tv Mayors Press Availability SFGTV November 19, 2021 11:00pm-1:31am PST
asking me for money and he wanted to know a bit about my life story and how i got to san francisco and where i currently am today professionally and i talked to him for a fair amount and one of the questions he asked how i ended up making it into san francisco where i grew up and went to school in the south bay and say told him that when i was starting out i was a contractor and intern and on the barack obama campaign and working in a small start up but i wasn't getting paid well skidi had to work and save to make ends meet and i got to a point where i was offered a full-time job but it wasn't paying enough. the only way i could see myself living in the city where i worked, in a way that would
allow me to not have a car and to be a sustainable member of the society that in a close to his job and his community and i cut a deal with my dad and he agreed to buy a place and i agreed to rent to him but that is an exceptional and really privileged frankly story about how you are able to get inter generational health to help you live in this city. the people younger than me and coming up in universities throughout the bay area and the nation now, they can't a forward afford topull it off because wed building housing 30 years ago, we made it illegal to build housing, we need to make it illegal to build housing again and both in my neighborhood and the richmond districts and throughout the own tire tee of the city and so make it possible for people like my younger brother and make it possible again for people like the young
people -- >> that was fast. >> caller: good afternoon, my name is mike chan i'm a resident of directing 2 speaking in support of the legislation. people talk about affordability and i think my story is that you know, there neighborhoods i love in the city like the richmond and places that where you see, right, before the zoning controls came in where you see these neighborhoods that were in the process of this gradual, changing of density and response and stuff got more expensive and people said oh yeah, it is now feasible and is and they say
richmond is a terrible place, no one says that. it's giving other neighborhoods the opportunity to add more housing, become more affordable and provide more opportunities to access jobs and communities and restaurants and stuff that we all want and need to other place this is san francisco and so that's what i think this legislation promises to allow that is not cat a class mick but something gradual over time as people's needs changed and to ge people a lot of flexibility and to really help communities really stay in place and provide more options for people and that is why i think really i like
this legislation and i really hope that you support it. thank you, very much. >> caller: so, i actually live about -- so i used to work in san francisco and i actually live sandwiched between san francisco and silicon valley and i want to register my support for supervisor mandelman propose a it affects san francisco and across the bay, over the hills and over the second set of hills into the central valley. housing price as cross the bay area are being pushed up by san francisco's statistic building housing in san francisco and also i'd like to voice my support for more administerral approval because the discretionary review gives advantages to people with inside knowledge of the city's building codes and the chronicle has a lot of out recently about under
the table elected people who expedite building permits and it will cut out a lot of that layer and it will hopefully get more housing built and at a cheaper price than it is at the moment. thank you. >> caller: hi, i am a lead volunteer with urban environmentalist and i live in ss oceanview neighborhood. we should legalize multi family housing throughout san francisco. one of the best things san francisco can do to support the region climate goals because we have walkable and transit rich areas and the whole region. most climate plans recognize and
only compare the potential for reducing emissions from people already in the city. so, places like san francisco have a climate action superpower if we chose to use it simply by legalizing more multi-family housing in our existing neighborhoods. so, i would urge you all to support this proposal. thank you. >> commissioners, that concludes public comment for these items. public comment is closed and they're both now before you. >> so let me start by saying i am in favor of moving forward today with both items. i do want to thank everyone from the public on both sides who input their comments and ideally
when this does reach the board of supervisors, i highly recommend they take all opinions and interests in mind. let me call on commissioner comr imperial. >> thank you. and thank you for all the comments in both sides from different walks of life about this legislation and i also appreciate supervisor mandelman taking on on this kind of complicated legislation in its self and i do have questions in terms of the rationale or i guess towards the planning staff and also to mr. bentliff. for the four units plus 80 used, how will this fourplexes related
or connected to the local adu program? how is this going to help or what is the rationale on having an adu or having fourplexes plus an adu unit? >> so for planning -- >> thank you i'm happy to take a crack at that if it's a question about intent but i'll let planning fill in any details. i was trying to say that as a matter of the state edu program, that it would be true that edu, i believe it's who in the building not a rear yard structure would be add sod simply commenting as far as i understand it i would continue to be an option on top of four or six units as the case maybe understate law but that this set of ordinances would allow for
development and rear yard with the possible exception of using a 30% rear yard which is what we have in single family districts asper the staff recommendation. >> that would be more towards the staff. in terms of the -- this is the kind of discussion we had to with sb9, i believe commissioner tanner brought that up in terms of how it will affect the local adu program. and you know, we've had many discussions also here in the planning commission in terms of strengthening our local adu program and our local adu program has many protections in terms of the rent control, protection, which is very important and also it adds to the design guidelines as well. i guess that's my question here
is in terms of this legislation and with the planning department, being creative and also all of our discussions here and strengthening the local adu program, especially for me, when i look into this legislation and also to this state law, i mean, the state law is in a way undermined the rent control, you know, one of the general plan objectives of the city and how do we strengthen the rent control ordinance we have here in san francisco. zoo that is like my rationale, my question on that and also for the planning accident staff to look into that on how to --
different types of housing. >> thank you, so there are actually for me the way and and again, i applaud mandelman and the way it's like different in and the issue of the which i feel like is being undermined and we know and doesn't go through rent control and it's more about the there's no doubt cost protection when it against to sb9 and fielding housing and
that is what not one anything i peel like lasting legislation and in a way that rent control and it gives cross protection and another thing too that to me as well as our comments in terms of deeper affordability and also the planning department recommendation in terms of responding to support of housing and and and there are issues of deeper affordability and how do we hear in this legislation also
encourage in a way that and that it looks like to have some sort of incentive or invest in social or supportive housing whether it's or acquisition of preservation and i'm noticing too is that let's say small developers that you know that to have more and from are restrictions in terms, the program has restrictions on the short and on the subdivision and how and affordability and one thing the last thing as we and i
agree with some of the and investment and technical and and and they're going to add another unit or a local adu and so we need to have that kind of incentive for bipoc homeowners and in order for them to know the kinds of assistance or the technicality that they're involved in and one thing too is when it comes to the peak dieting of permits and there are some comments and my initial, you know, reaction or recommendation for that is expedite permits for bipoc
homeowners or for programs that are lead to go supportive or social housing and that is what i like to see in terms of implementation of this program and i would like to hear what other commissioners have to say as well but those are my usual reaction and provide and thank you. >> anybody else? >> commissioner tanner. >> i do have a poor connection today can folks here me all right. i see a nod so please do flag me if i start to go an
intelligible. i want to thank the supervisor and it comments to the work and for their back and fourth and many thousands of on this topic. i want to start by trying to kind of make some comments and i heard from the testimony today and release and a few questions so what i heard in terms of the calls today and for to receive and simple that i think are shared and sometimes can rub against each other and wanting to have home so it's current and future and want to go place and homes using the homes to build and for san france so folks have more stability and more and
families and possibly and i hope it can be true which is lowering the price of housing and it's cheaper and and more than it is now and making sure that we're channeling housing to public goods and through this time of direct value and and or very large homes and ideas and we see supervisor mar's legislation trying to think about how we get to the value into and ultimately how we retain our residents and how do we get people and one thing where i a little bit lost there and it's equity tee in a particular exclusive zoning and i think that to me is a very important starting point which is to say and the end of zone is
a good thing and i think some would say we have allowing allow and a two-unit and adu and on everything and pretty much and in san francisco and so or a question of this legislation and can we do more than just legislation and it's the framing goals i've heard today and i think it's important if those conversations and keeping those goals are this protection and existing own owners and the foundation of this program and any future programs highway do we produce and what hines of homes and so on protection front, i don't know mr. star and ms. maloney if you know if
anyone is aware when it comes to rental registry that was, i believe, legislation was and is there any progress or update known coming when we expect to see that type of registry live and in operation and. >> i'm not very familiar with the exact timeline and the last i've heard is we are still a couple of years out and having this goal completed rental registration with we don't have that and it would have been feel to add some and legislation but unfortunately, change is coming before. >> that's happens even with sb9 and we don't have our rental
registertation and that supervisor mandelman is involved and with that project and give it some ump and i don't know where that is. >> certainly commissioner tanner and we did the supervisor fewer's housing inventory and these late last year and it's being saved that kind of for this project and that scale of project. it was around 18 months i want to say mid next year and it will be the final traunch being brought into the temperature and it is underway and by the rent board and my recollection is that it does overlap somewhat with the timeline that they were talking about this legislation. >> that's encouraging and i having that be hand and glove with this legislation and how that is so that we have what was
the history of the space and what went on and right no that and it's a version and it does go through and before having and they havely say on staffing and on our city and they to be working together. and that is really is a person or several people and i know we already work well with them but i want to elevate that to a very specific and very needed use of our city resources so that's a comment for later. one thing i was trying to understand in relation to kind of the protection for the homeowners and this is kind of mr. star and ms. maloy is
how you see the different ways that the proposed sb9 local implementation work for local homeowners, maybe you can just walk through that and is out the gate. >> understand that better. >> sure, i think our intention here was to create a path that made it easier for the homeowners what would like to develop the property and continue to live on that property to make it easier through whatever means we have available than it would be for that homeowners to sell to a develop may demolish with the resources so sb9, does have, we borrowed this from sb9 and it has a requirement that in order to utilize the lots at peck of e
you take your single family and and create aid plot or two units and they have a homeowner requirement and you sign an affidavit of intent for three years from construction and also that you been there for years prior. we took a -- evaluation and trying to do anything that we have within our capabilities and to make it easier for that and versus selling to a developer and program. >> and any idea that would be -- in if you have a six plex legislation goes through this is in addition that this path for
the homeowners is allowed. is that the idea, right? >> ok. >> i just want to, there's a lot of good stuff here but i just want to make sure i'm asking all testify and what we can put affidavit of home ownership and and they and life changes and they're not going to live there and you could have people who are trying to and did not intend to live there and if wore finding through maybe our registry that and.
board and with that said it's worth exploring whether or not there's some sort of a targeted change in those regulations where there's a particular sen ar ye that we feel comfortable with such as no tenants being present on the site and perhaps there's something in there so i appreciate this being raised in the conversation now and it's something we're going to certainly have to talk about our colleagues with at the board. >> there's a ledge point with the cu but is that the right leverage point? is it another mechanism. it's a process what is is the leverage we want to get out of our leverage and how can we best get that because to imagine demolition is not needed is not thinking how it goes and not that that's not what you've done
but if we can figure out how we get that leverage in a way that is super owe nerrous and people do play these games well in terms of demolition that end up with problems and issues. so, my last two comments and then i'll turn it back over to the other commissioners to hear what they have to say and this topic of whether or not to r2 i it might undermine sb9 but the thing about r2 i like about us doing and really lifting the floor for all of our housing is that we are allowing everyone to take advantage of that and so sb9 has the very thoughtful restrictions and i think we can layer on our san francisco tenant protections but it means that someone doesn't have to live in that home and say i'm going to do two units and i'm going to build a two units plus maybe two adu you so it can be a
four-unit building. we say what about four units in maybe that's where we're getting additional public benefits and i might throw in the mix is that on the corner lots we do 10 units and we're still having the same height and the yard may need to be a bit smaller but i think that could then give us that up to capturing that value back through a bmr unit and we have the legislation from supervisor martha i think has some complimentary ideas to supervisor legislation and he i would love to fick it out together and have a unified programs to have missing middle density to our city and capture the value that is blocked in the single-family homes into public benefits and more homes for more
people. so i'll just leave my comments there. thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> i will ask for everyone's indulgence as i bring fourth a little bit of history and also in case i become quite long winded in my discussions here. back in the '90s, i brought fourth a propose am for the bayview community to rezone from rh1 to r h2 the intent was for wealth accumulation. we moved the planning commission to the community to discuss this
issue. it was very heavily attended and a lot of people were against it. pros and cons brought fourth and it was a little different than the pros and cons brought fourth today with respect to the equity issues. given that thought, and the fact that the community was heavily opposed to it, i pulled the proposal and it went to play like many other proposals. if one lock at the proposed changes here from a land use issue, we're faced with what's
been brought as issues on the daily basis and not only through the discussions on cus but on drs and on appeals. there's many opinions here in this city, especially with respect to the lower density areas. in my current tenure, on this commission, you know the focus has been housing and it's a constant challenge to look at what's been discussed and what's been brought forward and if you look at the creation of housing, during this period of time, most it has been either large, market
rate project with of course some affordable components to it and there have been some separate affordable projects and the argument could be made that perhaps there's not enough. the other components of course are a lot of the single-family homes we see but we've seen nothing in between. rarely do we see multi plex projects and rarely do we see anything that one looks at terms of needing density. if you look at what's been brought before you has been large projects have a tendency not only to be reflect higher land cost in those areas that they go up in, and higher
construction costs. it let me to think about the technical points to this proposal. if we lock at lower density zones and areas and one could say the land cost there are lower and we're higher density projects and it's likely that the construction costs would be also lower given the building types and the time to complete would also be quite a bit lower in such large projects which in most cases takes four or five
years and the other interesting thing about the lower density areas and smaller projects is that they're more likely to use local vendors which supports our local economy better. given the fact we've had these residential zonings with tweaks, minor tweaks to it for substantial length of time, i think it's time that we try something different. i'm prepared to support the corner lot legislation. i would say a couple of things though, i think that perhaps we should wait a little bit on the
all lots proposal. if everyone remembers how the adu program was brought forward, and everyone thought it was going to be the panacea of creating new homes, new units, remember that the first couple of years nothing happened. it didn't gain traction for years so we should monitor if this program gets asked here or implemented at the board and becomes law, we should carefully monitor it and look at where potential improvements and changes will occur the same way that the adu program does that.
on a minor point, i'm not supportive of staff's recommendation of proportional tie. planning codes should be qualitative. these curious metrics show up in our codes and i don't think that they do much. i'm done. >> thank you, commissioner fung. commissioner diamond. >> thank you, first of all, thanks to commissioner mandelman's office for taking on this complex set of issues and to staff for providing an incredible amount of contextual backgrounds and very thoughtful
for modifications that might solve additional issues and concerns that we've seen over the last couple of years as modifiers to the proposed legislation. i want to start off by saying i'm also deeply appreciative of the various points of view and perspectives that were raised by the many, many callers that we had today and the many, many letters that we received. they are all clearly very thoughtful and some at different advantage points and perspectives in terms of what this legislation is supposed to accomplish or could accomplish. it's a lot to bite off all at once and i will say that i am generally supportive of both of
the ordinances proposed by supervisor mandelman's office as modified by staff and i do have a few concerns and questions that i wanted to discuss but first of want to put fourth why i'm generally supportive of this regime that's being proposed. we have a whole new world coming january 1st as pointed out by staff and sb9 is designed to increase the density on single family lots. i believe the proposals that are in front of us accomplish that increase in density that do so in a way that targets some of the issues that we see on the west side of the city. address the missing middle housing which is a really, really important subject to take on and allow for the
preservation of some modicom of spaces where he devoted the end of a letter to talking about the importance of open space as we increase density and that we need to be concerned about coming up with a balance between requiring too much open space, backyards, rear yards, that reduce the ability to increase density and against providing too little open space which effects the liveability of the union that we're building and i believe the that the ordinances proposed by supervisor mandelman as modified by city staff allow us to get to that balance and i think that's a really wise step to be taken. secondly, i am also really
pleased to see that the staff's proposal creates incentives to actually construct the housing and it's fine to legislation for housing and rezoning to rh2 but we don't build the house and we have not accomplished the most important goal and a number of speak ears pointed out they need to be weary having too many requirements because it will get in the way of homeowners actually expanding or constructing and i believe that staff's proposal strikes a good balance about at least how to initially propose this problem so that we are encouraging people to actually construct additional housing. and i am very supportive of the desire to produce objective standards so that project sponsors know exactly what it is that they have to propose in order to simplify this process.
those are all really important subjects. i too, like commissioner fung, am weary of the proportionality requirement. i haven't -- i'm not comfortable that 50% for one of units is the right answer and i don't believe that is central to the core mission of the ordinance and the modifications and so i would prefer that that piece of it is not there at this time. before i get into more detail, i did want to ask staff a couple questions. first is, we have an example in front of us of a project that's been highly controversial and in front of us again later in this agenda, the 17th street project. so, could staff explain whether that project, as currently proposed, which basically has
added the adu to the existing building and does a lot of substandards lots and completely builds out both of those lots so there's really no setback. would that be permitted by either supervisor mandelman's ordinances or by the staff modifications? i just think it's helpful to have a real world example so we can understand. >> it's in any neighborhood so i've been paying attention to it. we require a 30% setback on new construction so it wouldn't be new coverage and you would have to have afour-foot- setback on the old one so there would be some space between the buildings and that's the amount with the
number of units in total on corner lots to six so you could have three and three or four and two and you couldn't have more than that. >> are you saying if i understand correctly is if you don't a split you are limited to two after the split? >> that's correct. you have a 30% setback on and on the existing lots and the result of us. is that right? >> ok. >> that's very helpful. i am wonderful about the possibility of including a monitoring clause, like a mandatory review of this is after a set number of years and so we can see where propose
asking working and is it resulting in more units and if this is, that's great and the number we have large arena goal that we have to accomplish and if it's not, you know, what is getting in the way? what about the ordinances that we put in place as modified by staff and it's actually the stumbling block that is precluding us from having the goal accomplished that we thought we would. you know, i know it's right to say you can't manage it without measuring it but without actually knowing whether this ordinance is working, how do we determine whether or not we've include the right set of controls and i know a lot of thought has gone into it right now, to figure out both from supervisor mandelman's office and staff, as to what is the right selection of problems we're trying to solve here and unless it actually produces the units and someone said, then it
didn't really get us where we wanted and i feel like it would be important to have a built in mechanism that after a set number of years, we examine that exact issue and so we can see whether or not any tinkering is necessary. this is a big, complex problem and we're unlikely to get it right the first time. we certainly, i think, should be taking stock of what we've accomplished to figure out what might need amending and how do you feel about that? >> thank you, commissioner dime opened. i wouldn't have any issues with that being included in the recommendations and i think it's a really a matter between the commission and the department to have how you ex kite that but it's the number 6 cases of legislation and something that could be helpful information so we would really defer to you and
your staff. >> i think that's a good idea and i think one of the key aspects that you talked about there is we can relax the zoning and we're nowhere better than we were with we started so it's important to refine this and make sure what we're allowing is feasible and resulting in more units so i. >> i was going to chime in and echo the same thing, right. hopefully we see additional units being produced by this but i think, this doesn't prohibit in these areas that may be so, you know, it's something that we should be doing anyway and certainly we would welcome a recommendation for us to come back in three years to analyze that. >> thank you. so, i would say that in general,
this package of legislation doesn't solve all of our problems but it does seem like it is focused on addressing the missing middle problem and i think that we have spent a lot of time talking about it and this is a good opportunity to try to accomplish something on the west side of the city in particular with missing no housing so i said at the beginning of my comments, it is an important piece of the puzzle and i think it should be part of the package. thank you. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you. so thank you supervisor mandelman's office for bringing this forward to the planning department for your analysis to the public for your testimony and to my fellow commissioners for all of your really
thoughtful comments. i wanted to start with just a couple of questions. the first is for minister gensler in terms of timeline. given that sb9 goes into effect january 1st, i'm curious how you are thinking about the time lines for the ordinance and when they could be in place? >> yeah, thank you, commissioner chan and it's nice to see you back on the virtual desk. yeah, this out there since february and various iterations and it's been continued to allow for staff analysis to occur. we've had change in the state law along the way and we're here today appreciating this conversation and also the staff recommendations and we would like to have this at the lapped landsuse committee in january wh what i'm sure is a significant number of changes, as i alluded to earlier, based on these recommendation and this discussion but that is our ideal timeline. >> some time in january. you don't know when these
find a way to be discussed further deeper the discussion as equally important i want to thank the public and everybody who contributed . those who called in but also those who float and i want to thank each and every commissioner who remained glued to the screen of my meeting here to hear whateverybody else had to say . we come to the conclusion of
the legislation as it is and i am in support of staff recommendation and i and in support of bringing every other point approached by the audience as well as our commissioners to be considered as a legislative part of our board moving forward to deepen the conversation. i am very interested in the aspects of creating more diversification in housing types which is also touched on by this thoughtful letter brought up by commissioner diamond who i had hoped read this entire letter into the record we also madea very important point about open space , a consideration about
which i think supervisor mandelman's legislation distinguishes itself from sb nine offers . and i want to call out something that also really matters. i was very moved by commissioner fung recalling his efforts in 1990 and no reception for nowwhat would be a much easier discussion to be had . that said i believe that we may have to create a few additional bridges or tools for which people start to better understand the centrality of what is implied in housing types of which we do not have many examples in the city and that is the multiplex as proposed here to be potentially afour plex , essentially a six
plex and what that really can mean on large cuts which in the san francisco language of planning makes it a little bit more difficult to create creative and good examples. i was looking for legislation and therefore that is valid criticism but it makes me want to suggest that there's somebody who would spend some time on letting people know how amazing four plex's and even six plex is can be because you cannot really distinguish them on single-family homes if they are properly designed. the reason i'm saying that is at southern california has a much larger number of housing types which really would be
examples of prototypes we should look at. i actually participated in an aia wide lecture months ago which talked exactly about that subject matter and i saw a number of really interesting building types which were well-designed, actually bills and architects spoke to the challenges but alsothe benefits of this housing type .my idea is to suggest that perhaps there should be a design competition. either one which has a small reward or one that is a pro bono exercise which means learning institutions like the cca or the architecture school of cal berkeley or perhaps even an aia sponsor group who would really compete for creating
some of these prototypes and creating really an encroachment that these types of units are innovative and possible. as was pointed out and i do have to say it does southern california lecture we were pointing out san francisco is a little bit more difficult. there's the 25 foot with, typical for a residential lot and it makes it a little bit harderto do this . i still would like to use creative momentum on this legislation to also ask for some typical answers that can be immediately shown to encourage and propel this particular piece of legislation and get started with vigor and again, i'm in full support and don't know if there's anybody else who wants tomake a comment .
>> president: commissioner diamond. >> i had one additional question for staff and i will try a motion. a sixth unit onthe corner, does that trigger the state density ? >> that's a great question, thank you commissioner. the exemption is a exemption from density versus the change and clear that any of the units you're going to count towards your minimum should qualify our units that are potentially entitled. that's why we're resultingto and are h2 but even in an rh three district , where you could have six units on a corner lot is the exception, that exception being its explicitly stating you are not
allowed to combine that with any density bonus program. class i don't know how the other commissioners will respond but to move this along the dry emotion which is that i would move the recommend the board that they consider adoption of the two ordinances proposed by supervisor mandelman as modified by staff. plus we send along a list of additional commentsthat the commissioners made . i think each of the commissioners might want to weigh in but there are a number of substantive suggestions and concerns that were raised and i wouldn't want those to be lost simply because we were passing alongrecommendations . i don't know if it's important to list all of those concerns now andmake sure we haveto . i think it probably is . i didn't keep a complete list. i know from my perspective that
the ones that i took note of that thought were worthy of mentioning work supervisor chance concerned about enforceability of the owner occupancy clause. a concern i raised about monitoring of requirements for monitoring and a check in afte three years that whether or not 50 percent should be appropriate proportionality requirement . supervisor moore's desire for sketches so that we could understand what this might actually look like and the concerns about affordability and whether or not we should be amending this in any way to address the affordability concerns. you know, i will say that it's balanced to some extent by my worry about whether it will actually reduce the likelihood
of people wanting to take advantage of the ordinance by constructing we put too many requirements in place but i think it deserves exploration and i apologize to the other commissioners, i wasn't taking notes on everything as itwent along but i wonder if any other people wanted to add to that list assuming the commissioners even wanted to go forward with this item . >> i will second that and call on commissionerimperial you are up next, i'm sorry . >> thank you somuch. commissionerdiamond , i think what you're asking for is excellent . however since legislative aide pamphlets has been listening the entire four hours, knowing how detailed oriented he is i assume that if we ask him to capture the essence of what we have said that that could be generically made aspart of a
motion . if you're correct there were more very important comments made including your own observation initiated by the office about the open space. i think if he's still here perhaps he could reinforce that the have the subtlety of what was saidand i fully agree , it should really in its entirety be brought to the ongoing discussionto the board of supervisors . >> are you still here?that you could kind of a firm for us that you would bewilling to take us forward . >> unfortunately commissioner more i don't see him onthe
call. hold on, he has just returned . and let me unmute him. >> sorry about that. commissioner i switched to my phone due to a technical glitch but yes, i was thinking and taking copious notes throughout including the public comments. can you hear me weston mark i'm happy to provide legislative a stenographer services in consultation with staff who i'm sure alsowere taking very good notes . oh yes, as i said at the beginning i think not only what was in the staff report is very much the basis of what we need to move forward but a lot of what we discussed today as well so i do appreciate allof you and i agree with you commissioner moore . it was one of the most exciting four hours we have spent here together and i'm happy to get on paper. >> commissioner diamond, are
you comfortable with him taking responsibility because it would make a motion easier and perhaps more tactful. >> yes i am. >> if you made the motion and wantedto restate it i would be happy to support it . >> i know that we recommend to the board ofsupervisors supervisor mandelman's ordinances as modified . >> second. >> president: commissioner imperial. i'm withdrawing my right in vote. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> i would only say for myself i support all the other commissioners comments they've made and the way they've made them and with the proportionality i think there is need for it. i do think that going out that metric is important so i'm happy to hear that i think we have to live like mindedness on the commission so i hope i
would say that other commissioners comments reflect my own feelings as well so i think we have a lot of maybe not total unanimity but we are going in the same direction and i hope it's that way with the board of supervisors. >> president: anything else or were you chiming in for mister bentley? >> i would never presume to speak for him but i don't need to see anymore, thank you. >> president: director hill. >> i wanted to thank you all for the thoughtful comments and your recommendations. commissioner moore, we should talk more about design constitution which i think was extremely successful. and i wanted to thank the team has been working on this and obviouslysupervisor mandelman for bringing this forward and taking the leadership on this issue . we see every week at the
planning commission and thank jacob for all his work but that our staff obviously audrey and those of you who have worked tremendously on this. but it's been a team effort throughout our entire staff citywide to current planning and those working on the housing element to put in the recommendations before you. i wanted to say thanks. >> president: if there's nothing further i think there's a motion that has to be seconded to approve the proposed amendments with staff modifications. and additional comments by commissioners can be carried forward to the board. on that motion commissioner tanner. [roll call vote]
>> president: that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. commissioners that will place us on item 12 for the waterfront plan update. this is an informational item and i'm prepared to make a presentation . >> yes i am. >> good afternoon president koppel and commissioners. i've been appointed as an informational item on the waterfront plan update. as you probably know the wonderful plan is a principal vision document that guides land use element along the san francisco waterfront properties that are under the jurisdiction of the san francisco court.
we are bringing you this presentation today in anticipation of the publication of the draft eir that will come out next coming few weeks. planning staff has been and will continue to work with staff on related general plan amendments to ensure that the general plan is aligned with the new waterfront plan update. i'm now going to hand it over to diane at the port staffwho will provide you with a presentation . >> good afternoon. diane oshima. let me bring up if i'm going to be successful atbringing up my presentation here .okay. so matt, do you think you can give me a leg up here somehow weston mark or i am. it didn'tactivate until just now .
thank you. okay. you see this? >> yes. >> you can. >> president: we do you might want to blow it up . >> i'm sorry, this is not my forte. hold on one second here. where is the full screen. i meant to get the other version. i'm having a little moment here where's the full screen ? okay. >> i'm going to ask if i can take upyour assistance here to
make sure that i don't delay you any further . it's quite ahearing . >> i'm going to make mystaff be present or . >> thank you very much, i appreciateit . president koppel and planning commissioners and fellow staff people at the planning department and the public eye and diane oshima board of san francisco and thank you very much for taking our presentation after such an incredible. i just sat through that for hours. that was quite a hearing . we've been working for a long time toyou on the waterfront plan . next slide please. i'll give you a quick background and history on the plan. the waterfront plan is actually the product of a ballot measure approved by san francisco voters in 1990, proposition h and the plan was approved in 1997 following a lengthy public process with the waterfront
plan advisory board. proposition h required the creation of a waterfront land use plan to defineacceptable uses , land uses for the waterfront with a priority on diverse maritime industries that are still in san francisc . it's preemptively defined compels as an acceptable uses for peers and gave the port the responsibility of working with the public to identify what are acceptable uses for the years commission expandedthe scope to include acceptable uses for all of itsproperties . and approved it in 1997 . at the time the embarcadero was coming down. the transportation improvements were going along the embarcadero so the public at an interest in creating a diverse
urban waterfront so the plan's vision was to reunite san francisco with its waterfront . and the policy there were really intended on promoting land uses and an urban design instead of principles thatwould support that . through this process we have been working with the planning department and commission staff through that entire time wherein there were general plan amendments and planning code amendments made in that 1997 plan along with the 1997 plan that were approved by the planning commission and the board of supervisors in 1998 . most of the policy changes rain the waterfront and city together. that legwork was done back in 1998 but significantly, we established a city waterfront
design review process through amendments to the planning code at that time, creating a waterfront design committee and we are very grateful and happy to recognize vice president koppel for her long many years of service on the waterfront design committee that have been instrumental in revealing the developmentprojects that have taken place . next slide please . fast-forward to 2016. by that time the port we did a comprehensive review of what has happened. all the changes that have taken place along thewaterfront since 1998 . and decided the port commission decided it was time for a comprehensive review of the waterfront plan with the public to take a refresh and look at where we've come so far, where do we want to go? we created another significant public process and a waterfront
plan working group which was headed by former chief administrative officer rudy now concurred and janice lee the bikecoalition and now our board member . they led a very in-depth process to assess what are those changes that have happened since the waterfront plan was approved? what are the things they liked, what are the things that needed further attentionand from that , they came up with a broad range of issues through 160 unanimously approved recommendations on how the waterfront plan should be updated. which we were all endorsed and supported by the commission and became the foundation then for the update to the waterfront plan itself. because of the breadth of the issues that the working group developed which went beyond
just finding acceptable land uses for the waterfront, we dropped, we revived the title so that it's just simple waterfront plan and the next slide will give you a taste of the scope of the policies that are now proposed tobe updated in theplan . next slide please . so again, we've got a broader goal and policy framework in thewaterfront plan now . it's still on hold and affirms the proposition horiginal priority for maritime uses . it's a key element of reports waterfront but withthat , again supporting a diverse mix of activities. of economic, commercial, recreational, entertainment open space and natural habitat type uses which actually can be sponsored along the 7 and a
half miles of waterfront that the port controls from fisherman's wharf down to india basin . there were already urban design and open space and historic preservation guidelines that were in the plan . the old plan, they've been revamped andupdated further for thoserecommendations . but in terms of new goals and policies , clearly waterfront resiliency overall and climate change has been front of mind and a lot of these discussions and with that, equity and inclusion. how do we try to make sure that the waterfront improvements and investments going forward are really going to be serving everybody from disadvantaged communities, residents , workers and not just san francisco but the bay area region andthe state . the recommendations also opened up public access policies to
really the importance and need for a connected public access and open space network along the entire 7 and a half mile, particularly in the southern waterfront or china basin down to india basin which had not reallyreceived much investments previously for open space . andsimilarly , the transportation access and public realm improvements that go along with that to promote alternative transportation. more pedestrian and bike safety improvements that integrate withthat open-space system on the waterfront . there was a lot of discussion about the financial requirements and feasibility requirements in order to support successful waterfront improvements and capital repairs. and next slide please.
again, going a little deeper into the sustainability thread of the plan, there are new goals and policies on both resilience and sustainability. there was active discussion through the planning process. it was a three year endeavor about the embarcadero seawall which we are working very closely with your staff on adaptation planning for the city and port to be integrated together. with the embarcadero but also for flood control and sea level rise adaptation for the southernwaterfront as well . the southern waterfront offers particularly natural habitat. a lot of bay ecology, opportunities for improvements which are called out in the sustainability and environmental policies and
goals.and all this is really in sync with the value of creating healthy neighborhoods, addressing environmental justice concerns in the southern waterfront to incorporate new sustainability practices and values that have been identified over thelast 20 years . in fact, the goals and policies in this waterfront plan update do a lot of focus on recognizing city policies with respect to greenbuilding , biodiversity, transit first and other environmental initiatives that san francisco has advanced and is actively recognizing by folding them intothe update and the waterfront plan . we are also in the resilience context much more aware and focused on the disaster
response functions that the waterfront and the port provide to the city and region overall. and incorporate that into the adaptation resilience planning policies as well . the court itself as a waterfront resilience program that many of you have heard is underway . that's pursuing the more deeper technical work and deep dive that will ultimately identify flood control and seismic improvements for the seawall. the public values that have been identified through the resilience and sustainability discussion are really important feeders to help support the waterfront resilience program and the planning department on resilienceinitiatives along the eastern side of the city . finally next slide.i wanted
to spend a few minutes on these historic piers along the embarcadero. this is a natural historic district, embarcadero historic district and whether we're in the context of talking through resiliencediscussions, architectural landuse , success of the ferry building , exploratory and, piers 1 through 5, the working group recommendation affirms the importance of trying to make the investments that we can in these precious historic piers while we can.there's a recognition of changing needs on a resilience adaptation also a recognition thatthere's still an investment window to support rehabilitation for these peers . and some new policies in the
waterfront plan update are intended to increase the certainty and success of bringing a few more of those fears and opening them up to the public . similarly down in the southern waterfront there are new policiesrecognizing the pierce 70 historic district . i know the planning commission was heavily involvedwith us and pierce 70 restrict and those are recognized in the plan itself through all our historic preservation work : pacifically asked policies and the need for consistency andupholding the secretary of interior standards . next slide please . these policies, these goals and policies are innine different sections of the plan . but then they apply port wine. the waterfront plan identifies these five graphic areas as well from fisherman's wharf down through the northeast waterfront including the ferry
building, south beach, mission bay at the southern waterfront from pierce 70 down to india basin where those goals and policies port wide are tailored into objectives that are described for each of thesefive areas . we took a refresh of that. made some updates to those objectivesas well as part of this effort . next slide please . and finally there is a new goal and policies targeted specifically at community engagement and partnerships . we go nowhere along the waterfront unless the public understands what the imperative is and why we're doing what we're doing and where there's an opportunity for the waterfrontprojects to carry forward these public needs and objectives . there are new goals andpolicies that our community engagement procedures .
processes and procedures for how requests for proposals for new developments and leases will be publicly vetted and carried before the port commission . as we know i think asked ourselves but amongst departments the importance of these government agency partnerships especially now in light of the resources hopefully we will be seeing through the infrastructure federal infrastructure bills that have just been signed really integrating our interdepartmental objectives and priorities toadvance improvements along the waterfront . and the port has also standing advisory committees in the northern waterfront and southern waterfront and those are recognized with procedures and engagements on how to keep those discussions rich and current and critical so that we
are on top of what are the needs of the community and city at large and the improvements going forward. and finally as these photos represent the eco-center, where the port is managing these kinds of public areas on its own we cannot do it alone. so really reaching out beyond inner agencies to the community at large to be able to engage in hands-on programs and help to fundamental of the improvementof the waterfront . there are policiesthat recognize that . so next slide please. that was sort of a real rush on the content update of the waterfront plan. we have been working with the environmental planning group team led by sherry george and
george everett at the eir and we're hoping that mightbe published in december . while we are working on that, some tweaks and not huge but there are some aligning amendments that we are working onso that the general plan and waterfront plan continue to stay in sync . we also want to work with matt on planning code amendments so that waterfront design process that currently only applies in the northern waterfront is actually brought down and applied to review major non-maritime development for the southern waterfront south of china-based likely through the northern waterfront. the mission walk and pierce 70 projects however have their own design review process is now so this new waterfront design process that we're suggesting
for the southern waterfront would not apply to those suv areas. and we really appreciate just the ongoing collaboration and partnership all of your staff. we have a long history of working with the planning department and we look forward to working further on that. to bring you to any eir and a set of a general plan code amendments that will be before you for approval sometime next yearso with that , i think that wraps it up. and i'm happy totake questions and thank you very much again for your support . class back to diane. if thereare immediate questions . we should open apublic comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission . you will each receive two minutes. when you hear your line has been unneeded that's your indication.
>> i'm waiting for the canvas store so i guessit's not up yet . >> you need to press start againwhen the item is up . seeing no request to speak, public comment on this matter disclosed . it isnow before you . >> commissioner. >> without conflict of interest i'd like to have a shout out for diane for an incredible leadership and the work she presented today. how she participated in the northern waterfront review process. prior to even stepping on the
planning commission. i've seen the incredible depth of work, the incredible dedication of the fabulous staff and meetings were just a exciting as what we had earlier today .and while those meetings were are primarily focused on the northern waterfront, the amount of work is that has gone into every aspect. the smallest aspect of creating this beautiful waterfront we have is basically do to what i am presenting today. i am excited about the strong emerging of board planning staff with the strength of city planning staff totake us forward . and in a time of increasing the environmental challenge for th safety and survival of our waterfront .achieving even
more hands on will only not only help us to sustain and protect the waterfront but also bring it forward with all challenges that waterfront across the world are facing. we will be dealing with sea level rise and how can we maintain exciting beautiful design waterfront that are indeed the large public open space resources that make san francisco special and again, each time i walk down the waterfront which i can safely say i am delighted of the high quality and the way this holds up and even in the years of coping still is absolutely a magnificent place. thank you diane and i look forward to continuing to participate in thedialogue . >> thank you commissioner. >> unless there are, there's one. always one.
>> just making sure you're paying attention. i know that you have a tough night because we have a packed agenda and we had just our second item but i don't want to diminish the value of the work and expert presentations and all the many hours that led into your presenting to us so this is tremendous and i hope the limited comments are more reflection of thetop quality of itthat are lack of interest . you said it all very well and is quiteexciting and i'm looking forward to what comes next . >> thank you very much commissioner tanner . >> i hesitated there. there areno other questions from members of the commission . we can move on. two items 13. 14 a, and 14b for case number
2017 . emb cua for the property of woolsey's street. commissioners first we will considerthe certification of environmental impact board . to amend the adoption of finding and conditional use authorization. please note the public hearing on the draft eir is proposed and the public comment ended august 9, 2021. public comments will be received however comments submitted today may not be submitted in the final eir. >> thank you. i'll show my screen.
certification of the final environmental impact report or final eir for the proposed project as accurate and objective and as having been prepared an environment in accordance with the environmentalquality act . i will now provide a brief overview of the project and its inclusion in the final eir and review process. the project is to point to a car lot and it is bordered by wayland street to the north and fulton street to the east, and birdland street to the west. until 1990 the project was used for agricultural purposes. 18 unused greenhouses and associated agricultural structures were still located on the day . the proposed project is demolished most of the existing structures and constructs 62 residential dwelling units inside 31 duplexes the number
35 feet in height. the proposed project will include the two vehicle parking spaces,bicycle parking industry case improvements. and 12 on-site affordable housing units . the proposed project would include approximately 11,220 square feet of common open space and a .39 acre publicly accessible open space. for the proposed public accessible open space the project proposes to rebuild two of the 18 greenhouses and a boiler house. from the existing building materials on the site. potential programming for that is could include an open lawn seating area. the final eir included by the project would include result in unavoidable impactson historical architecture . this is because the project is individually eligible for listing in the california register for historic spaces
under criteria one four association of the agricultural element of the flotilla neighborhood and the italian-american community. there'salso eligible under criteria three with a rare macular small-scale family operation . the final eir is 27 wolseley retain significant integrity such that is able to communicate its significance as a nursery. 770 wolseley is a historic street. the final eir concluded the demolition of the resources on the site and our proposed new construction would result in a substantial average change the significance and historic resources on the project base and that impact would be significant. the final identified the measures to reduce its impact. the first documentation of the historical resources. second implementation of a plan third permanent display of
intensive materials and for the retention of the existing growth plan . while these mitigation measure would include the project impacts on historic resources those impacts would remain significant . additionally the final eir concluded impacts on resources and noise air-quality and biological resources would be significant for mitigated to a lesser degree. all other impacts in the proposed project would beless significant and almost resulted in no impact . the final eir analyzed three alternatives including the no project alternative and would be no changes to the project site. under the full preservation alternative the project site would be developed with approximately 24 dwelling units, 24 vehicle parking spaces, 1.45 acresof publicly
accessible open space . 11 of the 18 greenhouses would be retained compared to two of the proposed project . the publicly accessible open space would be potentially programs in a managed care similar to the project. all this would alter the historic resources in place of the defining features for new construction and the resources would remain evident. the division alternative would not result in a significant impact to resources and no historic resource identification is required. all the other mitigation measures would be less significant levelsfor the proposed project for this alternative . the partial preservation alternative would result in 40 dwelling units, 40 parking spaces and .9 acres of open space. under this alternative six of the 18 greenhouses would be retained compared to 200 at the proposed project.
this would result in an adverse impact on the site unless it would result in significant impact. for that reason the same historic resource mitigation measures would result in a super bowl project and is not affordable. the partial preservation alternative would require the same mitigation measures as the proposed project which impacts significant levels. the preservation alternative would be to prevent in a manner similar to that resistance project . the department solicited and incorporated public comment on the environmental analysis rather than the review process for 77048. this slide presents key dates in that process on august 26, 2020 the planning department issued a notice of
preparation of the draft eir and availability for initial project . there were comments on the initial study were taken from office 26 2020 through september 25. comments were addressed in the draft eir which is published june 23 2021. a public hearing on the draft eir falls on july 29 and the public comment period concluded august 9, 2021. on november 5 the planning department published a and distributed a small comment on the draft eir. the planning department retained the final eir for the wolseley street project in accordance with after 31 and in defense of the administrative center . and thedepartment policies . the final eir is adequate and provides decision-makers and the public with information required tounderstand the potentialenvironmental impact of the project . it's alternatives and
mitigation measures. on this space the planning department staff request the planning commission about the eir certification . promotion does not approve the project but insteadsolidifies the eir complies and is adequate accurate and objective . this concludes the presentation of theeir certificationand i'll be available for questions . i can turn it over to my colleagues . good afternoon presidents and commissioners, planning department staff. thank you for this project description and i will only ad the following condition details .under the inclusionary affordable housing program on-site affordable housing 20 percent or 12 of the units below market rateswould be provided for on-site ownership . this includes the minimum of a 10 percent or six of the units being available to low income
households. five percent or three of the units affordable to moderate income households and the remaining five percent three units affordable tomiddle incomehouses as defined by the planning code . the procedures manual .93 class i and 12 class to icicle parking spaces will be provided as part of your transportation demand management plan . the project would also add a new sidewalk along wayland street and fill in existing trench to create a new 10 foot wide sidewalk along bozeman street. the existing sidewalks on hamilton and woolsey streets would be replaced and for new sidewalk well that's one in each corner of the sitewill be constructed . a total of approximately 33 street trees would be provided along the perimeter . two par share spaces would be located on hamilton street near the proposed publicly accessible space.
the project under the pud is requesting modifications through this conditional use authorization. for all box with of less than 25 feet. there yards of less than 25 percent of lot depth. street frontage for garage door with larger than one third the length of the ground floor and car share for not providing one on-site space. however as i mentioned they will be providing two off-site spaces near the publicly accessible land. the department has received no correspondence for the conditional use authorization regarding the proposed project. however we are aware of outreach efforts for the project as mediated by supervisor ronan's office.
the project sponsor also has conducted community meeting and has been working with community groups throughout the process. at this time i like to mention for the record that i emailed the planning commissioners an updated version of the motion to address in the draft motion . the following is a summary of actions that the commission must consider for the project. is the adoption of the findings under ceqa including findings rejecting alternatives as feasible and adopting a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring and recording program .second, the approval of the conditional use authorization or a planned unit development pursuant to planning code action 209.123 and 204 for the new construction of a 31 residential building with a total of 62dwelling units , 62 off street parking spaces , 93 last one and 12 class to bicycle parking spaces and the publicly accessible open space.
basis for our recommendation. the department recommends approval and we have found that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and that will maximize the use of a currently underdeveloped lot and construct new residential units within close proximity to public transportation commercial corridors and jobs. it will also provide additional family size units to the city's housing stock on a suitable development lot. and contribute to these affordable housing as onset ownership. the development is compatible with five height and architectural characteristics and land use of the immediate residential neighborhood which is our h1.
the project is going to substantially improve the public right of ways surrounding the site as described. with new sidewalks and streetscape improvements. and the addition of that publicly accessible community openspace. the department finds its project to be necessary , desirable , compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and to not be detrimental to persons for adjacent properties in this space that concludes my presentation . i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you kimberly. there we go. mister town are youprepared to make a presentation . >> you are very faint on my end anyway. not much better. but i'll give you five minutes.
>>. [inaudible] >> president: are you on your phone as well? let me try to find your phone number. >> we've got you now. we can hear you loud and clear. >> don't start my five-minute clock yet. >> thank you commissioners, thank you president, thank you vice presidentmore . listenersmy name is eric , principal on the project . i'm happy to bring this project before you.here before the commission many times. all my projects have been high density multi family where we are building a lot of fields, one plus bedrooms and very
excited to bring to you our first family oriented family size project, a single-family home and townhome at this location here in the port 11 district which is you can see on themap most of you are familiar with it . next slide please kimberly. our original plan was to maximize the slides to provide homes with yards, rear yards and single san francisco development with some unit a back unit to changemanagement of these long boxes . needless to say even though it was consistent with the neighborhood brand and the zoning we got assistance for both who are committed to try and preserve the history of the site and the neighborhood with the existing past uses of the greenhouses so next slide please kimberly. we came up with a publicly accessible open space we are contributing from our land that
we are going to include a greenhouse. some plant infestations and historical references to talk about the historical significance of the site as used as a industry and we have the garibaldi family supporting it. and we thought this was going to be the scheme that was going to be acceptable to the community but the community wanted to have more authentic and more replicas that were to the scale of theexisting greenhouses . next slide. this is 10 percent of our site that we had given up and conveyed. our next iteration is working with the community and different stakeholders. we almost doubled the amount of open space we are committing to the public and in this case we are replicating to greenhouses and a boiler house to scale.
and providing additional public open space and while we're still squeezing in units to try to maximize housing and createa livable environment of family size dwelling units . next slide please. thank you. this is an aerial view of the site as it's currently designe . with the replica greenhouses and boiler room to thebottom left as you can see. publicly accessible open space . which we hope this is something that's been supported by the community and we've been working with them. as well as homes that are appropriate to the neighborhood. i want to take it over to mark. >> thank you eric. thank youcommissioners . my name is mark and i'm with scott architecture.with this
slide looking overall wehad serious challenges on-site and various limitations . we wanted to integrate into the neighborhood and community while maximizing family size homes and ensuring appropriate open space which exceeds the requirements in addition to the 17,000 square feet of publicly accessible open space as said by eric. we wanted to develop a sign design that is specific and in deference to the history of the site . that starts with site circulation. the port left in the garden district has an annual event which is a tour of various private and public gardens in the neighborhood and we thought
what better way to organize the building through by a series of connected breeze ways that could be open and closed at the homeowners discretion passing through the various private courtyards and culminating in a central spine are what we called a muse that served as an amenity and circulation and also follows the same path of the steam pipe system that has previously been used to distribute light tothe greenhouse. next slide please .here with the landscaping you see the lattice portion of the site would be at the park at the bottom left of the page . at the highest of the opposite corner. the new is wider at the left side of the page and features playgrounds and areas and as the music becomes steeper towards the right of the page it is narrower andessentially
becomes a circulation path . >> i'm going to interrupt you because you're five minutes are up. we should go to public comment commissioners may have additional questions this is a opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressingáthree . seeing no requests to speak, public comment isclosed . this matter is now before you. >> president: i don't have additional questions, i think the eir is adequate. commissioner moore. >> and support. it's an extremely exciting project. to see another two minutes of
the presentation because i thinkit's an important point to understand the unity of the important sites . but if everybody agrees we can getthe presenter 2 more minutes . >> thank you so much. i just wanted to also add with this here that the building has potentially the setbacks on the sidewalk but also negotiate a deeper driveway as we get to thehigher elevations. next slide please .this is just aquick overview of the various unit types . we have traditional slats shown in the red and orange.
>> here is across-section of the site so you can see how it negotiates thetopography . the top through the muse and down through walton street . here's a couple of pictures showing the amenities shared between the tenants. lastly to the left there's a street frontage diagram where we are showing we want to prioritize the experience or kind of flaring out the entry and reducing the drive file and this will create this great site line through the building to the private courtyards as the yard passerby on the sidewalk. next slideplease . i just want to touch lastly a
couple of other items that were key to the design. we wanted to reference the continuous gable of the greenhouses so we used that as kind of a system to organize the roof line. next slide please. and here are a couple of views of the homes in relation to the greenhouse andboiler house . showing a common thread of this work material across the home. and administration consistent with theneighborhood compact . i'll conclude it there. >> thank you guys for the extra time.>> commissioner moore did you havemore comments ? >> i just appreciated this presentation. it's a sensitive design project
and it makes us realize this is not just putting small units on the side but the subtlety i which that occurs. it's something we can learn about and reflect back on what we spent a lotof time on today . it is the individual subtle shift in units and slight variation in the entry experience. it was all just said and i appreciate the extra timing and i am in full support of the project as you just summarize . >> thank you very much. >> commissioner chan. >> i want to agree with commissioner moore and i had a question for staff.if you could talk about the structure of the public open space, what's the nature in terms of how that would be maintained over time or if it would be
privately owned or separately conveyed as public open space. if you could help us know more about that, how that will be maintained as publicly central. >> commissioner, i think the project sponsor is best to answerwhat they've agreed to with that community . >> did you want to add your thoughts? >> how speak briefly on it and i'd like to ask nick who understands the structure a little better. i think he could give us a clearer picture but generally we areworking with the friends at 770 wolseley , a group that's been part of this neighborhood for many years with deep ties and
understanding of historical uses and our hope is that once this is completed they will take over and manage the space to continue to produce interactive activities, events, education and historical education about the site and its uses. , do you have anything to add tothat ? >> thank you commissioner tanner and roosevelt. i can direct you to approval 32 and 33 in the motion. the intention here from the project staff is to provide assurance that there's a baseline of care that would be managed either by a nonprofit organization or essentially by the ho a of the property. so i think it's particularly in item 33 will see a list of items about hours ofoperation ,
standards for cleanliness. those are things that strike a very good balance of providing assurance to the city and commission that it would be a public open space and would be kept up to a reasonable standard of clean conditioning and good use for the city. >> i appreciate that. that's my question and i'm happy to supportthis project . >> president: is that a motion? >> why don't we go ahead and say that. commissioner dimond had a question. >> president: no problem. >> i want to follow up on commissioner tanner's question about maintenance. are you saying that h away would be, could potentially be obligated to pay for it so it's through ho a dues, individual homeowners will be assessed or paying for the upkeep ofthe space ?
>> that is essentially correct. the space would be privately owned i guess it's analogous to a situation where it would be a privately owned but publicly accessible space. yes, in this scenario the site is not sold to a 501(c)(3) organization that would be owned and operated out right. it would be held by the ho a that would cover those costs. >> is there a disclosure to future homeownersthat this would be part of their dues when they purchased the house ? >> yes. >> and that can't be amended by the homeowners association? this easy and ours or whatever documents you've got that ensure that future homeowners associations don't have the
ability to amend or delete the requirement? >> that's correct and i direct you to item 33 in the conditions of approval which would be recorded against title for the property aspart of the approval and would be on the building permits would be on the assessors record . i think there's assurance ther . >> question for the city attorney, has that all been reviewed by thecity attorney's office and you're comfortable it's enforceable going forward ? >> sorry commissioners. ihave not personally reviewed it . i have not worked on this project prior to the hearing. i'm sorry. the enforceability of this issue ... [coughing] give me one second.
>> maybe it's a question for city staff if you've used this format before. are you comfortable that this is enforceable? i see mister gray showed up so maybe he can weighin on this . >> happy to a pine on this. deputy director of current planning. for our purposes we are considering this obviously publicly accessible space so it's something that i think we included a motion relative to the conditionaluse. the maintenance and private agreement that happens in terms of land is something we don't typically weigh in on in terms of the future maintenance of the specificpiece relative to who owns the property in future
. >> let me ask and enforcement question then. do you monitor or who monitors over time , is this maintained to the standard that has been set and who doyou bring these enforcement actions against if it's not. >> since it's part of the larger development , for example if we found that this space was not being used for what was approved in the entitlement we would bring it against the ho a or whomever the entity is that basically manages the larger development so in those instances. >> is not be used,the level of maintenance . >> do we monitor for maintenance? how does this work can years from now? as to whether or not it's been really maintained what enforcementpower you have ? >> we have conditions i think kimberly, correct me if i'm wrong that we included in the motion typically upon the maintenance of for example
close in this case. since we're all authorizing th open space , there we go. we can basically enforce it paste on these so for example there's a maintenance center that says the project sponsor shall operate , manage and maintain this space in a clean and safe manner. so we're able to enforceupdate based on these actions . i see the zoning master has chimed in so we can likely any teacher enforcement actions. >> this gives you the power to bring this again to the ho a if they are again the ones responsible. >> that eveningcommissioners, corey t . i'm not familiar with the exact details of this case but generally speaking when there are public open space requirements of the code whether they be maintenance requirements in thecode or
maintenance conditions as part of the conditions of approval , those layout the minimum requirements for maintenance unless there are specific conditions of approval added on top of that as a specific monitoringand recording apparatus in the future , then that's enforced through compliance . we do active monitoring and enforcing unlessthat was adopted that way . but in the future if there was a complaint and it was not being maintained to the specifications either in the code for condition ofapproval that is something we can enforce on the property owner . >> and in this case it would be the ho a. thank you very much. i have no other questions. >> i would make a motion to the eir to move forwardwith staff recommendation . >> the sql findings and staff
recommendation . >> i recommend we take up this item separately. prior to going into an environmental finding that for traditional youth authorizatio . >> i will make a motion to certify the environmental acumen. >> second. >> on that motion then to certify the environmentalimpact . [roll call vote] >> so moved commissioners, that item passes unanimously. >> i will make a motion to move theconditional use authorization of the project . >> cqua first i think. >> sorry, about the cqua
findings. >> for clarity this motion is to adopt central findings and to approve the initial use authorization with conditions. on that motion commissioner tanner. [roll call vote] >> that will place us on item 16. as item 15 for 430 gilman street continued to january 13. item 16 case number 2019 0276 the next. this is a large project authorization. staff are you prepared to make a presentation. >> thanks jonah.>> i'll be
making you the presenterright now . >> senior down's planning department staff. item before you is a large project authorization going into 329 to allow new constructionrater than 50,000 feet in the center soma . the project will utilize these state law and request the waivers for concessions from the development standards. the proposed project includes demolition to 15,600 73 square feet off the cdr building and the new construction of a nine story mixed-use building with approximately 80,500 square feet of residential use for a total of 121 units and 500 and 5745 square feet of pdr on the ground floor. the project will provide 107 eight class to icicle spaces
and parking spaceswill be proposed . in terms of the affordable housing 18 dwelling units are to be proposedas affordable units on site , 10 of which are provided at the 250 percent api to qualify for a 30 percent bonus to incentives and concessions . the additional 35 percent is obtained by providing dwelling unit exposure. reducing use of the open space and pdr replacements. increasing the lot coverage, the total height of the building and the size of bay windows. as far as penetrating the plan the project also seeks incentive and possessions from requirements to give construction cost. the project will only provide approximately 52,800 square feet of code compliant project open space and 12,660 square
feet of noncompliant open-space even though the project is seeking a usable open-space waiver under the state law, the project sponsor voluntarily provides an additional 1800 square feet of open space on-site as shown in the memo which is distributed to the commission today. in terms of public comment so far the department has received three public correspondence expressing support for the project. a neighborhood reapplication meeting was held virtually in april 2020 and we will follow up with additional phone call meetings. the project has been in communication with soma on the proposal. additionally the project sponsor is working with 598 brennan street on coordination of construction and design. in summary the department
design is on balance and consistent with the soma area plan and addresses the general plan. although the project proposed demolition of existing pdr buildings the project will provide partial replacement on the ground floor and a substantial amount of newrental housing including new bmr units for rent . and a mixed-use area that's close to this location which is a golf quality. lastly before i turn it over to the sponsor team separate from the consideration of the project itself has prepared an alternative format for the planning code compliance section of the motion which is included exhibit by the very end of the commission packet. we would like to get some feedback from the commissioners about the new tableland. the goal is to provide the commission of the public was
sufficient information on planning codecompliance and fair and easy to read format. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available for any questions . the sponsor team is here and has prepared presentation. >>project sponsor youhave five minutes .>> i was wondering if we could get the presentation up . >> one second. >> then i can get started. john kaplan here with unison on behalf of the project sponsor and the project proposes a 941 20 unit residential building with rounds still pdr. the project is well located along brennan adjacent to the park blocks the site office project and back on the street. the project takes advantage of the state density bonus program with waivers and expenses increasing the housing density at the site and will contribute towards the overall housing production of a central soma plan and heconsideration by the planning commission and board of supervisors . i'd like to now introduce mark
skolnik off to present the project design and the significantmovements in our next slide . >> hellocommissioners. my name is mark skolnik off . i'll start with a site location here. as noted our site is located on a midblock parcel with three parcels on brandon.a site of this proportion on the block could be challenged for natural light but we're fortunate that this site to have a neighboring post being developed as a part of the neighboring 598brennan illustrated here. next slide please . in response to that development and rather than a typical solid property line wall we sought to treat the hope of adjacent fagade as a primary fagade. it's the setback above the first floor that further increases the available natura light . next slide please . the building's fagade sits on the windows of the neighboring
590 while introducing a layerof windows and private balconies . some thought to use the bay windows in such a way that it was connected across the building to create this high relief fagade and treatment next slide please. looking towards the project towards fifth street we carry the two-story order of the adjacent pdr building across our building and carry the bay windoworder of 2 to 3 vertically so we can treat the interior property line fagade as well . next slide please. here's a look back from the parks and the provost towards ourbuilding . nextslide please . the ground floor which consists primarily of a pdr program uses outflows to demarcate the entryways and while we've demarcated the building across the provost we can further activate the posts. next floor please or next slid
. there's a typical residential floor primarily of two-bedroom andstudio units next slide please .as we travel up the building, next slide . so up here these units also take advantage of a mezzanine so they have lofted mezzanines above. next slide please. so here's the loft space and private terraces that makeup the present perimeter of the building . next slide please. here as you see we alluded to we have the additional 1800 square feet of common open-space on masses rescan. that concludes our overall presentation here. i have an additional slide sections and elevations if
questions should arise so please not as know if you have additional questions . >>thank you if that concludes thepresentation we should open it up to public comment .this is your opportunity to address the commission on thisitem . by pressingáthree. see no request to speak for members of the public public comment is closed . you have two minutes. >> caller: this is mrs. lester and i have a coupleobservations . one is this site was written up in the 40s about a week ago as deceptive and i want to remit it as deceptive. the resolution as proposed for adoption on page 4 describes the building next door as though the tenant of this building is still standing. it was demolished months ago and they've also eliminated the tennis facilities at all so there are no community facilities right now.
because developers of that building is wanting to kind of relocate or do something different so the basic facility for the community is a nonexistent next door. additionally what was pointed out, it was kind of humorous in the article in 48 hills was there is a very long rolling. right next to the building and the developer made a big thing about this is not a really good site for a pdr but at the same time the photo shows there's this moving.right next to it. so people are very interested in developing a lot of state density bonus projects and i don't think this is a good one. thank you. >> president: thank you.
that's all for public comment. seeing no additional requestto speak public comment is closed and this item is before you, commissioners . >> commissioner diamond, you are first. >> i have a couple questions for staff and the project sponsor. i'm glad to see you added the common open-space on the roof that people who don't have private terraces have access to on-site open-space.but your project design raises two questions. for me, the first is to have the popos next door been developed or is that project under construction? >> thank you commissioner diamond. i know that is sponsor tishman's buyer is moving towards permits what i think is
the farthest along in terms of all the sites but they have not started construction yet >> so from staff perspective , we are proving a project where the project sponsor is saying it's designed to be fronting on the open-space and taking advantage of the light provided by the popos next door but we don't know forsure that's actually going to be , is that correct ? >> my understanding is that there is already a building permit application filed for the 598 brennan street even though we have not studied the constructions . >> commissioner and if you don't mind the building has been demoed at 598 brennan so the site is great at this point in terms of consideration of light and air. >> i don't know if that's a concern to the other
commissioners . it feels like when we are approving a project that's dependent on an adjacent development and that is likely but not guaranteedto go forward , how that affects our thinking ofthis project so i love the other commissioners to weigh in on this . it's been demoed so at least there's light and air there but certainly not the development yet and the second question is so your mezzanine. is it only accessible by stairs, not later, is that accurate?>> this is mark again.the mezzanine is accessible by stairs with any unit. the roof deck above would be accessible by stairs and an elevator. >> staff have explained previously to me that you're proposing this to be a mezzanine rather than a new floor because of certain building code requirements?
i wonder if you could go into detail about that and where the discussions stand with the building department around tha . >> i'd be happy to. there is a distinction between midrise, lowrise construction and high-rise and that distinction is theoccupied floor cannot be about 75 feet . so the distinction there is it's between occupied floors versus a mezzanine which is considered a level and roof deck and with a ladder theroof deck and mezzanine are considered an extension of the occupied floor below . therefore as long as they meet the size constraintsrelative to the occupied floor below , they can be occupied at a higher level. so that's the building code referencing. >> that would put you in which
level of construction rather than? >> just not a high-rise. >> had there been discussing with the building department. and they signed off on this. they obviously haven'tapproved your plansyet have you had discussions with them . staff, have you had discussions with the building department about proceeding in this direction ? >> yes, we've met with both the building department and planning department. >> staff have you been part of those conversations and are yo comfortable the building department conceptually is fine with this approach ? >> understanding is that the project sponsor has met with dbi with a pre-application meeting . generally dbi will honor the discussions and meetings and determine this would be a midrise construction.
either way it's the mezzanine level. >> and if they don't sign off on it then what happens to the project? does it come back in front of usbecause it requires a redesigned ? >> the mezzanine level if the total amount on the mezzanine level is less than 10 percent , of the total flow area it does not need to come back to the commission because we typically the trigger is 10 percent down and five percent so if the reductions of residential flow area is less than 10 percent in theory that does not need to comeback to the commission . >> does it affect any, this is the density bonus so if the reduction even might be if it's less than 10 percent but if it affects the number of units is that something that would come in front of us? >> the mezzanine level is part of the residential units even there is no mezzanine level the unit count willstill stay the
same . >> i'm interested to hear what the other commissioners haveto say . >> commissioner more. commissioner more. >> so sorry. i was muted. 598 brennan and all that we have in the site i have to believe thatproject is moving forward given the size of the developers behind it . i would be more interested in hearing an alternative plan from the project with alexandria on the club side
with what ms. hester pointed out. i alsounderstood from 48 hills article that that project has been abandoned . we all knew about it and what is planned in blue of itbecause it does affect this project . and staff or i wonder if mister kaplan has comments on that. >> i do represent alexandraon the tennis club project . site permits have been filed to construct the project but just to eliminate the below grade tennis facility so the project is viewed from above grade will not change and like i said, site permits are being pursued right now. so similar type situation to tishman. it's a major project, lots of money and investigation is