good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, may 13th, 2021. remote hearings require your patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. public participation sfgovtv is streeting this hearing live. we will receive public comment for each item. comments or opportunities to speak are available by calling

415-655-0001. enter access code (187)155-2305. when we reach the item you are interested in commenting on press star and 3 to be added to the queue. when your line is unmuted begin speaking. each speaker is allowed up to three minutes. when your allotted time is reached i will take the next person to speak. best practices call from a quiet location. speak slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. i will take roll at this time. commission president koppel. >> here. >> commission vice president moore. >> here. >> commissioner chan. >> here. >> commissioner diamond.

>> here. >> commissioner fung. >> here. >> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> commissioner tanner. >> here. >> thank you. first on your agenda is items for continuance. 2021-000603 c.u.a. at 5 leland avenue to continue to may 27, 2021. number two. 2020-003223 c.u.a. at 249 texas street to june 3, 2021. under discretionary review both items 17 and 18 for 2019-01937drp and 2020-07734-03 for 217 hugo and washington street are both continued or proposed to be continued one week to may 13th.

i have no other items for continuance. we should open up public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak for items for continuance by pressing star 3. >> you said may 13th. that is today. >> i apologize. may 20th. one week. thank you. >> this is sue hester. i am requesting you continue item 13 which is 1567 california street and involves the state density bonus until after the briefing requested last week on the state density bonus. i don't know the date of that hearing. i request it be continued until after that date. >> hello. i am calling about the

continuance of 5ly land project. i support continuance. i want to make note the continuance is totally due to the inaction of the project sponsor, developers. this project has been continued since 2017 and the project sponsors couldn't get the posters up in time for the proper public notification. again, i do support the continuance. please make it clear this is not the community asking for it. it is because the project sponsor didn't do what they needed to do with public notification. thank you. >> hi, is this appropriate time to talk about why i would like to protest the 17 hugo street

project? >> no. the hugo street project is being considered for continuance. your comments now should be related only to the matter of continuance. >> thank you. >> i would like to speak in support of the request from sue hester for a couple of reasons. one, you previously made a decision without having pertinent information about the zoning and so forth. from federal administrative decisions when there is an error on the face of the record, then the decision needs to be de novo. you know the zoning is important. the zoning records existed in

your system even though they were not brought to your attention. that is an error on the record. the other thing i am concerned about the record sent to you. letters from people who actually have concerns in the area were not there. on the other hand, there were letters of support from outside neighborhoods. russian hill, pacific heights? i called one of those people. i was astonished. she sent me copies. there was a whole transaction, pages and pages of legal transactions back and forth between your planner and this person about trying to get support for this area in our area where you are not allowed to see the letter the people living next door. in 303 you have to consider the impact on the immediate area that could be detrimental as well as other matters. it is disturbing to see the

negotiations with people who don't know anything about it as they let me know. this is a very disturbing unethical kind of thing. are the planners getting gold stars forgetting projects to pass. then there is the neighbor support which i will tell you about later. they do it for money. no bones about it. the more money the better. 40,000 for the last project to have people come in. the people next door to this project don't know they can come in. >> your time is up. >> hi. i am calling from the neighbor of 217 hugo project. are we able to know the reason for continuance for anybody listening on the line? anybody else wants to call in.

it would be postponed until next week. >> that's correct. [ inaudible ] >> is that the city planners or developer that asked for continuance? >> the staff planner. >> okay. thank you. >> members of the public last call for public comment on matters proposed to be continued. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public. public comment is closed and the matters proposed for continuance are now before you, commissioners. >> commissioner imperial. continue items 1, 2, 17, 18 as proposed. i just want to address that

other commissioners can fill in to comment on this. item 13. this will be those issues will be talked about today as well. those are my motions. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner imperial and commission president koppel. if there is nothing further. there is a motion seconded to continue all items as proposed. 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. placing us under the consent calendar. they are considered to be routine by the planning

commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion in which event it will be removed and considered at a future hearing. 2020-008474 c.u.a. 3519 california street and 2019-021247 c.u.a. at 1537 mission street. seeing no request to speak from members of the public public comment is closed. consent calendar is before you. >> commissioner chan.

>> commissioner chan: move to approve items 3 and four. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion to continue. excuse me to approve the calendar items commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously 7-0. places us under commission matters. 5. consideration of draft minutes april 29, 2021. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star 3. no requests from members of the public to speak to the minutes, public comment is closed. the matter is now before you.

>> commissioner imperial. >> mover to adopt minutes. >> second. >> on that motion to adopt minutes. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved that motion passes unanimously 7-0. item 6 commission comments and questions. okay. seeing no requests to speak from members of the commission. we can move on. item 7. 0 guttenberg street.

last you requested we add this today to allow you to custhe conditions of approval you had added related to the landscaping. i believe the project sponsor has responded with updated plans. that may reflect what you had originally intended. we don't have a presentation from staff or the sponsor. it is for you to be allowed to discuss. >> commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: i saw two letters today. the second letter came in yesterday afternoon made for the corrections to not using justgraph but expanding to other permei can't believe surfaces. i -- permeable surfaces.

i appreciate the department formulating the choice of alternatives. it is not just about grass. it is more about natural surfaces. thank you, staff. from my perspective this project has my support. >> commissioner fung is requesting to speak. >> commissioner diamond also. >> it used to default to everyone. question for staff. during the discussion on the landscaping and driveways, a point was brought up regarding a

permeable driveway, something similar to earth block or something like that. i saw no response both in terms of the landscape plan and comments made by project sponsor. was that discussed at all? >> there was discussion about it. i don't know if we have the project sponsor online to respond to that. there is permeability adding between b and c. the driveway building a included the only section that does not include the permeable surface is the main roadway to the development. there was concerns what is below

the driveway there and also stormwater management. >> what do you mean what runs below it? >> utilities and all of that kind of thing. >> i was more concerned about that driveway than the other driveways because of the noise factor to add joining homes. you have all of the new homes with garages and cars driving past two homes that one normally doesn't expect. >> commissioner fung, do you want to the project sponsor to respond? >> yes, that's fine. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is brent gladstone. i am going to ask the landscaper or brad on the architectural team to respond. brad, would you like to respond

or like the landscape architect to respond? go ahead, brad. >> i believe bruce is better qualified to speak to the permeability issue. this was discussed at the last hearing and there were concerns about the utilities that exist below the driveway. can you explain the permeability in the front yards of the building a and the driveway between b and c, please. >> yes. we are using -- this is bruce chan, landscape architect. in regards to the pavement materials both the driveways and walkways are unit pavers on a compacted gravel base. that is also permeable.

even though it is substantial to hold the weight of a vehicle. it has hyper-ability. >> what about the noise factor to the two homes that get passed daily by multiple cars? well, the noise factor coming from pavers is somewhat less than that of concrete. concrete is a smoother surface. the pavers because of the pour russness is more. for give me if i am too technical. there are small spaces with air. what that does when a tire goes over it and studies have shown that air dissipates as opposed

to a smooth surface that deflects the sound. >> not sure i accept that. >> what commissioner fung is asking. your concern is about the factor between the existing homes and the condition of the surface that you would like to see there? >> that's correct. >> or between building b and c? these are what would perhaps propose is a concern with porous material between the buildings. the entry of the driveway to the development. that would be the neck, if you

will. commissioner fung, the question is the noise that comes from permeable pavers versus asphalt. is that what you are asking? >> that is not necessarily a question. it was a statement i made that the permeable products such as turf blog would provide less sound impact than asphalt paving. >> that is correct. turf block would be less because you would have living material to cushion the sound much more than a hard surface. if you wish to see turf block,

that can be engineered for 50,000-pound capacity for that emergency vehicle to come across that. it is possible. >> any other commissioners share that concern? >> commissioner diamond. >> i had asked to speak not regarding commissioner fung's concerns. i am not going to address that. other commissioners may want to. i wanted to say that i had raised a similar concern to commissioner moore when this came in front of us. i think it is well designed, much needed complex. i was concerned about the quality of the landscaping not on par with the rest of the project. i particularly was not in favor of synthetic turf.

i believe that the information in the first letter yesterday was quite concerning to me because i wasn't arguing for natural sod in lieu of synthetic turf. i thought we should have a drought tolerant material. the second letter allows for that. i am fine with the language of the second letter yesterday. >> commissioner moore. >> i find commissioner fong's question very important. these are quite closely together. the acceleration of noise could be potentially a problem. i also believe that aesthetically that entering into a small community on its own could make a design statement, which would have multiple

benefits, most in support of concerns about noise. >> commissioner tanner. >> i wanted to pick up on commissioner fung's line of question. i support increased permme ability to the extent feasible. maybe the project sponsor could help eliminate. it could be engineered to be pavers there in that section. i understand the l section between b and c is already somewhat permeable which is fine. it sounds like there was a conversation about it. it sounded like the planner was saying it was considered but due to what is below it, it wouldn't be feasible. is it feasible for that section to have more permme ability or

is it not feasible for that section of the roadway and if the folks sharing could speak to that. >> this is bruce chan, landscape architect. yes, it can be engineered to provide for the weight of emergency vehicles as well as protecting infrastructure piping below it. >> that could happen. i would be open to the will of the commission. i guess the second question is that feasible to support that vision? it is feasible that is great. how does the project feel about doing that? in fact, the commissioners what you would like to see?

mr. gladstone. >> rick gladstone. i am going to ask the project sponsor, owner of the property to speak. before he does, could i ask what the incremental expense might be? then i will let mr. patell briefly tell us all when he can accept that. >> certainly. the installation of curb stone requirements that fire and emergency would have per square foot i would say it is roughly 2.5 times the cost of asphalt. it would be roughly two times

the cost of unit pavers. >> square footage of how much, mr. chan? >> with the length of approximately 120 feet by 24 feet. that is about 2800 square feet. >> i was going to take a stab what the current cost of asphalt is for a roadway. i would imagine with underlayment the assault for that would be in the neighborhood of probably 80 to

$100,000. >> for then cremental? >> to make it turf stone 2.5 times that cost because of the base preparation being higher. you need to irrigate that curb stone as well. it would be $250,000 as opposed to $100,000. >> that is incremental amount, mr. chan? >> yes. >> you are saying asphalt is running over $4 per square foot and therefore, the turf block is around $10?

>> correct. >> thank you. mr. gladstone. >> mr. patel did you understand mr. chan? go ahead and speak to whether that is acceptable to you. if you don't understand mr. chan you can ask him another question. go ahead, please. >> i will try to explain. currently the project is barely viable because the land for the approval and the construction cost. it is more costs getting added. it is very difficult to have this project built.

the cost for the project. the main thing of the road will be higher and higher. i am not sure what you call it. some water treatment happening required of the same roadway towards the diverted turns. we do take care of the water underneath the surface. we will appreciate what we can do asphalt versus the pavers because of the cost. >> also, one last thing. i want to remind commissioners when the developer sells these, it is the homeowners association. they are probably first time buyers. these are small and affordable

by see seen. homeowners association is responsible to repair pavers and the like. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. >> i would say, commissioners, i am in the middle on this. i am sympathetic to the cost of the project and cost to future homeowners who maintain it. i am torn between that and sustainability which is globally where we need to go. when rainfall in the city and state. we need to camp it and make sure it can help to recharge the water way. will this may being the city more sustainability? not in itself. i do support the other landscaping submitted and that

is satisfactory for the rest of the project. >> this is a nonaction item. unless you wanted to bring this back for an action. >> commissioner fung, did you have something more? >> it is still my recommendation that they go to a softer permeable surface on that driveway. >> commissioner moore. >> i am in support of the soft

permeable surfaces myself. >> again, at this point, commissioners, today i guess we could make that request and recommendation to the project sponsor. to amend the conditions of approval we have to reschedule the project for full hearing before you. project sponsor would you be amenable to considering softer more permeable surface? >> i will let mr. patel respond. >> can you repeat? are we okay with the permme i >> commissioner tanner. >> i think that was the question whether or not just through this conversation you can consider a more permeable surface, maybe

another compromise. i am less concerned about the sound. that is commissioner fung's concern. ways to ensure the stormwater that does fall whether it is recharged or how it can recharge and percolate. it is how the stormwater is managed. perhaps that is accounted for in the plan. that may be a compromise. i guess two questions. are you open to different be surface? the stormwater can get managed in a different way. >> we are okay. >> if i may interject something. this is bruce chen, architect. in callateing the water usage for the landscape design with

the raw material we are very close to the limit of how much water we can apply to this project. if we were to have a permeable surface, the turf block with live turf to be irrigated as a regular lawn. my sense is that the project would then not comply with state legal requirements. >> thank you. >> commissioners are we satisfied here?

>> i am. >> i am okay. >> very good then, commissioners. just because this is an item on the agenda. any member of the public to comment press star 3. seeing no requests to speak, public comment is closed. we can move to department matters. 8 director's announcements. >> good afternoon, commissioners. speaking of soft and permeable surfaces. i want you to know city hall you have probable got a press release from the mayor's office. city hall will start to gradually re-open beginning jun. the board is going to start meeting in person beginning but

only for the staff, not the public. i know this will be a question that comes up. we don't have any direction yet on when the commission can start meeting again back in city hall. we will keep you informed. we did expand in person services at the permit center on monday. that is all going smoothly with good public feedback. >> i will hang up. >> sorry about that. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioners, that places us on item 9 for review of past events of the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> there was no meeting yesterday. >> i have a very quick report legislative affairs. no items this week.

the landmark designation passed the second reading for lion house. >> if there are no questions from commissioner to staff. one is raising their hand for public comment. go ahead, caller. >> i want to wait for general public comment. thank you. >> very good. members, i see no questions for staff from the commission. we can move to general public comment. at this time members of the public may address the commission on matters within the subject matter except agenda items. that will be when the item is reach understand the meeting. each member may address the commission for three minutes. when the number of speakers

exceed 15 minutes. general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. each speaker will have two minutes. >> this is sue hester. no announcement when the state density bonus presentation will be at the planning commission by the planning director. i request that you go back to the planning director, get the date assigned so the public knows as well as commissioners. you have the project coming through the pipeline before you deal with the grubstake building including at this hearing. it is very important. i also asked and i have a report from kay conner with a list of state density bonus projects. it is being prepared. i am just echoing my own request

and the planning commission should have it as well. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i am matt and i am calling regarding a case before you in a couple of weeks. demoution of two unit building at 249 texas street arrested earlier -- raised earlier continuance. i want to call commissioners chan, tanner and moore who listened at the last hearing when i alerted the second unit planned for demolition. i want to point out on record the sponsors were deceit full in representation of this proposed demolition when they insisted a one unit building would be demolished. they filed for an application on february 17 for a two unit

building to be demolished. i want to note on record that the existing building is in fact a two unit rent controlled structure with family size units. the second unit has three bedrooms. it seems like it is going to violate the priority policy of the city to demolish this building and it is distasteful during the pandemic and housing crisis. the sponsor pressured tenants to move when they couldn't afford rent at the pandemic. i want to point out it would be a miss carriage of justice if every rich and powerful person in the town can fabricate the facts to gain the system. on behalf of the family opposing the demolition we thank you for considering saving protected housing and asking the right questions. i appreciate that.

thank you. >> good good afternoon. it is georgia. i sent you an e-mail on may 8th with two projects. photos, one, two, three show the before, during and after for a project on diamond street that in addition to filling in the light well had a vertical horizontal expansion with complete façade alteration and added floor plate between garage and living level. it did have published caps an attached to the e-mail on may 8th. it sold for a second time since the original flip which happened for the-end alterations increasing housing prices and neighborhood instability of the turnover of high end and

high-priced homes. many are selling entitlements so this adds to the general acceleration of housing prices. housing is a comedy. the fourth, -- co had. modity. the second unit is not visible in the after photo. the front door for the second unit is around the upper corner. this four level alteration received the cfc in march is marketed as single family home. according to the floor plans for this one there appears to be an easy internal access between the units. it sun likely to be a rental unit. this is high end. both extreme alterations in

2016, eight years after 317 wasn't acted right in the middle of the surge that were approved under the original demo caps never add adjusted as can be done for 317p2d by the planning commission. >> thanks. >> i didn't hear the bell. take care. have a good day. good-bye. >> hello. i am the owner of 3938 22nd street calling on the 3900 block of 22nd regarding 642alvarado street adding nine units to the existing parking lot. we ask for review.

we want to get everything on the record as to why we are asking for review. i understand they are working within the envelope of the property which is to their rights. however, there will be three units adjacent that are being newly built next to the foundation of 3933 on 22nd street. those will require digging for sewers and three new bathrooms and kitchens. the foundation at 3933 is from the exterior in trouble and something nobody has addressed or looked at yet. the parking if you do the math taking away 16 spots for the project. adding nine units, that is up to say one carper unit. 25 cars added to the street. there is no parking as it is

right now. we have already asked for parking permits. we want to be added to the s permits. three or four years ago. we have been denied. this project is working within the envelope of the property. however, there is an increasing impact on people around the property and we want to bring this to everyone's attention when it is up for review. >> i have a few words about a project before you in a few weeks. continuance ofly land. not the particularlars the background. in a few weeks you will hear about 5leland and section 202.2 and section 190 of the planning

code. they are both related to retail cannabis and 600-foot buffer codified by the planning department and everyone in the industry to set the standards to distance and prevent clustering. section 202.21 clear in the intent where the storefronts can locate. 202.2 protects neighborhoods. there should be no grandfathering in the case before you in a few weeks. operators are seeking an exemption are not to be under 202 limiting the location. you can also here about equity as it applies to cannabis permits. that is all well and good, but please remember equity extends

to communities and neighborhoods. one neighborhood out of all of the communities shouldn't have a different set of rules because it is on the fringes, the valley is on the edge. they are known as the forgotten neighborhood. we should be protected from certain uses just like any other neighborhood in the city. thank you. i just want you to know that we are asking for protection for the concentration of certain uses in our neighborhood. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am calling on behalf of the tenants at 1424 polk street, which i and my wife are tenants.

we are supporting the recommendation for continuance regarding the state density bonus law and also would like to voice our opposition to the project for numerous reasons. the sheer size and mass. >> i am going to inter runt you. are you speaking to 1567 california street? >> yes, correct. >> we are not at that item right now. we are taking general public comment. you need to press star and 3 when we reach that item later in towed's agenda. >> linda chapman. i want to make a point that the russian hill letter which is a support letter for a project letter was making a point the state density bonus does not require waivers. they are not mandatory.

they are something to consider. i want to make the point. >> i am sorry to interrupt you. you are speaking to 1567 california street. >> no, i am talking about general items. i hope you are not counting my time. general items that may be related to that. >> very good. >> 303. what are the rules? section 303 does make it mandatory to consider adverse impacts on the vicinity which could be public realm or neighbors. you can see how important that is in grubstake before you recently. if waivers are given for one building and for exposure and things like that, there are terrible impacts. those are not mandatory because of the state density bonus in play. the west base of nob hill has two historic districts under

consideration. one is studied and the other is identified for future consideration which is the post-earthquake rebuilding of frame buildings all about the same or similar styles and all of the same period. not very much disrupted by recent construction. you considered that in the case of 1601 larkin. you did a beautiful job. i am sorry that church went. at least you dealt with the fact that design and massing could be changed to have less impact on the neighborhood and more compatible with the neighborhood that is going to be considered someday for historic preservation. with regard to the density bonuses. i think that is incredibly important. the people at grubstake talking about what they are looking at concrete wall. i hear that from somebody in support of housing waiting to

get out of the place where they are. all i have is a window looking at a concrete wall. those are the things that you cannot let happen just because one person wants density waivers and the next one comes along. where will we be? 303 you have to consider the adverse impact regardless of density bonus. >> that is your time. last call for general public comment. press star 3 to get into the queue. no additional requests to speak, general public comment is closed. move to the regular calendar. 10. 2021-00299opca. this is a planning code amendment. temporary closure of liquor stores in polk street.

>> before the presentation i would like to offer sonny a chance to speak on behalf of supervisor preston's office. >> you can give your presentation. >> sonny, are you with us? sorry. i apologize. i was on another call as this came up. i don't know where we are in the presentation. >> it is just introduced.

>> great. if you don't mind i will say a couple words and turn it over to audrey if that is okay with everyone. i am sonny representing the legislative suppose or, supervisor peskin. our office has been working to identify and appropriate affordable housing project for this specific site. this is polk and pacific since the supervisor returned to office in 2016. this was one of the few opportunities left. as you know one of the densist districts in the city. with coalition with russian hill, middle and upper polk, we have been advocating for affordable middle income housing to retape the local -- retain the legacy business on the ground floor.

we are happy and have been very pleased with the progress of the project sponsor has made working with the community to move forward, not only the 53 units of housing but also keeping the dedicated space for the shop on the ground floor. as you have seen in the case report, this legislation would ensure the jug shop and it is a wonderful family of extended family of employees there for a long time can relocate within a block of the construction site and then commence operations immediately at this temporary relocation. throughout the duration of the construction of the housing project and ensure a speedy return. i want to thank you, audrey for your thoughtful staff work on this legislation. definitely confirm also that supervisor peskin is interested

in taking up some of these modifications if not all of them at the board. in the interest of not holding up this housing project and legacy business operation, this sponsor will likely duplicate the file and move this legislation forward as quickly as possible. thank you. >> thank you, sonny. good afternoon. planning department staff. currently in the polk street mcd new liquor stores require conditional use authorization. the proposed ordinance would allow the existing stores displaced to vacate original location for up to three years without having to seek conditional use authorization t reestablish the original location. the legislation would allow liquor stores to locate to another location for a period up to three years without requiring

conditional use authorization. this is just for the ordinance pacific avenue. on december 3, 2020 you unanimously approved the conditional use authorization for the demolition of the existing commercial building at that site which is the jug shop. in its place will be a six story 65-foot tall mixed building. the ground floor will contain approximately 7,000 square feet of commercial space. included is the requirement the developer create a new space within the ground floor for the jug shop to occupy. >> they hope to break ground in july 2021. that jug shop is a legacy business, independent, family owned liquor store in the city

since 1965. they have signed a lease with a vacant space down the street where they hope to operate in the interim. the department recommends the commission approve this modification of proposed ordinance. the proposed recommends are: one temporary use authorizes in planning code 205. permit will allow any legacy business as de nine understand the code to relocate for a period of up to four years to either the location. [indiscernable] or any location outside the zoning district for that use would be or conditionally permitted. the temporary use permit may be

extended for two years not to exceed six years. other agencies are required. if the original location is to berebuilt and plan is for the legacy business to return to the original location, legacy business would not abandon their use at the original location, meaning they don't need to seek new zoning approval or impact fees upon returning to the original location. the tua this would follow the legacy business. once that legacy business vacated temporary space that will return to the previous land use designation. therefore if you move forward the ordinance drafted we still

have mechanical modifications. those are to extend time limit from three years to four years for abandonment and temporary use permit. to clarify the start up location to the previous use upon termmination of the temporary location. subject to legislation from neighborhood notification and development impact fees to the temporary location and original location so long as all of the movement occurs within this time period of the permit. last to replace the term during construction of development project with the language due to issuance of demolition and new construction permit issued by the department of building inspection.

lastly, since the packet we received two letters for public comment. first from the owner of the jug shop requesting the commission to approve the ordinance. second from the board member of san francisco heritage stating support for the ordinance and staff's premedded presentation. that concludes on you presentation. we are available for questions. >> thank you. members of the public this is your opportunity to address by pressing star 3. you have two minutes. >> linda chapman. i don't want to specifically oppose protecting liquor stores. i do want to suggest that you need to continue to really look at the fact the planning code as well as the abc requires certain

distance between alcohol licenses. i mention this more because maybe the bars were not themselves that much of a problem before. certainly the liquor stores were not that big of a problem. when you approved license after license. you brought polk street to its knees. last night they were talking about the impact on our street. the whole liquor industry that polk was turned over to because you approved conditional use on top of conditional use. the people in the neighborhood would not go out on the street at night. the coffee shops closed down, three at least. when i went to the public library for public meetings people would call out to each other downtown.

don't go to polk street. stay away from there. it was so horrific because of the impact of the alcohol industry. the senior housing condos you approved near norris, they i wanted to see one for sale. they had to screen off a glass partition. those malplaces to begin with. you turned it into hell. i don't think it is the liquor stores in particular. i want that point. be careful about licenses in the future. that concludes my remark. >> thank you. any additional public comment on this matter? seeing no additional requests. take it back.

>> good afternoon. chris show man, resident of the polk street and also working nonprofit. speaking in my personal capacity. i would like to speak in support of this ordinance. it is good policy for a good project and good business. i just do want to take a moment to take polk street is a vibrant community. alcohol did not dominate it is a good mix afternoon good decisions have been made over the years. i appreciate everything. thank you so much. >> time call for public comment. -- final call for public comment. go ahead, caller. >> hello, commissioners, the owner of the jug shop at 15 0

pacific. we are a legacy business serving polk since 1965. your approval of this legislation is crucial for the jug shop to survive the current site development at 2030 polk, and transition to 1648 pacific without significant interruption to operations. as stated earlier, eventually return to the commercial space in the new development. i thank you for all of the commissioners and staff for your consideration and ongoing efforts. thank you especially to supervisor peskin, sonny and team for your efforts to preserve and protect small business. thank you to discover polk for continued advocacy in support for the neighborhood and

merchants and sullivan development for hands-on approach working with us and jonathan feldman for the opportunity at 1648 pacific. thank you for your consideration. please vote to approve. >> commissioners, public comment be is closed. the matter is now before you. i apologize there is one more person requests to speak. >> yes, good afternoon. this ordinance i support reasonable accommodation for a legacy business going to need to survive and return to its space after the affordable housing project, which is a very worthy project gets built.

thank you. please support. >> public comment is closed. >> i am in support today. glad to see the jug shop will repossess their original location. great teamwork. commissioner moore. >> i am in full support. delighted to see a carefully crafted legislation to help with this. it helps the new storefront the. i am delighted the jug store will stay in this location, a legacy business that has been there and is a part of the neighborhood. one question. sonny, are you there? >> she is no longer here. >> i can ask audrey. you are suggesting four years.

the supervisors suggested three years. have you talked about that and why three versus four or four versus three? >> we are requesting four years because we understand that sometimes construction can become delayed and so we realized that an extra year could make a huge difference in the ability for a legacy business or even if the ordinance is not changed for the liquor stores in polk to have enough time they are not stuck if construction is delayed and it takes four years to build instead of three. if this permit expires in three years and construction doesn't finish until three years and one month, they would have to reapply for a new permit or seek

a come use to remain at that temporary location for that brief period of time. another conditional use to go back to the original location. >> that may beings sense. there are unknowns in construction. i hope the drugstore will indeed temporary locate on polk street. there are a number of vacancies including foot traffic. we do not know the address and if so we are not allowed to know about it yet, right? >> we know the address of the temporary location which is going to be -- not on polk street but on pacific on the other side. on the west side. >> i know which store that is. that is empty a long time. great location. thank you so much. that is a bright light.

>> commissioner chan. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your work on this. this is carefully crafted for the purpose of preserving the jug shop. i want to offer some comments about the staff modifications for the tua. i do think the more important thing is to focus on the pathway for the jug shop facing immediate displacement. for the qa, the legacy accident is important to the city. i also think policies should be drafted with neighborhood specific context in mind. we had this discussion a few weeks ago about being more mindful and not one side fits all planning approach. as we move forward take a good

look at the different types of businesses and maybe take a final look at the definition. from what i can tell i am not sure if there is just acknowledging there might be difference in equity resources. those are my comments. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> i support commissioner chan's comments in terms of when we are drafting an amendment or tua for this one and the emphasis on the racial and social equity. i believe it is good to have

analysis that will support the intent. in terms of this ordinance and this item, i am in full support. i move to approve with modification. >> second. >> commissioner diamond. >> i just want to understand the motion. commissioner imperial you move to approve with the two sets of modifications as proposed by the planning staff, is that correct? >> yes. >> i am in favor. >> thank you, commissioners. there is a motion seconded to approve with qualifications. on that motion commissioner tanner. >> happy to say aye. >> commissioner chan.

>> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president koppel. >> aye. >> so moved. that passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item 11. 2021-003184pcmap. 2500 2530 on 18th street affordable housing. special use district. these are planning code and zoning map amendments. >> thank you, commission secretary and planning department staff. the item before you is the 2500-2530 18th street affordable housing special use district. this was with walton, stefani.

the first would actually involve re-zoning two parcels at the intersection of 18th and potrero avenue. the second part would be establishing a new special use district for requiring all new dwelling units, save for the manager's unit. all new dwelling units be affordable with an annual income between 30. [indiscernable] it would support homeless prenatal program goal to provide resources to families experiencing homelessness, particularly women during pregnancy to ensure they are healthy and stable and housed. existing hpp services include job training, housing services,

health services and child development and other support. in the future it provides on site housing for seamless support to clients under one roof. proposed facilitates the affordable housing. we recommend and proving the ordinance with modification to support the homelessness goals. reducing homelessness. the one modification relates to the required a.m.i.s listed. they are made available to house holed 30 to 80% a.m.i. given the clients are transitioning out of homelessness or marginally housed. 30% a.m.i. requirement is overly restrictive and may turn away some of the most vulnerable residents from future on site

openings. the department recommends the range be a cap of 80% a.m.i. instead. there were over 80 public comments in support stating they really have seen the tremendous work that has been done. we have received letters from the hpp founder and director, board members and a client from hpp. we have received letter from neighboring residents and businesses, community groups such as partners in prevention and the san francisco pantry. they support that they do such great work transitions out of homelessness and reiterated the need to expand these for the

most vulnerable residents. this concludes the staff presentation. we have ms. stover fee rear representing homeless programs. we are all available for questions. thank you. >> we will open up to the public. this is your opportunity to address this matter. press star 3. you have two minutes. when your line is unmuted, begin speaking. >> thank you. i am the project sponsor for the potrero power system and proud partner of the prenatal project. i support the change of use for this specific building. they are looking to expand the

mission into housing. we have done a small part in that. now they are leap-frogging ahead and moving greatly to develop their own housing. we are proud of the organization and the work they have done. they have a team to develop the housing. we strongly support it and urge you to approve this. thank you. >> i am charmaine curtis on the board of the prenatal program working with martha ryan to acquire the property to expands the impact which is really amazing if you don't know the organization. ien can you remember you to learn more about it. it is the gold standard when it comes to helping very low income women change the trajectory of their lives and the lives of

their church. i hope you will support us. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, planning commission. i am the director of housing and partnership at the homeless prenatal program. i began working as an intern. over the years i worked in various areas of family housing. my experience as we all know there is not adequate affordable housing opportunities for low income and unsheltered families in san francisco. this became more clear this past year when the pandemic underscored that safe affordable housing is not a matter of personal safety and stability but public health. so the benches of the bay area while rents cost less, families

of color are displaced, isolated by friends and family with limited access to social services. we make san francisco more equitable for those that call the city home. we can invest in agencies and in our client. homeless prenatal program is helping families access affordable housing and family services over 30 years. they suggested today would help hup go without the housing services so that more families could thrive. thank you for considering this change as it will enable them t reimagine what is possible in the next 30 years in service to san francisco families. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am marsha ryan, founder and

executive director of homeless prenatal program. i began 32 years ago to provide care to homeless pregnant women. it was not enough. we evolved to a family resource center that helps families break the cycle of poverty and homelessness. we moved to 2500 18th street in 2005 and paid off in 2012. i have had my eye on what i come to call the building next door. it is directly adjacent to our building. on every dope nor visit for -- donor visit i pointed to that building and named that dream that hpp should one day own it. that dream came true last year. however, i don't want you to think that hpp is in the

purchase of buying building. this was a once in a lifetime opportunity for non-profit to better serve constituents. i endorse this because i believe the zoning will enable us to serve more families in the community more deeply. the space is a great asset to the agency. we use it for storage of diapers and food for emergency food programs. cribs and strollers. in partnership with the native american health center vaccine clinics for clients. it is underserved in the vaccination rollout. this has made me hopeful for the services we could ramp-up with. plans for the building are ways off we are dreaming about the essential services we could provide for our families. the past year has highlighted

how important housing support, affordable housing and employment opportunities for families. we need to invest in life-changing opportunities like these for the betterment of our parents and children and community as a whole. >> thank you. >> thank you for your consideration. >> good afternoon. i am a former neighbor and proud board member. i learned of hpp in dogpatch where we thought of housing solutions. i am here to support this change to expand the services to open much more needed housing for low income families in san francisco. they served over 100,000 families. i can only imagine how much more they can accomplish.

housing adjacent to their headquarters is no brainer. i urge you to support this project. thank now your time. >> i want to speak today to help you voice the opportunity that you have. as a long time supporter of the organization and the parent, i reflect not just on the number of families served at 3,000 per year is remarkable. importantly on the meaning of these results. this organization changes lives today. really help s shape the next generation as well. with this seemingly minor change you have an opportunity to help provide safe, warm placestor sleep, access to healthcare

annette work of critical support for the clients. these shouldn't be in question in our community. we can all agree on that. you will ensure that is the case for a thousand more in the future. i hope you realize this opportunity and join me in supporting the proposed changes. >> last call for public comment on this item. >> i am jackie. i am here to support the change that the program has requested. prenatal support and other

services. i received housing three years ago through the hpp share program. because of this program i am able to provide a healthy and loving and stable home for my children. ny family and i are grateful for this opportunity. i fully support hpp's expansion efforts. i know with the expansion hpp will continue to ensure a better future for families and children. thank you. >> that concludes public comment on this matter. the item is before you. >> i am in full support today. >> commissioner moore.

>> i am in full support. i may being a motion to approve with modifications. >> second. >> commissioner tanner. >> very happy to second this. only question i have, two questions. one with the change to a.m.i., i assume but i want to clarify that would allow folks with a section 8 voucher to become occupants of the housing, correct? >> yes, that's correct, commissioner tanner. >> to confirm in the current state they can continue using the building for the purposes they have been using it for. it is great the empty building is activated.

that wouldn't inhibit the use of space right now? >> they can continue with the storage that they currently use at the site and expand the current services to the adjacent property. >> excellent. very enthusiastically support this. >> commissioner diamond. >> i am in full support of this ordinance. it is a wonderful idea. the only question i have relating to the modification is whether or not staff has discussed this with the sponsoring supervisors offices. are they supportive or did they have concerns about the modification? the elimination of the floor to expand the number of people eligible? i don't know if any representatives of the supervisor's office are online to address that as well, too.

i would like to hear more about more context for this. >> thank you, commissioner diamond. we had expected president walton to join us. he was not able to at the last minute. however, in response to your question, we did try to inquire as to the reason why the 30% floor was included. we were not able to get the clearance. there is a desire to do so. so i don't have any more details for you regarding the 30% floor. that said i want to remind you that ms. hayward is online if you want to direct similar questions regarding that floor to homeless prenatal directly. >> before i do that to make sure i understand what you said. you raised this question with supervisor walton's office and they indicated they wanted to retain the 30% floor? is that what you are saying?

>> it was a strong desire to retain a floor of some sort. >> maybe the project sponsor wants to address that issue or anyone else. >> we do have a -- we had a member of the public who wanted to submit testimony but they have since lowered their hand. there is ms. hayward. >> we on behalf of tomorrow lese

appreciate support. from supervisor walton it is imperative there be a floor. i don't have any more information. i apologize. >> i am wondering in light of that whether instead of the modification being that we recommend elimination of the floor that instead maybe our modification should be that we proposed consideration by the board of supervisors as to whether a floor is important and if so at what level? i am anxious about eliminating a floor if the supervisors think it is imperative to include it. certainly discussion about this issue. i believe that would be important. i am curious to hear when what the other commissioners have to

say. >> i apologize to interrupt your deliberations. there is a member of the public to speak. we will take that caller now. go ahead, caller, you have two minutes. >> my apologies. go ahead, commissioner moore. >> i think commissioner diamond is raising a good question. i would like to turn my question to for example if somebody comes in with 28% rather than 30, would that person be eliminated or not eligible?

that is where the concern is. >> thank you, commissioner moore. at 20% a.m.i. that person would not be eligible for on site housing here based on the way it is written today. homeless prenatal would continue to refer the clients to other housing providers such as they are doing today when there is no housing on site. in that case the person or household as 20% a.m.i. would not be able to have the good fortune of having all services under one roofer at 18th street. >> the difficulty was getting services when you need them and prenatal is a critical time. there is the nature what we are addressing here. i would personally like to see the cap, lower b eliminated.

on the other end i would like to give supervisor walton the ability to explain his concerns to us so we are not making a decision that goes against the intent of this legislation. this is like damn if you do and damn if you don't. is there any possibility to get him on the phone to touch base with him and be respectful of him as originatedtor of the legislation? -- originator of the legislation? >> i am not sure we would be able to get him this quickly. i will remind you although the planning code language says the planning commission shall approve this or any legislation before you. the board of supervisors has the full ability to modify any action that the commission takes

before they finalize the planning code and zoning map amendments. >> thank you, secretary, for reading that in the record. i would like to see the cap eliminated. >> commissioner imperial. >> the question of commissioner moore elimination of the cap. >> we may have lost your video and audio. am i the only one not hearing commissioner imperial. >> i cannot hear her either. >> you may kill your video feed

in that way. at least your audio will be broadcast.

online but i don't -- it appears to be muted. commissioner imperial are you with us? >> did you hear the whole comment? >> we lost you earlier on. >> i'll repeat it again.

i'm in support of the legislation with planning staff recommendation in terms of capping it at 80%. i was explaining the 80% is the maximum for low income aami. i believe the intent is to house low income to low income so it serves to eliminate the 30%. i am in full support of this modification and i believe supervisor walton and other supervisors can further discuss that in the board of supervisors with public hearing can explain more. i'm in full support with the staff recommendation. >> is that a motion?

>> yes, i move to approve it with modifications. >> second. >> there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this planning code modification. (roll call) >> so moved commissioners. it passes 7-0. placing us on item 12. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. planning department staff before you this afternoon is the

informational presentation on the modernzation project. i'm going to turn it over to one of the project managers but first quick context about the project. this project is located in the mission district on the block immediately south of franklin square. the project is to completely rebuild and significantly expand the facility as part of the ongoing building progress program to strategically plan for the agency's future and providing transit for the city. because it is on a public site and the leverage to create housing, particularly affordable housing and other community benefits, the project also includes a mixed use housing component on top of the new facility that could include up to 575 units with emphasis on maximizing affordable housing to the extent feasible.

mta submitted the application to us in the fall of 2019. after working with the community, their consultants and planning staff to craft a project description in the form of objectives and exterior building envelope and guidelines further describes design intent. the presentation is prior to the publication of the draft public hearing and just after the release where mta is looking to identify a develop partner. in terms of planning and zoning, this project will require a rezoning in the form of special use district since it is currently zone p. and it will require that designation and general plan amendments. the project itself will require planned unit developments or larger project authorization. separately, the project will require a project agreement that

will govern the financial aspects of the project between the joint development partner and community benefits. that document will ultimately be approved by the board and board of supervisors. with that, i will turn it over to director tomlin and staff to provide you details of the project. >> i'm director of sfmta. uni transit facilities are the backbone of our transportation system. as a result, we're very excited to initiate this conversation with the planning commission about the potrero yard project with a robust facility that serves for mission, fillmore and

stockton lines. this project is also remarkable and we think first of its kind in the world opportunity to address the critical need for more affordable housing on top of the public bus yard. it has had a successful collaboration with neighborhood stakeholders and we like to thank the san francisco planning staff for working together for us to develop the calendar item. i would like to introduce one of our project managers who will walk us through today's presentation. >> thank you. okay. here we go. so as matt said in 2017, the

sfmta completed the facilities framework that summarized and charted a course for plan growth to reconstruct and expand some facilities and the documents for the implementation schedule is the first reconstruction project and began initial planning immediately on completion of the report. a bit about the existing site. in 2019, it served approximately 14% of muni's ridership. the building was built in 1915 for 100 street cars and serves 158 buses. the building is eligible for the california register of historic places due to age, use and

architect but the building ceiling levels are too low for staff to maintain the buses inside and the configuration does not allow for efficient or modern bus maintenance. as a result, our mechanics have assembled outside with no weather protection. the building is obsolete and must be rebuilt. the principle objective is to rebuild the yard to serve the existing trolley fleet and battery electric buses. it will be the first purpose built battery electric facility in the portfolio. it must be complete by the end of 2026 to accommodate the planned bus fleet. leveraging the construction opportunity of the 4.4 acre site to increase the city's supply of housing, especially affordable housing and the sfmta emphasizes that the housing built on site

must be compatible with the overall bus schedule itself. in addition to the objectives on the prior slide, project strives for excellence in urban design, goal certification, improve working conditions for a growing work force and overall being a better neighbor to the neighborhood. this project is a collaboration of several city departments, including the mayor's office of housing and planning development, the office of work force development and public works. working with each of the departments on this project since 2017 and the project represents more than sfmta's capital means. this addresses multiple objectives on a single site. i'll turn it over now to ray for the next portion of the presentation. >> good afternoon commissioners and thank you for the opportunity to talk about the

project. i'm going to turnoff my video as i start to talk to make sure -- you heard some of the high level goals and objectives of the project and i'll talk about kind of the actual what of the project. so you can see here this is just a view of the concepts and program we have presented. as matt mentioned earlier, the site is directly south of franklin square and comprised of two blocks. you can see overall we're talking about a project that is a big project, basically a 4.5 acre site. you can see basically the three components of the project. the housing component that has

gotten a lot of attention. this is the first time this is being proposed or pursued in north america, combining essentially a bus maintenance facility and large housing development above. so we're talking about maximum 575 units. the level of affordability has gotten a lot of attention and interest in the community. we're talking about a minimum affordability percentage of 50% but we are expressly challenging the proposal through request for qualifications and proposal process i'll talk about in a bit. we are challenging them to go beyond that. not to say 50% is the target and we're happy with that. we want to pursue up to 100% affordable. we've benefitted from a great

partnership with other city agencies, planning, public works. 35 million to help achieve the level of affordability. the transportation characteristics of the project, we are proposing, really requiring a very ambitious transportation program for the residential component as well as for the bus facility with modes of transportation. i'm happy to talk about this further but this has received a lot of attention and interest as well, currently proposed and being analyzed through the process. next slide. so just a little bit about the project delivery model and you can see the graphic that breaks it down as well. this is a great illustration of the layer cake we have here.

we have three major levels for the bus maintenance facility and those would be large floors. basically 25 feet in height rising about 75 feet above the lowest and then above that, we would have these residential floors up to seven additional floors in height that would provide up to 575 units of housing. the project is really a three part and then essentially infrastructure that both of the elements share. the joint development partner which we're in the process of soliciting, they would be responsible for not just construction element, designing building and financing in the facility but also operating housing. we're not in the business of

operating housing developments. and then they would be responsible for maintaining the common building and of course core maintenance of the buses and interior spaces within the bus facility would by and large continue to be maintained by employees as they currently are. in terms of rough order of magnitude of what we're anticipating the value of the project to be, $450 million investment inclusive of construction inflation and total project cost including housing of just under a billion dollars. a very large project for san francisco. about the process, kind of next steps, the request for qualification process ended toward the end of last year. because of all the expertise we're looking for.

and then we just released the follow up with proposals to the three short listed firms just about a month ago and the responses are due in september. we're asking teams to do lot of due diligence and design work, so we'll be arriving at selection with more than just qualifications but advanced proposals. this is basically upon selection we enter the predevelopment agreement and the pda phase will be working basically hand in hand, the entire city will be working hand in hand by the terms of the project, financial plans for the project, the commercial component and going through essentially design bid process. and that process will culminate in the project agreement which

will form the design the city to developer and the project. next slide. so we have done a lot of work with planning staff which we have really benefitted from. we brought a multidisciplinary team of our own on board to analyze the fees feasibility and early on we started meeting with the planning department to get feedback. we certainly didn't want to design in a vacuum. so that team that came on to start doing the feasibility work at the end of 2017, early 2018, to get high level concepts and then i guess the next big wave, in 2019, basically taking the feedback we have gotten from the

public into a concept design and you can see these pictures on the slide are taken from one of the meetings we had in planning to start thinking about the highest portion of the sign and would they be parallel or staggered. we culminated in the rough design in terms of that. and it's not shown here, but the design process where we had a number of new and productive minis with urban design staff and planning department and this i guess the most recent review issued by planning was a review letter in the spring of 2020 with further guidance and outlining the pathway that matt described in terms of

entitlements. the most recent stage in the process is set of design guidelines which we prepared closely with planning staff and informed by the neighborhood working group. these are included in the technical requirements and include all of the things you would expect in robust urban design guidelines. neighborhood groups and individual residents and stakeholders and we had a kick off meeting for the initiative at the end of 2017. we formed -- we continued a lot

of that informal stakeholder outreach in 2018, formed a working group in the fall of 2018, which is basically met monthly and invaluable to the process both from the standpoint of messaging as well as substance. before we have gone back to the public to have one of these open houses, we have gotten feedback from the working group whether the messaging was on target or if our approach made sense. and then in terms of the substance, very helpful with public benefits principles included and the technical guidelines for housing component. they played a great role and it's impossible i'm sure of course to capture the full kind of diversity of voices in one group. but we think we have a great group that really does represent

a large section of the neighborhood and interest groups. we have residents and housing advocates. >> i don't mean to interrupt. i gave you an extra six minutes already. >> thanks. wrapping up. (please stand by...)

that is something we are aware of. >> two more and we are done. the next one is the ceqa process we have been undertaking with planning. we initiated the review in november 2019. in an untraditional way without

having the development partner on board. given the requirements and ability to know what we want in the project and need for the bus facility itself, we were able to draw specific bounds around the project prior to the partner joining us. the planning department helped us to chart this path that involves release of the draft e.i.r. at the end of next month. then through the process ongoing, they are requiring proposers to confirm to the existing project description. once the developer formally joins the city in october 2021 in the pda phase it will be vetted by planning for the analysis. we would anticipate bringing the e.i.r. here in the summer of 2022. the timeline. the r.f.p. went out in april,

due in september. we plan to publish the draft e.i.r. at the end of june. we will execute the predevelopment agreement with the developer after we make a selection that is november. the planning commission review of the e.i.r. entitlement is expected to be the following july. with agreement approval settling the financial terms by the board of supervisors the july after that. 12 months after the e.i.r. to allow forbids to progress for construction. then really it will close in fall 23. completion by the end of 2026. thank you for your time. we are available for your questions. >> thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation.

we should move on to public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter star 3. you have two minutes. when you hear your line unmuted begin speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. we are excited to continue to see this project move forward. we want to continue to advocate for the maximum number of homes on this side, whether they are market rate or 100% affordable income project. we think that is really just a matter of math. the city's available funds to contribute to subsidize affordable units at market rate homes each year to build the affordable and save the city money. we think that result can be very, very positive as well.

kudos to staff and everybody gotten the proposal to this point. we look forward to continuing especially to the r.f.p. process later this year. thank you. >> hi, commissioners this is hunter. i am speaking on behalf of the sierra club. i am a long time mission resident. i want you to know the club welcomes the 575 units of rental housing on his site. this is exactly what we need, dense development in the urban center. we applaud the sfpa and planning staff to move this forward. we are concerned the vision for affordable housing only mandates 50% affordable housing.

as we all know, mission has been ground zero for the impacts of gentrification and displacement. this is going to end up with 50% affordable housing. 300 units of market rate housing in ground zero in mission district. those are luxury units. that is going to have an impact in terms of gentrification and displacement. we know from previous work of the planning department, 30 to o 40% has no impact. 50% is not good going to go far. we ask for 100% affordable house. the fact of the matter is that public land of this size is very scarce and there is a very limited number of it.

once it is built out, it is gone. it is important that when we build on public land that we do 100% affordable housing. we hope the process and especially the weighting how the developer proposes are looked at prioritize the affordable housing. thanks for your attention today. >> thank you. members of the public last call for comments on this matter. >> thank you, commissioners. affordable housing advocate for seniors. our 21st century modernized bus yard is a worthy and necessary project. i do have a lot of concerns over the housing portion.

let's keep in mind this is public land in a public use zoning district, at least at the present. it is very commendable the planners hope to see as much as 100% affordable. this is not a solid commitment. in towed's phrase repeated over and over. to maximize affordability. this again is very far from a commitment. the reference to keeply affordable is not written in stone. for the record, let me say that i believe any housing built on public land it must be 100% affordable. racially, socially and economically equitable including the a.m.i. level designated by

hud as extremely low income and very low income. to be very, very clear. public land should not be devoted to any market rate units. it should be 100% affordable. thank you very much for your consideration. >> good afternoon. i am a member of the san francisco tennis unit and the race in equity. i agree with the previous speaker that public land should be used for 100% affordable housing. there is hardly any extremely low income housing offered to residents of san francisco. people on fixed incomes who need places to live, getting displaced from their homes wind

up on the streets. we need to have affordable housing for extremely low, low, very low-income peopling. where else but on public land? thank you. >> very good, commissioners that concludes public comment on this item. it is now before you. >> great to see that we are reinvesting in not only public transit but the electrification of transit vehicles to meet our climate goals and housing on top of that as well. commissioner moore. >> interested to see us move to the 21st century bus yard. i would like to ask my colleagues at s.f.m.t.a. can you

describe the bus yard with more detail? to that do we have the ability to put part of the the reason why i am saying that we have to the north a very important public park. shadow, no shadow on this park and reccontrol obviously critical. in answer to describe the operational side of the bus yard a little bit more. >> thank you, commissioner for your question. of course, we would love you tell you more about the bus facility. people don't ask about that. thank you for asking. the bus facility is right now programmed to be three floors. internal circulation to connect to the floors. buses will move around between the levels without coming to the

right-of-way, for the most part. we will be housing the 40-foot and 60-foot buses here. the fleet now will return after the construction. there will be expanded capacity for the first delivery of better electric vehicles. you won't see any more of the complex web of the overhead wire that you see because the building is structured so the new fleet allows off wire capacity. you will be seeing an overhead wire design to support the buses. we have not -- we have a long document that is in the r.f.p. summarizing the requirements. we have not specified for certain which levels the different parts of the program are required to be.

the reference that we have submitted to the planning department is the basis of environmental analysis shows maintenance on the first floor with buses queuing for buses on the maricopa street front age. second and third floors dedicated to bus parking and parking of nonrevenue vehicles that are in our fleet. there are two interesting newcomb opponents that will be coming to potrero yard for the m.t.a. really that, aren't there now. not new to our organization, but operator training classroom space is currently will be relocated here. also, we will consolidate the street operations unit which we call first responders that respond to any on road condition that keeps the bus from going on

the normal route. we will have several of those city-wide cars stored in this facility as well. as far as your other -- is that sufficient or do you want me to keep going? >> have you considered gaining more capacity by pushing the building partially or fully below grade? >> as far as subsurface. we have in the references we have a partial basement that included in there. the environmental draft e.i.r. will analyze the full basement. a portion of the basement is in the bedrock. that is up to the developer teams design and financial analysis of whether that is appropriate to remove that for the project.

we don't necessarily at this stage preclude developer teams from seeking to potentially put more of the project below grade, but the environmental impact report analysis is a single floor. in keeping with what i said previously about saying in the bounds of the existing review is what it in the draft e.i.r. >> i think the public needs to hear there is an attempt to max might the usability of the site and that requires looking below grade because it is a massive building, requires 15 plus ceiling height. we are losing height. we want to maximize the capability. i ask the question and you put it into a very good context

which can follow into the detail through the e.i.r. as a follow-up. i appreciate the creative approach to the site and look forward to following as it develops. thank you so much. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i want to commend the staff on a great presentation. innovative project. trying to provide great new public facility and much needed housing. i thank the working group. they have been meeting monthly since 2018. i don't know if they are meeting. i thank them for the work. if they keep going through they have several more years ahead. i want to thank them for input. i do have a few questions. for the t.t.p. program with no

proposed parking at the site. when the buses are coming back to go to sleep at night. can folks ride them home or are they out of service and it drives back here. is there any capacity to think about how folks are getting home? that may not be in the evening but changing shifts. it would seem like an opportunity for the folks living there to get there to use that to get to this location versus having to only access certain routes. i don't know if that is part of the operations. if someone could speak to that. >> that is a great question. typically we are talking about a different facility than what is currently there and different from the storage yards. there is mixed use component. we know that with increase in buses we are talking about very different composition of the

buses. 60-foot buses. mentioned earlier the transition to battery electric buses and 50% more buses. one thing that is great about the concept design in our technical requirement is the flexibility of the facility as envisioned. all of that is to say we know we have to do surface planning as a result of this coming online with additional buses and mix of 40 and 60-foot buses. that is not detailed yet but our planners will look at that. given the fact you are talking about that. >> you are doing that planning. how can there be the practicality of buses going there.

carry passengers on the way? how do you know you get a bus to the yard versus where you think you might go on the bus? i want to be clear where the passengers are headed. there may not be stops in between. as far as tdm. i am curious if there are clear thoughts about car share accessible bike parking. do you have a sense of the scale? at ground level or he willvators to get bikes and electric bicycles and those things. car share spaces. some car share use public streets for the parking space for the car. that would be at scale would be ideal to ensure that folks do not need to have their own vehicle but access to ways to get around this addition to transit. can you speak to the program at this point? >> you know. this is one of the issues where at this stage of the process we are basically outlining.

we have this in addition to the planning code a ambitious expectations. that is one of the evaluation criteria when we receive the proposals. creative, how ambitious are they talking about? so that is where we are in terms of detail now. we have as mentioned earlier. we prepared a reference design concept that is a foundation. it is a foundation for the proposal to improve upon, basically. in that reference design we do have a basement that occupies half of the area of the site. that is for references that is

where we envision ample bicycle parking and secure bicycle parking and car share spaces. that will be flushed out when the developer has a chance to digest the technical proposals. >> that is ideal to have access for these types of purposes. that is part of the basement area. that is great to hear. what i recognize in the design guidelines family friends housing. a mix of things. i want to applaud the planning department for the work on what does it mean to have family friendly housing. the open space to have those larger two and three or more bedroom units at that level so the kids can go out and play and the parents can keep an eye on them. this commission talked about having private open space. i encourage for it to include

balconies with the proposer so individuals have a little open space in addition to the open space. have a few plan plants on the balcony. that can make a big difference to center mix of private and public. last thing to ask about other public facilities or uses here. it strikes me that as our city is planning more housing. we need planning for different services folk care and child care could be a good match with the building except that my understanding from previous conversations and i am not an expert. child care facilitieses tend to want to be on first or second floor. i wonder if now is the time to work with the state to see if there are exceptions for child

care facility with access to the rooftop. that would probably just be more beneficial than the ground level. that might be a conversation that could take quite awhile to resolve. i don't know if that has been had or maybe not child care, libraries, other collocation of public facilities at the site. can anyone peak to that? >> yes, commissioner tanner. first of all, we have been trying to define appropriate alternatives in the draft e.i.r. we will come that out as published. we are looking at what we have already heard many times from the community about the interest of child care on the site. we will be including that as an alternative in the draft e.i.r. analysis as well. you raise a good point there are requirements for that use.

there are two things that i think are relevant. one there is a kids playground across the street. planning staff was looking into potential, you know, whether that could be sort of a stand in for adjacent open space. second, we have not precluded that. the developer teams may propose that. they could potentially work to find some knock out on the ground floor to accommodate that if they wanted to. from m.t.a. perspective we are concerned about compatibility of little people and big vehicles. we would want to stress the importance of urban designed for safety for tiny pedestrians with big vehicles moving around. >> i agree with that. you want to make sure that it is harmonious. it may be this park is not

great. the kids have to walk across the street. i used to work in the daycare at college. getting the kids outside is a lot of work and then coming back in. more adjacent be the outdoor space is, we may not fit everything. it strikes me if there are 525 units there are kids. one less trip in the morning for the household to make in a private vehicle or whatever they choose to do. if we can give people reasons to not use cars, i think this becomes a much better facility for everyone involved. understood that it is not slam-dunk to put child care here for a lot of reasons. a few more questions. one area about the affordability. it really is pushing for 50%

affordable. i think it was very well looking at moderate income households as well. i would want to see when you are coming back for the approval. i want to see the numbers. the city needs public land to get the housing out of the market as much as we can. out of the market doesn't mean affordable to low and very low income households, it may be to higher income households. 120 doesn't make the project work. do we restrict to 120 to 150. what is a way for moderate housing in that income group in the marketplace. can we income restrict the units not just by the ways of the market and serving the public

benefit of providing housing, income qualified. a ladder as folks do progress in careers and are not able to stay in the housing because they may being too much money, where can they go? at the end of hope there is no market rate housing not regulated in terms of income. if the incomes are higher, it is restricted and specific. i would hope that after looking at 120, 150 a.m.i. those numbers get close to what the market would bear anyway and there could be good synergy. you are able to look at that. that could be a sharp pencil. look to see how much do we push for afford ability even if not just to the lower income group. that is my perspective on the topic. >> that really aligns with the language in the r.f.p.

the challenge there were a number of folks who expected 100% affordable. it is funding. that is what it comes down to is how creative the proposers can be and not just what they propose but what they implement to deliver housing on the site. because of that because we have this generous allocation of fundings and there is also housing to affordability. we know we are in the presentation we are asking specifically the developers to be as entrepreneurial and innovative as possible to secure a below market portion of the housing unit, if not the whole thing below market. as a result of the guidance within the r.f.p. is not prescripted. it doesn't a x units at the a.m.i. level.

only a portion of the funding is spoken for. we have a global definition of what constitutes very affordable. although we have incentivizing affordable units as well. we look to proposers within the scheduled challenges, parameters of delivering on time to be as innovative as possible to be exactly as you propose. >> thank you. appreciate your time. >> commissioner fung. >> the muni operations have other muni yards throughout the city, at least two others i am aware of. has any thought been given to those yards? >> briefly the quick answer is

yes. the challenge is that we can only take those yards offline one at a time because of capacity challenges we have so we don't have acheskers of open space we can accommodate the buses from the site. that is the case. we started actually preliminary planning process at presidio which is oldest across from target. that planning process is just beginning right now with the idea they would be done. >> i wanted to add that we have six bus facilities in our overall portfolio, three rail facilities and additional support bus facility. [please stand by]

we're at the end of the process. really, thank you to both departments for setting this up. secondly, i want to underscore a couple of comments that were made by commissioner tanner. i'm going to add my voice to the chorus on the exploration of private balconies, that they don't need to be large but as we have seen during covid, access to just a tiny bit of open space, even just enough for a couple of chairs is really critically important and we ought to look at that going forward. i'm hopeful you will encourage your various proposers to take that into account when they're thinking about their design options.

there was references made to family housing and addition of 2-3 bedroom units. i want to really emphasize a point that was made by former supervisor yee when they were doing the balboa reservoir project in front of us, not just larger units but how the facilities on a particular project are grouped together and supplemental to make them work for families. childcare is really important. but how are the units grouped relative to open space, relative to each other. how are the units grouped relative to community rooms that might be on the property. this is vertical space unlike balboa reservoir but the issues are still there. it seems like an incredible opportunity to think about how we really make it work for families, taking into account

some of the work done at balboa reservoir that was wonderful in creating a space that works better for families than we had seen in other projects. i had the same question as commissioner fung about are there opportunitys the do it elsewhere in the city and where are you. it's such a good idea to use vertical space to get multiple uses on the same property. we're in an urban environment and need to be thinking vertically. i'm hopeful we'll see other projects in front of us shortly. and my last comment is really a question and has to do with affordability issue that was raised. so whether or not you are asking the various project -- potential project sponsors to come back to you with alternative scenarios.

the 50% versus 100% is really just a question in my mind, where is the financing and how are we going to pay for all this. if they were to come to us with alternative proposals, by us, i mean the city, whoever is looking at this. it might be easier to understand the trade-offs involved. you could have 100% affordable project but here's what the cost would be to the city that we wouldn't otherwise have to bear if it was 75% affordable projector if the ami was lower versus higher. sometimes it is easier to understand that if we're seeing proposals from the project sponsor to understand the consequences. i don't know if you're allowing for that, encouraging that, requiring that, then maybe you could address it.

>> there's a process that we're going through right now that is called the alternative technical concept where basically we have kind of a mechanism for the proposers to kind of deviate from technical guidelines that provides value basically to the city. there is an opportunity kind of entering that portal for the proposers to do something different than what is proposed. if there's a compelling reason for them either on the housing side or bus facility side or both to deviate from the broad brush strokes we have outlined, then there's the opportunity. it's a little harder to -- especially because of the schedule we have, fully flushed

out proposals in parallel that we're asking to do a lot of heavy lifting, a lot of design work and financial feasibility work at substantial cost to them. but it's a little challenging to have kind of multiple proposals from each team in parallel but i will say that what we're looking for in the criteria is kind of this blend of ambition and feasibility. we specifically want them to aim as high as possible but ask them to layout a realistic path for getting here and identify which kind of percentage of their funding sources are more standard affordable housing

opposed to. it does kind of force them to provide a narrative and explanation of the trade-offs you're talking about. how much afford ability can you provide and guarantee funding sources versus speculative funding sources. a little bit of that is embedded in the criteria. >> i think it would be important for the public to understand, when you make the choice or whichever entity is making the choice, the trade-offs involved. i agree it's public land and we should be doing our level best get as much affordable housing as we can on this land but i want to understand the trade-offs involved in that. if you get a project that's at great ami levels but giving other things up instead, it should be clear to understand why you may choose a project that isn't 100% affordable.

who is going to pick the project. can you describe that part of the process. we have so many entities involved, which is the entity that will pick the winning project? >> so the proposal period itself closes and then there's city selection panel that we can't disclose the members of the panel but they are multidisciplinary group of -- i don't think i can even tell you the number. i won't do that because i'm not sure. internal to the city and outside. after that it becomes a negotiation between the city but the mta being the user of the

bus yard component and the developer team. and the project agreement itself is approved by the board of supervisors through the mta board. we'll hit every commission and committee in between. >> but the selection of the winning developer and its project is not a process done -- you said it's done in front of a panel. is that not subject to public hearing. does the public have an opportunity to weigh in? >> typically no. typically the city procurement process for these sorts of things is fairly closed and confidential. we have heard stakeholder feedback just generally about

development projects seeking to demystify that process and we are working with the city attorney partners to try to figure out a way to do that that is appropriate without violating the confidentiality. the scoring will be done by the scoring panel. and that is based on the scoring criteria as it is laid out and the procedures are clear on what that is. supported by technical panel of subject matter experts that is advisory to the panel, given the complexity of and multiple uses going on at the site. we don't expect all of the scorers to know if the bus maintenance bays are

distributed. >> one final question then. if it turns out it's not subject to very public process, will the result be -- come with an explanation as to why you picked this particular proposal so the public can understand why you decided what you did? >> i would have to get back to you on that. i'm not sure what part is disclosable or not. that's a question i would ask of the city attorney's office to help us understand. go ahead. >> there will be a recommendation that will be presented to the sfmta board for the selection of the winning proposal. and i think -- i suspect, we're still a ways from that, i

suspect a summation of the fact that this was the highest scoring team selected. so the degree to which all the different kind of levers are presented, versus just presented in summary form, we would have to check with the city attorney's office. >> maybe you could and get back to us. i think that would be important to understand. thank you. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you for your presentation. i'm excited for the project to move forward. i just have a question and some comments. speak to some of the thinking of the housing preferences for transit operator. where are we currently thinking about that? >> yeah, that's a great question. this is something that has come up from the community, as i mentioned, we've had meetings

with the community broadly about the building progress initiative going back to 2017. it's also something we have heard from our operators themselves and our front line staff. and so, where we are, there are -- i forget the chapter and verse of the administrative code that outlines preferences for most of the projects, but there are kind of by the code, there are certain prescribed kind of references and, you know, what we -- we're not looking to ditch those. there's a lot of analysis and debate and value that has gone into those preferences. but we have worked, as i mentioned earlier, closely with the process and in the technical guidelines for housing component, we basically urge the developers to work through those legal details with city

attorney's office and mayor's office of housing to incorporate a preference. so that's to say, we haven't figured out the nuts and bolts of it entirely but the same and push to figure it out upon developer selection, that is out there. >> i appreciate that. i do think it is really important to keep that at the front of our minds to think about housing affordability for employees and the trans operators specifically. this is not just housing affordability perspective but the pipeline of future operators. seems this is also part of larger sustain ability goals of the project, not to have operators from the bay area in

order to operate the transit system we have here in the city. the other comment, i would be curious to see if there could be a stronger education component, around public access, perhaps public tours of the bus yard. it could be a chance to really excite the public and generate a source of pride about muni. i didn't see that in the design guidelines but i think it would be great to explore that as an opportunity. thank you for your work. i look forward to hearing more. >> commissioner chan, i wanted to let you know, we had an event in august 2019 where we offered public tours and we had over 100 people and had to turn people away from the experience. we were like wow, people really want to get in here and started offering monthly tours after

that, and they were shut down when covid came. i think we would be willing to redo that as soon as we can assemble a bit larger group. i wanted to loop back to commissioner diamond's question. i got an update from the city attorney partners that at the end of the procurement process there will be a mer ran -- addressed to the director of transportation but it would be a public document as well. >> thank you. >> commissioner tanner. >> i just wanted to add on to the subject about the participation of the public that commissioner diamond kind of talked about in terms of the procurement process and i know it's difficult. i have been part of two other

processes in other cities where we did engage the public and what we did in one, there were three individuals who were part of the working group or something who received the proposals and had an interview or presentation from the proposers and provided feedback from the panelists but not voting members of the panel. and there may be concerns about information so they would maybe need to be responsive and not share information with others not a part of the group. another was a vender selection, demos for members of the public and providing feedback on what they liked best. that was a little more straightforward. it was pretty cut and dry and already a public service being provided. i'm not a lawyer at all, but some things to consider to have more voices in the procurement process even if it may not be

formally part -- and i would love to go on the tour and thank commissioner moore about comments earlier. >> commissioner imperial. >> i appreciate all of the commission comments, extensively on this project, especially on the affordability and on the process. it is very important that the public know how the process will go and in terms of affordability level, i believe the language being included right now is strive to include very low income. i hope being put out right now is not just the word strive but prioritize the low income and extremely low income tenants.

i understand there needs to be a balance, but i think with having that kind of language, what are we prioritizing when it comes to affordability is really important. i'm curious in terms of innovation of housing, whether programs like rent to own programs can really be something materializing this kind of project. i believe around what we have discussed here in the planning commission, the idea of mobility and i believe commissioner tanner said that having options whether to rent and move out to ownership in order for us to -- that's my comments. i'm looking forward to it. >> commissioner moore. >> i wanted to pick up on what commissioner tanner said.

that is process between now and when it comes for approval. i strongly encourage you to make another interim presentation to us for concept design becomes clearer and you see patterns from your point of view are desirable, keep an open door for the public to see what you're doing. this is an incredibly important project. we haven't seen anything like it for many years. i think you'll only gain support by keeping us informed. the commission as a gateway to the community for people at home if they're not going to other presentations. i strongly encourage you to stay in touch with us. thank you.

>> i think what he's trying to respond to, commissioner imperial's concept about rent to own. the city doesn't intend to sell any portion of the site and these units will be rental. >> okay commissioners. seeing no additional questions

from the commission, it appears as though we have come to an end on this informational presentation? so -- if there are no further questions, we can move on to item 13. this is a request for waiver for height. >> good afternoon president koppel and commissioners. the project before you is located on california street. the southeast corner of california and polk streets within the polk street neighborhood street. this was in front of the planning commission and approved 6-0. however the project is required

to come back today due to an error that appeared on the map. however it was not known at the time of the last hearing. at the last hearing and until about late february of this year, it was believed that the project was located within an 80 foot, 80a heightened district but it is actually 65 feet within a 65a district. this error was brought to the planning department's attention. the request sought a question of the ordinance in the intersection and department found no record of such an ordinance or other references to the supposed height change. in researching the matter further, the department believes the error dates back 20-30 years and i will quickly share my screen here.

looking at the 1979 heightened -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt. all i see is a gray screen. there it goes. your map is up now. >> okay. hopefully it stays up. >> there it is. >> i'm switching between windows, the presentation -- let's see if i can -- the 1979

map here shows that within the area of polk and pine including the project site was 65a in 1979. here we see 1997 bulk map, again, remaining 65a. however when we look at the heightened bulk map from 2018, we see here it has now changed to 80a which is in purple compared to the 65a in blue. in total there are approximately 22 parcels in the area changed from 65a to 80a including the subject property at the northwest corner of block 0465. so looking at old cases in this area, we see that there are cases from the early 90s, 1992,

93, 94 where it was processed as the appropriate height limit. then around this same time, the department had created the property information data base, this was a precurser to the current property map. here we see one of the affected parcels from this early property information data base, it was changed to 80a. the department believes that when in the early 2000s, there was a process to make the zoning maps digital. believing the error started this point and relied on the information from the data base. so -- stop sharing for the

moment. no other projects have been approved within the affected area over the 65 foot height limit. for the subject property at 1567 california street, it was approved in february 2020 as a state density bonus project and through the law, the project was requested and granted four waivers and one concession. while the number of incentives depends on the number of affordable units and level of affordability, there's no limit on the number of waivers that could be granted. the city must grant a waiver of development standard that would preclude the construction of the project with the bonus density unless the waiver had a specific adverse impact on health, safety

or physical environment or any property listed in the california register of historic resources. at the last hearing it received waivers from open space exposure and bulk. if the error in the height map had been known prior to the last hearing, they would have requested a height waiver at that time. since it was not known until recently, the project is returning to request the additional waiver. the design and most details of the first proposed project have not changed since the last hearing. it would still demolish the commercial building and associated parking lot and construct the new eight story 80 foot tall building with 9800 square feet of commercial space and apartments. it would not include off street commercial parking.

the one change is the project sponsor has submitted an affidavit to the department indicating their desire to increase the overall share of the affordable housing requirement satisfied through on site units, increasing from 9 to 11 affordable units on site. the remainder of the obligation would be covered through affordable housing fee, with this change, the remaining percentage of the obligation is now 42% instead of the previous 53%. projects are typically allowed to do it administratively where the project wishes to increase on site affordable units proposed. change to the designation of the manner would not require a return to the planning commission. absent the height map error, the

affordable units would not require. however, to make the acquired findings the state density bonus law, staff has incorporated the changes to the designation into the draft motion. (please stand by...)

determination of no substantial modification to the class 32 exception previously issued for this project. lastly, commissioners, i want to touch on the public comments received regarding this project since the last hearing staff has received e-mail from the ads jay sent neighbor on california street concerned about the height of the project and it would block the view of their building set back significantly in the street. this joins the three comments made by the neighbors along polk street concerned about the scale and massing of the project and impacts to the north facing light well and windows. worth noting the project incorporated 10-foot wide set

back along the shared property line with the polk street property extending for 42 feet from the front property line which is still proposed under this current design. lastly, i will note staff received e-mails from lower polk neighbors indicating continued support of project as proposed. the russian hill community association and pacific neighborhood association submitted concerns prior to the scheduled april 15, 2021 hearing. representatives of these organizations have indicated support to staff due to increase in on site affordable units from nine to 11 units. the department recommends approval to grant the height waiver as the additional height is needed. that concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. >> thank you, andrew.

are you with us, mr. vettle? i have unmuted your computer. i have not been provided a phone number to unmute. if you are on a phone line press star 3 to raise your hand, i can unmute that line.

why don't we try going to public comment to give mr. vettle an opportunity to call in or connect in some fashion. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to this matter. press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no members of the public to speak. i take it back. you will have two minutes. >> hello. this is a resident of 1424 polk street. on behalf of the residents we would like to voice our strenuous opposition to the project. for numerous reasons not least of which is 10-foot set back is a toke condition concession. it is laughable in view of the scale and mass of the project.

it seems that given no parking, that will increase congestion and lack of parking for us in the neighborhood. we feel that it is an eyesore and compared to the rest of the buildings in the area it seems like an out sized unnecessary construction which adds nothing to the neighborhood in terms of what was the soul of the neighborhood and given degradation with the bookstore now grubstake. it seems like we are now going in the wrong direction. again, we would like to continue regarding the state density

bonus law. that is all i have to say. >> this is sue hester. i request and the rest of the public comment be after he speaks. it is unfair we don't understand what he represents. please continue me until after he speaks. >> mr. vettle, are you with us? >> linda chapman. likewise. >> okay. mr. vettle's line is unmuted. i don't know why he would be -- having difficulties. he joined us in previous

presentations. well, commissioners, i am not sure how to proceed. two members of the public decline to speak until mr. vettle makes his presentation. i am not seeing away mr. vettle -- sorry about that. i don't see a way of doing anything else to allow mr. vettle to speak. his line is unmuted.

>> let's offer -- >> i am sorry president koppel. i just received some indication of what number he might be under. that number you provided is not listed in our list of attendees. >> it was there and it disappeared. >> he must we having technical difficulties on his end. commissioners, all i can suggest is, well, here he is. i see him. mr. vettle, are you with us? >> yes, thank you so much. i apologize once again.

i am on behalf of the project sponsor. andrew described the mistake the department discover from the zoning map. the project sponsor was unaware of the map error when it submitted the application for 8. we went through review and were never made aware of the map error. we had no idea the height limit was 65, not 80 year. pursuant to the state density program you approved the 80-foot tall project there and granted three waivers as required by state law. it stated the height limit was 80 feet. we were taken by surprise when we got a call from the director telling us the map error a couple months ago. this affects 22 lots.

this mistake has nothing to do with this project other than the project site is comprised of three of 22 affected lots. the way to remedy this is to grant one additional standard waiver for height. under the state density bonus law we are entitle to that additional waiver because the bonus units cannot become dated in structure of only 65 feet in height. the height wife can be denied only if it caution -- height waiver can be denied if it is public health or safety. no evidence of potential impact. the design is identical to the design you reviewed annanly approved in february with the 16 polk street. that design feature was incorporated at the request of the residents and remains in the

project. once the waiver is granted we will obtain site permit ready to go and proceed with construction. as andrew mentioned the one modification was to increase on site unions for a total of 11 compared to nine in the and proved project. that was apartment request of community members. we understand they are satisfied with our response and support of the height waiver. the project sponsor and architecture team from david baker architects, i can get them on the line with me if they are willing to address them. they were on earlier and got cut off when i made the new call. apologies for the technical problem. i urge your support for one additional waiver. thanks very much. >> thank you, mr. vettle. we will go back to public

comment. ms. hester. you have two minutes. >> sue hester here. if this project you need to understand you needy briefing on the state density bonus. you had a presentation that included from mr. perry and vettle what the interpretation is in their interpretation. the planning commission needs to hear from the city attorney. i have been told by the director they may somewhere to be a closed session. i am just pleading with the commission. the public needs to no what you are told about the density bonus law. there needs to be a public session. if you have to have a private session with the city attorney you can have that before you have the meeting.

san francisco home also has a law that applies to giving flexibility for affordable housing projects. it is called home-sf. perhaps home-sf should be explained at the same time you have the session on the state density bonus law. going to this continuing project. look at the title at the start of what you have staff report and the motion. the time to stop is adopting findings to approval amended conditional use authorization. you have to reads two documents together. i have read them together. drove me crazy. you need to explain in the motion you are about to make how and where the 2021 motion is made part of this motion that you are going to make.

it's not in there. there a bunch of incorporations that reference when you look at them old phone numbers. they are not even correct on that. there are places where you have picked and chosen -- staff has picked and chosen what portions of it are in the 2021 motion were transferred to this. >> thank you. that is your time. >> ms. chapman. you may have lowered your hand. if you want to press star 3 to raise your hands so i can unmute you. >> thank you for that. density is what rob hill. that is what is characteristic

of rob hill what we always wanted. it means a lot of one bedroom and studio apartments and two bedrooms, a lot of units on a particular piece of land, not a huge size. that is what this is. completely out of scale enormous lots with a big building and not for our neighborhood. the reason it is this big is because there was -- they were told it was 80-foot was okay. they filled up the whole envelope. there are other ways this could be done with having a lot of units. if you continued it and did redesign. for example, you don't have to have stores on california street. there are none there now. there are some spaces that are common area in the building interior that could be moved down stairs so that the above

grade could be more housing units. you could get rid of some of the three bedroom units in the mix. in nob hill those are not family housing. rental buildings with elevators or the co-op or anywhere. i have never known a child in any of them. they are more expensive or roommates or extra rooms and stuff like that. there are other things that you could do. eliminate the bicycle spaces. give me a break. i lived in a 40 unit condo with two bicycles parked in there. you know you should reconsider the waivers for exposure, you know, we have to have a waiver for exposure to protect the balcony above rather than the access of the person below for light and air. this should be redesigned to a

more reasonable envelope. it has all been within the height limit and sizes and styles that are good-looking, you know, fit in. >> thank you. that is your time, ms. chapman. >> members of the public last call for public comment on this matter. seeing no additional requests to speak for members of the public. public comment is closed. this item is before you, commissioners. >> thanks to everyone involved. thanks andrew perry. this is a complicated issue. we header it years back and it is back here today. i am in support of staff recommendation and in favor of the height waiver. >> commissioner moore. >> i am in support of the height

waiver. i have seen this project in three versions, the latest one in front of us today. all previous versions had the same type of arguments what we hear today. i believe that this project hits all the sensitivities the previous two did not bring to the table. this is sensitive to design, very wide street at that particular point, and i believe the project does all of the things we were expecting through the years the public argument developed around what is important. i would ease the transition between the ad joining building on polk street was sensitively done. none of the previous projects achieved what this does. we talked about the height transition and the building to the south. this achieves that. what is in front of us today is

the support for the height waiver and i support it. we looked at the building and all aspects as 85-foot building and the map oversight is just an oversight, as far as i can tell. thank you, mr. perry, and i am in full support. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i concur. i support the project. mr. perry in terms of the map oversight will that be updated in the zoning map? what is the resolution? are there other pending projects that correction will impact? >> thank you, commissioner. i believe it has been updated on our property information map. i think the official correction

of the height and bulk map perhaps somebody, director can comment on it. >> scott sanchez planning department. it has been updated in the database and it will be in the next quarterly zoning map update correction. >> are we concerned about any other projects that will be challenged by that correction? >> no, we reviewed all the properties of 22 properties no pending projects on any other lot. we sent out notification on april 1st to other property owners. they are aware of issues. >> i support the project and make a motion to move the staff recommendation. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. if there is nothing further a motion and second to approve with conditions. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan.

>> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president koppel. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously 7-0. placing us on item 14. case 020-003042ahb at 4712-4720 third street. staff are you prepared for the presentation? i don't see ms. feney. is there another person making the presentation. >> can we move to the next item.

i will find her. >> commissioner president koppel what is your pleasure. >> barring another suggestion let's do that. >> skipping 14 to allow the opportunity to do a brief search. >> my computer just restarted. >> there she is. i told you it would be a brief search. are you prepared for your presentation. >> yes, i am. >> the floor is yours. good afternoon, commissioners, chair feney planning department staff. this is a home-sf project

authorization pursuant to planning code section 206.3, 328 and 737 to allow new construction of a four story residential building using the home-sf program. it is receiving development bonuses for density for 20% on site affordable dwelling units. it is receiving zoning modification for the planning code section 134. the proposed project includes 3l building 18348 square feet with 21 dwelling units and ground floor commercial space 760 square feet on vacant lot. 11 one bedroom, five that are two bedroom and five that are three bedrooms. the building would provide approximately 2296 square feet

of open space. the project provides 21 class one and two class two bike parking spaces. does not include off-street parking. home-sf project would des usnate 20% or four dwelling units as home-sf restricted to 80% medium income. 1 on r05 for one dwelling, 130% a.m. i one dwelling unit. plans revised to achieve compliance by home-sf. tonight unit count has not changed. the units are bmr units. unit 102 one bid room and bath 459 square feet, unit 206 two bedroom and two bath on second

police officer 825 square feet. unit 305 three bedrooms on third floor 904 square feet. 401 one bed one bath on the fourth floor 526 square feet. in april of 2017 planning department approved proposal for new construction of the four story residential building with 13 dwelling units at the project site. record number 2014.1000. project sponsors revised proposal and applied for the home-sf authorization which includes the allowed number of dwelling units in exchange for increased affordable housing. sponsor hosted pre-application meeting february 14 of 2020 with eight people. questions about massing, dimensions and site security during construction.

it was presented to the bayview advisory committee in 2021. they supported the project. they asked questions about the small size of the dwelling units with a mural installed, alternative uses for retail space given the number of vacancy in the area. financing and construction timeline and logistical questions about home-sf. department received no public comment regarding this project. i would like to read into the record update to the home-sf project finding. 8p on page 12. project would remove existing commercial or retail usage. prior development proposal on site 2014.1000 demolish one story building with three tenant spaces. modification of that proposal not yet been built.

planning code section 206.3 c 5 regulates removal of neighborhood businesses. former commercial building was vacant when demolished the project meets requirements of home sf program. department finds project is on balance, consistent with objectives and policies of the plan. all of the applicable requirements of the code. maximizing the use of vacant lot and residential building. additionally the project will increase housing stock by providing 21 new dwelling units, four designated as on site affordable. 20% of the total count. of the proposed 21 dwelling units, 12 will contain two or three bedrooms with usable open space. department finds the project to be necessary, desirable

compatible with is surrounding neighborhood. this concludes staff presentation. project sponsor is here and has prepared a presentation and ready to answer any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. mr. shaw, you have five minutes. >> thank you every one. wonderful introduction. it is going to help me speed through the presentation here. dear president koppel and commissioners, i am jeremy shaw. thanks for hearing for us today. this was originally a four story building with 13 dwelling units and one retail space. we are substituting with a home-sf project that contains 21 units.

this table shows the project information and zoning controls. apart for the rear yard it is fully code compliant. we had to adjust the unit mix a little bit for the bmr unit size. that is reviewed now. we are ready to go ahead. [please stand by]

in conclusion, we respectfully ask you to approve the project. thank you. >> thank you. we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this item by pressing star and then 3. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> commissioner tanner. >> super supportive of the project. i had a question. there had been discussions with the community about the viability of the retail space,

can you enlighten us to how the conversation went and it being viable? >> sure. it is tricky to say we want retail. we feel there's a strong neighborhood context for it. and we understand that some of the neighborhood retail has been vacant for a time. so it's the building that is demolished. we feel in new construction fully up to code, easier to rent out than other spaces nearby. it is on the smaller side but we think it's appropriate for neighborhood serving businesses. >> okay.

it sounds like folks are fine with it? people concurred with that? >> yeah, we believe there's still the option, if the retail space is never completely occupied, to make it an adu down the road. >> great. does that sound correct, could be converted in the future, that would be allowed in this type of building? >> yes, i believe so. >> okay great. there's a plan b. i applaud the inclusion of the play structure. i was curious if it's possible to locate either two or three bedroom on to the first floor facing the patio and have two units on the ground floor, but to have a more family sized unit and have that walk out access to the rear yard.

is that something you believe the project could accommodate? >> i'm sure some version of that is possible. >> i guess because i -- i think it would be -- they're all one bedroom, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you. i don't have anything to add to the comments right now. i just wanted to reiterate my support for the project and i appreciate the project sponsor

going back and i think the drawings have been approved to highlight the amenities for children and possible storage for cargo bikes. i don't know if other commissioners want to speak -- but i would like to move with conditions. >> second. anding commissioner moore. >> just a comment on commissioner tanner's question about a three bedroom unit on the ground floor. since we don't have rules to force a family to move into the unit, we wouldn't gain anything.

unless the commissioners would like to see a two bedroom unit on that floor, but i'm just trying to caution that taking much of the space for three bedroom unit without the ability to enforce families live in there makes it a gamble. but i'm in full support of the project and will support it. >> thank you commissioners. if there's nothing further, a motion seconded to approve the matter with conditions. (roll call)

so moved. that place us on item 15 for third street and key avenue. you will consider use authorization and i believe staff is here to make the presentation. all yours. >> good afternoon commissioners. the item before the planning commission is for a conditional use authorization planning code sections 121.1 and 303 to allow new construction on a lot greater than 10,000 square feet within the zoning district. the item is a moderation pursuant to sections.

it includes demolition of the one story building on the site and construction of mixed use building with 17 dwelling units, retail sales and service usage and 17 off use parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces. the project includes the drawing two three bedroom units, 10 two bedroom units and five one bedroom units and includes common open space via a courtyard and fourth floor roof deck and 366 additional square feet of private open space via second floor terraces. the department has received correspondence from two people

inquiry about the project details. as part of the public outreach, the team coordinated a meeting and had four meetings with bayview zone association and met with the advisory commission twice and a few neighbors. the design has changed in the following ways since in front of the design department. it has removed some off street parking spaces and consolidated some spaces via stackers and moved off street parking back at least 25 feet from the street frontage potentially accommodate and convert to three dwelling units in the future if a program is available at a point in time. the department finds the project is on balance, consistent with

the plan and relative objectives of the general plan. it provides new on site for ownership, a goal for the city and new retail sales and service uses. and the department finds the project is necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties. this concludes staff presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. >> project sponsor you have five minutes. >> i'm here. >> and i do see your slides up. my apologies to the zoning administrator who is here and joining us. >> quickly gary, as you see in the first slide, the subject property here is with a red

arrow with a dead end and third street and main street corridor. interestingly enough, to the north is highway 101 and then north of that a cal training tunnel underneath. behind the property you see that sort of what you call the bayshore bypass and entrance to us-101 south. next slide. the property is an existing vacant building and on the left is access to the freeway.

some of the features. 17 units, five which are one bedroom one bath. 10, two bedroom units and two, three bedroom three bath units. these units are very generous. the three bedrooms can cater to families. on the ground floor is 2300 square feet of commercial floor space and off street parking is 17 stations and 17 bicycle parking and common area with about 366 feet. as you can see in our slides of the optional future conversion of the first floor commercial space can be changed and those

would be one, one bedroom and two, two bedroom units. next slide. we have three recessed commercial entrees. two on the right and one on the bottom and then the large entree on key. we placed the vehicle entree on p and left the commercial frontage open on third street. next slide. this is proposal that for the future has an option of the commercial space that could be divided into three adu's. on the bottom, two bedroom one bath unit and above that another one and on top, a one bedroom unit. to the left is your garage with your stackers.

bicycle parking. where you see garbage room, that area may be converted to a transformer room. that may change later. next slide. we took advantage of the l shape building and leaving 25% as open space. private patio. this is typical floor plan, the three bedrooms on the left-hand side of the plan, the two bedrooms on the north -- not north, top. and one bedroom on the floor are around the elevator. next slide. again, the third level typical like the second level.

now the fourth floor is different. it's not a full floor because third street and key drop approximately 11 feet in each direction away from the corner. so where you see the elevation steps down. we reduced at the end of the building. next slide. this is key avenue as you can see, it is four stories and remaining portion down the hill is three stories. the white section is the stair tower. ground floor commercial. the person with the red shirt is where the entree is and further down is the garage door. this is third street facade. you see the ground floor retail spaces, again, 65 feet from four

stories and then it goes to three stories for a portion. it is a mix of windows, cement plaster and we're trying to do the various colors of grays and tones to show the depth and add bay windows too. >> that's your time. the commissioners may have additional questions for yo after public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star then 3. you'll have two minutes, when you hear the line is unmuted, that's your indication to start speaking. >> hello.

i'm paul ramsey. i have spoken on the matter and i did not see -- i e-mailed concerns on may 4th at 2:00 p.m. and i did not see that my concerns were noted on the notice. my concerns were three portions. i'm asking why or if it was changed from condo units to rentals and if that's correct. the other matter is the stackers changing the 17 surface street parking spaces to stackers. she was unable to give me details on the stackers or how they worked or what they were. then thirdly, street lighting and the lack around the entire project, particularly on key. there's only -- on key avenue, there's only one street lamp and none on the sidewalk facing the

jamestown or bayshore bypass on ramp. it's very, very dark. those are my concerns. >> good afternoon. i'm a resident at 1081 key. i am very concerned about this new building that is being proposed. a few years back they were sly about how they proposed they were going to buy the property. they went around the back door to get in to the front door. i personally feel this is unnecessary for the neighborhood. there is an on ramp on the left side of key, there's constant cars flying up the freeway. the school is across the street

from where they are proposing the building. there's children going across the street and tons of traffic on a dead end street, which is key. i'm really opposed to this building and the reason why is how they presented it to the neighborhood and they weren't honest to begin with. that's my concern. thank you. >> go ahead caller.

last call for public call. seeing no additional request, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. i take it back. there's one late request to speak. >> am i on again? >> you are but you only get one time. you only get one public comment session. okay commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> i am in support of the project today.

commissioner imperial. >> i have a question to the planner. my question is there is potential for this to have three adu's, does that mean will it need to come back to planning commission? >> i just want to clarify. currently there is no existing program that allows for three adu's. we have taken a look at what potential programs might be available in the future and there isn't currently a program that allows that. but ground floor was designed to potentially accommodate adu's if a program legislation allows for that. when we reviewed the project with our urban design advisory

team, staff felt that potential adu, if legislation allows it was the best use foreground use. first is potential vacant commercial space. currently there's no existing program allowed for three adu's. >> so you're saying it doesn't need to come back to planning commission. >> that is correct. it might not potentially. if the legislation -- depending on how that is sort of crafted or legislated, whether that is improved or not, it may not come back to the planning commission. that's correct. unless it is written in that manner. >> okay. i'd like to hear what other commissioners say on that. i have a question also on what the public -- one of the comments about the street lamps.

is that responsibility of project sponsor or who is in charge of the street plans? >> that is at the discretion of the department of public works. for the department of building inspection has identified dpw as an agency that needs to review the permit and determine if the site plan warrants review by the agency who will decide if street lighting plans are required and would require them at that point in time during the site permit. and just a clarification for mr. ramsey's comments, they are in the planning commission packet. and were noticed. in terms of his question about the space parking or stacker parking, the project sponsor did respond to that in writing. perhaps gary can speak to that further, but yeah -- that will

be determined by dpw. >> thank you. i believe all of these units will be home ownership? >> that is correct. yes. thank you for clarifying that. over the history of the project, three affidavits were submitted, the first one clarified ownership, the second identified rental and it was made -- it was made as a typo. a third affidavit was submitted clarifying it would be ownership and that is what is before the commission. >> thank you. >> commissioner tanner. sorry, my mistake. commissioner moore you are next. >> thank you. i wanted to just comment that i believe the project is an

interesting creative solution on an interesting lot that is transforming to residential. if i understood correctly, this was a funeral home before? bringing residential and potential commercial to this corner is important. i support commissioner imperial's comments including the additional street lighting as it becomes more pedestrian residential site. think i we would like to add for that to be extremely important to not only enhance but the safety of the area. i have a question for gary, my question is should this transform to adu's which i'm

interested in seeing as a possibility, the full height is difficult for adu's because there's no privacy inside the unit and should they be residential units, be fully curtained all day. have you thought about that particularly because i know you are setting the entrance back but it still is not three feet above sidewalk and there's one unit which i think you have to step up. could you answer that? >> the way the ground floor is laid out now is for commercial. it could be divided into three spaces. there's a 60% requirement for the area that faces the street.

right now we're above the 60%. if converted, split of them row on the bottom to create privacy for the lower four feet and have one from the top. i think there's a way to create shading on the windows that could still provide privacy for residential use. >> containment of residential space is not as good with windows but perhaps that's the question for the future when there is such a program. i'm in support of the project and i think it's a good idea to look at sites like this and find ways to present it to residential sides. it has my full support. >> thank you. >> commissioner tanner.

>> thank you. i just -- i support the project and want to give my voice to the street lighting and hopefully they'll look at that for the members of the public concerned about that, it will be later part of the review process for this. i would encourage and hope they look at that. can you explain to me -- i'm sorry -- can you explain the adu program that would need to exist? is it because retail space is converting -- is that what we don't have from -- >> exactly. there's currently a couple of complications or elements of the project that are prohibiting it from pursuing the adu program. one is it's not considered a code compliant project because it warrants a rear modification.

in the future, a lot of the adu programs do not allow conversion from commercial to adu's. there are certain waivers that are generally sometimes available but whether they are or not granted, to be determined. >> okay. and i'll say my comment and maybe you can provide your insight on behalf of your client. i used to live a few blocks from there on third and carol. so that intersection is like -- it's not a great pedestrian experience walking right there i'll just say. and it's very auto oriented. i worry about the retail there. who will be able to go there. there could be some parking on key if folks are using their car to get there and then the transit line there.

but i just worry about the viability of retail at that location. it's not really kind of in the heart of third street with a lot of concentrated retail. i just kind of wonder would it be better off as residential from the beginning instead of trying to convert it to residential later. can you explain if that has been explored in the development of this projector a reason to have the retail space versus residential from the beginning? >> 2014, the restrictions for zones were very set on commercial space on the ground floor. we did in earlier meetings with staff questioned if there was good retail viability because it wasn't a heavy traffic on this part of third street. but because of the requirements,

we went ahead from the beginning and planned a commercial space there. at the time in 2014, there were no adu programs available. so we went as a code compliant project. when the adu was approved in 2017, there still wasn't an adu program. from the beginning we've always had ground floor commercial. but we just don't have a line at this point. it could be one space, two spaces divided or three spaces. there's a lot of flexibility. >> okay. well, it sounds like this

project has been under development for several years and as you have noted, policies have changed and may continue to change between now and when the project actually opens. so i'm supportive of the project but if in the future there's an opportunity for the active ground floor to be active residential it could be great. and how to think about that possibility in terms of windows and the ways the building meets the street. i am supportive of the project. and the last question i'll ask, for the stackers, i know you provided a response to the person who had a question. could you explain how the stacking technology works? >> i can explain the stacking technology. we did supply an e-mail right away with the questions when asked of us.

those are similar to what you see in several projects in the city. individually they're electric motor operated. it's not a vallet system, it's an automated system. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner fung. >> i'm supportive of the project and move that we grant the conditional use. >> second. >> thank you. i was going to briefly mention the matter before us -- there are only three criteria that need to be met, a lower bar. this project clearly easily

meets the bar and i'm supportive of the project. >> thank you. if that concludes commissioner deliberation, then there's a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions. (roll call) motion passes 7-0. zoning administrator what say you. >> public hearing for the variance and conditions. >> thank you. commissioners that will place us on the final item of today's agenda. that is item 16. this is a conditional use authorization. staff are you prepared to make your presentation?

>> i am. good afternoon commissioners. michael christiensen. a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to 303 and 317 for demolition of existing 920 square foot single family home and construction of a new four story, 40 foot tall residential building containing two dwelling units, one accessory dwelling unit and 3 off street bicycle parking spaces. the project is within rh-2 district. the project would remove an existing 920 foot home of which 300 square feet is a garage and 620 square feet consists of living space with zero defined bedrooms. it was found not to be historic.

we're placing the existing home containing 1 off street auto parking space, new 435 foot studio at the ground floor with access to the rear yard. a three bedroom dwelling unit at the second floor with a patio area and access to the rear yard and two bedroom dwelling unit on floors three and four with a roof deck at the front. the property is a 25 foot wide by 75 foot deep parcel on the east side of vermont north of 18th street. adjacent properties in the area are generally developed with small residential buildings of 2-4 stories. four story buildings generally have a sloped roof.

it has a modern design reflecting the mixed nature of the neighborhood. the department received seven comments regarding the project all expressing concern with the overall scale of the building, regarding the use of rear yard averaging, the amount of parking provided and height of the structure at four stories. rear averaging is permissible under the planning code and it would not extend further than the adjacent building to the north. no parking is required and site is within three blocks of 19, 22, 33 and 55 muni lines. there's a flat roof line less typical but it is set back 13 feet from the front facade and five foot set back from the northern property line. the department received a comment regarding criteria i of the planning, that criteria is if it protects the relative

affordability of existing housing. staff's response was that no existing affordable housing exists in the project. the project does not protect the relative affordability as it proposes demolition and construction of a replacement building. the existing unit is not an official unit of affordable housing. existing housing may be less expensive but the existing unit is over a million dollars for a studio single family home. staff did not consider this to be affordable housing but staff could amend it prior to a final motion if so desired by the commission. as the project adds two new units of housing and replacing the existing studio unit on site complies with the planning code. the department recommends

approve of condition. i'm available for questions. the sponsor has a presentation as well. >> project sponsor you have five minutes and i believe your slides are on the screen. >> great thank you. i'm the architect for the project. thank you michael and commissioners for your time today. the client is long-term resident, he came to me with goal of creating two viable, liveable family sized units plus a studio of dwelling unit on the space. and this aligns with the city providing environmentally conscious housing and zoning regulations. i was happy to work on the project. the slide here shows the site in red and you can see it is facing vermont and it's a bit shorter with the existing building set

back. what you can see from the street, the garage with the building set back on the right. next slide, please. this is site plan view with the existing on the left and proposed on the right. the new building will comply with current codes and will have zero set back in the front. next slide please. zooming into the rear yard, here you can see we will be increasing the rear yard from about 20 feet to 25 feet for the set back requirements and addresses some of the comments that came in about mid block open space, this will improve mid block open space. next slide please. this is the proposed structure as seen from the street. the ground floor contains the main entree on the right, garage on the left and adu at the rear.

the upper three floors are the two main family-sized units. knowing this bigger building would have some impact on neighbors we have taken several steps to impact as little as possible. to minimize shadows to the north, which is down hill to the left of the image, we have pulled back five feet from the north property line. we've minimized visibility of the street from the fourth floor for the doors there and even 10 feet for the overhang. this is the street perspective from the street level, that upper floor is minimally visible and this is our strategy to tie into the urban fabric. there's a mix of single family homes and mixed buildings here. and addressing the neighbor to

the south, which is the center image on the right, they have a residential unit at the rear with north facing windows and the stairs in gray are access stairs. we were very aware of the unit and took it into consideration. we are from the north and won't be blocking direct light but wanted to make sure they still had light, so if we could go to the next slide, please. we have pulled our building back five feet from the adjacent property line for a depth of 10 feet all the way up the building to create a sort of light wall to allow light in there. after reviewing that with proposed project with the neighbors, they were worried the stairs would feel dark. so we revised the plans to increase open air entree way shown in green to make it wider and added more planting along

the zone to make it more generous at the street level for entree. i hope you can see with this presentation, we have done our best here to try to achieve with more density and housing and also to respect the scale of the neighborhood and impact to neighbors. i have the owner here in case any questions come up. either one of us can help answer them. thank you. >> thank you. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. press star and then 3. you will have two minutes. when you hear your line is unmuted, that's your indication to start speaking. >> good afternoon commissioners.

since 2012 i have been a tenant at 587 vermont just south of the proposed project. i have serious concerns and request that it is denied conditional use. it should keep with the residential guidelines and planning code to address key issues of scale, light and air and privacy. my first concern is scale. the proposed four story structure would be massive in our residential neighborhood at 44 feet including the roof deck, over one and a half times the size of any of the adjacent buildings and out of scale with the context. because of the size, it will block light to the north side of my apartment including living room, kitchen, bedroom and steps to the front door. the current design doesn't respect the planning code or residential design guidelines that stress the importance of adequate light and air to

properties. a reduction to two or fewer stories opposed to three would help at least partially mitigate the loss of light and air and less incompatible with the rest of the neighborhood. i have serious concerns about my privacy, direct line of sight from several of the windows into my living room and my bedroom. again, planning code and design guidelines speak to the guidelines of maintaining privacy. in summary, this project should be redesigned to reduce the negative impact on the neighbors. it should be reduced by at least one story so it doesn't block all the light and air to my unit and keep with the scale of the neighborhood and redesigned so it doesn't look directly into my living room and bedroom. i appreciate your consideration of my concerns and request that you deny the project as proposed and can be redesigned to address

the issues of scale, light and privacy. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, my wife and i moved here 35 years ago and purchased the building immediately to the south of the proposed project. the project has ignored many planning code requirements and residential guidelines and the applicant is trying to ignore as many requirements as possible with the design. we request that you deny the use authorization. the project is completely out of scale for the lot. it will peep into our windows, block light and intrude into the open space. the agenda describes it as a three story building when it is in fact a four story building.

with the roof deck, it will be 44 feet tall. this is 150% higher than adjoining homes and it will be by far the highest building on the block. it does not respect the topography of the site or street. by ignoring the height and character, it's dominating appearance is out of context with the area. 535 should be redesigned as a three story building, not a four story building and can still be a two unit building. the negative impacts far outweigh any of the benefits derived from the project. the project should be in scale with the neighborhood so it needs to be redesigned as a shorter three story building in keeping with the small scale neighborhood. please deny the demolition permit and conditional use authorization until the

architect has a plan addressing the written concerns and consistent with the planning code and residential guidelines. thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to address you. this is luke stevens. i'm the neighbor, owner, resident of the property immediately to the north of 575 vermont. i'm a 16 year owner resident with my family and young children. i also called to share my family's concerns with the project. it will be too complete stories above our property. the rendering that the project sponsor provided does not give justice to the size and scope of the building and how much taller it is in relation to our building. it is 17 feet.

it will have an impact on our south light of our home. we would request that at least a shadow study be done and we have conditional concerns with the adu unit that will require extensive excavation. we've had foundational and leakage issues and our foundation which is quite thick we've had to repair and address and we have concerns that this adu unit excavation will have potential negative impact there. we request topgraphical study at least to look into that. we provided the owner with schematic designs for an addition to our home, a vertical addition for one story to accommodate growing family needs and we knew they were thinking about doing a project, so we requested the opportunity to

coordinate with them to make sure our projects were compatible and minimize the impact of construction on our neighborhood. they did not respond and completely ignored that and i was surprised a few weeks ago to receive this hearing notice and then see the scope of the plans with several floors of north facing windows. if we move forward, which we have been intending to do with our project will invite a certain neighbor battle with whoever purchases the luxury units facing our home. we wish to be reasonable and work with the owner -- >> thank you sir. that is your time. >> i live right next door to the proposed project and i request that the proposed project be denied in its entirety.

there's a statement that the proposed project is in line with other buildings on the block and that is not accurate. there's nothing on our block or even within a couple of blocks regardless of which way you go up or down the hill, that are of this size and scope of this proposed building. we included with our objections schematics that show just how out of whack this project is with the homes next to it. if this is permitted, our entire backyard, we will lose the nice light we have now. and we are requesting that at a minimum, topography and shadow study be done because it's two stories higher. we have young children, we have dogs, we intend to stay here.

we're not temporary residents. we're long time owners and we're good neighbors and we want to stay here. and this is going to negatively impact our quality of life as a family. and in addition, as my husband mentioned, the adu unit is going to require extensive excavation. we want the topography study, we don't see how our foundation is not going to be negatively impacted by this proposal. in short, this project is totally out of whack with potrero hill. it doesn't take into consideration the look or appearance of the block currently and it is not considerate to the neighbors around it and those of us who

have to suffer through demolition. i request it be denied. >> thank you. that is your time. members of the public -- one more. >> hi, it's georgia. thank you for the nice back and forth in the e-mails. it's where i don't like to comment on projects outside of the area and i'm sympathetic to everything i have heard from the neighbors but when i saw the draft motion for criteria i, i was kind of taken aback because i have never seen that before. you know, there's been -- i have four that you just passed in april in front of me and they say nothing like that. they talk about the loss of relative affordability and looking back at some others back from 2018, the little cottage like this one that became a two

unit building and then in 2019 on 29th and 2020, 26th street, you talk about how it doesn't protect affordability but it adds a unit and bedrooms but fundamentally, the issue is the existing project is going to be more affordable than the new units. they'll be less affordable. that's why i was taken aback. and i want to say something about this project, when you did 29th street and two of you were on the commission then and director hillis was on the commission, i'm not sure he was there that day, that was a project that had the fourth floor taken off and the roof deck taken off. just want to say that. two units and adu. and i just saw this morning that even though the building has

been demolished, the entitlement is for sale. i just think that all that combined with the fundamental shift that seems like a policy shift in your criteria, i think this is dramatically different than what you have said since 2008 about the loss of housing. that if you want to make that a policy shift, maybe it is something the commission needs to discuss but i don't think it should be in a random project and i don't think it fits this project at 575 vermont street. that's it. thanks a lot and thanks again to mr. christiensen, he was very kind. >> hello i live at 559 vermont street. and most of what i would say has been said. i'll be brief with a couple of points. one is a four story building,

residential building is not typical for this area. i do believe the design will have a severely negative impact on our block. yes, the current structure was designated as not historical but it was built in the year 1900 and the newest building on vermont street was built in 1927 just to give you a perspective of what kind of style the block is. i'm also troubled by the fact that someone mentioned they worked with the neighbor -- i don't know -- i never heard about the project until recently. unfortunately i'm against the project as it stands and i hope you will consider all the comments from everybody on vermont street. thank you.

>> thank you. members of the public, last call. seeing no additional requests, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> commissioner moore. >> the comments made by the public all express a serious concern about fit in to the neighborhood. and i would like to state that not even hearing the comments, i realized this project really tries to do something which is not particularly well done. we are all receptive to adu's. but when i look at the quality of the adu that makes this project so large, i believe the quality of the adu offered is of no value at all. it's an adu that sits in a pit. it's main light comes from a

light well. that is actually going below grade and a sky light. which i find insufficient even if the adu is only a studio. i would prefer if this particular project provide a set in unit but then basically drops the roof deck, drops the upper floor and considers redistributing the space over the basement space and two story over basement rather than what we have. i'm not in support of the project and urge the commission to look at the quality of the adu which i personally believe is unacceptable. thank you. >> commissioner tanner. >> i agree with commissioner moore in that i don't think the adu is a very high quality unit.

i was trying to understand about the size and location and the discussion today did eliminate there's kind of a larger entree way that the applicant stated was part of trying to accommodate the neighboring property to the south with that kind of outdoor entree way that is a little deeper and on the other side. i would agree that depending what other commissioners think, we could keep it, but it seems like a poorly laid out adu. can the architect speak to the layout of the adu and why is it con figured the way it was. >> the adu was really kind of a bonus space. so we realized we needed to do retaining there obviously and shoring and there would be design for that. so i've had a lot of success

creating nice spaces below grade in san francisco with light wells. really the studio space, that's where the owner will occupy, he currently has a studio so weary placing it with studio. we just thought it was a way to create another small unit out of creatively space that otherwise would be basement. we don't feel the family friendly units should have living space pushed into that zone. that was really for the owner who is a single man who is going to live there. >> the passage way on the north side, is that required for egress? >> correct. >> okay. i assume there's a reason why it's so tiny and trying to do geometry looking at the plan. and i think you stated that the

entree way there is in response to the neighbor to the south, is that correct? >> it's a combination of response to planning comments about the garage being too wide and taking up too much street frontage and the neighbors having a concern about the entree stair, the rear unit being dark. we were addressing both with one move. >> what's the square footage of the adu? >> i think it's 435. just going off memory. >> the current house is 600 square feet? >> something like that. >> can you talk about the excavation needed for the project? >> we'll hire engineers for that. we were going to get through planning before engaging engineers but i know if it's above a certain height it requires shoring engineering as well. it will be both structural and shoring design if required by the number of feet down we go.

>> okay. and to the project planner, if you could talk about any areas where you feel discussed about how it does not comply with the residential guidelines. we heard from neighbors about blocking light to neighboring properties and possibly compromising blocking open space. i didn't observe that. can you help us understand, is it keeping with properties and how it stacks up against the residential design guidelines? >> sure. so the residential design guidelines generally call for harmonizing of overall building scale, they do not preclude a site from being taller than its neighbors. what we generally ask for is a set back. if you're doing a floor particularly higher than

adjacent neighbors, you need to set it back from the front. at the rear, the planning code requires that building that is using averaging such as this case, the height of the building of the rear is limited to 30 feet in height. which that is the height of the building at the rear. it's a 30 foot expression. because they are providing the setback from the front, so the expression at the front is a three story building with a fourth floor that is set back and then at the rear, the expression is a three story building in terms of what is visible from the ground. that was what went into the determination. >> for those who may not be aware, the averaging. can you explain how it was averaged between the two neighboring yards? i think it might help folks understand the rear yard of the proposed project. >> sure. so when you -- in the district,

rear yard requirement is 45% of the depth of the lot but you can look at the two adjacent neighbors and determine the average rear set back already provided because san francisco was largely built before zoning was a thing. and you can build up to that line. you do have some limitations. you can't go past the 25% line. you have an additional height limit at that rear as i mentioned. in this case, the buildings to the south front 18 street, averaging space on the building to the north. the building to the north has a slightly higher rear yard that is provided. it is important to note though that the building to the north -- the building to the north is a deeper lot. this lot is only 75 feet deep and the building is 100.

but when we take averaging, we're taking it not from the amount of rear yard provided, but the location of the rear building wall. we're creating pattern from where the buildings are actually located. >> uh-huh. so in that way, just to kind of further -- the depth of the proposed building really then matches the neighboring buildings or in line with that, and so to the extent that there's perceived of encouragement to blocking space, it is only meeting another building that already had that as well. i'm not saying it is encroaching but there was a comment that someone said they felt it was intruding that pattern and i think the point is it already has been by a neighboring building. >> that is fairly correct. the neighboring building extends 10 feet further back than this

building. >> thank you. okay. i don't think the adu is the best, but the intention of the property owner to live there, it's small, below grade, if commissioners don't want to have it there, i can see it, but i think it's still a good opportunity to have a unit and i'm supportive of the project. >> commissioner diamond. >> i have a few questions for staff. one of the -- i think it's the neighbor to the north was concerned that when they processed their project that the residents of the project currently at issue are going to raise concerns. can you tell me how that plays out and protections we can build

in here. >> it is an interesting concern. when we are reviewing projects, we are generally looking for how it relates to the adjacent structures as they exist. it's a bit hard to plan for potential future projects that we don't have before us. i think the key thing to note is if you do look at the proposed elevation, i think a key area of concern i heard from the neighbor, there's a lot of windows along that facade. they're not visible from the public right of way so it wasn't quite as much of a concern, but especially if there's going to be a vertical addition to the building to the north, you're going to have a lot of windows kind of facing each other.

it's very common where we have concerns raised over impacts to view in particular and it's clear they're trying to maximize the view here. so some things the commission could consider, reduce along the northern facade, turning it into a more typical window pattern rather than a wall of windows. >> thank you. before i ask the architect about that, can you confirm a couple of points for me? this is a code compliant -- is that correct? >> correct. >> from staff's perspective, it's consistent with the residential design guidelines? >> that's correct. . >> and promoting city policy to try to increase the amount of housing going from one unit on the site to three, although i do share the other commissioners concerns about the quality of the adu but nonetheless,

consistent with our desire to increase housing and general density in the residential neighborhoods, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. could the architect address the concern which seems quite real to me about the number of windows that would face the neighbor to the north creating potential future problems with their expansion and ways you might consider reducing it? >> sure. i'll start and then maybe perhaps the owner can speak to it too. we did just get a call just this past week from the architect that the neighbor is working with. they shared plans with us and we kind of reviewed their plans and offered to sit down. i think the way the two buildings will end up with the topography, it will off set enough that the windows on the upper floor will look across

their roof and they'll be view windows. but they won't -- they'll be higher than the roof of the neighbor's. the floor below, you can see it is set further back for a little light and air for that room. potentially we could look at reducing those if there's an issue in the future but they didn't have elevations yet so i didn't know where the windows would be located. >> we did -- hi, we did speak with the architect next door and we did tell the architect next door that we are on board with supporting their project. our project probably won't take place for at least another year and a half depending on what happens here, but their project is supposedly going into planning quite soon.

and i did talk to the architect as well as the owner to say that we'll support them when their plans get drafted and i have no problem putting that in some sort of letter form and addressing the house to the south, about -- yeah, sorry. that one. >> does that answer your question? >> it's hard to tell because we don't have the plan from the neighbors. i'm struggling a little here. i'm generally supportive of the project because it is code compliant and does comply with the design guidelines and increases the amount of housing, but i am worried about the

windows. i would like to hear what the other commissioners have to say on that issue. >> in response to the concerns, i share them. we did hear the neighbors next door saying that they are concerned not that there has been a discussion or any kind of mutual exchange of architects talking to each other, etc cetera. in light of that uncertainty, i would agree with commissioner diamond of wanting to take a pause until that conversation has occurred. i'm prepared to continue this project for a few weeks and have the next door neighbor clearly speak that there has been a face to face almost agreement. i don't believe that because the windows had higher prevents them

from being intrusive. all that means those people will have a view and still look down into those windows which the other party may want to have. i'm not prepared to really operate by word of mouth. i need to see a little bit more interaction. i'm prepared to listen to this project again and again my concerns about the adu remain but i am prepared to give that further consideration if the project would create a larger mutual dialogue. do you have anything to add to the discussion? >> hi commissioners. just listening to the conversation, i was going to recommend if you were also

inclined to -- we can definitely obviously meet with the adjacent neighbor and review whatever is currently in play. but without more formal understanding of what they are proposing, i think it would be challenging at this point. in terms of trying to improve the quality of the project and design, some of the things the commissioners could add into the project if you wanted was for example, adding some kind of patio or porch to expand the light well, basically and give some kind of private open space for the proposed adu. if you look at the plan set, they already are building a staircase down below grade and it is reasonable to add a small patio and that would improve the kind of light quality. i will say their rear yard is

relatively small. it's only probably i'm guessing about 23 feet deep. so i wouldn't mandate something too large but that would be one kind of easy solution resolving the light quality issue with the proposed adu and something the design could accommodate for. >> i think that's a good idea. but do you see by continuing it and encouraging the dialogue between the two parties would help for the commission to find middle ground for those north facing windows. at this moment, i think the north facing windows on the building are somewhat problematic. knowing that the adjoining neighbors will want to expand, i think we should give it a little more time to really try to bridge this project into

context. if an adjoining neighbor says i'm going to do something, to create the middle ground, i would like to see that. >> i'm confident that our staff and particularly with the help of mr. winslow who is good at resolving the scenarios, if the commission added a condition saying it would be refined based on adjacent neighbors, we easily could accommodate that, understanding the intent is to make sure that the two neighbors talk with each other, there's a lot of solutions that the project could undertake to basically accommodate for that. as long as we're clearly understanding what the goal is of the commission, i feel confident that staff could undertake that.

>> i agree with you, but i believe this commission could also witness what that is and actually delay the decision because what you're saying about adding a small space by adding a patio level access to the lower unit may improve the lower unit. i don't want to just hear it in words. i want to see how it is done. the finish grade is way up. this is the light well. so the open space is still in a light well. i would like to see physically for the commission to have the benefit to approve something we're all comfortable with. i hope i have support. which means continuing. i make a motion we continue the project based on the path that

has been suggested, the department working with the architect and with the adjoining neighbor to come to some agreement about the north facing windows including the improvement of the adu focused on an open space that is still accessible from the unit. >> commissioner chan. >> second. i just wanted to chime in and say i am generally torn. i think this is a project that is code compliant and meets the general city and housing goals. i feel for me the condition posed about further negotiation of this would be acceptable to me in addition to exploring the use of the rear yard as potential open space for the adu. that's generally where i'm

leaning but happy to hear other commissioners. >> commissioner imperial. >> i seconded the motion but i also initially my issue was the adu. and i had an issue in terms of the light as well. and if there is -- since the recommendation by the planning staff is to have a private patio, i would like to see that as well in our blueprint and for us to look into that as well. in terms of the -- i'm not really into that but more the adu. so that's why i seconded. if it helps for having a better relationship between the project sponsor and neighbors nearby,

i'm all for it. >> i myself am confident that with help, we can get staff to address these issues. i'm glad they're being addressed. but i'm supportive of an approval today with the help. commissioner diamond is next. >> i think the conditions would address my concerns, both the addition of the light well and staff working out -- i don't believe it needs to be continued. i support approving it today with the condition of the two conditions. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i also think some additional conditions would satisfy my concerns. i did want to ask the architect, the addition of perhaps a small patio, i would hope even the length of the adu to provide

some walk-out access and additional light. is that something you think you could accommodate in the plans? >> yeah, actually i thought that was a great suggestion and we'd be happy to incorporate something like that and work with staff on that. >> do you have a sense of the depth you could get for the patio? >> the rear yard is 25 feet. i would think we could be able to get it 10 foot or maybe even 12 foot patio back then. a nice outdoor room space. >> that sounds excellent. i think the window issue certainly can be a challenge between neighbors, unfortunately, people cannot agree and kind of have concerns. i am a big believer in the fact that windows go two ways. people can look out of windows and into windows. it's not a one way privacy issue. i myself have lots of curtains and blinds in my home to help

protect my privacy. it doesn't address the view issue which is a source of conflict. i would want to have in the motion that does direct staff to work with the architect and neighbor to understand what the proposed pattern will be on the adjacent building and have a pattern in the proposed project that corresponds to that with an eye towards protecting privacy, kind of limiting potential future conflict between neighbors. i will not support the continuance. >> commissioner moore. >> i will support draw back from the continuance, reporting back to the commission or memo which shows of how the issue is being resolved. the reason i wanted a continuance, i think we all can learn from seeing the final solution of what is being done. words do not often capture what we need to see physically in

front of us. if there is a reporting back, would be kind enough to provide us with reduced form of information on this, i will support moving forward but i would like to make that part of the conditions. >> great idea commissioner. >> so now we just need a motion. >> i thought commissioner tanner made the motion -- >> i think your motion is still on the floor for continuance. >> i believe it was just withdrawn. >> okay. so i'll try this motion. i would make a motion to approve the project with conditions that a rear patio be created at the ground level for the adu and i'd like to see if we could have 10 feet for the patio. that the pattern on the upper level of the top floor -- the

top and third and fourth floors be refined with staff and in correspondence with the neighboring proposed building and that these changes come back to the commission via informational memo that can be provided to the planning commission. did i get everything? >> you did everything but you mentioned 10 feet over the entire length of the rear unit -- >> okay. thank you. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. >> can we clarify the window issue, that it's the north side windows, you had mentioned the windows on the top two floors without clarifying -- >> the top two floors facing north. >> thank you. >> good catch. >> a motion has been seconded.

to approve with conditions as amended to include a small patio at the back grade for the adu spanning the width of the adu with a minimum depth of 10 feet and that the project sponsor continue working with staff on the north facade as it relates to the adjacent property windows. and finally for those modifications to be submitted to the planning commission in the form of an update memo. >> could you please add it is being done in mutual discussion with the adjoining neighbor. it's not just a self dialogue between the applicant. it's a mutual discussion between them. >> very good. the project sponsor will work with staff and the adjacent

neighbors on the north facing top two floors windows. on that motion... (roll call) so moved. that motion passes 7-0. that concludes your hearing today. >> we're adjourned.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here

in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar.

we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will.

we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ]

>> president follansbee: the health services board may 13th 2121 will becalled order, if we could have the rollcall . >> agenda itemnumber two is rollcall . i'm getting mybandwidth notification so i will be turning off my camera .