tv BOS Full Board of Supervisors SFGTV February 23, 2020 3:00am-7:01am PST
have a mini rec center on phase three for the kids. i have kids. i have an 11-year-old and 5-year-old. talking for the teenagers and up so they have a little rec center so they can keep out of trouble. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on san francisco action coalition. this is one where i think you listen to one side arguing for more parking and the other not. it is not black and white. we get it from both sides. quite frankly, the core problem that we think that we really have here is a lack of quality public transit. if the public transit were running every two minutes and
able to get folks downtown quickly on the t, then the need for parking wouldn't be there. we understand that the lots there are full. like many san francisco neighborhoods to get a parking spot in this area you need to drive around. i have that situation. i had a car until three years ago when i said it is a pain in the butt. finding parking is hard. i was fortunate to be in a situation to get rid of the car. a lot of folks don't have that. we are also looking at a situation that goes what do we want to prioritize? parking spots are homes for people. at the end of the day it does frankly suck that is a trade-off we have to figure out because parking does take up space. when trying to figure out these
crazy priorities in the city, there is a lot of give and take. we absolutely understand that the desire for more parking at the site, but when looking at everything and looking at the big picture, we would argue building more homes should take priority over those requests. we ask that you do continue to move this forward with the parking proposed by the project that is being recommended by staff because at the end of the day people having a place to live is the number one policy priority for residents of the city, for the mayor of the city. we need to make sure we are moving all homes forward as quickly as we can. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to speak on behalf of
the san francisco umb. i am here to ask you to approve. this is an opportunity to put people into homes. there are people living on the streets who need homes. people in shelters need homes. people lieu are one paycheck away from having to leave san francisco. they need homes. people who want to start a family in san francisco need homes. as the previous speaker said, yes, a tradeoff with parking. this area is not women served by -- not well served by transit. it is going to take time to get this built. we are planning for the future. we need transit and housing. you have the opportunity to plan for the housing piece of that. i am sure that with all of the attention that the supervisor of the district is paying to transit issues with the work going on at m.t.a., the transit system can be improved in time for this housing to come on line. it is a question of priority and
getting it done. it takes political will to get the housing built and transit built. i ask you in your roles answer planners to have the political will to get the housing side of it built and will also take care of the transit as well. please approve the project. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners, jack gardner. president of the jon stewart company. coming up to let you know that i am here supporting the staff recommendation. i also want to as the one person who has been involved in this project since the inception which now spans four mayors, three supervisors, over the last 15 years we have had hundreds of community meetings, whether sponsored by us to work directly with the residents around planning, zoning, parking, everything relating to the
projector numerous meetings with the old pac when the development association existed. hundreds of very robust community process and we are committed to continuing that. the development of this challenging site which is mentioned with the complex topography and asbestos bedrock has required balancing and trade-offs especially giving the goals of the hope sf program. rebuilding this affordable community on site which we achieved with no involuntary relocation and displacement of residents. generating employment opportunities for the residents which we are acceding our goals on. creating a new mixed income neighborhood involving affordable rental and public rental units.
including serving as one of the first lead neighborhood development projects in the united states. we are really excited about having gotten this far. 286 units affordable housing we built. 118 units in blocks 14 and 17 before you today. first market rate component, which is key to the mixed income san francisco neighborhood we are trying to engineer instead of the old public housing complex. the key piece that started this was $30 million grant from the state of california through the infrastructure grant program. we got that because the planning commission had the vision to approve our entitlement to go to the state and bring home $30 million to pay for the roads, curbses, underground utilities. now we have an opportunity to go
to the state next month for a $20 million loan through the state's multifamily housing program to allow blocks 14 and 17 to go forward. 118 units. we ask for the same confidence from this planning commission that planning commission had. to finish, the community process doesn't end at this point. point. we committed to the parking study. we will work with him and residents to make sure we get the best possible balance of parking, transit improvements, clipper cards, we are putting all things on the table. that is what hope sf is about. thank you very much. >> any other public comment? public comment is closed. before i go to commissioners i want to call up mr. judson true to paint color on this situation for us. >> thank you.
good afternoon. it is good to see you. with me before you is judson true, mayor breed's director of housing delivery. of all of the projects i am working on none are more important than the three hope sf projects. hunters view is the only one without a development agreement. it is first one with a market rate component moving forward soon. the real issue is the 118 units affordable housing that there is no could about it. it will be delayed by at least six months and potentially a year if the commission does not move forward today to allow the entitledments as part of the state level. that is the urgency.
as you know and i am happy to talk to you. my job is to get affordable housing built faster to reduce delays. you have my personal commitment to work with the supervisor, hope sf and with the community. i spoke to ms. davis who spoke earlier to deal with and address the parking and other transportation issues. i would be happy to answer any questions. i want to let you know how important it is to get the 118 affordable units moving. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> a question. mr. snider. could you please talk to us about sites 2 and 3? >> sure. >> it is basically not having heard the architect if she could explain the great difference
against the care for blending of the site plan of which the affordable portion today was delivered. there is sites two and three which fall out a little bit. >> i may have not mentioned this. part of what we want is to give you the informational forces on five blocks. you did get the informational on blocks 14 and 17. we ran out of time for nine, two and three. blocks nine, two and three are market rate. they are doing a product to townhome product on both sites. we think it workings well on block nine. the design on blocks two and three also meet the letter of the d for d. we think there are challenges that we look forward to working with the developer on that project. let me see if i can find the site plan for that.
so sites two and three at the intersection on fairfax, this is the source of an awkwardly shaped lot for development. you are not able to see it through the plan. it is an extremely steeply sloping slot, steeping downwards on fairfax, and steeping down on aonacasia. it is serpentine rock which is difficult to grade. the solution that the city vision is proposing is working with the grade to configure the lots on the parking alleys and then the challenge is that you have these townhomes along the streets at perpendicular. we generally like to see consistent street wall so the challenge we would like to
continue with the developer is how to make those site ends of the design work such they read more consistent street wall. >> could i ask you a question. if i look at the d for d site plan. there is a certain kind of informality in the overall, which i think is consistently met by the buildings built and the portion we are looking for which is being built. i see in this market rate site more units than were originally shown in the d for d. that creates 34 units here. we go back to 30 in the d for d. >> actually there was a design before you when we were here in 2008 for the site: actually featured or corridor building to take advantage of the entire site. we heard back from the project sponsor it was because of the nature of the site it was infeasible to do market rate.
i think they are trying to do the lighter approach to work with the sitar. again there is urban design challenges. it meets the letter of the d for d. there are design tweaks we would like to work with. >> we are not approving that particular site as presented here? >> today it is informational item. we feel that we can move forward on the affordable blocks in block nine. i think we can get this to something we feel comfortable to meet the spirits of d for d. >> again, if you are insinuating you will continue to work with them to achieve the objectives that you are describing, i am fine. i am comfortable with the affordable housing portion. i think it is well designed and meets the d for d so strongly
here as an idea. >> thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> question for staff or developer. what kind of timeframes have we looked at from start to finish with phase one and two and projected for phase three? >> i can tell you from where we were in 2008. this is one of the first master approvals. i think we got a more accurate time how long this takes the way we structured the first phase to be approved within i think two and a half or three years from the original approvals. the rest within 10 years. they did meet the first requirement to have the first phase done within that timeframe. again, the 10 years as it's turns out was not long enough for a complex and long project. i should say all of the other
development agreement projects have much longer performance periods. it is reasonable to extend for another 10 years. >> commissioner diamond. >> i think it is great you are adding additional affordable housing, and very happy the park and rec commission found no significant impact. that is a vital piece of information for us. i want to talk about the parking. i have questions for the mayor's office. i get that it is expensive to build structured parking with this kind of rock, but in light of the report that was referenced earlier today in conjunction with another item in the newspaper report over the weekend about the lack of transit to this area, i am concerned about what the commitments are to try to find alternatives to the parking. what is the timing in terms of
the studies that you are doing? who is paying for the studies. beyond the commitment to do the studies who is funding the solutions and what is the timing for the solutions. is that met up with when the new residents move in? that is a lot of questions. >> we have talked to the supervisor we have to come back to the full board to get a loan. if we stay with our construction schedule, definitely before we come back to the full board we have to at least have the study done. also committed to meeting with johjon stewart to continue to lk at solutions. those will be considered with the overall development that we have already going with the residents and looking at the way to sustain those initiatives. we don't have anything particularly right now because we are not sure if we offer clipper cards will they get used? if we do, if that is something
residents want, who pays for it is the operating budget from the property or some other aspect within that. we have line item in the operating budget that could be used for that, however, that is also a conversation with hope sf. because of the way the loans are structured we are the developers that have to pay us. there are permanent loans on both phase one and two. they have to pay that. it is a conversation about continue to pay your must pay debt as well as what do we have extra to provide to something else? i don't suspect, and in my working with john steward they wouldn't look for grants as well. we are looking at s.f.m.t.a. to see what we can do together. it is in process. we are not abandoning that process. >> what is the timing?
>> timing, i think we are looking at going to the board for the gap loan request probably in september, is that right? around september. we have been working on that. that would be for the gap loan request. weeps would have the study done. it will take about 18 to 2020 months to complete phase three. phase one and two are complete. we will continually be in that discussion to come up with things for existing residents having difficulty. >> do you anticipate when you go to the board in september for funding approval you will come to them with a plan for the particular actions you want for how they are funded? >> yes, that is what we hear from supervisor walton that we have to have that or the approval of the loan could be --
i guess denied. >> i just want to make sure there are dates set? >> yes there will be and there are. it will be more flushed out. for sure the deadline is when we come back to the board for the bigger gap loan. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i was a little awkward after the supervisor chimed in. i am confident with the findings and information today everything will be addressed. i am in full support of the planned unit development and adoption of the findings. >> commissioner johnson. >> i echo that. we have heard over and over that transportation is a serious equity issue, and making sure that either there is transportation or we are building the infrastructure around transit to make sure people can get to the places that they live, work and play. i know that is important to the
city and the mayor's office and everybody working on this project. i am glad to know there is eye timeline. i have confidence the supervisor and the project sponsor and city will work together so that when that deadline comes up there is a plan to address the needs of the residents. with that i would move to approve with conditions item 12a and adopt findings of 12b. >> one thing. part of your packets we reworded some of the findings on the front page to match the addendum. to incorporate that rewording into your motion as well. >> second. >> nothing further. there is a motion seconded to adopt findings and approve
planned unit be development with conditions as have been amended on that motion. (roll call). >> so moved that passes. >> we will take a 10 >> i would like to remind members of the public to please sign lens mobile devices. commissioners we left off under the regular calendar. as mentioned previously we will take items 14a through d out of order. 2012.1384enx and the zoning administrator will consider the variance for a large project authorization office development authorization and conditional use authorization respectively. >> good afternoon, commissioners. zoning administrator. planning department staff. the item before the planning
commission is large project authorization to allow new construction of 27 story, 350-foot tall office building and 35 story 350-foot tall residential building and allow a vertical addition 200-foot tall hotel building and grant exceptions for building set backs and tower setting and transparency. ground floor commercial on second street narrow and mid block alley, central soma controls. horizontal mass reduction. child care lot cover age and wind. commission must also authorize an office development authorization of approximately 430,000 square feet of new office. in addition a hotel use at 645 harrison building two within the
central soma mixed use office zoning district. the items are variance requests from the planning code requirements for street frontage including ground floor and floor to floor ceiling. off-street parking required enclosing of private driveway. the project sponsor must obtain administrative waiver and mod affection for the location of the required bicycle parking and off street loading and shower and lockers. commonly referred to as one vassar in the central soma. it will create 1.5 million square feet mixed use development located to the fourth street central corridor, transbay terminal and the center. the proposed project includes
42000 square feet of production distribution and repair 489 residential units, hotel with 468 guest rooms, approximately 493,000 square feet of office consisting of approximately 430,000 new square feet at 402nd. 63,000 square feet of existing legal office at 645 harrison street. the project will provide an approximately 14,000 square foot on site child care facility exclusive of 4200 square foot outdoor open participate. indoor and outdoor public open spaces provided approximately 30,551 square feet of neighborhood serving retail spaces including hotel
restaurants and bars. they propose a variety of improvements. mid block pedestrian alley and the hawthorne street plaza and extension of perry to second street. projecting art screen to screen pedestrian views of interstate 80 from the project site. off-street parking for the project located below grade in a shared garage at 400 second street in an under grand garage apartment 657 harrison street. including 309 off-street parking spaces with 13 additional car share spaces. project accommodates three dropoff parking spaces in the child care use at street level. in detail project including 400 second street the office building. new construction of 300-foot tall office building.
consisting of approximately 430 square feet of office, 1,000 square feet micro retail, indoor and outdoor, 33,335 subterranean parking. 181 accessory off-street parking spaces. 104 class one parking space and two loading spaces at grade with three sub per rainian surface loading spaces. this is building two the hotel building would retain the existing history building and construct a addition for 200-foot containing approximately 468 guest rooms. this will include 221,965 square feet of hotel, retain existing
office provide 42000 square feet pdr31000 square feet of retail, two loading spaces at grade and three service vehicles at grade as well. 657 harrison will include a residential building contains 48 the dwelling units, residential, 14,000 square foot child care facility, 1450 gross scare feet retail, 8360 square feet outdoor via hawthorne street plaza. 11,970,000 square feet of open space. 61,512 square feet subterranean spaces.
204 class one and 33 class two bicycle spaces. 25 cargo bicycle parking spaces for long oner bikes which incorporate storage space. one loading space at grade and two service vehicle spaces at grade. the commission must grant the project authorization pursuant be to planning code 329 to allow construction of new building greater than 85 feet in height or for new construction of more than 50,000 square feet in the central soma special use district. the commission may grant exemptions from the planning code requirements for projects that exhibit a unique architectural design and amenities in excess of what is in the code and key site. as listed above they are seeking exceptions which are supported by the department staff and given the qualified amenities andy sign of the project.
the project will provide amenities including not limited to streetscape and pedestrian improvements, plaza anally also, hawthorne street acceding the minimum dimensions, child care facilities acceding gross square feet and 110 square feet for affordable housing under 415. the central soma area plans objective 3.5 states support development of hotels, policy 3.51 further instructs to allow hotels throughout the gross plan areas. hoses are conditionally permitted in sentrasoma zoning district with no cap on room count as envisioned in the area plan. the project would construct a total of approximately 430,000 gross square feet of offers
space within the cmo district. office use is permitted pursuant to 848. as of february 6, 2020 when the planning commission package was published there were 454,949 square feet of large office development under section 321 much the office allocation programming. the department recommends that the commission grant an office development authorization for the project which would amount to 430,000 square feet of office use. the projects that will be subject to the development impact fees including central soma infrastructure and impact fee, eastern neighborhoods impact fees affordable housing fee transportation sustainability fee and jobs housing linkage fee. project does not cast new shadow upon now property owned or operated by the recreation and
parks department. the project sponsor must obtain affordable housing at 33% because it is a rental project providing 110% of the otherwise required amount of 30% pursuant to planning code section 263.33. since the publication of the packet several letters of support have been digitally submitted to the planning commission. planning staff is also submitting or has submitted revised executive summary, revised large project authorization motion and revised land use table to ensure consistency throughout the planning commission packet. the sponsor has submitted updated outreach summary, all of which have been put before the planning commission. this is on balance consistent with the central soma plan and relevant findings. the project produces residential with 489 units, hotel with 468
guest rooms, office ground floor child care retail, pdr and significant site updates including landscaping and open space. per the plan these elements will substantially improve the neighborhood. this willen life venthe streetscape 1110% of what would be required. it will provide new hotel that was in the central soma plan to comment the center expansion. it is desirable for and compatible with division for the neighborhood. this concludes staff's presentation. i am happy to answer any questions. with us today is lydia from the mayor's office of housing community and development. she can share the process should you pursue that option in the
future. >> thank you, staff. i am sharon lye. i want to appreciate and thank staff planning department as well as community for working very diligently in getting us to this point today. joining me today we center our three primary building architects. different architect for every building with the knowledge number one the office building, mark is the lead and designer. leo chow is the lead architect for the 645, the historic knowledgbuilding. also with seb architects lead designer for the residential building and scott is here, our public designner. i am going to start the presentation by just doing a quick recap on the central soma plan aspects pertaining
to our key sites. in a lot of detail she explained through th the central soma plan there were opportunity sites for additional development. in exchange for that there were specific goals set for these key sites in hopes of deriving a lot more community benefits. for our particular key site a couple of the key benefits we incorporated to the project include significant child care, public improvement, large hotel as well as housing. as a reminder of our site, we are located within the eastern boundary of the central soma plan. we are also north of south park
and south beach maybe understoods as well as immediately across the street from rincon hill. we have worked in the past eight years since the first application in working with the community. we have had over 20 meetings with just our neighbors in the block of the project. over 25 direct presentations with community groups and engaging over 30 community groups stakeholders closer to 40 at this time. then just briefly to go over the summary of the core community benefits. as i mentioned we built in the community benefits into the structure of the project. one that is the 110% including the city-wide requirements. we are intending and committed to pursuing the land dedication and fee. through our years of community
engagement heard that land and dollars is the pinch point for affordable housing at that time. we have identified land and we are prepared to move forward through the official vetting process. the other community benefit is our two main public open spaces. one is the hawthorne street plaza which is purposely designed to be activated with a lot of retail. hopefully it will draw both our occupants and greater neighborhood. the other indoor community space is located at second and harrison. we dedicated that to community use andy signed it to be programmed for all age groups. another community benefit is as mentioned we are removing dead anally conditions. there are two of those in the site. that is to enliven the block
and increase safety around the neighborhood. part of the project is the rehabilitation of 645 harrison. what we are doing there is trying to open up the ground floor, which has interior historic features that currently is not publicly accessible. by converting it to market hall that would be accessible by the public to truly turn the historic piece of the neighborhood back to the community. a couple other community benefits that we are providing include the child care which has dedicatessed outdoor space and we expect that to run for the lifetime of the project. through the hotel development which is a core unique think about the mixed-use project is the affiliated transient occupancy tax that is year-over-year.
1.5% will go towards arts contribution. with hotel and all of the f and spaces there will be service jobs. i will hand it over to leo chow to represent the design teams for the presentation. >> good afternoon, design partner. i get to speak on behalf of my colleagues representing three architecture teams and landscape team. we have a broad and diverse team. from the beginning the foundational concept of the project was to get the project to embrace the diverse character of the fabric around us and try to integrate this back to the city. so we really focused on creating a highly connected public realm. you have heard the diverse uses
we have had which we believe are going to bring a 24/7 life to the site. to utilize a diverse array of architectural express so it dent feel like one project but a series of buildings contributing to the neighborhood. it occupies two-thirds of the block bounded by i-80, elevated to the south so we are looking from the north. then surface streets between second and third with harrison street to the north. importantly as mentioned perry street and vassar are existing dead end alleys to remain the old industrial character. one is at the foot of the elevated freeway. the other is unimproved street. the proposal is to extend perry
to connect to vassar and on through to second street for pedestrians and bicycles. the hawthorne plaza will provide additional point to create a finer grain pedestrian environment. it is at the foot of hawthorne lane to terminate the alley. at the center of the project will be 645 harrison rehabilitated. it will retain the current uses of pdr and office and then will be augmented with retail as mentioned. very importantly to us, one of the things this project needed to achieve was to take what is currently internally looking industrial spaces and transforming the site outward looking and inviting to the public. ground floor occupied with active outward facing uses. child care. it will be the chargest child care in the market.
large market hall with diverse shops and public open spaces. in terms of form. the idea is to respect the prevailing scale and character of the neighborhood with the podium building, including historic 645. above that to the east we have the office space along the active portion of second street corridor, quiet portion of the block has residential building in yellow and hotel is between the two. the building height conforms with the central soma plan. what we think is going to do is create this open skyline that rises up toward rincon hill and transbay district. when viewed from the south, it will create what we think is a
natural addition to the city. it feels like a apart of the ci. this is the diverse use. this area is one of the most diverse. residential and pdr. we think this building will reflect that. ultimately we all experience these projects from the ground. you can see in the plan the idea to create a permeable ground level with many entries and exits for a strong indoor and outdoor relationship. i want to skip through this. widen the sidewalks, street bulb outs. major open space at the corner of second and harrison. 17,000 square feet, 17% of the site dedicated over to public improvements. public open space will be welcoming designed to support
diverse uses. special events as well. improved 645 vassar, hawthorne and the elevated plaza. >> thank you. i look forward to answering any questions. >> we are going to open this up for public comment. any members of the public please line up on the screen side of the room. i have several speaker cards. everyone is in support. the chair will limit public comment to two minutes. >> members of the public. i jumped the gun. we have one more presentation. >> sorry to jump the gun. i will be brief. i am lydia director of public housing with the mayor's office. since it was alluded to the land dedication option for the property. as you all know we have closed and the city has taken title to
three parcels under the land dedication program. we have built on one of the parcels. we have one parcel about to start construction later this year and another one is in predevelopment. we have three parcels that have been approved. planning does a math to figure out how many units accommodated by a particular parcel. then they take over for a qualitative perspective to look at environmental, financial feasibility and softer issues. is there a desirable location, adjacent uses appropriate for housing. then we say yes or no. we move forward toward acquisition with the department of real estate.
some of the pluses to us taking planned rather than taking units from a project are that we can really program what happens at a space and we can achieve other social goals, for example, including homeless units, child care, including arts or pdr space. once we have jurisdiction over the parcel. the disadvantage is that it takes awhile to get going. we have to have the funds available to pay for the development because, obviously, we fund pretty much all of the developments with very few exceptions. we also have to program the parcels with uses which can be challenges. now we have a number of parcels we are juggles. there are pluses and mine suss. we can't commit if that is of interest to our office.
i want to let you know how we see the process. >> thanks very much. >> again, to the chair. public comment will be limited to two minutes per person. maggie campbell, diego, johnson, leonard, cynthia gomez, carla, chris, rudy corpus, jane, genevieve, david, sam, marcus, henry, bev, live see, connieford, david baker and emily abraham. >> hi. this project is great. project by project advocacy is painful. this project has been vetted and we are talking about it again. i have dinner obligations and
everyone wants out of here i hope you speak quickly what a great project it is. thank you. >> everybody sam executive director and co-owner of sro building on the block. we are definitely in favor of the project. i echo the last speaker. i melt her. i have no idea where she is from but i want to say for the love of god support this project and move on. thank you. >> good evening. i am cliff leventhal, resident of the blue. that is a 21 story condo building between second and third on folsom. approximately the same place on
follow somewhere the vassar project will be. i would like to speak in favor of the project. a little bit about where i live. i am in a unique corner of the building. part of it faces directly to folsom street. when i moved there in 2013, there were a few amenities on folsom street. some good restaurants, two gyms, not much else. i figured with all of the high towers going up around there a lot of more amenities would be coming from. i was right. it wasn't long before we had the ping-pong parlor, the branch of alex's steakhouse, we had a barbershop, my barber. doesn't get much business.
and i can see the neighborhood grow. it is pretty pleasant to look out on folsom street, close to the san francisco museum of modern art and it is really like 100% walkable. but i look out the other window towards harrison street, that is a different story. i had to get to the whole foods which i go to right there on harrison and fourth. i would have to go down hawthorn to get to harrison. that is not something you look nor ward to. you are dodging glass leftover from the car break-ins the night before. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> when you get down to
harrison, you wouldn't be surprised to see the homeless. >> sir, we have to give everyone the same amount of time. your time is up. >> anyhow. >> your time is up, sir. >> it is up? okay. >> next speaker. >> thank you. i am glad to see the vassar project upgrading the neighborhood. >> thank you, sir. >> good afternoon, good evening. alex landburg the mechanical and life safety crafts and industries. it is not entirely rare but notable when you see this many people lining up for a project of this scale with no opposition. it indicates the work that happened during the central soma
planning process and the development team's work subsequent to that. they made a commitment to put a lot of construction workers to work, putting this up and maintaining it down the line. we have a full house. no need for me to sing praises. have a good night. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. henry. board member of the business association. this exemplifies the objectives to create employment, offer housing, development the soma community and provide a market hall, community friendly open spaces, large child care facility and significant improvements. the project's mixed use approach will help activate the area in
the day and evening increasing the safety of the neighborhood. further, the project is making $120 million impact investment in central soma. community to support the much needed infrastructure demands. the proposal promoting south of market as a vital place to work, live, visit and do business. we strongly urge the planning commission to approve the project. we look forward to welcoming the future business occupants in to our community. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am here to echo what everyone else is saying support of one vassar. i am the director of west bay. as you know i have been serving the community for 50 years. the recent filipino population are some of the most underserved
community residents of soma. we support the project for the benefits it has, especially the land dedication for affordable housing in close proximity to two schools. our only school that serves the students belt see carmichael and the child care center and the willingness to make sure it is affordable for our families and just the project sponsor and developer's willingness to understand the needs of the community and provide ongoing support. i want to especially shout out sharon and louise and jordan for volunteering and getting to know what the community is and also the project developer lawrence for coming out and actually seeing what our community does, engaging and understanding our programs and wanting to build a long term relationship. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> how are you doing?
congratulations, good to see. i am rudy violence prevention organization. i am a native south of market. this is my son. we stay there. i want to say that these are the type of projects and relationships that are important to building bridges and not walls with authentic real developers who really see us in the community. sharon is so center mental in building -- so instrumental and to lawrence louie who came out to see what we do. that means a lot to me. i am not going to support nothing if it don't include the integrity of our people. i am a ground zero soldier. they had me three and a hoff hours. i don't like to stay here three and a half hours. this is important to for the
community. i am here to support it 110%. it is important that when we build our relationships that we have people like sharon who care, people like lawrence who leave and want to help out. from eve everybody. he has seen and talked about drug policies, we talked about gang violence, we talked about prisons, we talked about all of this. it is something most developers don't care about. he is here to support us. they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. welcome to the newest member of the commission. good to see you here. cynthia gomez.
i will read to you the letter that we submitted individually by e-mail. our union represents 13,000 hospitality workers in hotels, a critical industry in the city. we support the mixed use project at one vassar. local two and the project sponsor signed an agreement regarding the hotel jobs guarantee for fair and neutral process for workers at the hotel if they wish to be represented by a union. these agreements continue to create a path for the hard working people in the hospitality industry to fight for respect and dignity, affordable healthcare and living wage. they represent true commitment. we in support of the project and ask you to grant the long list of approvals. thank you. >> i am ethan.
i live on howard street. the pipes are failing, there are break ins, the elevator is out and they raise the rent. it will be great to say i can move over there. i found out about the child care. that sounds nice. please approve the project. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, commissioners, david wu. we support this project based on the developer commitment to support and anti displacements and increase the public awareness of filipino culture and create advocacy for open space for multigenerational community members. thanks. >> next speaker, please.
>> good evening. san francisco umb. i talk about chose. this is another take on that. this building has 500 units of housing. i don't know if you saw, but new work, california is building 500 homes in the wetlands filling in marsh land with two thousand parks spots. when we talk about housing, how to solve the crisis we have a choice 500 units on one parcel of land. in the city transit rich, jobs, i could go on. you heard the community benefits or we could bulldoze overnight tur, build stuff to get flooded in 10 years, and do that the easy way. there is no neighborhood opposition. i am excited to see so many
people in support. i ask you to approve and think about more projects like this faster. it is great to have great plans for 2000 units of housing in 10 years. we need more now. get this approved and get everything else on the docket approved. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you, commissioners. i am beverly, executive director of c5 children's school serving 150 children in the state of california building and the sfpuc across the street. i am also share currently of the child care planning and advisory council. i am here to speak in favor of the child care facilities because there is a huge requirement in the city. we have currently just on the city's low income list 3,000 children who we have no space for.
we have no facilities for. it is one of the biggest challenges that the city is facing in terms of being able to provide adequate child care. one of the things that is especially desirable about this facility that it is on the ground floor. that means we would be our people would be able to serve infants and young toddlers who would be about three months probably to 18 months. currently in two of our facilities and we are opening up another one in the fall, but we cannot serve infants and toddlers because they are not on the ground floor. there is a very big need just within our program. we have 110 children on the wait list for infants and young toddlers. you can see that there is a great need and kind of one of my mottos we can never do enough for children. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please.
>> good evening, commissioners, mr. president and staff. thank you for considering this item. i am proud to be a 24 year member of the laborer's unit and i am maggie campbell. this project on behalf of my labor sister in the city of san francisco, we ask that you support this project. it is this project that allows us to or this kind of project that allows us to pay for homes for our families and to have a quality of life with benefits. with this kind of project here we will have many of my labor sisters with an opportunity to work in the city they live in. thank you for that and thank you for your service to the community. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, good evening. i am emily abraham. public policy manager in support of the one vassar project. it is unique in the benefits to the local community for
employment opportunities, housing and benefits for the surrounding area. the $120 million investment will support much needed infrastructure improvements and support small businesses that rely on the foot traffic. the 3,000 square foot market hall will support potential businesses by providing 150 hospitality jobs. it is the only psy committed to 110% of did inclusionary requirements to achievable affordable housing. for these reasons the san francisco city chamber of commerce advocates you vote yes. . [please stand by]
lease stand by] >> commissioner imperia . >> we just got the transportation impact reports and want to review that and understand how traffic is going to impact perry. but generally, this is going to benefit the neighborhood, so we want you to approve it. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm david baker, a condo owner across the street. i've been there since 1989. i support this. i have nothing to do with the project professionally. it's a great team. i'm going home to eat dinner. thank you. >> president koppel: next speaker, please. don't rub it in.
>> good evening, president koppel and commissioners. my name is dante richards, and i am a carpenter in local 22, and i am speaking on behalf of the one vassar project. this will help me to continue to live in the city, and i am a native of the city. it will help me as a carpenter moving to retirement. it will help me support my family and bring much needed housing to the area in this housing crisis, and i am in full support of this project and ask that you support this project. i'm ready to go to work. this project has been delayed long enough, and i just want to say thank you for hearing me today. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please.
>> good afternoon, president koppell, and thank you for allowing me to speak. i'm with local 22 in san francisco. i represent about 4,000 residents that live here in the city plus about 40,000 in northern california. this project, 35-story residential unit, that's a lot. it doesn't matter who you are or your income, we all need a place to live. the hotels, bars, restaurants, unwind -- god, i could use one now. 24 stories, mixed open space, but millions of dollars community benefit, i don't see how we can say no to this. the carpenter's union is here
today to fully support one vassar project. not only would this bring housing to san francisco, but the use of a union general contractor. it means living wages for the individuals building this project. it means health care and retirement benefits. this project will provide hundreds of union construction jobs, create opportunities for women, minorities, and veterans to advance their careers. carpenters union supports this, and we ask you to do so, as well. thank you for your time. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, president koppel, congratulations, teresa, on your position. i am with the labor council and
i represent a small organization called c.l.o.u.t., community and labor organizing unifying together. we're going to give people in the surrounding communities some entry level job opportunities to take advantage of this development. i work at a coalition called good jobs for all. we are labor and community, and we work with local 2. so we have these entry level jobs that we have been working with the developer to guarantee that if you're trained and you want these jobs, that they will be available for you. so i'm here to say that we all support this project, to thank sharon and her staff and all of the other good work that you've done, and let's move this project forward. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> todd david on behalf of the housing coalition project.
we often talk about how housing is a good community benefit, and it is, but we also like to think about what is the additional things that come along with new housing, and this project is one of these benefits that come along with new housing. impact fees and infrastructure investment valued at $20 million. -- by splitting it between a fee and a land dedication. i always think it's really interesting when development teams are able to do things in a creative manner. just add our voice and names to
the chorus to approve this. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> commissioners, john elbing. commissioners, this has been a long time coming. it's the last major project of the central soma plan. my company has reached an agreement with the developer. the project will cast a very small shadow on yerba buena gardens open spaces very early in the morning some times of the year, so to mitigate that, the developer has agreed to contribute $53,000 for the yerba buena conservancy to maintain the gardens, so that's
good. of course, there'll be more projects and more shadows, so this is an important precedent for the gardens and its future. second, if it's technically possible, with a motion denied evidence change to the planning code, the developer has committed to provide 8,000 square feet of p.d.r. for 30 years beyond low market rents, which is important for businesses that cannot afford $50, $60 a square foot for businesses. we are pleased to be able to join with our colleagues and the community to support this project. it really is another example of how the central soma projects aren't just putting up buildings, but they're also building the community. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you.
anyone else want to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore? >> i'm delighted to see the last big project in san francisco come to approval, and i couldn't be more proud to support it. i move to approve it. >> president koppel: commissioner melgar? >> commissioner melgar: i'm so excited to see this, and the sense of humor. to talk about below market rate child care, p.d.r. open space, hotel space, and housing space, both affordable and market rate, exciting.
so excited to support this project. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm also excited to support the system. congratulations to everybody. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: subsequent to the informational presentation, some of the questions that came up there have been answered. there were discussions related to the overall sight development plan. some of the issues related to their attempts to soften the freeway edge in their discussions with caltrans on their side, discussions related to the historical resource, what has been done to that, and
some further monthdulation on these three towers, i'm happy to support the project. >> commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yes. i'm very happy that you put land ded indication plus, inclusionary on-site fees. usually, we would see one thing or the other. as you know, we have affordability crisis, and so for me, that is very acceptable. so kudos to you all, and to see different groups, different groups sometimes on the different sides, but to see them all together speaks about the type of community that you
want to build. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> i want to give a shoutout to sharon in the planning committee. her skills are prevalent in this, so thank you, sharon. >> president koppel: we had many, many hearings on this area, many large project hearings, i just want to thank all the staff, all the departments, all the people, all the time, all the people sitting down for hours and hours and hours to get us to where we are today. i'm personally thrilled. i like this project, it's in the right area of town, it's right near moscone in downtown. it's going to solidify that whole area with no missing teeth, and thrilled to see it
today. director rahaim? >> director rahaim: there's one person i want to give a shoutout to, and that's rich ducray. he and his staff have stream lined the process in a thoughtful way, so i want to thank rich and his team for making this up. very much appreciated. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> i wanted to thank the project team for going the extra mile and putting on the web an extra consolidated summary that many people in the public read on-line and called me and felt that that little package was very in line to help understand the project, so thank you for that. >> clerk: seeing nothing further, commissioners, there
is a motion that has been seconded to approve the large project authorization, conditional use and conditional use authorization as has been corrected and submitted into record by staff. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6-0. >> i'll close the hearing and move to grant the standard variance. >> clerk: commissioners, that will place us back now to item 11 for case number 2009-3461 cwp. informational presentation.
>> good afternoon, commissioners, matt snyder of department staff. i'm here with our annual staff to the interagency plan implementation committee. my -- my presentations seemed to have disappeared from the laptop. i will use the overhead if i can. we do this every year, so i will try -- and i know you have a long calendar still in front of you, so i will try and be as very brief as i can. i will give you an idea of what the implementation planning
committee is, what they do, and what our process is and give you some general overviews of our revenue and some highlights of each of the plan areas. very quickly, the implementation team of the planning department was created about ten years ago in the citywide division, and our task was to look over the implementation of the -- of the area plans that had been created since the mid2000s. before that, when we ever did an area plan, we always had the zoning that we would then implement and we were looking at other aspects of the area plan, and the tool that helped us do this morning was the creation of geographically based impact fees, so planning takes a leadership role in making sure that those impact
fees a fe fees are spent according to the plan, and they are essentially an extension of the planning team that does this. they are our agency partners. so the two major products that we do are the annual ipic report which i forwarded to you as part of your packets and are now on-line, which gives you a
report around each of the area plans around infrastructure spending, and this is focused on how the revenue from the impact fees are spent. the other impact fee we do every other year with the city's ten-year capital plan, and then we look at the ten-year capital plan for each of these areas. it's a little more expanded, not only from impact from revenue fees, but we take a look at what the gap is to help solve projects that don't yet have all the full funding. and commissioner fung had asked me to give a context of what these plan areas are relative to some other planning activities, so i provided you with the maps in these packets. these aren't part of the actual report. i'm going to skip ahead. this slide -- or in your packets shows you what these plan areas subject to the impact fees are relative to
some other large scale intense development endeavors, including those from redevelopments, from the development agreement projects, including the three hope s.f. that we heard about today. so ipic is charged with programming revenues from impact fees, and this just indicates our process is not like other budgeting processes. i should mention that each other plans before you, as central soma was recently before you, we include packets that outline what those projects are going to be so we're not starting every year coming up with new projects, what we're looking to do is think strategically with what project goes first. every year, we start where we left off the previous year, we
look at our fee projections and adjust accordingly. we work with the c.a.c., we work with other agencies. it's an iterative process. we ask the c.a.c.s for endorsement, we ask for the ipic for endorsement. we ask that the projects in the next two years get loaded into the city's capital plan, and then, we move forward to implement. and the five categories that we generally look to fund projects include transit, complete streets, recreation and open space, child care, and then, there's a 5% set aside for administration. i should mention that these, of course, are all justified or backed up by nexus studies that we do every five years to assure that we are raising money according to state law, and that we are essentially programming the money to essentially address the creation of this -- of this new development.
some of issues that we looked at that were specific to this year that i heard -- i think i heard in one of your other conversations is that construction has somewhat slowed down. we have sort of a formula of when we think we can expect impact fees relative to where they are in the pipeline. this year, we found that our revenue came in slower than what we had anticipated because projects weren't moving from, for an example, getting site permits and construction documents so where they actually pay their fees. so you'll see in some of charts that i have next, you'll see negative numbers, which i wouldn't interpret them as deficits, cash deficits. what it means is that in previous years, we've
appropriated projects, but projects don't yet have the cash. what we need to do is prioritize projects that are afforded, but developers are working to catch up. we're working on some relatively new plan areas. central soma is going to be a large effort this year. also, one of the things that are before you this winter -- or excuse me, this winter and possibly spring is the amendments to the market octavia plan, or commonly referred to as the hub. for central soma, as you may recall, to help implement that and do it in a more cohesive way, we had implementation to create a new plan largely around central soma. one of the things that we're going to have to do is think about the revenue stream that
comes from the eastern neighborhoods actual fee, the splitting it apart to make sure that each neighborhood is being funded relative to the information that's coming in geographically. and then, we've separated the c.a.c. that included to include soma. that c.a.c. is looking to help us with the mission, shore place, potrero, and central waterfront. i'll try to get through these ones real quickly. so through f.y. 20, which is the end of this fiscal year, in june, we anticipate we will have collected about $286 million, most of that coming -- the larger amount coming from eastern neighborhoods, which is the larger plan areas, and some of the most intensive developments, including transit center. in the next two years, we anticipate collecting $242
million. i should point out a big chunk of that is actually going to come from twcentral soma, sinc the key sites, we anticipate generating a lot of revenue, and part of our work with the new c.a.c. and ipic is figuring out which of those projects are identified, but how do you spend them on a year to year basis? we anticipate collecting roughly $418 million. i'm going to just give you some super high level highlights of each of the six plan areas. balboa park, this is a plan area in which there is a lot happening in terms of transit, in terms of development, but it's actually outside of the context of impact fees. we don't anticipate collecting a lot of money from balboa,
only about 300 -- i'm sorry, $270 million over the next five years. eastern neighborhoods had been six plan areas, now six plan areas. the largest impact fee area we're looking to fund roughly about 30 infrastructure projects. some highlights include recreation -- recreation -- rec and park has about eight -- eight projects in the works using our -- the funds from impact fees. some that had been included this year include franklin square, park core improvements. under construction is the complete rehabilitation of the aquatic center at garfield, and then slotted for construction to begin this year is a small
rehabilitation at jury commons in the mission. one of the -- we are also looking to participate in the funding of a lot of major transit and complete streets projects, one of which is second street, of which we've provided a little over 10% of those funding. some of the smaller projects that the c.a.c. has advocated for includes potrero gate way. we previously referred to this as the loop. it's a smauj project that public works is completing conceptual designs. about 1.5 years ago, you approved a plan for central waterfront, and we set aside $10 million over the next few years to fund those projects. the first coming out of the gate are a series of road improvement projects, minnesota at 25 street. market octavia, again, we're
funding about 30 projects. so one of the things that we do in the various area plans is that we provide funding for community-based efforts. one of the things that are very popular in market octavia is a street walk and greening program, for which we provide about 100,000 a year. another thing that is popular for the c.a.c. is the living trees project, to essentially create public realm projects out of the city alleys. one of the projects in market octavia is the complete rehabilitation of margaret hayward playground for which we're funding roughly a quarter to a third. another project is the upper market pedestrian improvements
and bike improvements. you've seen sort of temporary improvements in the form of paint along upper market. this looks to make those more permanent. and then looking forward, we have a lot of projects set aside, not specific projects coming out of the hub project for which we'll work with the agencies and the community to further prioritize. rincon hill was one of our first area plans with impact fees. and one of the projects that are going to be in construction right now is a small pocket park on guy place. it's a small loop road off of first street. that's under construction, and we look to fund most of that, actually. the other quarter of that money came from transit center. transit center impact fees largely go to various -- i think it goes to tjpa for the
large scale regional transportation projects, but then, a lot of it also goes to the streetscape projects. they also participated in funding guy place park, again, under construction. visitacion valley is not an area per se. it was created by then supervisor maxwell and created by the community to help leverage funds out of expects intense development and executive park. revenue has not been coming in on that project area. essentially, it includes the hope s.f. sunnyvale site. development has not happened as quickly as we had anticipated in viz valley, so what we've been doing is going out in the community every year, kind of chewing up projects when the income does come in. we're still waiting for it, and
there are a series of improvements on visitacion valley, leading up from tthe p. we're creating a new c.a.c. specifically for soma. that has not yet been seated. we anticipate seeing that seated in april, and we'll start working with them. also, as i noted, all of our fees have to be justified by nexus studies. we're currently underway in reuping our nexus study, and so we look to be completing that also in the spring and the summer. after that, this whole process starts again where we look at our projections. we'll work with the agencies and the c.a.c.s where
adjustments need to be made. one of the documents that created the eastern neighborhoods was an m.o.u. and the split of eastern soma neighborhoods. and that concludes my presentation, and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> president koppel: thank you very much, mr. snyder. now we'll open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would wish to comment on this item? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i just wanted to commend staff on the thoroughness of this report. it connects the dots for me. i see improvements in the projects, and improvements on the streets, and this is how it gets from a to z, the sausage making it of. understanding how you prioritize with community
action groups and how you set the priorities helps me very much. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: your presentation was very convincing, and i'm excited to see where we're moving in the next year. >> president koppel: and thanks for bearing with us on the agenda. >> sure. >> clerk: commissioners, that places you on item 15, at 1300 columbus avenue, a planned unit development. >> good evening, president koppel and commissioners. the item before you is a conditional use authorization and planned unit development requesting a four story, 88,000 square foot, 39 foot tall and a 170 room hotel room addition. the project includes 166
existing below grade off street parking spaces. improvements to the garage includes the conversion of three spaces to bus parking spaces. the project includes 11,000 square feet of open space and maintaining two existing internal courtyards. a conditional use authorization is required to expand the existing hotel use, and a planning development is utilized. originally established in 1975, the existing hotel use is conditionally permitted in the c-2 zone district and today seeks to expand its location. it requires conditional use authorization pursuant to planning codes 178 and 210.2. additionally, a minor deviation from the method of height is
requested to take measurement from the hide mitt point of the subject site. the proposed hotel expansion would update an under utilized parking. included in the proposed scope of work is increased hotel room capacity, one of the city's most visited areas, the introduction of street-level retail tenant spaces, and bringing the block up to grade and design standards. staff finds this meets the standard of the northeastern waterfront plan. the project sponsor is here today and will speak to the public dialogue conducted as part of their outreach effort. staff finds that the introduction of active street level uses in combination with the additional hotel capacity and level of service is a higher and better use of the
site, supports the area's tourist economy, supports the economic tiff diversity and supports employment diversity through -- by creating new service and retail jobs and all of these aspects are consistent with the objectives and policies of the northeastern waterfront area and general position. for this reason, staff recommends approval with conditions. i'm available for questions that you may have, and the project sponsor is here to give their statement. >> president koppel: thanks very much. project sponsor. >> good evening, commissioners. jodi knight of reuben, junius, and rose on behalf of the project southern. as you heard today, we're here for conditional use approval -- we're also seeking a p.u.d. for
minor modification of the measurement of height. it's created some confusion, but it allows us to make a flat roof addition between the addition and the existing hotel. it's a planning code interpretation of height. i know there's been some confusion over whether we're going to create something taller, and it's just to create a flat roof. we're excited about the project. it's been a long time in the works. we're partnering with the fisherman's wharf c.b.d. to improve the safety and experience of the area. one of the things that we're doing is contributing to a lighting project for the adjacent joseph conway mini park, installation of cameras and start a good partnership with the c.b.d. we're excited they're here in our support this evening. and we'll get right to the design. we're here for any questions. the ownership is here, and thank you for your time this
evening. >> president koppel: thanks very much. >> good evening, commissioners. matt slyson, the architect here in the city. i'll briefly explain the conditions of the site and the proposed addition. the existing massing is mostly set to the north site of the lot, the rear. this is looking south, towards the bay. there's a five-story wing of hotel guest rooms along the rear side part of the site, and the entrance and public space is at the middle of the site with a large surface parking lot at the south length of the site. it's currently a very car dominated nonpedestrian friendly site with the building set off of the street.
the proposed addition builds over the surface lot and fills out the south edge of the site. the new wing has hotel, public space, and retail on the ground floor, and there are three floors of guest rooms above that. the addition intends to complete the doughnut of the building, if you will, with the spine connecting the circulation back to its existing self-. the addition matches the roof life of the existing building and it's similar height to the surrounding buildings, as well. the connection of building to street front results in a dramatic improvement in the pedestrian environment along north point, columbus, and leavenworth. the project is below 40 feet in
height and therefore it does not need to be reviewed and approved by rec and park commission, however, we did look at the minimal new shadow on the adjacent joseph conrad mini park, which is just to the west of our site on this triangle, and we found that on days that there's new shadow between september 28 and march 14, in the winter months, all new shadow is gone no later than 9:30 in the morning. observation of the park's use shows in the early morning, the few people in the park are walking through, whereas lunchtime, people tends to sit on the park's benches, and there's no impact on shadow during that time. so this is the ground floor plan. everything in blue is existing, and everything in red is proposed addition. the vehicular circulation is
unchanged. the off street drop off and pick up is still in this one-way portico chere. and as -- we're also adding a bulb out on the corner of columbus and leavenworth, for pedestrian safety at that intersection. the project is adding 10 class 1 bike parking spaces and a bike parking room on the site, and 22 bike parking spaces on the sidewalk as well as a.
>> commissioner dejesus: -- a decorative space. the retail wraps the corner, with glazing to the south and west to maintain the presence from north point columbus as well as leavenworth. we have a materials board here that i'm happy to pass around if you'd like to -- the predominant materials used on the side are brick and some
plaster. the areas with brick are recessed a little bit in the facade and kept shorter than the areas with cement plaster in order to help modulate the site down north point. in summary, this project provides an addition of high quality design and materials. it fills out the block, providing active uses in place of surface parking and provides retail spaces on north point and on columbus, wrapping onto leavenworth. thanks very much for your time. >> president koppel: thank you very much. anyone from the public to comment on this item? we do have a couple of speaker cards. anyone else who would like to
speak, please lineup on this side of the room. we have david carl and randall scott. whoever's ready, come on up. >> good evening, president koppel and commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak. my name is dr. david carl. i'm president of the homeowners association, and i'm here to express the opposition of the homeowners to the granting of the variance and the height restriction for the roof of the proposed project at 1300 columbus. the problem is that the visibility is rather restricted at the current point, and any variation, whatever so-called
"minor variation" is going to significantly adversely affect the views of the residents along that side facing north, so we respectfully request that you not grant the variance for the height. thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is randall scott. i'm the executive director for the fisherman's wharf community benefit district. it's kind of a mouthful, especially at this time of night. any way, the hotel came to us about six, eight months ago to share the project with us, their hotel plans. at that time, they were seeking the shadow study from rec and park. we discussed partnering on the conrad park improvements. we have since replanted conrad
park in partnership with rec and park, and so far, everything that we have looked for, expansion of jobs, increased foot traffic -- the hotel has committed to continuing to be open during this expansion, so it will not harm the district in any way. so the fisherman's wharf c.b.d. has no objections to this project and looks forward to continued relationship with hotel caza. >> president koppel: okay. anyone else wish to comment on this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner more? >> vice president moore: i am very happy to see that this particular project is starting to close and finish the street wall. it was always kind of very difficult to understand why a
suburban looking hotel was filling this block because coming from north beach, which is a very urban place and wanting to explore fisherman's wharf, which many people do, you turn right, and you're entering somewhat of a different feel of the city. this particular project as it's designed, seems to be just exactly filling the gap and adds a street facade that translates efficiently over into fisherman's wharf. i talked with commissioner fung and chamber of commerce, just brainstorming what kind of retail could be there. while we're not talking about it at the moment, it would be good for the developer to continue that conversation with
commissioner fung. i am generally in support of the project. i do understand the variation on height, and this project needing a p.u.d., and i myself support it, looking for what my fellow commissioners have to say. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: question for either the counselor or the developer. this project was continued at the request of the district supervisor. is there anything from that meeting that we should be aware of? >> yeah, the project team did meet with the supervisor's office, gave supervisor peskin an overview of the project, and he was -- >> commissioner fung: that was it -- >> he was happy with the
project and thought it was appropriate for the area. thank you. >> commissioner fung: i would note in the discussion by one of the public, that this is matching the existing roof line and height. i don't see how it impacts their view, whether it's from a lower level or a higher level, you know? it's going to be the same line, so -- >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm supportive of the project. i'm pleased you discussed the minor impact on the park with the business improvement district. even though it's minor impact, it's still a park, and even though it's not subject to 295, i wanted to make sure that the way you impact it is not negative on the people who use the park. i support the project, and i so
move. >> commissioner moore: second. >> clerk: commissioners, there's a motion and second to approve. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. and places you on item 15, report number 2019-014039 c.u.a., conditional use authorization. >> okay. good evening, commissioners. bridget hicks, planning department staff. the project before you is a conditional use authorization for a change of use from a restaurant to a cannabis retail and personal service use at
1735 polk street in the polk street c.b.d. as a reminder, i'm not going to go into the description again, but it's not located within 600 feet of any schools, the sponsors of a part of the city's equity program, and the sponsors are not proposing consumption on-site at this time. the proposal was to work with the neighbor and the neighborhood groups who spoke in opposition and the polk street c.b.d. to meet with d.b.i. and fire to ensure that the shared use would be compatible. since the path hearing, the sponsors have met with the neighborhood who spoke out in opposition. the neighbors have stated that the polk street c.b.d. does not have a policy of supporting or opposing projects in the city.
the project sponsor and i went over to d.b.i. and fire, and they confirmed that the share use is achievable, and that the progress and occupancy loads seem accurate. i will allow the sponsors to expand on how the uses will inact. since the previous hearing, the department has received 19 letters of support from surrounding merchants and neighbors, noting it'll improve foot traffic, and safety, and we did receive one letter of opposition, location close to a daycare. and that's my presentation. i'm here to answer any questions. >> all right. good evening, commissioners. thank you for having us back here to give us time to fine-tune or commitment to the
polk -- fine-tune our commitment to the polk street neighborhood. i did have a handout that i wanted to pass out to you guys so you can have them when we go over those. just a brief little synopsis, we've heard five meetings with the neighborhoods, and introduced ourselves to neighboring businesses, all who we've met and are excited to have business coming into the -- sorry -- come that could bring more foot traffic to polk street. for the interior, we want to bring in lush plants, natural light, so that you feel uplifted right when you walk into the front door. we want to maintain clean space and keeping the sidewalks and adjacent street clean. we care about our community's
safety and well-being. but most importantly, we aim to support our employees through continued education. we'll provide funds to help them acquire proper certification in the cannabis industry. we strive to be a steady fixture that provides excellent service and products to our ever evolving people and iconic polk street neighborhood. we have met with the discovery polk community benefits district on february 11, which we toured the location and how the business would be conducted and how it would benefit the area. the board appreciated the meeting and wished us luck on our venture. we also met with building and fire inspectors on that same day and confirmed that our loads are in line with our
space and plan. if you look over here onto the front entrances where the a.d.a. accessibility here, we have our entrance here, and a second form of egress where our deliveries will be coming in. and also, i know you were concerned about the size of the dispensary. the actual -- only the -- the size of the dispensary comes in around 1700 square feet, which is this area here. as you can see, you walk in, there's a check in area off to the left here. there's a natural delineation of center posts that actually go down the center of the building so it leads you into the entrance of the wellness center, and then, it'll also draw people into a waiting area where there's self-help
stations and also our bartenders, as well. if we go to the next page, you can get an idea of exactly where the wellness center is. it's shaded in gray in the back, so you will check in here, and it will be followed through. so the whole area back here, is -- there's a waiting area, meditation rooms. the whole back area is a yoga studio and educational seminar, and also includes the bathrooms and sauna, as well. also, you're wondering where the safe was, as well. through the office, this is a nonpublic area in the back. it's a few hundred square feet, and then, we will also have a double door going into the safe and security area. it is 100% secure and only accessed by owners of the business. that is all i have for you guys, and hopefully, i have answered all of your questions successfully.
thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. we're now going to open this up to public comment. would anyone like to comment on this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is closed. is the equity applicant here? okay. could you tell us what kind of experience you have in the industry? >> i've been in the industry for about six, seven years. i used to work for a distribution company. worked in san francisco as an account executive, managing accounts and educating people on the medicinal qualities of cannabis, so giving them the resources to combat their ailments with that. >> president koppel: okay. question for either project sponsors. how many employees do you plan on having? >> right now, that's something we're going to have to figure out because it is -- because it's a dual use. i only consider a couple people
in the wellness center for now because it is such an open space for people to use, but probably three to four people on the floor during the day, plus myself, and we'll be working there 100%. i know that there is over ten employees. we would be subject to a peace agreement with the unions, which we're obviously down for, so we just need to fine-tune or employment and find out how the space is really going to flow. >> president koppel: right. if you're going to have a cannabis dispensary and a wellness center, doesn't the dispensary need to have 70% employment from the pool? >> yes, and the dispensary, it'll all be one with the wellness center. >> president koppel: okay. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i just want to confirm with the
project sponsor that at this point, you are not prohibiting in the future consumption on-site? >> we are only looking for the a and b for now, but we would possibly go for a c down the road if possible. >> sure. with this project, we did that condition where if they would like to add type c, they would have to get the neighborhood notification. >> president koppel: okay. and then one more question just for staff. how does this work with the two different uses? i'm just confused -- >> yeah, it is a different -- planning doesn't look into the ownership of the uses, but yeah, for planning, they can be both of these uses. the personal use is permitted as right in this district, but the cannabis has got the c.u., but yeah, they can both be here. [please stand by]
combat whatever their issues are that they are dealing with, medical issues. we are working with a couple nurses that are looking at getting their certifications. there is a program through pacific college out of san diego where licensed nurses can get certification, and it's something that we are looking to get in this space. i think with this, like my wife said last time when we were up here, we are not looking to do just another dispensary. we look at the future of the dispensary as bringing these new studies coming forward and making sure that we are bringing something new to the arena that's not just a place to go and get your cannabis, but it is a place that you can get help, you can meditate, you can have educational seminars weekly, bring specialists in to talk to people and get them educated
about it. because it is hard for people to go into dispensaries. it is nerve wrecking, they don't know what to look for. we are hoping to have a wellness center so people feel more comfortable and hopefully we can help them with what ails them, hopefully. >> i appreciate you explaining that. the only thing i want to make sure of is that you understand adding massage falls under a different kind of approval. >> yes, we know that. >> since we have this in front of us frequently, many people want extra insurances it is regulated by a different group of people. i want to make sure it is not an invitation for other people to misinterpret what you are allowed to do. >> yes, i agree >> that's the most important thing because trust among your neighbors and business community including residents who live upstairs i think is the most important thing for us to ensure.
so that's why i'm asking the question. >> absolutely. >> that's the reason. thank you. >> you're welcome >> commissioner fung. >> there is residential above this store. and if in the future, even though there's notice given to the neighbors, if he chooses to go for the type c consumption, any mechanical system is going to have to go through the residential floors. and on that basis, they're not airtight, i can't support this. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks. so as i said last time, i think this is a really interesting concept. i know that many -- a lot of yoga studios and wellness spaces are offering a combination of cannabis and yoga, and yoga and wellness and seeing it deal in
community health. and so i think the idea of bringing these two together and being something unique is really interesting. i think what i'm -- i would also agree with commissioner fung that i feel like type c actually isn't consistent with the goals of having a wellness space, if i'm going for yoga or meditation, having vaporizing and smoking at the same site doesn't feel consistent to me so i would not support that use. and then also i know that kind of you are just getting started with a concept and thinking about it, but there are lots of yoga teachers that are doing this, wellness practitioners that are doing this. so i'm curious when you said there would be four staff, that raised my eyebrow. so can you tell us more about, like, what your plan is for programming specifically, and then also related to this, i know your equity applicants are
also going to be supporting folks who are equity applicants and employing them. but what is your plan for wellness for community service, meaning access to this beyond making it kind of a high-end luxury offering, education and so on and so forth? >> right. you know, i think as for employees go, it's something we are going to have the work out, after opening five restaurants it's fine-tuning and figuring out what is, we'll overstaff in the beginning but not four total for the day. we have two rotations. we are going to be open for ten hours a day so we will have two rounds of staff. so probably when you are looking at it maybe a total of 20 employees for the entire business which will be rotating in and out, three a day, we'll have a person at the wellness center that's helping manage the wellness centers and yoga teachers that we'll contract out
and we'll set up classes here and there. the biggest part is that space is not just a yoga studio, either. it is really meant for guided meditation, it's really meant for educational purposes as well and getting people in free seminars. i think that's the educational part that we need in this industry right now. and i think it's just something that we strongly feel about. obviously because we are trying to do something different, i know there are going to be some complications to really fine-tuning it, but i feel that we have such a great team with us in order to make this happen. we have a history of business background, and it's going to go through some trials and tribulations in order to get it right, so i'm hoping that we can do it right. i just know that this is something that we've been working on for a couple years now, and it's something we are truly passionate about. >> thank you. i would just -- i'll end by saying if you do get approval i
would encourage you to work with lots of community, specifically communities of color, teachers of color who are doing a lot of this kind of work already. >> absolutely. >> in different spaces and making sure there are classes that are accessible. >> absolutely. >> commissioner diamond. >> i see you have a sauna here but i'm not seeing showers or changing rooms. am i missing something? >> that is in the next plan. we lost our interior designer a couple weeks ago so we are engaging with a new designer right now. there's a room on the back of the sauna to make that attached to the sauna to be a private changing room into the sauna so it's more of a private area. but the bathrooms are beautiful as well. >> and showers or no showers? >> i would like to put a shower in there and do a small shower, handicap shower and everything. there is enough space. we are talking with them right
now. so actually right here there's enough space off to the top part that we can add and make this into a single use sauna. >> i also just want to echo the concern that was raised by commissioner fung, and i think i heard commissioner johnson say the same thing, which is it seems maybe mutually exclusive to have type c consumption next to a yoga studio. >> totally understand. i wanted to make sure we left that open just in case down the road but i understand where you are coming from. >> so condition 11 was placed there so if the commission chose to take a direction to limit type c and prohibit that, we can just have it as a modification for staff to alter the motion to say limited. >> commissioner imperial.
>> my question is the wellness area, is that for the sauna, meditation room and yoga? >> yes. >> so you are saying the programming of the wellness area, i'm just trying to figure out -- >> yeah. so when you walk in here, this is not a door right here. this is just like a zigzag private entranceway so people can go in and out. it's a free-flowing space. we want to make it somewhat private so when people come in they are not looking right down to the yoga studio. but people will have access to use the restrooms if they need to. when they do check into the wellness center, they can come back and wait for their class or meditation, wait for whichever room they are trying to access. >> so there will be schedules of programs? >> yes. we will make a schedule for this.
yeah. >> i think for me, it's like the educational purposes that you would like to highlight on this, again, we all want, i mean, there are different kinds of when it comes to wellness and making sure that it's -- it's accessible to the community. i would like to echo with everyone on the commission, we want to make sure it is equitable. >> absolutely. that is that is the main thing we are trying to deliver. there's an institute based in denver. there's obviously the pacific college, there are colleges coming up that are helping increase knowledge with the equity partners, especially because they are giving them information on how to be a bud tender, really come into their own and develop their own business as well. it's something we do at the restaurants with our employees. we pay for them to go through
school so they can get the license to serve beer and get their level one and two. they can take that wherever they would like and expand their business. so it's definitely something we would like to partake in with our employees. we want to make sure we are providing the best possible service for our staff. >> okay. >> the equity applicant, they are engaging with other equity applicants in the equity communities. i'm working with the special police officers association in helping the curriculum for underprivileged minorities in the bayview and educating them on what cannabis is. so it's important that we honor the equity program, we give the opportunity for people to come in and learn how to responsibly operate in this space. we will be doing that with employees. i'm also personally doing that with that group and helping people understand that this is an amazing opportunity through the equity program to take
advantage of that. so it's very important that because of my six-year history and because i'm an equity applicant, to connect and help them along this path and help them get to this amazing industry that we can hopefully get everyone involved in. from another standpoint, this isn't made for a boutique cannabis experience. we hope to invite people of all different ages, races and just to come in, learn about it. and they don't have to -- with the wellness center, they don't necessarily have to spend money at the cannabis dispensary, but they can come into a space where it's not just come and buy cannabis and leave, it's come in, let's learn, and let's do seminars and teach people about how to use this as a form of medicine. so i'm sorry to interrupt you, chris. but i just wanted to say that. >> commissioners, i just wanted to, i guess throw it out there that if you are looking at adding a conditional approval to prohibit type c consumption,
just to make sure you direct staff as to some findings such as citing the dual uses on the site or the residential use above and mixed-use nature of the building as a rationale for why the type c would be prohibited. >> one more question for staff. just help me clear this up in my head. i know there's two uses here. are the employees going to cross over and work in both or one? or one not the other? >> we are trying to look into -- >> just in reference to -- i have no problem with this equity applicant, i just want to make sure there's not 40 employees and not the 30 percent equity applicants. >> in this case the dual use is something the office of cannabis is managing and figuring out as they are getting new cannabis retailers that have the mix. it will be something the office of cannabis manages as part of their equity program to make sure the cannabis portions of the business are appropriately staffed with the equity
applicants. >> the office of cannabis has a business plan and goes through that process and is involved with every step of their business, so i think this is something that will be covered by the office of cannabis as opposed to planning. >> okay. thanks. >> commissioner diamond >> i would move to approve with a condition prohibiting type c based upon the joint use. >> second. >> commissioners, there is a motion and second to approve with conditions prohibiting type c use. on that motion, [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes 5-1 with moore voting against. commissioners, that places you on your discretionary review calendar.
item 16, 21 of 9 26th avenue. >> good evening. staff architect. the item is a public-initiated review, request for discretionary review of the application 2018-07033738 for an addition to an existing house at 2169 26th avenue and a division of that existing house into two single-family houses. the lot would then be subdivided into two equally sized 25' wide parcels. this is continued from december hearing to determine if it was in fact demolition per planning code section 317, which it is. it's an rh-1 district, if the
house exceeds evaluation of $2.2 million, it is demonstrably unaffordable and a demolition may be approved administratively by staff. the project sponsor has provided an apray sal that exceeds that value -- an appraisal that exceeds that value. so while it is a demolition, is the something we could approve internally by staff. there are three dr requesters. the first, anna and steve of 2159. twenty-sixth avenue, owners of the property to the north of the proposed project are concerned the project does not comply with residential design guidelines. the second alex wong of 2166, owner of the property across the street, to the east, is concerned that the project is breaking the uniformity of the block and is inappropriate, extends too far into the rear yard and blocks light to houses
to the north including solar panels at 2159 26th avenue. new construction permit which we have ascertained and will set a precedent that will change the block. third dr requester of 2163 26th avenue, the adjacent owner to the north is concerned by the following issues: one, that the proposed addition raises concerns about excavation and impacts to the neighbors' foundation, that the project intrudes into the rear yard and disrupts the open space and deprives the dr's requester backyard of light and privacy. the department has received an astounding 60 letters in opposition and i'm sure you have been cced on those, and 17 letters in support of the project. the department's residential design advisory team had reviewed this and confirmed some additional modifications would be required to reduce the mass
and scale and preserve access to mid-block open space. specifically those are recommendations are setting the third floor back 14 feet from the front facade, eliminateing that roof at the third floor, eliminating the third floor part, aligning and proportioning the entry door and windows more in keeping with surrounding buildings, reviseing bay windows be compliant over the garage doors and reducing the rear popout to extend no more than five feet to preserve the scale and access of open space. this concludes my presentation. i'm here to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you. okay. we have three dr requesters. we are going to hear from the d.r. requesters first. you each get five minutes.
first come, first serve. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is anna landy. i want you to know there are a lot of people here with us and a lot of people that couldn't attend. many wanted to speak today but in the interest of time we asked them to send you an e-mail to voice their concerns instead of addressing you here. we hope that you have had time to read them and can appreciate that we have tried to consolidate our discussions so that this is not repetitive. my husband and i steve who have two daughters up the block from the subject -- live two-doors up block from the subject property. can i use the overhead? we are natives san franciscans
and we are both born on north beach. we are raising our family, we wanted a neighborhood that was family-oriented and contained single-family homes as opposed to the multiple dwelling units that are found in san francisco. the sunset district fits our needs perfectly, and we moved to 26th avenue in 1997. the best part was the parking was so much easier in the sunset than anywhere else in the city. we attended a preplanning meeting where neighbors heard that mr. chan was proposing two three-story 3300 square feet homes with six bedrooms each. neighbors were really angry and they shouted objections about the size of the homes and the fact that he was already airbnbing rooms. mr. chang gave up sharing this powerpoint presentation, and the meeting ended abruptly.
shortly after the meeting a petition was circulated among neighbors, and we collected 31 signatures opposing the project. we included these sheets with our d.r. application. rather than being sensitive to the concern of neighbors raised at the meeting, and trying to address them, the project has continued to grow in size and square footage, and homes are now almost 4,000 square feet each, with many rooms of questionable utilizeation. the residential design guidelines say that buildings should respect the mid-block open space, these towering rear additions with multiple decks and balconies clearly do not respect the space. these vertical and horizontal extensions produce a scene that is in-hospitalable to the amenity that our well-established open space provides. there is no precedence. can i use that now?
there is no precedence on this side of 26th avenue for rear additions that extend living space beyond the common rear walls of the adjoining neighbors. as you can tell, all our backyards, the back of our houses end the same line. we have nicely-maintained and well-utilized yards where we garden, play and entertain. buildings of this size negatively live impact everyone's ability to enjoy their personal yard space. we ask that the commissioners use their powers of discretionary review to eliminate or greatly modify the rear additions and decks and not to allow the third story addition and balconies which are excessive and disrespectful to neighbor's privacy. we also request that the recommendation of the design
team be implemented and that the project sponsor be required to honor his proposal to fix the front of his building to not block light to the neighboring balconies. thank you very much. >> thank you. d.r. requester number two, you have five minutes. >> can i use the overhead also, please? >> yeah. place it down there. >> good evening. my name is ilene rode, and our family has lived in this house next door to the subject property for almost 30 years. i'm a san francisco and sunset district native, having moved only 12 blocks in my entire life. we want the commission to know that we are not obtaining to mr. chan's building two houses next door. it makes sense to put two houses where there is now only one.
we want the commissioners to know that we have worked diligently to negotiate with kai. it is not lack of effort that brings us here today. i'm sure mr. winslow can attest to that. the house next door was built 12 years after ours. and you can see from this photo how the double-wide house respected the consistent stepped-back pattern on our block. the plans that you are considering indicate that the new building next to ours would stick out beyond our house and block the end of our balcony. since the sun coming from the south as shown in the bottom photo, which is taken from our balcony, this would greatly affect the light to our window beyond that balcony. you can see from the top photo that the window is already recessed underrened our roof
line, blocking the south end of the building would have a negative impact. i've operated a small accounting business out of my home for all the years we have lived there had and my desk and home office are just beyond that window. and we tried to demonstrate what it would look like if our balcony was blocked. the top photo shows the balcony open. we put some cardboard up and showed the balcony blocked. and then the bottom photo hopefully shows that the light coming in from the southern side. the good news is that we negotiated a remedy with kai. this photo demonstrates that he agreed to push his building back two feet to allow light to our
balcony and to flip the bay to the southern side of the building. we were really excited about this development. then as happened multiple times with these negotiations, kai changed his mind. he decided the proposal would only be valid if we were able to get the other d.r. filers to withdraw their appeals. the resolution to our balcony and our light issue did nothing to address the concerns of our neighbors. and it it felt disingenuous to ask them to revoke their d.r.s, nor did we think it was our responsibility. the current home next to ours has only one bathroom and bedroom on the third story. it doesn't extend toward the street nor does it take up the entire area of that floor. it has little impact on our home. it's just one bedroom that's up there. it makes sense to us that expansion would be allowed on the third story, even though as
the building moves forward, light to our skylights, windows and stairwells would be negatively impacted. but the residential design guidelines state that some reasonable and expected impacts are part of construction. the plans that you are looking at also show considerable extensions at the rear of the houses. while very large ground floor expansions will take up much of the existing garden area, it is the second and third floor additions with multiple decks and balconies that cause us the most concern. we spent a great deal of time in our garden, growing fruits and vegetables, herbs and flowers. we are committed to the environment, believe it or not.
we dry all our laundry on clotheslines in our backyard. as you know, the sunset is not known for its abundance of sunshine, so this is a challenging endeavor. and we are always trying to maximize exposure to the sun. these side by side three-story buildings and the mass they create will be overwhelming and will negatively influence our environmental pursuits and outdoor activities that we love. the extensions with decks and balconies are allowed at these levels, we will notice an impact, and it will not be positive. we hope the commission will pursue discretionary review, implement the recommendations, eliminate or modify the rear extensions, decks and balconies and require that the project sponsor honor his proposal to push back his building and flip the bay so that it provides light for our balcony. thank you. >> thank you. d.r. requester number three.
you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is amy wong. i live across the street of the building. >> can you please speak closer to the microphone? >> how is that? >> good. thanks. >> thanks. i've lived in the house more than 30 years now. i first stepped into my house, i wanted to buy the house because i see the sunset from my window. i live in the house from 30 something years. every day i see the sunset. and now they are building a big house, and i do not see that anymore. i feel so sad. and also since we bought the house, they used the house for airbnb. they have more than ten people or 15 people outside that
building, rolling the luggage, cars parking in our area. it's already hard to find parking because two blocks away is the lincoln high school. they create all these kinds of problems for us. and when i live on my side, i moved there, they already been there. and now they are in the old age, and they cannot come here and have it. but before i can see them, always there's an open door, in the afternoon sitting in a big chair and enjoy the sunlight. now cannot do it.
in her home at 6:00 a.m. in the morning. it will not be good for the city. they are just reaching the money for themselves and making other problems for us. i don't know what to say. and also downstairs, the foundation, there's all sand. there's no soil over there. and when the cars drive by, you can hear the noise. it's so scary. and now they want to tear down the whole house and build two
houses. since they bought the house, their house is already so big. they said they bought the house for 2 something million. my next door neighbor bought the house at the same time. i know they bought it for 1.6 or 1.7. only a single-family home. less than half the size of their home. and they are still not satisfied. because day they do not want to buy the house and live. they want to make a business over there. that's a residential area. we are not a business area. 15 people in a home. there will be 20 to 40 people every day outside our door. you don't know where the people come from. they are strangers to me. we lived there for so long. i don't know the people's names,
but i know which person lives in which home and which house belongs to who. it's safe over there. that's why most the people over there are owner-occupied. we do not want to rent out our homes. everybody is owner. that's what makes the place so safe. and now everything's changed. we have no voice, and nobody can help. i really hope somebody can hear that and help something, do something. years ago, i want to mention another thing, is that they do the airbnb. my family saw something that is not right. he called the police. the police came so quick, so good. and they got some of them. each car, they have a driver and several people sit in the back
and in the car one by one. they cannot do that. they get caught. and one guy, he ran away, he escaped and they come back the next morning and came to mash my car. there was somebody inside the house car. the airbnb is really a big problem for us. >> your time is up now. you will get some more time later. right now we are going to hear from the project sponsor. oh, yeah, i'm sorry, i jumped the gun. my mistake. we first have to hear from public comment in favor of the d.r. requesters. so public comment in opposition to the project. come on up. >> good evening. thank you for your time and
attention. i know it's been a long day for you guys. i'm a third generation san franciscan and lifelong resident of the sunset district. the demolition and new construction proposed at 2169 is an excuse for a developer from l.a. to come in and adversely affect our block. all in the name of profit. the proposed project is inconsistent with the other properties in the block and negatively impacts neighbors. two side by side three-story homes present an intrusive mass. these homes are not located in the transit corridor or in a corner where larger buildings normally reside. they contain rooms that demonstrate the sponsor try to compromise on size. a few doors down from the subject property is another three-story home that contains four bedrooms and two bathrooms but is only 2300 square feet.
it is possible to have homes that will accommodate a family, but they don't have to be 3700 and 3900 square feet. mid-block open space and we want to preserve it. our block was designed in the 1930s, providing in amenity for its residents. it is wonderful to look out our windows and to see greenery, gardens, nature, and not walls and structures looming overhead. i would ask the commissioners consider the letters the neighbors wrote to you. we love our city and neighborhood, and we want to preserve its character in the face of purely profit-motivated development. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> the president of speak, central parkside education and
action committee. we are in support of the d.r. requesters. i was present at the meeting for this project. the project sponsor stated that the property was purchased with the goal of subdividing its double lot. once subdivided the other goal was to get each of his two sons their own business and that business was short term rentals. at the meeting, neighbors stated they believe short term rental activity was already taking place at the property. the office of short term rentals confirmed the address is currently on its registry. the original project design had a six-bedroom house for each of the two lots. at the meeting, the proposed design was a five-bedroom house on each of the lots. each lot would have multiple short term rental listings. although the design has been further modified, the intent seems to be the same. the intent of the project seems to be primarily based on a
business plan rather than a residential plan. this begs the question, is this an intensification of use and commercialization of the property. if so, would this project be consistent with the site's rh-1 zoning? and despite these subdivisions, the project would do nothing to address the city's affordable housing needs. at the meeting, the neighbors brought up the geotechnical issues that the project could probably create. this is noted in the meeting report. in this report, the project sponsor's response was that he would hire a licensed contractor. this response doesn't address the specific concerns of the neighbors. these concerns are based on the fact that the neighborhood is build on sand and the block has a steep gradient. in conclusion, we urge the commission to deny the project as currently stated. thank you.
>> thank you. anyone else in opposition to the project, in support of the d.r. requesters? come on up. >> good afternoon and thanks for your time. >> [off mic] >> do you live in the same home? >> yes. >> your time to speak was the first time around. you are going to get another chance. you are all going to get two minutes of rebuttal later on. you can come back up then. anyone else in support of the d.r. requesters, in opposition of the project? seeing none, project sponsor, you're up. >> good evening, president koppel. pardon me, vice president koppel moore and commissioners. k ai chan, i'm the project sponsor. i'm very impressed and i'm actually feel a little bit emotional, because i didn't
realize that my little project for my sons would cause such a response. to be fair, when i heard that i was coming in here to break one house to build two houses to give my sons two businesses, it kind of made me want to throw up, because i told everybody. this was the place where i wanted my children and their families to live. one of my sons is in hong kong, he wants to come back to the u.s. he is getting married. another son works in the city. he works for airbnb. he does have one room that he does airbnb out. there's no mystery in this. i believe this is legal. but also when i hear that there's 40 people sitting out in
front and parking and all this stuff, the word i heard earlier is disingenuous. this is a project to build homes for a -- for family. and you are taking one property, turning it into two housing unit, and there's potential to rent, not just for airbnb but to rent and have additional units. i'm not going to tell you it's going to happen right away. if my children have kids, i would rather use those rooms for my grandchildren. but i think the characterization, i understand why it's happening, but i think it's very unfair. i understand why they are doing it, i don't hold it against them, but i think emotions sort to take over. i was not born in san francisco. i was born in hong kong. in '73 i moved here and i lived in chinatown with my great uncle
and my family. my father at that point decided fremont was a better place, so i grew up in fremont. i went to school in berkeley. i lived in oakland. i came to san francisco, i had relatives in the richland and marina and sunset. so i've been in san francisco my whole life, at least from the age of ten. so i feel part part san francisco. my wife urged me to move up here. now that my son is here, we decided to look for property for them. the story is very simple. i'm trying to build a house for my kids. so i feel sad that they feel this way, and, again, i understand why they are doing this, but i feel a little bit overwhelmed. i don't want to bore you with any more detail, but i respect
the planning department for all the direction it's given us, and i'm not going to tell you that i like every recommendation david or chris gave us, but i'm happy to abide by those recommendations, because i think they are being very fair with us, and the house was larger, that is true. we have reduced it. one is five bedrooms, one is four bedrooms. and i think the reason that everybody says it's 33, 36, most of these houses, including the one that you saw recently that had the 2300 square feet, it's basically going to be the same envelope. i think there's different ways to calculate square footages. if your garage is larger, then your house is going to be smaller. if you have a bedroom down there versus a garage, your envelope may be 3500 but you are going to
claim it's only 2200 because maybe it is illegal. i can't speak for their house, i can only speak for mine. i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. you have 30 more seconds. >> i am cindy chan, kai's wife, so part of the project sponsor if i can just clarify a few points. first to one of the neighbors. >> is she co-sponsor? >> yeah. >> that's fine. >> speak to the mic, miss. >> i'm sorry one of the points the neighbor said she would lose the sunett, i wanted to point out, this is where she is looking at, and currently there's already a third floor right here. and we are just building over the same area on the other side of the house. so as you can tell, there's no
ocean that you can see. so i don't know how it's going to impact the sunset. secondly, for the other neighbors that they have a balcony here, and they did discuss with us and they have -- we have actually like she suggested, we have given consideration, even the fact that many designs out there, they are back-to-back to the balcony and the front, but we respect them. so we were willing to change from originally the bay right here, which is -- we give them two-feet setback. , okay. sorry. so only two-feet setback to get the balcony clear. >> excuse me, your time is up. >> i'm sorry?
>> your time is up. you'll get a two-minute rebuttal. >> okay. so i tried to clarify. >> you'll get more time later. are there any members of the public that want to speak in favor of the project sponsor, in favor of the project? okay. seeing none. come on up, sir. >> hi. my name is alex wong. i'm living across the project house. when we look at the sunset, we don't look into the sun. >> [off mic] >> it's not my turn yet, right? >> who are you again? >> i am one of the d.r. >> d.r. requesters? >> yeah. >> we are not up yet. so now the d.r. requesters each get a two-minute rebuttal.
>> good afternoon. thank you for hearing us. >> please speak into the microphone. >> good afternoon and thank you for hearing our case. i'm jim rode, we live at 2163 26th avenue. we raised our three kids on that block. ilene and i are real active members of our block and our neighborhood. it's not our intent to block mr. chan from developing his property. our goal is to protect our home and investment, including a much-needed and well-used natural sunlight and our homes' structural integrity. our goal is to preserve the cohesive character of our homes on our block in regards to their side in relation to adjacent building. my home is to maintain open
communication with mr. chan during this process. over the past couple months, we have attempted to work with mr. chan to discuss and resolve our concerns. however, multiple times he has gone back on what was previously agreed upon. in mid-january, he offered a very attractive compromise and asked we share it with the neighbors, which we did. his offer of concession was all based on ilene and i being able to convince the other d.r. applicants to drop their appeals. before we could do this, he sent two more sets of revisions, both of which disregarded the previous compromise and was never referred to again. this does not make us feel confident that we can trust his word and work with him in good faith as neighbors. am i up? the. >> yeah, 15 more seconds. >> okay.
well. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> now the other two d.r. requesters also get two more minutes each. you can send anyone up for those two minutes. >> so we want to emphasize that we do not oppose building two homes on this site. we do oppose the enormity of the structures and the fact that they are not compatible with nearby buildings or the neighborhood in general. these homes are built for the owner's son, so they will not add to san francisco available housing supply, and they certainly do not represent affordable or moderately-priced housing. where additions are unprecedented on the west side of 26th avenue, no home has living space square footage that extends beyond the common walls into the mid-block's open space. third story decks and balconies
are unnecessary, unprecedented and unfriendly to neighbors who value their privacy and ability to use their open space without these imposing structures. we want to thank kai for his efforts. the fact is we have very different motivating factors. we are trying to protect our home and our neighborhood, and he is focused on square footage. we believe that he can have two homes with plenty of room for families and it doesn't have to affect neighbors. thank you to the commissioners for hearing us and for facilitating this process, and a big thank you to david for his time and patience answering our many questions. we hope the commission will pursue a discretionary review upon the recommendations, eliminate or greatly modify the rear extensions and require that the project sponsor honor his proposal to push back the building and flip the bay so as to provide for light to the
balconies. thank you, everyone. >> thank you. and then last d.r. requester, you get a two-minute rebuttal. >> thanks. my name is alex wong. i live across from the house. there are three things i want to bring up. number one, when you watch the sunset, you don't just watch the sun, you watch the clouds, the colorful clouds. so it doesn't say the sun is blocking, but you also watch the clouds. number two, i understand that the city planning allowed the house to build additional third floor. a lot of times because they have more children, and the children grow up, you allow them to have the floor. but in this case, they just bought a new house, and they are already planning to add another floor. i think it's just for commercial. they want to make money out of it. maybe i'm wrong, but that's my feeling.
number three, i forgot. i'm getting old. okay. that's all i wanted to say. thank you for listening. >> thank you. >> now project sponsor, you get a rebuttal as well. >> if i may make one point about the neighbors thinking that we are making money. from the bottom of our heart, we really think our children will move in together. the neighbor who was very unfriendly to us, i seriously don't know what is going to happen. all the neighbors, they hated them. my son who is currently living for over two years and a half now, and fears the neighbors are giving an ugly look. and has nothing to do with this. but he is afraid. okay? and my son airbnb for one room. but the criteria, no more than
two people, and that's his criteria. we did that because we collect rents from him so he has to pay rent to us so he is trying to supplement his spending. i think this is fair. and regards to the house, was so kind to give us some recommendation, and we accept every single one of them. we propose to the neighbors, but they find multiple objection that we didn't provide enough. so we tried to move the square footage and the length and the depth of the balcony and the pop-up extensions, but we still feel that we don't do enough. i just don't know at what point we can do this project. >> is that it? okay. public comment is closed.
commissioner moore? >> i have a question, mr. winslow. the drawings that are in front of us, you are appreciated for the guidance you gave to the project. does it reflect what it has been asking for? >> no. so the project sponsor has been, when guidance was given, they were very responsive to incorporating drawings that reflected those requested changes. they did fall short of some of the requests that the d.r. requesters were asking for. but the ultimate decision the project sponsor made prior to going to hearing was that if the d.r. wasn't going to be withdrawn, they would revert to the set that was part of the original 311 notification, so no, they don't incorporate the recommendations that i have made
and have also seen as have the d.r. requesters. but they aren't them. if that answers the question. >> it just says that the drawings we have are the proposal in response to which we have received the d.r.s, correct? okay. i want to point out that there are a couple of other questions i would have. i support the department's modification of the project, because it seems to be in principle addressing some of the neighbors' concerns. but the drawings themselves show a degree of unattention to detail that i'm concerned about, and that deals particularly with showing, for example, with the subtle detail, it says here when unoccupied roof, and then you are showing sliding doors by which out of sight, out of mind, those roofs can be used for balcony. further to that, on the third floor, i see a life well that
does not meet the minimum of 75% matching light well. so these are subtleties by which i'm concerned that if i support the project, i would like to see the drawings adjusted so that everybody can see what is this we are approving? and perhaps the compromise that is suggested here with the department leading, we basically have a feeling that people are on the same page. do you see the drawing of the light well on page 9, the third floor of the property to the north? >> to the north, yes. >> there's a requirement that you need to meet the adjoining light well at least 75% unless you match, but these are little subtleties that i'm concerned about. so i am supportive of the
department's recommendation. but i would like to see those fully incorporated, and again, briefly presented to this commission before i can support it. >> commissioner diamond. >> i would be in favor of taking d.r. with the modifications that you proposed, and if any of the commissioners, like commissioner moore, have additional changes, i would just suggest to staff that they list the changes and the staff work with the project sponsor to incorporate them. i don't feel like it needs to come back to the commission a third time. >> commissioner fung. >> we do see a lot of very emotional responses to these housing projects in the sunset, more so than anywhere else in the city. the interesting thing here is that neighbors have brought up
major concern, elements which actually are not that extensive. i would have thought that the concern would have been to greater extent the third floor which changes the context of these two-story area. and one of the solutions to that, and it probably is not an acceptable solution to some, but is you take the third floor, and you set it back from the face. >> that's what -- >> he is saying that the popouts are set back to maximum. >> i was saying two things in the recommendations. one of which is reflected in this plan set, the front setback is 14 feet from the front building wall. >> i'm talking about the rear. >> the rear, yeah. >> the front, i know you have it set back, and perhaps you can
apply the policy positions this commission has taken before, set back on each side. and actually the request by one neighbor in terms of saving her skylight, her light on her deck is probably -- makes sense in the following way, because it may create an additional street space, parking space in front. i think we've seen much more egregious additions than this. and i'm prepared to accept the staff's recommendations. similar to what commissioner diamond said, we should put closure to this and let the staff deal with it based upon
their direction. >> commissioner moore's request with respect -- did you have a point of intention with respect to the unoccupied roof deck with the sliding doors? should that not be allowed to be a deck? or would that be okay if it were shown to be a deck that respected the guidelines that we have in place for the deck policy? >> i'm a little bit hesitant about front balconies. i don't quite think that that is the signature of what i see in this neighborhood. so i would prefer not to do that. and wherever we have that kind of a contradiction i would basically always question that it be submitted with more attention to detail. >> commissioner moore. >> i was going to maybe address the front of the building. so i mean this is late in the evening. this room is never this full this late.
this room is half full. that's a very considerable amount of opposition. and we are looking at little tiny details regarding a two-foot recess on the external corner and just flipping a bay that completely satisfies the neighbors. and it seems like little tiny tweaks could completely satisfy all your neighbors, and you could skate right through here. just because of the sheer number of people here, i would still want to see this either come back, whether it's on consent calendar or whatnot, but i would want to see these people not be in opposition to the project. i mean, this is a very tight-nit neighborhood, and we are up here deciding what's going to happen, but you guys can also take things in your own hands and be neighborly, because the houses, you are not going anywhere, you are going to be living next to each other, and we don't want to set the tone for your livelihood
and your neighborhood, if you can do it yourselves. >> i think there's a success story to be had here, even if it means an additional trip to the commission for a short informational. >> i believe that president koppel very well summarized resonance with as many people as have shown up here, i have not heard anybody who said i don't want these buildings. but what became clear to me, that there were innuendos of compromise that were ultimately not met, and for that reason, i would like us to be the public forum, even on consent, that this project does come back. there's a motion to take it. >> commissioners, there's beena couple comments that have
referenced an issue not in my recommendation, and that is the notching or setting back of the building with respect to the front balcony of the adjacent neighbor. do you want to make a specific addition to your motion to include that? >> i would suggest we do, and that includes a light well that was not part of your consideration either. >> there we go. >> so i would take your advisory with the two additional -- three additional conditions that were outlined by commissioners. >> very good. >> i think -- didn't we say that we are not continuing it, you will be working with the applicant but bring it back on consent so that we see the drawings and the public has the ability to witness? >> i think commissioner
diamond's motion was different than that. commissioner johnson? >> yeah, i would just agree out of respect to -- i mean, in some ways i think out of respect to the community who has been here twice and a very emotional process, that i think, i personally actually think that we can have staff work with the community. i really hesitate to ask folks who have been here for hours and hours and hours to come out again to present to us and to have another conversation on this, when i think we are all aligned with the fact that this project needs to work with the neighbors. there are specific things that have been asked for by the neighbors, that have been recommended by rdat that we're all in alignment about that are
not so complex that the staff can't make sure there is follow through and that they do happen. so i think personally that we should move to take d.r. >> commissioner fung. >> similarly, i would agree with that, and we would add to what the staff has recommended by flipping the northern most building plan so that the bay window there does not -- is not situated against the neighbor. >> commissioner diamond. >> i have to -- i'm going to reiterate my great faith in staff to take it from this point in time and work to finalize this. and i really don't feel like it needs to come back to the commission for a third time or for the project applicant or the neighbors to have to come back a third time. >> commissioner imperial. >> well, i thank you for the
committee and project sponsor coming here. i know that in the community, there are concerns about the usage of the housing, whether it will be for the family or for the commercial. and i've seen all those comments, and i want to let you know i've read all of them. and also in terms of the design, i would also refer to the staff or the guidelines. but i am also -- i actually live close to that area, and it does -- it should be in accordance of the neighborhood. but i would like to take -- for the staff to take the design guidelines that's actually taken on that. >> if the concern is that the
neighbors, the d.r. requesters, will continue to be informed of the refinements that were presubscribed, we can assure that happens at staff level, and if staff wants to see it as an informational, we can do that as well. if you want to be done with it, we can also do that. >> i didn't hear a second for that motion. was there a second? >> second. >> second. >> commissioners, there's a motion and a second to take d.r. with modifications to continue to work with staff -- to work with staff on their recommendations. that motion -- [roll call vote] >> can i ask and verify you are saying because of what mr. winslow repeated, those are the conditionses. so normally secretary ronen reads them into the record.
i want to make sure it is understood that what mr. winslow summarized are the conditions. >> yes. >> and i second. thank you. >> so moved. that motion passes 5. one with president koppel voting against. that places you on item 17, record number 2019-000650drp-02 at 617 sanchez street, discretionary review. >> thank you very much. >> thanks. >> good evening, president koppel, vice president moore, commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. this is a request for a discretionary review of building permit applications 2019-
2019-01150390 and 201901150391 to demolish an existing two-story, 1,000 square foot single family house. it's located in the rear yard and a freestanding garage at the front and construct a new four-story dwelling at 617 sanchez street. there are two d.r. requesters. an adjacent neighbor who claims the project will block her view and a neighbor to the west that says the project doesn't conform to the residential guidelines. it is worth noting the guidelines were never adopted by the planning commission. to date, the department has received one letter in opposition, which i am going to hand to secretary to distribute and zero letters in support of the project. the residential design advisory team reviewed this and affirmed this meets the residential design guidelines and planning code. staff's recommendation is not to take the d.r. as the project
meets the code and does not present any extraordinary or exceptional conditions. this concludes my presentation. >> okay. we will now hear from the d.r. requester number one. you got five minutes. >> i want to put the overhead together. sue, i'm the attorney for the d.r. requester. she lives at the house right next door right next to the house on sanchez street.
the map shows the context of this project. this is 617, which is the project before you. this is her house, 619. this is a project that 282 cumberland. her house is surrounded by building walls because as you can see from the map in your packet, their house is built behind her at 617, the one that is going to be demolished is built to her rear lot line, and the house sits on cumberland street is also to the rear wall line. so you have a house that is totally surrounded, which is very unusual in the city. walls to the west of her -- pardon me, to the east of her and walls proposed to the north of her. when they built -- when she took over this -- bought this house
in 1999, she involved a lot of time talking to a neighbor which was proposed to be demolished. there needs to be more information than was provided in the staff report. we have been involved in discussions with the developer. what we have is a house that is surrounded, as you can see, by the map which was never provided to anything in the staff report. and so no one paid any attention to the fact that this was a surrounded house that has limited light. she will talk about that as well. you have in your staff packet, two documents that i provided. one is a sworn declaration that before they bought this house, the developer's attorney, real estate agent, tried to buy her
house as well. that is page 78 of the staff report. the report is page 14, and it provides an illustration of the house that is very different from what you see today. and she will talk now. >> thank you. good evening, everybody. i'm a little bit nervous. i'm the owner of 619 sanchez street. and i will say that it's worse standing here than being at the dentist. so. okay. [laughter] my house is the yellow house that you see there, and 617, the house is at the back. and both those houses, the house you can see right at the corner, both those houses were built in
1907. one was built in the year, mine was in the front, and that's how it stayed for over a hundred years. when i got the house, as you can see here, the front of the house still looked from what it was in 1907. you can see straight through the house. it's a small house. i have two little bedrooms in the front. and i have kept the character and the fabric of the neighborhood. when i moved in, there was an illegal part of my house which we didn't know about, which was undisclosed to us, which was built in 1970 illegally. and this is the part where you see the windows. and we worked tirelessly with the planning department, you guys told us to do this, and we built our house with our money.
and basically this is the only window that gives light in the house. so the rest of the house basically is dark. those windows are taken away. this is the view from my house. and as you can see, we worked tirelessly to make sure that we didn't impose on his house. we kept his privacy. yet we made sure we meet that part of it. now, here's the only window in my house that has light coming in. the rest of the house is dark. and you see the cement house there, that's already built. now they want to have another four-story house building built by an llc that is going to go there. we have no information, nothing given to us.
and the project was being forced. now you see the back of my house, i built 600 square feet. that was what i was allowed. the planning department and the dolores heights committee told us that we cannot build up, so we had to build down. i had my daughter while i was doing this, and my master bedroom was forced to be down there. there's two little rooms up there was my daughter's bedroom. to add the bed down there, we had to put the door in. >> your time is up. you are going to get another chance for two marlins later. d.r. requester number two -- two more minutes later. d.r. requester number two. >> good evening. my name is brian. i live directly across from 617 at 614 sanchez street. and i've been in the
neighborhood about over 30 years now. ever since this project was proposed, i still have concerns about the steepness of the area on sanchez street and how many of the buildings seem to be outside of the character of the neighborhood. the middle class neighborhood that i remember when i first moved in. there's four, five major construction projects going on already. i think you can see from this picture. do we have it on here? just how the character of the neighborhood's changing due to the construction projects that are just -- there's four or five going on at any one time. this sort of thing is what the neighbors are facing each day now. i just wanted to show you that everyone is fully apprised of what's going to be handling in this neighborhood in terms of the construction projects going on and the steepness of the
hill, engineering reports. and also i've noticed over the years the character of the neighborhood, it seems like most of the houses now if you drive by at night, it's dark, it's like no one is living there. they are second and third homes that are going in, 5,000 square feet, which seems to violate some of the neighborhood, middle-income neighborhood. and one more question about the dolores heights improvement said something about an appraisal report for the $2.5 million. i'm wondering if that's available. i haven't seen that in any of the documentation. >> can we see this? >> you have to speak into the microphone, sir. >> i'm sorry. i just wanted to give you aa feeling for the neighborhood. this is the front. you can see it's very steep. the people who live on the
street all depend strongly on each other for light. >> can you speak into the microphone? >> i'm sorry. i wanted to show the street level. you can see the steep grade. so the people who live in this neighborhood depend very much on each other for light and for space and for kind of respecting each other's space. and so let me see. so here you can see the view out of the window that you can see across the street here, and you can see three sets of is it fair to say that are going down. it goes -- sets of stairs that are going down. and this is the view in the opposite, basically looking up the hill right now. so the reason we wanted to show you that is to make sure that you understand this is like, this is an unusual neighborhood, and people, like i said, depend on each other. so when people -- when the
owners -- so when the owners of 615 sanchez, which is the cement one, when they built their house, it took them over four years to build the house. there was an amazing amount of traffic. so every day there was traffic blocks. everything was full of trucks all the time. there is another building going on right now. the whole street is chaos all the time. and this is going to actually make that even worse, and what we heard was oh, yeah, it might take a year to build. that we don't believe. we don't think you can build such a project in one year, and it's already bad enough. so we are upset about the fact that the developers of 617 va no interest in working with us and looking to issues that we have. and we have to live with this. and that's just terrible, quite frankly.
>> hello, ladies and gentlemen. my name is ralph higgs. i'm the owner for the last 41 years of the house next door to the house. >> are you one of the d.r. requesters, sir? okay. so we haven't got there yet. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> yeah, no, actually the d.r. requester had more time. so now that has been thrown out. and now, sir, you can speak now. now that his time ran out, now you can speak because we are going to take public comment in support of the d.r. requesters in opposition of the project. >> i don't hear well. you say to proceed? >> yeah. >> my name is ralph, i'm the owner of 621 sanchez, that would
be one house over from the project house, the second house from the proposed construction. and my house is a 2400 square foot house. it was in some of the pictures that were just shown. what concerns me is the foundation for this new house, proposed house, is just 25 feet from my foundation, that is the width of her lot. they are supposedly shoring up construction to strengthen the foundation when they go down deeper on proposed house. the proposed house, the lower level is going to have major, involve major excavation, because it's almost entirely underground, the lower level. and it's all going to have to be excavated. and i'm concerned about what
that will do to the strength of the foundation of not only her house but my house next to her. i've also -- i'm also concerned about the congestion in the neighborhood of construction. you might say everybody has congested traffic during construction. but this has been the worst, i think it's because of the terrain and the one-way, the one street that leads in and out. here's a letter from the contractor at a house just four houses from mine that's been under construction for two and a half years. he wrote, dear neighbors, effective immediately, pete construction will be taking over the project at 660 sanchez. we understand this project has been going on for some time and that the progress has been slow thus far. our goal along with the owners
is to continue in the orderly and courteous manner until we can complete the home. we estimate an additional two years will be required. and this is after two and a half years already. so we are dealing with a five-year construction, and these trucks like the gentleman before me showed in the street is constantly full of trucks. and it's just almost unlivable. the excavation that i'm concerned about, i'm wondering if -- i'm assuming they must have soil testing and so forth. at a later date, things start happening through the foundatio- >> sir, your time is up. >> okay. thank you. >> any more members of the public that would like to speak in favor of the d.r. requesters?
>> i have a final closing comment that's kind of important to me. but okay. >> can you come back? >> i just wanted to mention that i have a terminal illness, and i don't want to spend the rest of my life, which i don't know how long it's going to be, listening to construction, and that's all i have to say. >> okay, sir. thank you. anyone else from the public wish to comment in favor of the d.r. requesters? okay. seeing none, project sponsor. >> good evening again commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor. we are here today for a project to build a code-compliant family home on a lot that contains a non-conforming building at the rear and a garage at the front. the current configuration creates an unfriendly break of the homes that sit on the front
of the lots on sanchez street. on the other hand, the project provides a compatible, well-designed family home. you'll hear more in a moment from robert, architect. just to address the outreach issue, because that's always really important on these projects. the project sponsor conducted significant outreach with the neighbors before the meeting she proactively introduced herself to 18 of her new neighbors, dropped off letters, had conversations. she's had nine one on one meetings with individual neighbors including two meetings with the d.r. requesters and many, many e-mails with the d.r. requesters and their team. she has two support letters from neighbors on cumberland. she worked with the down slope neighbor at 621 to address his privacy concerns. there was no d.r. requested from that neighbor. and so we really have done a lot of legwork on this and had a lot of conversations. the two d.r.s before you are the
across the street neighbor whose house is 85 feet away and the up slope neighbor who has few concerns. given that these are not protected and the designs are appropriate for the site and provides a well-designed family home, we ask that you not take d.r. in terms of construction, slope, all of those issues, we have, we have been seeing it, it d.r. requesters about that. we will continue to have the conversations throughout construction. we will be available at all times to address concerns. and that conversation will not stop regardless of the outcome tonight. so a little bit more on design, and then we are here for questions. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm the architect for the project at 617. i want to give you an overview on the arcture.
-- architecture. i want to bring your attention to the one-story carport that's at the front of the building. and then of course in the back of the building, in the back of the parcel, you'll see the existing cottage which is a non-conforming building that sits at the rear of the lot. in this illustration, you'll see more. the feature i would like to point out is the existing non-conforming building in the back. when we started the project, we evaluated the existing house to see if there was a way that we could modify it, alter it, add on, whether horizontally or vertically. we quickly came to the conclusion that this wasn't feasible, and the best path forward was to demolish the cottage and proposing a conforming four-bedroom house that would sit at the front of
the lot. you can see the building. we think it has a benefit to the neighbors that it restores the mid-block open space back to the neighbors. the other thing i should mention is we do a lot of work in san francisco, so we are very aware of the residential guidelines. whenever we are designing a building, we are designing to the setbacks, but we are also going above and beyond and addressing the residential design guidelines. in this case we have taken care to set the building back terrace the floors, respect the topography of the site, and also include matching light wells. here's an image of the building from the back. the other thing i should mention is we have taken great care to lower the building as much as possible, so the building is actually eight feet below the
height limit, minimizing the impact to the neighbors as well. and this is a view of the front of the building. again, we think it actually restores the urban face of the street block. we think this is a sensitively-designed project and has actually benefits by restoring the mid--block open space and providing high-quality housing to the area. thank you. >> is there any members of the public here in support of the project sponsor? seeing none, d.r. requester number one, you get a two-minute rebuttal. >> sue hester. they have 25-foot lots.
this is the building that is built on a land-locked site. there is a solid wall to the south, pardon me, to the east. this is a key lot that we don't have a lot of in the city. there is surrounding -- these are the only sources of light for the entire building. this is the below grade. this is the street level. this building will be facing -- this is the building that faces in the rear of 619. that is the building on cumberland street. it's surrounding their house. the only source of light is from the northwest. and this was the meeting that we had with the developer on 213. we were trying to understand the site lines. and so we asked them, this is
the only windows that provide light into the top floor of 619. because this is a solid wall over here. and this is solid wall on the other side of this building. and so we asked them to cut back this just to figure out how the design would work. and this is the proposal we got from them on monday. we got this at 5:00 on monday. so the architect and i went through this. this building is a building to the rear of 619. literally 619 has walls here, here, and they are soon going to have a wall right here. so we asked for story polls. story polls help a layperson understand the building. >> thank you.
d.r. requester number two, you get a two-minute rebuttal. >> no, the other d.r. requester. >> the other d.r. requester getting two minutes also. >> i will speak on his behalf as well. this isen extremely steep site. if you only get light in the rear corner, and you can't understand, because they haven't provided the information, how are you going to evaluate whether you have any light in your house at all. there was no contact at all between the proposed owners and 619, ever. not before the meeting or after. the contact we had is very
recent. so one of the big issues is that planning department didn't really understand the context of landlocked site that has only windows here and the lower floor, the bedroom floor, it is even darker. so asking for story polls so people can literally see where the building is proposed to come is not too much to ask. and we would ask the planning commission to continue this to require story polls. because this is a condemnation of a 1907 building to be demolished because they don't have any light. that's an issue that never has been discussed by the planning department or by the developer. thank you very much. oh, i have another minute?
so i would ask you please, make conditions on this. have more information, to have this project come back to you with information on the light with a building that is surrounded by walls. that's not too much to ask. sunset has 25-foot lots, but they have a common rear yard. they don't have a common rear yard at all. none. no common -- >> your time is up. >> no common rear yard. >> again, as far as we know we cannot request story polls, correct? >> planning department does not require story polls. >> okay. so my house is surrounded by walls. >> is it the project sponsor? >> project sponsor, you are up. two-minute rebuttal. been a long day. >> jody on behalf of project
sponsor. if i can get the overhead. one comment, you probably saw this on the requester's photo but this is a wall of windows at the rear of their property. they were saying there were no other windows but there's a wall of windows so i wanted to point that out. that was in the photo they showed, but i wanted to make sure that was highlighted. other than that, we are here for questions. thank you. >> okay. commissioner fung. >> question for staff. the d.r. requester directly adjacent to this building is south, isn't it? >> i believe it's -- >> the project is north of the
appellant. that means that window they are saying has -- is -- has light is facing north. >> well, we can -- let's look at aerial photo. >> was it a site plan? >> yeah, it is south. d.r. requester's property is south. >> use the microphone. >> the adjacent neighbor is to the south of the project sponsor. >> commissioner johnson.
>> project sponsor. can you speak to any conversations that you have had with d.r. requester number one, specifically from a neighborly perspective thinking about those windows? can you please come up and talk about that? >> yeah. i mean, we have had several conversations with the d.r. requesters about the windows. obviously we've come back with the fact that these are not protected. and what we have gotten from them is that they want to see a project that pulls the mapping to behind that set of windows, which is basically creates no project. and there hasn't been any middle ground. they haven't been interested in my middle ground there. and -- and we are happy to have
the conversation, we are in a difficult conversation because it is about views which are not protected. we are happy to have the conversation with neighbors but where the conversations end up is they didn't want any view impact. so that's where we are. >> if i could add from a residential design standpoint, just from a mapping perspective, d.r. requester's windows have a three-foot side setback which is matched by project sponsors. >> negotiated with -- >> sorry. that's the 311 package we are looking at, not any negotiation. this was a response sent out in the 3111 notification with planning staff's review. >> commissioner fung. >> question for permit holder. appellant's representative has indicated a sketch that showed a notch out at that corner. is that agreed upon by the
permit holder or not? >> [off mic] >> excuse me, i'm not asking the question of you. i raise my question to the permit holder. >> okay. sorry. >> we did have settlement discussions with them, which were obviously in an effort to not be here tonight. and they rejected those, and -- >> that was not on the table from your perspective? >> i mean, we did have a discussion with them about adding a notch, which was part of the settlement discussion, which we do, again, views protected but trying to settle this, but they wanted to come here today. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i have a hard time talking about a project being not -- i have a hard time talking about a project being non-compliant when this project has been around for
114 years. at that time the rules didn't exist. so for 114 years, i don't think anybody in this room was 114 years, there wasn't an amount of civility how people lived with each other, like the italian hill town communities where you accommodate each other for livability. and i believe there's something happening here where it's a small project, and i'm not opposed for the project to move forward in the lot, but a project that was originally thousand square feet all of a sudden turned into 4,000 square feet. that is a little bit hard to understand with all logic for a single-family home, a harder time for me personally speaking is when the owner's really not here. the owner is like -- the owner is just not here. and i'm a little bit disturbed about the fact that we have a situation where we have indeed a
landlocked lot which we have had others in the past, basically a key lot where you are more boxed in than under normal circumstances, and we are considering the building that will have an effect on the adjoining neighbor. to what extent is to be discussed, but there is something which scale-wise and historically is off for me. so just to sit here and hear that it's a non-compliant building and the application is code compliant is not convincing enough for me to just say okay let's go to town and approve this project. i believe that there is i believe deed a neighbor to neighbor discussion that's missing, and i'm not sure when a neighbor is represented by an attorney, if that's enough of a discussion. i believe the other neighbors who have expressed their concern about the building, there should be a discussion which is more three dimensional than what i
see. there are some diagrams in here that offer their well-done on corners so you can see into the situation that actually explain very well to me the livability is affected by those people who are speaking against this project. i have not heard anybody say that they don't want the project, that they don't want to give the applicant an opportunity to build a slightly larger building, but this is more than a slightly larger building. this looks to me like a speculative home. i couldn't be more clear about that. i've seen quite a few of those. and i want to take some time out and hear what other commissioners have to say. this project is not doing it for me. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. so i think the challenge with this project from my perspective is that any house expansion that is built, which i think is
warranted, given the non-complying house on the project, makes sense to move up to the front as was said by the project sponsor, open shared kind of back office space. but that means by moving it closer to the street frontage that there is -- it's hard for me to imagine a project that will not have some impact on the adjacent neighbor at 619. it's not possible, actually, not to have some sort of impact. so i think the question of whether or not there is something, and i think matching light walls or other things, to lessen the impact, is important. i also see skylights above that room in the back, and so i think the question of lessening the impact is a conversation that i'm interested in having, but suggesting that there is a project that will not have impact, i don't personally see
it. >> commissioner fung. >> i'm in agreement with that comment that there's going to be some impact. and the question is to what extent. right now, what's being proposed wipes out a very dramatic view, because a view from the neighbor is diagonally-oriented from her house out toward the city, fairly dramatic city view. the other house on cumberland provides some blockage. i don't quite agree of the description that this is totally landlocked, because it's not. she maintains some view, the question is whether we feel it's problematic enough to warrant a change to what the permit holder has done to increase her view
but not necessarily maintain all of the existing view. >> commissioner johnson. >> can i just build on that? i'm not hearing a suggestion from d.r. requester number one of what compromise they would suggest. and i would like to hear this idea of -- >> okay. i'm not going into details, but we had one meeting with them that was recent, and they were supposed to come back with a plan on saturday, and they came back, and their attorney calls it a notch. right? and the -- so they are going to have four stories, four bedrooms, four baths, owned by an l.l.c. and i'm not going to go into those details. but the windows i have on the side, the fourth floor will hang on my window. the fourth floor will hang in
between. so it seems like they are going to give me a notch tunnel view, but i don't even know what i'm getting. and the architect in the one meeting we had said oh, i make mistakes in the drawings. so that even tells us that even if they agree to something, they would kind of go back on it. >> okay. sorry. and we asked, because an architect has been helping us. we ask that, okay, at least where we have the windows come in the middle, right? we actually drew a line that is in the middle of the windows or at least that's what we know. so the bedroom downstairs, they are going to block off completely with a wall. there's no compromise. the bedroom downstairs, they are like there's no compromise. and then the upstairs, they are going to give us a notch. and the house even goes, because the lot is larger, it even goes
beyond our deck. so it's like -- and then they are like, it's like we are like at least -- it should be a half point. >> so you are saying that so a notch was proposed, and you feel like like it should be at least at half of the height? >> i don't know yet. i don't even know what they are building. where their floor is. >> thank you. >> sorry. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> i would like to see more information as to -- because it sounds like that the requesters are asking for information, how is the light going to impact them. and i wonder if the sponsor or the project sponsor can provide
more information. i don't know if you are going to do that today or if you could come back with more detailed plans that we can also see, where i can also see at the same time. yeah. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. winslow, are you aware of the compromise? has there been a drawing or anything? it's very difficult for us to understand it. i do believe that a compromise needs to be submitted in drawings. so you have seen that drawing? >> there was a request for mediation from the supervisor mandelman's office. i walked away from that. i was not going to add any value to that. i have seen the drawings that included a notch a few days before this hearing. but my packet was done, it was in your hands before that agreement was proposed or even could be accepted. to me it's immaterial.
staff stands behind this project. it's code-complying. it does the right things with respect to guidelines, with respect to views, which are not protected, with respect to conditions to this lot which is not an atypical lot. there are plenty of conditions where there are key lots and we apply the same rules in the same consistent manner. >> [off mic] >> we are not -- we are talking to ourselves here. ms. hester, you are not allowed to speak right now. commissioner moore. >> it puts us in an awkward position. normally these types of negotiations are handled by the department. the department reports to the commission, and i find it highly
unusual to have the supervisor weigh in. and while i appreciate him weighing in as guiding the community, ultimately you are the deliverer of the physical results which come out of those particular things. it is for that very reason, that i will ask for a continuance so that the process can be properly executed in the manner this commission needs advice from you as the key holder for what the compromise is that we can properly be informed about that. and i understand we have always supported you in things being submitted to you in a timely manner so that everything is on the table. but i believe that nothing is on the table that helps us mediate a difficult situation. >> commissioner fung. >> i guess i'm of a slightly different opinion. and that is does this case, in terms of what the project sponsor is proposing, does
propose extra ordinary circumstances, and i don't think it does. it's not built all the way out out to what they could have done, yes. unfortunately the appellant has a home that a portion of her views were on the property line, even though it's set back a little bit. and that's imposing her desires for her building on the adjacent property. and i don't think that's fair to either -- to the other side. >> commissioner johnson. >> thanks. i'm hearing, yes, it is true that we look to staff to advise us. and i'm hearing staff advise us that -- and i think staff has a
record of being very sensitive to adjacent neighbors and to figuring out what could be possible among neighbors to try to work together to come to a resolution and that that has not happened despite the interventions. and so, you know, something that i -- so i struggle, and i actually share commissioner fung's perspective about these particular windows, and just again, the limitation on where these are. and we have seen other projects actually that have been in this situation. and both noticing that these windows are not protected and also noticing that it would be impossible for development to happen and not have an impact but no agreement was reached.
>> i'm trying to take staff's recommendation. they have spent the most time looking at this. and i'm not seeing anything extraordinary or exceptional, because the view from the side windows is not protected. so i would agree with commissioner fung. >> commissioner moore. >> i unfortunately cannot support a project that is currently being delivered here. i find the enlargement too excessive relative to the age in which this original development has occurred. and for that reason, i believe that the compromise that may have been discussed to be physically manifested in the drawings by which we, including mr. winslow can take a stand that mediates and solve the conflict. mr. winslow is known for really understanding compromise, and i don't think a compromise has
been reached here. for me it's not about view, it's more about light and visibility. the d.r. requester is being squeezed in. they only had so much allowed and they are being squeezed in by a 4,000-foot building. >> perhaps we can ask the question, did i see the drawings. i did see the drawings. does the project sponsor or d.r. requester have the draw of the proposal and can you show them to the commission? >> i want to say one more thing that mr. winslow got my e-mail address wrong all along. i want to make that statement. >> let me respond to that.
actually, i got your e-mail address wrong the first day i sent the notice, i noticed it the second day. you've had it for three months. >> this was the compromise that came out from -- >> this drawing needs to be pushed up because the lighting is right over what you are showing us. thank you. that's good. thank you. >> this was what they proposed on monday, three days ago. this was what we discussed a week ago. and we asked that there be some acknowledgement that -- and this was a source of light for the
building. there's a building right here. >> show the first drawing, please. >> and we wanted some information. and so they came back with this instead. and we are trying to understand, there's nothing on the other side right now. there's no way of just building against the building right there and saying it goes here. there's nothing. and so our architect couldn't figure out, because we have no north/south elevations to speak of. we need story polls just to indicate where this notch is visible. what light is going to come in past these places. we have no idea. i can't figure out what it is. i've done this a bunch of