i'm going to address the ceqa issue. i will speak mainly about ceqa piecemeali piecemealing. the appellant claims that it was piecemealed. it is prohibited under state ceqa statute. it covers the whole of the action, excavation and three-story rear addition. it's not unusual for one project under ceqa to be subject to multiple building permits and it's covering on work on the site that was permitted. the issuance of the building permit is not relevant to this appeal and, therefore, the project was not piecemealed. the second contention is that it may result insignificant impact on the coxhead house up hill and to the west at 2421 green street. the planning department reviewed the subject property and determined it's not individually eligible for listing on a register. it is also not within the district, thus, there is no historic resources are conducted or necessary. the appellant claims that the rear expansion would impair historic resources blocking windows andrews and access to light and air. these issues, midblock open space and access to light and air, are design issues,

the other matters are non-ceqa-related. the sponsors compliance with the terms of the permits and penalties. those are matters of concerns that are raised today and policy recommendations by planning as well as the board for legislation to address some of the problems with inadequate penalties. so we're -- our focus today is on the ceqa matters and it's not piecemeali piecemealing, which is the focus today and the planning department adequately reviewed and issued an exemption prior to permits by planning and inspection. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. seeing no names on the roster. i think i have a question about my concern because this has come up in previous appeals that have come before this board. where projects have violated the law. they've been allowed to move forward and there are penalties associated with those violations and i think i'm trying to understand how it's possible -- there's been numerous violations with this project and then issued a requirement to pay certain penalties, and maybe not by the

that aesthetic impact to historic resources may not be exemption from ceqa. the planning department ignored that section entirely in that report. furthermore, we're submitting today. you will hear from dr. larry carp. he has submitted that this proposed project will undermine the foundation, the very foundations, of the coxhead house. this will excavate 15 feet deep, undermining the tall, brick foundations built in 1893, which survived the 1906 earthquake, undermining the foundations of the coxhead house. we also have submitted with our letters, an opinion from a geologist that concluded that it may cause flooding in the basement of the coxhead house. clearly all of these factors will affect the nature of that house and the project may not be exempted from ceqa review. secondly, the project is clearly on the city's map of potentially contaminated sites. the city's map shows it's within three locations of leaky underground storage tanks. this project will require 408 cubic yards of soil excavation. again, under ceqa, it may not be exempted if it's on a potenti

ceqa is very clear concerning historic resources. the project may cause significant impact when the project "demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner the physical characteristics of an historical resource that conveys historical significance." can we show the overhead? this shows the two properties. the proposed project does not expand the property's facade. it will not alter or effect the appellant's home in any way on the front facade. this image shows the worst-case shadow impacts of the proposed rear addition. as you can see, it's set back almost 4 feet. doesn't touch the home. it's visible from the home, but views from the home as have been established are not characteristics of the home that convey historical significance. the integrity as explained is not affected by this project. the appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary. a preservation consultant submitted a letter yesterday advocating for additional review, but that letter, while they discussed the historic character of the home, do not identif

the four ceqa positions. the r.d.u. position are the big staffing changes.he grants, as i mentioned, the portfolio is just about doubling, we expect, in the next fiscal year. and the impact fee funding is changing because of big decrease in one-time funding for the rab project and we expect to get impact fees to fund the nexus study, which needs to be done every five years and related impact fee study. >> one quick question. from 17-18 to 18-19, you're moving people to environmental planning and you say you were adding one current planner but the number of current planners went up. quite a bit, enough by plus 7. >> so, we -- >> because it is now 76 and 73, but it should be 73 minus four would be 69 plus -- >> we also have shifted three people from city-wide into current. and believe there was a position last years or maybe two that have annualized so there is always physician that created, always at .77. the following year there is a .s 23. this always gets a little bit convoluted, mrarsly around the staffing because there are also attrition calculations and

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

no anticipated funding for the 1920 fiscal year for ceqa review, but we are proposing for the following year $100,000. this is usually for on-call consult tanlts to provide us support when we have priority projects or city funded projects that may need an extra boost in meeting their aggressive timelines if they're associated with federal funding or some other important deadline. additional survey contracts. this is some seed money that we're going to keep. on record so we can continue to negotiate and work with the getty conservation institute to demonstrate that we're committed to finishing the city-wide survey in a timely manner and they will, in turn, give us access to their software developer, who we worked with in the past and currently working with, that created the arches programme that is the interface for survey. the c.l.g. grant, as mentioned before, is shown there in all three years. our friends of city planning preservation grant, library grant, $1200 every year to support the purchase of books and other subscriptions for the use of staff, but also the public. as we mention

in terms of the ceqa appeal. and the main issue i had. and i will not belabor the point, is the issues that supervisor peskin talked about. i usually find that planning at times has gone very far, sometimes too far, about landmarking and preservation issues. i cannot believe they would allow work to happen without analyzing the impact. it's not e.i.r. i appreciate president breed's comments. the thing to me is the preservation issues. there is evidence that this is historic resource. in the morning, we learned that coxhead house, i will not get into the history of this, though it's amazing, will be likely eligible listing as a local landmark. our own landmark designation program is backlogged in san francisco. it's not acceptable when it's against the wishes of homeowners. you only have to see pictures of this home, read what's in the record, to see the nature of the home itself. when i saw the proposal to construct a large home next door, along the windows that are part of the location, design and feeling of the home, i could not believe

and san francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa. no approval action on this document is requested at this time. the public review period for the proposed project d.i.r. began on december 26, 2017 and will continue until 5:00 p.m. on january 23, 2018. i will now provide a brief overview of the proposed project. the project site is currently developed with a two-story building which will most recently house the community church of san francisco and is now vacant. the proposed project would demolish the exposed church building, split the lot into two lots and construct two four-story buildings. each will contain two residential units and vehicle parking spaces for a total of four residential units and eight vehicle parking spaces on the site and a total viewing area of 14441 gross square feet. the draft d.i.r. concluded that the proposed project would result in a substancial adverse change in the historic resores at 150 eureka street. this was determined to be a project level significant and unavoidable impact on historic architectural

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

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

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

and we we've engaged closely with the city on the ceqa compliance pathway. i know that is on track for completion in the near term. we've also engaged on the schematic design. really drilling down to understand how the site will function in the future and working closely with the bcdc on the comments and design view boards on really embracing kind of what this waterfront site means and how to embolden the historic preservation and create this gateway site. we finalized the business term sheet. we have the draft general agreement almost ready to be signed and we know that we're near completion on these important lease agreements. so, i want to thank everyone who's helped work on that. i wanded to articulate a little bit of the overall goals for the project and for the site. for the cycle we want to have a seamless experience for visitors. those going to alcatraz island and also those who may be coming along and along the embarcadero and seeing the port and getting views out the the bay. we want to recognize there are all types of visitors and create a welcomi

this is part of our sending ceqa appeal we filed on monday. the fact that we are doing a ceqa appeal after the permit has been issued is one of the most egregious circumstances of the appeal in this case. 1709 did not look like the full house before. this is important to understand. mr. franklin painted it to look like the full house, and then, the press reported his promotion to the house, confirming its use as a shrine to the full house. as you can see in this slide, it says closed to friends during the construction. it's clear he actually wants fans to come into the house. he may deny this in today's hearing, but that's not what's out there in the press and on social media. he doesn't say that it's a home. he says it's the full house. he does not want a single-family to occupy the home. far from it, but he most certainly does want his project and this permit to be treated like a single-family home remodel. he chose to -- the outside work has begun, but it's not complete. the new red door -- but it's not a home remodel, it's a replica of the

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

i was the person who filed the ceqa appeal with the board of supervisors, and i received a commitment from mta staff at that time that there would be more work on this project and i would be consulted. that did not happen. i'm very sorry about that. i want not able to pull down the staff report and attachments on this, so i don't know what the net parking loss is with these changes. i think i heard the staff person just say there would be some extension of the residential parking permit area here. i don't see that on a through f, so maybe that's not part of this approval, but it's in a subsequent approval, i thought i heard in the december meeting, and i think i saw it in the minutes, that this item was going to come back to this board in february . we're in january , so somehow, that moved up. and finally, i can't tell if these changes to project design and scope are within the scope of the prior ceqa exemption or not. i don't want to prolong this process anymore. i don't want to litigate this matter. i did want to be consulted and as opposed to the next item, where i did appreciate

. >> 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

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

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

in addition, several non-ceqa were done. a determination was found and no substantial evidence was found to support a fair argument of a significant impact to the adjacent historic resource. upholding the appeal means that the building permits for this project were thus revoked. therefore, the discretionary review hearing for this project scheduled for february 8 of this year will not be held. the appeal for the environmental determination for 401 main street was continued to february 27. and the general plan amendment for the western shoreland area plan [inaudible] [coughing] for restaurants and store front mergers in the mission was adopted. and that concludes my report. >> thank you, mr. starr. any questions? >> the board of appeals did meet last night and considered one item that i'm sure will be of interest to the commission. at the property for 1709 broderick street, the full house house. the board voted to revoke the permit on the grounds that the permit was not properly noticed through the block book notification pro

look over the proposed plans by the permit holder just to see if they would be consistent with the ceqa analysis that was conducted for the site and consistent with current planning code requirements, and the proposed revision would be consistent with both. the only thing i would point out is that generally, if a project had already been noticed and comes back and proposes to raise the height by a couple of feet, it would trigger renotice. in this case, obviously, all of the people that have received notice and are engaged are verien gauged in this process. the rest of the revisions are just at the discretion of the board. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> mr. teague, what was the -- what is the max height they can go in comparison to where we're at now? >> so i think -- well, as was mentioned during the permit holder's presentation, the height district here -- it's a 40 foot height district, but because it's rh-1 dd, you take a 45 angle from either the front property line or the front set back line, and that can go up to 35 feet, and then, it basically follows grade from

and require conditional use for conversion of any commercial use to a residential use to aform the ceqa determination. and make the appropriate findings. >> president breed: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: we've initiated a planning process with planning. we've been working with a 30-member working group comprised of residents, small business owners, merchants and long-time neighborhood leaders and associations. in that process, we intend to come one a neighborhood plan. as part of that neighborhood plan, there will be policy recommendations, legislation, and direction given. one of the things we wanted to do was put a pause on certain uses to allow it to go forward. i appreciate your support today and ask it to be voted on. >> president breed: thank you. can we take this same house, same call? without objection, resolution is adopted unanimously. madam clerk, please call items 30 and 31 together. >> clerk: items 30 and 31 two resolutions that determine that the transfer of a type 48 on sale general public premises item license 2919 16th street will serve the public convenience a