>> okay good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, november 10, 2022. to enable public anticipation sfgovtv is receiving will hearing live. comments or opportunity to speak are available by calling 415-655-0001 then access code: 2491 476 1684 ## we will take comment in the room first then

access line. for those persons call nothing to submit testimony wheny roach the item you are interested in speak to, press star 3. if you are joining i have web exraise are your handled to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmoud that is your indication to begin speak. best practices call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. attends nothing city hall come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. i will request we silence our mobile device. at this time i like to take roll president tanner. >> here. >> vice president moore. >>

>> commissioner moore? >> here. >> thank you. >> commissioner braun. >> herech >> commissioner diamond. >> here >> commissioner imperial >> here >> commissioner cappel. here and ruiz. >> here >> occur conditionance 1a, b and c for case numbers 2019-224 zer enc and s hd at 14 fifty-nine 58 sean bruni avenue for cu and shadow findings are proposed to be continued to december 8, 2022. commissioners further under your regular calendar i'm pleased inform you that the appellate and sponsor have reached an agreement and the negative

declaration with drawn. that was item 8 erickson, 20 it would be-001922 propertyace throan 50 california street. at this time we should take comment on the item proposed for continuance. if you notoriety chambers come forward. if you are call nothing press story 3 or raise your hand via web ex. no members in the chamber coming forward we go to remet callers this is on the continuance calendar. when you are unmoued you can begin speak. >> hello. can you hear me. >> we can. >> am i'm chris the owner of the property 1458 san bruno. we are seek to continue this upon because of community input coming in at the last minute. request member [inaudible] which

we are doing and also larger units 3 bedrooms we are dog. in addition to the additional marking that allows us to comply with the code and the requirements and will not be seek an exception for that. that's it. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners in september the experience requested a continuance to meet with the community. however, there have not been community meetings. so could you ask the experience if clarify his intentions and provide specifics on when or where the meeting will be? or what intentions are? thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment on the continuance calendar. you need to press story 3 if you

are call nothing remote or raise your hand. via web ex. no requests, public comment is closed. on your continuance calendar and now before you. >> commissioner imperial to follow up on a comment. a question to the experience can you respond to this? >> if the project sponsor is around? could you speak on their behalf? yea. hoe is raising his hand again. go ahead, sir. >> hi. i'm sorry being you repeat the question. can you responded to the public comment question regarding the community input. it is the comment was that it seems like they have not been reached out yet. >> i heard that the continuance

in september questioned by planning not the sponsor. i was more working with the planning department on this trying to get the project have more affordable units. that was what that was about. the out roach we have been doing, has been through specific groups since september we have not done another community meeting we have done previously of september. >> okay. there is intention to reeach that is my to inform the upon community that the community will be informed of the continuance and also the committee -- meetings you are going to have. i'm proposing to continue this one a, b and c, move to continue. why second. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. no further deliberation there is

a motion seconded to continue items 1a through c on this motion commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner ruiz. >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye >> commissioner moore >> aye >> president tanner >> aye >> that passes unanimously 6-0. of and the consent calendar was listed by mistake there are no items on consent. allowing you to move to commission matters. item 2 comments and questions. >> thank you begin with our land acknowledgment commissioner braun was not here you are welcome to take part in let me know you can let me know the moment before i read it and it is the second page the agenda packet. the land acthinkment. ramaytush ohlone acknowledgement the planning commission

acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples >> thank you, commissioners are comments or questions today in we can move on. >> that will accomplice us under department matters. item 3 director's announcements. >> good afternoon. no announcements. item 4 review. past events. at the board of supervisors and appeals and historic preservation commission there are no reports from board of

supervisors or appeals and historic preservation did in the meet yesterday. now item 5 the office development annual limit update. >> thank you. good afternoon president tan and commissioners corey teague. buffer to give a quick update on the office development annual limit program. often known prop m. the purpose today is in the to give a big historical over view but an update as of the recent annual a lotment on october 17th. this program has been around since 1985. limits the amount office development we can authorize in the city year to year. sxf this is split with the large cap and small cap. large being for office projects

50,000 square feet or more and the small cap for projects 25,000 square feet and shy of 50,000 square feet. you may recall, a couple years ago prop e passed which amended the program. sxf made october 17th more complicated. each year. before that, on october 17th of each year, the program received annual a lotment of 875,000 square feet to be used for allocations to project and that year rolled over in future years. one of the big components of prop e was to tie that allotment to the amount of affordable housing produced relative to the goal the prior calendar year. and then had this percentage was for example if we produced 50% of the goal we would receive 50% of the annual a lotment.

reducing the amount of office space available each year. of so, this year just to provide you those numbers i did give you a brief memo out lining those numbers. as you may know the reina housing goal is an 8 year cycle. for the purposes of prop e it issanualized so it can be do this calculation each year approximate 20-21 we achieved 39.5% of the goal. keep received a bit more than 345,000 square feet. a large component was that it created the 2 separate reserves this allowed the city or planning commission to allocate office space even if there was

not enough space in the large cap. and the trade off is over time, the next 10 years 10% is drawn down from this we account for that going forward. so, this year we received our 345,000. we had approximately 90,000 available in the large cap. and then we had to account for if the 10% of prior projects allocate friday both the central so many reserve and the job's housing reserve a city wide reserve. after acounselling for all of those that means we stands here today with just shyst 2 huh thunld squire feet in our large cap to be allocated to office projects. 50,000 square feet and greater. just want to provide this for you all and present an opportunity for questions that you may have. thank you.

i don't think we have questions we thank you for the memo and the staff who do the calculations to bring us the information. thank you. >> public ment on this matter if member would like to address the commission come forward. if you are call nothing you need to press star 3. seeing no members of public in the chambers we will go to remote caller when you are unmuted you can speak. >> will this is sue hester i have been involved in prop m since drafted. and i want to alert the planning commission and the staff that we have an unusual situation this year with 13 projects that are 49ers. 49ers are project this is have just barely under 50,000 square feet so they can have part of

their allocation out of the small project cap. one of the things i'm very cynical about is how the projects are built. and the planning department staff that handles these case should work with zoning add administrator to make sure that there is monitoring effective on making sure the project stays at the 49999 size, which they say they will do. and not creep up to 1 or 200,000 square feet. i'm cynical about dbi matter of enforcement. they have been implicated in of a little irregularities. and so between the nonmonitoring by planning once you approve a

project, the staff has no role. and there need to conditions imposed and need to be thoughtfully drafted make sure that the converting a floor or 2 or 3 or 4, to part to office allocations they are enforced and they are enforced while dbi. so i'm putting that out as a thing that needs to be attended to. secondly, about modification done on 2020. when prop m was drafted in 1986, there was consciously something that happened that never happened beforement which was allocation about the space tied to providing money to build an

affordable housing. no one had done it ever in the state. and we -- did that in connection with the adoption of prop m. and based on the committee, community did prop m not the planning d. and so -- basically well is money that is structured to build affordable housing. and approval of office space. and there is -- no attention paid to the allocations and they wound up doing more office space. it reduces the amount housing money. >> thank you. >> that is your time >> thank you very much. >> last calls for public comment on this item. no questions. public comment is closed.

i don't believe there was deliberation from the commissioners. >> commissioner diamond. >> mr. teague i have implementation questions for you. um -- when you do the -- when you dot calculations for the arena adjustments and how much affordable housing provided in a prior year are you looking at entitlements for affordable housing, construction start? end of construction or occupancy? >> great question, thank you. so prop e specific low defined production. or what it means for a unit to be produced and for that purpose it is a first construction document has to be issued for the project. which -- is more than a site permit it is one of the a

denneda required to begin construction usually the foundation awill be first construction document you have this issued and not start. you don't go to the effort of having a construction document issued unless you are ready to begin construction. it is different how we report. in terms of how those count toward our product for reporting to reina versus this definition in prop e. >> thank you. second question is, we have been approve and granting a number entitlements for office space construction has not started, they are 3 year time requirements and the conditions and gave them an extra year during covid. talk about what you are see nothing putting allocation back in to the pool? >> sure.

it is original probable m is 18 month performance period. and any action to revoke requires an action by planning. calendar exclude a process there. well is a resolution during the last recession that is in affect from planning that says even if projects go past 18 months as long as they are active then they should not be brought back for revocation. the last time we brought projects back for revocation was 2018 there were projects that were nonactive or inactive and not used their full allocated amount. the revocations happened then. we track the projects now part of the tracking sheet we put out. you know have permits issued?

under construction, et cetera? that is happening and on going. and one other option so you are aware a property owner is voluntarily abandoning their allocation they will not use temperature they give that back through a letter throughout za instead of requiring planning to revoke it. we had some do this in the past. in terms of status now, i'm not aircraft wear of projects that we deem to be inactive at this point. obviously, we are it is atypical time in determining that is active and what is not. if you like more on projects

that were allocated and not builted we can come bab and give you an understanding when they are. for me it is helpful to understands what projects are in this category and how you define active in this unusual time >> sure. it is obviously more concern if we have projects applying for space when we don't have enough allocation i don't know if that's the case now. >> it is not the case now. we even though we have shy of 200 thbld square feet in the large cap now. we don't have upon the only project we have in the queue this is pending is a phase 2 central soma project that could use the reserve the only projects we have that could draw down from that are phased projects that are outside offer jurisdiction so port projects, mission rock, pier 70, et cetera. those as they go forward and office buildings are constructed, that automatically pulls. large cap projects in the queue

now would the pending level. joy think it would be useful to get a report become on the projects and one last question is if we get to the point we are seeing conversions of office buildings, to residential. e sfl if they are older built and not subject to the cap in the first place. what happens to the office space that was in those buildings as it applies to the cap calculations? >> is your question that office space put back in the cap the short answer is, no. not for projects that are preprop m to begin watch they are not accounted for in the program. and i think the building in conversation for those conversions are preprop america buildings. >> okay. i think make a book mark around that subject as we think about

that going forward if we will do anything to encourage conversions. thank you very much >> no problem. >> commissioner moore. >> i would support. commissioner diamond's request for know update to the commission regarding project that age, size, et cetera. age but i mean date of application. the second question is for mr. teague, please. 14, 999 square feet is a precise number for america a size of i building is that meant symbolically for medium size and large scale building? mrs. hester cites enforce am i don't think a building can be examined for a discrepancy of one square foot to be small with large cap.

i upon bed everwhenned she is asking. explain yet number is precisely expressed. >> sure. for the small cap has a lim of the which is 49, 999 square feet and some of our small cap projects propose up to that limit. those are new brekz comments. we have a number of projects that come in in the small cap in the low to mid dpourt's not propose to pushup against that limit. and any other thing this responsibility new construction versus conversion in an existing building if tell is new construction and america the 49, 999 square feet that it is through the planning code definition.

thatting be a conversion situation that is a significant expansion. if this did occur i'm not aware of that occurring to date. butt specific cap is just a product of the system divided between the 49ers and everything botch this. >> that was a helpful explaination. thank you very much. >>mented responded? >> add 2 note in terms how we calculate. with the advent move to a digital plan check tool we kicked off during the pandemic.

thes precise measurements it let's us validate a greater level of precision i wanted share that it has been a great new tool we have for doing calculations along these lines. in general this applies to everything. after the planning commission takes action. an applicant will file a building permit and verify the calculations they vo provide [speaking very fast] they are required route back if there is a deviation from when we approved. you know we understand mrs. hester's concern that is the typical protocol it goes and there it is a change in the plan we signed off and if there is a change they are required to route them back they other checks and balances in the concern system. advent of moving to the digital plan check system. greater photocopy transparency and record keep nothing each

revision. that gets submitted to the city and issued. in the past revisions get recycled and much trickier to fall. now there is an audit trail. . >> thank you. >> if there is nothing further move on to general public comment. at this time members may address the commission on items of interest to the public in the jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the commission when the item is reached in the meeting. each member may address commission up to 3 minutes and the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. if you are here come forward. call nothing remote press story 3 or raise your hand.

seeing no persons in the chambers we will go to the remote callers when you have been unmuted that is your time to speak. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia, i sent an e mail with photos on election day. with the [inaudible] history. photos i showed last week on the over head. one sold last march of 22. for 7 million. the project on the left in the photos applied for permit in june 2012 and this permit issue in the may of 2014 and issue in the 2016. it was a complaint filed with db oishgs in january of 2015 for work beyond the scope contending the build suggest demolished. and the case was quickly closed.

dbi they were in compliance the matrix on the plans on the [inaudible] for 2013, do not conform toft section 317 templet. the vertical area calculations don't account for corrections made to the clarifications in the june upon 2020 section 317 limitation document. the project on the right in the photos applied permit the 7 million dollars one. september of 2014. it was issued in july 2017 and issued in 2018. and i will say that the 2 projects remember after the approximate december 2012, article that was sf weekly that is interesting i mentioned before am i hope you look at the e mail and pictures and send

nothing 150 words. thank you, have a great day. booib. >> this is sue hester the problem that planning has is they don't have the same tracking able that dbi has. dbi has i different computer system. it is known for having a different computer system it has been abused by their planners. georgia mentioned in joe's article. that was one of the dbi fall offense. not the san bruno project issue of the continuance discussion but the other san bruno project that it happened in 3-4 years ago they had a lot of construction because the person who signed off on the development never inspected the

site. got money for charity contribution instead. so, our masking planning commission to set a joint meeting with the dbi commission not before christmas because christmas is ridiculous. some time after the first of the year to realist very much a discussion about what is happening at dbi in terms of having a compatible permits. so if they are planning the staff has the same abilities you see what is happening. and dbi and. not be distracted by, oh , e we have a process. . we upon don't have a process if dbi is not it having the same procedures at the planning department has. and that is really important. so planning commission please insist on a joint meeting with

the dbi they call at this time brick commission. after the first of the year, thank you very much. can you hear me. >> we k. >> if can i get a 30 second warning. i don't speak often before planning. i had a productive conversation? morning request lauren beast environmental planning staff. discussed a ceqa appeal i filed deemed untimely and issues regarding public access to ceqa materials on the department's website especially exemptions and administrative code chapter 31, general low 31 penalty 08. i encourage the commission to hold a hearing on the issues next year. i understand upon that the environmental planning staff is busy now. i heard part of the discussion that you had related to joe and

i i'm aware of the housing element and the other big projects that they are working on operately. i'm concerned about phone access to staff by the partial some staff are in the office, somewhere not in the office and those not in the office are not always forwarding calls it a cell phone or available on teams. i was unable to contact tom desanto or reach everyone covering him during his absence. and that certainly contributed to and may have caused my ceqa appeal to deemed untime low temperature important for someone to cover key functions like tom's when he or other staff are unavailable and i will follow up on this point with tom if i can reach him. i have been unsuccessful. thanks for listening.

>> commissioners i'm francisco decosta. i would like to say something about quality of life issues. lake merced are developer will build 3,000 new units. next door there are 1, 200 units that are empty. why are are you not allowing developers to build so many units when you don't address where they will get the clean drink water? andef where were will the sewer go? because shame that year 2022, the clean drinking water to

flush our toilets. the planning department should be a key role in quality of life issues including the [inaudible] all over the city, 50 stinking tents yet people go to do drugs. the upon planning department [inaudible] our city, insulting and dirty. and the planning department must have a say. we need get attention of those departments that have to maintain cleanliness in our city. thank you very much. upon last call for general

public comment. in forward or raise your hand. press star 3. no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed. we can move to the regular calendar for item 6. says 2022-00901 for the electric vehicle charging planning code amendment.

can you bring update slide? thank you. good afternoon, commissioners jenny, planning staff. before i give -- um -- in january mayor breed introduced the ev charging location oranges this april the commission approve today with modifications. the board passed and the mayor approved that legislation in september. not all the planning commission recommendations were included in the approved ordinance. but it did -- establish definitions for fleet charging. permit in residentialing/commercial community business and downtown

districts. will some mixed use and most nc districts. ordinance permits fleet charge use in pdr sdrishths the existing use is vehicle storage or private park otherwise it requires a cu in pdr districts. >> in july of this year, supervisor peskin duplicate today and referred the duplicated version for further comment. with this ordinance supervisor peskin proposes 2 changes in the approved ordinance. one create planning code section to add 3 new criteria assessing whether to grarnt cuf fleet charging locations. restrict requiring a c u authorization regardless of the existing use. the propose the ordinance proposes no other changes to changes allowed or provisions of

the approved ordinance. the department conducted an analysis of the ordinance and found it could have varying affects on racial and social equity. the cu criteria targeted at fleets de dedicated to ride hailing transportation companies like lyft and uber. low rbi come communities and community of color use transit more and network companies less for trips. the it would reduce imppacts of ride hailing fleets they could support use and increase racial and social equity. some of the criteria could prohibit fleet charging associated with ride hailing this could push the companies to locate in other jurisdictions while still serve people in san francisco. in this scene the city would not collect development impact fees from fleet charging even the affectless of ride hailing trips

born by residencen dept. dent its could harm transit without reducing competing trips by ride hailing floats. details are in the case report. the planning department made adjust ams to the recommendations in october of 20 staff report. the recommendations are onceir will cover today. over all, the staff recommendations are designed to achieve intent of the cu and avoiding the challenges and negative consequence of implementing them. the first recommendation is to remove cu1 and 3. 1 and 3 would effectively present fleet charging with ride hailing and other floats in highly congested areas or transit rich areas from receiving a c u the department

agrees should be policy avoid low occupancy vehicles in these locations and challenging for a department staff and planning commissioners to analyze the criteria and monitor and enforce them. travel recommendations 2 and 3 provide a path for fleet charging with ride hail to receive a cu meeting c1 to reduce trips in locations of concern. ch the second designed to reduce impacts to people in transit. staff recommend permitting fleet charge nothing all districts except 1b with approve the ordinance and ensure that fleet charging units are subject to a replacement requirement. consistent with the commission's direction on the approved ordinance. in addition the department significant crip tear fraia

impacts to transportation considering factor in criteria 2. >> the third recommendation to reduce conflicts on the street adding planning code requirements for fleet charges. probable new curb cutos protected pedestrian, cycling and transit street frontages and require fleet charging projects 25 or more spaces or park spaces to prepare driveway and loading operationace plan with requirements under section 155 u. the fourth recommendation, is support transit. updating the existing sustaink fee. there is a fee for fleet charging or parcel delivery service at pdr and nonresidential rates appear to be low compared to impacts of uses. fleet charge involves the flow

of vehicle higher than the pdr fee study is needed to set an accurate fee should known to decision maker and it is public. that staff may recommend an increase to the fee in the future after studying. the ordinance requires the department to track and report on dast at next 5 years. the department tinlds to collaborate with the municipal transportation agency on monitoring the project and analysis of affectless on the transportation and circulation system as part of that report happening. this information will allow the department to assess further amendments should be considered by this commission and the board. department proposed incorporating the results of the ajs in the update to the transportation element. that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer questions you have. thank you. >> is that 61 cludes present egg.

take public comment. come forward if you mean are remote press story 3 or raise your hand. >> good afternoon president tan and vice president moore and the commission. i'm judi lee an emotional were government affair's team. grateful for the collaboration resulted in the passage of the ev legislation and look forward to our efforts to make san francisco a leader in the space. we appreciate of the opportunitied to meet with planning staff following the introduction of changes to the initial ordinance. if weir to meet the city and state environmental goalless we need to decarbonize transportation and wide supered electrification new charging for charging. we believe that an open upon to fleet charging is a path forward that promotes from equity and allows chargeings site tologist go with the appropriate infrastructure exists.

we are committed to labor part sdmers proud of work to ensure our jobs are filled with people from the communities we serve. we were concerned the pdr replacing requirements will add undefined costs to projects making most of the projects and feasible. i appreciate your time and we look forward to engaging with the commission how to ensure of the clean transportation is available to all. thank you. am no other members in the chamber wish to comment we go remote. >> good afternoon, commissioners mark, i'm speaking on behalf the executive officers of teamster local 665 in san francisco. teamster 665 represents women and men work in the [inaudible]

throughout the bay area. we support the expansion of ev stations the exception is has been the fleet charging as a [inaudible] the plans put forward. the july of this year the supervisors unanimously said to amend ensure fleet charging the receive review going forward. that will result a sign by mayor breechld our position remains unchanged. fleet charging go throughout cu process. wey proosht everyone's concerns and we think that thank you for your support. >> last call for public comment. seeing no requests to speak. commissioners i take that back. >> [inaudible].

go ahead. caller. >> hi. this is [inaudible] from sf news work to empower local manufactures we appreciate the efforts to protect pdr space and. the suggestion for replace am of pdr space that could be cost to fleet charging. hopeful low we can achieve our goals of electrification and net zer over transportation and encouraging transit and space for people to make local manufactures to be the engine of our economy in the city. thank you. final last call for public

comment. seeing no requests it speak public comment is close third degree matter is buffer, commissioners. >> thank you. staff. and the callers and the commissioner. imperial. >> thank you. i have a question in terms of the based on the recommendations, first on the recommendation one, the removal of proposed cu1 and 3, my question is in terms of because the department is argument is that it is hard to analyze the project consistency. don't we have a process in terms of tracking the consistency of this? when we talk about the low

occupancy vehicle in high areas and transit rich areas, why would be hard to track it? >> staff concern is that we dove have am a vmt analysis for projects. the language not indoings for low occupancy vehicles we know from past research this ride hailing services do induce and present those projects. and we think there are ways of meeting the indeck in one without a cu that would be prohibition on that use. >> it is it would -- dependses on the because as we you know when we look in the projects here we look to vmt analysis. that is what you know also the commissioner looks into. so i'm like, um. i guess trying to stretch out

more on the argument that it is hard to track it when it sell being done here already at planning commission. so. unless i'm wrong. >> i think part is this it is difficult to track where some of the uses the vehicles go. they don't provide data to the planning department voluntarily and provide it to state agencies that regulate them but that is in the provided us. we can analyze their impactless at the localized level. we have a sense that everbased on an analysis but the specific location where vehicle 8 guess as operating ride hailing service is something we don't know >> i see like weep don't have categories for ride hailing, parcel deliver in tefrms vmt analysis all types of vehicles skwoochl it is based on the base the analysis on what the land

use the land use of the location would be. them upon come to ride hailing vehicle. you know we know where people take their trips but does in the give us analysis to know where it will going any time. >> okay. and in terms of criteria 3, can you per there examples that kufrms trying to secure vehicles for park already? is this a trends that is happening already? >> they are seek parking for fleet vehicles >> yea. it on the point criteria unintended consequence prompting companies to secure more very close parking preys space used for other use is there a trend upon helping that the planning or sfmta is seeing? >> understanding how when the projects come in the planning

department fleet charging for [inaudible] their intent is to come in. charge, get back on street and take passengers. they want don't park and so it seems their decision is where they go and how many spaces they need based on turn over if they had to provide enough for all to be parked at the same time. they would, they would need to secure more space than they do. and the space could be used for housing and pdr >> okay >> i guess i'm trying to see if trying to00ue know if we were there are those trendses already happening it seems like it might be. that might be the trend.

the short answer is yes, and i'm not sure what the universe is in terms will when i'm aware of, we had one facilities on caesar chavez a charging and maintenance facility. an application that was issued prior to the legislation that was a small are site. and it was a third party operator that would then lease to another fleet or users. and then we have had 3-4 letter of determination requests on

this question. what this would use be. it was a reason why we need it to define the uses and all of those situations it was a third party provider look to develop these charging sites and then lease them over time to different fleets or organizations. >> i see, thank you. it looks like i hope that the planning department and staff account work with the experience of this legislation in terms of seeing those trends and how work with that with the -- supervisor. another question is about the pdr replacement requirement. my question in here is that san francisco is not a big city. i know we always say something about replace am of things but -- when we are talking about land, i'm just wonder happening,

do we have a pipeline of pdr replacement? how do we than we do have lands for a pd rushgs replacement? >> hi. good afternoon, director of city wide policy. pdr is a big and complicated issue. we have been working on it at least since 2008 eastern neighborhood plan where we went through the space needed and did rezoning. how much pdr space would be lost. it was and calculated about 3 penalty 5 million square feet of pdr space would be lost that has happened by 2020 and have a strong demand for pdr space. pdr in construction land use

types use a combination of indoor and out door space in the building and a working space empploys people in the outside the job are cristial to san francisco emergency response. food distribution and utility service and jobs that you don't need an education for. and compared to other industries pdr employs more people color,im guarantees with fewer barriers. we feel the space has been shrinking. we are working with a big are change to the controls we expect to bring before you soon. that would doll a few things including a pdr funds so that if there was a replacement requirement you pay out of that. and then there could be space created. we'll update the industrial

design guide lines and evaluates an office pdr and mapping the transportation use related that with a freight map and transportation element. in this case, the and adding on the pdr with the ev thinking about what happens in our remaining lands that is important tong about how critical the lands are. and of if we wanted be fair to the ev fleet charging users who are seeing and monitoring this ordinance before you today and as it goes through they may think they not when controls are and in back and fleet replacement requirement and change the fee and surprised the application has a higher fee this is providing their notice to the fleet charging uses this work is part of a big are body of work in process near years went city and it is important

city policy >> thank you for that. and i hope the department is working with the board of supervisors office on this as limp i think that is a big question for me as of course in the central soma there is an initialive. my plat question is racial/social equity argument. i want to expand on how we define that. one thing is like it could harm, there is like initial hunch for me that the ev could harm the transit use. and another thing i think was part of the state proposition as well is who are using the ev chargers. i feel we don't have much analysis as to who are going to use the ev you know again there is we have analysis on the jobs that you know proposing but in

terms of like who are going to be using ev's and again like the impact on transit. i'm very much proponent of people using transit. students learn how to take muni bus and encourage the trains. that is like in terms of how we make an argument and racial/social equity is through not just in terms of the jobs but who are the users? who are we trying to people use ev? those are my comments >> thank you. commissioner koppel? >> i typically do following firefighter all of these energy topics and generations. solar pv and energy storage, ev charging and a fan of mass electric transportation here in

the city. but also i think our speaker sum today up best we need to make sure clean transportation is available for all of san francisco. thanks to staff for your work. we heard this a couple times gone back and forth. in support of it today and looking to see this move forward so we get more ev's on the road. >> thank you. >> commissioner reese? >> i want to point out the things i did appreciate and -- the section the way it would be in terms of implementing section 303cc things the commission should consider when evaluating fleet charging use. and general low hoping that we can add language in terms of ecquit and he encourage disbursement of the locations across it is city so we don't

see them in krons traited areas. could staff speak to adding language on geographic equity? the adopted ordinance requires annual reporting and part of what we have been collaborating with sfmta on is what sorts of indicators to better understands the affects of the fleet on the transportation network. to your point upon about ensuring their geographically disbursed prosecute meeting equity that he is manage we can include to come back to the commission and may be the board with recommendations for if changes to the ordinance that would address any inequityys in

the projects locateed the za's point we had a few mrksz 5 or more. they are locate instead downtown areas. we are open to the language that you would like to see in terms how we asetsz the cu and we think that would be well informed by analysis at the sfmta. thank you. will distribution of the site and the comment that commissioner imperial was picking up on where are the vehicles going to pick up ride exerts drop them off. i'm concerned if not where they're going to recharge. come impacts most community the pdr tendses to be concentrated

was there an analysis of the accomplices to be permitted in terms of the existing parking lot type use do we have a sense how many and where they are located and place we will permit if the board were to approve that. where folks ago we will see a rush to the places for applications and then as the vehicles recharge the neighborhoods are impacted by that recharging traffic >> and pick up traffic. so. can you address that. >> i can address half of what you said not all of what you said there are unknowns here i would like to address what commissioner ruiz said. the dialogue the commissioner is having now is exceed amming important and appreciate and part of what you are considering are cu's for the ones that conscience for the ones that need cu's. sto so if the commission would like to recommend a new criteria

for the c u consideration this includes racial and social equity when something is before you staff will be talking to you about the racial and social equity impacts of location you can suggest that to the board that will be a new cu criteria if the board accepts your idea this . is in your power today to recommend to the board for their action. there is a lot we don't know and the board and mayor did do a lot of negotiation with not only the fleet charging industry but also concern public. for the most part that is why we are not recommending changes to where the zoning where permitted or cu because there has been alost negotiation outside of staff involve am. thank you. >> commissioner diamond.

>> >> if i understand the staff report correct low. theory is if we get too tough on this in order to accomplish if our goals and too taoist criteria 2 challenging it ends up turning dpoun every project or if our fee in the transportation fee we come up with is too high if a study supports it or if the pdr replacement >> reporter: is impossible to fulfill it is challenging we have the companies doing fleet charging in locations and get off the impactless. what you are trying to do is instructor:a balance between how far we go in regulating this to address occurrence and not go so for we have all of the impacts and none of the benefits is this accurate. nothing is quite perfect but

everything is balanced against each other? >> that's correct. there is a market here and there is service this is want to serve this market. if the present it or revving lit it to the extent that it makes sense yes, we expect they go to across the county line. i agree with commissioner koppel i'm supportive of transit, i believe we have a language way to get to a system that functioned the way we typeset and the meantime we are encouraging torn switch to electric vehicles and to do this in that case we neat fleet charging and like it in the city so we get the advantages that in ordinance tries to accomplish. i'm in favorite ordinance as written. i will make a motion i move to approve as proposed with staff

recommendations. >> second. >> i see commissioner. >> i see you commissioner moore others have their hands up i will go to you next. >> its all right. i will make a comment first and i will call on you in a mobile home. can staff speak to the analysis that was included in our packet regardingly the fee. we heard from the industry that there is concern around the feet concern i share have the ordinance trying to push for getting electric vehicle adopted quickly. having some in the city and concern the fee is too high how you are thinking about the information that came become in the memo from urban economics. the time of the nexus update we did a ministudy to see what the how many motorized trips we can expect from the uses and when

fee the maximum fee. that is to show there is definitely a higher fee that would prefleck the impact this is is not fee we think is feasible. that is from further study. commissioner moore? the comment about geographic equity is important. however without having discussed with the it is not full to approve something over recommend something this it is not propose in the front of us today. the other comment is asking mr. roger, with experience depletion of pdr space. whenever we are having office or whatever it is replace pdr the amount of replacement is never 1

to 1. how would you seat quotient for replacement with vehicle vehicle charging stations? >> thank you so much, commissioner. and consultation with the za the fee range the replace am requirement ranges and can be up to 1 to 1 when the replacement is provided it is what we seen multistory buildings. a lot there is limited land for pd rushgs it is ability to create more space for replacement exist in multistory buildings much of the pdr lands are low are rise development. that is okay. i was hoping that in the motion

we could include the suggestion of the criteria to for the commission to consider. just with the questions and comments by commissioner imperial and moore. had me thinking more about the replacement of pdr. so i want to just put this out there. okay. >> maker of the motion open to adding a suggestion that the board consider an additional criteria? >> yes. i have a question for staff. does the board do what we do consider it with the legislation before it adopts in. criteria to come back versus to practice. >> you are looking at geographic

equity where are they located. are they equally sdrnlted across the city. that is broader. so -- mrs. rogers said you can consider that i note that the zoning districts where this is conditionally permitted tend to be geographically distributed. c2 and pdr that does in the mean they will come back they will be proposed equal low in the districts. you can add that as a potential condition. >> criteria. >> what ofst language you like to propose? >> in the projects come different commission, to include geographic equity as a consideration of approval. i think it would be geographic equity of the distribution. the process i see this and i see

that as we get more projects before us, if there is an analysis saying, now this is here like our cannabis legislation. we are seeing where they are as time goes on instead of where is this one located we are seeing the distribution as we anticipate more of them. that is i don't know if it is a criteria seems like a point analysis. wonder how we phrase that? the impelementation perspectist first mrukz see i don't know how we will analyze direct your attention for number one and may be not 2. what we could do if this helpful is we could include a mapful so when you get packets. . time guess on you see where the dots are playing out and may be

a certain mass you hit a moment you say, hey. you know can we take a look where they are landing and you can propose differing legislation. we can build a story through that geographic representation it may be easier. because it is somehow hitting that threshold unlike cannabis that has a strict. i think make sure we might get to the point we say we can't approve there are many concentrated in this area we will approve another somewhere else because it is not. the typical cu include necessary and desirable. there are perspectives if there

is a mass and geography we don't need additional you leverage the criteria it say this is no longer necessary and desirable at this location for this proposal because of this monopoly we see in front of us that are concentrating. we have to the in our kit available and it it is may be on us to make sure we give the data as the projects come forward you have can have the conversationless. >> wade, transportation team manager. . were touchod 2 of the 3 points the last point i will make the geographic equity. i think a point for analysis there is a difference where the site is located and the trips that are generated versus who uses the service.

the latter may be harder given when we said where the terrorisms go. fleet charging may be distributed does not mean the users are distributed throughout the staechl something we consider as we consider cites over time yoochl mr. ylang. >> thank you. i wanted to add i think the issues that staff brought upper very helpful in terms of both the discretion the commission has under 303. and also as a matter of process. i want to be clear what the commission is doing or plan to do. to be clear if you are proposing to let board include a geographic criteria, that they could then introduce at land use, but not coming back here.

or if you want to see and to be very clear in your motion. if you do include a geographic consideration that you as a commission would weigh in on that policy. i would be satisfy federal there is a way to make noted of our upon concern about geographic distribution as a commission we want staff to bring that to us each time and cumulatively as we make action. i. to weigh inform i think the intent of geographic equity segood sends this over with this

recommendation. i think if the board of supervisors or the writeers of the legislation thought they would go to plans and only determine this may be too many i think is exact low where we leave ourselves vulnerable. we all know that charging stationless will be attracted to inexpensive land and pdr land is far less. in downtown locations. i'm concerned the impact will be weighted toward pdr yours if you know where they are. for this reign reason i'm hesitant, i like the idea of geographic equity tow use that as something to send long for the board of supervisors without us having proper guidance.

i have confidence in the staff it would bring a lot of perhaps more conversation in the planning commission and how we really analyze this. put to the board the discussion about the geographic equity as part of a recommendation. however it would come become to planning is that what i understand in terms of us --? >> in you are clear in your motion that you are concerned about this issue, you would like to see future legislation. may be kg suggest the board introduce future legislation that addresses the issues you

are not recommending this -- you are recommendation does in the include the any future amendments at this time. related geographic. >> good idea in the future and the other option to say, we actually recommend it with the staff's ma'ams and further amendment by this body to say x, y or z is when we give language for today. commissioner diamond. >> i'd like to keep my motion the way it was. go with the staff's recommendation i feel like this issue. geographic is one naneeds to be considered over time it is important i agree with the concern feels like we have a tool in 303 to deal with it initially. and as we see what happens we may want to propose legislation outside we are the ones seeing

the case. rather than the board develop it on its own at this point in time. i like to stick with the original motion which is staff's recommendation. >> with the various changes staff proposed >> i think as we do this applications we say may be one or two interested parties will learn from those and i think also be getting not when we need in the statute but what information and data we need to receive to evaluate the proposal can be done outside of changing the legislation and can be practice in terms of how we process the applications. i upon don't see other commissioner hands. >> indeed. commissioners there is a motion nahas been seconded to approve, commissioner braun. why aye >> commissioner ruiz. >> no. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial

>> no >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no. and president tanner >> aye >> that motion passes 4 of this 3 with commissioners ruiz, improll and moore against. commissioners that will place us offol item 7. case 2019-00 four 4879 the water front resilience program this is an informational presentation.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. president tanner. lilly planning staff. we are happy to be here to present an over view of the water front program. i'm joined by our form are

planning colleague adam barrett now at the port leading this work. the planning department engaged with the program participating in conversations and meeting with focus around land use. preservation, urban design, water front access and equity the department and commission had a history with addressing climate change and sea level rise. i am new to the topic i'm joined by an maria roj and danielle knoll could not be here today. our work including working with agencies to understand the science behind sea level rise. we review large projects to ensure they are a part of the project like mission rock and pier 70. and then leading neighborhood

strategies the department expanded the review to look at a broad are neighborhood adamtation strategy. mindful to lead with equity started with the first plan in 2019. and that strategy was before you in june of last year. the water front program brought in the scope to include all port property. as you will hear more today this has implication for public and private land and economy and connection to the water. i hand it over to adam and available to answer questions. >> good afternoon. adam barrett port of san francisco waterfront resilience program. great to be before you to talk about the work we are doing with the program to develop draft waterfront strategies the focus of today's presentation. ir will talk through riskless we are facing what we dwo through

the programs when we heard the last 5 plus years of community out reach. and then walk through what the strategy are before next steps. we developed the 7 water front strategies. throughin are agency process involving planning and other agency and building on the 5 years of engage and rolling them out for public feedback with a goal of working toward a preferred draft adaptation plan by next summer of 23. i mentioned we working with partner agency urndz climated assess initiative. planning, sfmta, puc, public works and resilience and capital planning. partner with the u.s. army of engineers on the san francisco waterfront flood study.

on a planning study could lead to significant federal funding if a project is recommended and approved by u.s. congress. to gentleman quickly through risks we know too well. we see climate change already and here in san francisco we are dealing with the seismic risks that are always present and also coastal flood and inland flooding we see today. we will be exacerbated over time sea levels rise and storms become more extreme this shoes the presettlement western settlement of the city. and what the city's shore line looked like with coves and inlets. different creek watersheds and coming down and the last 2 centuries development that shore line has been fill in the to the shore line we have today. the lowest loyaling areas of the city and sea levels rise if we

did not adopt shore line we would see the areas of fit be the areas that are dealing with the coastal flooding over time because those other low lying creek mouth areas. of and so when we talk about our adoptation how do we adopt to the sea level rise and hazards? we need to deal with coastal and inland flooding behind whatever coastal flood defense structure we build as wella the seismic risks. any strategy as a city will address all 3 of these. the water front program was created to take actions to reduce the seismic and climate hazards creating a vibrant water front. this is the project area. we are looking at the port shore line jurisdiction. really this is protecting alegality of the area behind the

areas i will show in a minute. and this is stretching from the park up to aquatic park and purposes of planning we divide third degree to 3 areas based on different characteristic of land use and infrastructure and neighborhoods. the embarcadero, mission creek come mission bay area. there are lots of projects outside of this area in the city shore line that are building in adoptations to sea level rise in their projectless the major development projects. shipyard and candlestick frequent the ingrand shore line park they are awful all building sea level rise. building on years of public out roach when we heard is a strong focus on life safety and emergency response.

prioritize being protecting assetses that are loved. by the community and most important to the city as a whole and putting people first. we really heard openness from people to think big and creative solutions. and as well as concerns the costs and feasibility and the disruption impacts and things like that. some of the other key components we heard and intgreat in the off the strategies is an opportunity to intgreat nature based solutions and hab tam at that time in the strategies. water front access and open space across the waterfront and racial and social equity and he environmental justice. what we are consider when we talk about the draft waterfront strategies what they are is a combination of construction and policy measures. where, when is how high do we

build the flood defense am what measures do we use. whether it is sea walls, levie bulls and the boles changes that come with it. whether planning or building code requirements. disaster warning system or land use changes. all of this together makes update water front strategies. we framed our strategies around the 4 driving questions what upon if we did nothing to adoptful what if we adopted by flood proofing and building only without building flood structureless. what if we adopted a lower rate of sea level rise and when if we adopted to address a hire rate consistent with state guidance. we have 7 strategiesil walk through quick loam representing a variety of approaches to addressing these questions.

what we will do the next mont is take the 7 strategies. holding hearings. public out reach. getting feedback and technical evaluation along with army engineers cost and benefit analysis. and working on a hybrid preferred plan that will then become our draft water front dapation plan and more out reach and refine thwack along the wachl after that ceqa analysis, engineering design until we get to a final project. i gallon throughout 7 strategies. for each we have 2 time horizons for planning purposes a 2040 mid term adaptation and 20 upon 90 longer term horizon. for each intention is to protect the city the next 50 years. the a damation you do in 2040 of

the work until 2090. this is showing the levels of sea level rise we would build to. we look at strategy c and d. in the mid term horizon built to adapt to 1-1/2 feet of sea level rise and d it is long-term up to 3 and a half feet. the strategy e, f and g a higher level of rise 3-1/2 feet of sea level rise by 2040 and 7 feet by 2090 and additional height to deal with storm surge and tidal flooding. gi will talk through the strategy fist now. a is the no action. sthchl a point of comparison for cost and benefits for the other strategies. b is the army calls the nonstructural move people away from the risk using measures flood proofingor land use

change. and allowing the water go where it notes. you would not build a defense structure this . is required throughout army process as a point of comparison for cost and benefits of building a flood structure. here are examples. in i picture from germany of floodable public space flood prove or elevate buildings. have emergency warning suggests. c sdpraesz fooding up to 1 and a half feet. focus on the lowest lying areas of the city.

the ferry build and mission creek. it would tie in to the approved and planned and under construction develop the mission roshg and pier 70. strategy d is similar to c except a strategy were foundation to be adapted over time and more seismic benefits. and in 2040 it would look the same as strategy c. but in 2090 elevateed 3-1/2 feet of sea level rise. over time you see well, how fast the sea level rising and understand how high you need to build it to. i will talk about the 3 higher level curves sea level rise. strategy e, protect the water front as it is today adapting the existing shore line responding to public comment keeping land use and

infrastructure in place as they are today. and you see, with the green line this would build a coastal flood defense around the existing shore line including the creek inlets. it would be built to 3 and a half feet of sea level rise. require a couple things, require infrastructure to pump the inland storm water over this -- new coastal flood defense. significant infrastructure there and require raising the bridge and conjecturing road and transit over the creeks because the water will flow under there. in 2090 elevateed, dap 7 feet of sea level rise and need for additional pumping infrastructure. i will walk through vignette this is is an opportunity to see how all of the strategies incorporate water front access, recreation and open space had is the creek with the 2 time frames

of elevation. this is lookings mission creek and this embarcadero where this would fill in a bit of the bay under the existing buildings and require regrading of the entire embarcadero. strategy f, would manage the water create an active system relying on machinery in pumps of tidal gates. in 2040 it looks similar to strategy e with a couple exceptions the main one being tidal gates at inlets to mission creek and managed to control the flow of tidal waters and storm waters. and this would mean you don't have to raise the bridges or the shore line in the portions of the creekings. it would limit your ability to do natural happen at that time

and hiderology and maintenance. in 2090 it would be elevateed adapt to 7 feet of sea level rise. move flood defense to illinois street anything on the east side would require its own set of adaptation and accommodations the projects pier 70 and potrero power station are doing today. examples of that. along the creek not elevated but need a hardened shore line on the edge of the creek. and mission bay could be advanced in the bay with will pay bust bay fill on will create space for happen at that time and b bark further bay ward to provide more fill but not require as much disruption on

the embarcadero that is a trade off along of the embarcadero. and finally strategy gashing, more about alining with an am natural watershed. working with the natural flood patterns and existing watersheds to move building and infrastructure in other areas away from the flooding zone in the highest risk and lowest lying areas. you see it looks similar you would they all look similar in 2040 you are buying time to make the big are changes. but in 2090 you have significant changes to the urban fabric of sudden fran. in mission bay transform it to a floodable district with buildings and elevated streets and walk ways and transit and it is creek over you know several decades talking about the pdr areas require business and job

and pdr relocation but allow for a natural condition that you are not managing against. here sorry this would like like. changed and trans formed. and a wetland and open water concept. same in maigz mission bay the land use there but flood proofed and embarcadero this would be raising the shore line where it is today instead of filling the bay requiring narrowing of regrading of the entirety. embarcadero. with this, we are under going significant can public out reach. in person open house left night at southeast community facility. a lot of community workshops. focus groups and we have digital materials and the website check them out. and join our public out reach

and engagement i will ends and happy to take questions. thank you. >> okay. that concludes open up public comment. member this is is your opportunity to address the commission on this informational item. if you notoriety chambers come forward. if you are call nothing remote press star 3. seeing no requests to speak public comment is closed and this informational matter is before you. i will thank staff good to see you back. thank you for joining us a lot of tremendous work. i will say it sounds scare and he expensive. [laughter]. really expensive. so we have to do something and figuring out what to do and how to do is no time like now. we can get ready. 2040 and 2090 and 2140?

we were laughing. start with commissioner comments from commissioner braun. thank you very much. and thank you for the great work done on this it is important work for san francisco i have questions regarding process. going forward from here. so, it looks like there is commune engagement happening over the next couple months. but now it sounds like there has not been the deep are analysis of costs and benefits and even the analysis of equity impacts of the different alternatives. is that right? and chldz that happen and >> that's a great question . all of that is in the phase we are coming up against now that we have some ideas of different strategies we will do the both

public out reach and the xoft benefit analysis, there are you know the they are -- require toed look at the comprehensive benefits includes social, environment at and economic benefits. a new space for them to be in temperature is great. there may be things we care about as a city that go beyond the federal interests. we will evaluate this. and we will be coming back out with both costs, analysis and evaluation of benefits and working on an equity evaluation frak work and assess am of the strategies we don't have the now but we will use that to build and local low preferred strategy employing bring that down and testing you know when other criteria, evaluation and metrics we are looking at we have an

equity working group. planning staff on this group and port and other equity practical throughout the city that is next spring. >> okay. the question for me is, what00 oomph what is the base for the stake holder input for making providing input and feedback on different alternatives. i recognize time wise it is hard to have analysis done you need the other process moving forward, is there a sense of what stake holer input would shape the determination of what to look at. how does this work? it is i think what we are we are not gog it will not be we move forward with strategy e or c. tell be we will hear from the public these other thingless we

like and going to try to use those to say, we are building a strategy that meets those goals. they all really try to maximize water front access and have difference in terms of land use. there are we will have to hear when people think about whether fallos individual or motor city doing federal gentleman doing a unified structure. there are trade off there is. each neighborhoods they are neighborhood specific out reach have unique trade offs we discuss in depth than the presentation today. and 2 more questions. one is -- to this sounds expensive. and i'm curious it is hard to project out funding and financing sources for the

long-term actions i'm curious how specific does this get in terms of thinking about funding and financing and when does that really happen in the process? tell being a highly expense itch project and one area in the state and the nation where we are having to make coastal adaptations. thinking globalally it is a huge [inaudible]. but i think in terms of our 7 miles here, you know that is per of the reason for working with the army corpse they we are splitting the costs with the federal government on this planning study if there is a project in meets the benefit cost ratios recommended to congress for funding then the federal gentleman criminality 2 thirds of this cost what that project is defined as.

that could be a hugely significant number. anything we want to do beyond this we have to find 100%. that's how it works. we need to have conversations about other local sources the port has fudding from the 2018 prop asea wall bond. which is like a down payment on all of this. that was 425 million dollars. thootsdz going to the early seismic projectless. it is a big number we are talking b. we don't know what it is yet. >> understandable. >> my last question is a good segue, the what extent is this connecting with other efforts throughout the bay to address sea level rise. every part of the bay has an effort under way on this. how do they come together >> we have been working with the

bay conversation and development commission they have the bay adapt platform. they are working on this and looking putting together a sort of funding strategy and understanding of the cost need from all the counties. the different adaptation projects that different jurisdictions around the bay have. to identify funding need and principleless. and criptoryia huwe do this up and down the bay. we are cord nay with them on that effort. they are for how there is coordination on this stuff. >> thank you very much. >> upon the adaptation projects what other jurisdictions that the withins in hunter's point

ship yard which jurisdiction are they belong to and what it it is matter of a question of process as well in terms how we work the port work with other jurisdictions went san francisco and is that like fluid strategy or you know? um -- >> yea temperature is about who the shore line. has ownership jurisdiction overnight shore line the port's jurisdiction ends at the park. rec/p has yours to the nerth and south. ocii is the jurisdictional authority over the hunter's point, candlestick redevelopment area and other state and federal agencies as well. that have national parks and state parks. it verse depending where you

are. we are trying to coordinate with on either side developing the out line of the study so it tie in higher ground in either area in india basin it is higher and aquatic park fortmason there >> thank you very much. thank you for all the work >> commissioner koppel >> we are paying the process for ocean and bayviews here? i'm picking which strategies are not realistic. we might lands on a hybrid of a couple of them because i think we got 2 things going on. we need to quote, hold it is line and put up something that protects us and over time we don't know what will happen and slowly tell happen we need to be

adaptable. job security for us. this is -- [laughter]. really intense. waters on 3 side this is is a lot of land. still interested it hear what everyone thinks realize the importance of this topic. commissioner moore. i would be curious what form ceqa examine impacts no matter what you do the impacts are phenomenonal if ceqa was the tool for evaluating this project. it will be one impacks and another like sand and don't like the [inaudible] of the city will are [inaudible] strong

leadership wonder as it whether or not [inaudible] you have all looked [inaudible] doing [inaudible] regarding the flooding and rising sea level there we have a machinery [inaudible] [echo] about 3 feet and ultimately configations allow it to go up to 7 feet. or more. 9.8 feet. nominal piece of machinery i wonder if you have looked at that? >> i did in the hear the question would you mind repeating. >> i'm sorry that's hard i'm speaking over the phone. have you looked at the fire

protection measures that have been built for [inaudible] [inaudible] and ose. that is a piece of machinery that helps with flood protection currently it is protection at 3.5 feet sea level rise and adjustable to up to 7 feet by 2090? >> the concept there is a tidal gate. it existed around there are examples from the 70s and such. but more recently in the netherlands they are management canals and would turn the creek inlets to canalless. they would be built as you said to the address up to speven feet of sea level rise. would be sort of turning those

channels in canal and adding new canals on street come open space in mission bay if additional space was needed for storage. that's the concept. it come from the netherlands there. >> interesting it hear you are seeing the ability to model in your scenario would we be able to see the schedule of your meetings and interesting to participate and listen. what the public thinks about the subject matter? >> yes. all the meetings are up on our website, sfport.com we have a number of community meetings walking tours coming up. >> thank you. that is recommend. >> thank you. >> question for you, understand a bit about the timing and what

state and federal guidance the 2040 would we want to have in place measures to protect against the 3-1/2 foot by 2040. seems very soon. and then what the duration of the study and finding the money for impelement happening the measures we do identify that could be supported. could up share the time lines. the sea level rise when we need to be prepared >> this is based on the state level the higher are based on the state level guidance the idea something you built in 2040 need to last you have another generation or 2. and these 2040 and 2090 nshs for planning purposes. the. idea that the stealed go on for 3 more years. complete in the 2025. and then could be part of a congressional allocation in

2026. would then be designed and engineering and could be built starting in the 2030's so it is prescriptional by 2040 that is where we are and that build to that if we chosey higher level then built to that adaptation up to 3-1/2 feet throughout end of the century. that is the state's guidance for what is call aid one and twop00 chance events. it is unpredict annual how fast sea level will rise. you showed the map where the port is divide in the 3 areas could each have a different strategy depenning on the hiderology or one chosen for

each of the 3 across the board. we will make come match. and even within the 3 areas we mix and match. commissioner koppel's point about need to hold the line and also you know adapt and think about you know even in board and long-term future will be important. thank you. this is focussed on eastern and northeastern waterfront. i know we a number of months ago had a presently egg on the western water front and the occurrence and work done on infrastructure and the great highway. does that mean weep don't have to worry

>> >> it is a need to look at northern water front a lot is under federal jurisdiction there are pieces on rec and park department. director city wide policy. we need to look at the water front. of course. commissioner and i think what lilly mention side trough the first look the city did is lead with equity and he starting with the croak that was the beginning this is the next phase there will be more and i think i was appreciative of the series of how the port's waterfront changed overnight years. ecstasy are change and growing and san francisco is a bit oust practice of you in we are not

changing the water front the water front is changing toward us this is know opportunity for you to think about what exciting future we want to envision. we know there will be change and we have an opportunity to make a better water front for the staechl i think on that front i'm excited about the possibilities of going from here. thank you for this hopeful note. i don't see other comments or questions from commissioners again great work. really tremendous. and look forward to the events and you said 2025 and 26 get the money. something to look forward to and keep us busy. thank you very much. >> okay. that concludes deliberation on that matter we and move to items before you call it we will take a 5 million break.

>> welcome become to the sudden front planning commission hearing for thursday november 10, 2022. commissioners we left off on the regular calendar. for items 8b and c8a with drawn for 2021-00 within 922 dp 3150 california street. you will consider the c u za will consider request for variances.

joy know commissioner diamond has a disclosure? . okay. i have several disclosures i need to make before we start this item the first is this my 2 old are children are uhs, patrols graduated in 200 sick and 8, 14 and 16 year ago. i'm a past board member of university high school the years 2005 to 200pate. not involved in negotiations related this property. and third one of the consultants on project working with uhs on entitle am system someone who i have worked with and are inspect capacities on i number of nonprofits in the community. not related this project.

we both sit on a nonprofit board together which is not related this project over the course of that work we have become friends but 91 of these 3 yours will have impact on my ability to assess this project neutraly. thank you. upon thank you. commissioner. >> good afternoon, michael lee from environmental planning. more mary woods gives her presently egg i would like to discuss the recent event for thes environmental veal. appeal was with drawnful today the environmental review officer signed and issued the declaration it is now considered final. the version of the mitt gauted negative declaration was oun upon signed pending the appeal

hear thanksgiving will not be held. i'm here to provide replacement pages for the negative declaration and these include the signature and minor revisions to the document that don't change conclusionless. with these replace am pafrjs you have the final mitigated declaration and proceed 8b and c. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon president tan and members of the commission. marchy woods of planning division the applicant university high school is seek's c u authorization to establish a new school campus. it will be their fifth campus. they operate 4 campuses out of

365 jackson, 3150 washington street, 3185 washington street and 3220 sacramento street. the schools proposal will include the following; demolition of the existing 2 store of commercial office space. and surface parking lot and construction of a new, 3 story over basement 40 foot tall, 46, 300 square foot educational building. the building will contain a mix of class and labs, student center, athletic facilities. foodservice faculty and he maintenance and administrative offices. tht will include officer terrace at the level 3 and the roof top awai ray panels. the concern student population

is 410. the max that the school is prosecute posing is 550. students. the project requires cu authorization for lot size over 10,000. use sides over 4,000 square feet. educational use on second and 30 levels and the modificationast approved cu authorization motion number 19066, to increase the school campus enroll freshman 410 it 550 students. the project will need variances from the rear yard and class 2 parking provision. as part of the with drawl of the appeal, the sponsor agreed to include previously imposed conscience to be reinstated in the concern c u authorization.

of a copy of passed out by the commission secretary for your information. additionally, as part of this hand out, staff is prosecute posing additional conditions to address some of the other issues neighbor brought up. relate the to school events. and also issues raise the by the laurel inn a hotel. the recommendation is it approve the project with conditions and for your consideration proposed conscience which you are included in the motion. this concludes my sum row. i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> you have 5 minutes.

my name is matt i'm san francisco university high school. on behalf of teachers and 450 concern students and board of trustees i know how excited we are to be before you today. as we look to bell a modern belling. our new front do door a major muni corridor and a more accessible location for students from across the city in the region. as you will see from the slide

university campus spanning buildings and facilities. academic belling on jackson, washington and sacramento streets and field like for sports in the presidio. here are photographs. you will see from the slide, we have 450 students at the school. 58% self identify as students of color and provide financial assistance to 20% of studentses from middle schools and 54 zip codes and 32 languages spoken in the homes. we expect them to consider and exceed with the new building. i want to thank our planner mary woods and neighbors that participates in the planning process. >> imagining a school this drew upon the variety and resource of

san francisco and that developed creative, capable and stoeshl responsible leaders. and head of school i believe that the addition of new student in a new building buildos the vision and allows the university to grow and attract the group of students from diverse backgrounds. i turn over to the architect billety. i will available for questions should you have any. thank you for your time today. >> president tanner and commissioners. architects for the project. i wanted birch start i want to mention that last slide referred to the over 20 different meetings we had with neighbors and with the community leaders about this project the last 2 years. so, i think what i like to do now is talk about the project. which we are excited to talk about today.

which is a new zero net energy educational environment that will show how we live and learn in the 21st century the site is a 1950's era shopping center. which has a service parking lot and plan to build the foergz everportion of california the lower image here is a mix of ground floor retail and residential spaces and -- we have been careful to put our new building in the context. next, please. >>you see in the site plan that the building filless the site temperature is an infill urban site. we are at or below the height limit and paid attention it maintaining the views mogul to

the west across the site and we have asked for 3 variances. 2 relate to the rear yard and one bike parking. this is i diagram showing the bell suggest organized. it is a large community room and gym which is a clad on the front by an area of student commons facing the street on the top lavatory and studios in the low are left part of the diagram the fact this building will have provide off the energy on site and net zero energy project this is the view of the street view on california street and you hear more about how we design today from my colleague aaron.

good afternoon aaron thornton may we have 2 minutes to conclude the presentation there. we can ask follow up questions perhaps. commissioners have questions now about the design they want to hear b. i think we were able to look at the drawing its is througho and appreciate that if we have questions after public comment we will ask to you come back. >> thank you >> very good take public comment. member this is is your opportunity to address on this matter. if you notoriety chambers come forward and lineup. if you are calling remote press story 3 or raise your hand via web ex thank you for the

opportunity for comments today. i'm road howard. full name road rigo j. howard i don't usually attend planning meeting this is the first one i have attended. so, i'm here because i thank you matter is important. and because i have an emotional interests and concerns about the proposal. my interests are i'm a member of the neighborhood. i own an apartment in the neighborhood. roughly halfway 2 blocks away from the proposed new project to the old campus the original. i'm parent to father of 2 daughter who is went to uh circumstance. great school they had a wonderful experience. they are well launched in their adult lives now as a result of

experiences they had. part of my concern the major concern i have when i first read about it was that it is a large expansion. of the student body. too large. i have have not read but assume this expansion will of the stewart build by an expansion of the fact faculty and he staff. so i'm supportive of the school. and support would support some increase. everyone who spoke with my dwaurts about this get their reactions. what do you think of an expansion this large. they shared my concerns. i think it it is just too much 140 students more students some additional number of faculty and

staff. and it is a small neighborhood. small streets. residential. this it is a large increase and the number of people that will be in the neighborhood passing through the neighborhood. transportation. cars and i realize this is does put a building on california street. that's favorable but legal be a lot of traffic the students at the new kauchls are not at the new campus and going up and down the hill to the existing buildings of the campus. i wonder how the neighborhood is going to accommodate this increase. so, i would ask the commission to consider this very carefully and think hard about what is being done to mittedigate the impact of the expansion on the neighborhood on a very sensitive

neighborhood a small neighborhood. perhaps place conditions on the increase. may be a phased increase in the number of students see how it plays out over time >> that is your time. >> sir you did not hear me that's your time. thank you very much for your consideration. >> good afternoon i'm steve mitchell my wife and i own a victorian at 3231 sacramento street unfortunately is right behind the proposed project at 3150 california. our building consists of 7 psychotherapy offices one by my

wife. the 6, 4 of the 6 are facing california street and are approximately 75 feet away from what could be a demolition construction site. it is in the surprisingly the 4 attentives said tell be impossible to cubing therapy sessions once the project gets under way. the past year, uhs board members, architects, the previous head of school and representatives from community equity builder toured our belling 4 times. they have taken pictures inside and outside. they taken measure amless. i given the lease terms of the 4 affected offices. they told me uhsments to be a good neighbor but all i received from the good neighbor thus for is a nasty letter from their attorney telling mow to mow to

go away. my wife and i are in our 60 and fighting city hall is in the per of our bucket list neither collateral damage with arms race of high schools. my wife practiced in our building since 1998. we oppose the cu authorization not just because tell put us out of busy but the structure is wildly out of character. with anything in the neighborhood and change the character of that neighborhood forever. thank you. good afternoon i'm ted bartlett a prud alump night of university high school. amazing how fast time flown by. there were 90 kids in our class

and had our 35th reunion this spring and 60 came. university high school is an important part of my life. i have a senior in high school there now and she loves temperature university high school is a great member of the san francisco community. supportive as the head of school expressed diverse and financial aid and develops educates contributing members of our community. i'm in favor of this project. of the c u is appropriate. for what is now a pet food store and parking lot in a busy street with an electric bus and you will hear from others members of our community i think there is an issue with not an issue financing is approved and we are headed recession it would be person and valuable time to build this. it is good for san francisco.

it is good for the community and i understand this the neighbors occurrence. but this is a very vibrant world class city and appropriate use of urban site. thank you very much. thanks to the commissioner for grour time i'm roger raised my 3 kids in the city all attends schools in the city. the school's care and inquiry and its commune the culture is amazing. it has been an amazing experience. i think the school around for 50 years.

but in the next 50 years this school needs to be up grid exclude need to expand to enable and accommodate more kids who want that educational responsible. the city has grown. [inaudible] have to reach out further. that is the commitment from uhs. in terms of facilities the gym was small an old autogarage and you know the ceiling is. it was fine for schools in 77s this is the 2020's this will be around for another 50 years. i'm in support. great project. the site you go by you know the site is delapidated it is great accomplice for the school and the community. thank you.

clayton i graduated from university high school in 200 now my 7's year on the board and chair of buildings and grounds. i came in 7 years ago as a new board member and worked with 100 plus board members now. working toward today and hopefully summer is coming the kruck project i'm here to say how much commune input go in. there is involvement from parents. and getting to the point you build this is testament to a lot of strong interests in getting this done. thank you. >> thank you very much for your time i have been a neighbor

trustee, parent, community member for 20 years i'm holly i live in the neighborhood. y witnessed the careful oversight of the school and care manages the local san francisco neighborhood relationships. i'm excite when a community is making a commitment examine this is i significant commitment and victim in the future. a commitment to widen the space in the city to learn and grow. if sillities designed teach 21 century math and science it is called san francisco university high school understands the issues specific it our city. i urge the planning commission to approve the c u application come invest in san francisco's future. thank you. no other members in the chambers, wish to speak -- we will go to remote callers. when you hear your line is

unmuted that is your indication to speak. good afternoon rolled to the california street by university high school i'm kate i live at 3118 washington. a few doors down from uhs. there are 2 buildingos my block. i oppose increase in enrollment this is due to the already traffic and parking conscience caused by families. our street is impacted by the traffic by drop off's and pick up us. it is impossible in the afternoon and mornings bring a steady stream of cars our driveway are also block in the the afternoon sometimes triple parked. i often go knock on the window of one vehicle to ask them to move after they ignore my honk third degree is unsafe for me.

parents care givers are rude in response in questions to move cars in the morning they use my driveway as white zones 8 cars stop in the front of my house to allow students to get out. white zone in the school was open and unused. parking has been impacted last week 2 employees parked. and i told [inaudible] a student parkod our block and [inaudible] [reading very fast]. the increased number. students among the building that make up their campus the enroll am this is hard to believe given they can't manage the enroll am impact. we have not heard how they will mitigate the increase.

not engaged us at all. no direct engage am. require uhs aadditional parking before a new building and postpone the decision on enroll am increase until cocreates a plan with effective neighbors mitigate impockets on traffic and parking. thank you for listening. jury room helo this william. i sent a letter to the commission yesterday. raising issues we have the primary one i wanted talk about are the temp refer construction impacts the hotel guests. i state instead letter, the

significant amount guesters medical patients getting to treatment. kaiser and seeking quiet time under going the treatment. one other i wanted mention is this in the hotel world, quiet time is considered before 10 a.m. our request limiting we expect we get complaints we understand this given the inevitable construction noise. . i know this a client and the sponsor did meet this morning and that may be part of the conscience perhaps that mary referenced. some were perhaps limiting some of the hours and the noiseiest per of the construction during those periods and also perhaps

during the morning hours trying to dot -- deconstruction of noisy activities away from the [inaudible]. we appreciate any conscience help minimize the construction impactless. thank you very much. >> hello. president tan and the planning commission this is alec perkins i'm a neighbor of usf high school ape pavenlt of the school and an owner of a commercial building close to the site. thank you for taking the time to listen to community input. i want to speak today as a parent, and a neighbor. for the majority of the last 30 years i lived within 3 blocks of the school and the building site until i sought impact the school

had on the community over 30 year period. i witnessed how considerate the school has been the last many decades i found that the stounts to be kind and respectful and the community remarkable it is part of the reason we decided to couple years ago to send our kids there. the cool goes out of the way to treat neighbors well. given the nature of the site and the neighborhood it is woven throughout a residential neighborhood and has been for decades. i think the administration -- never without incident but has been aware of the impacts on the neighborhood and attempting to be considerate. now this we have children at the school i seen this respect for

the neighbors. kids are good about moving quiet 3 throughout residential streets. they are 99 no construction problems. i see sometimes there is a car or 2. but polite. store ordinance and residents and i see this as a positive for the neighborhood. i would like to say being a neighbor and parent i wanted speak as a former teacher in the district for several years a worked at that you recallgood marshall high school and an organization work to improve education for low income families and aware that san francisco is in need of expanded high quality educational opportunities for children. university providing a critical. keeping diverse family in san

francisco. expanding the campus to me is an important endeavour and incoming enroll ams are important and including expanding for diverse students and families. and it it is creating i think a world class center. stem learning area. place for team work i think all of us love the city. lastly i want to say i'm excited about the space can be. >> that is your time. >> okay thank you very much. appreciate it. >> last call for public comment. in the chambers. seeing no questions to speak.

when you hear your line is unmuted begin speaking. okay we'll go to the next caller. i'm alexander a senior at uhs i was leading a tour and the last stop on the floor is blue [inaudible] where we talk about why we chose our high school. in front. a nervous eighth grader i was struggling to think of i reason why i had chosen uhs. electric community and athletic excellence drought me there more than other high schools. uhs taught mow to be an opportunity. citizen and friend.

vital in my [inaudible] as a person. i pursue topic i'm interested in a behavioral economic inspect saturdays or semester project in dhiena the educational resources i have rival boost best in the country. the california campus will make this education and resources available and accessible to more students not only school will let in more and at this time be accessible to the city not just kids [inaudible]. i get excite when i had think about the opportunity the new campus will open you will etch thank you for your consideration. i have a third person raising their hand i can't mute them. kate. using web exi can't unmute you. go back to the first caller.

>> hi. them is tom. i'm parent of uhs ninth grader. i'm a professor in architectial history and theory at stan ford and form are national board mfbt break through collaborative am i want to thank the commission for taking time to before this exciting project. exitmented to speak as an architectural historian and form are board member this is a unique opportunity for san francisco to benefit from upon wonderful institution moving closer to the california street corridor. the vol uchlt building matches the volume of buildings long this corridor especially navarpo inn and the jewish commune center. it draws the 41 doofrt high

school to the california street corridor and moves cars and individuals out of the neighborhood benefitting near by neighbors. also by being near a main transportation corridor served boy buses and other forms of public transportation. it allows students that come to university high school every summer with the break through collaborative. which benefits high achieving, under served children and has a nationally recognized teach upper training program. and this program began at university high school is now nationwide in 44 cities. and this is the type of thing that weepment to not in our city. and moving again the front door of the high school closer to the california street corridor will

allow all economic background to access the school during of the year and summer twhiem this program for our high achieving under served children is function at uhs in the sum upper. thank you for your time. i'm jack, i'm a senior at university high school. and university is really home for middle east and many others. the problem is it is not big enough. when i'm in the classroom and doing my home work and get knocks on the door from urgs doing the same it is hard for me i appreciate a bigger

[inaudible] another thing the [inaudible] at university high school we have a maker's lab on the campus. where we have access to laze are, and 3-d printers. [inaudible] at the new california campus it will have more maker space that will allow all 400 or more of the upon students to get involved with. in it [inaudible]. so over all i think the california addition would be great for the schooling and for the surrounding environment. thank you for your consideration. >> hello i'm julia. i'm a concern journal at san francisco university high school. a place i learn about myself and [inaudible] i found an interest

allowed me to serve in robotic's club it is sxhaul does not have room for collaboration it is e essential in building robot. [echo]. the new location on california street, every day in the morning it is a hasz total get to school. i take public transportation and in the i bus this leaves me near uh circumstance the new buildings valuable for people like me who take public transportation it will be near the number one bus. i will arrive on time and not get a tardy. because was new building close to the bus stopful i'm not the only person when takes public transportation. otherers have been impacted by

the suspension of the number 3 jackson bus this new building location is good for future uhs students thank you for listening and your consideration. >> i'm jordan chow i'm a currently junior attending university high school. i like to thank planning for allowing the public it express thought and feelings. i want to tuck about why this solid be a big success. uhs brought me variety of tunes supportive teachers [inaudible] and friendships made [inaudible]. uhs has been grit to me exit appreciate it. now uhs is an amazing school it can be better. the low are campus is the old school [inaudible] now having class dloun with no windows. it it is still [inaudible]. the future uhs the new modern

classrooms the be a better work environment. the concern gym is great but can only hold so many people. it is hard to accommodate everyone. i play basketball and share the half court with other teachless. were with the new building tell help with academics and athletics. the future of uhs [inaudible] great for [inaudible] and will the school's future is investing in the 40 of the city. the new building would be wise and urge you to consider it. thank you. try to unmute again. >> i did already speak my hand did in the go down.

thank you. why thank you. i'm jerry ken doe a senior at university high school. i have been luck tow be a part of the communal i'm on the basketball team and we had 55 boys try out for basketball in the small gym we have. we are shoulder to shoulder and execute drills. the plans for the new building include i new gym with 2 practice courts and bloech everies instead of kids sitting on the ground. [inaudible] the school size would increase [inaudible] and kid would impact the social opportunity. i know we are located in the

neighborhood of [inaudible] but this building could have a huge impact. a lot of diversity and i think having a new building on california that neighborhoods will enhance the image presentlying inclusive scoot drawing from different areas. i think this building will be an incredible resource. thank you for your time. thank you. last call for public comment. again you need to press story 3 or raise your hand. seeing no requests to speak. public comment is closed. and this merit is before you. and the zoning add administrator. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond.

>> thank you to all the speakers. i do have desire to spend time stot proposed conditions on the basket page handed out. before we do that, there are issues raise third degree i would like to hear more on. i wonder the head of school. might come forward and talk about the connection between the increase in enrollment and the ability to provide expanded financial aid to keep tuition costs under control and pay teacher salaries within community distance of the school? >> thank you. you know one of the main motivations for building the now build suggest it increase the number of students. 20% of city councils receive financial assist analysis. with the current for you 50

increase allowed by planning due to the covid emergency declaration 92 students received asuftance with the increase to 550 students they anticipate an increase in financial assistance to 1 upon 12 students at the concern levels the dwent students benefit from the enroll. increase proposed and hire additional teachers 21 teach and ares 4 administrators. we are wong with the board of trustees on a long range financial model folk ulgsed on financial sustain ability this building can help us achieve the financial goals one is to pay our teachers a strong living wage to afford to live in san francisco and teach in san francisco. weave have an extraordinary faculty the foundations of the school since it was foundd and

you heard from students and how much they value relationships with teachers and students and for mow this is the most personal things is to support our faculty so they dot great w they do with students you heard about. >> thank you. and commissioners my experience with having been on 2 school boards one in another city and this one is that will i think i want to you correct me if i'm long. 80 to 90% from tuition and creates the opportunity to increase ref now and the large are source is teach are salaries the same amount. and that while neighbors may be concerned the increase this enroll am has impact and it does and make sure we are finaling ways to mitigate that it allows to long-term

financial stability. my 2 commissioner who went there were teachers in break through program and one of them went on to teaching for america in the south bronx. and i was glad the speaker came on. to talk about t. i think it is one of the most incredible aspects and you can talk about it as head of school in terms of what this expansion the impacts of this expansion on your ability to continue to provide the break through experience both for promising young students from all parts of the

city as well as the ability for your students to be teachers in the program >> so the break through clan tit found in the 1978 and the school in 1975 it was acorn upper stone of the founding the program is thriving. today we have 22uh circumstance students work the after school program every wednesday and taking a teach are training course taught by break through collaborative teachers. it it is a dynamic summer program. tom talked about the futures and unique and i worked with educational access programs through my career in education. how focussed on supports future teachers there are college student who is teach in the summer program all around the country row and each teach are has an instructional coach who is not guilty class to give them feed becomes so they get better and improve that is founz agszal

to the experience and the they form close connections with the students it it is important in sense of community and vibrant and strongism observed the program first person this summer e. the sense of community is strong. impact on the students and teach fanaticulty is extraordinary. the program service a need for our school. talk about the city council in thes break through program. >> they, amazing studentses. drawn from all across the city. and they you know one thing sumy we celebrated city councils and they gave testimony for what the program meant to them it was a peer group who were excited about learning and school and working with teachers who were xoitd and the sense.

communal established in the summer program of something many have not upon responsiblesed before p. might continue as well. . and on top of being he were throughout sum upper. another comment made about the building being out of character with the neighborhood. i disagree with that. it is 2 buildings down from the jcc on california and presidio and kiddie corner forecast fire department fun is isn't inproperty for expansion of a school. where i have occurrence are about how to mitigate the impact of not necessarily in ceqa context in a neighbor to neighbor context of the construction, operation of the school on the neighbors. i --ment to start oust with the concerns service a purpose and

we want to make sure that building a school does in the create problems for lure everlaurel in. i believe the 2 conscience drafted here makes sense to me. but i would like ton whether or not those 2 conscience have been run by the flaurl and if they are accepting of them. i don't know if it is possible to bring the prosecute councilet on the phone and if uhs is talk whether they discussed the language the conditions. i'm participating virtual and i don't have the hand out you are referring to would you read this in the record so i can hear what it is? thank you. >> yea we have 2 conscience. mrs. wodz can we in addition to

share with commissioner moore make sure she gets the conscience and the both sides television by e mail. i will upon send it now. >> thank you. i don't know if we can possible to get him become on the phone? you need to raise his hand i don't know his number. if he is available. >> there he is. briefly let me read them so commissioner more can catch up. i will not read the entirety the first is around prescriptional coordination. that prior the start of the project operation they mote with the laurel inn impelement agsz of the drop off and pick up plan and our case materialless and also during operation that the school and inn meet once a year to resolve.

and the second condition around construction hours and noise the construction contractor limit hours of operation 8 to 5 monday-friday and then 9-5 on saturdays and no construction on sunday. with exceptions for time sensitive construction activities. i think du want it hear from the sponsor? laurel inn >> may be ask if we has seen the continues. i have not seen the conditions this it is a process it is my client met with the sponsor this morning and i got a debrief and it was the issues i sent me about the annual meeting. and they are fine with sdmachl the construction hours are what in my letter.

we agree with that. 8 a.m. to might have machine thereof friday no construction on sunday. is that consistent. i think that is yea. from my letter. yes. >> thank you. okay. project sponsor want to comment on whether or not they can live with these conditions. >> certainly. good afternoon president tan and commissioners i'm joel russ owner's representative kwshging on behalf of university high school. and commissioner diamond, yes we met with the laurel inn pursuant to receipt of the letter. and felt we did dpraesz item 1, which is we offered to change the language and i can see that

the new motion does state a date certain which is once a year schedule a meeting for a discussion of how the drop off and pick up events are happening. and we decided should be a minimum of once a year and i noticed here that language which we offered up is not perfect yet we may want to amend it this is we are not just simple low discussing drop off and pick up butt operational behavioral of the building. we will have an opportunity to speak about whether kids, children, students loitering in the street or conversation is bother some or how our out door space is functioning. we will expand it larger should be operations of the building.

i don't want to address the request of laurel for the delay in construction starts from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and you know we are not unsympathetic to the request and had a very good and detailed conversation did not come to terms with what the laurel would prefer and when we believe uhs and construction team need to do. we are familiar with this. we heard it before from other neighbors and as a result of before i spent time on this subject and other projects and the gent cysts 7 a.m. start did not just happen. and this is a union project. i don't know whether 100% but

darn close. and the unions are very specific in what their needs are. these workers of often come from great distance. they do their best to car pool. and one reasons why they need to be on site at 7 a.m. they hop in car at 4 and 5 in the morning and travel. they must avoid rush hour. they should not jamming up our streets at sick in the morning and getting ready for work at 8 a.m. they like to get home to families after a long commute they leave at 3 or 4 in the afternoon. miss rush hour traffic the construction workys need to work with daylight. and especially this is a very big issue. during this time of the year. gets bark early. so as a result we have 7 a.m. start. so when we offered up to the

laurel this morning what we would like the land today. which it is that we recognize that the demolition period and the shoring period where we have a drill rig notoriety laurel inn loud and noise and he disruptive. and so when we offer to do is during the demolition to delay the heavy construction which would be the crunching of the wood frame and the jackhammering of the concrete to start after 8 a.m. the demolition contractor may mobilize but in the start until after 8 a.m. and similarly, we believe that the shoring rig a piece of equip will be drilling holeless. along laurel and we will not have that operating during that period. we think that the restriction of

an 8 a.m. start once the building walls are up is highly restrictive and not necessary because we have people put nothing will tile and dry wall and studs that is happening in the vol uchlt building. with that, we would like to work with laurel on a sensible delay in construction start. during the heavy duty period where we have demolition and shoring. our problem is if you want us to adopt today we need language for the condition today. and fiunderstand you correct low the first is easy. we would add an operation of the school. operation of building the end number one. number 2, you 3 out a bunch concepts and i don't know if an easy way to modify this is simple low to say, instead of

saying the gij of the sentence says construction hours should be limited to 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. that we modify this by put in the phrase during dem demolition and shoring there is this piece and the part i heard him around when the walls are up. what point how do we describe that and to upon i think what i visualize is when there is interior work happening the walls are up the noise will be less disruptive. how do we put this in language enforceable. is there no work happening in the exterior at this pin. >> it is large. during excavation period i suggest that we should the nobe notoriety laurel in network

during the 7 it 8 a.m. period. use the eastern half of the site and you know you know while you in nuanced details on every project is they all have match slab construction has to be pour in the one day. cot cree pouring is excluded. i do think. one thing i caution i'm not comfortable with we doll building over here and not here at 8 a.m. follow it is 8 a.m. it it is 8 a.m. the entire site. . 8 amwhen activity is beginning. clear this time is for the entire site not one portion of the site or the other. exit agree with you commissioner diamond have more discussion and staff can think of things i want to i think what we have is an all consistent construction

schedule for the length of the progress is exceptions of time sensitive activities. after the walls are up under them condition work 8 and end at 5 >> that is how i read it and i'm open i heart argument and strikes me could be less restrictive i don't know if we want to spend the time as a commission trying to draft this now. >> not a great idea. >> i'm worried we'll get wrong and laurel inn is not here that is a problem. let me think and get to the next. we decide how to proceed which it is the condition addressing school events. so my experience is that it is evenings and weekends. with activities at the school that can cause the greatest can be the greatest source of conflict between a school and

neighbors. staff drafted a proposed condition here but it it is missing like the critical hours and the number of events. it is the structure of the condition oppose to the substance of the condition. i don't know if the project experience has review third degree condition and has language that wants to respond ton this? i will say, something around this seeps good to me. in order to reduce conflict. as the project and the school operates. but more than that, i feel like we need to may have been clear with the rules are out front it is clearer to the neighbors and the school what hours, what days. what times. what frequency. and it is clear to the planning department. so if there is vague language andure coming back and say thering is a problem we don't know how to enforce this.

that statute place you should be exacting about what restrictions you can live with and operate as a school and the neighbors feel makes live tolerable for them >> thank you. tara sullivan here with the project teach will as background the project received a c u authorization in 1993. the initial plan unit develop the for the upper campuses. a part of that motion the planning commission approve thered it is a done approval that eked down throughout approvals for the sdoo helpful deals. with number of upon events questions of law fies as an event and what time they can occur. concern motion has language carrying that condition in the currently motion. however, we understand we have been working with neighbors they like to be more specific in the

currently motion. the finalings you received today are 2 that conflict. one on the first taij page number 2 we like to have struck we are willing to work on the 1 on the back akin upon to what you prefer with modifications. where amenable to the school day 8 to 6 prior was 8 to 5. understand an efblts is 50 or more persons that is continuing from 1993. not the cap is 24 per year. we would like to talking with it is school arrangements there are 3 per month. so this would be about 30 per school year plus additional 3 for the summer. 36 per year. of with the caveat that no more thap 24 held at the california campus not to say there will be 24 events there but no more than the original 24 to accommodate

our neighbor the agreement we came to with them. we would like 36 events this qualify 50 or more persons and would be no more than 24 at the california campus and add the line. >> can i stop you there. 36 feet 24 or 36 plus 24. not plus the 36. >> i'm clear. 36 of which 24 would 've could be at the california campus there will nod be anything close to 24 at the california campus the other thing include this it is come up. it is from the condition 2, all athletic related games and practices associated with sf high school are esq. cluded. they have practices that start at 4:30 and german past 6 o'clock we like those games to be excluded from the qualifying definition of an event. il allow michael here to speak

more. we would prefer not to have a distinct between weekday, day and weekday night and weekend day and weekend night there is a cap of 5 events on the weekends. period. 4 bucket system confusing. school providing an annual report we submitted 1 this year. question for you the front page does not say anything about a lim of 5 weekend events.

if this exists in the prior motion it was not carried forward clearly and this would need to be mou dealt with. commissioner tanner. we have not done this since i have been on the commission and don't know we are all amenable can we send them out in the hall to work on the language of the conscience who i we take up the next matter and they come up with language of the conscience so we don't have to spend all this time trying to make sure we have done this >> we have a few others who want to speak and i have questions we will see where we get i save i don't want to speak it is word continuance but we may have changes instead of today and come back. we are making progress but i would be i would not put my boat us being able to conclude them

in the way we feel comfortable am you know reserve moiz to be proven wrong. commissioner diamond. >> yes, thank you. commissioner moore and imperial. i wanted thank everybody who spoke. dollar a compelling narrative and thank you commissioner diamond for weigh nothing as a former parent. and a lot of personal insight in the conversation. i would like to ask architect to gift commission an over vow for the requirement of 3 variances. if you want to e luism nay have you the slides.

the slide we are asking for 3 variances. swn for the rear yard. the elevation of the rear yard relative to the street. our rear yard is boost second floor. we think this is appropriate. >> 49 upon foot projection not guilty rear yard that performs a couple activities one allows for class roof space. you see that bump out in the middle. we don't think this impactless the niche its is the middle of the site. we respected the rear yard. also what is does for us is allows for a courtyard in the middle where it is says subject and that alus to you get light

and air in the middle of the building. that was the rear yard exception. the bicycle exception had to do with our loading through the process we added an additional parking area. and an additional ramp. and by the rules of dpw they did not want bike parking in the space to facilitate loading. moved the 2 other bike parking space are moved to other yaroslavsky of the campus weville bicycle parking just not on california street. >> you you confirm the building that will being demolished does in the provide the rear yard. thereupon is no additional impact onment absense of the. roar yard >> that is correct existing building does in the have a rear yard and the roariard we are proposing is on the same level

as the existing buildings roof. should be no impact or change to neighboring buildings. you are provoire diring a rear terrace that is light and sun coming from the south and to the rear yard you tell mote buildings facing washington street. >> this is correct we reduced the impact the year wrooer rear your and i glass partition from 6 to 10 feet they can have sound. would you be able to previously comment on the [inaudible] sequence. i had a call the other day asking the entrance as shown would be able to access given the fact the down sloping to get

in the school require most likely a gate or a fence or something. we had a stair tower to the right 3150 the entrance that would have a swing gate that is open during the day. being be closed at night. and then you go down in a space that ramps down sliding glazing on this space facing california street that your can be secured at night. in the future under circumstances in the currently existing anticipating that alled be an open friendly pedestrian oriented entry. it is close and privatized the entrance that it is difficult for schools. >> i happening that is correct. can be open so during the day when traffic is moving throughout space when people and

kids are moving it is open and can be closed at night but a transparency throughout building. ip found it interesting to hear pirnl and neighbors upon comment about a different experience of when student load and unloading monies to the neighborhood. there were people who were comis chaos and disruptive. and there were others spoke to the amount of upon sensitivity that is brought well organized departure of students from school. living close to cathedral hill school for boys here on knob hip having seen the school and on street loading and pick up as you are doing on california street. i found the organization of howard exceptional. and i never saw any conflicts or

problems in situation you have california and jones is busy there. was not an issue department on the attitude of who is doing it and the participation of parents really understanding the potential the arriving of conflict. i'm in support of what you are suggesting and there is an added [inaudible] per of our conditions i would be in support. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner imperial. >> thank you. i want to feel add in terms of many of the callers about the pick xup drop off. which all resonate with american moore's opinion in terms of when the plan is and since the plan is reasonable for middle east. the same time, i do want sf

talking about transportation early early today. and really i would like to encourage the school to talk to the parents for the parents to have kids take the transportation. the school has a good drop off size in terms of the unit and access to muni. that is really that is one good thing about the school. so if the parents will could be encouraged for their children to take them that would also you know load off the occurrence of neighbors. in terms of the what upon commissioner diamond and this is like my suggestion as well, because in terms of conditions in terms of construction hours and noise and condition on addressing school events. perhaps we can say that add that the project sponsor work with

the planning department in #ing out language if they could not find the right language today. i money we have done this before, commissioner diamond that would be my suggestion if -- they step aside and still account not figure out the language that is something we can include. >> that would be find with mow i'd like to see it brought back as information item i like to see where they land it is fine if staff works with the parties you know with the neighbors and the school in order to address these issues and come up language they can agree on if staff is amenable. i would like to have it see where they land expect brought back to us not to adopt but information item >> thank you. >> commissioner koppel and braun. >> yes. definitely in support of the project today i appreciate the

net zero energy design. i don't think people realize how rare or how big a feat that is. well is not a handful of building in this city near net zero energy. approximate that is our assistant district attorney's climate goals to encourage this construction. these buildings don't have to connect to the grid. i think in is a far greater use than the park lot with retail a fan of this being in the location. also.ed to address the hours of construction. i rare low remember a time where we governored or dictated when construction could or could not happen that not typically when we have done. we had a case like ape mont ago where the neighboring

buildingmented neighboring kruck hours. some time liaison which typically and mitigate really happening and getting the tw sides at odds with each other in general and -- in support.

last time it was a similar topic and evens and when hosted space to other groups. and i don't see tht same since uhs will host uh circumstance events so i know that the extinguishing's in the draft language here so i think something needs to be landed ono brought back. but other than that i'm still very supportive what combinations have been agreed upon and in support of moving it forward today. why commissioner. commissioner braun. >> talk with construction so much in the materials we received there was a statement that the construction start is targeted for june of 23

depending what happens today the construction period was 20 month and this was with the 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. time line previously. approximately 20 months and trying to 23 the numbers shift. where is this at. we are deserving we are working. ful and we are i think we are lined up to get permit in time to break ground we get approval from planning. we'll be able to maintain that spring start. >> okay. and i appreciate that we received a letter from a concern

tenant of the shopping center and i'm curious to the existing center curious to find out what is the communication with the tenants of center regarding when they need to vacate and the certainty they have in terms of that process. now. >> sure. i'm michael from san francisco university high school. there are two tenants in addition to uhs offices one a hearing center and one is pet food express the tenant you sent the letter i was talking with since may was the first, conversation we had. . they are lease xoirs this january. of 2013 and we coordinated the loses to expire planning to have the construction start. so i have shared that with her in may we offerd that is and go

to april 30. and so we have we will do that and -- remember pet food express, we sent them notification last spring. i have been working with the owner and they are aware april 30 is the end date for them. we have been talk with them and sending notifications. so feel like we have been responding. >> okay want to make sure well is clarity on that. i thank you is it and soy want to acknowledge tht confusion and issues coming up with the piece of paper i written all over. you know it is result of the a process in which the sponsor is trying to satisfy more of the

concerns of the neighbors. it seems like the last minute nature had me concerned about my ability to understand what exact low we are voting on especially given the changes involved changes to the 1993 motion and substitution with new language so -- i'm -- yea. let's see where we get with this or clear i don't know how we can address this while moving the project forward. in general i'm in favor. >> thank you commissioner braun. you want to weigh in but make sure you can respond or we in. >>s sure. thank you very much. am just to touch on a few the bike parking variance. the code ask that the public bike park within a handled feet of the main entrance that is a challenge with the loading zones

and compossiblies in the street and street trees. i'm supportive of that the planning code foresees that sometimes and bake in in lieu fee to make sure more bike racks put inform regarding the rear yard, it is important to note that as mention third degree is a lateraly sloping lot and the total slope is 12 feet. it is a story. and in this zoning district the rear yard is required at second story and above. for a large portion of the property on the slope it is second story seems like the first story. and the block slopes up toward sacramento street. that street and the properties are at a higher elevation that further reduces the height. in the rear. and -- lastly, the required finalings for a variance allows

you to consider exceptional circumstanceings for the intended use. schools are a use that have requirements and needs. so with all of that i mean supportive of the variances for both of those. i do think that the officer in the rear as proposed has bibbing in the setbacks with land scaping condition those to make sure they are maintained. and i wanted ask the architect, youure propotion the glass railing to the east where it is close the residential had other wall heights and the glasserating adds to that and if there it is considered to the the glass railing on all 3 sides or just proposed to the east because of the residential

buildings. >> sure if we get the slide, please. a solid wall up to 7 feet when youor rear yard that is 7 feet that was a rum of some modifications discussing with the niches the concern for sound and on the east facade the glazed wall from 7 to 12 feet this alines with the belling allowing light in the east side. so, am dollar were light occurrences we discussed and acoustic concerns. >> next. 2 other notes then for reference, dbi regulates hours of construction the standard is 7 to 8 p.m. projectless can get special permissions to go different

hours than that monday-friday to give the frame of reference what you would be permitted do if no conditions are required for this and then if the commission does. to adopt conscience for upon events it is important if they are conditions they would need to be adopted as objectives detailed conditions, if we adopt a condition this asked them to go and then the neighbors and agree. they might not ever agree. we don't know if than i will. sends them in the hall and don't agree tell fall on the commission to determine what the details of the conditions need to be. caution on a condition that was too loose and did not land on number of events. we would need in terms to make

sure they are enforceable they are objection. joo thank you. i will start with the issues on the table and add another issue that commissioner imperial touched on. i would say for my preferences i prefer is send this continue a short time 2 weeks get it doesn't in december. squeeze it on we don't need a presentation just a report with the operational coordination which is condition one. incorporateed congress conscience conscience of approval or if tell be until a point in the construction period language when this is how to oyst points is 7-tie i support

the setbacks and i am find with the conditions events proposed the 36 with 24 at the california campus and it seems this does do this in combike weekend and evening events in one instead of a category at different times with exception of some events until 10. . 30 also a change from the previous condition where all events terminated by 10:30. there is refinement to the condition. it got longer from the 932d the one we have today. i would being comfortable if we got this all in writing everybody knew what was happen and when we are approving the other issue around transportation is students

getting to and from the scoop. i'm supportist increase in the number. students but concerned we will have more driving or getting to the school boy vehicle instead of walking, biking or transit. i believe in the report upon i'm sorry i have so many documents open i have been trying to search if there is a problem with queueing we have mitigation monitor or authority to say there is a problem now dot other things. wander can we have a proactive approach that you should be trying to have more walking and biking. if we increasing students this is we have a mode share we are seeking as part of this increase they are not allowed get dropped off boy one vehicle. >> i'm concerned increasing enrollment and more vehicle

trips. monitoring those types of those regulations. once adopted the code says any conditions bottom the weight of code. and the interception and enforcement falls to the za. we do want top make sure if you are adopting conditions they are objective it can be challenging to determine if machine tried, chief a principle or goal. so -- if you were concerned about that, to a manner you felt you could land on numbers. that's you want to be if possible. i don't know if this is a possibility for this topic at this level. this is something you have to consider further. in tefrms possibility of doing that and going forward.

i think as much detail as possible it it is an actual condition is more helpful. >> yea what i look at in my packet this is in the page 145 i so it saying that the following operational improvements implemented if well not sufficient. not manage loading operations well you do these things. member says they are not doing it well. yea they are not, dot other things. are staff how are we managing

this. >> because this is specific low an leadership of the environmental document our environmental staff could speak to these. >> who would like to take that? a if isn't i mitigation measure if the commission adopts it it becomes a condition of approval. at enforcement is complaint based. we don't have resources to monitor every project. so -- if acology complaint come in we look into it. you need to implement improvement measure.

thank you very much. >> i want to speak on 2 items the first about the pick xup drop off. mitigated negative mmrp apply, they are incorporated in the motion the school has a robust pick up and drop off program i can let the official it is speak but had one in place for many years. they analyze what is going on on campuses for pick up and drop off they are aware and work with neighbors you heard the speem speak today. that combined with mmrp measures we think is sufficient to be take care of future issues. we have agreed to meet with the laurel inn annually in contact

with other neighbors on the campus and agreed to dot same there is ample measures in place to ensure the school is doing the right thing >> my concern is in the pick up and drop off is a challenge it seep seems thorough it is thifting the load share if you have other students i prefer to have a few coming by car because that it is having, net zero building you got people drivewaying and congest 1 the impacts that are not related the pick up and drop off but the mode the students use to get to school. 50% live in walk and biking distance i would like to see walking and bike instead of vehicle trips. >> we do there are a few students that use bikes and

scooters and things like that we have plans where we encourage families to commute. provide information so than i are commuting. we don't allow students to drive. well is anning exception if than i find off street parking we'll have one city council that is doing that. we have robust a lot education with pirnlts and feel that moving upon down to with the increased number of students move to california street will minimize. we are encouraging started a shuttle this year to embarcadero. so this students and faculty and he staff take mass transit that runs 3 times in the morning and afternoon. we are working with our community and families to. i ride my bicycle to work. so i think there is education side and encourage.

. i will stop this line of questioning thank you for answering i will just let my case for of this idea of being proactive rest. i would be supportive of a motion that is for continuance. with very specific items i don't want to open a can of worms everything is relit gifted a lot of work to work with neighbors and stake holders to get to agreements we are almost there i don't want this to be seen we want toment to relitigate the other asspekts of the project. why commissioner tanner. indulge mow we believe the language is on the piece of paper. if you don't mind going to the over head we think we would not like to have a continuance. if i could have the over head.

the first go in as is. regarding monitoring on california street at events. second condition, struck. the third condition termination of evening events 10. . 30. the fourth buss and it is bus not idling in front of the school. on the back, the operation condition agreed to. with the laurel inn like that to be incorporating meeting with them witness a year to discuss the discussion and operation of school and students. construction hours if like it to be use of manageal equip during shoring, demolition not story before 8 a.m. all other at 7 a.m.

that would allow the laurel inn not to have the heavy equipment and noise and would allow project to turndz normal buildings construction hours and meet the 20 month schedule the project will be done the neighbors happy no more construction. third is this long one. everything stay the same. until we get down to this line. special weekend and evening events for all 5 campuses 50 importance open houses, back to sxool night et cetera not more than 3 per calendar machining on average. not to exceed 36 per year. with no more then and there 24 at the california campus. in addition. all athletic related practice and or games teams are exempt.

the rental or nonschool related use presented at the california campus. . and the per we struck out is regarding woad like to strike the specifics regarding everything ending at 10. . 30 we would like to strike the specifics related to daytime, weekday and weekday, weekday, notice weekend days and nights. like to strike that the bucket understanding this evening event is anything over 50 importance. this has to end by 10. . 30. 3 per month. 36 per year no morthan 24 at california >> thank you very much. i think this it is messy this is my 2 cents prefer to be more buttoned up before we approve it. i don't get to make motions i

give it to commissioner koppel. >> with all of the facts stated i want to make a motion to approve. >> commissioner diamond. >> i would -- i would second this but with an exception on the operation for lauren in network earlier on in the hearing mr. ruth said they would add the language when they got together annually not about drop off and pick up butt operations of the building. i think we add operations. i would like to ask about the

reasons the number of evans is increased and moving from 9. . 30 to 10:30. 10:30 means that by the time buildings emptied and everybody is gone it is 11 or 11. . 15 and at this time in the quiet neighborhood the residual noise is noticeable in the residents i believe this this aspect of the conditions needs to be further discussd and agree with president tanner. that this needs to be slightly buttoned up. why commissioner moore the concern conditions ends at 10. . 30. >> thank you. i see 9. . 30. >> that not the concern continue that was a staff draft condition. look at the other page under

number 3 section atermination of evening events evening events by 10. . 30 that it is a currently existing condition. this is when exists currently. >> okay. and you believe abincrease in activity this is acceptable. why commissioner diamond. the increase in activity you consider this an acceptable condition? >> i will ask the school 10. . 30 seems late is this necessary. >> we certainly real ically could go down to 10 if this is i question. makes more sense to me. >> it does to me as well. it is a language time we went if

prom. >> we don't have prom on catch us. raise one concern about wording in prescription condition the last sentence states that the minimum once per year meeting to discuss and resolve issues. concerned that this is requiring them to ref solve but what is resolution on an issue when you have 2 parties. and it is clear the intent is to discuss issue this is may come up. i'm not sure we want specific language this says they should resolve them. i'm foreseeing occurrence or complaints an issue is in the

resolved and not having clear guidance. on how to move forward. removing the end resolve language allow spirit and intent of the condition and a requirement without loose hang ambigutey. commissioner braun. i share occurrence about trying to do this on the notice with the hahn written document and it it is heard ton if there are, crediting conflicts with the motion is drafted that i can't understand by doing it this way. am i'm curious if mrs. wodz or mr. teague have concerns that you can pick up on? changeoth fly relative to when

we are looking at prior to this. i think it is always an issue drafting or edits on the notice. i think it dependses on the level comfort the commission has with when is before them. i understand both sides today. and -- we would if we do it today make sure it as clearly documented as possible for drafting of the final motion can be read in the record clearly what it it is. and obviously if you don't feel that can be done well today this it is something you need to consider whether or not to do it today or before with conditions. can planning department staff we don't have concerns with the conditions. thank you. >> if i may i know there is som

bigutey with the become approximate fort if you want to get it done today you can incorporate the suggestions the language refeigned w with staff and return you as an informational item so you feel more comfortable with the final language. >> thank you. commissioner ruiz. >> thank you. >> i just i was not going to say anything i was supportive of the project and i think the back and forth with the additional conditions in before us have made my head hurt a bit. and so i think it is i good thing it is school is proposed here i don't think it is out of scale with the neighborhood. you know i want to emphasize the importance of being a good neighbor and the project sponsor doing their due diligence to address occurrence before

projects come before the commission so we don't see ourselves in situations like this one. and in my short time on the commission i think wait a moment have had issues with misinterceptions of motions and what commissioners have wanted when we have approved projects and we have seen this when we have gone through minutes, for example and going back and forth on when we were hoping for. but approve exclude said. and i just don't want to make that mistake again. and so i don't know if helpful to continue for a week. is this too short of time for the sponsor and for the neighbors but i would make a motion to continue at least for a week unless folks believe that is just not enough time then continuing for 2 weeks as

president tanner stated >> i would second coming back on consent with the items drafted. so if i commissioner has an issue we pull it but come back this writing is what the can lawyer had on her screen. if we get hain writing that is not handwriting i would be more comfortable and second to continue. if on consent our peculiaret guess out with tomorrow. tw weeks on consent. i think here 3 week we have thanksgiving. i think you are all [inaudible] you are all close i go become to commissioner diamond's suggestion. i don't think it is complicated what was on the screen it is confusing.

i continue this until the end of the calendar. every time we have discussion y.less we debating because we did not have this motion until now now 5 o'clock and we have more items to go. i don't know it is about their agreement as our skfrl and ability to keep discussing i raurth talk in 3 weeks or talk now i'm not feeling like it is getting to resolution i don't like to continue it is not my jam but don't like the way. >> if you did continue a week we are going to be issuing next week's calendar insurely the holiday tomorrow. we can accomplice it on the consent. and have the finalized language sent to you when it it is made available to prevent a 3 week yoochl that would be amenable. commissioner diamond.

i will with draw my second. original i think commissioner ruiz and tanner made a good point this was a mess on that one item and i think it is you will per's interests including uhs i don't are clear. and i would be supportef of a week conditionation on consent and notice it and distribute the language. than i are so close on monday they by monday the latest we could have the language. this would make me comfortable as well, too. >> yes. there is a motion to continue for a week to november 17th accomplice the item on the agenda under consent and hopefully we will have language sent to you on monday.

may be monday morning. >> because tell be on consent did you we want to nail down the language is it 10 or 10. . 30. if it ain't broke don't fix it. that was last minute point of disagreement. add about the operation coordination to discuss and resolve. 82 on that moegz motion commissioner braun >> aye yoochl xhrp ruiz >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> commissioner wap koppel >> aye >> commissioner mor >> aye >> commissioner tanner >> aye. >> that passes with koppel voting against. >> commissioners that will place us on items 9a and b and c and

d. case 2021-0057. ofa and var. the property at 2 stockton a downtown project authorization. cu and office allocation the upon za will consider any for variance. >> good it afternoon commissioners. planning staff. a request a downtown project authorization exceptions for the reduction of wind, hoyt limit and height and bulk district. and bulk limes for tw stockton street. requests a c u authorization to allow the frontage of retail to

market to sxeed 75 feet of 41age and allow office use exceeding 5,000 square feet on 4-sick floor. requests an office allocation allow up to 49, 999 square feet of new office use. zoning officer consider a variance from open space requirements planning code 6138. the project required a permit alter from history be preservation granted left month. before going to the hp xrshgs review by the architectural review committee. the site on the northeast corner of stockton and market street. the project site is developed commercial building constructed in 19073 stories tall over a basement with a large hennous

71, sick 71 square feet. the building served retail since initial construction and occupied boy a single tenant retailer. the department received i letter of support. forwarded to you this morning. i have physical copies for distribution. the department finds it is kin with policy of the stele's general plan and department fines the project to be necessary, desirable and compat with the neighborhood. will allow job creation renew office use, retaining tame on market street. the improve street scape as a property facade and increase commercial store fronts from serving a single tenant up to 3 and attract the to the block and further the goal prime location for professional activity.

the project provide compatible facade design in the historic downtown commercial district. based on the finding it is defendant recommends approval with conditions. project experience you have 5 minutes.

>> good afternoon president tanner, commissioners. i'm katy a vice president the investment group repositions of 2 stockton street. spent 2 year working with plan and environmental planning staff achieve a plan the building and the neighborhood. upon the building on know important corn arast market and stockton. the gateway in union square.

our project seeks to transform building with the design contemporary and consistent with the historic district in which is sits. propotion mix of use we aim to activist this intersection with uses that will support the long-term success of the union square submarket. we know the stele is focussed on applying resources to recovery of the area. we are excited propose a project that will continue to the success of the area. it is lected for a mix of uses as extremely transit oriented. a block away from the powell street bart and municipal and he atop the central subway line opening next year. the building today was modified

in the 90's. and retains no historic integrity. a 3 store building a partial fourth floor used as retail storage. the redevelopment retaint existing retail and add under 50 thonld square feet of new office space. the office space a separate entrance off of market and new systems private terrace. 15 heights. windows for natural light and lead gold rate thanksgiving is on top of transit. we are asking the commission to approve the vrgz c u authorization and office allocation and asking the za to approve variance for our 330 square foot requirement. of the new extearier received

unanimous approval at h pc. grounds floor and top floor special debreak up mass and follow configuration in historic buildings near by. 2 story base with change in brick color and texture allows the build to main taint within to 3 base versus upper floor proportion additional floors are added the building presents from the streetsally 6 store and he a 7th story setback not visible from the street. design based on design guidelines. . the corn of the building is distinguished through patterning and brick bordering. here you see some automatic00 sorry. no tht is top of the building. the upper towers organized in vertical bays come to life

through a slight curve upper and includes a horizontal and brick patterning and the design includes a parapit that increase knowledge the top of the building. here is more information on the materiality we envisiond and have samples if you want to see as well. and this it is before and after we feel the design is much more a big improve am and consistent with the guidelines than the design. new ground floor plan a dedicated office off of market in blue and new interior off the on whiches lob in light blue and break update retail in small are footprints as need.