look at these issues and see that changes are warranted that we would apply toes changes to projects very far long in the process. but i think it's useful if you create a step back and take a look at the policy issues behind open spaces are warranted and for those of us newer on the commission to understand why the rules are the way they are.

>> i think we can schedule a discussion as this issue has come up by various commissioners. happy to schedule an informational item in the next couple of months to talk about it. >> thank you. that would be appreciated. >> i was just nodding along with everything said. i think so yesterday the city and county was at 69% so hopefully we're at 70% of residents who have their first vaccination, at least one vaccination shot. i'm so proud of our city. i know we have so much heartache and so much pain in the pandemic. i would encourage anyone who

hasn't been vaccinated to get vaccinated so we can hopefully get back to something that looks like fully open california, whatever that looks like. i'm thrilled and looking forward to a good summer. and i want to think about michael christianson who offered a report for us on san francisco. i appreciated the analysis you provided of where people are and the status of the cannabis dispensaries in san francisco, so thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if there are no additional commissioner comments and questions, we can move on to department matters. item 8, director's announcements. >> thank you. i just wanted to take a moment during this meeting to resides, celebrate, and thank delvin

washington who is joining us today. he's retiring this week, tomorrow, after 24 years of service with the department. delvin joined in 1997 which may not seem like a long time ago, but if you look at the issues of the day, we were blockbusters. he is a team leader and has been leading the southeast section of the quadrant for many years. many of you know delvin from his years on the commissioner. like i say, it was great to see a case that delvin was managing. he's a great problem solver. personality-wise, he made the room brighter. he's calm and cool and has an

infectious smile. he's been a great planner to newcomers and he's monitored extraordinary planners in the department. his presence will be missed. he's not leaving the pay area. he was born and raised in oakland, where it sounds like he's going to stay. him and his wife are joining us, his wife of 30 years. he's going to wrap up his community-based work and advocate for the community-based cupes. we thank him for his service to the city. >> it's been an awrn with san

francisco planning. there's been a lot of growth in the department. we've doubled in side. it's an excellent group of people. i can see just the fact that we have a staff memberer on the planning commission and a former commission member on staff. we are making moves to make it a more inclusive department. we're striving to make it better and i'm very proud of it. now, it's been an honor working with san francisco. i was just a little skinny kid growing up in east oakland, but i just always felt if you keep a good attitude on what you're

trying to do, you can reach your goals, learning from the department and people that i've been able to bring to the department's family. i'm really proud of the staff i've been able to fire and gone on to have a lot of good work with the city. i have nothing but joy and honor and pride that i worked with this organization. you haven't heard the last of me. i will keep in touch.

my wife has been doing volunteer inoculations. it's been beautiful and i've really enjoyed working with the department and the city. it's been great. >> thanks for your very kind words and he is very cool and calm under pressure in what he does at work and at home are completely different. he's not a planner at home. >> she does all the planning. >> so no, he's enjoyed it. really been a great career for him at the city. he's very proud of who he hired and who he worked with and his late nights at the commission

have not been unlike mine. i wanted to thank globally the department. >> i've almost circled the bay. >> i want to start by saying, again, thanks for everything, delvin. first of all, i'm extremely jealous. enjoy your free time from here on out. i hoped this was something we could do in person. i think the last time we saw each other face-to-face was a retirement party. at least i have that memory with you. best wishes. >> i had the pleasure of working

face-to-face with delvin over the years, not just in chambers, but also in the planning department because there were meetings that required us to be present. the one thing is he very much camouflaged his age. he doesn't look like retirement and he never did even then. we worked on quite a few. he looks like he was 20 years younger than retirement. i have my fellow commissioners who did not have the pleasure of meeting you three-dimensionally, he is a wonderful person and you will be greatly missed. all the best and you are lucky your wife is retired too.

the world is yours. all the best. thank you. >> it's really great to at least virtually see you. i just can't agree more. there is definitely no way to fill your shoes and who you are in the department. i'm excited for you and proud that i got to work alongside of you. maybe you can teach more public servants how to remain cool under pressure. you can send me some tips if you

have them. >> i'll do that happen [laughter]. >> as someone who used to represent applicants in front of the commission and i worked with the department in that capacity, i wanted to let you know that i always felt a sense of relief when you were brought in to a matter because we knew that we would get your unique blend of progt /* progt pragmaticism. >> clerk: that concludes commissioner comments. i'll just say, congratulations, delvin. he's all yours.

does that conclude announcements? >> it does. >> clerk: item 9. review of past events at the board of supervisors. i don't have any update. >> aaron starr manager of legislative affairs. a quick report today at the land use this week, the community heard of the land martin house which is eligible for this status because it has made a contribution to san francisco history. this is associated with the history of the [indiscernible] -- the first lesbian organization in the

united states and is the first of this kind here. we heard this item on february 17 and recommended approval. at first there were three members of the public who spoke in favor and none against it. the full board was recommended this. the landmark designation, allegory of california, this starts the landmark in process but still needs to be reviewed. that's all i have for you today. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. if there are no questions from the commissioner to mr. starr through the chair there is a member of the public requesting to speak.

shall we find out what they want to say. >> i was calling for general public comment, but i want to congratulate delvin washington and i will wait back in line for public testimony. we will miss you, delvin. >> clerk: commissioners, again, if there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment. members of the public, you can address the commission. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity will be afforded. people can address the commission for up to three minutes and when the member speaks, the item may be moved to the end of the agenda. you need to press star 3 to be entered into the queue.

when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indicate to start speaking. >> this is sue hester again. the commission needs to follow its own rules and regulations. the commission rules require that staff packets are due one week in advance of a hearing, which is thursday before 5:00 which is close of business currently they're only available when the agenda comes out late friday afternoon. it's too late at that point for members of the public to read and send comments to commissioners. that is a really important issue. i really request the staff packets get reverted back to regular release. secondly, the planning commission imposes time limits on speakers. the public is allowed three

minutes generally on the first hearing on an issue. when they're continued and there's a second hearing, it's normal that the planning commission would have a reduced time limit for that place, but the hearing two weeks ago on 468 turk was announced a one-limit time limit on the first hearing. it was a esero hearing, very complicated, big project in the tenderloin. if the public testimony is truncated by the president and it gives the president to do that, it should be announced that he's doing that publicly and not just announced by the secretary that there's a one-minute time limit. second issue is besides the

rules and retaliations, what should be a three-hour hearing becomes five hours. please calendar a discussion of going back to city hall. >> clerk: that is your time. >> congratulations to mr. washington. i sent you some pictures of a house and just sent you something else about it too. it may be on the screen, it may not. anyway. this is a house that had a

[indiscernible] -- it's an alteration permit. it's sold for $950,000 in 2014 then the entitlement was sold for $2.9 million in 2017 and it just recently sold -- well, october of 2020 for $4.23 million. so there were no complaints to planning enforcement, but if you look at the pictures that i sent in and they're not on the screen, but that's okay. i understand the problem, i think that it's a further issue with the alter rations and demolitions and all that. i'll just make one more point -- there it is up there. maybe a house like this, an

a-rated house is something that should be analyzed by the cultural resources group that will do that and i know they have no eval on this. if you look at the garage door if you ever see it, there was supposed to be wooden slats and instead a glass door. it sounds like being fussy about it, but i think it's important for an a-rated house, never mind the details of the work done on it. common sense, it looks like a demolition. thank you. take care. be well. be safe. goodbye. >> linda chapman, you have somewhere in your department who are issuing maps that are

absolutely contrary to the height limits after 5,000 signatures were gathered and conferred with robert pathmore who was our mentor about who height limit we should request. we were willing to go above the 40 feet that the planning commission intended to give us until chinatown -- well, what became chinatown t.b.c. had objections. we went and talked with gordon what was their concern. ours was to conserve the rental housing with demolition the and profile and so on and so forth. the concern was maybe if there was a buyer 40 feet there would have to be a garage and housing. we conferred about the fact that retail might need another 15 feet. we requested 50 to 65 feet in

the whole area that we're talking about here. we requested 80 feet rightly or wrongly. and we were requested to accept 160 feet. well, that turned out to be a mistake. everything that was up there was planned to be demolished. we had to fight to change that. we also later requested downsizing the 80-foot area. those things were passed unanimously by the board of supervisors as far as i know. maybe after the map that was found, there were additional changes. how hard can it be to find the maps passed by the board of

supervisors? one, you need to investigate who this planner is and come up with the maps. >> clerk: that is your time. members of the public, last call for general public comment. seeing no request to speak, general public comment is closed. item 10, case 2016-01600 env for the sfpuc southern skyline boulevard ridge trail extension project. the public comment for this item ended earlier. public comment may be received, but a public comment may not be included in the final d.i.r.

>> i am tim johnson, planning department staff and environmental coordinator for the southern skyline boulevard extension project. should i share my screen? >> clerk: you have been provided privileges and should be able to do that now. >> here we go.

case-by-case. >> i will provide a brief overview of the environmental review process and the provisions. the project site is in the sfpuc watershed. the site is undeveloped except for some roads and dams existing with reservoirs. case by case -- transfer of a

public access easement along the existing ridge trail segment to the sfpuc. dose and supervise access along the 5 k ridge hill as well as unrestricted access along a new bridge trail. variant one consists of access along an unfenced ridge trail and/or an unfenced southern skyline ridge trail. variant two is unrestricted access along a fenced southern

ridge trail. variant three consists of restricted access along a fenced ridge trail and/or a fenced southern skyline ridge trail. regarding biological resources, the proposed project and variants two and three would result in the spread of plant pathogens that cause death to certain plants and variants two and three would cause impacts to special status species. the proposed projects as well as variants two and three would increase the risk of conflicts between vehicles and cyclists or

pedestrians attempting to cross state route 92 where no marking exists. due to the project's significant and unavoid impacts, the sfpuc would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the proposed project. the e.i.r. analyzed four project alternatives. the no project alternative, a relocated parking lot and trailhead as well as an alternative trail alignment. only the no project alternative would have all the impacts identified in the d.i.r. relocating the parking lot and trail head south of state route 92 would avoid the impact on the transportation hazard, but not

on biological resources, whereas the pedestrian-only access and alternative alignments would not avoid the transportation impact, but each would not avoid the transportation impact and would still each cause at least one of the significant and avoidable impacts on biological resources. the impacts including noise, transportation and wildlife and hazards. this site identifies the key dates of the ceqa review. in summary, the department solicited and incorporated the public on the scope of the analysis and held public hearings on the planning

process. the public submitted comments [indiscernible] which covered a range of topics. the department published the responses to comments on the draft e.i.r. on april 14, 2021. we also issued an errata on april 19, adding a comment letter to the letter from s.f. urban riders that we had inadvertently omitted from the april 14 responses to comments document. all of the issues raised in this letter related to the accuracy are fully addressed in the april 14 responses.

these documents have been provided to the commission as part of the project's hearing packet. the responses document in combination with the draft e.i.r. constitute the final e.i.r. which is before you today for certification. the final e.i.r. is adequate and provides decision-makers and the public with the information required pursuant to ceqa to understand the potential environmental impacts of the project as well as the alternatives and mitigation measures. on this basis we request that the commission adopt the certification most before you. this motion does not approve the project, but ensures the content and procedures comply with ceqa. this concludes my presentation on the e.i.r. certification and i will be available for questions during the public comment period. >> clerk: thank you, tim. members of the public, this is

your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star and 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. we had one caller requesting to speak and then none -- oh, there we go. you have two minutes. go ahead caller. last chance, caller. okay. we'll take the next person queued to speak.

>> our plan is 70% complete with almost 40 miles. this project [indiscernible] 60 miles of bridge trail which is which is one of our largest projects. no other project in the e.i.r. achieves the stated objectives related to the bridge trail nor [indiscernible] -- two other

highway locations along highway 35 and lower crystal springs. the counsel looks to address the highway crossing in the future. we strongly support the staff recommendation of a permit access program for this ridge trail. this program would provide more access for the watershed lands. thank you for the opportunity to

comment on this important project. our volunteers all encourage action to -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> i am a native of the bay area. i want to thank the staff for doing such a thorough job on this e.i.r. i wanted to encourage the commission to understand and appreciate the significant value this watershed has contributed to this way of life.

if you can't replace that -- can't put a value on that. you have that take that into consideration with the diminishing pristine habitat that now exists in your state and the region. it is diminishing every day with wildfire preparedness that is destroying literally in your state millions of acres of habitats. preserving the habitat today is more certain than ever and it should be a priority over recreational uses. i applaud the staff, a wonderful and thorough job and i hope the commission looks at the no project alternative or the alternative number one that is

docent led only access. thank you to the sfpuc and to the planning commission for preserving this beautiful and natural treasure. have a great day. clenchts members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. you have two minutes. go ahead, caller. okay. we cannot hear you if you're speaking. so that will conclude public comment on this item and the matter is now before you, commissioners.

>> today we're still taking comments, not approving anything? >> clerk: actually, commissioner, this item is for your certification, so it is an action item. >> move to certify the e.i.r. >> clerk: thank you. seeing no request to speak from commissioners, this is a motion that has been seconded to certify the environmental impact report on that motion. [ roll call ]

>> i have some questions, secretary. i do not see the chat box properly indicating the topics that we're talking about so it's very hard to follow. do you see that? >> clerk: my staff is putting in the items and i can see it. you need to press the chat icon to open up your chat bar. >> i as well. i'm seeing the commissioners' names who are speaking, but i haven't seen the christian individual items. >> clerk: oh, i do apologize. chan, you're sending it to me privately. you'll need to send them to everyone, please, on the next item.

thank you. commissioners, items 11 and 12 have been continued on to 13 a to d. commissioners, although these are technically two separate projects, they are being called up together because the ceqa

analysis was performed on both projects as one large project. they are two separate office buildings on a through lot that has been subdivided. so it will be up to you if you want to take up the matters separately when we call the question or if you want to make a motion for the entire project. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> thanks. good afternoon, commissioners. i am planning department staff. the items before you are for two proposed projects one at 474 bryant street and the other at stillman street. these will create two separate lots and construction of two

85-foot tall mixed-use buildings on the parcels. each building will consist of the upper floor, main and basement garage. in order for this to proceed, the commission must grant two separate authorizations pursuant to section 329 to allow the construction of two projects that would each totally over [indiscernible] -- 155 r for all those on bryant street. the commission must grant two separate office development authorizations for 312 and 322. [indiscernible] the office use is small of the allocation program. in addition to planning section,

the shadow casts must be diverted to the use of this park -- [indiscernible] and a large part of the authorization for each project. for shadows, the planning department and the two projects together in order to provide complete information about the total shadow impacts for both projects. the shadow load will be 0.003 above current levels for shadow. the new shadow from the construct would impact the southern edge of the park.

new shadows will last for 9 minutes and 6 seconds. it was determined this was an insignificant amount of net new shadow on the park. for small office allocations, the projects provide two new office buildings, each up to 49,499 gross square feet. as of december 10, 2020, approximately 728,338 gross square feet is available for the projects. these two projects represent approximately 13.7% of the currently available small allocation pool. any subsequent increase in square footage in either buildings will remove the

project. the project will be required to obtain approval from the large allocation pool. in terms of p.d.r. replacement requires replacing 70% of the existing p.d.r. spaces. currently there are 22,322 square feet of p.d.r. on which the two projects are located at. each project will even its replacement requirements and require p.d.r. use for a total new replacement of 17,132 square feet. the neighborhood preapplication meeting was held on may 4, 2020, followed by additional hours available for phone calls and

video conference later. the sponsor is currently working in collaboration. to date the planning department has not received any correspondence in opposition. [indiscernible] and objectives and policies of the general plan. this proposal new office buildings will extend employment opportunities for city residents and help retain existing commercial activities and attract new activities which is the goal for the city. the projects will provide offstreet parking spaces and exceed the number of required bicycle parking spaces to encourage biking. the project sponsor is here and has prepared a presentation. this concludes staff presentation and we are

available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you, xinyu. project important, you will have seven minutes to make your presentation. >> thank you. can you put up our presentation, please.

the project has two small spots at the bottom of the park. the rec and parks decided this was not -- next slide again. the significant impact eliminating the shadow would have -- next slide. we would have to have a significant setback at the front of the building at the top floor. the rec and park commission decided this does not have a significant impact. the project requires roughly 100,000 square feet of new space and over 700,000 square feet is still available. one of the principal issues was to extract two-thirds for public

benefit and this project will pay over $100 of impact fees to the office. we are just about to sign an m.o.u. directing all of the arts leads for these two projects to fund a gateway project here. so thank you and now i'm going to introduce the architect. >> can you see the slide? the buildings are quite similar, but their frontage in terms of solar exposure is different.

on the one side the sun angles will be low and on the bryant side it will be high. on this slide you can see two sister buildings which have a well-defined case which is expressive of the p.d.r. functions behind. you can see the roll-up doors in case of events and you can see the two strategies around solar shading and frontage. the bryant street building on the left has a contemporary expression. the stillman street building is using brick to work well with the many brick buildings in the neighborhood. on this slide you can see the site plan, the through site at the street level will be preserving the existing trees and on the other side there are no existing trees so we will be adding those to the site.

we are looking to establish three curb cuts and putting in two more which are critical to the functioning of the p.d.r. next slide, please. here you can see the basement for bryant street. the primary function is to serve as p.d.r. for above. you will see the loading and areas. it is there to support. on the left is the basement with a similar function. it includes 14 parking spaces. on the right side of the image is the ground floor plan for bryant street. there are also provisions included to support bike transit, including bike lockers and showers. in this slide you can see the floor plan.

this has an entry located in the upper left corner of the image. here you can see the typical floor plans which are left open in order to maximize flexibility for tenants. in this slide you see the roof plans where we located the mechanical spaces. the middle portion will be a publicly accessible roof deck and this is creating a nice environment and also protecting the building from solar radiation. here you can see the program stacking of the six office levels above one level of p.d.r. and one level of basement. in this image you can see the main materials of the project. we've made factory style

buildings. on the left it's an aside and you can see the concrete which we are using for timeless quality and durability. on the right is warm terra cotta which is used for the buildings in the neighborhood. these are perforated on the right side to allow for visibility for the occupants in the interior. you can see the elevations and the way they have been composed at the public level with a much lighter articulation. it's been broken up into five

volumes to help relate to the scale of the street. we've worked here to create two buildings which are independently responsive to the neighborhood while being complementary of each other. this concludes our presentation. thank you so much. >> clerk: if that concludes your presentation, we'll open this up. this is your opportunity to be added to the queue, members of the public comment, by pressing star and 3. i see no members of the public wishing to speak to public comment, commissioners. the matter is closed and is before you. >> i am delighted to see a first project in central soma which so well resides the rules and the guidelines.

i am in full support. i also wanted to thank ms. lee for an exceptionally good project report. you touched on every point particularly for us at this scale. the first building will not all have the subtleties of the central soma guidelines before us. it was easy to read and great to read. i would like to move to approve because i'm so excited about the project. >> second. >> i would definitely support this project. i did have a question for the project sponsor. what use will occupy this space or something that comes along further in the project?

interested if you have any p.d.r. uses. i above this design. >> john keppel with the project sponsor. this is one of the first projects that has been subject to this where p.d.r. has been demolished and a new p.d.r. space is actually being constructed. prop x has had more of a space of not demolishing. this project sponsor in addition to others, we're looking at what is permitted. to be the one that appears to be

most in demand in the market, none of these spaces have obviously come online. so i think this discussion is further going to develop as projects like this come through. that is a long way of saying we don't know yet, but that is what we're seeing. >> thank you. i'll look forward to what we see there and it will add to the sigh vie /* -- vibrancy of the area. >> i also want to thank the project sponsor for this in a cultural heritage district and also to maintain the p.d.r. uses. i really appreciate those efforts when project sponsors are looking into this. when it comes to the shadow impact on the south part, i do also think the impact is less

significant, especially that it's in the hours around nighttime, even though it's during summer. again, thank you very much and i'm ready to vote. >> clerk: if there is nothing further, there is a motion seconded to adopt shadow findings, approve the authorizations, and office development authorizations for the projects there. for clarification, the motion to adopt the amended motions that were submitted to you yesterday from staff. [ roll call ]

>> clerk: item 14 b for the property to consider the

variant. go ahead. >> the request before you today is for a conditional authorization to legalize [indiscernible] in an existing residence in order to comply with an active planning enforcement case. the party has a history which i will outline shortly in which the project sponsors can elaborate on. a request for variance to the setbacks. just to provide some background, the current owners and the enforcement history, the current owners received variants to build up the brick foundation and to complete the renovations. during construction, the builder

hired at the same time [indiscernible] areas of structural framework beyond the scope of what was approved. these areas and items were replaced in kind. the footprint of the building was not experienced. the d.d.i. violation and enforcement case were opened which confirmed that this was beyond the scope of what was approved. during the department's enforcement investigation, it became apparent that the rear of the building had been modified [indiscernible] -- which dated from 1987. from sometime in the 1990s and the early 2000s, the building was [indiscernible] in combination with the additional

work in 2018 and 2019 exceeded the 2017 threshold [indiscernible] demolition. as stated previously, this is a demolition related to the [indiscernible] -- the project concluded the addition of a second unit [indiscernible] -- one piece of correspondence was received in support. no letters or correspondence in opposition have been received.

it is believed the project is necessary and desirable for a number of reasons. [indiscernible] the project will be developed [indiscernible] families. the project will also be compatible with the rh 2 zoning district by adding a second unit. this concludes staff presentation. >> clerk: thank you, staff. project sponsor, you will have five minutes. does he have slide? >> he does.

good afternoon, [indiscernible] i'm the architect representing the sponsor and his family. the project before you today is after a long series of missteps by the builder of the renovations at this location back in 2018 and 2019 which resulted in enforcements which were tantamount to demolition.

we're here to make that right and seek your approval to do renovations on site to move the family home. first a little history. the family hired a builder in 2018 to effect the renovations to the home, on the basement, the main level, and the attic above. the builder services was to get the permits but he exceeded the scope. the owners understood the consequences of these means and methods and decisions. the builder has the abandoned

his project and is unreachable since. in november 2018, rodrigo sanchez was recommended. to his credit, he worked through many issues and held a community meeting in may 2020 resulting in neighborhood support around the project. once the projects with d.b.i. were found, they decided to do a reset. they hired our firm to take over to compile new drawings in satisfaction of the department and to seek and justification the variants to legalize the non-conformities on the site. notably, it was also decided due to the additional living areas and bedrooms on the top floor, the owners could forego the occupying of the basement itself

and generate an additional unit to generate income for the construction and the cost of the overrun. the project required approval for exceeding limits of section 317. as we analyze the removal and replacement of the building emblems, it became evident that while this existing [indiscernible] the massing of a victorian home is much the same as before when the building permit was issued. the building footprint is unchanged. while the basement was not excavated in the 1997 permit, the main living is extended to within 10.5 feet of the rear

property line. in 1997 it has this in the front setback. the rear is allowing more living space and the mass renovated [indiscernible] -- variances required. in addition to the authorization, the project needs approval for the following variants. a front setback variance is required. the garage was demolished and rebuilt. the rear variants are needed to expand the variance under the modified roof.

and an open space variance is required from the code minimum for private open space. we request your approval to put this back on legal footing and to bring this dwelling unit into the eureka valley. thank you. i'm available for questions. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes the project sponsor presentation. we should open this up to members of the public. this is your opportunity to speak to this item by pressing star 3. >> hello, i didn't really know all those details about it and it's very interesting, but i do think it's important, a couple

of points i would like to make about this unusual but it will problem with the demolition. i sent in -- i'm trying to sent in a comparison of the calculations submit in 2017 and those done by mr. morrison. what troubles me about the 2017 calculations is those look like those on projects that get through as alter rations. maybe this is an intellectual exercise, but it's really important to consider it. the other point i would like to make and i talked to staff about it this morning about criterion eye in the findings. this is still a demolition, although it's a very peculiar, unfortunate one.

this still raised the question of the loss of relative affordability. it came up last week and i forgot to mention it with the 2119 castra street which was a real demolition from the start. and i was going to look at the one for this week, i was concerned because i think it's a change in policy -- it sounded like a change in policy where you're saying you can demolish but you still have relative affordability and i think that's not your policy, at least not in the master plan as i had not in the housing element. there are the comparisons on the screen and i think it's something to look at. why did mr. santos think he could get away with that?

is that standard practice? what does that mean? i hope the people have their house and their happy and good luck. that's the end of my comments. >> clerk: thank you. last chance for public comment on this item. you need to press star 2 to be added to the queue. public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> i would like to voice my support for planning's recommendation. >> i would like to voice my support for this project particularly when it is as well explained as mr. morrison did. these projects are very difficult to understand given the history and the beginning point that is difficult to trace. thank you for that explanation

and i applaud the applicant for adding a full-sized unit on it. i see that as an exemplary model to follow suit. thank you very much and i'm in full support. >> i definitely agree. i know it's been a journey for the owners of the building because you have a contractor not following the rules and you had to switch gears. thank you for this project and the full-sized unit as well. i wanted to applaud that. i had a question that is minute. is there a closet in the bedroom or is all the closet in the hallway? it might be better to have a closet in the bedroom part of

the unit. maybe the architect can answer. >> i believe it has a closet in it. this is an odd situation because the lower level was not originally envisioned as a unit. so now you have this awkward condition where you have to enter what could have been a room. it might end up sleeping better as a two bedroom than a one-unit. it has open space to the two streets and an open space in the back. >> i looked on the drawings. the closet doors were on the hallway side of the bedroom and not facing into the bedroom. just something you may consider having access to the space from within the bedroom. maybe it's an oversight on my part.

i'm in full support. unless commissioners want to comment, i would move the project. >> second. >> clerk: everyone is sending the messages to me privately. no wonder you can't see them. >> apologies on that. i realized it as soon as i put it in. i also just wanted to address the variants briefly. this is a unique situation that's gone through its trials and tribulations. it is requesting three different variants like i feel in this case are justified. the front and back are informed. the other lots that are on the corner of this street and the

rear yard, this lot is located in the corner. the location is tough into the corner that it doesn't really abut the midblock open space. the open space requirement is essentially six inches short of meeting the minimum requirements in the code and getting to the technical requirements for the open space is an extremely open attempt to meet the circumstances of this case. >> clerk: thank you very much. seeing no further requests to speak from commissioners or the zoning administrator, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this. on that motion. [ roll call ]

>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> i will close the public hearing for the variance and send them in. >> clerk: we are on the final item for the agenda number 15, 2020-009424 cua. this is a conditional use authorization. i believe that director hiller had some introductory comments. >> before i start, i wanted to introduce louis, this is his first presentation.

he is a san francisco native. he graduated from lincoln high school in the sunset prior to joining the department he graduated with a bachelor's of science. welcome, elton. >> thank you so much. good afternoon, commissioners, i am planning department staff. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 202 and 303. it includes a request to demolish an existing single-family dwelling unit and subdivide the existing 50-foot-wide lot into two

25-foot-wide lots and to construct two single-family dwelling units, one on each new lot one at 231 and 235 wilde avenue measuring approximately [indiscernible] and 3 -- measuring 3,069 gross square feet at 235 wilde avenue. there are two off-street parking and one bike parking. to date the department has not received any correspondence about this project. the project site has been vacant since 2019. in conclusion, the project finds that the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plans. the proposed new building is

designed to be in keeping with the existing development pattern and respond to the residential neighborhood character along the avenue. the project provides two new units with easy access to the city transit network. the project is found to be necessary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. in addition, correcting the additional conditions of approval regarding parking, there will be two offstreet parking units instead of one per parking units. the project sponsor team is here and has a presentation. this concludes that presentation and i am here for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. shab, are you prepared to

make your presentation? >> i am, yes. >> clerk: okay. your slides are up and you have five minutes. >> thank you. my name is jeremy shab, representing the owner. thank you for this hearing today. i also wanted to thank elton for getting us this far. we are proposing this new project. the existing building is a small single-family dwelling that has been owner occupied until 1996 until the owner passed away in 2019. the home has large setbacks on each sides. it also encroaches into the rear yard.

the existing floor plan is also awkward with only two bedrooms across the frontage with potentially two rh 5s underutilized. this shows a comparison of building massing before and after. this is our proposed site plan with the original profile in green. the proposed two new buildings are fully code compliant with upper code compliant setbacks. this is a rendering of our proposed buildings from downhill. we are proposing these buildings with a height stepping down the hill. both building store plans are similar. both have two-car garages with a bicycle parking and spaces in

the rear. the second plans have additional three rooms. we have light and air to adjacent structures. this rendering shows the building from uphill and wilde avenue. for our neighborhood outreach we held our neighborhood meeting in october of 2020 on zoom with four neighbors in attendance. a few had some concern of loss of parking, which we feel is addressed by the side setbacks and two-car parking. we heard some opposition to

a.d.u.s on site, which we are not proposing. i wanted to note this project provides new housing for families on a currently oversized lot. the existing housing is substandard. the project has been reviewed at the planning department. we respectfully ask that you grant the c.u. authorization and approve the project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes your presentation, we should open up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star 3. when you hear you are unmuted, that is your queue to start speaking. you will have two minutes. >> my name is stacy. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can.

>> i am a native san franciscan and i have been living at one of the adjacent buildings next to the proposed property since birth. during this time from what the architect shared is a meeting was held in october of last year, however, our residents and occupants were not invited to that meeting on october 20. at the close of that meeting we were informed by our neighbors that the proposed property was being discussed and they were disgruntled of the proposed installation of a two-stair dwelling that was next to that. so with this proposed plan that they have, it definitely removes all living space light for the adjacent property. they will not have any natural

light whatsoever coming onto their property. with the homes across the street and there are three of them, it removes the views that they are accustom to for multiple generations that looks over to the bay. in terms of our view, it removes all living space views from our family. that means from the living room to the family room and dining room kitchen, no longer any views we would have access to. it would inhibit parking. this creates for more auto damage [indiscernible] -- i'm requesting as a long-term resident that they consider a single-family home in place of the two, two-storeys.

>> clerk: thank you. that's your time. last call, members of the public, for this item. you need to pless star 3. okay, commissioners, seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, public comment is closed and this item is before you. >> welcome, elton, great to have you with the team and i'm in favor of the staff recommendation. >> thank you. also in favor of staff recommendation. commissioner wu, can you clarify if there are any impacts that were discovered in terms of light of the adjacent properties blocking the windows? i'm just curious if that is happening as a member of the public noted. >> regarding presidential design

guidelines, we did make sure there was setbacks in order to prevent it from blocking any additional light or shadows. >> thank you so much. i saw a colleague pop up. i don't know if you wanted anything to add. >> no, i'm here for moral support. mr. wu answered the question appropriately. >> i'm really supportive of this project. i'm happy to see two homes coming in and i'm very supportive of the project. thank you. >> welcome, mr. wu, for your first presentation. thank you very much. i am of two minds.

while i greatly appreciate the ability to take an oversized lot and intensify development, we are basically putting two regularly shaped large buildings in length into an environment where all building forms are more or less new forms that leave random patterns of open space and patterns to be enjoyed by neighbors. the comment i'm making is not in support of protecting views, but also in support of not challenging a random plan of individual buildings. so i hear the last commenter speaking to that.

these buildings are intensifying development and they are also quite relentless relative to the setting they're in. again, i am of two mindsets and i would like to hear other commissioners. particularly if you look at drawing a.1.0, which is the overall site plan. >> clerk: there is a member of the public wishing to speak. should we afford them that opportunity? >> this is stacy -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, we don't allow commenters two bites of the apple. if the commissioners have questions of you, they might

call on you. commissioners, you may continue your deliberations. do i hear a motion, anyone? >> i wanted to say i too am in favor of this project. i think we need to work hard to encourage family housing in the city and i, for one, have always been troubled by the definition of two bedrooms. so i am glad to see some options where family options include four bedrooms. i recognize that that includes f.a.r. >> is that a motion? >> yes, move to approve.

>> seconded. >> i just would like to question commissioner moore on -- because i appearing support this project as well. what i'm trying to get from you is i think -- i do understand [indiscernible] -- it looks like it's going to be four bedrooms.

i think that also for me, we should try to confirm the staff recommendations -- >> are you asking me a question? >> yes, commissioner moore. >> there is a level of the effects of larger family housing grouping of two buildings outweighs my criticism and in the end residential design guidelines are in the eye of the beholder. we have all different kinds of ways of looking at it and to me it's important to always look at

context. however, the benefit of the larger-family units of which we have two here outweighs my hesitation of the manufacturing. i'm in support of the building and i second the motion. >> clerk: if there is nothing further, there is a motion accepted to approve this. [ roll call ] . >> clerk: so moved. that motion concludes unanimously and concludes your agenda today. you got some of the time back this week. enjoy the rest of the afternoon and we'll see you next week. [♪♪♪]