this concludes my presentation on the ceqa appeal. and laura ayello will discuss the cu appeal. >> good afternoon, members of the board. laura ayello, planning staff in the current planning division. i'm here to discuss the conditional use authorization. i will keep my comments very brief. as you know, you also need to review and decide whether or not to remove or amend the approval to allow the demolition of single-family home and replacement with a new structure containing three family-sized units. the existing building is not occupied. it's not historic. it's unremarkable in any way except it's one of the smallest homes on the block. the appellant believes that the project is out of scale, fails to maintain light to adjacent properties and creates significant, adverse shadow impacts that result in a loss of privacy to the neighboring buildings. in response, 40-foot-high residential buildings are permitted in this district, which is residential mixed. it's also permitted in more restrictive residential districts. and can be found th

we want to talk about the ceqa. it's a small, infill project, exactly what class 1 and 3 exemptions are for. my staff has had conversations with the appellants and their representatives. they field a ceqa appeal because it was an available path. we see this a decent amount here, but not reason to support it. on the cu, appreciate the neighbors filing this. it raises a different set of issues about the project itself. a few to talk about briefly. privacy concerns, that many of us have living in a dense city. i agree with removing the roof deck, the frosting, and planning staff mentioned a bunch of other conditions that were included as part of the approval. i support those and understand why they went in. the appellant had raised some concerns about the legality of demolishing a single-family home. the home was owner-occupied at the time he passed away and has been unoccupied since. the sticking point ultimately is around the height. appellant is opposing a 40-foot building which is within the zoning guidelines. it's

typically will warrant more scrutiny than a building permit really didn't further the purposes of ceqa. another example, there were changes to the project made after the determination was made in 2016, and there was a requirement under the administrative code that the city then look at the project again to see if that required reevaluation of the project, and that was not done. so collectively, the procedural irregularities and the failure to adhere to the procedural qualities of seek i can't prevented the community to provide input early on in the process. i would like to move onto the conditional use authorization issue. as i stated, there was inaccurate information, erroneous information, incomplete information, and because of that, the findings that were required in order to approve the conditional use authorization were not adequately supported. oh, overhead. there we go. so this is the bern dine decide deccarat's property. this is the project site. i will focus on two of the findings that were required in order to approve the conditional use authorization. one is whether the proj

pursuant to the california environmental quality act or ceqa and procedures for implementing ceqa. chapter 31 requires a planning department to schedule public hearing that the historic preservation commission may have on a draft e.i.r., and prepared for projects that contain a resource determined on sub stfrjal evidence to be a resource the public review project began on december 6, 2017, and will continue until 5:00 p.m., january 23, 2018. the commission members had electronic members of draft e.i.r. and background reports, including historic resource evaluation and response. the commission secretary has also distributed a handout, which i will refer you to later. copies of this handout are available to members of the public on the table to my left. today we're here to provide the commission to provide public testimony, to discuss and formulate any comments that you wish to submit on the draft e.i.r. i would like to provide with you a brief summary of the draft e.i.r. with historical resources the project site is a 2-story building that housed the metropolitan community church of

pursuant to the california environmental quality act or ceqa and procedures for implementing ceqa. chapter 31 requires a planning department to schedule public hearing that the historic preservation commission may have on a draft e.i.r., and prepared for projects that contain a

the project under appeal is exempt under ceqa, pursuant to 317. on august 31, 2017, the commission conducted public hearing and approved the conditional use authorization to allow the two dwelling units on the single lot. if the planning commission's decision is overturned, the property owner would be required to seek further entitlement, including variances for all previously approved structures that straddle the existing property lines. these are required removal denied and likely significant alterations if approved. further, any such actions will be appealable by the public and the property owner. further delaying the project that has been under various levels of review since 2002. while the property has an unfortunate history, there are benefits to the lot merger. one additional unit could be feesably added rather than the five that are currently feasible. second, due to historic status with the 1907 cottage, the entire property is historic and any work would be subject to review. ms. courtney has expressed that the -- may seek to subdivide in

is to take the adeqd completeness of the act and ceqn francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. no approval on action is request this time. the public review period began n october 25th, 2017 and will cone until 5:00 p.m. december 11th. 2017. i will now provide a brief over. it is comprised of three parcelh three buildings. the fifth church of christ and g and parking lot on 450 o'farrel. a retail building, and a restaud building at 532 jones street. the project site is in the downn civic center neighborhood and ld within the uptown tenderloin hil district. the proposed project includes te demolition of all three existing buildings on the project site ad maintain the facade on o'farrel. the project is 13-storey 130--fl mixed use building with up to 16 dwelling units, 6,200 square fof retail and restaurant space andw grade parking. the proposed project would resun add ver change, the significanc0 o'farrell street. this was determined to be a prot level unavoidable impact. other impacts are historic archl resources are less than signifir less than significant with miti. they we f

really examine constitutional claims, so then, do you believe that we should not consider them in ceqa appeals and other types of aviewed ka todjudicat and cases? it i see that there's a ton of case law in every ceqa appeal that we read that every member of this board does not read, yet we make these decisions on almost a weekly basis. >> well, i can't speak to other types of decisions you make involving other statutory schemes, and forgive me -- i didn't mean to disrespect any member of the board who happens not to be a lawyer. i've known a lot of nonlawyers in my lifetime, and most of them are very fine people. i -- i think in this case, to me -- and i don't know a thing about ceqa -- but to me, the constitutional due process claims are of a sufficient complexity that i just think they're better fleshed out in a way that's fair to both sides in a court of law. and i mean, even the briefing the way it was setup here, i didn't know what cases they were going to cite, so i couldn't respond to them. so i -- >> n >>supervisor kim: no, no, i respect your opinion. i was just wondering if yo

pursuant to the california environmental quality act or ceqa and procedures for

question for the city attorney, that those codes are -- by having them, we have affirmed them under ceqa, is that -- i have a line of questioning here. see if i get -- see if i get this right. >> commissioners, kate stacey from the city attorney's office. when the city adopts codes or code amendments, most of those code amendments are considered projects under ceqa, so there is environmental review. i can't confirm what the environmental review might have been for the various components of the building code. >>commissioner johnson: okay. thank you. i think the reason i asked that question is particularly as it relates to the handling of livestock and disposal of remains, those activities broadly are covered under our existing codes, so, for example, i believe that halal method is different in the sense that you're not just dumping blood in sewers. i mean, the animals are blessed and they're processed for slaughter and processing, but where there is effluent or where there are other remains or materials, it seems that that's covered under our plumbing and green building code. >> specifica

recent ri there was a, ceqa appeal of a high-rise in the district. and a current iteration of the plan, developers can seek additional parking with additional use permit and through one oak was granted a c.u. for their parking. it brought to light an important part about parking and it relates to cumulative impacts along the hub. as long as our city grows, buildings get built and our neighborhoods get more dense, the more crowded our streets get and the more impacted our services become. all of these developments for all this new parking has a cumulative impact. we know it and we see it. yet the guidelines that we use to measure impact say there isn't a significant impact. we all know that is flawed. so, we as legislators have found our own ways of making sure that we're developing in a smarter, more sophisticated way. we're the most expensive city in the country and we must be more responsible about how we build. in the hub alone there are about six projects in the pipeline. imagine if every single one of those asked for 136 spaces. imagine what kin

but we learned the hard way on a number of projects that ceqa historic preservation permit appeals eat into the project schedules, even when we tried to get ahead of them. whether it's beef chalet, george christopher delayed a year around preservation discussion, around the playground. to continue to negotiate as assertively as possible, but that mean we have to think about the planning, the lead-up to getting to the design process with more flexibility and probably fewer explicit commitments, because the planning process is where eget thrown the -- where we get thrown the most curve balls. i think that deeper analysis off site conditions is worth while. the fact is a lot of times define the problems that cost the most money on the back end and involves destructive testing, which sometimes takes the facility offline. that's a difficult thing to figure out how to plan for, but one thing we talked about internally, is develop ago risk matr matrix, that says if the following risk factors are present at a site, but may not know the answer, but you should increase the construction budget by

that ceqa analysis included an s of cumulative impact. those issues were reviewed. there is in fact a san francisce regarding the cumulative impacte types of facilities where the ct determined that where you coulde one facility from the next, thet impact from one facility to the, there was no cumulative impact. regarding the overall planning , we don't apply for these. it sounds like we're going in ek or month or something and applyr one of these poles. i think you know they're over 4s and they're applied in batches n entire neighborhood which receis hundreds, thousands of notices. we notice within 150 feet of eve and notice every neighborhood association twice. we notice any protestor twice. we post the poles twice. this is not in a vacuum. we don't post just the pole bute entire street face block with te notices and that's going on p fl the other facilitieses in a pol. san francisco is certainly one e most process-laden locations, jurisdictions for this kind of . so i have to -- i really want ty that there is -- has been a verg and involved and publicly transt pro

>> correct. >> this is in response to the member of the public that spoke about ceqa. i wonder if we could get an update of where we are with the citywide survey. >> certainly. we can schedule that in the new year. >> thank you. any further questions? >> item 3, president's report and announcements. >> commissioner wolfram: i have no formal report or announcement. but we will be hearing item 8, first item in the regular calend calendar, so before item 6. >> item 4, commission comments and questions. >> commissioner wolfram: i have a disclosure. which is on item 5, 920 north point street, the client is client of our firm, but not in project. >> all matters listed under consent calendar is considered to be routine by the historic preservation commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion unless a member of the commission, public or staff so requests, in which event, the matter will be removed and considered as a separate item at this or future hearing. 20017-0111162coa, 920 north point street. i have no speaker cards >>

commission, but because of the steep slope of the lot, at the bare minimum, it would go through a ceqa evaluation and general plan priorities would come to us and any development would be subject to at the bare minimum 311 notification. >> right. i don't know if i'm prepared to vote on this today. i would like to know more about the result of our zoning decision and what it could lead to. what we think logically it would lead to. if you have a parcel that's zoned p in a pretty consistent 25x100-foot neighborhood, you kind of know what will happen. i don't know what's going to happen here. it's an odd lot. it's steeply sloping. probably would have the development on the burnett side, but i don't really know. and maybe you want to split it into two lots. it would be great to get -- i don't know if i can vote on this today. i don't quite have a firm handle on everything that's happening. >> through the chair, first of all, you either vote on this today or it goes directly to the board, because the 90-day time limit is over and they didn't express a willingness to hold off on it. and the o

but in terms of this ceqa appeal, there was no discussion about b.m.r.s on site as a connection to it a -- allowing a developer to have additional parking. thank you. >> thank you. next eke spaoer. >> good afternoon. my name is robin leavitt. for over 25 years, i've been livinging three blocks from the intersection of market and octavia. so i'm very concerned about additional parking in the area. as has been thoroughly discussed, parking brings congestion and delays muni service and has very negative health effects. safety effects and so forth. so, i'm -- i applaud the effort to put in these interim controls on future developments in the hub area. however, as much as i support affordable housing and law, the effort to add affordable housing to these protons, to compromise the environment and allow parking in exchange of that and all the congestion it would brung, i cannot support the amendment to this legislation. and so i urge you to pass the interim controls without the proposed amendment. there are already incentives in place, sensitive bonuses, height, increases to incentivize aff

there are uses that are ceqa cleared today. that's the path to the long term.ng an end user at this point that can pay the costs to rehab facility, the parties recommend that we go forward with this interim strategy where pier 48 is used sort of as it's used today for special events and parking uses partly for at&t park events and we work together towards what the long term is. division being that at any time during this initial 10 year period that we're recommending, if the port is able to identify some other space for the interim uses at pier 48, we would engage with the giants on a potential long term strategy and be provided the first option to negotiate with the port consistent with having wouldn't rfp and pier 48 we'd negotiate with them for long term vision that is complementary to what elseç is going on. if we're unable to come to terms, our goal is toç make sue pier 48 is rehabilitated just as we thought it would be. in that case, weed we'd then develop an rfp to go out for solicitation and the giants would be able to help us craft that to make sure

-- the, ceqa act. >> supervisor ronen: i'm sorry. supervisor yee asked that we call item three out of order. can we please do that. >> clerk: yes. item three. hearing on the short and long term strategies to reduce the effect of flooding during heavy storms severely impact certain neighborhoods in the city, particularly in the upper great highway area and districts 7, 8, 9 and 11 and request the public utilities commission and public works to report. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. so, we are having an off day in the public safety neighborhood services committee. it looks like the president from the puc are not available. so, i'm going to open this item up for public comment first and then we will hear the presentation after. so, if there's any member of the public that would like to speak on item number three, which is the flood mitigation plans and severely impacted neighborhoods city wide, now is the time to come forward. each member of the public will have two minutes to speak. thank you. good morning. >> public: thank you to the

. >> and if i may, just so you know, we'd have to restart the ceqa classes. >> yes. >> there would be a whole new ceqa analysis. >> i think one of the questions that we should be asking in terms of getting buildings built, is do you have schematics. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. sorry. i turned my mic off. thank you. commissioner richards sort of had you address -- i wanted some more details on density is the question we had, again. it's a choice for you to make as a developer. it's your choice and you're okay. it's okay. you can sit down, thank you. i think the only thing i would say is the suggestion to have stoops opening onto vanness is definitely acceptable to me. i think we may have made it sound unclear if there is an exit, it's more like a fire exit for the building onto vanness, so it's not like there are no doors into the building. it's just that you want to create some activity where it's -- you know, at least the appearance, even if not at 2:00 in the morning, it's not happening, that people are coming and going. the retail spaces are there. they're probably going

they also claimed that proper ceqa procedures were not followed there. were a dozen speakers in favor of the appeal and handful of speakers in favor of the project. once the public comment was finished the supervisor expressed his support for the project and to maximize the density permitted on this lot. he then made a motion to reject the appeal of both the c.u. and the ceqa determination and this motion passed unanimously up holding the department's decision and rejecting the appeal. finally the market street h.u.d. controls were adopted and that concludes my report. >> thank you, mr. starr. any questions? ok. we can move on to general public comment. >> i don't have a report for the board of appeals. very good. we can po*ef on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that within a subject matter jurisdiction of commission exempt agenda items with respect agenda items your opportunity to address the commission when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the