creates the shop & dine in the 49 to support businesses make people all the residents and visitors realize had cool things are made and produced in san >> welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, may 6, 2021. remote hearings require your yor patience. if you are not speaking please mute your microphone. we are streaming this hearing live. we will receive public comment for each item on the agenda. comments to speak during the public comment are available by calling 415-655-0001. access code (187)481-6408.

when we reach the item you are interested in commenting on, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to speak. each speaker will be allowed three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is up. i will take the next person to speak. best practices call from quiet location, speak clearly and slowly. mute the volume on the television or computer. >> president koppel. >> here. >> vice president moore. >> here. >> commissioner chan. >> here. >> commissioner diamond. >> here. >> commissioner fung. >> here. >> commissioner imperial.

>> here. >> commissioner tanner. >> here. >> thank you, commissioners, first is consideration of items proposed for continuance. there were no items for continuance. we did receive a request to continue item 2 for case 2019-01937 3-d rp at 217 hugo street for one week to may 13, 2021. no other items for continuance. we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak for items proposed for continuance, hugo street. you will have two minutes. i do see a couple people raising their hands. are you calling about the continuance caller?

[ inaudible ] >> this is linda chapman. i am calling to verify whether or not you have a continuance for 1567 california for one thing. i received the packet of information this morning in the mail for the response i was to spend you last night, and the various irregularities. >> i am sorry to interrupt you. california street is not on today's agenda. if you are not speaking to hugo street we are moving on to the next person. >> good afternoon. can you hear me? >> yes. >> i am. [indiscernable]

i serve as event

today we are talking about continuance if you are proposed or in support of the continuance or related. >> yes, i am the neighbor with issues about the project. i am opposed. we will talk about those next week? >> that's right. >> thank you. just wanted to confirm that. >> great. >> hi, i am calling about the hugo street project. to clarify, by continuance, you mean continuing the permitting process? >> no, the item is continued from this week's hearing to next week's hearing. the matter won't be considered today but will be next week. >> i will call back next week. for the record i do oppose the

project. i am the neighbor. >> linda chapman. i would like to support the request for the opinion youance on 1525. >> we are not talking about that matter. >> not that one either in. >> no. >> okay. members of the public. last call for hugo street. only item proposed for continuance today, hugo street. when your line is unmuted begin speaking. no other items or members of public requesting to speak public comment is closed. hugo street continuance is now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to continue item 2 as

proposed. >> on that motion to continue hugo street one week to may 13th. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved that motion passes 7-0 unanimously. that places us on the consent calendar. this is a can sent calendar that is routine for the planning commission after a single roll call vote of the commission. no separate discussion unless a member of the public or staff so requests. in which event it shall be considered as a separate item at this or separate hearing. 2021-000186 c.u.a., 2675 geary

boulevard. this is your opportunity to remove item one off consent. press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak, public comment is closed. your consent calendar is now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to approve item 1. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> that motion passes unanimously 7-0. that places us on commission matters. 3.

consideration of adoption of draft minutes for april 22, 2021. members of the public to speak to the minutes press star 3. no members of the public requesting to speak and public comment is closed. minutes are now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> moved to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. item 4 commission comments and questions. commissioner moore. >> i wanted to comment on a memo

we received in response to our request for further clarification on the landscape plan for guttenberg street. while i appreciate that indeed modifications to the plan was made and i review the department reviewing. i am not satisfied with the response to our request to consider not using artificial turf. i believe the answer to that was given to us as insufficient and does not really get to the matter of what is important to this commission. i would like the other commissioners to comment on it. i also did not appreciate the tone of not having any alternatives presented. there are ample alternatives for providing a paper friendly --

people friendly garden area. i would be curious to see what other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i feel like it needs to go back in terms of landscaping. i think gravel will be a different material would be more sufficient. i do think it has to come back again to the planning commission. >> i apologize. i am going to interrupt the conversation. guttenberg is not on the agenda for the discussion purposes today. commissioner moore can make comments. once we start discussing items not on the again i will prevent it from going further. we can certainly put it on next week's hearing for discussion.

>> as the maker of the request that this be on next week's discussion. we can revisit this together. >> so noted. thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> i was going to support the request made by commissioner moore. >> commissioner tanner. >> i want to comment on the other memo we received maybe today or yesterday about the equity council. i want to congratulate all folks volunteering to the council. it is developing. i am happy to see a group of folks helping the department continue to work on advancing the equity resolution. is there an update to write about that we may have interaction with that engaging with that if you are aware and

could shed light on that? >> sure. i was going to bring this up during my report to make sure you saw that memo. commissioner moore. >> no, i am done. >> as you saw from the memo the goal is to advise staff on our policies how to elevate voices. black americans and communities of color in our process. we will inform you of the meetings. we can't have a quorum of commissioners but we would welcome involvement. we will come back here and report back to you on the discussions we have been having. we are open to meet monthly with the council, maybe early on even adding an additional meeting.

we will definitely report back. we will let you know when those meetings are happening and the topics. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to briefly ask what time of the day was it yesterday? particularly i before meetings check my e-mail and i don't think i got it. >> it was sent out last week. if you didn't get it, let us know. >> if you wouldn't mind, i would appreciate it. i am pretty thorough but i did not see it. maybe it is my fault. >> if there is nothing further, commissioners, we will move to department matters. item 5 director's announcement. >> additional information on our website as well for the public including who is on the advisory

council. it is made up of 11 community leaders dedicated to working to advance racial and social justice. familiar with the processes i think you will recognize the names from your work on the commission and some who aren't. we thought that was a good idea to bring both leaders familiar with our work as well as those who may not be. in addition as i said deepening our engagement and add vicing us to deepen the engagement we are looking for input from the council on our work around the housing element and general plan updates for budgeting and program priorities and implementation of phase one of the racial and social equity plan as well as development of phase two. please let us know if you have questions. it was an inter departmental

effort to include the council. i want to thank the supervisor's office who we consulted for advice and thank the council for their willingness to participate. i also want to give you some news on the center at 49 south van ness. expansion of in person services. today was a soft launch of expansion of services. monday, may 10th is the official launch of expanding over-the-counter permitting. this is the first step to getting the permit center back up and running. customers still need to make appointments and will continue with the other agencies, pbi, to

handle the volume of permits. they will be able to walk them in rather than dropping them off with the goal of getting same day approval which isn't feasible with dropping off the permits. over the next couple months we will phase out the need for appointments all together. we have been mindful of customer safety. they are updated the safety plan which is approved by dh r&d ph. i want to give thanks to our staff for their continued flexibility throughout this entire year as we adapted our services in response to the pandemic. that is my report. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> thank you for that report. i would like to tag on a quick

question. any possibility forgetting forget --for getting an invitat? >> we will send it out. it would be great for you all to see it. >> it would be great for all of us. thank you. >> we will move to item 6. review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon. aaron starr, manager legislative affairs. a hearing on the proposal of senate bill 37. it would prohibit projects located on sites from receiving comments and exemption.

those have hazardous substances in the fuel from old gas stations. projects are not allowed to receive an exception. prior to this resolution being introduced by supervisor moore, the planning department flagged this because of the way we deal with the projects. most projects in san francisco are discretionary. any building permit the city issues needs environmental determination. for most small projects like windows and door replacements. in other jurisdictions these would be considered not needed for determination. current law prohibits us from issuing those we use common sense exception for small projects that don't disturbing the soil. removing the exception would be that the small projects if there

is any soil disturbance would require negative declarations. they are much more time consuming and costly starting at $30,000 compared to $300 an for common exceptions. the committee heard from supervisor mar, senator cortez office and lisa gibson andrew re. we described how the process is different than most jurisdictions and removing the common exemptions would impact from small owners to low income housing. this seemed to resonate with supervisor mar and the group as well as supervisor melgar. supervisor peskin interrupted staff and at one point challenged staff that it costed $30,000 for the negative

declaration. they do start at 30,000 he suggested reducing the fees. he didn't say how since we are cost recovery. there were several speakers to support with one or two expressing concern. chair melgar asked if he was open to clarifying the legislation it should not apply to small projects. ryan nichol confirmed that it will move a large amount of soil would be willing to consider exemptions for small projects. supervisor peskin moved to incorporate provisions proposed by supervisor mar at the beginning of the hearing did not include modifications based on staff concerns. this passed unanimously. supervisor peskin moved the resolution supporting sb37 to be recommended as committee report to pass. it did not recommend to not

apply to small projects or address concerns raised by staff. however, representative cortez is aware of our issues. at the full board this week the landmark designation for the martin house received the first read and pass. the resolution in support of bill 37 that i described was adopted. that concludes my report. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. >> seeing no questions from commissioners for the report on the board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals. historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and took action on a couple of items. one was the landmark designation of the making of the fresco showing the building of the city mural that was painted in the

building of 800 chestnut street. although 800 chestnut street is a landmark building, supervisor peskin nominated the frescoists as an individual landmark. historic preservation commission adopted the representation for approval. if there are no questions we will move to general public comment. members of the public may address the commission within the subject mat of the jurisdiction with respect to agenda items it will be afforded when the item is reached. you may speak three minutes. after 15 minutes it may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public you are provided two minutes for general public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line is

unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon. it is georgia. on april 12 in response to the demolition of 2119 castro on the concept calendar that week i sent 21 demolitions in noey valley. 1409 sanchez was approved in 2009. it is 20 valley projects with full hearings mandatory drs. section 317 was implemented i bring this up because i believe your staff is concerned and worried and fearful if the. [indiscernable] tool the commission is empowered to use the commission will be flooded with c.u.a.s.

that may be but it seems that currently there is an uptick for demolitions on the agenda. the intent of 317 was to preserve sound housing while allowing reasonable alterations. this is the policy because existing housing is more affordable. that is why i sent the photos of the project at 41 clipper. the first is on the screen now. alteration project completed in october 2014 that sold in the last four weeks. i sent four photos for the screen and five in the e-mail to you and the staff including price history which jumps exponentially. there are no published for this building. 41 clipper like so many other projects illustrates that housing has been prioritized as

commodity rather than a human right. those are not my words, staff words in the material presented at the informational hearing on the housing element on april 22nd. i sent an e-mail april 16th about disagreeing with the staff. i request you read this e-mail which i sent again a few minutes ago. that is it. take good care. you will be safe. good-bye. >> linda chapman. i would like to second sue hester's request you return to city hall with optional call ins. you can see illustrated from my radioed interruption where i cannot tell what is happening without watching the screen and automatic announcements overlay the secretary. i am not trying to be rude.

second. i have an issue that is identified for prosecution. that will need to be done. zoning maps are of the essence, right? additionally, your staff had access to the correct maps and knowledge of it. your other staff. what should i say? the staff like the staff i used to know assured me about the 65 amendments in the area when i questioned it. no question about it. that exists. now at this point the map that scott sanchez found from 1979 does not include all of the rezonings that occurred a whole series every zonings sponsored by nob hill residents and chinatown which reduced height limits to 80 feet and ours to 6. then there were spaces in

between which a reconciliation occurred. i don't have the zoning district lines. i have records and news letter in that indicating it. if you look at that 1979 map and then look at what is forged, how do you know the proper zoning until you produce the records of all re-zonings done separately and reconcile them together? then third issue is permit expediteters posing as community groups. they call for investigations not by you, but you need to be aware of them. two of them massively affected nob hill. one was at the top of the hill during the time of the masonic issue. the other is -- >> thank you. your time is up.

>> go ahead, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello. i am calming to oppose the project to increase height in 1525 pine street. i am a neighbor. >> i will stop you. we have not reached that item yet. when i call that item which will be coming up next you will hear the staff report and the appellants presentation and sponsor presentation and then we will open it up for public comment. you can press star 3 to get into the queue. if there are no additional general public comments for items not on today's agenda, we can move on, commissioners. general public comment is closed. we can go to your regular calendar. for items 7 and 8.

2015-00995env and c.u.a. at 1525 pine street. you will first hear presentation from staff for the preliminary mitigated declaration then presentation from staff regarding the conditional use authorization. then we hear from the appellant and the project sponsor and take up public comment on both matters. then once public comment is closed, you should take action on the pine street mitigated negative declaration first. if you uphold that consider the conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation?

>> i will share my screen. i do have some slides. president koppel and members of the commission. the environmental planning division. item 7 is appeal of a

preliminary mitigated negative declaration for project at 1525 pine street. my slides are not advancing. start with a brief overview. the project site on the south side of fine between polk and van ness it is a restaurant called web steak. it has 2855 square feet.

grubb steak is to occupy the building when wompleated. womco. it was circulated for public review of 20 days. an appeal of the pmnd was filed february 16, 2021. the appeal raised the following issues. transportation analysis inadequate because no in depth transportation study conducted. the cumulative development would result in significant impacts on pedestrians, public transit and vehicle miles traveled. historic resource analysis is inadequate because the pmnd does not identify mitigation measures to address the demolition of the historic resource. the wined and shadow analysis ignore the project impacts on

the private decks of the adjacent building to the left. here is a summary of the department's appeal response. transportation analysis is consistent with the 2019 transportation impact analysis guidelines. our transportation planners determined that an in depth study was not required for this project. pm nd discusses how it would not combine for hazardous conditions interfere with emergency access or delay public transit. the cumulative estimates are below the thresholds. no cumulative impact related to vmt would occur. historic resources. existing building is not an individually eligible historic

resource but a contributor to historic district. in this case is district is the resource and demolishes one contributor would not result in significant impact on the district. it would retain the character defining features to make it a historic resource. since no impact no mitigation measuresness. for wind and shadow. ceqa focuses on publicly accessible spaces not private spaces on private properties. wind and shadow analysis are consistent be with the method for the properties and no further analysis is required under ceqa. the department received five letters supporting the appeal and raised the following issues.

construction noise, construction and operational air quality and non ceqa issues including affects on privacy views and property values in the units in the adjacent building to the west. through pmnd and appeal the department has addressed all issues raised in the afternoon peel and letters for the appeal. the appellant has not provided substantial evidence supporting that the project would result in significant impacts. our recommendation is to reject the appeal and uphold the negative declaration. environmental planning project team is available to answer questions. at this time i am going to turn it over to claudine for item 8.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. the project before you today would demolish the restaurant and construct new 83-foot tall mixed use building with 2800 square foot restaurant and 21 dwelling units. it relies on the state density for six units over the base density of 15 for a total of 21 units. project is 25-foot wide lot with front age and pine street and home to the grubstake diner. within the lgbq cultural

district. a new restaurant is proposed on spine street including salvage and reuse of interior and exterior features including the architectural design of the old lunch style. they intend to reinstate grubb steak. the project is seeking won session for the -- [indiscernable] it seeks eight waivers, rear yard. usable open space. dwelling exposure, ground floor ceiling and setbacks and bulk. department received letters of support and opposition. in support credit creation of new housing units in the

neighborhood and city, design integrated to the neighborhood, reuse of the grubb steak and return of the restaurant. in opposition they express concern over the proposed building height, light, shadow, air, privacy. including impact on private terraces. lack of one bedroom units, density oversupply of housing in the neighborhood, construction impacts, historic preservation of the grubb steak diner and lack of parking. the action items are, first, the commission will need to uphold the final negative declaration. commission will need to grant conditional use for development on the 2800 square foot restaurant and dwelling unit with 28% of two and three

bedroom units. they must adopt request for one concession and waivers. staff finds the project on balance consistent with the general plan and objective policies of the general plan updated in the staff report. staff recommends approval for the following reasoning? it is a narrow lot. this is a housing project to provide 21 dwelling units including two affordable. it provides 28% as mix of two and three bedrooms. it provides more three bedrooms than required and three two bedroom units for varying types and sizes of household. although the diner is a business for its connections to the q & q

history. providing a late night eatery would contribute to the neighborhood and provide 24 hour development with more eyes on the street. department finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with surrounding neighborhood. not detrimental to persons or property in the community. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor is here to present. we will be available for questions afterward. thank you. >> we should go to the appellant next. you will have 10 minutes. >> thank you. i want to begin by talking about

mitigated negative declaration and state density bonus. first of all, i want to identify only two issues of the mitigated negative declaration that i find complexing. one is cumulative impacts of traffic have not been studied at all. that is just income prehensible. there are only 21 units. within a quarter mile there will be 522 dwelling units. that is minimum of what is going to happen. there is also 155770 square feet of medical offices, commercial offices and uses in quarter of a mile. all of that is only going to add

300 parking stayses. that is all within a quarter mile. it was determined it was unnecessary to determine any impacts for any of the intersections around it. i just don't understand that, particularly when there is a new public transit line going on van ness. why is that possible? i really think that is in the mitigated negative study to show what covid impacts might be on public transit. the other is the loss of the contributing to grubb steak. i do appreciate the efforts the project sponsor is doing to preserve the features. my point. there is no real guarantee you

will see those. the only what is necessary or appropriate to study the impacts. it is a contributor. study so we can put in mitigation measures to require. what is there now in the line of conditions of approval plans will be in general conformance. density bonus law. to get into the density bonus law you need incentive that does not result -- that would result in an identifiable and actual cost reduction. the only concession in the application is permitted obstructions over austin alley. there is no presentation as to

how that one concession reduces the cost of housing. why was one concession chosen? if you look at the other eight waivers and exceptions in this project, it is any one of them could have been a concession. in fact, every one of them should have been a concession. under the state law, concessions for every concession you get, your approval, you are required to put in a higher percentage of low market rate units. it doesn't go up to nine in state law. just put three units, three concessions which could be any of these that were listed height, bulk, rear yard. all of those you would have had

to put in 24% of the total units below market rate. i really believe that those are negligent in not including those as concessions. further, under the public policy issues of showing that these concessions only way a jurisdiction could deny the bonus is showing that these concessions provide a specific impact. as a result, i think the specific impact would be to a public policy issue of providing light. our policy has always protected light in the city. there are provisions in the building and planning code to

make sure room sizes and windows and openings inside and outside to allow this light is not protected. finally, i just want to say the project is negatively impacting over 20 immediately adjacent neighbors. against nine concessions and incentives. it adds six more dwelling units. the city only gets two low market rate units of 360 square feet each. that is not a good deal for the san francisco community. i you remember you to deny state density bonus but do approve the lower project. i will turn it over to my clients on this.

>> i am the owner. i am asking the commission to resend the prebonus application for this project. i purchased my unit in 2018. i was aware of the fact the 65-foot building to be built next door. since then the state density application was applied. the building group from 15 for one, two, three units to 21 units, 15 of which are studios, a very small space. my question to the commission is why would you allow them to build such small studios that are difficult to live in when you could have had more space for families to move into? secondly, the option was built

with 65-foot regulation. walls from the seventh floor up are glass. the impacts of 83-foot building is significant on our privacy and light. we will not be receiving direct sunlight into our units. in fact, the units in the center will not receive any line. below the seventh floor which derive light from light wells will be in darkness with an 83-foot building with 17-foot elevator penthouse on top that goes up to 100 feet. my question for the planning commission is why would you ruin the live ability of 22 units for

six small units at 1525 and only allowing two below market rate units in this facility? that is all i have. >> i want to emphasize the state density bonus law is a privilege and should be respected. while it does require the city to be able to provide developers incentives to build more affordable housing, this measure doesn't do that in this case. i urge you to deny the state density bonus. i would also ask you to uphold the negative mitigation our appeal and go further with further analysis of the traffic impacts that are going to be

considerable. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. that concludes the appellant presentation. >> you have 10 minutes. that is 10 minutes for presentation and discussion of appeal? >> that's correct. >> thank you. the slides are up. >> good afternoon. toby morris on behalf of the project sponsor. before you is the state density bonus mixed-use project 21 dwelling units to the site and much of the historic fabric of the grubb steak diner.

it was a hang out in 1970s where lbgq shared food and community in a safe environment. the restaurant has a problem. it has been years since renovated. the back kitchen is inadequate. it was determined in 2015 to renovate the restaurant and build housing over years. it had been years with meeting with local businesses and engaging to preserve grubb steak while designing overall redevelopment of the site. the result was compromise in terms of the social history. it was preserved the look and feel of grubb steak.

retain the late night hours as well as restoration of interior in the mitigated negative declaration of the project. grubb steak is an extremely small 25-foot wide lot. it is abutting neighbors. the project is to match in this slide. [indiscernable] in 2019 the project was urged by the planning department using the state density bonus. 8 story unit proposal would trash the design and honor the prior preservation measures. the state density bonus provides

flexibility. the design required minor increase in height. >> mr. morris. i apologize for interrupting. we are getting a significant echo. i don't know if you have got a phone on and computer or something, there is an echo. >> i could hear that, too. computer is off. sharing the call. i hear it. >> you are using your phone? >> i am speaking to the phone. >> it must be because your computer. unmute your computer. >> sorry. >> you just muted yourself.

i am unmuting you again. do you have a phone number? >> i was speaking to the phone. to the computer? >> well, you can put it on speaker. let me try. you are on her phone. i am going to unmute her phone, is that right? >> go ahead. >> sorry. thank you so much.

architects were hired in 2019 when the project sponsor was urged to increase density with state density bonus. an eight story unit honored all prior preservation measures. it provides open space and mine other increase in height for 35% increase in density. to forego the storage visible. proud of the compromise before you. the dens city the city needs. financially feasible. outreach. project was also subject to well attended community meetings for residents as well as pre-application meetings held in

the local community church. design. the goal is responsive to the neighborhood context and also of our time. we start with the façade with the grubb steak rebuild and the direct reflections. discussion about the contemporary and clean architecture. it is the traditional san francisco bay common element in the neighborhood. the unit faces pine and austin street. open spaces on the roof. sharing spaces with the panel. small private balconies. all units are balconies providing an outlook. this is the alley elevation

where the residential entry is located. the materials proposed high-quality and durable. aluminum windows and perforated metal. the waivers and exemptions. i propose six two and three bedroom units. only one two bedroom unit short of compliance. it will be an additional story of development. open options for residents will be accessible. complying private balconies for each unit results in loss of bedrooms. common open spice on the room would require expensive construction. the compromise is allowable by

code without decreasing. next slide. shadow impact. included in the letter are shadows prepared for the shadow impact. the requested waiver for the height. you can see it has almost no impact. thank you for your time. i hope you will sulport this project. >> i want to confirm that you can hear me. >> yes. >> president koppel and planning commissioners, pelosi law. i am here to speak to the appeal of the negative declaration. as i noted in the letter on

behalf of the sponsor, all in the austin signed regarding the 1525 pine street as part of purchasing the unit in the building. that disclosure stated the completion of 1525 pine may impact the views and light source and privacy for east facing units. the application on file. it went on to state while on file the 1525 pine street may be constructed with different specifications. until such time as the project is approved, permits issued it is subject to change. i say that not a kay where environmental review is adequate. it they are using ceqa to change the hoject to bring needed housing to the city. it doesn't meet the legal

standard for determining if the e.i.r. is required if substantial evidence supports the fair argument standard. it is a low threshold it is not so low as to be nonexist department. to support the fair argument the appellant is present facts and opinions supported by facts. not that narrative. the appeal is conjecture and opinion. no evidence as required under ceqa. for example, claims raised include impacts as potentially devastating. city staff has done a tremendous job responding to the appeal. we support their analysis.

the claims are sufficient and request to prepare it should be opobjected. the features of grubb steak. this project including the key features of the grubb steak. it hat changed and will require additional approval. the project and features are part of the project and satisfy. we have comments about a waiver. where a development has the effect of precluding the construction of development. the sponsor submitted evidence indicating how the waiver would include the construction of the project under the bonus law. this project has been in process

since 2015, six years. it worked with staff, community and local historians on the preservation of the grubstake as well as navigated changes in the underlying planning code. it complied with the legal requirements and it is time to move the project forward. we urge you to reject the appeal and move the project. if you have any questions please let us know. >> that concludes the presentation. public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the preliminary mitigated negative declaration and the project. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners and everyone. i hope you can hear me.

hello. >> yes, we can hear you. >> i am shaw. i am the event manager for the club with 200 members from hospitality platform. i also serve as the marriott fisherman's wharf. working with jamie before the pandemic and planning for future event. he is all about putting our community together and bringing us to the neighborhood from embracing to making the lower tourist destination. his education, hard work and attention to detail are best qualities to work with. from my point of view, the knowledge upgrade is focusing on future. [indiscernable] also, we do need more housing in

the neighborhood in san francisco. i strongly belief and support the building and lower neighborhood upgrade for better living prospects and continues the legacy in the past. i strongly support for the upgrade and support the building needs more housing for the san francisco residents and outside people that want to work in san francisco. i believe in this project and i want this project to move forward. that is my opinion. thank you. >> i am a resident nearby 1525 pine street. i live in a micro unit 200

square feet. the small size unit is great for someone like me. i would encourage more of this type of unit to be built in the neighborhood. in fact, i have been looking at the plans for the grubb steak i may take a unit myself. i encourage the planning commission to approve the project which may be my new home. thank you. >> hello. i am theresa. i live in the austin. this proposed design will obstruct the natural light to the units facing light wall. obstruct 100% for unit 204 surrounded by seven stories in the north and south and eight in the east and 12 in the west. this is not insignificant loss

of light. according to the shadow study there will be no direct light to illuminate the studios for the 2, 3, 4 floor. i have talked to them. there are no requirements to address this loss of light for this unit. the planning commission should take the concerns seriously and separate from loss of view and dismiss it as significant. this is about the live ability of units with no access to sunlight. committee should not allow construction to state your name units to window less rooms which require a bedroom to have one window for natural lighting. the building should be reduced to original proposal of five

stories. the residents moving here three years ago were assigned the declaration to have. i did not consent to living in the unit that does not have access to light there. are no mitigations in place by the committee to address this concern. i am asking the committee to stop dismissing concerns of residents most harmed by the proposed design and hold developers accountable to preserve illumination of the units. trade-off for 400 square feet studios in the new building should not create functionally window less apartment unit in the austin. >> thank you. that is your time. >> i concur with everything that

theresa said. i am resident 304 pine street. there is only one window and this project would be approved there will be no natural light for my unit and this is not considered livable situation. i am asking the planning commission to reduce the project to the five floors. my unit with several other units can have proper sunlight without sacrificing our quality of life. thank you. >> i am living in the project

opine street. we are not opposing the project but asking you to consider going with the original plan height of 65-foot. i have slides on the screen now. what is on the seventh floor of the austin is a living decanter hases with a lot of natural sunlight built as extension of our homes for living face that we use on a regular basis. we have access to direct sunlight on theter vases insight our homes. on slide two the natural sunlight on the private outdoor spaces is completely blocked and has the project at 1525 pine street propose with this height the austin built at this point would be built differently. these private terraces would

have problems on the 8 and ninth floor. the project was built with the 65-foot building to the east which you can see on slide three and four. if you could, commissioner, please scroll down to slide 8 of my deck. there is how the unit compares. there is really most emphasis on studio units not larger units. as the residents of the neighborhood have been able to see people enjoying the neighborhood. i would like to highlight the conditional use guide lanes saying it should not be detrimental to health safety and convenience. there is an adverse impact for all of us. there is about 200 new units approved or built in the last 12 months within a two block

radius. thank you for your attention. >> good afternoon, commissioners, corey smith here. housing action coalition has no reviewed this project and cannot speak to the specifics, but i am often walking around the city and it has become a joke between my and my partner when ever we see a single story building that is commercial or restaurant we talk about how much better and how much more inclusive the city could be if we had opportunities like what is presented in front of you today where we have got an owner, occupier of a single story restaurant who wants to add housing above the establishment and put the restaurant right back in. i think the city should be doing

everything within its power to ensentyvise this home creation. this is the right thing to do. the density in the neighborhood and the individual. i am excited to support the proposal and ask to you move it forward as quickly as possible. thank you. >> good afternoon h afternoon. i have lived here for 30 years. for the past five years i have been in conversation to rethink grubb steak. these are amended and adjusted and leading to the current plan that includes much needed housing and preserving the uniquely cable car shaped historic and iconic food

establishment. as we eamerican from this pandemic what is more urgent than comfortable deeping and preservation of well respected business? please reward the diligent efforts bypassing this project today. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am condo owner. according to the sales team it would not be taller than 65 feet. the first set of plans were 65 feet tall. we therefore purchased the condos on the seventh floor with a large terrace. with the new density program the building is now 83 feet tall. they are asking for eight

waivers from the building code to gain two additional below market units to add versely impact at least 12 units at the austin. the alley will handle all of the traffic with no underground parking it will be full of cars and uber drops of the. polk street is full of bike lanes. no waiting. cars will be blocking on austin alley. they did not address the eighth floor and the terraces on the seventh floor. privacy in austin is floor to ceiling window with new privacy from the rooftop deck. shadow from seven hours of

sunshine to two hours each day. waivers and we pick up two below market units. original plan had a nice mix of units. this has 15 small studio, everyone is jammed to 350 square foot studio in san francisco. not every state density program should be approved. this should be rejected. the original plan of 65 feet was perfect. thank you for your valuable time. >> i am samantha. i am a resident at the austin. so many comments in support of the buildings generally as the more pressing issue for the conditional use authorization which does the additional six units really out weigh all of the detrimental effects to the

neighborhood in general and to the neighbors in the austin. the answer to that is no. then if it is not outweighing the detrimental effects. as my neighbors pointed out 20 east facing units will have the light lost for the addition of six units. 20 compared to six. additionally those six units added are really not desirable for this city generally. the two under market units are 300 to 400 square feet. glorified closets we are putting people into. that is not a true use or material change to our city's housing crisis. additionally, when it comes to the environmental impact, the developer attorney said no facts were given. i submitted a letter to the

commission siting studies of the covid-19 pandemic on traffic and housing trends. the numbers don't support the developer. they show people are not in favor of tiny areas. especially not using public transportation right now because where there are people packed to the bus, there is a higher risk of transmittal of infection. i respectfully note the environmental impact report doesn't look at affected traffic and oppose covid-19 world where people are not using public transportation and they are more likely to use you -- uber and lyft. they are more likely to use grocery delivery. this is our likely reality for

the future. up of it has been addressed in the environmental impact report. >> do i still have time. >> that was your time. thank you. >> i am a business owner supporting this project. we need housing everywhere we can. speaking on behalf of myself and my family and my current staff. we find it increasingly difficult to live in san francisco with the exodus happening. rental and purchase prices are higher than we would have thought going into the pandemic. we need to add units wherever possible, wherever available.

the project sponsors are clear about intentions. as a business owner on california street a few blocks up. i support the project. thank you. >> good afternoon. i, too, am an owner at the austin. my particular unit for my own personal reasons i chose was to be in the center with this light well. i unfortunately am disabled and spend most time here in the apartment. i purchased the unit and i was told by the sales staff and the developer that the project from

2015 which was mentioned earlier was no going to come through. that it had been mixed. i should not be concerned. that is the one and only reason. now, i am here. i really don't know what i could say if people could just become passionate to those of us who paid good money to have the homes which are all new. we have only been in for perhaps maybe two years. to have this happen, to choose all of our light and for the people with terraces above me and all of that to be gone is very unfair. i am totally against it.

for me it is a difficult thing. this light well, i will have no light for the entire day. it should not be allowed to be built. you have 100 new units down the street at 1567 polk. new units around the corner. how many buildings do we need? do we need this small 21 unit? >> thank you. that is your time. >> hello. i am a 30 year resident of san francisco in support of this project. if this project and the homes get built this would provide benefits to the people most impacted by the people, who would live there. this is a good location for

transit oriented housing. the city has a severe shortage of economical housing so you know there will be plenty of people ready to reside in these units. it won't belows of vacant units here. i might consider living in the unit myself if they were available. i ask you to move forward with the density bonus. thank you for listening. >> i am daniel, business owner a block away from the proposed development. 12 year resident of the neighborhood. calling in support of the project. i believe we need more housing, all of the housing we can get in

the neighborhood. knowing so many of my customers moved away from the immediate neighborhood in the past year, in terms of data knowing our zip code has lost more residents than any other in san francisco in the past year. thank you. >> last call for public comment. you have two minutes. >> this is michael nolty, native of san francisco. i am a former employee of the health department of san francisco. i would like to mention that i would like to see the uphold the preliminary appeal for the

preliminary mitigated negative declaration and continue the conditional use authorization so that more mediation can be done so neighbors are adequately taken care of. it is important to have sunlight to the windows. that is why they live in san francisco. they should have access to certain amenities and one should be sunlight. thank you. >> i am gary virginia. i have been in the castro neighborhood since 1987. community fundraiser in the lbgt community. past president of san francisco paid and positive resource

center and several advisory boards. i want to acknowledge the project owner. he reached out to me as community leader over five years ago asking for input about the restaurant and what it means to the lbgq community, what we would like preserved. we want to make sure the restaurant stays as institution and beacon of welcoming residents of the queer community. we have lost diners. we are a tourist city that depending on tourist dollars and people into town from all different time zones that mead a place to eat. when people get off work at 2:00 there is no where to go eat. we respect jimmy for reaching out and asking how he with

preserve it. it is donated to my fund-raising club. i have had a three story building next door to me. it sounds like adjacent residents took a gamble. i support the project. thank you for listening. >> hello, plans commission. i am the copresident of the latin x commission. i am here to speak about the concerns to item 7 in regards to the micro units proposed. the height limit should not be violated. multiple waivers are applied.

it is best to deny. city should prioritize affordable housing for families struggling to stay in the cities specially black and brown communities. please do not prioritize micro units and prioritize affordable housing. thank you. >> i realized the last slide was not highlighted. >> this is jill richy around the corner from this project. i approve of the project and support the project. i believe activating this area including increasing housing is important to our businesses and to increase foot traffic, which

i believe also will increase the security of the neighborhood. thank you for your time. >> this is theresa again. i want to clarify that i submitted comments to the developer. >> hello. >> go ahead. >> good afternoon. i am dr. betty sullivan, copublisher and editor of the san francisco bay times, one of the bay area's oldest lgbt publications named this week by the small business commission as san francisco legacy accident. thank you for the opportunity to speak today. please accept our appreciation to each member of the planning commission for your over of fort

-- efforts. i am here to express our support for the grubb steak restaurant. it is a gathering place for the lbgt community. he reached out regarding his idea of developing the location. at the same time preserving the customers who cherish the legacy of the grubb steak restaurant. we have had plans and have been involved throughout. we are contributors who met jimmy at san francisco pride celebrations and community events and spoken with him. they had a chance to visit the grubb steak and continue to enjoy services. we believe the grubb steak team has done a wonderful time with working with our outreach

involve many voices. we have worked together to preserve the special business while adding much needed housing. similar to a prior speaker, i look to live at the new structure and i don't want to live up or down the street. i want to live in this building. i ask the planning commission approve this project without delay. i know it is held up for some years. we would like it to move forward. thank you again and best wishes. >> last call for public comment. press star then three. >> it looks like we reached the end. there are no members of the public requesting to speak. public comment is closed. any matters not before you. take up the appeal first before

considering the conditional use authorization. >> i am in favor of staff's recommendation and in support of not granting the appeal. >> one question on the appeal and three on the motion. do you want me to ask the appeal question now or all at the same time? >> i think let's stick with the appeal for now. staff, can you address the question that was raised about the ad was city of the cumulative traffic impact analysis?

>> i have the transportation planner as signed to this. >> we cannot hear you. >> get closer to the mic. >> planning department staff. i also had jenny, transportation assigned to review this project with me. for the cumulative analysis, we did consider all of the cumulative projects in the quarter mile radius of the project site. we provided an analysis of how the project would or would not combine with these other projects to create hazardous conditions for pedestrians,

bicycle lists. we looked at the surrounding transportation analysis zones and checked the cumulative estimates and they are all well below the ceqa threshold. we concluded that there would be no cumulative impacts associated with this project. jenny, if you have anything to add or would clarify, please do so. >> michael is correct. we analyzed the potential impact of the project. we considered whether or not cumulative impacts could exceed screening or significant criteria. >> you took into account all of the existing and proposed

projects in the vicinity as listed by mr. si nca ta, is that correct? >> yes. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. adding to what commissioner diamond questioned. question on the traffic study as well. on the alley, there are also in the study included the loading, move in and move out activities, how are those accounted in this ceqa analysis? >> the ceqa analysis assesses whether or not it will provide on site living or off street living for the loading of the

project. this particular project and other projects would be a circumstance happening not daily and therefore there is adequate moving like there is by this project those spaces could be used for those moving in or out. >> in terms of loading, can you elaborate to me and to the public about policy when it comes to loading. in the documents it will be on polk and/or austin. i guess i think it is with that vagueness as well in terms of the loading. i can see the concern on the impact of traffic. mainly on the austin street. it is ochoa small street one way. it looks like there is another

restaurant nearby. are all of the restaurants considered in this impact traffic analysis? >> it is considered when we look at each individual project. this project is most likely any loading would occur opine street. we consider that most people do the loading want to be as close to the building as possible. any loading for this project is to be occurring close to that. loading for our uses would be closer to those frontages. >> thank you for the clarification. i do share the concern of the

appellant in terms of traffic impact on the narrow streets. even though this is 21 dwelling unit, in terms of the ceqa analysis on the alley, there needs to have more emphasis on that as well. thank you for all of your response. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to share concerns about the traffic impact study as expressed by commissioner diamond and imperial. i am concerned the alley itself which was originally one of the alleys which we saw as a living alley, more pedestrian to

circulate the neighborhood is now becoming a major access road for this particular project. i have to assume that restaurant loading will occur from the alley, the back of the house being closer to the alley side, which means the delivery truck for 24/7 restaurant would basically block this one way street, including altering the function as pedestrian cross connection to the neighborhood. i am asking as to whether or not the traffic impact has been looking at cbc down the street including planned new medical office buildings on post and pine. i think it is post. would contribute towards

congestion and transportation impact? >> loading that would occur for the restaurant i believe is currently occurring. it is the same commercial loading. we did consider the loading that would occur at the adjacent project within the cumulative context. as stated before when we consider what the loading impact could be for a particular project and conditions we consider that to making commercial deliveries or other vehicles making passenger loading that are as close to the building site as possible. there is less overlap for the

loading activities of those different uses. the vehicle that would travel throughout the vicinity, the project is generating a minimal number of vehicle trips. they would below indicated on the streets adjacent to the site. whereas the vehicle to the other project would below indicated closer to the streets adjacent to the project sites. >> that is a misunderstanding. bush and pine are basically substitute cross town freeways. i live near two of them and see what happens to rush hours where there is bumper to bumper traffic only interrupted by slower change in light sequences from east to west in the afternoon and west to east in

the morning. with the impact of that rapid bus transit on van ness and the disruption to the flow pattern. i can only imagine given the block size between pope and van ness is short. the impact will be larger. those things are not being analyzed in any traffic studies because it is not there yet. it is under construction. it is not particularly safe for pedestrians at this moment. that will probably improve, however, do not believe it will help cross traffic in the east west traffic. i think the cumulative study needs to take a micro scopic view not only the slow amount of traffic by this project but the cumulative movement when all of these particular buildings are

coming together. it is how the numbers would work with each other and when. particularly, in midafternoon to early evening as well as morning. the existing patterns are barely workable. i echo my fellow commissioners concern over the traffic study. thank you. >> commissioner tanner. >> i did can't to ask about the historic -- i did want to ask about the historic nature of the building. i want to confirm what we read in the stack report. this is a contributing building to the historic district, because of the diner

reestablished with some toward the design. what i am trying to understand reconstruction of the diner versus demolition. i think that could be confusing for the public to identify the contributing resources. the loss of contributing resource doesn't diminish the resources. if they were demolished. can you elaborate on the relationship between the contributing resource and district. that might help provide insight. >> in terms of ceqa. within the historic district we identified contributors.

then we are looking at the demolition of one contributor within the historic district. we are looking whether the demolition if the district will contribute to the significance to express significance through the existence of the remaining. for this particular situation we identified the district through the analysis, certain number of contributors, what the significance were of the district and determined that because we have a large number of remaining contributors to the demolition of one would not be significant to the overall district.

>> i want to applaud the project sponsor. i am concerned as the development to be mindful of how we are watching the contributors to the district. one of i believe maybe 15 contributors that were identified. perhaps one doesn't damage but at a certain point we are getting towards the diminishing of the district. perhaps this sets the precedent what might help preserve things. i want to be cautious going forward to think about that. thank you for that. i don't share the concerns about the loading that has been expressed by other commissioners. i certainly share concerns in terms of loading can be

challenging in san francisco. in any year there are moving in and outs and loading at the restaurant. if you think it is looking at the map of the alley that certainly there are parking spaces available for folks to use. i think they could accommodate the building. 21 units i don't know that it would be of itself one to have extreme concern about the loading needs, but certainly that alley if other buildings happen on the same block could create need for more specific loading requirements on the street in the way of more loading zones and other types of accommodations for loading. i concur with president koppel and i would agree with staff recommendation to uphold. >> is that a motion?

>> i will make that motion to uphold. >> second. commissioner chan. >> i am sorry. the host rather than to everyone. >> go first, commissioner fung. >> i wanted to say that the -- my questions are answered by staff. i find pmnd comprehensively done and adequate. >> commissioner chan. >> i appreciate the questions by the fellow commissioners.

i think it does an adequate job of the transportation facts and uploading. there could be ways to address that as we move to the project. the project sponsor may contribute to some improvements. i would be happy to support upholding this. >> did i miss you, commissioner diamond? >> you did. i just wanted to clarify. i asked a question about the traffic analysis. i believe staff adequately answered my question. i did not share the concern about loading. i do share commissioner tanner's concern about at what point do we reach an impact when too many

contributors are demolished? i believe staff is concerned about that issue and keeping track of that. i would be in support of upholding approval. >> commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to add to my comments i believe staff analysis of the ceqa question regarding preservation is answered. i share concerns of commissioner tanner and diamond and i believe that has been properly addressed. >> thank you. if there is nothing further, commissioners, related to the mitigated negative declaration that is a motion and second to

uphold. on that motion commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> no. >> commissioner moore. >> no. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes 5-2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. now you may deliberate on the conditional use authorizes,missioners. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i did want to ask a few questions about the project. i want to start by saying i generally support the project. iowa president to dive into a few things. i wanted to hear from the project sponsor, i believe

mr. moore was the architect on the line. could you talk about where you are building the austin and living terraces if there are windows from the units that would exit to the terrace. one of the neighbors mentioned that as a concern. if you could address that. could somebody from your building go to the terrace of the neighboring building through the window? could you offer insight into that? the alignment between the two buildings might be helpful. >> sure. as you can see from the 3-d, 1525 pine is one story higher than terraces on the austin. blank wall to the terraces. the top level of the residential

occupancy. our common roof deck, you might remember from front of you has two pieces. it is away from the edges expressly for that reason to stay away so you can't stair so you -- can't staredown on pe. that addresses the privacy issue. i think they will have plenty of light. the additional story should not impact the light in any way. >> i notice on the drawing for the proposed building there is a light well on your sight matching the outdoor gardens on the austin. could you share more about that design and its inclusion? >> the austin light well is over

25 feet deep it is 10% matching light well where the convention is 75% normally adequate. i think the austin was constructed with the anticipation of the building against that light well. that is where it was so big. i feel for those residents on that light well, but that was built into the original thinking about that building. >> thank you. i appreciate that. as far as perhaps i don't know about the project itself. i want to clarify for my own benefit and the members of the public. distinction between concessions

and waivers. my understanding concessions are physical parts of the building. dimensions if the concession isn't granted it diminishes the unit or the ability for the unit to exist in the proposed site. is that an accurate understanding of the concessions versus waiver request? >> concessions incentive are needed to offset cost of providing on site affordable units. in the case, the project has requested the eight waiver because of precrude -- precluding the development of the density bonus project. >> the waivers are the dimensional requests that say we need waiver for the rear yard. if we have that we couldn't build units there. that is one concession that was

from -- for the bay windows. the waivers are dimensional. those are helping to provide affordability of the unit? >> correct. >> thank you very much. the 28% for the three bedroom units. do you have any information how that aligns with what we are looking for the city and where it misses a little bit? >> the project history is around for quite some time. prior to 2016 or 2017, i don't know the year, there wasn't a city-wide requirement. when it came in and was evaluated we didn't notify them

of the unit requirement. there is a little bit of that to have in your mind as well. what they are proposing is 28% of two and three bedroom units. 15 studio, three two bedrooms and three bedrooms. 35% two and three bedrooms with at least 10% three bedrooms. that would be like a mix of five that are two bedrooms. what we are getting is greater mix to allow wider variety of household types. >> 28% for two and three bedrooms. under current requirements it would be 35%. those are not applied to the project? i want to make sure i understood you correctly. those were not in place when the project was started? >> they are asking waiver from

that requirement that we have. that legislation happened midway through the project. >> great. thank you for clarifying that. >> for the bmrs studios. this is my absence of knowledge regarding the program. i was under the impression they were designated to be proportion at to the mix of units in the building. not all ground floor units will be bmr but throughout. two studios specifically that will be bmrs. it is state density, because of the a.m.i. level we are reaching 50% a.m.i. help me understand the knowledge that we are going to designate two studios versus three or two bedroom bmr units.

[please stand by] number is lower. >> thank you very much for helping understand that. and that was all my questions. thank you. i just want to close with a few comments. i'm really impressed by the project sponsors' outreach to the lgtb community, to the neighboring community, the businesses. it's clear from the calls that we've received that there's been a lot of outreach and real genuine engagement around what i see as kind of bringing the grub

steak into its next 100 years. i think it's a really exciting opportunity. it is a different type of revival of the building. of course losing the building, it's so charming, and i think very beloved, but to see the renderings and the proposed way to reinvent this institution, it's just really exciting, and i hope -- i live near where -- used to be and so it's very sad to see that closed, and many of our 24-hour places closing up, and so looking forward to once the construction is done the restaurant returning, and of course operating until this construction begins. i also want to commend the additional bike parking that's been provided on site for these units. i want to express to have sympathy to our neighbors, the residents in the area and if they are renting a unit there, certainly having a change from 65 feet to 83 feet, i can see that being a big change and

feeling really unfortunate and for those who maybe weren't able to fully read or kind of anticipate the impacts from the notice that they signed. it just still can be kind of a bummer to feel like your living situation is going to be changed. it does seem like there's been an effort to match the 100% lightwell and garden is at the austin and really tried to mitigate to the degree possible their impact while also providing more units in san francisco, and as we heard, really a variety from two and three-bedrooms to studios. a diverse building for a mix of folks who want to live there and call that place home. even though the loading may have been a concern for some, the project is putting in many building units and not building parking spaces for cars, instead of building homes for people to live in. i really want to applaud this project design, and i can't wait to hopefully see it be constructed, so i will be

supporting this project. thank you. >> thank you. we have a couple of late requesters, members of the public requesting to speak. should we allow them or afford them that opportunity now or later? >> later. >> we'll do it now, please. >> okay. members of the public, when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. if you have spoken before, though, you will be muted. you have two minutes. go ahead, caller. >> excuse me. the concerns of the lower units on austin street were not adequately addressed, and again today has been dismissed as -- >> ma'am, have you spoken

already? have you previously spoken? >> no. >> okay, go ahead. >> sorry, i just said that the concerns of the lower studio units at the austin has not been adequately addressed and no mitigations have been added by the developer, and it has been dismissed again today as just a minor inconvenience. >> okay, thank you. >> i'm going to unmute you one more time, but you've got to mute either your television or your computer or your phone or whatever. you've got too many devices on. oh, they decided not to make their comment, so commissioners,

public comment is closed again, and you may continue your -- oh, and you may continue your deliberation. that person is calling back in. >> so i think we're on commissioner moore. >> okay. >> i would just like to note that we are having two conversations on this project. one is focusing on the benefit of the restaurant, an important lgtbq resource and high marks for reinstituting this restaurant in a recognizable form at the ground floor of the building. the second conversation where i think we're not clearly seeing the impact is the impact of new housing on the bonus laws on surrounding residential community, and that impact not just the austin.

the impact i believe is also on all east-facing residential units, including the quality of life on -- streets, not just austin alley. i'd like to go back by a few years. i actually was a commissioner sitting on the approval of the austin, and i do distinctly recall, and perhaps ms. asper can help me on that, that we engaged in a very, very long fight for the hide street portion facing of the austin to step down in order to replicate the lower-scale of buildings moving east towards hope street. at that time we believed that the austin [indiscernible] would be greatly impacting of how we transitioned down to poke and

then moving up towards nob hill on the other side of poke, and the commission fought long and hard to achieve the building, and if i recall correctly, at that time the preservation and future coexistence of a building that would capture the restoration and revitalization of the -- the building, and it's for that reason that i'm greatly concerned that the impact of how the new building was designed is more impacting than we are currently discussing. i believe that the state density bonus suggestion for this building takes more than it gives, and i just wanted to throw that in. if commissioners have other questions for me, i'll be happy to answer to them. i already mentioned my concerns about the alley at that time being perceived as a more

pedestrian-friendly almost open space alley because it has sun. the density builds up neighborhood, even sun on the street matters to those who are circulating through the neighborhood. but doing what we are currently asked to improve, we will lose a great ability to maintain the alley in its former vision, and i do believe that the impact on the east-facing owners of the austin is significant. and that is all. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i did have a question on the state density bonus. so [indiscernible] dwelling unit and two studios, that equates to about 10% of bmrs.

i believe in our current local inclusionary we have higher -- we have higher inclusionary rate. my question in terms of the state density is -- first is i guess -- probably it's more a question to the developer, or i guess i'll question first to the planner. if the project sponsor is losing the height and didn't use the state density bonus, what would be the inclusionary rate according to our local inclusionary program? >> can you do me a favor and restate that last part of your question again? i want to make sure i understand you. >> if the project sponsor didn't use the state density bonus law and maintained the height, what would be the local -- what would

be the local inclusionary requirement within our city, within our jurisdiction? >> that's a good question. i think what we do here, and i believe that the density that would be allowed on this site is 15 units, and we calculate the inclusionary fee on that base, so 15 units, 13% is what this project is subject to, and so that equates to 1.75 units, and you round that up to two units. we as a city, we apply the inclusionary to the entirety of the density project, and so they are, by providing 13% on site, those two units, they are satisfying 67% of that requirement. the rest of that will be paid by fee at a rate of 20%. >> mm-hm, so our local

inclusionary would still be at 10% or would not be? >> yeah, 13%. >> at 13%. okay. thank you for asking that question. so in a way -- and this is -- again, this is my opinion when it comes to state density that i -- i know that within our local jurisdiction we cannot, you know -- we cannot do much [indiscernible] state law. however, in terms of the, you know, ways that the impacts that it's going to have, again, i do reiterate and echo commissioner moore's perspective when it comes to the alleyways as we have seen that lately in -- cases alleyways has becoming some sort of a major street lately. many cars have been -- it's not alleyways are not designed anymore for walking or

pedestrians, but it's already designed for cars as an alternative to the major streets. and sometimes because i'm not a part of the major street, just part of my experience of walking along in the mission and also now in vanness where there is so much construction going on, i also do think that this alleyways are going to be more traffic jam packed, and state density that many of the developers are trying to acquire i think we are losing more of the liveability or quality of life in terms of having more units. having more units doesn't really equate on the liveability of life. so in this sense for me, and

this is my, you know, struggle in this kind of project when someone uses state density is that i would rather see more affordable housing units or has more, you know, options in a way that would contribute more to the well-being of the city. so this is my -- you know, comes to the state density projects and i have to balance it all in terms of the livability, the number of housing units, and the number of affordability on-site, and for this matter i do not think i will support this project. >> commissioner fung? >> i have a brief question for the appellant.

>> yes? i'm available. >> i'm not sure you can answer it, but i will raise this question anyways. the units that are on the east side impacted by this project, are those -- the curtain wall, are those the only exterior windows that those units have? >> yes. so the -- well, for the lower unit, middle unit, they are the only windows they have. i would point out that those lower units, lower than the seventh floor, they -- even the ones that match by the lightwell, because the height of the building is so tall, you know, it goes to 83 feet, those lower units, the lightwell is virtually useless. >> i understand that. mr. cicada, so those interior

units -- >> there are units -- >> -- either the street or to the alley. >> right. the outer units, the units on each end that do have windows out to austin alley and pine street. >> okay, thank you. you know, in terms of a few comments on the project, i was supportive of the project. however, i am bothered by the fact that we are being asked to support something which i believe we all support, which is the creation of more affordable units, but it's basically putting those two units that are

being provided against, you know, a massive disturbance against multiple units that are existing. and that kind of approach bothers me. i understand the restrictions that the state bonus density program has applied to the commission. however, i find that this is one of those cases where the . . . the problem that has been created for the adjacent neighbors is much more extensive than what we've seen in quite a few other projects. i'm not sure i can support this project.

>> commissioner diamond? >> i have a question for staff or the city attorney's office, and that is what degree of discretion we have under the state density bonus legislation to make changes to this project or to turn it down. >> i think i'd like to defer to the city attorney's office on this to help us out. >> city attorney's office. on the waivers that are requested, the commission could turn down the waiver if you don't find that it is physically necessary to allow a construction of the project, including the bonus, or that there is a specific adverse impact on the public health and safety based on objective standards, or the concessions

are [indiscernible]. the commission could turn down the concessions or incentives if you find that they don't reduce the cost of the -- of constructing the building, including the bonus, or again that there is a specific adverse impact on the public health and safety based on objective standards. >> do we have sufficient objective standards in our code that gives us the ability to say that the request for the waiver for height, for example, doesn't meet public health and safety standards? >> i am not sure i can answer that. i have not gone through the code to look at what those standards may be. staff may have some insight on that.

if the commission were going to disapprove the waivers or the concessions and incentives, i would propose that the commission continue the item so that we can look at those issues more closely with staff. >> okay, so i am really struggling with this project because i really commend the work that's been done to recreate grub stake. i find, as i said previously, that i thought the traffic impacts were adequately analyzed. i am very supportive of the addition of the extra housing units. we desperately need them in the city. it's fine by me that they are studios. i think we need housing of all kinds, but i'm very concerned about the trade-off that a number of the speakers raised and that commissioner fung just raised about the addition of units coming at the cost of the liveability of some of the units

that are in the austin, even though they signed, you know, that consent form or whatever you want to call it when they bought it that they knew a project was coming in next door and there was no guarantee it was going to be 65 feet. it feels like the right balance is -- i'm struck that we may not have achieved the right balance yet, and i would like to see if there's more work that could be done to lessen somewhat the impact on those units in the austin, but i don't know if we have the ability to do that, because i don't know if there's sufficient objective standards in our code that will allow us to make the finding that ms. stacy just described, so i feel like i'm in need of a little more guidance here and more conversation with the other commissioners. >> commissioner moore? >> i'm going to do a redirect to commissioner fung who brought up

some very important points, and that is the exposure requirement for the bedrooms, for the units in the austin building, where every unit, every bedroom has an exposure to the street. the external unit facing austin alley has that exposure. however, the two center units do not, so over 7 floors we have a total, if i read that correctly, of potentially 14 studio units in the austin which would be for health and safety impacted. it would be interesting to hear commissioner fung respond to my question and look at it from my perspective and impact, and again, i think what i described earlier, the commission in the past challenging the height or

the portion of the austin i think already expresses that. commissioner fung, can i ask you to respond to my question? >> commissioner moore, can you repeat it again, please? >> i just wanted to hear your concerns over the quality of the studios impacted on it together with the fact that the code requires one window needing to be exposed to -- unit exposure on to the lightwell. >> i believe that the number of units that are more severely impacted is probably less than the number that you brought forward. it's probably two floors in the austin that are more seriously

impacted. the question is that those conform to code since they probably had an exposure exception. indeed, the issue is more subjective, as i was bringing forward, the question that -- and the word that you brought forward, the liveability of those units is changed, and i think that's what i was referring to. >> thank you so much for clarifying that, liveability is always an issue. it is subjective. however, when it comes to health and safety, we all know that light is an extremely important ingredient to our ability to live in any unit, no matter where it is, small or large. >> commissioner tanner. >> i just want to acknowledge it is a really tough issue and particularly the center units in the austin, particularly on the

lower levels. to me those are the ones that did really impact, and i think the question i ask myself is, okay, if this project was 65 feet, would it solve the issue for those lower units? and i don't have a shadow study, you know, of the kind of base project to look at kind of how the light would or wouldn't reach those lower units. you know, under a different height, but i would guess that some of those units will still be impacted even if the project wasn't asking for a bonus, and then weighing that against the bonus -- or rather the bonus area includes i think four units total in terms of the height, those extra floors are four units. you know, it's not a giant product overall, 21 housing units, and then look at the time it's taken for this application to be processed and come to this point, and to me that's also a challenge overall with our city. it's just the amount of time it takes for housing to come to fruition is part of the cost and

the impact of one of the impacts for our city to consider. i would be interested, ms. afa, maybe other staff, do we have objective standards that indicate what health and safety are defined as? if some of the commissioners are seeming to want to continue or to deny, i would be curious if we even have the objective standards in place to offer that. >> that's a great question. so the bar is very high as far as being able to deny either, you know, a waiver or an incentive or concession. you really have to have a specific adverse impact, which means a significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date that the application was deemed complete. and i am not aware of any that

are available at this point. >> okay. and perhaps you could also -- and i don't know that you may be able to, because this hearing is not about the austin, a product that was already previously approved, but i am curious about the center units, did they need a waiver from any other standards for exposure or was the exposure on to the 25-foot-deep garden area sufficient to provide light and air to those units? i don't know if anyone on this call from staff is aware about that project's permitting and how those units came to have no exposure to a street. >> so it's my understanding that the pine did obtain a variance for exposure. i'd have to look into it further obviously, but i do believe that they obtained that at the time of their approval. >> okay. >> and i think also -- i just wanted to add to this, because we did -- staff did raise this question during our conversations with the project sponsors, and we asked them to

analyze the light, and i do believe they provided something in their packet to the commission, but if i could ask that the project sponsor speak to this issue. >> i'm going to bring ms. belosi in for this. could we turn on the slides as well? it is in the [indiscernible]. >> it's in the pamphlet we got today? >> so our slide presentation, in the appendix, yes, we did have some pre-vision, so pre-vision prepared some slides of the shadow as part of our outreach through the ltn, and so we do have a slide if we can pull that up, and in the appendix there's one that shows the shadow with the co-compliant project, and the shadow of the density bonus project so you can see how it changes. the other thing to note is i

ironically was the attorney that entitled the t45 pine street, and some of those units did require a variance for exposure as part of their entitlement, and then i also want to note that in part the reason why the austin stepped down at that location is because it moved from being in the rc4 district down into the poke street ncd, so it goes from i think 130 feet, 160, down to 65 feet. but if we could -- >> yeah, because i don't think we have those in our email, so i don't know, janice, if your staff have those slides or . . . >> it's the end of our presentation. >> of the presentation, so our slide presentation. it's at the end. >> okay. >> so someone could pull that up. >> okay, let me work on getting that. >> are you able to pull that up? . i don't see michael. oh, no, he's here.

>> while we're getting that, i don't have any other questions, other than that one. i don't know if we want to go to commissioner moore or wait for the slides to get up. i know it can be hard to get slides up and talk and answer questions at the same time. >> let's maybe go to commissioner moore for now. >> i only wanted to ask very briefly, and there may not be an answer, are any of the units that are on the lower two floors occupied with sbmi units? i would be very interested to hearing that as well. the impact will be no matter who lives there, but as we heard, sometimes studio units are the ones provided as bmr. in this particular case, what is the situation? >> could you repeat that, commissioner moore? were you asking if the units at the ground floor of the austin or this particular project? >> no, at the ground floor of the austin, please.

>> that i don't have knowledge of. i'd have to look into the record to see where they are located. >> it would be interesting to know, not that that really in the end should make a difference, but the impact no matter who lives there is a double whammy. but i think we should be very concerned should they also has been to be bmi units. thank you. >> so those slides should be pulled up shortly here. my staff is looking for them to share, and there they go. so i believe it was mentioned that they are towards the end of the presentation, ms. pelosi, mr. morris? >> yes, this is the slide, you can see that that is the one -- this is the one that's proposed density bonus, and then the next slide should be the co-compliant one. so that is the co-compliant one. so when you look at the center,

obviously the topic is the orange building, and when you look at the middle, and if you flip back and forwards, you can see the difference between the two. this was submitted as part of the overall package of the project. so for the co-compliant you can see the shadow that is cast on that interior courtyard. >> thank you for providing that. >> commissioner diamond? >> so i am -- in light of -- maybe i just want to reiterate the question to ms. connor. are you saying we don't have specific objective standards that would allow us to make the public health and safety findings? or you're not aware of them.

>> commissioner diamond, right. i mean, the bar is very high, so i'm not aware of any -- i'm not aware of any sort of standard that look at any sort of direct adverse impacts on public health or safety standards that would apply to this project. >> in that case i will be supporting the motion, but i -- i feel like this is a case that's showing that the trade-offs may not be -- may not have been adequately analyzed in the drafting of the state density bonus legislation and that i am hoping our staff will take a look at this and decide whether or not they think that we ought to be offering suggestions that would give us a

little more flexibility here to make those trade-offs, but i will be supporting the project approval. >> commissioner fung? >> the statement made by ms. conner has pretty much followed the -- my readings of the state legislation, and i've read it multiple times, to arrive at an inclusion that it basically has emasculated the planning commission, so it's quite difficult to fight that. however, the issue that brought forth i think has created a tension between projects that is not just solved by rubber

stamping the density bonus, and in this particular instance i'm prepared to not support the project. >> commissioner chan? >> thank you. i think it was useful for me to hear. >> [indiscernible] bonus, you would get the same number of bmr units. i also wanted to echo commissioner diamond's comments about staff doing a little bit of analysis. i'm curious to know more about kind of the radius of determining that impacts, whether it's the impact on the immediate neighbors or a larger impact on city and just trying to understand what impact actually means in terms of the geographic scale and so forth. those are my comments right now.

>> commissioner tanner? >> well, at the risk of it failing, i'm going to go ahead and make a motion. before i do, i would ask if -- i think it's ms. chan, if you can scroll back to the other slides that is the fan 1, i believe, that shows the proposed project. so a little bit darker on the center courtyard, and if you can go back one more time to the next one, not as significant difference in terms of the access to light and air for those center units, and i think what this conversation to me emphasizes is the need, both, one, to develop some sort of objective standards because we know we have been seeing the state density bonus program quite a lot, and so i think light and air to me are things

that i do really consider very, very important, and so we have both a previously approved project that had to get i believe it was a variance itself from exposure, and so that was granted. i'm not saying it should or shouldn't have been, but just to say that there was an agreement that could have a different standard applied to it, and then lo and behold the building next door wants to be constructed under any circumstance code compliant or state density compliant it has a significant impact to the light and air of the units that are in the center, and so is that on the project that's being proposed? is that on the previous project that was approved? you know, where does that land us? so i think the conversation, notwithstanding, and the negative impacts, and i'll be clear, not impacts under ceqa, but the way that it impacts the folks who live in those units, notwithstanding i will make a motion to approve this project as recommended by staff.

>> second. >> okay, commissioners. seeing no further requests to speak from commissioners, and there being a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions, commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner chan? >> no. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> no. >> commissioner imperial? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore? >> i'm sorry. no. >> and commissioner president koppel? >> aye. >> that motion fails 3-4 with commissioners chan, fung, imperial and moore voting against. is there an alternate motion?

>> i move to continue this project. >> is there any kind of a time you were thinking? a month? two? it seems as though they would need to make some adjustments of some sort. >> i see director coming on. did you have a suggestion, director? >> i would suggest, you know, six weeks or so so we can kind of look at some of these facts that have been brought up. >> okay, six weeks, jonas? does that look like a date? are there dates in that six-week range that would work? >> absolutely. i'm just looking for the date. that's putting us somewhere around june 17, june 21 -- excuse me, 24, july 1 is canceled. july 8. >> i didn't hear a second. >> i second. >> two months? is that what we're saying? >> well, i --

>> [indiscernible]. >> commissioner diamond, do you have a comment to make? >> yes. commissioner tanner, can you articulate what she wants to have the project sponsor accomplish during the continuance period? >> that is a great question, and i would be open to other commissioners suggesting, because from what i heard the project sponsor needing to do is look at something. i'm not sure what, but a way to i guess provide more light and air to the neighboring courtyard? that's what i've heard the commission trying to find. is there additional revisions that are requested? that's what i've heard articulated is the other project not having light. >> commissioner moore? >> that particular request would really entail for the building to be lower. we all have lived next to tall buildings if we grew up in cities where a building where you found your unit, at least

when you look up, can still see sky. that gives you a feeling that there is even if you are in some form of shadow that there is at least some light, but however now with this building being significantly higher, you can't see the sky, then it becomes impacting, and so i would say that we should be asking specifically for 65-foot building, but potentially with a different unit mix to be brought forward here, because -- it's the same bmrs as we had before. >> okay. i will withdraw my motion. if that's the motion that you want to make, commissioner moore, you can make that motion. i don't agree with it, so i will -- >> i'm not making a motion. i'm just trying to give a little bit -- so the motion you're making is something that we can constructively look at. otherwise we're just spinning wheels. >> oh, i totally agree. i think it would be more constructive for someone who has those concerns to make the motion, so i will leave that to

commissioner diamond or commissioner moore, if you would like to make such a motion with better direction for the project sponsor. >> i am not intending to make a motion. >> go ahead, commissioner diamond. >> so i am supportive of commissioner tanner's motion where the focus is on light and air. i don't necessarily believe they need to reduce the height and i would like to see, you know, what they can come up with that would make those lower units that have no windows on to austin or pine a little bit more liveable, but i don't believe that it's necessary to absolutely require that they reduce the height, and i would like to support commissioner tanner's motion for a continuance in that way. >> okay, so how about we do a continuance. i think, jonas, the 16th of june? >> june 17th. >> so does that work for the project sponsor? yeah? so if we can see a continuance

to june 17 with revisions or exploration of providing more light and air to the lower units of the neighboring project that are in the center, that would be my motion. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. so there's a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter with direction from the commission to june 17. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner chan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> and commission president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 5-2 with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. commissioners, that will place us on item 9 for case no. 2019-020740cua4ful turk street. april 15, 2021 after hearing in closing public comment you

continued the matter to may 6, 2021 by a vote of 7-0. i will only recognize that that first hearing was -- although we did hear the project, it was really -- the conversation was really revolving around the continuance, so the -- after staff makes their report, the projects sponsor will be afforded five minutes an members of the public will have two minutes to submit their comments. are you ready? >> i'm ready as i'll ever be. >> fair enough. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to demolish an existing building and reconstruct a building with 101 group housing units. the parcel is located in the rc4 zoning district, upper market special use district and 80t height and bulk district.

on march 25, 2021, the planning commission continued the item without hearing to allow time for the project sponsor to conduct community outreach. on april 15, the commission held a public hearing on the project and provided feedback on the design of the proposal with recommendations on possible changes. they continued the item to allow the sponsor time to incorporate these changes. since the hearing, the sponsor has made the following revisions to the project. a 20% increase in -- parking from 45 spaces to 54 spaces. the addition of a bonus shared kitchen at the basement level located in the previous community laundry. this opens on to a landscaped rear yard for outdoor dining and socializing. and lastly, in lieu of the previous single community laundry, individual laundry rooms have been distributed throughout various floors. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 209.3, 253 and 303 to allow the

construction of a building that exceeds 50 feet in height at the street frontage within the rm4 zoning district. the project is utilizing california state density bonus law and request waivers for three things. the project requires an adoption of findings for the state density bonus under planning code sections per the draft resolution in your packets from the april 15 hearing. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor will be presenting now. >> i need your help. >> mr. gladstone, are you with us? >> i need to start the timer. >> mr. gladstone, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> mr. macy is starting the presentation. >> your time is running. >> yeah, i'm here. could claudine put our slides up? >> could you go ahead and give

me the ball there, jonas? >> i need to start it, five minutes. >> you have it, claudine. >> fwraet, for some reason it wasn't allowing me to share. >> start that now. >> yeah. >> okay, looks like your slides are up. >> great. well, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mark macy, principal of macy architecture. this is our first official hearing, as the previous three were continued, the commission graciously allowed us to present our project after making a motion to continue on april 15. commissioners then asked questions and provided initial feedback at that time. so i will not repeat that presentation today rather limit my efforts to addressing commissioner comments and requests from the 15th. next slide, please. the basement plan. on the left is the previous april 15 layout, and on the right is the updated layout. one request was regarding bike parking to see if it was at all

possible to increase the amount of secure spaces. so in our updated scheme we are able to accommodate 20% more spaces for a total of more than required by code. another comment was the desire to see if we could provide an additional shared kitchen. so at the basement level, opening on to the rear yard, we have added a bonus shared kitchen in the space previously occupied by the community laundry. this bonus kitchen will have all the appliances and features from which the community kitchen at the second floor. the single large community laundry has been replaced by multiple smaller laundry rooms at each floor level with the exception of the first floor, which will continue to have the gender neutral restroom to serve the community at this level. next slide, please. so the typical upper floor plan. again on the left is the previous april 15 layout, and on the right is the updated layout. it shows the changes to the typical upper floors, indicating an enclosed shared laundry room that will be at each floor.

these rooms are the washing room and the super-efficient heat pump dryer. these machines will be in a separate fire rated and acoustically insulated room in order to ensure both safety and peace and quiet. joint use of this laundry room by residents of each floor will enensure additional interaction among residents other than the community kitchens and living areas. next slide, please. the bonus shared kitchen and outdoor dining area, this is an enlarged plan showing the relationship to the rear yard open space. the outdoor area will be landscaped and furnished to promote dining and socializing, something along the look and feel provided in the recent letter to you. this concludes my presentation and i of course would be happy to do my best to answer any questions you may have and would like to introduce brett gladstone. >> thank you, land use attorney. the neighborhood outreach process started in october of 2019, and there have been five sessions with the community. since then, including an

additional exchange of each party's draft good neighbor agreement during the three weeks since your commission asked our negotiations to continue. my client's wish that the agreement these groups proposed, called the good neighbor agreement, did not contain financial terms. financial terms are problematic at a time when the city -- in this city, when even luxury new units are not pencilling out for project sponsors. in my written presentation to you last time, i indicated that less than half the entitled units in the pre-covid portions of 2019 through today have actually been built. the city needs more projects to pencil out and get built. this project is unusual in that more than half of the bmr units will be as low as 50% bmr, and bmr level the commission rarely sees, except in 100% affordable projects and of course in affordable housing.

if construction costs do not continue to go up, it's likely the market rate units will be rented at only 110% ami. why this occurs is no mystery. the number of units, thanks to the density bonus, is fwraeter. the units are small, and because the building will not have the luxury amenities of most of the new market rate apartment buildings today. >> the caller has disconnected the line. good-bye. >> mr. gladstone, are you still with us? it appears we've lost mr. gladstone.

i will try to unmute his computer. >> under the planning code. according to our -- which i presented to you on the screen at the last hearing, today's hearing will be the fifth such event. thank you. >> mr. gladstone, your phone actually disconnected in the last probably 30 seconds of your presentation. i paused your time before 30 seconds began, so i don't know if you want to start over with your -- with 30 more seconds? your concluding remarks? mr. gladstone? okay. very good then. if that concludes project sponsor's presentation, commissioners, we should open it

up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star then 3. you will be provided with two minutes. >> good afternoon. can you hear me. >> yes, we can hear you. >> i'm the -- manager for glide and a member of marcus street for the masses lending committee. we have many concerns around group housing in the tenderloin. number one, these units are very small and would exclude many families, like social workers who have large families. so this is about social equity. number two, we are concerned about accessibility for people with disabilities, like someone using a wheelchair or need of a caregiver. three, two small mental wellness or physical comfort, and also of concern that they were -- i also wanted to mention that having

meetings with the public from one or ten should not be used for checking off a box. it should be used for true engagement with outcomes that benefits everyone. this project definitely lacked that, so there's no community agreement or good neighbor policy with this project and the community. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. want to start by sharing that it is our understanding that this would be the fifth meeting for this project per senate bill 330, and any additional continuances would be a violation of state law. on the project itself, you know, we do think that what you have in front of you really does fit a need for the city of san francisco, as expressed earlier. the market rate units for this

project are going to be available for people in that 100 to 110% of area median income, and changes to the project could threaten economic feasibility and make the entire thing just not possible. the project is unusual as well because of the majority of the bmr units will be as low as 50% ami, and that is something that the commission does not often see in these sort of mixed-income projects. -- to affordable housing fees. we're happy to see this project as one of the first in san francisco to be utilizing assembly bill 2345, the update to the state density bonus law that took effect at the beginning of the year that did require lower ami levels in exchange for that density bonus. we've already had three

continuances for the purpose of the conversation, and while we understand the economic feasibility of this situation, we, therefore, urge you to approve the project that you have in front of you today, giving people places to live, and what we have in front of us is a good opportunity to add much-needed homes. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name is curtis bradford and i am -- of the masses coalition, and co-chair of the general people's congress. i am calling today to -- really i want to take up the question of group housing in the tenderloin period. honestly, some of the issues that you raised with the last project before this are true here with these state density projects, and i feel like talking about group housing in

particular, clearly this kind of housing -- already dense tenderloin neighborhood is more of this sort of containment zone planning policy that's really created some of the trauma in the tenderloin neighborhood. we've got so many issues related to the density of the tenderloin now, and we're not receiving adequate resources in order to address those problems as it is, and just cramming more of this kind of housing in there. i really hope that we can -- i'm using this as an opportunity to highlight the group housing problem and the housing equity for the neighborhoods so that we can have that conversation. i think we really need to go back and look at the group housing thing and how it applies in our neighborhoods. secondly, we have group housing in soma and we're looking at it in the mission and the tenderloin and one of those neighborhoods that really is being negatively impacted by this. also i think this is a little bit -- fourth time, so i think actually -- i believe you

actually do have another opportunity to continue this one more time within the rules of the state density laws, but i also mentioned was thinking about looking at the pictures that the sponsor provided and look at those pictures and tell me if any of those people in the pictures look like folks that live in the tenderloin, and i think that's part of the issue for me as well, who are you actually building this housing for? is it going to be necessary once we come back from covid, are there even going to be those high-income tech workers that they picture in the pictures that will actually be looking for housing to live in that kind of housing in the tenderloin anymore? i don't know if it's even going to be feasible. i don't think their project's going to pencil out the way they think it's going to anyway given the change in the current housing market and the people are going to be looking for housing. so yeah -- >> thank you. that's your time. >> hi, this is community

organizer with community housing partnership public policy and community organizing. i'm also with the margaret street for the masses -- and planning group. it really just feels like ramming development down a community's throat for profit is offensive in the community with such a high concentration of disparity. i'm not sure what other realm of economics, besides development, if it doesn't pencil out, it could still happen. i believe that i've seen my family members are trying to build a house right now, and lumber prices have jumped from $900 to $3,000, so concentrations of state density bonus projects and historically disadvantaged neighborhoods operate as a form of modern-day red lining, a practice made inlegal in 1968 under the fair housing act. these are all kinds of things we need to be considering when these developments, which are

permanent, infrastructure in our communities are being waived for approval, and i do think that our community voice is important in the process. regardless, if there's the ability for the laws to say that it has to be proved, regardless of the community's input. >> yes, this is david elliott lewis. i'm with the markets free for the masses coalition and also i'm a member of the tenderloin people's congress. this project is not only will not serve our neighborhood, it will actually i think harm it for many of the reasons already stated, but i want to emphasize a few in particular. the developer has positioned this as possible workforce housing. i don't believe that this will

pencil off for that. people who make workforce market rate salaries are not going to live in these 200-square-foot tiny rooms with inadequate kitchens, and if they did live here, they would be -- it would be a transient type of housing, and they wouldn't be serving the -- helping the neighborhood businesses. they would just be here for a temporary work project. secondly, if it's just going to be for long-term residential use, it also doesn't serve the neighborhood. the kitchens are inadequate. i have lived experience, living in a building with units this size, with this kind of inadequate kitchen, and it was horrible. i had 13 years in that unit, and i wouldn't want to wish that on anyone. unless you've lived in a unit this size, you wouldn't want to wish this on anyone either. i don't know if you've looked at the bathroom design with translucent walls, but there's no privacy in the bathrooms, and

if you're going to put two people in these units with these shared translucent wall bathrooms, that's not right. there's just a lot of reasons to go against this project. also it's not covid safe, and let's face it, coronavirus is going to be with us for years in some form or another, and this group housing is not safe in terms of public health. david elliott lewis. i hope you'll vote no on this project. thank you very much. >> okay, last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press *3. >> yes, this is michael naulty, and i have reservations about

group housing in the tenderloin. i'm a former public health employee of san francisco, and i don't think these kind of housing units should be built in high density neighborhoods, let alone in the tenderloin since it's already a -- was originally built for people to work in san francisco after the earthquake, and people have moved out of those units when they had the chance, and now we're putting more in which i don't think is an equitable way to treat the neighborhood when it doesn't have the infrastructure for more units and the services. so please do something that would make this project go away or at least make changes for the health of the future of whoever decides to live there. thank you. >> thank you.

okay. commissioners, public comment on this matter is closed and it is now before you. >> i'll be supporting the project today, and i'm for its approval. >> commissioner diamond? >> yes, i have a question for the project sponsor, mr. gladstone, are you on the line? >> yes. can you hear me? >> i can, thank you. so i believe last time we heard this project that you identified the appliances that were going to be in each of these kitchenettes. can you repeat that for us,

please? >> yes. there will be a -- hold on. let me turn off my speakers. one moment. so i'm not -- do you hear an echo? >> nope. you're fine. >> okay, let me go for it. thank you. there will be a two-burner on top of the counter, and that will be a piece of equipment that we showed in our last brief. there will be an under-counter refrigerator which as we told you last time can only be 5.5 cubic feet in size if this will remain an sro and not a full dwelling unit. there will be a microwave oven which will have some extra capacities to brown what is cooked in there.

and there will be a counter with a sink inside of no more than three feet because that is the maximum allowed under the zoning administrator's determination of what is a sro and not a full dwelling unit. that will be the -- what's in the kitchen. >> okay. the microwave, i think last time you called it a combination microwave convention oven. is that correct? >> yes. that is correct. it's basically a microwave that has some aspects of convection, which includes i think browning. >> yep, okay. staff, is that list of appliances somewhere in the project approval, the motion?

>> thank you, commissioner diamond. we can definitely put in a conditional approval that lists out or specifies should you like that this is the minimum amount of kitchen appliances that would be included in the project. >> okay. so as i expressed last time, i am interested in making sure that these units are available to as broad a range a user as possible and that in order to do that i want to make sure that the kitchens within the constraints of group housing do allow for people to prepare their own meals to the extent they can in these small kitchenettes. so i would be supportive of the project provided that we add a condition that specifies the inclusion of all of these items as specified by mr. gladstone at

a minimum. >> commissioner chan? >> thank you, president koppel. i wanted to start by asking staff some questions. so it's my understanding that group housing not considered a dwelling unit, but the creation of the units will still contribute to a net increasing in housing stock and would be counted in future housing inventory. could you just confirm that? >> yes, that's correct, and it was a couple weeks ago that we had our discussion about the project, but mr. teague, our zoning administrator, went through the definitions of a dwelling unit and a dwelling unit has a full kitchen, and his recent interpretation that he also brought before the commission sort of clarified what tipped you over the threshold of having too much -- too many appliances to count as just group housing, so yes, it's not considered an official dwelling unit, but it is a

general housing unit and contributes to the stock of the housing in the city. >> so the purpose of meeting our rena goals, i'm guessing the creation of these housing units would also go towards meeting a rhena? >> i would defer if kate conner is on the line and knows this, because i haven't taken a look at the rhena numbers to see if it's specified as housing units as outlined in our rhena requirements, but let me get back to that question for you. oh, no, here she is. >> thanks, claudine. i would have to look into that a little further. if you give me a couple of minutes i can get back to that. >> i am curious if there were 17bmr units what ami levels they fall under. i understand 50 is at -- to be at 80, or 110. >> we're at 110. >> if the remaining 84 would then be considered above

moderate income, so at 120 ami and above. so yes, please take some time before you confirm and i can offer some comments. so i think i want to reiterate some comments i made at the last hearing was all -- a range of housing options and choices. i want to reiterate that the tenderloin does have a lot of families with children and we want to make sure that we can accommodate the needs. we already have a lot of microunits group housing developments that are quite similar to this. while we do want options, we want to be mindful of not having a saturation of any single type of housing in this neighborhood. for me in this project i think group housing does serve a purpose and should be among the options that are available in the housing stock, and as i look at this project, i look at the relatively constrained size. [please stand by]

>> i just want to align myself with commissioner chan's comments, and i think that it's very much needed to figure out a way to really realize and put into our code some of the desires that i've heard expressed from the tenderloin community very consistently around wanting family-sized housing, and so whether that's looking at revisions to what qualifies as group housing or just how group housing is applied to the tenderloin to ensure that we're moving in a direction that has more balance of housing options for folks who are living in the neighborhood, who want to live in the

neighborhood but can't find housing that is sufficient for their families to live there. that said, i do want to ask the project sponsor a few questions about outreach and engagement with the community. i understood that after our last hearing there was going to be some -- maybe attempts to continue to work with neighboring community and to understand more about what could be accommodated there. mr. gladstone, were you able to have anymore communication with neighborhood groups and any positive results from any of those conversations? >> the conversations have resulted in our agreement to having no residential leases, attachment to it, that it's a sign that says the neighborhood is full of low-income population that relies on food and entertainment and good vendors to provide their services at prices that are affordable, and

consequently the displacement or disruption of those local businesses would pose a threat to long-standing low-income residents, and that does also remind people that the average median income in the tenderloin makes it one of the most low-income communities and racially diverse, and that -- may be more active than in other neighborhoods, and that it's a place of lively cultural events, et cetera. you know, we're also willing to set up meetings during construction and during the operations of the building with the neighborhood to make sure that if there are problems we are aware of them and have a chance to do something about them without getting to the planning department. in terms of the first source hiring program, if the city allows, and i'm not sure it

does, any preference to be given to tenderloin residents, we would certainly attempt to do it, but that's only if we're allowed, and i don't believe it is. >> okay. are you still there? >> yes. >> i heard that you said there will be agreement to kind of notify all of those who lease that they are in a diverse neighborhood and kind of what to expect living in the tenderloin, to embrace that. regular meetings with the community during construction and the ongoing operations side. it sounds like there had been exploration of doing preference for tenderloin as first source hiring but that may not be able to be accommodated as part of the first source hiring agreement. any other agreements that you're able to reach with the community

members? >> well, the section 8 housing process is one where non-profits provide section 8 people to apply, to rent those unit, and i know that the non-profits can take a long time to notify eligible people and get them into their rental application process, and i'm sure the project sponsor won't mind if the project sponsor knows people leaving with a month's notice, project sponsor can certainly provide early notice to non-profits to make sure that they can start a process that may take them, you know, 20, 30 days. >> okay, so making units available or notifying non-profits so that section 8 voucher holders could apply for

using a voucher at the site? is that what you're saying? >> yeah, and provide notice at the time we get notice from tenants that they may be moving out, and not necessarily wait until a unit becomes vacant. >> okay, one thing i might suggest too is that as the building nears its completion and occupancy and you begin leasing to let those housing providers know that leasing is happening and that voucher holders could apply at that time since their rent is covered through the voucher program. that could be another time, and as you have these meetings with the neighborhood and that are regular, there will also be a way there that leasing is beginning and they can let their networks know that leasing is starting, whether they are for voucher holders or for folks on other types of subsidy, and they may be able to rent at the market rate or apply for the bmr unit. i hope that type of regular communication can lead to what we hope is that, you know, for tenderloin residents who are

currently there who want to live here, that they are able to move in would be really excellent. especially coming out of covid and -- homelessness and everything, and i think this could be a good opportunity for those folks. were you going to add something, mr. gladstone? >> yeah, you know, if we were to get approved today, and that was your pleasure, it doesn't mean we can't, you know, sign something with the neighborhood that goes through what you and i just went through. we just think that since there have been so many opportunities to talk to the neighborhood, this is as far as we're going to go and we hope your commission will give us the courtesy of allowing us to go forward. >> okay, great. well, those are my questions at this time. actually, i do have one last question. sorry, mr. gladstone, and maybe this is for mr. macy, the bathroom doors, we just heard a comment concerned about the transparency of the bathroom doors. i know the pictures you showed are from the model unit, i

believe, for a similar type of project but located elsewhere. i don't know if that is exactly the door that you're planning to use for these bathrooms or if it's a more private solid door would be appropriate for these bathrooms. is mr. macy with us? >> mr. macy? >> i don't know if he's on mute or -- i think we had him earlier, didn't we? well, mr. macy -- >> there he is. >> here it is, okay. i can't hear him if he's speaking. okay, well, i'll end my questions -- oh, are you there? yes, there we go. we have you. >> yes, could you ask the question again, please? >> yes. we heard a caller who was

referring to the translucent bathroom doors. i think they are kind of opaque frosted glass, and i believe that those images are from a model unit that's been built out at a different project, and i just was curious if you believe the same doors would be used for this project or if a more solid door for the restroom to kind of enhance the privacy in that restroom might be more appropriate as, you know, up to two people could be sharing these microunits. >> yeah, the doors will be ceiling and not see through in any way. i found that comment a little peculiar, but yes, it will be entirely private. >> okay, great. thank you very much. and i do agree with commissioner diamond's suggestion to have the cooking facilities listed expressly so that we can make sure that those are provided to each unit. those are my comments. >> sure, yeah, absolutely. >> commissioner moore?

>> commissioner chan's and commissioner tanner's comments pretty much answered what i was about to ask and particularly commissioner chan's deep and probing questions about fit in the neighborhood. there is indeed an overabundance of sros there. however, i think this project exemplifies itself with very thoughtful design with an open door for people potentially moving from less desirable into something more desirable, including the techniques outlined by the conversation between commissioner chan and the applicant. and i am in support of the project. >> commissioner imperial? >> thank you. i wonder if ms. conner would like to go, to answer ms. chan's questions first?

>> sure thing, yes. so the group housing rooms do count towards the rhena allocation. the only kind of group living quarters that are not counted towards rhena are more institutional in nature, including jails or institutions, that type of thing. with regard to the income levels, with the 17 affordable units, 10 at 50% ami, 3 at 80% ami and 4 at 110% ami and the remainder in the above moderate which is above 120% ami. >> thank you so much. >> and thank you, ms. conner, for that response. i have a question for mr. gladstone regarding the units able to be available for 20 to 30 days as the commissioner questioned you. is that the kind of agreement you have with the community or is that something that is also an agreement with [indiscernible]. >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that a little more slowly,

please? >> oh, i -- yeah. it's regarding a question about the section 8 voucher holders for people who have the section 8 voucher holders. you mentioned earlier that units in the available or can be waited for 20 to 30 days. is that something that in the agreement with the community folks or with moe cd. >> you're asking if it would be in the agreement with the neighbors or -- >> yeah. >> is that what you're asking? >> yes. >> yeah, i mean, what i said is we wouldn't be waiting and keep them off-market for any period of time. what i said is we could agree with the neighborhood that they would be notified before the units are vacant of the fact that we have a vacancy as soon as we are aware of a vacancy. people sometimes give a month or two notice so that these

non-profits, which do -- which take some time to -- section 8 person and do all the work for section 8, so these non-profits have someone ready and going and ready to be there when the actual vacancy occurs so that, you know, they're not behind in time in being able to rent these market rate units under section 8 subsidization. >> okay, thank you for that clarification. >> sometimes it takes too long for them to get all their paperwork done. >> yes, i understand, yeah. it takes sometimes more than 30 days too. so thank you for that clarification, and i do -- i do support this project, and i also recognize the saturation of sros in this area, and i think this

is something that, you know, definitely our city should look into as to what group housing and how we should treat group housing, especially in the tenderloin, and that's why in this particular project it needs to have a better or -- or having open agreement with the community for this particular project. i am very -- you know, when you mentioned about the section 8 voucher holders and having notification with the community, that's something that i think is good option or a good agreement because it does -- when it comes to below-market rate or applying for affordable housing, it does take a lot of time, and for people when transitioning to another place, it takes a lot of adjustment as well and a lot of preparation, and so i do appreciate that 20 to 30 days type of notification. so if there is no more other commissioners deliberate, i'll

make a motion for approval. commissioner diamond's addition, too, for conditions for approval. >> second. >> all right. good, then, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as amended, to include a condition that explicitly lists the minimum kitchen appliances listed by the project sponsor. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> commissioner chan? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> and commission president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0. commissioners, that will place us on items 10, 11a, 11b, 12a and 12b.

these three projects are being called together because they are essentially being submitted by the same project sponsor at three different locations for the same request. case numbers 2021-001979coa, 2021-00227 and -- 20 -- [listing project numbers]. are properties at 141 leeland avenue, 220 dolores street and 129 hide street respectfully. respectively. these are conditional uses and variances. and i believe before staff makes presentation, commissioner diamond, you had a disclosure to make? >> yes, thank you, i wanted to let my fellow commissioners know

that mercy housing appears to be related to the project sponsor team. from 2015 to 2017 i was on the board of mercy housing california, and in addition their c.e.o. doug shoemaker was one of the people who testify on my behalf during my confirmation hearings when the mayor nominated me to the planning commission. i don't believe those relationships will affect my ability to be neutral and impartial in my decisionmaking on these three projects. >> thank you, commissioner diamond. mr. horn, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am, thank you, commission secretary. good afternoon president koppel, members of the commission and zoning administrator jeff warren planning department staff. the items before you are three separate requests for conditional use authorization to change the use of residential care facilities located at 141 leeland avenue, 220 dolores street and 129 hide street for -- planning code sections

303 and interim zoning controls of planning code amendment 2019, 107654pca and board resolution 190908. the projects are all proposing a use change to group housing, permitting youth in each of the sites respecting zoning districts. two of the projects request variances of certain development services of the codes. changes of use only with no physical changes, these applications are not considered to be projects under ceqa. these projects currently operate as state licensed residential care facilities for the chronically ill, rcfcis, and are proposing the changes to housing for persons with hiv/aids. there are no changes to the exterior of the building and the facility will remain as affordable housing at the 80% ami for the requirements of the existing federal funding. the proposed delicensing of these facilities is the result

of an assessment prepared by the mayor's office of housing and community development in 2020 titled the strategic assessment of hospital funded residential care facilities for the chronically ill. the proposed group housing facilities will operate as transitional care facilities, which are facilities that assist people in a more independent setting after their resolving of an episodic peek need related to physical, mental, or substance use disorder and these specific facilities will focus on life skills, housing navigation and other supportive services, including drug treatment as appropriate. transitional care residential care facilities is not a san francisco planning code defined use but rather a residential care industry term. there are currently six residential care facilities for the chronically ill in san francisco, of which five are developed with federal funding to serve people with aids or h.i.v.

these funds are administered through the mayor's office of housing and community development and other city agencies. as part of those five facilities, these three projects before you today proposed to change the use of a total of 67 beds to group housing and two facilities located at 1340 golden gate avenue and 410 -- street will retain a total of 47 beds as licensed care facilities. before mentioned -- study from 2020 found about half of the residents of the city's rcfcias no longer need the 24-hour nursing and attendant care required in a lainsed facility. these persons also could not find appropriate housing to allow them to exit the system. the current solution is to delicense three of the five facilities to create a ladder of care that will best meet the needs of the current and future residents who need some level of support, which is what the items before you seek to implement. as part of the delicensing

program, the operators of these facilities and -- have conducted a series of outreach efforts and on-site meetings at each facility. on may 5, planning staff provided the commission with a memo with a general overview of the projects and the city system and additional information on the project at 141 leeland avenue. to discuss the specific items, for item 10 at case np 2021001979cua at 141 leland avenue, the approximately 21,000 square-foot project site is located within the neighborhood commercial small scale and the residential house one family dwelling zoning district. within the visitation valley neighborhood. this proposal is to change the use of the existing 45 residential care facility to 45 bedrooms of guest housing within an existing 20,424 gross

square-foot two-story building. the rear portion of the lot is developed a an existing 18-vehicle parking lot. the facility is referred to as leland house and is owned by mercy housing and operated by catholic charities. in addition to the request for conditional use authorization, the project requests concessions and waivers for the state's density bonus program. project site is located within rh2 zoning district in which group housing is a principally permitted use, and also within the rh1 district, which does not permit group housing. although the site has a total area of 21,127 square feet, only the 10,518 square feet of area zoned nz2 is available for the project's density calculation. for the nc2 zoning district, group housing is allowed at a bedroom of -- of flat area, which permits 38 units at this site. to accommodate the proposed 45-bed facility, the project

requests an additional seven beds for the state density bonus law and section 206.6. this is a debsity bonus request of approximately 18%. the project also seeks an incentive to development standards of a rear yard and a waiver to the development standards for usable open space. the site's existing rear yard is developed with vehicle parking which is not a permitted use within a required rear yard, and the project provides approximately 1400 square feet of common usable open space within a rear courtyard and the project is required to 1,995 square feet of open space. a revised draft motion has been provided to the commission to clarify the total requested number of bonus units being sought and the requested waiver. details on the findings for usable open space and the addition of background information and other

corrections. for group housing uses, a maximum of 16 vehicle parking spots would be allowed based on the 45 bedrooms at the site. the project -- remove two of the existing spaces. the sponsor has noted this area removal will be the likely location of 11 new class-one bicycle parking spaces. three letters were received in opposition or concerns over the project -- with concerns over the use and operations of the existing facilities and the proposed new use. one letter in support has been provided on this project. for item n.11a and 11b at 2020 dolores street, case number -- the #,000 square foot project site is located within a residential tourist oriented zoning district, within the

castro upper market neighborhood. there are no limits for group housing within this district. 3,338 square-foot cottage at the front of the lot and a 6,073 square-foot two story carriage building at the rear of the lot. both buildings were constructed in 1856. the project proposes to change the yooust of the existing 10 residential care facilities to a 10-bed group housing facility within the two existing buildings. the facility is referred to as richard code residence and operated by the -- community services. changing the use from institutional to residential, the project must comply with the use type. this property was developed with vehicle parking located in the rear yard and does not have common areas of minimum size looking on to a street or compliant yard, and therefore the project is seeking a variance of the planning code

for rear yard and section 140 for dwelling unit exposure. the front cottage, along with the adjacent building at 214 dolores street, are referred to as the -- cottages and are the oldest residential structures in the greater mission district. the subject property is article 10, no. 68, individually listed as the california -- on the california register and is eligible for a listing on the national register. the proposed change of use has no effect on these status as there are no alterations to the exterior or interior as the building proposed. three letters were received with questions or concerns over public safety and protection of the existing trees within the rear yard, and the third letter was from a person requesting to purchase the property to retain the residentially care facility use and one letter was received in support of the proposed change of use.

and for items 12a and 12b, at 129hyde street. 4,125 square-foot project is located within the downtown general zoning district located in the tenderloin neighborhood. there are no density limits for the group housing within this district. the proposal is to change the use of the existing 12-guest residential care facility to 12 bedrooms of group housing within an existing three-story building. by changing the use from institutional to residential the project must comply with the development standards of the residential use type. subject property was developed with a non-compliant structure located within the required rear yard for a residential use building. the sponsor is speaking a variance of planning code section 134, rear yard. no letters in opposition and one letter of support has been received on this project.

to conclude, the projects are on balance consistent with the objectives and policy of the general plan and the findings of the interim controls adopted by the board of supervisors. we propose new residential group housing will be existing -- and no changes are proposed to the exterior or interior. the proposed changes of use will maintain the same number of residents, a total chaosal of 67 that currently exists. it will provide a development that is necessary and compatible with their neighborhoods and the community by providing an intermediate level of congregate care for persons living with aids and h.i.v., and not be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, jeff. project sponsor, through the chair, you will have seven minutes for your three projects. are you with us? >> yes, i am. >> excellent.

your slides are up and your time is running. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm pleased to provide you with some background on items 10, 11 and 12. they all create to -- all come together to create a missing rung in the city's ladder of care for people living with h.i.v. next slide, please -- was engaged by the mayor's office on housing and community development to complete a strategic assessment of the city's -- funded through the housing opportunities for people with aids funding in 2020. i believe we have a copy of that report available to you. and since then i've been working as a convenor for the current -- funded rcfcis to develop and implement recommendations from last year's assessment. i'm joined today by leaders from the mayor's office on housing and community development, brian

chu, helen heal. i want to provide some background on what is a sort of multi-faceted issue, but want to point out up front as jeff just alluded to that there are no building changes as part of this application. solely a change in use for three of the five rcfcis serving people with hiv/aids with most current residents at these facilities remaining in place in their current location after this change has taken place. brian and helen will add their own comments once i've finished my remarks. next slide, please. i want to first just address the question of what is a residential care facility for the chronically ill. chronically ill, the euphemism for disabling hiv/aids is a licensing category with oversight by community care licensing within the california department of social services. the category was created to formalize and normalize

emergency congregate living facilities which emerged during the 1990s when many people living with h.i.v. lost their housing and were not being admitted to skilled nursing facilities or other residential care settings. the key minimum requirements under this licensure are to provide 24/7 nursing and attending care, as well as assistance with activities of daily living, plus medication management and prepared meals. these are all areas requiring intervention by on-site direct care staff. within 30 facilities licensed by the state in this category, half of them have closed due to a combination of reduced demand, high cost, client preference for more independent housing options around the added complexity of managing congregate living on top of other medical and behavioral issues. next slide, please, please. in san francisco there are six rcfcis, five of which were developed using hud capital

funding from hopla. as jeff mentioned, there are 114 beds, and the facilities range in size from 10 beds to 45 beds. the three highlighted facilities are those we're discussing today, but a solution is one that was generated and supported by all the owners and operators of the five rcfcis in the city. as part of the funding, these buildings are restricted to be used to serve low-income people living with h.i.v. for 50 years. current operations are funded from a variety of sources but are primarily governmental. they include funding from hopla, each operator also raises their own philanthropic propers and a

small cost is covered by resident payments which are set at 30% of income for h.u.d. guidelines. the units are not controlled within the dallia lottery system. they require physician representation and proof of diagnosis and are subject to an income ceiling of 80% of ami, although most residents are at most receiving ssi, which is much lower than that cap. next slide, please. i mentioned earlier the assessment that was done in 2020. it came about as a result of successes in h.i.v. treatment and care, but also concerns that what was best for residents that found little opportunity to move to a more independent setting when that was appropriate. a preliminary assessment showed that over half of current residents would be best served as a more independent level than can be provided under the rcfci licensure regulation. so a planning group has reviewed a los angeles model called the

transitional residential care facility, trcf, which is unlicensed and does not provide on-site nursing and attendant care, but does allow for intermittent visits from other providers of supportive services, such as west side aids case management program. the trcf model was chosen by three facilities who took into account a better alignment with their organizations' overall program goals, as well as anticipated need for an appropriate number of beds for each level of care. next slide, please. we began outreach on the proposed g licensing and adoption of the trcf model first with staff and residents in early march, and you can see a list of the public meetings which have occurred since then under the community heading. next slide, please. in order to delicense the -- must change from institutional to residential group housing, which is our application today. there will be no change to the

buildings themselves. we have frozen admissions and assessed all current residents and notified them and their primary care providers of their recommended level of care. some residents will need to reposition across all five facilities to receive the level of care that best meets their needs. for the three facilities we're talking about today, a little more than half of those current residents will stay at their current site. others are being offered beds either in independent units or at two other remaining rcfci facilities. the programs are working closely with impacted residents to help with the transition, and community care licensing will be following all residents that are moved to the trcf level of care. next slide, please. to summarize, we're responding to the changing needs of communities impacted by h.i.v. and aids in san francisco. fostering client empowerment,

independent and self-sufficiency, by opening up new beds at intermediate transitional level of care while keeping the total dedicated beds constant for the h.i.v. system of care. we're providing client tailored support services to prepare key rcf residents for transitions to even greater independence. we're optimizing the use of limited city and county funding by assessing medical services for trcf residents bs and we're using a proven model to move forward. so with that i'd like to turn things over to brian and helen to make any comments. >> that actually is your seven minutes, and so the public sponsor presentation time has expired. after we accept public comment, commissioners may have some additional clarifying questions for you, but at this time we'll go to public comment. members of the public, this is

your opportunity to testify on this matter by pressing star then three. you'll have two minutes. >> this is sue wester. i am asking you to approve these projects. we have had today a lot of hearings on difficult projects that use provisions that are designed to add affordable housing or add density, and there's questions about -- there have been questions about these. these are operated by non-profits and they are providing permanent low-income housing and care. that's what we need. the planning code has been amended to take care of sros and residential hotels and group

housing, and this is a place that you need to approve a project because it's basically intention of the code changes that we have. the state density bonus, i wasn't involved in creating. it has had problems in the operations of san francisco, but i really appreciate the non-profit operators of these units. they are doing the right thing and these units are really important for low-income residents in san francisco. thank you. please approve them. >> hello, this is fran martin. i'm with the visitation greenway project and formerly with the -- county alliance, and basically i don't have that big problems

with this project. however, we didn't really have any public process. on monday we had the only community meeting at 2:00 in the afternoon, so there were only five people there. and we're concerned that we don't really understand what's coming, and we have had issues in the past at the greenway with drug users and drug dealers coming from the 141 leland, so we just want to make sure that -- i support low-income housing and have worked for years on housing at -- lock and within the valley, and also sunnydale, but we want to make sure that our neighborhood understands what's happening and is protected in the future. thank you. >> hi, commissioners, i'm the

chief of strategy at larkin street youth services. i was deeply involved with the mayor's office of community housing and development and mr. musik and the backplaning, assessment and planning that went into this proposal, and as one of the providers that will be impacted by the change, i want to say that i fully support it. just want to reiterate what's already been said, that this is a necessary change that adapts to the change to the hiv/aids epidemic, and in closing, i fully, fully support and urge you to approve the project. thank you. >> so i'm opposed to the conditional use authorization for 220 dolores street as i submitted on april 29 a letter to dolores street community services and the mayor's office of housing and community development to purchase 220

dolores street and to maintain it as a privately funded rcfci. in order to maintain the ability of the older current residents to remain in their long-term home with appropriate care in a setting that affords their mental health and be able to remain in their lgtbq neighborhood, which is of great importance to them. this proposal does not overall increase the available housing but rather moves residents as chess pieces. between seven to nine of the current 10 residents at dolores street community services rcfci cohen house, they require the care and do not have available housing within their neighborhood. the mayor's office of housing and community development h.i.v. housing plan was developed due to decreased h.i.v. funding. in the purchase of 220 dolores

street, the city would not be required to fund the cohen house any longer and therefore would not require conditional use authorization at this time. thank you very much. >> my name is michael naulty. i'm a former employee of the san francisco public health department and i'm also co-founder of the larkin street services. i support the conditional use authorization on the -- for the agenda items being mentioned right now. thank you. >> thank you, members of the public, last call for public comment on these matters. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and these matters are now before

you, commissioners. >> yes, i just wanted to echo all of the important points brought out by ms. hester, very valuable commentary, and i'm in support today. commissioner moore? >> i see commissioner diamond's name in front of mine. >> i think -- >> was that the earlier comment? >> she was requesting to speak to disclosure. >> okay, thank you so much. i'm in full support of what's in front of us. a shout out to the planner horn who did an excellent job in bringing this project forward, including the most recent memo he gave us today. i'm in full support and flighted that we have the tools to just this important component in our housing strategy. thank you. >> commissioner imperial? >> thank you. i do think that this is a good

kind of group housing, and when we think about group housing, it is -- it does make me think of really a way to transition to a more permanent type of housing. i do have a question, though, regarding the licensure process, and what happens -- what it means when we say reduced staffing, what kind of staffing will be in place then? i don't know who's going to answer that, if that will be the planner or the mercy, but that's my question. >> i'm more than happy to answer your question, reduced staffing is simply a change of staffing. we will no longer have nurses at -- people that are providing specific type of medical care 24 hours a day because that's not -- no longer needed for the

residents, that we will shift our staffing structure to be able to support the needs of the residents. >> does that mean that -- will there be still some sort of support in terms of, like -- >> yeah, so social workers, housing navigators, health navigators, desk clerks. there are -- maintenance staff. there will be folks on site to assist with cooking, so there will be staff there to do daily living types of supports, but the whole focus of the transitional program will be to assist residents into adapting and being able to develop those types of skills. and for those that are able to do that and move forward and become competent, we are hoping that they will be able to move to the next level, which would be independent housing. if, for instance, someone has trouble and is starting to experience other kinds of issues, then we would be in conversation with their doctors, just as we are now in the rcfci,

and think about what is the best placement for them and if they need a higher level of care. this is really about focusing on what type of care each of these individual residents needs in order for them to have really good well-being. >> thank you. and just one last question. this is just for public information. in terms of -- because someone brought up about the funding, will this be still -- how will it still be funded through federal hopwa funding? >> yeah. so it does allow us to sort of move money to be able to use it in the best way possible, but it they will still receive -- they still have all of their city dollars coming to them from our department, department of health, public health and from homeless and supportive housing. no one's taking any money away. we are repositioning folks to be able to respond to their best needs because the current system actually is more of an

institutional model and does not really promote folks to be able to live as -- in a high as functioning way on their own with folks there to support them. and it's really -- it's been multiple years that this has been brought to our attention, and we finally have been able to take the time to be able to do an assessment and understand what would be a better model in this city to be able to respond to the residents. >> okay. thank you very much, ms. hale, and i think that really satisfies all my questions, and i do support all of the conditional uses for the three projects, and i move to approve all of them. >> second. >> seeing no additional request to speak from commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve these matters with conditions. on that motion, commissioner tanner? >> very hearty aye. >> commissioner chan snooi aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner fung?

>> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> and commission president koppel? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. those motions pass unanimously. zoning administrator, what say you on those items? >> i will close the hearings and grant them all with the standard conditions. >> thank you. commissioners, that includes your regular calendar, leading us to your final item under your discretionary review calendar for item no. 13, case no. 2013.0846 at 140 to 142 jasper place. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslo, have you resolved your audio issues? >> i believe i have. can you hear me? >> we can. >> sorry about that. good afternoon, president koppel, vice-president horn,

commissioners, staff architect here with the project, the project-initiated request for successionary review of building permit no. 2013 -- i'm sorry, 2014.0627.9672. to prublgt a 600-square-foot vertical addition set back from the foont building wall and includes a front deck, remodel of a basement to expand the lower unit, and remove exterior stairs and balconies and extend the rear wall by 1 foot 4 inches with two-foot deep bay projections. the resulting rear yard depth would be 16 feet 11 inches. this is not a demolition per planning code section 317. resulting unit sizes are 1470 square feet for the lower unit and 1494 square feet for the upper unit.

the subject properties required rear yard is 15 feet based on averaging the depth of the adjacent building. the addition is greater than 30 feet in height in the rear yard and extends into the last 10 feet of building depth gained by averaging. therefore, a variance was requested and heard by the zoning administrator on june 24, 2020. the discretionary review request was placed on behalf of the telegraph dwellers neighborhood association by stan hayes, and they are concerned that the expansion of the two flats into larger dwellings will decrease the affordability that the project is attempting to piecemeal a larger scope of work, that the rear addition is materially injurious to the surrounding properties access to light and air. [please stand by]

>> the proposed project also increases the gross square footage of the building by less than 20%, the threshold under the planning code session that

allows retention of the nonexisting curb cut. since the parking curb cut is in existing condition and no new parking is proposed, that is allowed to be retained. the project also proposes just one car parking place that is also limited by planting trees in the side yard as demonstrated in the site plan. the 240 square foot front deck

is buffered from the front building wall by an existing parapet and a 3'6" wide planter. the -- i'm not going to go into details about the interim density controls regarding the calculation of size, but this does fall within the interim density controls that would allow small developments to expand without maximizing their density. therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking d.r. i'm also joined here by historic preservation staff jennie delumo, alison

vanderslice and rick cooper if there are any questions with the historic determination and compliance standards. that concludes my presentation. >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow, for that thorough presentation. mr. hayes, i'm glad you joined us. you have three minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, president koppel and commissioners. good afternoon. i'm stan hayes, and on behalf of the telegraph hill dwellers, we're here to ask you to grant discretionary review. we require this project be be modified or disproven but that an a.d.u. be added to the ground floor and here's why.

we're facing a unique situation. north beach faces a housing crisis. over and over, we witness the transformation of affordable housing into larger and larger market rate units. a historic two-flat building expanded from two to four floors, the upper floor expanded into a newer rooftop floor, and the lower unit expanded into the lower level without creating any new housing. that's why we're asking you to protect against this loss of affordable housing by taking d.r. and requiring two affordable housing units, an

a.d.u. at the basement level where it was once at the basement unit and the existing first floor flat maintained as currently configured. at 804 square feet, it's almost exactly the 833 square foot average of the 430 homes we surveyed in north beach and telegraph hill. while these are our most important core requests, our d.r. application outlines other. we ask you to deny the rear yard variance in section 134. we don't believe you can make the required variance findings. we also urge you to require a notice of special restriction to prevent construction of a new building on the northern area of the lot, a parking

area. the applicant says he doesn't want to build on the parking area, but that's exactly what he's tried to do in 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019. so there they are. our requests to you. please take d.r., and most importantly, require addition of an a.d.u. to the basement level and maintenance of the existing first floor flat as currently configured. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. wilson, you have three minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. this is peter wilson. i'm an architect, and with my

son gordon, i own 140 jasper place. the intent of this project has been to renovate this building in a way that allows gordon and his family to continue to live in jasper place while providing a second family unit. please bring up exhibit two. these two sections are the scope of the proposed project. the ghan family has lived in this building for 60 years, and they lived on those three floors. the wilson family occupied this building in 2008. we intend to expand the third floor and dig out the basement in order to provide two family size apartments so that

gordon's family, my son, can occupy this family well into the future. i believe this expansion will have a minimal impact on the neighbors. please bring up exhibit three. the renovation would allow for a 17-foot rear yard, which is 40% larger than the existing yard, significantly improving the light and air to the neighbors. in addition, the height is less than that of my neighborhoods. can you bring up slide four. my neighbors face onto my 20-foot side yard, and the sun light access to their rear windows would not be blocked by this addition. in response -- could you bring up slide five. in response to the discretionary request and with staff support, i have made additional changes to the

project in the last months. as requested, in the d.r., the building will retain the existing street facade and maintaining two original storefronts. we also reduce the parapet by 3 feet and added landscaping. could you bring up exhibit 6? these gross square calculations building, so the square footage is under the 20% threshold which allows for maintaining the existing curb cut. this is approved already by the planning commission and zoning administrator. would you bring up exhibit 7. so after these eight years of review will provide for my son's family without changing the facade at 140 jasper place. i ask the commission to avoid

taking discretionary review and approve this project. thank you. >> clerk: all right. so that concludes presentation, and we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on the project. you need to press star, three to be added to the queue, and you have one minute. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is teresa flanders with s.f. tenant committee, and i know you received my e-mail i sent yesterday pointing out the reasons why you should take d.r. and deny this project? again, it's asking you to support maintaining the current affordable housing. this is indeed already family housing that has been homes for those who actually work and want to live and do live in the city, our workforce and our retired workforce. this project would, indeed,

change the existing three units of rent control housing into two luxury units rather than adding affordable housing. i do support the d.r. requester's comments. i ask you to please take the d.r., restore the basement unit and a.d.u., and help us preserve the very needed affordable family housing here in north beach. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello. good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. my name's howard wong. i'm an architect, a native of north beach, living on duran street, which is an alleyway a block from jasper place. i am in favor of granting d.r.

and keeping the discretionary units. growing up in san francisco, it is home to many diverse families over the decades. the alleyways have spawned some of our great citizens and have in many ways been the american dream of san francisco and america. former police chief fred lau grew up a few houses down from me. former police chief fong grew up close by, as well. many people are working in silicon valley, and they are great at whatever they do in life -- >> clerk: thank you. that's your time. >> hello, can you hear me?

>> clerk: yes, we can. >> my name is david [inaudible]. >> clerk: sir, you have to turnoff one of your devices. >> yes. this is david sinkada. i was compelled to speak. i am no longer representing mr. wilson. i did represent him back in 2013, when he started this project. i can't believe what i'm hearing, so that's why i felt compelled to speak. a little bit about my background. i started with housing issues in -- for most of my life when i started working for h.u.d. years ago, and i worked for combined housing and redevelopment agency on the east coast, and then, when i came to san francisco, i got appointed to work in the mayor's office of housing, and

i did that for three mayors. i've heard a lot of rhetoric about how much we need housing, and then, i see what happens to a project like this, and it's tragic, it's just tragic -- >> clerk: unfortunately, that's your time -- mr. sinkata, i apologize, but that's your time for public comment. members of the public, this is your time for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed, and we should go to the d.r. requester for a one-minute rebuttal. mr. hayes, you have one minute. >> thank you very much. i just wanted to urge you, once again, to consider this project

and to consider what we think is a reasonable -- a reasonable solution. that is to require that an a.d.u. be required on the first floor. that would leave the first floor of this building, if left alone, and its existing configuration at 804 square feet, to be almost exactly what the slab size is of the 430 units that we surveyed on north beach and telegraph hill. i think that there's -- that there's a -- there is some concern -- we've been living on telegraph hill, as i think you all understand. we've been watching the erosion of affordable housing in this area. we've been watching the way in which speculators -- and i'm not suggesting mr. wilson is a

speculator. mr. wilson seems a nice enough man -- >> clerk: mr. hayes, unfortunately, that is your time. mr. wilson, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> yes. the staff report states that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. then, therefore, we do require this discretionary review, but nevertheless, i made concessions to the d.r. requester. unfortunately, the remaining requests are extreme and designed to gut the project. by removing the ground floor addition and using it as an a.d.u., it will provide with only studio or one-room units. combined with existing parking, it is not consistent with our goal, which is to provide a lifelong home for the family that we love.

i also live in this neighborhood. furthermore, since this project does not promote any building in the side yard, we're not taking away anything from the neighborhood. i urge you to follow the recommendation from planning staff. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. commissioners, that concludes the public hearing portion of this item, and it is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: having heard mr. sinkata speak for decades about housing, i'd ask that he come back and finish his comments, please. >> clerk: absolutely. mr. sinkata, are you with us? >> yeah, i can join. >> clerk: okay.

great. we can hear you, mr. sinkata. >> okay. thank you for letting me speak. i just want to point out that this project has gone through torments for years, and not all of it were because of the neighbors. there were public policies that impacted this project. at one time, years ago, one commissioner requested that certain neighborhood of north beach require an e.i.r. for the addition of any one parking space. it took me months to convince the environmental review officer, planning department that that was a ridiculous requirement. that was actually a resolution passed by the board of supervisors. over the years, i've worked on multiple projects and i've seen neighborhood opposition make projects better. they've actually made it. i've seen it happen. this neighborhood is not making this project any better. the idea that this is a rent controlled unit is bogus.

it's never been. the idea that this is -- i just can't keep going into it. the historic preservation that was originally done by mr. wilson years ago is more consistent with the historic nature of my building than the one he has conceded on this design. it's just incredible, so i urge you to deny this discretionary review and finally let some housing get built in this city. >> vice president moore: thank you, mr. sinkata. apart from the completeness of the record, this needed to be heard. however, i'd like to voice that i completely disagree with what staff is asking for. i personally live up on nob hill, see the systematic erosion of affordable housing. it's literally everywhere,

all-around me, either keeping buildings empty or converting them into the larger units and the megamansioning of these smaller types of buildings, i believe, clearly shows that housing is not for living but it's a commodity, and this particular building, while i support the addition of the upper floor for creating the larger units that the family desires for themselves does not necessitate to dig down and combine the existing ground floor and basement unit only to create a second larger unit. indeed, i think the intensefication of the fourth floor makes me wonder why we're not asking for an a.d.u. for this project like we do in similar situations. we're being asked in noe

valley, being asked in other parts of town to do what we're doing here, so i would be supporting the addition of an a.d.u. in the basement, and i'm also supporting retaining the ground floor. the upper units will be sufficiently larger than anything that has typically been existing in this building, and that makes, i think, the request for taking d.r. so much more necessary. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you. i was wondering if i made ask the project sponsor mr. wilson a question if he's available. so we received in our staff packet a response to the d.r. application on september 2020, and i was really encouraged to read that once the project is

completed, the [inaudible] to be offered for the first time in decades as a rent controlled unit. can you speak to this and whether it's your intention to rent the unit as a rent controlled unit. >> i'm sorry. i'm having trouble understanding. there's a lot of echo. >> commissioner chan: okay. i'm happy to repeat my question. so, mr. wilson, we received a response from the project sponsor in the d.r. application that was submitted september 7, 2020, and there was a quote on page 91 of our packet. it says once this project is completed, the unit of 142 jasper place will be offered for the first time in decades as a rent control unit. i just wanted to clarify if that's still your intention to rent out the 142 as a rent controlled? >> i think -- yeah, the lower unit will be a market rate

unit, but it'll be subject to rent control. is that your concern? >> commissioner chan: yes. i just wanted to clarify that. my understanding is that, from what i'm reading here, the lower unit at 142 jasper would be offered as a rent controlled unit. is that correct? >> there's been a fiction about this building. this family occupied the whole building for 60 years. there were never any displacements subject to rent control. it's quite unique, and so this idea that, somehow, my family has displaced rent control units or affordable units is not accurate. >> commissioner chan: okay. i understand. i just wanted to understand.

is it your intention to rent out one of the units as a rent controlled unit once this project is completed? >> yes. >> commissioner chan: okay. thank you. those are my questions for now. i'm curious to see what other commissioners say. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i certainly do agree with commissioner moore in that we want to see households maximize tenants on properties and ground floor units. i do believe, though, according to the staff report, it comes with the interim controls that are really trying to address that issue of really, really large dwelling units, and if this is underneath the threshold of that regulation that is trying to control that. i don't think that d.r. is how we make policy, so if we want to have certain policies in place, that we have to require maximizing density, that we should get a policy in place. i don't think it's through d.r. that we should ask a household

or a property owner to essentially complete a different project than the project that they are wanting to complete. i do not find any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances on this project, and i would move staff's recommendation. >> commissioner diamond: second. >> president koppel: i'm also in support of staff's recommendation. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i just want to support everything that commissioner tanner said. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i also support staff's position. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i mean, this is a problem with the d.r. when it comes to the d.r., we're looking to the -- into the design, and into -- but not in the scope of the -- how it will affect the neighborhood or how it has been affected the

neighborhood or the -- you know. there are [inaudible] that we would talk about how it impacts the adjacent neighbor but not the entire neighborhood. in scope of this requirement or the ask for the a.d.u. in the basement, i do think that, you know -- and as we have seen here, also in the planning commission before, where we have seen the intensefication of the structure, we are seeing the megamansioning intensefication of the project and not providing another additional unit that even within the zoning district can -- should be able to provide, and so in that case, i do -- i do support the d.r. and support of having the a.d.u.

unit in the basement and to have the first floor be maintained so that we have three units, not just two units for this big project, so that's my comment. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you. i don't see any exceptional circumstances, and i don't see that this fails the city to preserve the housing stock, so i'd move to take d.r. and make a note that the project sponsor has the intention to [inaudible] and that will remain under our control after the project is [inaudible]. those are my comments. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: are we

able to create a condition that the unit remains rent controlled? asking the city attorney. >> commission, kate stacey from the city attorney's office. i think the motion is to not take d.r. and to approve as staff has proposed. what commissioner chan is suggesting is that, and maybe an amendment to the motion, is when the staff sends sort of the memo, the action memo reflecting the planning commission's action, that that memo just include a statement, not -- it wouldn't be a statement, but it is the commission's understanding that this unit is to continue to be subject to rent control, and they understand that the project sponsor has concurred

in that determination. because you're not taking d.r., it wouldn't really be a condition. >> vice president moore: it's a recommendation, then? >> it's almost like a finding that if the commission were adopting a motion, it might be in the motion of the finding, and so i think commissioner chan is suggesting that staff include it in this action memo because i don't think there's a written motion for the planning commission, but maybe mr. winslow can elaborate on what happens next? >> i'm not going to elaborate much but other than to concur that i think in the findings part of the d.r. action memo, we could add a statement to that effect saying that two unit is subject to rent control. >> vice president moore: say that again? >> that the two-unit building

is subject to rent control. >> vice president moore: but that does not entail a condition, that's just a finding. >> vice president moore: but i believe it can be implemented either way. i believe as a finding, it does not have the effect as a motion would be. that said, i have another question for mr. winslow. >> director hillis: can i just add to that because i think there's a little bit of confusion. if the unit is rented, it's a pre-1979 building and subject to rent control, so i don't think there's any dispute about that. this building, if it was rented, any of these units, would be subject to rent control period. >> clerk: and it would also need to be a condition of approval. if the unit is rented, it's going to be rent controlled.

>> vice president moore: okay. >> and the inclusion -- i was going to make the same statement that director hillis just did. if you wanted to include it in the action memo, it would really be just that -- >> vice president moore: restatement of fact. >> right, that's actual statement, exactly. >> vice president moore: thank you so much for going through that particular part of the discussion. i have another question for mr. winslow. mr. winslow, typically, when it comes to front setbacks, i'd be looking for 15 feet even if we have a parapet. >> so the guidance given from the residential design guideline, which is specific to building scale in the street front talks about prevailing scale of the height of

buildings. that's where a third or fourth-story addition appearing to deviate from an appearing line has several guidelines under that recommendation, one of which is setting it back, and it is recommended at 15 feet, but by no means is that considered a rule contingent on circumstances such as the visibility of that addition, the nature of the width of the street, other buildings that are blocking, you know, the view or the ability to see that addition, and also parapets that can block the building or that addition. in this case, it's virtually impossible to see this addition from a public right of away or from jasper, and that's where we determined that 12 feet was

adequate, both from the residential design but from presidenter view aspect, as well. >> vice president moore: i have a question about the -- preservation aspect, as well. >> vice president moore: i have a question here. have you examined that the rear balcony on the upper floor is not creating privacy issues for people who are living in that -- in the back of this particular balcony? i am concerned with that. because there's no dimensions, it's hard to put it into context, so i'm wondering if you have looked into that? >> yeah. the dimension streams are not

concluesive, but the dimensions that are there are the rear and the front set back at the third floor. we know that subjecting x amount from the rear yard yields this building. with respect to the balcony at which level? >> vice president moore: it's the third level. >> at the third floor? >> vice president moore: yes. >> it's a-1.7. >> vice president moore: a-1.7. >> so the balcony has been reduced to 2 feet from the rear wall, which we've determined to be a step-out balcony and would likely not invite a lot of people to be on at any given time, so no, i did not think that was an exceptional or

situation with respect to privacy. it's set back further than the existing stairways. the landing of the stairway at the rear of this is about the size of the balcony. >> vice president moore: thank you for answering my questions. >> sure. thank you. >> clerk: okay. if that concludes that line of questioning, there is a motion that has been seconded, but i just wanted to clarify that the maker of the motion was amenable to the friendly amendment proposed by commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: yes, i am. >> clerk: and the seconder? >> president koppel: yes. >> clerk: then commissioners, there's been a motion to not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed in the

second memo, essentially recognizing the rent control status of the building. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that move passes 5-2, with commissioners imperial and moore voting against, and that concludes your hearing today, commissioners.

hi everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed and it has been a very, very challenging year for all of us in san francisco, but i've got to tell you, we're coming alive again. we're starting to open the city again. i see you urban alkamine. thank you for all the work you do to keep us safe out here. we are here today because we are taking an additional step further to get the city re-opened. i'm joined by a number of our city department heads including our city administrator car men chiu and our librarian michael lambert. and, let me tell you, michael has not only been running this library, he and so many of our librarians and