Skip to main content

tv   Planning Commission  SFGTV  August 12, 2022 8:00pm-1:01am PDT

8:00 pm
>> okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hybrid hearing for thursday, july 28, 2022. in person and remote hybrid meeting will require everyone's attention and most of all our patience if you're joining remotely and not speaking, please mute your microphone. to enable public
8:01 pm
paiks, sf gov tv is broadcasting this hearing live and we'll receive public comment on today's agenda comments and you can call 415-655-0001 and entering access code 24892534904. we will take public comment for those persons in city hall first and open up the remote access line. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. we have 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. i'll tell you your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. those calling in to submit your testimony, when we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, press star three to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking. best
8:02 pm
practices are to call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. for those persons attend nothing city hall, please -- attending in city hall, come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. i ask we silence all mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. at this time, i would like to take roll. commissioner, president tanner? >> present. >> commissioner vice-president moore? >> here. >> commissioner diamond? >> here. >> commissioner imperial? >> here. >> commissioner koppel? >> here. >> commissioner ruiz? >> here. >> we expect commissioner cunning to be absent today. commissioner, first is consideration of items for continuance. case number 2021-004987drp. [reading item
8:03 pm
for 1]. >> item no. 2. [reading item no. 2] >> further commissioners, we just received a request from supervisors office under your regular calendar for item 15, case number 2020-006679 crv, for 1196 columbus avenue and 2568 and 2588 jones street. and adoption of findings for continuance. we did not receive a date but since we're going on recess, i would suggest maybe september 1st as a proposed date. i have no items proposed for continuance so we should take public comment. members of the public, you can address the commission on any items being proposed for continuance. you need to come forward, if you're
8:04 pm
in the chamber and if you're calling in, press star three. >> hi, commissioners, good to see you all. my first time back since february 2020 in the room. i'm representing the owner for 1196 columbus avenue about the continuance. i sent you all an e-mail yesterday. >> i'm sorry. >> mr. poman, excuse me, if we can have silence so we can hear what's going on. go ahead. >> i sent you an e-mail yesterday urging you not to accept the continuance and the request for continuance because we did follow all proper procedures, we did mailings in the pre-app stage to every single apartment in the north beach place. we did have the zoom hearing. there were many, all the notification was on the building, on the building site
8:05 pm
for this hearing and in every single case, my name and my e-mail address and phone number were available to anyone to call me and in the interim, in 2021, we did have conversations with the other neighborhood groups and did speak to other -- speak to other people about the project so there's no specific reason for a continuance to be granted so i appreciate if you did not take that advice. thank you very much. >> any other members of the public in the chambers? >> hi. my name is shari. and i live at north beach place. i live right next door to the building that they're talking about putting up, okay. right next door. literately next door. and it's six stories, we live
8:06 pm
here. this is our community. i'm asking that you please give us, i'm nervous, we found a nice place to live. my family and friends, we have all that stuff you know and you put a building on top of us. there's no light. there's no light in my yard. there's no light on the kid's playgrounds. i mean, you didn't ask, they tried to do it last time for four stories, now they come back again with six stories. it opportunity make sense. there are kids in that yard. there's a playground. there's a school there. there are old people living right next door that don't get any light. you know, once you done that, they hardly get it now but when you do that, it's going to take it right away. you all have communities, you all have schools, you don't have six-story buildings standing
8:07 pm
over your school and your home. it's not right. so, in order, i ask that you come and check the building place out. check it because it used to be zoned for commercial, okay. but now they made some kind of loophole where they can do it residential. that's all well and good for a month but we live here. we're a part of that community, they aren't. they're bringing stuff in so they can make a profit. that's not fair. that's not fair to take that away from us. and not even ask us, nobody's come to my door and said, we're going to put a six-foot story building over your house, over your yard. nobody said that to me. and i live right next to the building. okay. i wouldn't known if i hadn't seen the darn letter. i was going to throw it away because i thought it was some bs, excuse me language but then i looked and i said wait a minute, y'all doing it again?
8:08 pm
six stories? come on. think about that. over kids, adults, a tech dorm for people who don't live here aren't going to be living here, taking away from our community. you talk about having community. come on now. please, reconsider this. you're going to build it anyway, but just try to think of doing it lower or something, okay. you already have money. we don't. we're old. i'm 60 something years old, okay. where am i going to go? i can't relocate with the touch and the dirt and the constant noise at 6:00 in the morning from the construction guys. >> thank you, ma'am. >> please -- >> i'll remind members of the public we're taking comment on the matter of -- continuance at this time. >> i'm saying what i'm saying
8:09 pm
because i'm nervous so reconsider that. it's nonsense. >> okay. if there are no members of the public, in the chambers, we'll go to the remote callers and when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners, this is tray representing the north beach committee and representing the tenants that have been confused about what this project is, what type of housing. having also heard from them about the height being a various sizes, you know, 55, 62 and then something about another 9 feet in addition and then also another site showed 85 feet height. again, there had been no outreach directly to the residents adjacent, immediately adjacent to this site. and it's very concerning and i would
8:10 pm
support the continuance because there needs to be actual dialogue with the people who actually live there and this needs to happen as soon as possible. they've been very anxious, having only recently heard about this project and again, yes, a notice about a hearing but a hearing in which languages as well as what is the project actually going to be? that dialogue never happened and in my mind, this is the second time i've seen another project where the developer did not reach out directly to those impacted such at 425 broadway back in november which affected 68 very low-income, primarily mono lin gal chinese. it's not dropping the stream ideal of a
8:11 pm
building for the developer in the middle of an empty field of some sort. it's about reaching out to those who actually will be impacted and to have a dialogue and a plan about what might happen than or could happen during construction to ensure their health. again, these are 48 units immediately adjacent, our seniors and people with disabilities so please, i support the continuance. let that dialogue happen as soon as possible and let's show some real equity in notification, in dialogue and actually reaching out to those most impacted, thank you very much. >> my name is stephanie. i am 22 years old. i am in support of the continuum of this project and (indiscernible). my mother
8:12 pm
previously spoke to the commission. i was raised in north beach lake property. when i was 19, my mother brought this plan to me and said that this was going to be a three story building. i remember those fear in my mother's voice while she told me when i was away at school. let me know, does the story want to build three stories worth of luxury apartments where they were not needed. this is an area that's already surrounded by luxurious hotels and homes. it's unnecessary. growing up in san francisco, i spent my adolescent surrounded by empire and tall buildings and spent my adolescents fighting for black people and elderlies and i have lived in both of the north beach creek property and i am well aware of who my community is and what they deserve. as a previous
8:13 pm
person who spoken about the language needs to inform our community. these are elders who don't often speak english. these are people who don't often check their mail. it is disgusting to me that this plan is going to affect again without considering the rights of the people who live here and the elders who keep this community alive. i can -- it's not okay. (indiscernible) north beach has two buildings and the one i grew up in san francisco, some sro's -- the one my mother lives is in across the cable cart tracks and for elders or disabilities people. it's peaceful and calm and full of light and they don't have to hear kids running around all day and when they do it's because of the daycare center in the building. you can hear the children laughing and hear the wind chimes and elders
8:14 pm
(indiscernible) six stories looking down on them from a rooftop patio. this building and disgust me if i am being honest. the city is not only doing this again but double the size of the property. if you know the demographic of this building, then you know the people will not fight back, not because they don't disagree with the gentrification taking place next door to them but most of them have lived with the same displacement and disregard their entire life because they're poor or brown or black or disabled. maybe all of those things. and -- >> excuse me ma'am. you're out of order right now. ma'am, you're out of order and it's difficult to hear the person speaking who has the floor right now. >> but i'm right there. >> ma'am, you heard your turn to speak. we're trying to listen to the other callers right now, so take your seat or leave but if you can respect the other callers who are speaking, thank you. >> sorry -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt the caller but you have a few more seconds left.
8:15 pm
>> that's okay. that's my mom and she's upset for a reason. as i was saying, these people are too old to be fighting the city for their right. this building will not only disrupt the neighbors due to construction going on for years, literately right next door to my mother a wall away, a wall. it was compelled, it would block out the sun. it would -- it would block out all of the light. >> thank you ma'am, that's your time. okay. and i will remind -- >> we -- we tee serve better -- we deserve better. we're putting in trash cans because our elder can't take out water bottles to take care traffic families. >> thank you ma'am, that's your time. i'll remind the public we're talking comments on the continuance and not the item itself. anybody else want to speak on items continued?
8:16 pm
seeing none, public comment on the continuance calendar is closed. and it is now you, commissioners. >> thank you, commissioners. thank you to those who called in and spoke publicly. commissioner imperial and commissioner moore and commissioner imperial tied for ringing their bell at the same time. commissioner imperial and commissioner moore afterwards. >> i move to continue items 1 and 2 and 15 but in terms of the comments for number 15, i would like to mention that i think it is very important that there is an outreach that is going to be -- there's a dialogue between the community, so i would like to respect that especially this is called by the office of supervisors so i move to continue number 15 as noted by the secretary.
8:17 pm
>> that would be september 1st. >> yes. >> thank you. >> we've got a second from commissioner koppel. commissioner moore, thank you have anything else to add? >> yeah. i second that motion. people who have been on the commission for an extended period of time have seen a number of projects on this site going from a questionable hotel to all kinds of other mixes and matches and i do understand the anxiety of the community which is the vulnerability community and this is an wonderful environment and wonderful designed homes of a central open space. this project is not properly discussed, presented, and responded to, i think we will do well to support this continuance. again, i heard about other projects and at the were continued and they were
8:18 pm
approved but did not materialized and the community shows anxiety about not enough communication and not enough disclosure. i understand and support that. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i don't see any comments from other commissioners. >> i have a late request for public comment. should we take that caller? >> yes, we shall. thank you. >> when you hear your line has unmuted, your indication to begin speak and we're on the continuance calendar and your comments should be limited to the matter of continuance. >> hi, my name is sue anna with (indiscernible) 1196 columbus avenue. so, on behalf from our parents and children, so we haven't received detail information about this project
8:19 pm
so could you please consider (indiscernible) of this project and we would like to have detailed meeting with the developer and talk about this project and also reconsider about the lighting for our (indiscernible) because children, we go out and play everyday and we are concerned about the six stories, it will block our natural light to our play area so please consider this project. we would like a detailed discussion and information about this project. thank you so much. >> thank you. okay. that concludes public comment. there's a motion that has been seconded to continue all matters as proposed including item 15 to september 1st. on that motion, commissioner ruiz? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> that motion passes
8:20 pm
unanimously 6 to 0. in places of your consent calendar, all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing and item 3, case number 2021-00189cua at 98 mission street. case number four, 2022-000313cua, 2027 chestnut street. item five, case number 2022-004718cua at 2209 chestnut street. a conditional use authorization. members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these items be removed from the consent calendar and considered
8:21 pm
at the end of the hearing today or at a later date. you need to come forward if in the chamber or calling in, press star three. seeing no request to speak, commissioners, public comment on your consent calendar is closed. and they are now or it is now before you. >> thank you. commissioner koppel? >> move to approve items 3, 4 and 5. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners and just for clarity, there was a late submission for an amended resolution for item 3, so accepting those amendments, thank you, commissioners. on that motion then to approve all items under your consent calendars with the amendment for item three, commissioner ruiz? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner president tanner? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that
8:22 pm
motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. >> we'll place this under commission matters for item 6, consideration of adoption draft minutes for july 14, 2022. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes. if you're in the chambers, you need to come forward. if calling in, you need to press star three. seeing no request to speak from any member of the public, public comment on the minutes is closed and they are now before you commissioners. >> commissioner imperial? >> move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner ruiz? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner president tanner? >> aye. >> so moved. that passes 6 to 0 and places us on item 7, commission comments and questions. >> thank you, commissioners, i'll begin with our land acknowledgement. we acknowledge
8:23 pm
we're on the ancestry homeland of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stuart of this land and in accordance with tradition, they have never lost or forgot their responsibilities to caretakers of the place. as well as for all people who reside in their territory. we recognize we benefit from live and working on the homeland. we wish to pay respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramashan whunt and hon -- honoring their first rights as people. are there questions or comments from commissioners. >> i pushed the button here. >> okay, commissioner moore? >> thank you. i have three items and they are questions and the questions may not be available, perhaps, we could bring them back if there are no answers and the first thing is, we (indiscernible) applications with the planning department.
8:24 pm
reading the article i was very concerned, not only is it in review but it's the trust of being able to electronic file application but it's an impediment to the department -- i would like the department, somebody in the department to update the commission, one on the fact of what happened to those commissioners who have not known about this and give us some idea of how you could be protected against incidents like this in the future. the second item which came to my attention and really concerns me is a new condo building at 55 oak that is sitting empty for a few months because a developer who completed this building -- they took down payments and has people waiting for eight months or more because all of a sudden
8:25 pm
figured out she cannot deliver this building. i do not know much of the background but it is very concerning that 109 units are basically finished and cannot be moved in and i don't want to comment on the inconvenience it may cause somebody who bought a condo or what comes with this kind of unusual arrangement and i have never heard about anything like it and i would love the department to give an update on that matter and last but not least, there's another issue which when i first read about an invitation for groundbreaking, i was very hyped about it. however, i read an article in an imagine stein speaking about the construction of one of our second district tower buildings and that's 30 van ness, exactly
8:26 pm
opposite street from one oak which we approved a few weeks ago, this particular building is -- it was approved, i think it is end of 2017 as well at the 600 (indiscernible) building. it was 151 cars desired for this location. this building is breaking ground for 300 condos and i assume it's still 151 cars and i would like to know and i may have missed it as to whether this project in its current situation came back to this commission for change of the terms of approval. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i don't know if you have some responses or if you need time to look into the items. >> i can give a quick responses and follow up. on the
8:27 pm
application, i it hit the business times and it is something we're looking into to assess how this happened and how we can prevent it moving forward. our chief of satisfy is taking the lead on that and he's happy to follow up offline with the commissioners, but we're working with it staff to dig into that issue, so obviously we want to have a public portal, that makes it easy for real applicants to file their applications and we don't want it burdensome you we realized the problems so we're looking around creative solutions to prevent it in the future. in terms of 55 oak, we don't have a great response, obviously at this point, there's a point where it transitions from the city's responsibility to the property owner so we absolutely hear you and we're equally frustrated with the building ready to be occupied not being occupied. we're happy to dig in on the back-end to make sure there aren't city agencies holding up permits you from the
8:28 pm
planning departments perspective, the permits have been years ago at this point and issued but we'll let you know if we do identify there's any aspect of city permitting holding that one up and lastly on 30 van ness, i have to follow up with you but i believe there were revisions over the years on this project but i believe the commission was made abreast of those revisions but again, happy to follow up. >> great, thank you. commissioner moore, i think we'll have staff follow you will because i think those are great questions and topics you raised. any other comments by the commissioners? okay. thank you. >> okay, seeing no additional request to speak from members of the commission. we can move on to item 8 for case number 2021-009977 crv, for remote hearings, again, commissioners we're asking you adopt a resolution to allow us to continue the city's business in the event that none of you are able to appear in the commission and to hold remote hearings.
8:29 pm
members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item for a resolution to allow for remote hearings if necessary. if you're in the chambers, come forward. if calling in, press star three. seeing no request to speak, commissioners, public comment on this matter is closed. and it is now before you. >> i'll take this opportunity to thank the staff again for making these hybrid hearings very seamless and very easy for commission and the public to participate in the event that any of us to have covid or other matters that take us away from the chambers. commissioner imperial? >> move to adopt the resolution. >> second. >> second. >> thank you. commissioners on that motion to adopt a resolution to allow for remote hearings if necessary, commissioner ruiz? >> aye >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> and commissioner president tanner? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners that motion passes unanimously, 6 to
8:30 pm
0. in places of some department, under department matters for item nine. directors announcements. >> great, we did have one quick announcement for you guy, we received a grant on our, with our preservation team and and director can share details. >> we received a grant for the state office of preservation to focus and produce a native american multiple property documentation form, so basically what this will do is allow us to produce a citywide document to focus on resources and buildings and sites and give an easy way to nominate them for local and federal and state nomination, so this will be a good document for kind of bringing forward a community and giving them kind of just deserve to our city.
8:31 pm
>> i heard from staff on the 30 van ness to close the loop on that but the commission did hear ask approve the project at 30 van ness may of 2020 in the state it's being built as so it was reviewed and approved by commission. >> thank you for the answer and congratulations on the grant. it's exciting and look forward to hearing more about that, thank you. >> okay. item 10, review of past events at the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. there was no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday. >> good afternoon commissioners, aaron, manager of legislative affairs, the land community committee took up the landmark resolution for the more's building at the san francisco zoo sponsored by supervisor mill gar. the mother's going constructed in 1925 for her bert flash to honor their more was dedicated to serve as a resting place for mothers and young children. it was found eligible for local designation for its association with women's history
8:32 pm
as the only recreation sites of the period focused on the well-being of women touring recreational activities and it was eligible for its association with the history of the work progress association, art programs of the 1930s for what was the only large scale wpa art project created solely by women. finally, it's the architecturally significant as it embodied characteristics of italian revival architecture and representatives of the work of architective merit george w. during the hearing, there was around half dozen speakers in favor of the designation. the committee voted to recommend the item to the full board. the next landmark designation for the takachi located at 200 rhode island street and the building is eligible for landmark designation for association with the championship needs and culture. from 1965, the venue
8:33 pm
served as the headquarters for the trading company which had home goods from japan from the takachi store and the family acquired the property after their japan shop was demolished and it has hardship with the japanese -- there were no public commenters on this one but supervisor preston and peskin signed on as coresponders and recommended to the board. the committee held melgar to sign on two conditional use appeals and commissioners, you heard this last week and recommended approval with the modification and the modification was change from ten days to 20 days and the department has the time to transmit the planning commission access to the clerk of the board. during the hearing, supervisor milgar recommended
8:34 pm
the modifications which passed unanimously. it was one speaker in favor of the proposed ordinance. after public comment, the item was forwarded to the full board as a committee report with a positive recommendation. at the full board this week, the board voted on whether or not to override the mayor's veto of supervisor mandelman. the mayor vetoed this and it passed on a 7 to 4 vote which wasn't enough to sustain the veto. this week the sponsor of the ordinance, they gave forceful defenses traffic ordinance in an attempt to persuade one more supervisor to vote for the bill. supervisor peskin (indiscernible) the mayor's veto and saying he was frustrated the mayor didn't say what about the ordinance she objected to. supervisors walton, dorsey and safai spoke against the ordinance. it was the same 7 to 4 in no change how the supervisors voted. killing the
8:35 pm
ordinance. the grouping house -- it's dead as it was tied to the four flex ordinance as the sud could be interpreted as a down zoning. and then, i'm sorry, the mayor's electric vehicles charging ordinance passed its first read and supervisor milgard passed its first read and the landmark designation for the more's building passed its first read. the board is on recess until september 5th. barring covid monkey pox or some tragic weather-related to climate change, i'll be on vacation for the first few meetings after recess and veronica will present the reports while i'm away, have a great break and i'll see you mid-september. >> thank you, mr. shar and great report and we hope you have a wonderful illness-free vacation. >> good afternoon, president tanner, commissioners, corey, zoning administrator. the board
8:36 pm
of appeals it meet last night and considered two cases of interest to the planning commission. but first they acknowledged that ann had stepped down from the commission and thanked her for her years of service and welcomed john as the new commissioner and he has significant and diverse accomplishments but locally he's a former deputy city attorney and he's also the former dean of the usf school of law so we're happy to have him on the board of appeals and they heard at 277 judson street to construct a new adu but it was to prepare existing stairs and replace windows at the front back of the property. and back in 2015 when the permit was first filed, the applicant proposed a rear and side horizontal addition and the appellant filed a dr, siding it was incompatible with the neighborhood and the tr was heard by the commission in october of 2018 but the planning
8:37 pm
commission voted 5 to 0 to dr and require the depth of the extension to be reduced by 7 feet. while the project was approved by the planning department in january of 2019, the permit was not issued and then in 2022, it was picked back up and the owner revised the permit to eliminate all exterior expansion of the permit but there was an appeal by the same neighbor who filed the discretionary review and the neighbor expressed concerns about the revised plans but because the project no longer included physical expansion of the building and the adu is permitted under the state adu program, the board voted 3 to 0 to deny the appeal. similarly, they heard a case for a building permit at 706 vermont street and that was to construct a one-story vertical addition and new green roof at the top. and associated stairs. the appellant filed a discretionary review on the permit if 2020
8:38 pm
siting the new third story addition with the green roof on top of the third story addition would have light and air and privacy impacts and the dr was heard by the commission in february of 2021 and the planning voted 7 to 0 to take discretionary review and it's set five feet. at the appeal hearing last night, the appellant said the guardrails and stairs at the roof be removed or setback an additional five feet. the board determined that the approved green roof and five foot setback for the guardrails were adequate for privacy issues and voted three to zero to deny the appeal, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> there are no questions commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. at this
8:39 pm
time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. >> good afternoon, commissioners, gorgia, i sent e-mails with a link to the two projects, one from 2015 and one was recently, more recently. and the thing i wanted you to see was when you scroll down, to see the original house and you see the condition of the original house and i know that technically you don't deal with the interior. what goes on in the interior except sometimes it comes up and i wanted to illustrate how the interior of these houses that were
8:40 pm
alterations were very livable and they both, one had two units for sure and the second one, the one on jersey may have had a second unit. i just discovered that recently. you know, i don't know if any of you remember 232 clipper street but that was a demolition, a real demolition and originally though, the project sponsor wanted to do it as an alteration but because it was so in such terrible shape, the neighbors felt it was a health hazard so he switched and became a real demolition and you had your cua hearing and i want to emphasize what i wrote in the e-mail and i highlighted in yellow, i don't want to see you have more cu's, it's not good for the staff, it's not good for the commission. but what my point is dealing with the demo is to have a paradigm shift and that's what i said in '21, april '21 when you had the cua hearing
8:41 pm
on the 28th street project which was a very, two livable units and i felt that had such great demo (indiscernible) that even the project sponsor admitted they were wrong and made a mistake and the thing that's ironic about that one, if you remember, you added a second unit. and it was the second unit there to begin with and it was livable, two units and then the second unit. that project is not done yet. i hope the people live there. i have been thinking about the two and comparing them. i'll show you the original pictures, i did send the demo in the thing. i happened to find the demo to the 2015 project a while ago and i forgotten i found them but they were in the file. sometimes they aren't and are. may i have the overhead quickly. i'm sorry. here's the one on jersey. you can see there
8:42 pm
could be a passage way to a unit which may or may not have been there and here's the one on 28th and there was a way to get in the back to the unit. and as i've said, please if you have a chance, read the e-mails, scroll down, look at the interiors of the houses that were there and the other info in the e-mail. thanks very much, have a wonderful break. enjoy your month or three weeks or whatever it is. thanks a lot. >> okay. seeing no other members in of the public in the chambers, we'll go to our remote callers and press star three and when you hear your line is unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> aileen. in this year poll sponsored by the chamber of commerce, 76% of respondents stated that the city is on the wrong track. how could this apply to the housing element? the housing element refuses to
8:43 pm
address carrying capacity but instead focuses on unlimited growth. all 330 million americans live here, all 40 million californians, staff has stated the housing element of affordable housing cost would be $8 billion but other sources estimate it to be between 15.4 and 19 billion. the housing e. identifies the westside as the high resource area. speed challenges assessment, 54 in the westside is not a job rich area or transient rich area. -- immediate -- -- mediocre. this is not exceptional exceptional. for almost one hundred years, district four was a working class neighborhood. this cookie-cutter row houses and the neighborhood was designed with the police, fire and schools,
8:44 pm
surfaces for lower density. the water infrastructure was for lower density. like most of the city, the drinking water pipes on the westside are one hundred years old and (indiscernible) from the spring valley water company. there's 1200 miles of drinking water pipes in the city but the sfpuc with its $6 billion debt portfolio can afford to replace 15 miles, that's 1-5 miles per year. that would take 80 years to replace the pipes let alone up grade them. the urban water management plan states there's sufficient water to accommodate development. however, other experts disagree. besides being voluntary (indiscernible), the sfpuc filed two lawsuits against the state water resources control board. one lawsuit states that the sfpuc has
8:45 pm
insufficient water to meet its environmental obligations on the that wally river. this begs the question, is the housing element of work (indiscernible) in need of a reality check. thank you. >> >> okay. last call for general public comment. if you're in chambers, come forward and if calling in, press star three. no request to speak, commissioners, general public comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar. items 11a and b and c for 2018-015785 map, 200 main street for planning code height and building, excuse me, and bulk map amendment, a general plan amendment and general plan conformity
8:46 pm
findings. >> good afternoon commissioners and i'm josh with planning staff. happy to be with you to talk about block four trans bay. can i get the slides up, thank you. so, we have three actions before you today related to transbay block four. there are general plan amendments related to the project. conforming stoning map amendment. both height and bulk plan amendment and then the redevelopment plan amendments themselves which include amendments to the height and bulk limits in the redevelopment plan as they relate to block four and the planning commission action on that is the general plan conformity findings for the redevelopment plan so the board of supervisors may consider them. to orient you again, block four is the northern third of the block that formally house the temporary transbay terminal which has been decommissioned since the new terminal transit
8:47 pm
center started operation. this block founded by main and howard and folsom will be divided into three blocks and the central third will be a new park designed and will be under construction. the northern third will be block four we're talking about today and the southern block is block two which you may hear about in the future and oci can update you on and it will be the last of the major blocks in zone one of the redevelopment area. block four is the last block that has a significant tower on it. excuse me. all the remaining blocks with major towers have been built to date. so a little about the program for block four, you heard about this at the initiating hearing, block four contains six hundred units. in the major tower, it's composed of con con /* condo and rental and mid-rise portion
8:48 pm
is one hundred affordable with over two hundred units of below market housing and there are a small amount of market rate townhomes facing the park. in addition to the housing program and i'll note again the housing program for this block has extraordinary 45% of the units below market rate. and that is again enabled by the amendments being proposed today. there's a small ground floor commercial program. there's a comment -- both common and open space including shared courtyard that's accessible from the streets. there is below grade parking and the project will be making significant streetscape improvements to all of the abutting streets including building the new extension of the tahams street which will be accepted by the city as a public street. another image oriented you on the landscape where this
8:49 pm
sits. there's, you can see all the existing buildings most have been built in the last decade or so. a few of the buildings that are entitled still to be built on the westside there with ocean wide and then you can make out block two in white just to the south of block four which will be the last of the zone one blocks. so again the purposes of the redevelopment plan are to create this new mixed income neighborhood which we largely see mostly built out there today. it alleviated the blight caused by the embarcadero freeway and the construction of the earthquake and this generates funding for the transient center program which includes downtown expansion to come. 2200 units built to date in zone one and a third is affordable, so this block four will significantly add to that total. and note that the redevelopment plan as a whole
8:50 pm
has a state league requirement to deliver 35% of all the units cumulative in the whole project area as below market rate. that includes, that calculation includes not just projects built on the public parcels in zone one but includes calculation includes all private parcels in the redevelopment area so that's why this block particularly, the last blocks and these make up more than 35%, so that we can ultimately achieve the 35% total area wide. so the transbay citizen advisory did take the amendments up and did strongly recommend their approval. and it's not in your packet but the chair of that committee did send us a support letter reemphasizing the cic endorsement. the commission did recommend these amendments a few weeks ago and the commission on community investment and infrastructure did take up all
8:51 pm
their approval actions since your initiation hearing and made all of their approve actions including the approval of the disposition and development agreement and approval of design of the project and so, after the commission takes its actions the last step is the board of supervisors. so just to quickly run through the amendments, the stoning map amendment -- zoning map amendment will change the zoning map from 450 to 113 feet. while the project is in zone one and therefore is not subject to the planning code and zoning maps, this is a conforming amendment to make sure our zoning map accurately reflect what the redevelopment plan calls for. similarly the general plan, this is the transient center height map, also conforming amendment to show -- to reflect the change so the general plan and redevelopment plan must be consistent. there's a couple of cleanup items being batched with the amendments including reflecting implementation changes and limitation actions taken in the
8:52 pm
redevelopment area. there's one reflecting the changes to the bike network that have taken place. and also sorry, there was also a map amendment to show the height approved for the mirror built at one hundred feet although it was shown at 300 feet and the site amendment was changed years ago. the height changes includes bulk changes to the lower floors of the tower. and then to the mid-rise portion, that's the one hundred percent affordable building. so, lastly, staff recommends that the commission approve all these amendments. there's three resolutions, motions before you related to the general plan amendments. the zoning map amendments and signing of conformity for the redevelopment planned amendments and with that i'll hand it off to the sponsors design team to walk you through some highlights of the design.
8:53 pm
>> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. (indiscernible), principal with architects. we presented a summary of the design which is refined in collaboration with the architects and ici staff and planning staff over the last six years. at the last hearing, we focused on the overview of the exterior design of the project. today we thought we would take a little bit more detailed look at the open spaces that we're creating. you recall the proposed site and block massing closely follow the originally conceived massing of the transbay master plan. the towers at the intersection of howard and main street and the massing steps down towards the park, as the towers on the northside of
8:54 pm
the block, the height does not impact the open spaces that are created. the bulk is in vertical elements and they're defined in the inner block. the townhomes are further articulated to read like individual homes with entries. the design includes a publicly accessible elevator courtyard and several resident outdoor spaces. these are positioned to take advantage of solar orientation and to provide a variety of scales that's adjacent to indoor residence areas that's disbursed throughout the buildings and the shape in the building b and opening between it and the townhomes allow more sunlight into the space. here we see the composition of the block from bill street with the new park in the for ground ask park tower in the background. building b will form the park. on the right, we see more detailed viewpoint of the tower base from the
8:55 pm
intersection of main and howard street. next, we'll take a look at the open spaces. the site plan shows how the courtyard connects between howard street and the interaction with the amenity spaces that surround it. (indiscernible) shows the courtyard is larger than that required by the master plan controls. these courtyard perspectives give a sense of the character of the shape and how it will be shaped into more intimate spaces by seating ems and raised planters and the tree canopy above will provide light and shade. on howard street, (indiscernible) pulled away from the building to create howard plaza which acts as a buffer to howard street and activated by the entrance to the apartment building. this also allows additional lights and air into the mid-block space. the illustration of building b shows how the building massing is set up to create a variety of outdoor spaces. the park
8:56 pm
pavilion building is kept as low as possible, again, to allow the light to flood into the elevated central courtyard. the full plan show how the buildings step away to allow light into the courtyard and create additional residence terraces with views over the park. this allows daylight into the circulation spaces of the affordable housing building b. and again that level 12, we see how the buildings continue to full back to create a separation between the tower elements and create additional outdoor residence terraces associated with amenity spaces and to provide daylight into the residential corridors. stepping back, this view from the bay bridge illustrates how the building proposed height fits nicely into the skyline, respecting the intentional cluster and the shape of that skyline. from the embarcadero, we see how the walls inspired by the transportation system also relate to the brick-and-mortar part of the waterfront. in these
8:57 pm
views from the south, we see how the block is harmonious but has expression and how the massing is setup to allow the solar exposure to the open space as possible. and finally, a detailed view that shows the high-quality and detail that is evident from the pedestrian realm with the papaville -- the pavilion on the right. we look forward to questions and i'll hand it over to dan, the sponsor. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is dan. and i'm a managing director with hines in san francisco. on behalf of hines and the sponsor team, i wanted to underscore our ex -- our excite to be here to create and hone the division for this one-of-a-kind development. block four is an amazing project that will deliver 700 units of
8:58 pm
housing across the income spectrum including over three hundred units of affordable housing and making it the large evident affordable housing project in downtown. all unit was critical to addressing the on going housing crisis we're facing as a city. the project will provide a valuable (indiscernible) to downtown san francisco including 1600 temporary and permanent jobs, 6400 square feet of community serving retail and significant new open space and public amenities. we're proud to be contributing to the ambitious and addition to downtown where we have been an active community member for four years and thank you for your consideration and let me introduce our partners at mercy housing. >> i don't know if the chair wants to provide additional time but that's their five minutes. >> i think we can ask questions, if that's all right. >> yep. >> in that case, commissioners, we should open up public comment and members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the matter. if you're in the chamber, come up
8:59 pm
and line up on the screen side of the room. if you're calling in, press star three. we'll go to our remote callers. >> hello everyone. my name is alice, director of state government relations for the bay area council. we're a public sponsor -- dedicated to solving our challenging issues and improving the quality-of-life. on behalf of our 300 members, we wanted to state our support the proposed transbay block by hines. with california housing shortage, every county and city do its part to produce housing at all levels and development is a great opportunity to transform this temporarily open space to build 681 units of housing. the prime location for mixed-use development has the potential to be a catalyst for the revitalization of san francisco. the city (indiscernible) and
9:00 pm
likely with the work from home option and it will be challenging (indiscernible) and the city needs to recover. we need more people in downtown and this project accomplishes that. we want to echo support for the increase in height and density for the project as it builds a larger number of affordable housing and this is consistent with the (indiscernible) sustainable and thank you again. we encourage you to (indiscernible). >> hello commissioner, my name is mike. i'm the deputy director of the benefits district of which the subject development is within. as well as a member of the transbay citizen advisory committee. and i'm commenting today on behalf of the cbd as well as in my capacity as a member of the cac. the housing
9:01 pm
being built is for the neighborhood and the city of san francisco and the bay area as a whole. the cbd looks forward to seeing this project move forward and working with the developer and future residents to build a pleasant, walkable and safe and vibrant neighborhood. in addition to that, the streetscape improvements and public open spaces for the parking project provide amenities available to current residents and the general public. cbd supports the additional housing density and we ask the commission vote to approve the proposal. (indiscernible) citizens advisory committee unanimously approve the project. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition in strong support of the proposal here today. our committee got to review this
9:02 pm
proposal a couple of months ago and it's a fantastic opportunity for the city as a whole and for the neighborhood to improve in significant ways and mentioned by a couple of earlier speakers, the increase height and density means we'll get a little mind-blowing amount of sizeable affordable housing in this community. with different income levels, we think it's fantastic and something the project team should be applauded for. our commission was impressed by the urban design, the amenities, decks and open space and (indiscernible) and similar to the comments from the bay area council speaker earlier, this is a really, really big piece to provide a lot downtown. speaking logically, you know, we certainly want to attract people to come downtown, but the best
9:03 pm
ways to do that is actually having residents and people shopping and people that will be working and people that will take their dogs to the park in the neighborhood. all those pieces are part of san francisco's recovery strategy. this building, this proposal, these homes are part of san francisco's recovery strategy and in the current economic climate, these projects do not come easy and frankly, they do not come cheap, so doing everything that you can to move this project forward today ensures that this is actually reality and improvement for san francisco going forward. so, i stand in strong support and ask you approve the item today and continue to move it forward. thank you very much. >> hi, i wanted to commend the urban design of this development
9:04 pm
and i hope it gets approved very quickly. i'm also a very big fan of the amount of public open space that this project has incorporated and i hope to be able to enjoy the park that is adjacent to the development. thank you. >> hello, commissioners, my name is al graham, 338 -- also known as (indiscernible). also i'm founder of grant park and planning commission in the city of (indiscernible). commissioners, i appreciate the architecture team for providing (indiscernible). i would like to highly (indiscernible) at this moment of the housing crisis and make the most of this. the program provides (indiscernible)
9:05 pm
and building design is in harmony with the neighboring building. it ensures the architect team (indiscernible). i think the public and open space -- this is a gathering location at the moment. consider (indiscernible) and provide more space or public open space. (indiscernible). provide access for all those with income. (indiscernible) and a rooftop bar or barbecue. (indiscernible). thank you so
9:06 pm
much and good luck. >> okay. last call for public comment on this matter. if you're in the chambers, come-- come forward and calling in, press star three. no speakers and public comment is closed and this item is now before you. >> thank you, questions or comments from questions? commissioner koppel? >> so interestingly enough, i attended the tear down ceremony for the original transit center and i'm used to seeing this temporary transit center there, i'm looking forward to seeing this building to add to our great skyline and 700 units and 300 bmr's, that's incredible. i'm glad to see ocii is onboard and pushed it through as well and i really like how context actually designed this was for the area. i made a lot of
9:07 pm
comments in support of this project last time we heard it but still want to echo the fact this is going to add a lot of temporary construction jobs and supporting our apprentice centers and a lot of city built graduates working on this project and it's going to really help out the construction industry as a whole which isn't as busy as it has been in the past so definitely in support. >> thank you, commissioner koppel. i see we have commissioner moore and then commissioner diamond. >> i have expressed my support for this project including the modification which is in front of us. i will take this opportunity to thank mr. swiski and mr. snyder who have been working on this project during their career. the individuals has made the delivery of a
9:08 pm
complicated project understandable for our commissioners and i want to comment them on their incredibly thorough work and i'm in support of what is in front of us today, thank you. >> thank you. commissioner diamond >> yes, (indiscernible) the opportunity to speak a few minutes ago so i would like him to come forward and deliver whatever comments they intended to. >> thank you. >> all right. >> thank you. commissioner die monday, i'm doug shoemaker. i wasn't going to say much so i won't say much now. we're happy to be a part of this project. mercy housing is a nonprofit housing provider and service enriched property manager. we're excited to bring family housing to this location, i think that's the part we're most excited about is to bring this many family sized unit into this part of town so so many fantastic amenities and we'll be working with hines and the broader team
9:09 pm
to make sure we have a fantastic ground floor retail experience that beats the needs of not just the residents of this building but the other market rate and affordable buildings in the neighborhood of which we own and manage a couple already, so thank you and happy to answer any questions if it comes up. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond >> >> thank you. may i continue for a moment? >> yes, go ahead. >> the focus floor is around mercy housing and i wanted an opportunity to hear about mercy's role in this project. i haven't been on the board for several years and i don't believe that causes me to recuse myself from voting. i'm extremely supportive of this project for all of the reasons that have been mentioned. and i like to make a motion to approve. >> second. >> do you want to make comments, commissioner imperial? >> make a motion and a little comment -- >> okay. >> i'm in supportive of this project especially that there
9:10 pm
are different kinds of ami's that is in affordable housing which we rarely see so i'm in support of that in terms of how it contributes to the skyline, i think it's a perfect project so thank you very much. >> i'll add my voice to the chorus. really excited to approve this today and hopefully sue it come to fruition very soon. with that, i think we're ready to vote. >> very good. commissioners, there's a motion seconded to approve the planning code height and bulk map amendment in and approve the general plan amendment and adopt -- commissioner ruiz? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye frm >> commissioner imperial? >> aye frm >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner president tanner? >> aye. >> that motion passes unanimously, 6 to 0. item 12a
9:11 pm
and b for 2017. [reading item 12] 420 23rd potrero street. you're making changes to the phasing plan. >> good afternoon, commissioners. monica, department staff. the applications before you today are a request for office allocation from the office development annual limitation programs 2021 to 2022 large cap limit authorizing 3,426 square feet of office use at block 15. term change to the phasing plan of the potrero station development agreement to remove a requirement to require life science uses of 3,000 square feet on one commercial block. the potrero mixed-use project consist of a comprehensive
9:12 pm
master plan for a 28 acre industrial site which has numerous public benefits and community amenities. january 30, 2020, the planning commission certified the project eir and adopting findings under the environmental quality ability and approved planning code map amendments and the project development agreement including the potrero power station for development. on april 21, 2020, the board of supervisors approved the project master plan and the development agreement. the office allocation before you today would convey a small amount of office square footage to block 15 located between humboldt and 23rd street on the went side of the potrero power site. this commission approved an allocation of 4,350 square feet for block 145 on october 22, 2020. at the time of that hearing -- they'll be more numbers, i apologize. however,
9:13 pm
proposition e which was approved earlier in that same month, october of 2020, linked office development with the city's progress towards certain affordable housing goals as detailed in your staff report today. pursuant to prop e the 875,000 square feet added to the large cap in october of 2020 was reduced by the same percentage by which the city did not meet its affordable housing goals set forth in the regional housing arena. updated affordable housing totals finalized earlier this year show that while 552,574 square feet was believed to exist in the large cap at the time of the october 22nd -- 2020 hearing for block 15 office allocation, in fact only 400,324 square feet was available. in short the commission authorized 3,402 of square feet of office use that technically was not available for allocation at that time. the office allocation before you today would confer
9:14 pm
those 3,400 office space from the 2021 to the 2022 gap and the project sponsor is not requesting anymore office use than the 403,300 square feet requested two years ago. in a digs to the office allocation before you, there's a change to the phasing plan of the development agreement which the planning director determined is a material change to the phasing plan. the proposed change would remove section 3.6 of the phasing plan which requires the sponsor to restrict one of the five commercial blocks to life science uses at a minimum of 130,000 square feet. removing this requirement will change the land uses permitted at the project site. it will only remove an obligation to deliver of life science uses and the commission must approve this material change but to be clear this is not a material change to the development agreement itself. just the phasing plan. at the time your packet were published, the department didn't receive correspondence from
9:15 pm
members of the public regarding the project, however, i did receive three letters of support from community groups including potrero boosters and friends of jackson park. the commenters said they -- the proposals before you today would activate the local economy and support current and future local businesses. based on the findings included in the case report, the department recommends approval of the office allocation with conditions and approval of a resolution adopting findings to allow removal of section 3.6 of the phasing plan. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor team is here and we'll follow with a presentation as well. and we're here to answer any questions you may have. thank you.
9:16 pm
>> thank you so much and forgive the fumbling around. it has been a while since we had to do this in person. [laughter] good afternoon, president tanner, commissioners, tina chang with power station and i'm delighted to share progress on our site. since we were approved in april of 2020, we've been before this commission a number of times, each time advancing different aspects of project. including housing and ample affordable housing, the commercial aspects which include historic adaptive reuse of
9:17 pm
historic structures. and then in 2021, we immediately proceeded to start construction. we started with the stabilization of station a which is a large brick building you see before you, much beloved by the community and has captured the imagination of many. and then we quickly moved to remove miles of obsolete infrastructure that supported industrial uses including a foreign power station and sugar refinery and together with the partners in the building trades, we're literately in the process of recycling mountains of concrete for reuse later on our site to support a 21st century all electric mixed-use project. i'm happy to report that with the strong support of board supervisor walton and the board of supervisor on tuesday approved our final map and we can proceed with our streetscape improvements and providing infrastructure for people. that means streets, sidewalks, bike
9:18 pm
lanes and most importantly access to our waterfront. it has opinion such a privilege to be a former planner and now developer and watch the progress of this site and take part in opening this part of san francisco. now for those who have been to the power station and those who haven't, we welcome you. you can see from this image how much has changed. we've removed a lot, but we still remain a power station, a project booked by two power stations. as monica mentioned, we have two small items before you today. the first is a request for roughly 3,400 square feet for allocation that this commission granted in rhna calculations, it needs to be allocated so you can see from this image and as monica really specifically summarized, there's month net new office allocation being requested for station a. the next is a change to our
9:19 pm
saving plan amendment. there's no material change to our land use plan much there's no change at all. life science and office are still allowed on all of the five commercial blocks which are showing in blue. the request is simply to remove the requirement to provide life science which will make our project more flexible to respond to changing market conditions which we're experiencing now. and this commission may recall that you approved a similar request from our neighbors to the north at pier 70 earlier this year. ultimately though, we're really excited to provide and bring into life a vibrant picked use community that will provide thousands of units including affordable housing, a really exciting, at least we think, place to work and collaborate amongst 7 acres of park and open spaces. and realizing a vision that was created with our community partners, the planning
9:20 pm
department, many other leaders in the city family and we thank you all so much for all your continued help and support. i'm joined by managing partner ricky and council jim and we're available for questions, thank you so much. >> okay. that concludes presentations, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. if you're in the chambers, come forward. if you're calling in, press star three. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is jr, president of potrero district association and i apologize for not being in person and i apologize for the tardiness of our messages. we think this is a no-brainer, and the other is to bring this development into the same ecosystem and market please as the development further along the northside of the central
9:21 pm
waterfront. so, we think these are very easy, and apparent and necessary changes you should approve but we're here and i think that speaks to the partnership that we have been able to afford with the developers of this side. those who have a history this site, you know through the entitlements, we were able to come to a (indiscernible) and move forward together for this project and even for something as, you know, as easy as this approval is, the project sponsors to reach out to the community, they do communicate about it, they do address needs and it's part of the communication and part of the (indiscernible) between the community and the developer that's going to make this a vibrant and really wonderful part of the city. so, i do encourage you to please approve these two changes and thank you very much for your time and consideration today.
9:22 pm
>> okay. last call for comments on this item. you need to come forward or press star three. seeing no additional request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed and it's before you. >> thank you. i want to recognize commissioner moore. >> mr. eprod couldn't have said it better. yes, and potrero and dog patch and all those people (indiscernible) project. i'm in support of what's in front of us. there's a few developers who comes back and consistently report progress and consistently shapes the plan with full disclosure to all of us. i move to approve this condition. >> second. thank you, commissioner moore and commissioner koppel and i see commissioner diamond would like
9:23 pm
to speak as well. >> i'm in full support of the project but i do have a question for the project sponsor with respect to an update. one of the features of the project i was intrigued when you came for was a potential for a dock for the ferry service and where is the discussion on that project? >> commissioner diamond, thank you for that -- thank you for the question. it can be suitable ask adapted for future water service. there's others in the city working on this, both mta, weda and the port and it's exciting we have water transit with treasure transit and we hope to be a part of this network. as part of its transportation funds set aside for water funds from -- we look forward to engaging that in the
9:24 pm
future and this is an exciting potential for us to open and use our waterfront much more than we do so it's something we look forward to working with staff and other interested parties in the community. >> thank you for the update much there's exciting parts of this project that we look forward to and that's one of them and i hope it comes to fruition. >> thank you. commissioner koppel? >> yeah. i think, only maybe commissioner moore and i will kind of be able to relate of how unique of a project this and how many times we have been in this hearing room figuring it out. i mean, we rarely replace a power station first of all. we rarely developed 29 acres in our city. this also boarded by water and then also has not only historic buildings but some that are in jeopardy of being structurally okay to stay, so thanks for your
9:25 pm
patience. i don't know how many hearings this has been but it has been quite a few. [laughter] but as unique of a project it is, i think it's going to be that much of a transformational project. seeing the johns development going up and the eastside of the town is definitely advancing which is a great thing to see. again, all the temporary construction jobs that are going to be, not just temporary, they're going to be going on for quite a bit but it will be for construction and all people that are going to be employed here, you know, to follow when everything is complete is going to add to the neighborhood, add to the local businesses, keep more residents with jobs and spending their money here in the city and again supporting our apprenticeship programs and putting the gaj graduates to work which is a big
9:26 pm
deal so in favor of both items. >> i want to add my support and thank you for coming before us. i was curious in terms of going forward with the reallocation of the rhna numbers, do we expect it to happen at the similar time every year? might we see more of this where we allocate but we have to reallocate later? i don't know who on staff can answer that question but -- >> sure, maybe i'll ask scott -- zoning administrator. >> sure, thanks for the question, president tanner and good afternoon, commissioner. to my understanding, the short answer is no. there was, this wasn't really specific to prop m and prop e this time. it was specific more to how we track and accumulate our housing data which is a bigger issue and there was a lot of work done in the last year although i wasn't directly involved in that to update that work and make it more accurate and my understanding that's done so that would be, that level of
9:27 pm
accuracy is, should play out going forward and so theoretically there shouldn't need to be any future amendments to kind of the annual allotments we get in prop m. >> thank you very much. i'm enthusiastic support and after some gloom about what our future holds, it's good to see projects like this and block four, and there's potential in our city and looking forward to it coming to fruition. with that, we're ready to vote on the motion. >> very good, commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to approve the office allocation and adopt raise resolution from a change to the phasing plan on that motion, commissioner ruiz? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye frm >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye >> commissioner president tanner? >> aye. >> moved. the motion passes passes unanimously, six to zero. >> this places us on item no.
9:28 pm
13. this is a use authorization on 2976 mission street. >> sorry about that. monica, planning department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 303 and 317 to demolish a mixed-use building containing one residential unit, two unauthorized dwelling units or udu's and two commercial units and to construct a six-story building with eight residential units and one commercial unit. located on a through lot within the mission street neighborhood commercial transit zoning district and split between the 65b and 45 bulk district. in more detail the proposal would demolish the two-story building containing one four bedroom residential unit which has been vacant since 2015. over the course of planning department
9:29 pm
review, the records shows tenants within -- leading the department to identify two udu's, one udu located at the rear of a ground floor commercial unit and address 2976 mission street. it has been vacant since 2019 and the second addresses -- it has been vacant since 1997. the buildings two ground floor commercial spaces are vacant. the proposed project would retain the buildings front facade and construct new six story, 65 foot tall mixed building with eight dwelling units and one one bedroom and the project includes a 1600 square feet ground floor commercial space and provides a significant amount of common open space in a digs to three private terraces. the project would provide eight class i and two class ii parking bicycle spaces. no off streetcar parking is proposed and the project was submitted to the department on
9:30 pm
january 1, 2020. the project is not required to replace demolished units and the project sponsor team has outreach efforts with mission and community groups. although the project is not located within the strict boundaries of the latino cultural district, the project sponsor team worked with members throughout the development and design phases of the project since it was first submitted in 2017. the design of the building has been revised based on community feedback to have a traditional ascetics that relates to the building facade as well at the larger street wall and the sponsor dedicated a large portion of the southern building wall to a future mural at the request of condre. the project sponsor has not provided the financial feasibility and code compliance analysis that accompany request for removal of unauthorized dwelling unit and the sponsor is not arguing it's financially feasibility and the feasibility of the project is
9:31 pm
contingent on demolishing the building to -- i want to read one clarification into the record on pages 17 and 18 of the staff report document or pages 13 and 14 on the draft motion for those reviewing hardcopies. the word con testifying has been changed to the word arguing to avoid a confusing double negative. i sent you a corrected pdf earlier this week and i have hardcopies i can distribute after. i also want to correct my math on the land use table on page 70 of your packets, if i was good at math, i might not be here today but unfortunately. the net new residential gross square feet should be 8,176 square feet and not 9,776 listed and the -- not 10,977. and i also have copies of that revised land use table that i'll handout when i'm finished speaking and the project is consistent with
9:32 pm
the area plan and objective and poll seize of the general plan. the project would demolish one unit and two udu, it will provide eight residential units and are family sized and all which will be constructed to current life and safety codes. the department recommends approval with conditions as provided in the staff report. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor will follow with a presentation as well and we are here and available to answer any questions you have. thank you. >> is it a three minute presentation? >> five minutes, okay. good afternoon again commissioners it is good to see you. is it up? can we put up the screen. okay. this is the project unfortunately you can't see it, on mission street 296 -- 2976 mission street. it's -- it's a through lot and existing --
9:33 pm
existing building on the site and the old jerusalem restaurant used to be there but they have since left and as monica mentioned, there have been no tenants in the residential spaces for quite a long time. so this is images of the site. most of you know the area, it was the subject of the laundromat project a number of years ago, it was down the block. so, one of the things that was important to us on the project was to retain the context of the building by retaining the facade of the existing building. unfortunately, the building is not in good shape so for instance, the udu spaces are, i think uninhabitable because there's no windows and no space and it was the back of a
9:34 pm
commercial space so we're providing 7, two bedroom units, one, one bedroom unit and at the request of the community group, they were asking about the restaurant space, we had originally had a unit at the back on the first floor with a much smaller commercial space at the front and they saw there were a lot of loss of restaurant spaces and cafe spaces, so we it agree to make that change. this is the south elevation. it is broken up. we have this unique zoning where the front half of the building is at 65 feet, the back half of the building is at 45 feet. it does break up on the south side so we don't have a big monolithic wall with the staircase tower and the elevator tower on this side and we are reserving the space there for a
9:35 pm
mural which can be seen from mission street but certainly from bernal heights as you look down, as you're coming town mission towards the -- down mission toward the city, he would be able to see that. we have two major outdoor spaces. one is at the rear of the second floor. we have the commercial space completely on the first floor and then at the rear of the second floor, we have an outdoor space there as well as at the stepped floor at the fifth floor, top of the fourth floor, we have a large outdoor common open space there as well. so this is the site plan. you can see it goes through on osage street and an alley in the back. this is the first floor plan that shows the commercial space and all the building utilities and staircases and circulation. this is the second floor with the commercial space, i mean, the common open space in the back, a one bedroom unit, that's
9:36 pm
the only one bedroom unit on the second floor and two bedroom at the front that's within the historic facade. and at the third floor through the sixth floor, we have stepped back from the historic facade so we don't have a monolithic front on the street and that creates a small private space for the unit on the third floor in the front and then the units are the same as we go up on the third and forth floor. and then the fifth and sixth floor is where the zoning steps back so we have one unit, two bedroom unit on the front. there's the common open space on the fifth floor and the sixth floor has a ball -- balcony over that. we have a good product and the units are not huge. they are a reasonable size. we have 88% two bedroom units, not huge but certainly in that location, a good location for that scale
9:37 pm
of unit and we are trying to be contextual and provide a well designed product to fit within the context of mission street and the quadro district area. thank you. >> okay. if that concludes project presentation, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. if you're in the chambers, come forward. if you're calling in, you need to press star three. >> hi, my name is richard becker. i work at 2969 mission street. the answer coalition and end racist. we share an office there. you know, i move to san francisco 41 years ago from
9:38 pm
rochester new york and 41 years ago the pricing of living was the same and it isn't now. what happened and what is the role and what is the responsibility of the planning commission? we see the reports and the plans that proclaim a commitment to many progressive and equitable ideas. yet developers continue to get approval for more and more luxury and unaffordable housing that only really contributes to the gentrification of our communities. for example, according to your report, as the planning commission action plan in 2020, the missions population was 50% latino in 2000. which fallen to 39% in 2018 unless 35% in 2020. by the way, i have lived in the mission since i worked in it since i moved here. and this decrease in the
9:39 pm
population, it's an elect result of gentrification and the loss of affordable housing units. so now we have a situation where we're seeing condofication on that block on steroids as i call it. the tillman project as it used to be referred to was torn down, something is going to be built there. and june 7th, you approved a 2955 development. now, we're here for a 2976 development and i know that there's another one in the works. it's going to take the place of a small barbershop, the one at 26 and mission at guadalupe. doesn't the planning commission, it seems to rubber-stamp all projects that come in. maybe i'm wrong about that but it sure seems like a lot of them. but doesn't the
9:40 pm
planning commission has a responsibilities to the overall impact that just approving one after another, after another. this latest one, no parking. no affordable housing. is it really a crying need for more unaffordable housing in san francisco as the whole tone of this hearing, meeting has been, no, it doesn't. as a matter of fact, it makes the situation worse. it raises the rent. not lowering them. it creates less affordable housing. and it doesn't -- it doesn't really help to just keep building. so, i'll close by saying this, we call for no more developments at one hundred real affordable housing. >> thank you sir, but that's your time. >> i'll say one other thing quickly and that is, you know, there should be an elected planning commission.
9:41 pm
>> thank you. >> you all are all -- you have a certain -- >> sir, that's your time. >> take the next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is ann, anne, gamobani, i'm a long time san francisco resident. i'm part-time high school teacher and i have to team part time because i want to afford to live in san francisco so i won't stay here in retirement. san francisco wasn't like that when i moved here. so, more to this point, i'm speaking against this housing project. oh, i also want to say that i'm a volunteer organizer with the party for socialism and live liverism and i share an office across the street from this project so this will affect my personally. in the planning commission, 2008,
9:42 pm
san francisco needs and trends report, you reveal that nine percent of house nothing this city is indeed affordable and rents in the mission have gone up 40% between 2010 and 2017. high density, small market rate units will continue to erode the community, according to the san francisco planning commissioners own report. more affordable housing is necessary to protect the mission. so then why does the planning commission continue to approve projects in the mission without mandating any real affordable housing? san francisco planning commission must acknowledge its own research findings and stop approving permits for high density market rate housing without any real affordable units. so, we are demanding that an end to this massive gentrification that goes, continues unabated so we demand only developments with one hundred percent real affordable
9:43 pm
housing be granted permits and that a moratorium for permits for market rate construction in the mission much we approved well over one thousand units today, we don't need more and at the san francisco planning commissions should be elected with representings from tenants and public housing residents and underserved communities, thank you. >> thank you. last call for public comment here this the chambers, feel free to come forward and if calling in, you need to press star three. seeing no additional request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed and this matter is before you. >> >> thank you. thank you to the members of the public who came to speak today. i want to recognize commissioner moore? >> yes, speaking with city attorney, he asked, she asked me to disclose that 2020 and 2021, i worked with architects puama
9:44 pm
and as a board of the hoa, we were involved in the design of the east facing walls which she was engaged as an architecture. that particular involvement does not put me in a position of compromise and what's in front of us today. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i don't see any other commissioners light on. are you thinking about it, commissioner imperial? commissioner koppel, i'm sorry, commissioner ruiz and koppel? >> a clarification, existing residential units are they subject to rent control? >> thanks for the question, monica, department staff. the existing unit has been vacant to my knowledge since 2015. so
9:45 pm
although it was constructed before 1979 and it would be subject to rent control with no tenancy and because of the project was submitted in 2017 before sp330, that's not really answering your question but the building would not be subject to rent control. the existing building is subject to rent control if it remains in place and the same would go for the two unauthorized dwelling units if they were to remain. >> okay. i heard you mention no requirement to replace demolished units, would that mown no requirement to replace the units with rent control so to have three of the units in this project with rent control? >> yes. i answered the second part of your question first. i apologize for that. because the project was submitted prior to the effective date of sb330, which locked in sort of those replacement controls both around units themselves but also rent restrictions related to those units, it's not subject to replacement or rent control for
9:46 pm
replaced units >> thank you so much. i will add that i feel very torn. i hear the concerns the folks raised in public comment about gentrification of the mission, seeing a difference in population because of the increased prices in rent but also hearing the desires of the city to produce more housing in our rhna goals because i am also very concerned about gentrification in the mission district and feeling like we're approving housing that's not affordable for how lowest income folks so i really hear that and i also want to acknowledge the community outreach of the project -- that the project sponsor did and the willingness to the commercial space and
9:47 pm
adding of a mural because our culture is important in the mission district. so, that's all for me. >> thank you. commissioner koppel? >> yeah. good job on the project sponsors part again for meeting with the community. i can't think of a community group in this city that's more active, so good job for that and also your incredibly densifying the project which is what we're here to did. >> thank you, commissioner imperial? >> i want to comment in terms of the, again, in this particular project, this is within the bounds of the zoning. however, i do hear about the issue of gentrification. these are the discussions we've been having when we're talking about the housing element as we are required in terms of the rhna goals as well and in terms of
9:48 pm
the sb330 that puts san francisco to be preemptive in terms of what the state would require us to do, so there is this kind of balancing act that we all need to dance around with. like, for me, this is more of a sensible project and of course i would like to see onsite affordable housing but at the same time, this is not a ten dwelling unit. in order to have one hundred percent affordable housing fronting should have been identified before hand and it would require a different kind of legislation to zone a particular neighborhood for all one hundred percent affordable housing and so, for me, i'm also torn but i also hear about the biggest issues that we've been having here as well. so, i am, for today, i'm in support of this. >> thanks, commissioner
9:49 pm
imperial. commissioner moore? >> what strikes me about this project -- acknowledging that commissioner ruiz expressed. this project delivers units of a size that are appropriate for the context in addition to that, it's not as other buildings in this general area before (indiscernible) that's inappropriate for what is it built. (indiscernible) the units reflect more a size and circumstance of existing residences and market rate projects. it has a place and i am in support of it. >> thank you, commissioner moore. i'll add my comments, i just appreciate, the comments and outreach to the community
9:50 pm
that the project sponsor has done and i look forward to seeing that mural and i like seeing it as you come closer to the -- the city and mission. it has done a good job in reconfiguration of the building but it provides amenities for residents and in sculpting that helps it fit into the neighborhood and i want to acknowledge the concern was replacement and gentrification. this is a small project which is why it doesn't have affordable units and i think a line myself with you, commissioner, and i would like to see it but it's not what we require in our code and it's a fairly modestly sized project with well sized but not large units. so i'm able to support this project today and look forward to again seeing it come to fruition here in the city. commissioner koppel? >> move to approve. >> second. >> very good. commissioners,
9:51 pm
seeing no addition request to speak for members of the commissions, there's a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner ruiz? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner president tanner? >> aye. >> so moved, the motion passes unanimously, six to zero. commissioners, it will place us on item 14 for case number 2021-0053432enx for the pro property at 925 pry ant street for a large -- bryant street for a large project authorization and just to advise members of the public who may not have opinion here in the building, item 15 on columbus and jones street has been continued to september 1st and will not be considered today.
9:52 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. clarify, planning department staff. the item before you is an eastern neighborhood project authorization pursuant to planning code section 206.6, 329 and 843 to allow demolition of an existing 32 foot tall warehouse and parking lot and construction of a 735-foot tall residential building. the project is utilizing the individually requested state density bonus program to achieve a 50% density bonus and maximizing residential density on the site pursuant to california code sections 659 -- 65915 to 95918 as revised under assembly bill number 2245ab2245.
9:53 pm
the project request 1 incentive for street frontages and seven waivers and rear setback and height limit, narrow street and mass reduction. the project is construction of a 7 story residential building with two hundred 18 group housing units including 35 units provided as onsite affordable house and the existing warehouse and surface parking lot will be demolished to clear the lot. the building will include 31 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 218 class i and 8 class ii bike parking spaces and under ground garage with 26 spaces two are designated as car shared spaces and access to 7600 square feet of community amenity spaces and 7200 square feet of useable common open space split between a basement level patio and roof deck. 24 units will have private
9:54 pm
decks. as a state bonus rental project, it will designate 18 low-income at 55% -- six at 110 ami. four low-income units -- at 50% ami will provided to qualify for the 50% bonus under state density law. to date department has receive 120 letters of support. and 12 letters of opposition to the project. supporters referenced the housing shortage and the needs for affordable housing in particular, the benefits of activating a vacant property and the array of amenity spaces for residences and the transient accessibility for the project site. the green alliance endorsed the project. all letters of opposition came from neighboring tenants on lincoln street next pressed opposition to the project, the reasons including shadows on their
9:55 pm
homes, increased traffic on uninstreet especially against existing delivery trucks, over supply of housing with vacant rates in the area and construction and environmental impacts. for public reference, the project was reviewed by stat which is public works for traffic and street planning and there are not protected rights to light and air. since january, the project sfon sore had meetings with the filipino and cultural district in the lgbtq cultural district and had meetings and regular correspondence with the neighbors across the street. there was a preapplication meeting april 28th and 8 people came. and the concerns were building height and increased homelessness in the area and traffic impacts and the project site is located within the filipino cultural district, created in 2016, the cultural
9:56 pm
district is focused on cultivated and enriching ask activating -- and activating equity cultural stability, vibrancy for the filipino community and the district does not have land use designation applying to the project. the project is not subject to the recently enacted group housing regulations, the application was accepted on july 30, 2021, and the preliminary housing development sb3030 application was submitted with the application in february of 2021. it's exempt from ordinance 50-22, and its subsequent planning code amendments and it doesn't have to comply with cooking facilities and individual group housing units and the requirement for minimum common space and requirements for communal kitchens and the new operational regulations. suns publication of the initial staff packet on july 21st, department staff received clarification the project does
9:57 pm
meet group housing units within eastern neighborhood mixed-use district identified in section 2 -- the project is providing 8 thousand 400,000 feet of living space which exceeds 5,800 square feet. the rear yard request is a waiver and not concession incentive and staff report updated the changes and updated for the community engagement summary to account for letters received as of yesterday afternoon and to include a requested condition of approval for combination microwave within each unit. the department finds the project is on balance. consistent with the shell place potrero plan. it will be an underutilized lot and have a -- within close proximity with public transportation, public open space, commercial corridor and jobs. additionally the project will increase the city's
9:58 pm
housing stock and providing 218 new group housing units, 35 of which will be designated onsite rental dwelling units and san francisco is experiencing housing shortage at -- it is exceptional options for young professional are or single people and people moved into the city. furthermore, the project will provide a land use compatible with the zoning district in a building attractively designed and includes community space for residents to enjoy. this concludes staff presentation and the project sponsor is here and provided a presentation and we're happy to answer any questions you have, thank you. >> >> can you please bring up the
9:59 pm
presentation on the screen? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is fwreg, with carmel partners, we're a san francisco based housing developer that developed built and operated market rate, affordable student and group housing across the nation. san francisco has a big problem. there's lots of data on this slide. the short version is surprising you, most housing is not affordable for those who work here. the top ten of san francisco wage earners can afford new and high-quality market rate housing and there's a lot of unmet demand for quality housing that's affordable to the workforce. san franciscans spend way too much of their salary on rent. based on our student housing and urban experience, carmel has been developing a workforce targeted group housing platform for five years in cities like seattle,
10:00 pm
denver, washington, d.c. and now san francisco. the focus is on great location near jobs and transit and footprint buildings and small apartments, lots of amenities and services and the goal of this platform is create professionally managed and high-quality housing that is better than renting a room on craigslist but cost less than nearby market rate studio. seattle has built over 6,000 units of this kind of small group house nothing the last decade. there are small sites and great neighborhoods with small units served by robust amenities and a great neighborhood. people can live with the space because they want to be in the neighborhood and city. and seattle group housing rents for 20 to 30% less than the cost of a comparable new studio apartment in the same neighborhood. 19 bryant is perfect for this workforce housing, small site and housing and residents don't need a car. it's a -- it's a part of the
10:01 pm
affordable component. we have deed restricted units and the market rate is affordable to those making 80 to 120% of area medium. i have friends and two older aunts who are single and love city live and now i have a financially, i saw the house next to me go from being a family with kids to three roommates and three incomes displaced that family. in? group housing at 925 bryant it's a market rate strategy to provide housing for working people of all ages who want to spend less on housing and want an option better than a room and three bedroom family room they might find on craigslist. the city's policy of limiting refrigerator is a challenge and those physically limited and i think that relates to a conversation i had with one of the commissioners about ovens, with that, i'll hand it over to william from bar.
10:02 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is william, i'm principal of the bar architects and happy to be here sharing details about this project. next. our site, 925 bryant is at the corner of bryant and lanton and this has great potential for mixed-use housing and our building is 75 feet fall and 7 stories and 218 homes and amenities and commercial space, we have frontage on two streets and designing and appropriate response for each of these street is our main goal. the wide thoroughfare of bryant street, the brew ant street frontage is on the right. this express corner turns down lang ton and becomes restrain to the pedestrian scale. it has a base, middle and top pattern with two story base exhibiting high
10:03 pm
material and tafshg program. our ground floor design, next slide, our ground floor design is setback from the property line. this affords us to enhance the pedestrian experience from existing condition and have paving and plant materials at grade. next. the dwelling unit was individually livable ask they are all complete unit was kitchenets and the unit benefit from common spaces that will be appointed, a variety of use cases. and one of the main components of our amenity is the roof deck. it exceeds the open space requires for this density building. and lastly in addition to the roof deck, there are a number of interior, exterior spaces useful for ten and working and -- tenant and working and exercising and more. >> i want to thank our planner
10:04 pm
claire for clarifying open space because it's important for this. she has pushed this project to include more open space including adding the balconies and extra terrace on the ground floor and expanding the rooftop at the basement level terraces and final slide. regarding density bonus, the waivers are typical, affordable housing is a city priority and the project provides more low-income units than required. 50% density and requires more space and we're aware of the greater scrutiny that staff and the staff have been applying to concessions to make sure that you are consistent with bonus law. it will reduce construction cost by eliminating the need to build additional stairs and elevator access to the communal space that will undermine the operation on the main communal space by reducing size. you have taken -- >> your time is up. >> we do too so thank you. >> thank you, sir. that's your
10:05 pm
time. >> thank you. >> okay. we should open up public comment to members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter but pressing star three to be in the queue. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. come far, ma'am. >> we're going to take the people in the chambers first and go to the remote callers. >> i don't think -- >> do you want to connect to the screen? would that be better? >> okay. >> i don't think it disconnects.
10:06 pm
>> sfgov, we're going to use the overhead. >> we can do the overhead. >> thank you. >> for the past 18 years, i have worked from home since 2011 so that's the life i have. i've seen lots of changes. we have seen that there's already five hundred -- units of affordable housing .25 miles of where i live and exciting projects that commissioner diamond, a part of mercy would have noted, 6 -- it was not mentioned in the
10:07 pm
assessment. in principle, i totally can see there's a housing problem in san francisco and i'm supportive of more housing. i believe that we is this take in some of the safety and health hazards in consideration of what it makes it particular for this particular street and i wanted to highlight that to you. the safety in the context of a narrow private street, so what the assessment fails to mention is really that impact of when half of the street is private, so when half i a street is private, there's no street cleaning, right. i've requested that for 18 years and never had a street cleaning so with 218 additional units, retail space coming in, we'll have more trash on the street. i mean, i've -- you know, swept the streets but that's a problem, health hazard for my dog and myself and others who have pets, not just for
10:08 pm
lanton dwellers but 925 bryant residents and the half block that's private means there's rights for that, for trucks to be parked there. lincoln is a single street. and single lane thoroughfare and without that private, without, when cars park there, you can't -- it's unsafe. cars have to be forced to back out on to bryant creating an unsafe condition and 218 and i saw the pictures and it's excited.218 units as they move in and out and order deliveries, that congest a very, narrow street. lincoln right now is, my units are three stories tall. the proposed is seven story. you just approved a six-story building but the scale doesn't match what we have in that particular neighborhood. so i
10:09 pm
wanted to point that out to you. and then the last here is the conclusion, i think code, san francisco planning code exist to ensure safety for the citizens and the residents of san francisco. what we and i appreciate the work that clara and others have done to put this assessment together but it doesn't consider that narrow and private impact with traffic in consideration. >> thank you ma'am, that's your time. >> i know we have that extra situation with the laptop. >> you got extra time because i didn't reset the clock. include the chair, we were going to provide two minutes for public comment on this matter. >> well, thank you very much. i just hope you consider the traffic and some of the health considerations and you guys have seen probably my documents i have sent in earlier so i really appreciate it. thank you. >> okay. any other member in the chambers? please come forward. seeing none, we'll go to our remote callers and through the chair, we'll go to two minutes
10:10 pm
and when your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon, planning commissioners, my name is jake price and i'm speaking on behalf of the housing action coalition in strong support of 925 bryant. we reviewed this project back in march of 202 and we're extremely impressed with the project density and strong commitment to affordability. the project exceeds the affordability requirement and 24% inclusionary rate with affordability by design for the market rate homes which are projected to rent 20 of the 30% less than pro additional studio apartments in the area. our committee also commended the project's team to alternative transportation and walkability and urban design with bike park and communal space and accessibility improvements along lincoln street. our committee believes the project will help transform
10:11 pm
a vacant lot and activate the street level while having sustainability transportation. we have worked along the green belt alliance to generate over 110 letters of support for this project and we hope you consider their voices -- voices during their vote and ask that you approve 925 bryant street. thank you. >> my name is andrew day. district five resident. i just wanted to call and say that i'm in support of this project. as mentioned previously, due to afford ability crisis and the project will provide much-needed housing to the city, it's in a great location, so you know, proximity to public transit and park and muni and cal trains,
10:12 pm
that area also is bikeable (indiscernible). [audio is broken up] >> so, it's affordable housing, great. and i strongly support the project and i hope you approve it. thank you. >> hello, my name is matt. i'm calling in support of this project. i actually live a couple of blocks from it and i'm comfortable with it being brought in my neighborhood and comfortable with the affordable levels and minor impacts that it has in the neighborhood. definitely in support, thank you. >> hi. my name is brandon
10:13 pm
powell. i live in bernal heights and calling to encourage the -- the commission to support this project. and approve it. the conversion of the vacant space and surface parking lots into homes is urgently needed in the city. we, the inclusion of a diverse range of housing types to suit the needs of the people in san francisco, it's very important and i hope we can see more projects like this. particularly ones that have such an environmentally sensitive and appropriate response to the conditions that's not getting better in the state of california in terms of water and green house gassy emission -- gas emissions so i hope the
10:14 pm
planner will approve this. >> hi, i live across the street -- an empty warehouse. i'm calling in, not in favor of the construction and i wanted to remind residents are not against construction of housing, it's just a concession so they have adds which isn't taken into consideration by people that don't live nearby. just to start off, they're doing for 56% height increase from 48 feet to about 75 feet. and we live on a narrow street. that's one of the waivers they asked for and the parking would be on lincoln street where all the garages where housing is, lincoln street is where all the huge trucks pass by everyday. and lincoln street is all private. in addition, the board -- the density bonus has been approved
10:15 pm
in accordance with giving affordable housing so they're offering 35 affordable units out of the 218. that improves 38 (indiscernible) per floor. in all honesty, if it was affordable housing, if they add one more floor they get the additional 35 unit buzz they're asking for two additional floors that deeply impact the waiver they're asking for and the height limits they're asking for and other concessions they're asking for such as the rear yard and the horizontal map and i'm for getting the technical terms, sorry about that. all i'm trying to say, there's a need for housing and they're saying, in-- and what will make this building livable and not so congested where people don't want to live in this area where there's a bike or truck or deliverable truck blocking the area to enter
10:16 pm
from. that's all i have to say. >> hi. i don't see how this promotes affordable housing for families. are there any two or more bedroom apartments available? i don't remember hearing that in the presentation. i worry that these the units will be used by wealthy out of towners who want cheaper small homes when they visit the city or plan to rent it out to short-term vacationers and we don't need housing for people who can afford other housing but more family oriented two or more bedroom unit properties that service our working class families and our most needed. thank you. >> hi, my name is daniel, i live
10:17 pm
in 221 lincoln right across from the development and i have been there for over a decade. the development is across the street from me. no offense for the people who support this project but you don't live on our small street and you don't know the struggles we face with a building like this. if you want something like this, maybe you should have the building built on your street instead. the proposed development is hundreds of units with 20 (indiscernible). there's no street parking available as it is with the housing. the current people that live on the street have to park in front of the driveway. the trucks that come into our alley due to the -- when i say alley, lincoln is an alley and it's a designated street. we don't have street cleaning and you can imagine how we have trucks that block our alley and it starts at ungodly hours and trucks are hitting our cars that are parked on the alley way. so imagine having
10:18 pm
another 200 plus units with the cars with our little alley and they'll have cars no matter how much we wish people will take public transportation, they won't. can you imagine the additional trash in our alley. the developer hasn't addressed it. i think the building is higher than the building that's there now. more than double. that won't be (indiscernible). so, now we won't get any into my unit and that's the only (indiscernible). you build a building like that, my unit is dark with no light at all. on top of that, there's zero privacy. they can look directly into my windows which are 24 foot tall windows. on top of that, it's the only way we get air into our unit so you're going to suffocate us, right. if you're going to build a building like that, we have no air and it's getting hotter due to global warming so you're going to suffocate us for the greed of
10:19 pm
having these many units and height. i think there's a ton of issues with the traffic -- >> thank you, sir. that's your time. >> hi, my name is laura. i'm an attorney representative is it advocate for residents in neighborhood and of pacific wholesales and draw your attention to design criteria which we believe this project does not add here. we want to talk about the mass and scale asset. the board needs to determine the mass and scale are appropriate for the surrounding context and i want to hone in on the word appropriate. the court finds it's appropriate because it compares with it existing high rise, the word appropriate doesn't mean similar but -- what you have heard and will hear from other neighbors, there's been a massive influx in this neighborhood and many are sitting here empty and unused. so when you talk about neighborhoods that have been injected with new housing, and
10:20 pm
what's appropriate is not -- i think you will hear people aren't opposed, but they're concerned about the doubling in height that really is going to be another massive injection into the neighborhood. on top of that, i would like to pivot to the factor of planning 101.b which is concession of shadows on open space and access to sunlight and i want to be clear here, a lot of businesses are concerned about shadows on their private spaces and it's not within the board's purview but what's to be assessed by the board is casting shadows on public park or open space and this report talk was acceptable open space but that's not what the code says. there's no accessibility factor. that might be a misreading because there's green space that does appear on the northwest side of the bryant street and lincoln and the report concludes there's not
10:21 pm
enough information with regard to the height of the building in order to figure out whether or not there's significant and unavoidable shadow impact so i was concerned this report stops short of the -- either this space is not acceptable and therefore doesn't need to be -- >> thank you, that's your time. >> thank you. >> hi, my name is michelle hunter and a resident at 309 lincoln street across the alley from the proposed site street development. my husband mark and i oppose the height of this development for the reasons outlined in the e-mail sent to all of you. commissioners, if you can reference the documents i e-mailed yesterday. highlights include construction and environmental impact on residences only and the street is narrow and with the demolition phase of the project, they can create health hazards and potential damage to our building. our only means ever light and air are windows on
10:22 pm
lincoln street. building height will limit our natural light and reference the photo of the front in the back of our building from my last common, all windows face lincoln and having a seven story building will eliminate natural light. lincoln street is a huge issue. reference the (indiscernible) and lincoln street public and private. lincoln street is half private and public and having a garage entrance will cause traffic congestion and using lincoln street for all deliveries and it causes backups and it will exacerbate that -- affordable housing in our neighborhood (indiscernible). with a large businesses moving out of san francisco, there's a large residences (indiscernible). as a
10:23 pm
realtor, i have seen this. in the addition on 7th street and brandon, we'll have one thousand units in a two block radius. the lack of housing in our neighborhood and the market rents -- why do we need more. my husband and i hope you consider the points made (indiscernible) and documents from the developer and recommendation documents. >> thank you, that's your time. >> hi. (indiscernible). i want to say i approve this project and i like how the units on both sides (indiscernible). i think this will help the city for the housing crisis and the affordability crisis and
10:24 pm
(indiscernible). thank you so much for your time. >> hi name is adam. i live at 311 lincoln street across the street from the proposed development and the proposed -- and opposed to the project in -- as a gay man, i live with my husband and -- as you know the project is (indiscernible) density bonus constructions afforded by california government code section 65915. the density bonuses the developer is seeking is a height to raise it to 75 feet and the tallest buildings at 50. lincoln and bryant is a narrow alley and defined by 62.1 and it runs east to west and half private and
10:25 pm
public and the private section near bryant is owned by the warehouse. contrary to what was said earlier in planning code 621.1, the rules are clear and buildings like ours -- excuse me. that face south like ours that might -- that my neighbors live in. for a street running 45 degrees like lincoln, you have to provide no less than 45 degrees access plain for the building across the street through which light and air must travel to the other side. because the warehouses and light industrial businesses at the brandon end, through how the weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. have trucks lined up unloading. and trucks are up and down our streets and moving cars out of parking spaces and garages and we have to keep our
10:26 pm
windows close because of the diesel. it will trap more fume asks create an environment of more toxic air (indiscernible). we choose to live where we live because of the relative affordability and location and learned to live with the issues. >> thank you, sir. that's your time. >> we ask for your consideration. >> hi, yes, good afternoon, this is ms. (indiscernible) calling with project san francisco and i want to say that i am in favor of the 925 bryant street project. i think it will provide access to safe and affordable homes for residents. however, i think it needs to be maybe reexamined to also take into consideration the concerns of the residents that are already living there and i appreciate your time. thank you very much.
10:27 pm
>> hello, my name is louie. 310 (indiscernible). i think i have (indiscernible). so here we are (indiscernible) of lincoln street. i really urge everybody to take into consideration the narrowing of the street and the fact (indiscernible). during the construction phase, we know we won't be able to live or work in our (indiscernible). i can't figure out how the traffic on the street will be (indiscernible). the height is another issue and i won't repeat what my neighbors stated and i agree with them and it will be limited to light for everybody.
10:28 pm
i'm in favor (indiscernible) for more housing but we should really think of the layout of the design and (indiscernible), so thank you for listening to the residents of my neighborhood, thank you. >> hi, i'm calling in support of this project. primarily because of the fact it includes so much affordability. i would like to interrogate the talking point from the opposition, there's a massive influx of affordable housing in the neighborhood that's empty and use. i'm not aware of any affordable housing in selma has empty for any of the reasons other than finding new tenants because of a brand-new building built. i think that it's very (indiscernible) that the opposition is using affordable housing as a reason to oppose this project and the unit sizes, (indiscernible). when i first
10:29 pm
moved here, i had to cripple up in an affordable room, so yeah. the units are really important for people younger who may not be able to afford because they don't have a family. those people, i'm one of those people, so anyway. thank you for listening to both sides and i hope you'll take this into consideration for this project, thank you. >> hi, good afternoon, my name is mark, san francisco resident. nothing against this project for per se. the problem is put going on lincoln street. i don't know if you have seen how narrow the street is. it's private and not a through street. and put the main garage to the project on lincoln instead of bryant, frankly is crazy. and a recipe for disaster from a disaster.
10:30 pm
cars aren't do a 3 point turn on that street and have to often back out into bryant street traffic. i fail to say why the entrance to go on lincoln, a narrow half private street rather than on bryant which is a long major widening thoroughfare. i would urge the commissioners today to direct your today to consult with the applicant and work to reconfigure a project at the very least, to face the entrance, using bryant street other than lincoln street. the project, i don't have a problem with, thank you very much. >> this is sylvester. i would ask the planning department staff to please take into account the measurement of the height of the rooftop open space
10:31 pm
on this place and the freeway. the freeway to the west and freeway to the north. what is the height of the freeway? what is the height of the freeway to the west? and what is the air quality impacts for people on the roof? we are still at an area of cars that are -- that's not elect friday cal vehicle so there's leave a traffic on bryant street on the ground and not on the top. they have more exposure to freeway fumes. so, please give us the information, give the commission the information about the relative height of the freeway and the rooftop open space, thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners, my name is john,
10:32 pm
i'm a resident of district two. i'm calling in to support the 925 bryant street. it's a great example for development which we need much more (indiscernible) in san francisco and in the light of the area because every home built in san francisco is a home that's not in a central valley exert. especially if we're talking about affordable project. this project is small units and subsidized affordable housing. this is an amazing project and i think it has 216 bike spots for one per unit. it can't get much better than this and gives us 82% parks compared to the average. fantastic project and i hope you support it. thank you. >> go ahead, caller.
10:33 pm
>> hi name is ely, i'm actually a neighbor of the proposed project. although i'm fond of having a place for affordable housing there, the volume of the building that is proposed is against all san francisco city regulations for this size of street and i request the proposed developer to reduce the height and provide setback, a
10:34 pm
part of the san francisco code to get this project approved and endorse (indiscernible), currently the developer is kind of planning on the code that allows him to override the san francisco city plan code and in doing so, he really -- he's affecting our livelihood in this area, the neighbors around and the volume of the project is inproportionate for the street it's on and the parking and all of that. so thank you so much. >> okay. last call for public comment. if you're in the chambers and have not spoken yet, please come forward. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three. when
10:35 pm
you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon, staff and commissioners. excuse me. sorry. good afternoon, staff and commissioners, my name is jordan grimes and resilient manager with greenbelt alliance. for those not familiar with us, we're an environmental nonprofit dedicated to building climate resilience in sustainability communities and after careful review, greenbelt support the 925 bryant project. from housing supply and affordability standpoint, the 218 new homes are so badly needed in the city. greenbelt is ex salted to see the builder to provide affordable units and we're happy to see a mix of low, very low and workforce units. additionally the proposed development will prioritize sustainability to efficiently reusing existing land and
10:36 pm
infrastructure of a higher use and having onsite generation and high efficiency water systems. plans to green the street (indiscernible) we ped friendly street experience or benefits, we're supportive of. the proposal will have close walkability to transit and large bike room and sidewalk improvement this and this will help the city of san francisco for a cleaner community for all resident. uc berkeley climate calculator shows it's the most effective strategy the city can employ to -- ultimately this is a strong badly needed project. and we at greenbelt urge your support today. thank you so much. >> hi there, my name is carl. i'm a renter in san francisco and i just want to say that the housing shortage resulting in
10:37 pm
high rent for me and all my friends who live in the city and a project that will turn a vacant lot to 200 housing lots with 24 being affordable is a no-brainer to me and i support the project and hope you move it forward, thank you. >> okay. final last call for public comment. seeing no addition request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. and this matter is before you. >> thank you to everyone who called in or for those who are hear and to the project sponsor and staff for a great report. i did have a few questions, if i can start for the project sponsor. i know one of the waivers, i believe that's being requested is from off street loading and i thought i saw on sheet 800, there's a moving
10:38 pm
space labeled in, is that from moving in, moving out, maybe you can explain your other projects similar to this and how do folks month and out and do they need a vehicle even if they don't own or use a vehicle regularly? >> thank you, commissioner, tanner. we worked with sf dot to look at different ways to lotted this. in our experience with housing like this, people don't show up with a huge beacon moving back. it's a back of a truck or small trunk of a car. in the garage, one space is designating for move in, move out. at the direction of city departments have put all of the loading for daily drop off and pickup and also for the move-in, move out to bryant street. >> okay, great, thank you. maybe ms. seeny, we had a question, a lot of comment around the challenges of landon being a narrow street and defined as a
10:39 pm
narrow street and i live on a narrow street and i can attest to the challenges of people sitting and accommodating everybody on a street. i think maybe correct me if i'm wrong, one of the questions you heard, why is the parking entrance there? part of that would be keeping it off the main street to not have conflict with transit and bike lanes so maybe you can speak to that a little bit. >> yes, thank you for that question. bryant street has a number of restrictions for vehicle access. under the planning code, it is a vision zero high and injury network and transient preferencible street and truck route. no curb cuts are allowed so creating a -- creating new driveways would actually be prohibited. yes, that's why landon is the accessible frontage for vehicles. >> thank you very much. while we have you here, i understand a lot of the, request for waivers,
10:40 pm
could you talk about the exposure waiver? is that because the units are facing on to, because you need to face 20 feet open space or rear yard, so maybe if you can talk about the units that don't meet the exposure requirement and how they are getting their exposure? >> yes. the units that do not meet exposure are on the rear of the building, so not facing langton and some of them will be on the lower floors that will be facing, there's a ten foot rear yard which they have requested a waiver for so they'll be facing this ten foot rear yard, for the lower floors, there's currently a three story warehouse on the side of that. they still do not meet the rear yard rules because in theory, something could come later but at the moment on the higher floors on the rear, there is more air than technically on the property at the time. that's
10:41 pm
what the dwell -- that's what the dwell being unit is there for. >> one of the things -- about how the housing is used and how it can add to the city's kind of, i guess, dimensions of kind of properties we have. maybe you can talk more about what you have seen in other cities in this type of housing and in particular with the amenity space, one thing you have noticed what we talk about as the commission, how the amenity spaces are distributed or you is a large communal space and there's three other community spaces throughout. so we have talked about the debate, is it larger for larger spaces or smaller and distribute and share your experience with how people use the spaces. >> thank you for the question, commissioner. we have various types, and completed 12 in the
10:42 pm
bay area we're operating today. we have done research into group housing both through the group housing we have built. we have built a 2400 bed group housing property at uc davis that was primarily student oriented. so we pay a lot of attention to how our residents use the spaces but in the research, we went to seattle to see the six thousand units of group housing they built toward a dozen of these projects and met with the community manager and the developer and designers and what we heard is that a lot of these spaces don't get used during the daytime and they don't get used, maybe a little sunday night but not monday, tuesday, wednesday, it's thursday night, friday night, saturday night and then people are choosing, if they want to stay in and have a quiet meal, they're not going there. they're choosing to go to the spaces because they want to be around other people. and so, in thinking about kind of how to spread these community spaces throughout the building, we thought it was really important
10:43 pm
to have a really, exceptional large, does lots of things and active throughout the day and co-working in the day and game rooms and various uses that people can use that's all together so anytime of day when you want to be around people, the basement is there to serve you and we have other floor space on the top floor on seven. we added smaller ones on three and five because we're aware of the comments you all made in make being revisions to group housing. we think they will get used some by people looking for small private events but within the larger spaces have designated areas that can be closed off, rented, so when residents want to have a birthday party for eight friends, they have options at all times. >> great, thank you very much. i'm going to call on commissioner ruiz. >> thank you. i have one question for ms. seeny, i don't believe i saw in the staff packet but in the slides provided where it's describing
10:44 pm
the typical unit, it shows an image with 390 square feet, are all 218 units, 390 square feet? >> no. they are all very close in size. there is a slight difference with, yeah. the units facing langton are 30 by 13 ask -- there's one floor where there's units slightly narrow but in general they're almost exactly the same size. >> would you be able to provide the square footage of the units? there we go. >> yeah. there is a, yeah, there's a portion of units on the second floor that are smaller size. i'm going to get my calculator out here. >> did i read somewhere about 11 units? maybe it was a different
10:45 pm
case, 11 units less than 350. >> yes, it's the 1 is units -- it's the 11 units down there. those ones are 344 square feet. and then all of the rest of the units are 35, 13 and a half. >> okay. >> it's just the level 2 facing langton street. >> thank you. i'll trying to understand umu because i though this project is located in umu. when i look at the table, i see that group housing is permitted but i see sro units saying not permitted. and then when i click on 890.88 and read the definition, a single room occupancy units, it explains that sro's can be both dwelling and group housing, so as long as it doesn't exceed, in the case
10:46 pm
of sfro group housing, it can't exceed 350 square feet. you said 11 units less than 350, how is that allowed in this project? >> i'm going to -- >> commissioner, i'm happy to address that. in most cases, we look at like sro buildings and sro units, so it ends up being for the planning code, sro becomes like a size determent. so, in most cases, the units might be allowed or a smaller unit but it's about the building itself. and whether or not we would allow like an sro building within the zoning district verses the specific unit. in short, it gets treated like a studio more or less, so.... >> okay. i'm not reading that in umu. >> you're correct, corey, zoning administrator. i'm happy to take this. in a short answer, it's a typo. that gets to what
10:47 pm
commissioner sucr was saying, we limit sro buildings and there's a distinction. umu we prevent group housing which can be sro and the intent was to say, was to prohibit sro buildings. and that is where, to be an sro building, every residential unit in the building has to be an sro because the planning code gives certain benefits and kind of reductions in requirements for sro buildings that it doesn't necessarily give for individual sro's units so this issue was raised a number of years ago and was brought to the zoning administrator at that point in time was my predecessor and there was work done with the staff. we reviewed all materials and it was clear the intent was to prevent sro where the building was nothing but sro.
10:48 pm
that wouldn't make sense to -- because most group housing bedrooms are not more than 350 square feet, right. so long story short, there was an interpretation made that was a typo and the intent and the way we influence for this project and other similar projects in umu, the intent of that code language is pro vent sro buildings and not individual sro units. >> okay. that makes more sense. umu, it's supposed to say sro buildings and not sru units. >> i'm curious as to whether -- we've had discussions about group housing in general and for the clarification, what the zoning administration provides and i'm curious, are there types
10:49 pm
of group housing and buildings within this area that has sro type of units and it would give me more of an overview of, like, the group housing in general, the diversity of it. however, my -- i have a question in terms that's more of a policy question for this building, i have a question about the commercial spaces and the loading docks, it looks like the loading will be on to bryant and not will be in langton, correct? >> for ordinary daily mail deliveries, it will be bryant but loading that will serve the commercial spaces or that would serve, move in, move out, there's a designated loading space in the parking garage that is in the basement below the retail spaces. >> and i find it weird, i hope
10:50 pm
-- in terms and i understand and that's great. in terms of the commercial spaces where we're -- where it's added because it is in the alley way and we know the alley ways are small and more a walkable area actually, what are you envisioning in what commercial spaces? are these like coffee shops. >> thank you, commissioner imperial. that's a great question. we found that, you know, this is not going to be big destination retail. it's not what we think is going to work here. bryant street is a little harsh street and we thought that to have more kind of neighborhood serving small, these are not huge retail spaces to be off of bryant street would make them more appealing for the uses that's going to serve the neighborhood, so the last couple of projects i have done where we had retail spaces like this, we've had a hair salon, we had a
10:51 pm
women's kick boxing fitness, we had a small cafe, we had a wine bar focused on minority produced and owned wineries so those are the kinds of retail businesses that we have recently worked with and we find in the current times as we're seeing the bigger and chain retailer struggle to survive. i don't think they want to be out on bryant street where yes, there's better visibility but it's a little harsher environment. >> i appreciate that response and it's not my project but that's what i envision in the alley way because some alley ways are beautiful and walkable and best for walkable spaces so, yeah. if hopefully -- hopefully you'll get a community serving type retail spacing here. i think that's mainly my issue because all of the comments by the residents nearby are about
10:52 pm
the traffic on the alley ways and i understand that because alley ways are really narrow and understanding also the parking entry, where at the same time bryant street is also a busy street too. so, in terms of, as sensibility, i find this project approvable but those are my questions, thank you. >> thank you. we'll go to commissioner koppel and then commissioner diamond. >> is this going to be a modular housing project? >> we have not built modular in the past. this could be but it's not our intention at this time. >> okay. >> do you have any other questions? >> commissioner diamond? >> thank you. the project sponsor talked a little bit about the profile of the kind of people they see living in these
10:53 pm
units, the age range, why somebody would pick group housing? >> thank you, commissioner. i'll admit i was pretty surprised when i toured group housing properties in new york and in seattle and we hired a national research firm to do research on other markets like chicago and tampa where there is sort of more group housing than we expected and what i was surprised while walking through these, developers in seattle said i expected this was going to be young workforce and it isn't. we have people who sold a big house because they want to spend time in the city going to galleries and restaurants ask choosing to live here a few years and we have a lot of people -- sometimes we forget about housing people in their 30s and 40s 50s and 60s sing and live a similar life and that's a lot of population of who lives in the seattle properties. they said it's much more diverse than
10:54 pm
you think. it serves people who are relocating for one reason or another. we cannot lease these short-term. the city has strict and clear regulations around short-term, corporate rentals, things like that but some people want to settle for a year and get a way for the land or maybe they're renovating or trying a new neighborhood so it serves different people at different points in their life who don't want to spend as much money in housing and rather spend that money to pay off student debt or saving for retirement or they can't afford to pay more. >> thank you. so, related question for mr. tee, i know our interpretation for the appliances that can go in the units limit refrigerators to under counter refrigerators, are we concerned about the location of the frig or the size of the frig. >> thank you for that question,
10:55 pm
corey, zoning administration. it doesn't provide that distinct. it's focusing on the location and size. it's more about the size that we're talking about because the intent is to allow, the group housing definition talks about no cooking facilities and interpretation is about allowing a limited set of cooking facilities and it's all about providing just some amount of facilities for these types ever bedrooms without going all the way to the point of being (indiscernible) to their individual dwelling unit so to your point, if someone had, you know, what you might consider like a dorm frig, the under counter refrigerator but they put it on the table or counter, i don't think there will be a problem with that at all. i don't know we have observed or been asked to weigh in on that specifically in the past. >> i would comment, based upon the profile, not just being young people who live in these
10:56 pm
buildings but older people, i would hope we would be open to conversations with the project proponent about whether or not the client would like a frig and whether it should be low down or more comfortably placed for people in different locations and sounds like you're open to that conversation as they work with the design details, correct? >> sure. i really don't think the location of the smaller frig is really germane to the issue of whether it has the refrigerator in the first place and how large it is, what its capacity is. >> great, thank you very much >> sure, no problem. >> thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> yes and i'm sorry. have any
10:57 pm
previsions been made to deal with transportation and network companies, particularly given the narrow right-of-way of langdon? is there any -- has there been thoughts about how to manage that? >> commissioner moore, the project is going to be applying for a white zone on bryant street for active passenger loading, so in concept, tnc such as uber and lyft isn't on be langdon street. >> people are parking illegal and impeding fire access in terms of an emergency. thank you for explaining that. i have another question for the applicant. i was trying to find at least labeled on your draws
10:58 pm
(indiscernible) and small previsions for tenant storage with units being small and no-build and furniture being provided, are there storage rooms. i couldn't find them. >> thank you, commissioner. each unit will have a washer/dryer so there's no common washer/dryer and they're in the unit floor plans that's located in the kitchen with plumbing. every unit has a closet. we're exploring some modular furniture options but not at this point ready to commit to them but exploring modular furniture options that provide additional storage opportunities outside of the unit. we are not intending to provide store an. we have done that in so many cities that mandate storage outside of the
10:59 pm
units and so much is empty. so, we -- from our experience and i can think of eat least three jurisdictions i have worked in and we have the empty rooms. >> thank you, commissioner moore, was that all your questions? i want to make sure. i did have a couple other questions, just one of the things we have talked about and heard from the neighbors a lot is around height and this is seeking to be washed from our standards -- seeking to be waived from our standards and they have different heights to the provide and provide more access to light and air. did the sponsor -- did the project sponsor had conversations with the neighbors and can you talk about the heights facing the narrowing street and how you engaged with the neighbors on that topic? >> beginning with the first meeting we held which was a
11:00 pm
preapplication meeting in may of 2021, the neighbors from the outset, you know, were very clear, they said we don't like the height of this. we would like a three story condo building. we don't want apartments or affordable units. we did, i thought make some progress in that conversation that they said, one of the mitigations for height could be more setback from the property line or improving the right-of-way. if there were more greenery. if you look at the plans, we have pulled the building back from the property line and have not only the required planting along the curb but actually on both sides of the sidewalk so the building does pull back from the sidewalk to give a little room. i understand it's not much but economically this project does not work if it's less than -- less than seven stories tall. >> one question about the loading zone in the garage, what's the clearance height? what streaks can have clearance
11:01 pm
to go through the garage? >> vans. >> basically typical vans but not a truck or boxed truck. >> no, but vans and again these units being small, people are not arriving with large couches and so forth, generally. >> certainly. i think one suggestion not to you but others listening, that may not be for this project and the -- this is not a daytime parking space. whether it's a preference to have designated commercial loading but limited parking space. those are the questions i have and i don't know if commissioners on he owe >> commissioner -- commissioner tanner, the objectionable question to height was raised, at staff request we had them move their mechanical tower to be further out and to be less
11:02 pm
likely to cast shadows relative to neighbors. without losing height, there was a design change to those that can be -- they can be 16 feet tall. we had a way of adjusting height. >> great, thank you. commissioner ruiz. >> thank you, i have one more question i forgot to ask if regard to umu. through my work as a community planner, i have heard from many other focuses who track land use that umu was an effort to encourage family size units and traditionally in a pdr area. so i read and heard that housing is permitted in umu but subject to height requirements so does that apply to this project? >> thank you for the question, again, corey. zoning administrator. sorry to keep
11:03 pm
having nuance answer and the answer is yes and no. when each neighborhood was adopted, the citywide rate for onsite insolution natury was 12%. the rate was 19%, so when it was adopted, you're correct. it was designed to have a higher rate of affordability required and we have the land dedication for umu that doesn't apply for other communities. since then, we've had numerous changes and increases to our affordable housing requirements across the board. such that that 19% has been superseded for projects of a size, so when it was adopted, yes. there was a higher standard than citywide as it is now. the citywide standard for units, 25 or more projects is higher than the original 19%. >> okay. thank you so much. >> sure. >> thank you. commissioner
11:04 pm
diamond? >> unless commissioners have any other questions, i would move to approve. >> second. >> okay. commissioners there's a motion that has been seconded. >> jonis, can you give me a second. a question to the motion maker. if she would be amenable to putting a condition not allowing modular construction and please, i don't want any of this to revolve around me. we have a project in front of us that's here but if you look at the residential plan that pretty much -- not saying i know what the developer is going to be doing here and i asked my question and i gave me an answer but if you look at that plan, it kind of speaks to me saying something could be in the works and that shouldn't dictator may not dictate how anyone else will vote but it will dictate how
11:05 pm
i'll vote. >> commissioner koppel, if i can make a suggestion, if you want to amend the motion, we include that as a finding that the project sponsored indicated they would not be using -- >> that's enough, yeah. >> commissioner tie mond, did you want -- diamond did you want to respond? >> can i hear from the project sponsor on your thoughts on that request for a finding? >> it's unique and i understand the intent. it's not our intent to build the modular and it lays out efficiently and whether that's a modular built or traditional building, it's meant to be efficient and i think i would, you know, at a minimum ask we're more clear about modular because cabinets can be
11:06 pm
modular and we built walls offsite. so i get nervous about this even though i can say to you with all truth and honesty it's not our intention to build it modular today. i know this economy is really hard to build anything right now. it's challenging so i would appreciate the flexibility but certainly not at risk of the
11:07 pm
project being opposed. it's not our intention to build it modular, i assure you. >> commissioner koppel, i think i'm not comfortable with that at this point without there being a lot more discussion about it and i would rather stick to the motion with the way it was made. >> okay. then, commissioner there's a motion seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner ruiz? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> great, thank you. welcome back to the san francisco planning commission meeting hybrid meeting for july 28, 2022. brief announcement b we move on to item 16 on the previous matter on item 14, at 925 bryant street, i wanted to enter into the record that commissioner moore at the very last moment basically, during the vote experienced technical difficulties where she was not audible but she did vote
11:08 pm
affirmatively in favor of the project and so that will be reflected in the minutes. commissioners, that will place us on item 16 for case number 2020-010283 dr. ua. 2306 through 2310 and 2312 through 2316 vincente street and this is a conditional use authorization. >> i think your microphone -- >> jeff, i'm sorry. none of the remote people could hear that statement. i did not -- i didn't unmute the microphone so i'm going to repeat that for commissioner moore's benefit. so before jeff starts his presentation, i wanted to, on the record state that commissioner moore for the previous item at 925 bryant street had some technical difficulties and right when the vote was being taken, she was
11:09 pm
not audible but she has confirmed she voted affirmatively for the project and that will be recognized in the minutes. thank you for bearing with me, jeff, go ahead. >> thank you. good afternoon, president tanner. members of the commission, jeff, planning staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization for planning code 155 to allow new curb cuts on a projected cuts with class ii bicycle lanes. or lane. the project site is in the park side neighborhood of supervisorial district four. it's clusters of commercial retail. the project site is a four thoifb 87.5 square foot lot with approximately 54 feet a frontage along vicente street and located one lot of the 34th avenue. the
11:10 pm
project site contains 303,200, one-story building containing three separate commercial retail spaces and two are vacant and one occupied by religious institution use and the westbound lane is a class ii bicycle lane located between the vehicular lane and the curbside off-street parking spaces. a -- the building to the east are within the nc1 stoning district and remainder subject block extending west is located within an rh2 district and the lots are developed with one and multi-family dwelling buildings that are, that contain ground floor garages accessing vicente street and there's 15 curb cuts and the project is the demolition of the existing one-story building and new construction of two four story, 40 foot tall, three family dwelling, each to be located on
11:11 pm
a new lot created through a subdivision of the existing lot. each building would consist of three car parking garage with three bicycle parking spaces at the ground floor, a three bedroom flat unit at the second floor and a third and fourth floor would contain townhomes with one fronting fully on to vincet street and the second one fronting on to the co-compliant rear yard. useable open space for buildings will be provided through their own code compliant rear yard and 142 square foot common roof deck on each of the buildings. and each of the lots proposed is a new ten food wide curb cut. as mentioned, the item is before the commission to allow for two new curb cuts on vicent street and the curb cuts were not a major concern with
11:12 pm
the context of the five existing curb cuts that exist on the remainder of the block. the low vehicle and low bike volume of the street and the bike lane that occur on vicente street. the staff did talk about the on-street parking. in response to that, the sponsor revised the design that proposed the two curb cuts located in the middle of the two proposed lot to a concentrated and consolidated location with the intent of minimizing the area dedicated to the curb cuts and the space in between, resulting a loss of off street, on-street parking and sponsor, provide be -- of exhibit b for one loss of off-street parking. the project
11:13 pm
sponsor had a preapplication meeting september 8th, 2020, and at this time, the department haven't received correspondence related to the project. staff would like to read connection into the motion which will be the response to finding 7b number three. related to (indiscernible) and offensive omissions located on page six of the draft motion. the correct finding would read the project proposes two new four story three unit residential buildings, the proposed uses are not expected to generate (indiscernible) offensive omissions and noise, glare or odor and it will apply for all applications for noise and touch and will not include permanent uses that will generate obnoxious offenses such as excessive noise and dust and odor. that last part was redundant. overall, on balance the departments find the project is consistent with the
11:14 pm
objectives and policies of the general plan. the project is necessary is desirable because it will replace vacant commercial building with two new buildings that maximize the allowed density of the proposed lots. the project would provide two new curb cuts on the street with unprotected bike lane but located on a block with five existing curb cuts in a quiet neighborhood and low usage and the project is proposing to increase the number of units to the city's housing stock. and as a result it's necessary and compatible with the city at large, thank you. >> okay. project sponsor, you have five minutes.
11:15 pm
>> all right. good afternoon, president tanner, vice-president moore. and my name is shawn with shawn architects with the project sponsor. i want to thank jeff for shepherding us through the project. the project site is 4087.5 square foot lot in the park side neighborhood. there's an existing commercial building built in 1950. over the year, it has been home to a liquor store, real-estate office and now a church which is on month-to-month lease. the proposed project is construct two new four story triplexs for six units. buildings would be four stories tall, ground floor providing one parring. this is a dangeral use for the curb cuts jeff mentions and it's code
11:16 pm
compliant. project site is located on the northside vicente west of 34th avenue. it is surrounded by residential-uses. it features an unprotected bike lane and 16 neighbors on the two blocks have curb cuts. the bike lane is in a sad state. i went out yesterday and found two cyclists along. utility work (indiscernible) and the area is not scheduled to be repaved for several years and the most protected float bike lane is two blocks south with more cyclists observed and more level grade. ocean avenue three blocks of the south has a bike lane. on to the proposed project itself. this image shows our building and context along with the exposure to the mid-block open space. the site design maximizes the
11:17 pm
density onsite while respecting neighborhood character. the three, two driveways will remove 1 on-street parking space for a net gain of five parking spaces. we will now have a code complying rear yard and matching light wall. the ground floor features three car parking spaces, three bicycle parking spaces, and common open space. for street trees -- four street trees planting on the sidewalk. the second floor, each features a three bedroom, two bed flat of 1100 square feet, each dwelling will have in unit laundry. the slide shows the third and floor town house units with the building b an image of this. the front units is three bed, three bath and 300 square feet and the units are 1180. the roof features the required fire tent roof access and the small common
11:18 pm
deck and there's a solar area to help power the building. the front facade design breaks up the mass into distinct volumes and each building has a front entry with recessed garage door and secondary entry building. there's siding and stucco. the rear and side facades will have cement and trim with energy efficient windows and you can see the modest roof deck. and the intersection shows the unit over the garage and both common open spaces. last year the rendering of the building shows the building masses in context from the street level. jeff mentioned, we held our pre-april plucks during the zoom era in 2020 with no neighbor in
11:19 pm
attendance. during the planning analysis, we worked with the team to refine the garage locations and screen them. the vehicle parking was pushed beyond the 25 foot line to keep an active frontage and modified the bay windows and parapet appearances and the project has new housing for families in san francisco within an established neighborhood. existing housing is not affected and adding a contextually appropriate and new full building. the project has been reviewed multiple times at planning and fdot and complies with the guidelines and we ask you to approve the a project and the owner is with me if you have questions for him. >> very good. if that concludes project sponsors presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. by pressing star three if you're calling in remotely, if you're in the chambers, please come
11:20 pm
forward. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> (indiscernible). >> three minutes. >> aileen with the park side education and committee known as speak. speak -- the proposed project is 40 foot height in bulk as well as standard architecture. however, it is questionable that both the interior and exterior were painted earlier this year. there are concerns related to the parallel between this project and one at the former 2350 19th avenue site. it was originally dpw property and then was transferred to the fire department. the 2350 19th site
11:21 pm
was property own sold at auction rather than being long-term lease and the property was then subdivided and the fire department buildings on the property sat vacant for years and were the target of graffiti and litter. the buildings were demolished and the site remained a vacant lot. eyesore and target of litter for many more years. the llc ownership changed hands multiple times. market rate condos were a densely built which sat vacant and unsold for a number of years and in district four, there's a lot of market rate condos. so, what is the business model for this project? will it become a part of the estimated 48,000 vacant (indiscernible) in the city and estimated 1.2 million vacant unit in the state? since the mortgage meltdown in 2008, housing increased and become a
11:22 pm
part of an investment portfolio for institutional investors and global capital. will these condos actually be built? if they are actually built, will they be occupied or sit vacant as part of investment portfolio? is there a demonstrated financing plan for the project? will the project cause more gentrification in the neighborhoods? the commission to consider the broader issues related to this project, thank you. >> hi. my name is kelly. and i live on 34th avenue, the first family home -- family home around the corner from this location and i prepared something i wanted to say to you based on the letter i received and it was talking about converting our nc1 neighborhood
11:23 pm
location into apartments. but then when i heard them talking at the beginning of the presentation, they're talking about curb cuts which seems like they're relatively minor issues, if they want to take out our nc1 cluster building, so i believe the proposed conditional use authorization is neither necessary nor desirable for the neighborhood. one of the major improvement projects the mta is doing is creating neighbor ways, both 34th avenue and vincenet street are proposed neighbor ways so this building sits at the intersection of 34th and vincente so as a result, any business or any traffic that is going down the neighbor ways
11:24 pm
might actually want businesses to visit. the purpose of the neighbor ways is to make neighborhood streets friendlier for walking and biking and to connect families to important neighborhood services and this building takes away an opportunity to have -- have businesses located at the intersection of vincente and 34th avenue. the building of six units of market value condos does not constitute any change at all in the shortage of affordable housing in the city and to be clear, the only people that benefit from this project are the people who are building it and they stand to make a profit on the units they sell so i'm absolutely against this. i think our nc1 real-estate is
11:25 pm
very limited in the city. once you get it up, it's gone. so, like i said, if the property owner wants to build residential units on that space, it should be on top of nc1 serving location. thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star three. if you're in the chambers, come forward. no addition request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you. >> thank you. i wonder, mr. horn, if you can speak to some of the comments the last caller raised, how the project overall on that side of the curb cut it receive, where it falls regarding -- where it falls in proximity to other commercial uses or how we look at our nc uses and what's allowed there? >> in regard to, so this is in
11:26 pm
an nc1 cluster so it's mostly the corner of the intersection that have the designation. nc1 does allow for commercial uses at the ground floor but residential is permitted ground floor use. that's not what's under the request for conditional use authorization. ground floor residential is a permitted use within the nc1 district. there's no controls related to the removal of the existing commercial at the site or the demolition of that commercial building. >> great, thank you. it sounds like from the project sponsor, this has, it's serving a church use now, it has had a couple of commercial uses but not -- i would not say a church is more a community serving but not commercial and it's not a commercial use at this time. those were my questions. other than prapsz the comment to hopefully -- than perhaps the
11:27 pm
comment to get the bike lanes repaved to see where the bike lanes are to be. there's good visibility for the folks coming in and out of the garage. the one comment, are there mechanisms within the garage in case -- can you imagine the folks would back out or do a 3 point turn in the garage and come out front weissman-ward -- front -- front ward on the street. >> we imagine they would be backing out unless they have a vestibule. because it's curb cuts and instead of your 8 or 10 foot width, it's a 20 foot width of visibility to see bikes coming down the way. >> great. maybe consider -- most cars these days have the backup
11:28 pm
camera, so that's nice. >> commissioner koppel? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> very good. commissioners, on that motion to approve with conditions, commissioner ruiz? >> commissioner diamond? >> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. >> commissioner koppel? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> and commissioner president tanner? >> aye. >> so moved. commissioners, the motion passes unanimously, six to zero. >> thank you. >> we'll place this on your final item on today's agenda under your discretionary review calendar, number 17. case number 2021-002487drp-02, for the property at 3624 scotts street. this is a discretionary review. >> good evening, president tanner, vice-president moore, david, staff architect. the item before you is a public request
11:29 pm
for discretionary review of building permit application 2021, net 220-5353 to construct a rear addition to an existing two story two unit building. the existing building is a category a, historic resource due to its location within the eligibility marina corporation residential district and it was built in 1926. there are two dr request. the first david johnson and ashton, sorry, winston ashley of 275 avla to the adjacent neighbors east of the proposed project who are concerned it conflicts with several objectives in the urban design element and to ensure com-- compatibility with the character. they say it will cause loss of light, privacy and
11:30 pm
air. they want to remove the roof deck and fourth story does allow decks on the second story only. provide a 15 foot setback at the third story, presumably at the front and setback to four story additional five feet from the front if the commission finds the fourth story acceptable and setback five feet from the side if the commission finds the fourth story acceptable. as well as requiring light wells to be to adjacent light wells. the second request are ashton and aileen of 3626, scott street, the adjacent neighbors to the north of the proposed projects who are concerned it doesn't conform to objectives in the guidelines and related to scale and character of the neighboring buildings at the street and scale and form at the rear and sides. there not
11:31 pm
articulated to light and air and privacy. they want to incorporate original planning recommendations from august 19th, 2021, submittal. the project sponsor should perform work associated with the removal of two property line windows of theirs and install four-by-four skylights on the scott street to mitigation for the loss of their property line windows and provide open trash enclosure at the ground level to maintain the openness of the existing light well and to ensure the pg and e line does not come into their yard as well as maintaining a three story building by eliminating the fourth story. to date the tent has received no letter in opposition and five letters of support of the project. planning department review of this confirms general support as this conforms to the planning code and residential design guidelines with the following
11:32 pm
exceptions, but first the context enables a three story building to sit with the existing predominant scale at the street. where there are three story buildings, the fourth story is setback 15 feet to render its visibility minimally visible. project matches 70% of the length of the light well of the neighbor to the left with a five foot deep well and the step to massing at the rear extends to the allowable building area at the first floor only and does no encroach further into the adjacent building leaving 60 feet between the rear wall and the neighbors to the rear. the dr request at avila and as such does not pose burden with respect to light to any of the dr requester's property. facade materials and proportion in detailing is compatible with the character of the surrounding
11:33 pm
buildings. however, the proximity of the lower rear deck 236 scotts street, it has -- therefore staff recommends taking the dr and approving with the following modifications, first, setback the second floor deck and forward rail and pair fit five feet from the property line and -- this concludes my presentation, thank you. >> thank you. we should hear from the first dr requester. you have five minutes. >> good evening commissioners, my name is -- and my wife aileen and myself are in the three unit building to the north of the five level proposed development in the historic marina area. i
11:34 pm
have a bachelor's degree in architecture and -- >> can you pause the time. can you speak more closely into the microphone so we can hear and commissioners online, thank you. >> i've been practice being architecture since 1976 in san francisco. in 1984 my wife and myself set up our own practice, ashton and associates. a majority of our work did consist of renovation of historic projects. and my credentials allow me to have a perspective on this project. today i would like to discuss two issues and the first issue is concern of the bulk and mass of the proposed five level structure in a block of two and three story buildings and the planning staff directed to this developer and his team and the project is
11:35 pm
visible from the street. it has no physical definition and it could be one feet, two feet or ten feet. the developer -- the developers architect prepared three dimensional images of the site. but these images show you the definition of minimally visible for the developer. it is from two fixed locations but the building is a three dimensional object and has to be viewed in three dimensional. 3a shows the mass of the building. it towers over the neighbors. (indiscernible) allowed the neighbors, planners and this commission to through the reality of this mass and bulk of the proposed five levels is to have the developer build the proposed structure with
11:36 pm
(indiscernible). this is done to story poles. it's an inexpensive way to outline the proposed project addition and allow all parties to see reality of what is minimally visible. a request for the solution have been ignored and this confirms for a good reason. i want to ask for this commission is require the developer to build the story poles up to five levels prior to your considering a decision on this project as currently designed. the second issue that i would like to bring up is the city's directive to support more housing. this project will create none. instead, it potentially take one unit away from the existing two units. the existing ground floor garden level apartment has the living room, a dining room and open kitchen and then it has a
11:37 pm
bedroom and a full bath and storage area on the ground floor. in the proposed remodel, the building goes out another ten feet and there's a huge entertaining area with a bar and a storage area and then a laundry room and at the request of the planning department, these rooms (indiscernible) so that the storage area became a bedroom and the bar became a full kitchen by putting in the appropriate appliances so all subsequent drawings they have submitted are labeled that way. i would submit to you that it has never been the intent of the street model to retain the two units but instead to build a massive 4,887 single-family residence and this is zoned rh3. if the city as mandate for remodel is create more housing then it should encourage this
11:38 pm
developer to build three units on the lot instead of one massive 4,887-foot structure. thank you. >> second dr requester >> yes, please. okay. sfgov, we're going to the projector. >> i'm sorry. >> i'm speaking to sfgov, your slides are up. >> i'm david johnson and homeowner of the adjacent property. good afternoon, commissioners, i'm here to oppose the construction of this large oversized out of scale home in this historic residential block. this historical residential block is protected by the master plan and design guidelines as an older area of established character.
11:39 pm
so how did we get here? the developers team submitted plans to city planning, city planning staff reviewed those plans and found that this development site is located in a distinctive older area of established character and subject to design guidelines. this would allow the developer to increase the building size to approximately four thousand square feet but additionally had 16 requirements that needed to be full -- fulfilled and the 4th story and 5th level deck are incompatible with the neighborhood character and scale and the developer it not want to comply with the requirements. so he sought to get an exemption from those design requirements and engage the consulting firm of page & turnbull. with the issues with page & turnbull report aimed at getting the exemptions and one
11:40 pm
of the problem is it deals with the question, is this site of enormous perspective. the site is not. and completely ignores the more important request of, is this in an area of distinctive older character that should be maintained? objective two of the general building says past development as represented both by the distinctive buildings and areas of established character must be preserved. i think if you look at this block, most people would agree, distinctive area that should be preserved. objective four states to conserve design character in historic or distinctive older areas, some uniformity of scale is necessary frm you can see we have the row of two-story homes here and three story building beside and the proposed four story five
11:41 pm
level structure sticking above it. policy 1.3. only an exceptional circumstances where the presence of important community facilities should a building stand out prominently. i think for most people walking along scotts street along the row of two-story homes, this five stories, four structure will stick up prominently. the scale of each objective, the scale of each new building must be related to the prevailing height in both bulk and area. here's the entire joining city block. you can see all are two and three story structures. the only four story structure is the classic historic part building providing 12 dwelling units on the corner on oversized large lot. there is no other such
11:42 pm
thing in the entire box plat. this is completely out of scale for this particular area and destroys structure. it identified this three story structure here as a four story structure. it actually is a three story structure with stairs to a fourth level roof deck as it is in the city building department. you've heard about the rental. the rental thing, you know, everyone would like to see housing in san francisco but it's difficult. these new designs have come in with internal doors. you open the internal doors and the building is the same as single-family house or you could choose to close the internal doors and we have no idea what this developer will do. he may rent the premise or sell the premise or use it as one, i have no idea but we come down to the final line. establishing a new precedent. i have looked through the marina for another area where it has opinion
11:43 pm
permitted to build a four level home next to a row of go level homes and i couldn't find one where i would like to bring a picture. you find them between a four and three story but the developer says neighbors lots have a 40 foot height limit and neighbors have the right to build to that limit. ultimately, that will affect the long-term character of the neighborhood. well, yes. we are helping to create a consistency to the neighborhood. that's our point. that is why the design protections are written in there. we love the marina the way it is. we like to see people improve, expand the property within guidelines. >> that's your time. >> we who like to see the commission uphold the guidelines and not allow this exception. >> sir, you was the first tr
11:44 pm
requester. okay. dave already made their presentation. >> i was under the impression that [mic is off] >> you can have as many people you would like to speak but contained within the minute. >> there's a two minute rebuttal you can speak to. >> i'm a member of the public. >> you're not a member of the public. you'll speak under the rebuttal. >> okay. you can leave the mic there. right now we're going to go to the project -- >> [mic is off] >> fine! thank you, sir. >> we're going to move to the project sponsors. >> project sponsor, you have ten minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. >> if you can speak into the microphone, that's helpful. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you so much for having us
11:45 pm
here. i believe mr. kevlin is remote. >> yes, i'm here, can you hear me. >> the first time we're doing this hybrid. here we go. [laughter] >> bring up the slide, please. good evening, commissioners, john, representing the -- (indiscernible) is proposing two story addition to their home in the marina to provide for their growing family to stay in the city to come. the project renovate garden apartment unit on the ground floor. the project is one hundred percent code compliant with the surrounding neighborhood. next slide, please. i'll start at the front. we have three stories at the street, matching the north neighbor. it provides transition to two-story homes in the middle of the block and the -- barely acceptable here. next slide, please. yeah. when looking from,
11:46 pm
towards the north, you'll see that fourth floor is setback far enough, it doesn't (indiscernible) at the street when you can see it. next slide. if you look at this view from across the street, it's barely visible from across the street and again, it doesn't predominant when further down the street. next slide, please. as we move to the rear, the project does not max out the redevelopment. we reduced the two story pop out to one-story pop out based on neighbor input and the fourth story has a five foot setback. next slide. with respect to the roof deck, the roof deck is pulled off the light well. we incorporated roof hatch so there's no enclosure. it's at 300 square feet and setback from the front and rear and it will have transparent guardrails. next slide, please.
11:47 pm
the project will not stand out in the marina neighborhood. we have done extensive research here. what you're looking at is an outline of the -- marina neighborhood and the red buildings are four story buildings so this wouldn't be out of place in the neighborhood including in the immediate vicinity if you look at the project site that's circled near the center. there's a number of four stories near there. next slide. even within a two block distance from the property, there are six four story buildings moving at the top story setback. this is -- there's more four story buildings but there's six four story buildings with a four story setback as we have proposed. so this isn't out of character in any way. next slide. with respect to light air and privacy issue toward your requester, there isn't an issue
11:48 pm
here. there's over 50 feet of space that separates the rear wall of each building. if you can see -- as you can see in the left image, there's major landscaping separating the homes and that's not permanent but that's intended to be continued by syria and marissa. on the right, we have opportune shadow diagrams and the top one is without the landscaping, the bottom one is with landscaping. both of these are when there are two hours prior to sunset so this is the max shading scenario. without landscaping, it's pretty limited and again, this is only for the last two hours of the day. and then with the landscaping, it's really minimal at that point. because of the existing development, there's not major significant shadow lessening their impact. next slide, please. so per the staff report, we have incorporated the opec glass into the railing at the third story
11:49 pm
rear deck. and then what this slide is speaking to is the second floor rear deck side setback. our original proposal including (indiscernible) to create separation and privacy with the north neighbor. next slide, please. now it has been requested is a five foot setback on the guardrail and this illustrates what that would be. next slide, please. what we're proposing is a four-foot three inch deep planter at this location. four feet three inches because that matches where the edge of the window slash doors are on the ground floor and the second floor. so it has got ascetic purpose to it as well as, inhibit the operation of indoor and outdoor space. we think this is -- we think this is superior for privacy and
11:50 pm
they'll be a planter in there. next slide. cyrus and melissa have support of their five neighbors and with the history of living in this building. the proposed project is consistent with the neighborhood, sensitive to its neighbors and appropriately sized to allow the family to grow in the city for many years to come, thank you. >> thank you. okay. at this time we should open up public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address the commission on this matter, you'll have two minutes. if you're in the chambers, come forward. if you're calling in remotely, press star three. >> hi commissioners. nice to see some young faces up here. hopefully, they'll be new thinking. i live at $3606 scott street. my name is -- i know it's dead on arrival in the
11:51 pm
process but i think you had good presentations so i ask you to listen carefully. i have one of those two-story homes and i think commissioner moore was on the commission at the time and talked about monster homes in san francisco and talked about moderate housing pricing. the other day in the paper, we saw the mayor was declining the elimination of middle-class moderate type families leaving san francisco. i noticed that the property owner did not show you the big building across the way that used to be wayne walker's house, it was a two-story building and they put a five-story thing on it. a few weeks ago, some people from texas were going -- running or the marathon and my wife was sweeping in front and they said
11:52 pm
how did that get built over there. san francisco is supposed to be sensitive to change and here are people from texas telling san francisco that has so little taste, that monolithic giant went to a two-story building to a five story building. the whole block is supported seismically by what's on the corner. if you put more bulk into the center of the block, seismic architects will tell thank you will fail just as it failed in the last earthquake. please preserve what we have, take off at least one floor, get rid 350 deck. what is he trying to do? it's so foggy down there and so cold. it's ridiculous. thank you very much for your time. >> okay. seeing no addition members of the public in the chambers, we will go to our
11:53 pm
remote callers, again, when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi, this is laura bar. i live just a few blocks away from the family that is proposing this expansion to keep their family here in the city. and we have much-needed housing in san francisco and we can agree on that. this isn't out of character anyway. i'm a huge architecture nerd and i have an urban planning background and the family followed neighborhood character respectfully and beyond the letter of the code. i'm due with my first baby any take now and my family and i want to stay in san francisco and it's hard to do and just to see another blockade to that would be disappointing. especially attempt to do so that has been done with such care. lastly, if you haven't walked this block, please do. the house
11:54 pm
is the most up kept in the neighborhood than any family that takes this level of care on details we don't need to, i trust to build well within what they have proposed and do it respectfully to the neighborhood. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners and the guests. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. i'm here today to voice my support of the applicant and the project and the proposed design that's before us today. my name is matthew and i've been a resident of san francisco for over 15 years and local small business owner and i live with my four-year-old son at 3416 scott street and we live directly across scott street. when i lookout my second floor bay area, i look into the living room of the project. when i look
11:55 pm
at my wifi home connection, iy their wifi network so you can say we're close neighbors. from the beginning, they have been engaging with their plans and sharing with neighbors and listening to feedback and comments. as i understand it, he's made reasonable changes to the design. and made adjustments to satisfy those other interested parties, so i ask for your support in approving the project. one point i want to make that may not have come through with the forms in the paperwork, i have known them for many years and (indiscernible) when they take something on, they to it the right way and get it done. and since i know they're the types to count their own achievements, i'll do that for them. cyrus has been involved with numerous construction and development projects and a -- she integrate art. i can't think of a better
11:56 pm
team to get this project right and integrated within the ascetics of the neighborhood. in closing, the buildings in our neighborhood are not new. they need tender loving care and need upkeep. they need renovation. if the owner is willing to invest their capital, we should be grateful for that. it's unfair for third-parties to feel the need to put their fingerprint on the design when improvements are (indiscernible) and works tirelessly to get them right. >> thank you, sir. that's your time. >> hi, good afternoon, commissioners and my name is chris and i'm almost 20 years in san francisco and homeowner in the city. (indiscernible) projects like this opposed by couple of neighbors that don't want to be inconvenienced. there's a number of homes on scott street that conforms to the height density throughout
11:57 pm
the marina. the project is clearly within the character of the neighborhood. i know we've seen residents leaving the city in droves over the last two plus years. in here, you have an owner with a grower family that has spent two plus years trying to accommodate his neighbors demands so he can stay in san francisco. it's a rear thing. i keep hearing developers -- this is an owner and someone who lives here, not a developer. i wish there were more owners who were concerned with improving their neighborhoods than trying to keep things arbitrary (indiscernible). thank you. >> hello, my name is noah. we're a neighbor in the marina. and this is my first time attending the meeting you watching how
11:58 pm
this is going along. this is a great project and (indiscernible). and i'm excited to see it supported. nothing more frustrating than neighbors having problems and frankly it's unquestionable unin. please let marissa build the property they want to build and -- and live in the city, thank you. >> hi, my name is cassidy. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm grateful to have the opportunity to speak this evening. i'm a neighbor and friend to this growing family who has lived and worked in san francisco for many years for simply making adjustments to their current home and invest their hard earned dollars into that home into their community and into
11:59 pm
their neighborhood. it's disappointing to see the opposition of this project. i know it has caused them great distress over the pregnancy, birth and infant life of their first son and through what's now a second pregnancy along the way. the opposition of this project seems to be driven by (indiscernible) at its finest and driven by the party's personal interest to protect an existing structure that's no more architecturally significant than it is historically significant. the design that they have set forth is clearly in good consistency with the neighborhood and it's good taste as well and i hope you vote to approve the project today. >> hi, thanks for fwifshing me
12:00 am
the time to speak in support and my name is alex and i live in the marina at 224 bay street and born and raised in the bay area and lived in the marina for four years and i'm in support of this applicant. i think this project is attractive and good keeping with the neighborhood. it adds a much-needed unit of housing to the city and increases living space that's going to keep a family that's staying in san francisco and permanently provide a family size dwelling to san francisco. it can be lived in for generations and keep the family in san francisco, participating in our community and in our schools. and also, invest significantly in the infrastructure of this building with (indiscernible) and other seismic improvements that's going to provide life and
12:01 am
safety improvements to an area prone to earthquakes and i'm in support of the project and i hope that it's approved, thank you. >> last call for public comment? if you're calling in remotely, press star three. in the chambers, you need to come forward, seeing no additional request to speak. we should go to rebuttals. >> you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. winston at 275 villa street. i'm amazed to have heard over these people calling in in support of the project because none. -- none of the names are familiar and i haven't heard of them at the pre-application meetings and the different meetings that the
12:02 am
department was able to setup for us to discuss the matters. so, i hope the commissioners will take that for what it's worth. i do have a petition which was signed by neighbors who are objecting to the lack of scale and the disregard for the character of the particular block on which we live. and it was shown to you that those are only two or three floor homes, three or two-story homes and throughout the marina, despite what might have been said, the four story buildings are really on the corners. your own staff pointed that out at the initial evaluation where it
12:03 am
was pointed out that throughout the marina neighborhood, four story structures are almost exclusively limited to multi-family complexes and are structures that frame and enter single-family structures along the block. i wasn't present at the opening of the meeting today. commissioner imperial usually starts out with a land acknowledgement to our ancestors -- we're privileged to live in this area and it's what she says about us being steward of the land and we -- >> thank you, sir. that's your time. secondary requester, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> ma'am, i believe you're
12:04 am
associated with the first dr requester, correct? then, he used all of the last two minutes for rebuttal. >> okay, so i don't get to say anything? >> unfortunately, you do not. >> he's the second. they went out of order. the first dr. >> i apologize, i thought you were with the, sorry. >> it's okay, no problem. well, commissioners, thank you for giving us the opportunity. >> if you could speak into the microphone. >> thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with you. i'm just going to cut to the chase because a lot of what i have has been said before. one major point that i want to bring up is that the project sponsor has employed page & turnbull that uses maps and not historic guidelines to justify the project. they reduced the historic integrity of the
12:05 am
district would not be compro prized as long as 2/3 of buildings are retained and it's based on this logic and using the identical report within months (indiscernible) scotts street, if this map is validated by your approval, you would be setting a precedent for 102 additional approvals in this historic marina district that would be entitled to use this logic. to me, this is a huge mistake. then, as you can see, the recommendation by planning to pull the rear deck back from the property line hasn't been adhered to and they're proposing a planter in the location they should be pulling the deck back. historically, this owner has grown his trees in the backyard very tall so that they -- they
12:06 am
shadow everything around them. giving him a planter so he can do that again and cut off the light to bedrooms and living spaces in our building, it's not the right approach. he needs to cut that deck back as planning has said. the shadow study demonstrates if the structure is allowed to go up, it will preclude us from doing any solar on our roof. the shadow studies shows our building is going to be shadowed the whole year. >> thank you, that's your time. >> thank you. >> project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. >> >> thank you, commissioners. i want to speak to a couple of points and first we have been in discussions with mr. winslow leading up to the hearing about pulling back the roof tech on the four story from the south property line in order to eliminate the parapet that's
12:07 am
showing on the south view, so can you pull that slide, i'm sorry, sfgov tv. the right side is what it will look like afterwards. next slide, please. we've achieved it by three feet and reorienting the tech at the center of the roof and we remain privacy there. next slide. respect, we've had conversations with them including twice with mr. winslow and recently. it's clear that neither the dr requester is comfortable with the project without the elimination of the top floor which is inconsistent with the goals of the family. we tried to minimize the impact to the neighbors. but one thing i want to point out, next slide, please, the ground floor of the light well, as you can see from the entry on the right, the existing condition on the property has a platform at the
12:08 am
second floor in the light well area. it maintains a platform and enclose the trash below this area. this isn't exacerbate the existing condition but serving no turn. as you can see from the left image, no windows on the north property line and windows on the subject property at the ground level facing the garage and store an area, so it's not something to be concerned with. leaving this area open would be unsightly for cyrus and marissa but create a pest situation because we've got trash and recycling enclosures in there and taking -- we feel confident that it has no negative impact and it will cause real problems. this is a project that's going to allow cyrus and marissa to stay in the city and they have lived here for years and many more years and thank you commissioners for your time today. >> thank you. that concludes
12:09 am
project sponsors rebuttal. then, that concludes the public portion of this hearing and the dr is before you, commissioners. >> thank you. mr. winslow, i had one question, i think it's on page four of the staff report and i'm sorry if i missed the e-mail you sent. it says on one line you recommend we take discretionary review with modifications but then it says not to take an improved so i wanted to clarify what our action -- >> the idea is take the modifications proposed. >> that's what i assumed but i wanted to clarify for the record, that recommendation. we saw from the project sponsor a proposal around, it seems to achieve the goal of having the five foot setback. it's four feet three inches with the planner. do you have thoughts on that proposal. i don't know if they've discussed that with you or not. they showed a slide of that. do they have the slide available? if you have any
12:10 am
comments, mr. winslow on that proposal or thoughts about it? >> well, it accomplishes one of two objectives. it removes the people on that deck sufficiently from the adjacent neighbor to the north which is good. i think that was accepted or it was -- it was not accepted. you don't want them separated from you. however, the second one was to eliminate the mass of the parapet since it wouldn't be required with a deck removed from the property line so a little bit more light and air could circulate and you know, get the setback of the dr's requester. this was the verbal proposal and this was the graphic version that cyrus and his team provided for him and that would be consistent with the recommendation. ascetic, it's up to their architect to make it more beautiful, i think. [laughter] that's the intent. thanks. >> great, thank you. and i think
12:11 am
those are the comments and questions i have. commissioner ruiz and koppel. we'll go to in-person and then online. >> do i go? >> go ahead. >> i want to follow commissioner morris lead and after consulting with city attorney and disclose that i know one of the representatives of this project and the homeowner professionally through my work as a community planner in the tenderloin. this is a couple of years ago working on a project on o'farrell street that i was tracking but i do i think the relationship will affect my ability to act impartially on the item. and then i do have an additional question. it's not necessarily >> -- it opportunity apply to the hearing and i don't know if mr. wins low and i don't know if
12:12 am
we have planning staff online. i know this came up about when project sponsors or homeowners choose to not increase density on their project. there's an idea coming from supervisor safai on adding a few, that isn't contentious on safai's measure -- >> i don't think it's a requirement as of today. >> not a requirement as of today but curious, is that contingent on supervisor safai complex or will planning take on implementing a fee. it's up to the board of supervisors to propose whether in connection
12:13 am
with the fourplex. this is a perfect example of a project that might have that applied. if we had that rule. >> yeah. >> either way, commissioner ruiz, that would be legislated code amendment that would need to come before you, before we can initiate something of nature regardless whether it comes from the supervisor or the department. >> got it. that was my only curiosity. i think everyone knows how i feel about monster homes and increasing density but i don't necessarily think this project is out of scale in the neighborhood, just going on the goal maps and looking at the houses in the surrounding area. >> great, thank you. commissioner moore? >> i want to remind the commissioner that in all projects (indiscernible) and previous commissions, we have always tried to stay consistent
12:14 am
with how we deal with decks from the rear and holding them five feet on to the property line. and while that's not clarified, it is a consistent attitude we do together as (indiscernible) exercise in many cases and i would ask we stay consistent in order to indeed give the privacy for those looking into others buildings. that's number one. that opportunity mean (indiscernible) but the planter can be in bound and the five feet are added into unoccupied roof. in this case, i would suggest that all floors front and rear where decks are accruing (indiscernible) we have
12:15 am
front and rear deck that goes from one property line to the other front line. including on top of the roof where also mr. kevin said there would be a setback, this would be five feet in order to be consistent. the other thing i wanted to ask and mr. kevin, you're the architect of the building or somebody else can answer my question, i'm concerned that instead of seeing an improvement of the second unit, the second unit, the studio unit on the ground floor seems to be significant in diminishing of quality. when i look at the building, i see access to light and air or into a light well and operable window and (indiscernible) and this
12:16 am
light well is enclosed to the window to the bedroom is eliminated and the bedroom that's being moved becomes an extra bedroom and since (indiscernible), i would ask the quality of this second unit is (indiscernible). are there any -- >> did you want to respond to that? the project sponsor is going to respond. >> commissioner moore, thank you for your comments and questions. i'll start with your second comment about the livability of the garden unit. first, the, and if i can pull up.... the existing condition in the light well does not provide any light at all. that would be sufficient to utilize that room currently, it has a bedroom and living in
12:17 am
that house since mid 2019 and spent time evaluating the existing structure and massing and that's helped inform our proposal in order to ensure maximize livable. to reiterate, this is my home. this is our family's home and we're not developing this on a speculative basis and we're doing to accommodate how best to live as a family upstairs and how best a renter would live in the garden unit, so the reason we decided to infill that was practically speak ago, you can see in the picture on the right, there's no light and that room is pitch back. moving the bedroom further to the garden and allowing for a much larger living space and the sliding windows, the sliding doors into the garden, that's going to maximize the livability
12:18 am
of that unit and the natural light into that unit. i believe there was a question around the functionality of the kitchen as well. and we're reusing the kitchen from upstairs presently as it was renovated prior to our purpose of the home. and moving all those appliances which are large scale from the range to the refrigerators and so on all downstairs and in culminating them to ensure a large scale and not a small micro type kitchen. >> do you -- i feel (indiscernible) in looking at drawings and if i look at the existing condition and the proposed condition, it seems to me that the unit itself is reasonable in size. do you know the existing square footage and what it will be after your remodeling because you add quite a few support rooms for
12:19 am
mechanical and a trash room and very large laundry storage bike room. do you know what the existing square footage of the unit and what it will be after your remodel. >> the existing is 710 square feet and proposed is 666 square feet. i would like to point out the layout of the proposed is much more efficient than the existing. the existing is narrow long shot gun hallway that has a bedroom off a dark dingy hallway and split toilet and so on and the kitchen is tucked away from the back so there's no natural light in that unit. the light that comes through is through two minimal patio doors that have some glass on them whereas what we're doing is creating a more modern layout that is maximized open without column interference like we currently have and again, creating a large open space so the livability of
12:20 am
666 square feet is much more functional and livable than the previous 700 square feet existing. >> i appreciate your interpretation, i assume each of us can think about what livability means. i'm wondering, what amount of open space and what forum will you be accommodating that? currently, from what i see, you're proposing that the deck -- a deck or overhang or studio or open space and you haven't delineated (indiscernible) so i can see how much open space you'll be giving to that unit. >> i don't believe that's accurate, commissioner moore. if i may because this has been addressed as your first comment as it relates to the second floor or the single story pop out verses what the code allows which is an option between a single story pop out that goes
12:21 am
25 feet which is property line to property line and it was a compromise with the neighbors and there's a change of ownership with the process so the dr team or dr applicant currently is a different ownership group than the prior owners of the same 3636 scott street. the code allows us to do a two story pop out that sets five feet on each side or take a single story pop out to go to the property line. we have reduced the overall height of the pop out and the impact of the popout on the rear yard. both is in accommodation to both dr members here. in doing and having a single-family pop-out, we have expanded and made the ground floor garden unit much more livable because the dimensions are wider and allows for awe kitchen rather than a micro kitchen and we don't have anything overhanging disrupting
12:22 am
the light. that's the priority of the garden to make sure it's maximize. we have pulled back the second story beyond what code would require, an additional five feet to create a ten feet deep deck so it's useable making use of that space knowing how important outdoor space is and not having the out door space of the upstairs unit conflict with the use that practically the downstairs unit is going to have which will be (indiscernible) of the rear yard at-grade. >> (indiscernible), you may not have understood what i was asking. >> please. >> are you describing to me that a rear yard on grade is ultimately acceptable by the studio unit user? i only ask to what extent does the studio unit occupant use open space? i
12:23 am
wasn't talking about the size of the pop out. would they use part of the garden? >> that's the idea, commissioner moore. the student occupant will utilize the entirety of the ground floor on grade rear yard and we've opportune so by accommodating the upper floor unit and providing more outdoor space for us on the top of the pop-out and then on the roof deck and that's the importance of having those upper floor outdoor spaces. >> thank you for your explanation, i appreciate it. i don't have additional comments and i remain concerned about the bottom unit and wanted to remind any commissioners about the consistency of following the setbacks from property line for any kind of deck, thank you. >> thank you. commissioner koppel? >> yes, seeing this is a code
12:24 am
compliance project, i think the setback up top is, what makes this project, i think still fit in the neighborhood. and i'd prefer to see the planter on that second floor deck instead of the notch -- it looks like there's a missing tooth up there. thank you have anymore thoughts on planter verses the carve out? >> commissioner koppel, thank you for your question. the discussion to date as i understood it, and with the prior owners at 3636 and the current owners are limited and during the mediation sessions and we didn't have one, we insisted on a second because we didn't feel like there was much progress made in the first. it was utilized to really just vent. we really understood the primarily concern to be privacy.
12:25 am
and what we'll call the lego block removal approach, what's on the screen now, candidly just by fewer fact of angles is going to create a direct shot into their bedroom. the idea of having a solid mass here would then allow for that privacy -- >> sfgov, can we go to the computer, please. >> sorry, let me -- the lego block, the arrow demonstrating the view directly into the bedrooms that are in there pop-out verses the planter which again, would then actually create both a physical buffer and then from a line of sight perspective, completely block privacy concerns all along issue was don't stair into the bedrooms and compromise -- the hedges and the trees there, as you saw in the prior pictures are greater than two stories and
12:26 am
taller than our current house. and those were planted before we bought the house in 2019. again, the conditions we're showing here actually enhances the light into the backyard while maintaining the privacy as compared the lego removal. and then maintains the architecture of the design. >> that's all i had. i'm in support of the project as is and i would be more supportive of keeping the planter. >> okay. maybe we'll go to commissioner imperial and commissioner diamond and maybe a motion. commissioner imperial? >> yeah. i also had the same issues or same concerns in terms of the ground floor unit or the garden unit but i think you answered it very extensively and i got to understand the, you know, your logical thinking and
12:27 am
why the unit was actually, you know, use -- what we think is livable. unfortunately, i don't live in that unit so it's really hard for me to also emergency that but you know, from the blueprint, from the blueprint alone, it does look like the first unit or the first rendition is better than what you have provided but i think i understand what you're trying to do in terms of the garden unit and having the kitchen be more open space and it's good to hear there's also access to the rear yard. my other question though is, so the total unit size for the garden unit, if you said 6 to 6 square feet and then the remainder is how much or how or the second -- the upper floors, how big it is? >> the total building is roughly 4,800 square feet. thank you.
12:28 am
>> okay. but the common -- yeah. the common area goes from 60 square feet to 330 square feet and so the garage is shared, the laundry facilities are shared and trash room facility was shared so there's a significant portion of common area on the ground floor. the upper floors, starting on the second floor is where the livable area of the upper unit is. >> yeah. and i guess my question is from the second floor to the third floor because the fourth floor is the roof deck pretty much, how is the total square footage? >> i believe the fingerprint is 1200 feet. so we're talking about 24 square feet. >> that's better for me to understand in terms of the square footage. i am more in line with what the staff is recommending as well in terms of the floor deck, the parapet, in
12:29 am
terms of the -- also the planters and i understand the concept of that but it looks like -- in this way, it gives sensitivity to the neighbors and it's to make it more desirable. you have made some sort of or it's not in the dr about the pool -- the roof deck, pulling back the roof deck, is that something you have discussed with mr. winslow? huh? yeah. it looks like the roof deck on the fourth floor. that's what mr. winslow was mentioning and that's not something that's in the records, in our dr from the modification. >> no, this was something that i believe commissioner moore was talking about in your deliberations and i think the
12:30 am
project sponsor had already response to it. >> it's a part of the project? >> no. >> not yet, sorry. >> we heard in anticipation of the hearing that there may have been some feedback related to this so we wanted to explore potentially solutions and that's what we're showing on this screen. >> actually, i would like to add that as part of the modification on what commissioner moore have mentioned in terms of the pool of the roof deck on the fourth floor by i believe from what our practice have been doing by five feet. and for me the reason for that is that even though this is the livable areas are four floor, the roof deck, it can be intrusive but at the same time with the total square footage of this whole building which is 4,287 square feet, i mean, i think again, we're talking
12:31 am
beginning the usability of the roof deck and the livability of it. it can be, from my perspective, it's a big unit or big building which i think and i would have to disagree with you, commissioner ruiz but i believe this is a big building in itself in this neighborhood, so i would take dr and add with the pool back of the roof deck by -- on the fourth floor by five feet. >> what about the planter verses the gap tooth solution? >> i would take what the staff has recommended? >> that was the gap tooth? >> uh-huh. >> [mic is off] >> yes, uh-huh. >> >> that's your motion? >> that's my motion. >> do i hear a second?
12:32 am
>> second. >> second >> i see commissioner diamond and commissioner koppel? >> thank you. i'm fine with the new design of the garden units having recently gone on a tour with mr. winslow on several bedrooms and i have gotten more comfortable with the concept when there's direct light from the bedroom through the large light that's directly between the bedroom and windows and i think this is a better layout than the existing layout so i'm fine with the garden area the way it is. mr. winslow on the gap tooth verses planter, we previously, we're mindful of commissioner moore as comment about consistency, have we permitted something short -- or done something like worked with three before and done the
12:33 am
planter instead of the gapped tooth. >> i think we have. you know, i think the intent is there's a space that's decent enough to provide that separation and whether it's four-foot three or five feet, i think we've been accommodating and depending on the situation in most cases. i think, was there a second part of your question regarding planter and no planter? >> yes. >> could you rephrase it, please. i have a short attention span. >> it's four feet three verses five feet and i think i hear you saying we done something less than five feet before so the second part of the question is planter verses no planter. have we done, are we allowed prior -- prior resolutions that involve putting a planter in instead of a gapped tooth? >> yeah, i think we have done a
12:34 am
range of things which includes a situation similar to what the project sponsor is requesting which is the space plus the panter and we have done the gapped tooth with the planter as commissioner moore was suggesting on the inboard side of that gapped tooth. you know, all solutions work. >> okay. and then the roof deck, can you go into more detail, whether or not -- i think i heard commissioner moore requesting it be moved back five feet from the property line and he couldn't come the solution that the project manager come to -- from i believe there's a three foot setback to mitigation -- it eliminates a parapet.
12:35 am
>> the motion was for five foot setback, right. >> right. mr. winslow, have we permitted three feet or generally, do we generally require five feet? being mindful of the consistency? >> in the upper roof decks, we have been primarily pretty consistent with the five foot setback from all building edges. >> okay. >> so, again, i'm a neighbor of the five foot setback on the roof but i'm fine with the planter of four-foot three on the second floor deck. >> okay. thank you, commissioners. commissioner koppel, just one second. i'm asking the dr neighbors on scott street, if you have a preference between the planter or the five foot setback or if it's both the same to you? if you can approach the microphone, it
12:36 am
would be great. >> commissioner tanner, thank you for asking the question. we would definitely prefer the five foot because there's a bedroom window right there and it cuts out the light to have the wall so close to that bedroom window would cut out the light completely from that. >> thank you for sharing that. commissioner koppel? >> no, i was going to, before the motion was made, i checked again. i think the planter actually provides more privacy as opposed to having the big void there and i was going to make another motion but we have a preliminary motion. >> i will -- commissioner moore, did you have something? sorry. >> technically, in conversation with mr. winslow, when we add a planter, the planter could be outbound from a five foot railing because what we wanted
12:37 am
to mark was a five foot setback with someone on the outside could add a planter if they want to. what a planter requires is that plants are maintained and perfect connection throughout the year and when people -- the planter is basically optional, also in change of ownership so the planter can be moved. however, the railing which is adjacent to an occupied deck is extra. so we're interested in what constitutes a buffer for privacy, so if you put the planter on the outside of the railing along the inside along the railing, it's a five foot clear unoccupied tech off the property line and that is what we have consistently executed and in many cases people still want to add a planter for visual
12:38 am
green on the outside but that's an optional thing. >> thank you. mr. winslow, do you want to add? >> i think what's being proposed is -- basically not just a planter that's placed on top of a roof, but it's a planter -- it's a constructed piece of this architecture and that was the intent of reconciling the alignment of the lower window and the four feet three verses five dimension but also i think as -- to such a height that provides additional privacy, visual screening which comes at the expense according to ms. parara but also blocks more light to that lower window so that's where you have to decide. >> great, thank you mr. winslow. commissioner diamond? >> in light of the neighbors request for the gap and commissioner moore's comments
12:39 am
about how we make sure that this is maintained over time, i would not mind with the gap if that's what the rest of the commission likes, i can go along with that. [laughter] >> thank you, commissioners. the only comment i'll make is just to align myself with the comment about, with respect to the property, project sponsor but this is a discussion we had of how do we encourage more density and how do we tax what we maybe don't want or do want and use those funds for different things so hopefully we can see some action, maybe keep that discussion alive because i think that's an interesting solution i would be interested in seeing explored in the city. with that, i don't see any other commissioner hands up. i think we're ready to vote on the motion. >> we have a motion seconded to take dr ask approve the project with -- and approve the project with staff modification with a five reduction of the roof deck and five foot setback of the second floor deck. on that motion, commissioner ruiz? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond?
12:40 am
>> aye. >> commissioner imperial? >> aye. from commissioner koppel? >> no. >> commissioner moore? >> no. >> commissioner, president tanner? >> can i add it's the opec railing? >> that was staff -- that was a part of staff modification. >> aye. >> i verbalized it in the amendment. >> i vote aye on that motion. >> okay. very good. then we have, okay. that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioners koppel and moore voting against. and concludes your agenda today. >> all right. commissioners, we are adjourned. [gavel] >> envoy your break. >> enjoy your break.
12:41 am
12:42 am
>> how i really started my advocacy was through my own personal experiences with discrimination as a trans person. and when i came out as trans, you know, i experienced discrimination in the workplace. they refused to let me use the women's bathroom and fired me. there were so many barriers that other trans folks had in the workplace. and so when i finished college, i moved out to san francisco in the hopes of finding a safer community. >> and also, i want to recognize our amazing trans advisory committee who advises our office as well as the mayor, so our transadvisory
12:43 am
community members, if they could raise their hands and you could give a little love to them. [applause] >> thank you so much for your help. my leadership here at the office is engaging the mayor and leadership with our lgbt community. we also get to support, like, local policy and make sure that that is implemented, from all-gender bathrooms to making sure that there's lgbt data collection across the city. get to do a lot of great events in trans awareness month. >> transgender people really need representation in politics of all kinds, and i'm so grateful for clair farley
12:44 am
because she represents us so intelligently. >> i would like to take a moment of silence to honor all those folks that nicky mentioned that we've lost this year. >> i came out when i was 18 as trans and grew up as gay in missoula, montana. so as you can imagine, it wasn't the safest environment for lgbt folks. i had a pretty supportive family. i have an identical twin, and so we really were able to support each other. once i moved away from home and started college, i was really able to recognize my own value and what i had to offer, and i think that for me was one of the biggest challenges is kind of facing so many barriers, even with all the privilege and access that i had. it was how can i make sure that i transform those challenges
12:45 am
into really helping other people. we're celebrating transgender awareness month, and within that, we recognize transgender day of remembrance, which is a memorial of those that we have lost due to transgender violence, which within the last year, 2019, we've lost 22 transgender folks. think all but one are transgender women of color who have been murdered across the country. i think it's important because we get to lift up their stories, and bring attention to the attacks and violence that are still taking place. we push back against washington. that kind of impact is starting to impact trans black folks, so
12:46 am
it's important for our office to advocate and recognize, and come together and really remember our strength and resilience. as the only acting director of a city department in the country, i feel like there's a lot of pressure, but working through my own challenges and barriers and even my own self-doubt, i think i've been try to remember that the action is about helping our community, whether that's making sure the community is housed, making sure they have access to health care, and using kind of my access and privilege to make change. >> i would like to say something about clair farley. she has really inspired me. i was a nurse and became disabled. before i transitioned and after i transitioned, i didn't know what i wanted to do. i'm back at college, and clair
12:47 am
farley has really impressed on me to have a voice and to have agency, you have to have an education. >> mayor breed has led this effort. she made a $2.3 million investment into trans homes, and she spear headed this effort in partnership with my office and tony, and we're so proud to have a mayor who continues to commit and really make sure that everyone in this city can thrive. >> our community has the most resources, and i'm very happy to be here and to have a place finally to call home. thank you. [applause] >> one, two, three. [applause] >> even in those moments when i do feel kind of alone or unseen or doubt myself, i take a look at the community and the power of the supportive allies that are at the table that really
12:48 am
help me to push past that. being yourself, it's the word of wisdom i would give anyone. surely be patient with yourself and your dream. knowing that love, you may not always feel that from your family around you, but you can >> happy pride. everyone. [applause] [crowd noise].
12:49 am
[music] >> amazing. incredible for the city. for the citizens. for our visitors and the fire department and our public safety partners to come together today and to celebrate pride weekend. >> i came because this is my first, year of pride and i wanted to experience with my mom. i'm most excited for everything i will see. celebrities just surrounded by so many fun people. my besties. we'll have a great time. >> >> i'm most excited about the expression of freedom and things which have to be this way well is no other way to do it. everybody is wrong and we should
12:50 am
all be like the pride people and proud to be who we are >> we are here to celebrate pride >> san francisco pride. it is my first one experiencing the new atmosphere and learning. >> my first one, too. >> so close we could not pass it up. it is san francisco it is the biggest ones can you pass it up. [crowd noise] [music] [crowd noise] >> it means everything that we have a common goal a common operating picture and a common mission. it is great to be together and walk together and show that. [crowd noise] [sirens].
12:51 am
the message is the lbgtq community is reflect in the our police department in san francisco. it sends a message that there are members of the department the police department, sheriff's department, fire department that are just like the people that we encounter in san francisco. and i think it sends a message of hope the more we honor the lbgtq community now, the stronger we can be in standing up against those that don't want our representation. [crowd noise] [music] >> [speaking spanish] [speaking spanish].
12:52 am
[crowd noise] [music] [music] [drums] [crowd noise] this is my first time at the san francisco pride
12:53 am
even though i have been here a couple years, i felt like now was the time to go. um -- really just coming to show my support and love for the whole community out here. um, i'm really excited to be here today. >> i think i am most excited be such an arc mazing community come together. just the love and support i think that especially in san francisco, um, people bring together it is this such a deep feeling. and i'm excited feel that today. [crowd noise] [music] [music]
12:54 am
[sirens] [music] [crowd noise] whoa! [music] [cars honking] [sirens]
12:55 am
[music] [horns] we never been to a parade or something like that. >> i'm excited for the parade never been to an actual pride parade. pretty pumped. [crowd noise] [music] i'm
12:56 am
excited celebrate with all of my queer people and to stand together in a hard time like we affirm each other and support each other. >> same, ditto. >> [laughter]. [music] [crowd noise]. you love who you want to love >> happy pride. >> happy pride! >> go san francisco! happy pride! happy pride. >> happy frigin pride, everybody. [music] [music] happy pride!
12:57 am
of [laughter] [music]
12:58 am
12:59 am
1:00 am
>> >> welcome to our wednesday july 20, 2022 meeting. >> please rise for the pledge of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> >> thank you. >> take roll. >> yes, please. >> debra walker? here. kevin benedicto? present. max

15 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on