San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our joint commission of the planning commission and the historic preservation commission. It's been a minute since we've done these joint hearings, so please forgive us if we need to stop and ask for clarification and procedure. I think we're ready to start, Jonas.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Indeed.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: For the planning commission, good morning. We're delighted to have you here. We are personally delighted also to meet jointly with historic preservation, something we have dreamed about a long time ago, but there are only few instances when we really need to join forces. This is definitely one of them. Good morning.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. Good morning, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission joint hearing for Thursday, 04/17/2025. When we reach, public comment, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed, two minutes today. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly. And if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission for the planning commission. Commission chair Moore?

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner Campbell?

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: And Commissioner Williams? Here. We expect commission president Soh to be absent today. For the Historic Preservation Commission, Commission President Matsuda? Here. Commission Vice President Magus Warren?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Baldauff? Here. Commissioner Barone? Here. Commissioner Foley? Present. And Commissioner Vergara? Here. We expect Commissioner Wright to be absent today. Thank you, commissioners. Your special calendar, I will be reading in in totality and then providing you with some minor instructions. But for the benefit of the public, please note that the planning commission and historic preservation commission will hold one joint public hearing for the public to provide testimony on all matters listed here under. Following public comment, the planning commission will consider certification of the final environmental impact report and adoption of findings. Item one, case number 2022Hyphen009819E n v 3400 Laguna Street certification of the final environmental impact report. Please note that the public hearing of the draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the draft EIR ended on 10/15/2024. Public comment will be received when this item is called, which is now. However, comments submitted will not be included in the final EIR. Item three a for case number 2022Hyphen009819ENV for 3400 Laguna Street adoption of CEQA findings and medication and monitoring report program. Following items one and three a, the Historic Preservation Commission will consider the following action. Item number two, case number 2022Hyphen009819COA

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: at 3400 Laguna Street for the certificate of appropriateness. If the Historic Preservation Commission approves that action item, the Historic Preservation Commission will adjourn, and the Planning Commission will remain in session to separately consider item three b for case number 2022Hyphen009819 CUA for 3400

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Laguna Street, the conditional use authorization. So, again, commissioners, just to clarify, today is a joint hearing, but there are no joint actions requested of you. So your actions will be considered separately and in the order I read into the record. So staff will make their presentations. We will hear from the project sponsor who will receive ten minutes. And then we received a request for organized opposition, which was granted, and they will receive ten minutes as well in total. Not but each individual speaker will still be limited to two minutes, as is each individual public commenter. Following public comment, the planning commission will consider certification of the environmental impact report. Following that action, they will consider adoption of findings and mitigation measures. If the commission the planning commission certifies and adopts those findings, the historic preservation commission will then consider separately the certificate of appropriateness. If the Historic Preservation Commission acts on the certificate of appropriateness, they will then adjourn, and the planning commission will remain in session to consider the conditional use authorization, again, separately. Okay? That will be the order of today's hearing. So at this time, I will invite staff to make their presentation. Oh, I'm sorry. This would probably be an appropriate time for any disclosures that anyone needs to make.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: wanted to make the disclosure that we had a site visit at 33400 Laguna, and I also received a many letters. Thank you very much for your letters, but one in particular from Masaya Beresford opposing this project. I'm sorry. And also a meeting with Christopher Plank.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: I this is Rachira Nagas Warren. I do work at Fort Mason Center for Arts and Culture, which is at the Lower Fort Mason campus. Fort Mason Center, is the master lessee of the Lower Fort Mason property, which is separated quite a bit by, the Upper Fort Mason property, which is, still under the National Park Service. Both properties are under the National Park Service, but we are not the Fort Mason Center property is is separated from it and there aren't any specific conflicts there. And I do know Christopher Plank from my professional experience and personal experience, but I have not discussed this project with him. Thank you. Commissioner Baldov.

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Yes. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: It's on. You're just using the wrong mic.

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Can you hear me now? Okay. I did get a tour of the heritage with Paige and Turnbull and the a representative of the heritage a week ago. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. Very good. If that concludes all disclosures from members of the both commissions, we can now hear from staff presentations.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: Thank you, Jonas. Good morning, vice president Moore, president Masuda, and fellow commissioners. Jeff Horn, planning department staff. And I'm joined today by, my colleagues Megan Kalpin with our environmental planning division and Charles Enchill with our historic preservation.

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: Next slide.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: There are four requests before the commissions today. The first two are requests to the planning commission to certify the final environmental impact report and to adopt CEQA findings, followed by a request to the historic preservation commission for a certificate of appropriateness to allow alterations to an article 10 landmark. And finally, the last request would be to the planning commission for conditional use authorization to amend an existing planned unit development that is seeking exception to rear yard requirements. This is all for a residential care facility known as Heritage in the Marina located at 3400 Laguna Street. The project site is located in the Marina neighborhood. Land use uses within the vicinity include recreation facility to the the east at the Masconi Park, Fort Mason to the North, and three to four story multifamily buildings to the south and east of the site. Just one more thing. The product site is zoned, RM 1, which is residential mixed use and a 40 x height and bulk district. The approximately 68,000 square foot site is located on the corner of the the Southeast Corner of Laguna Street and Bay Street. The product site is slightly sloping from west to east and is currently developed with the Heritage on the Marina residential care retirement facility. Heritage on the Marina consists of four existing interconnected buildings and a separate caretaker's cottage, totaling five structures on the site, and approximately 83,200 gross square feet, of building area. The interconnected structures include the Julia Morgan building, the Perry Building, the Perry Connector, and the health center.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: There we go.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: There we go. Project. I'll go back one, please. Great. Thank you. The proposed project would demolish two of the existing five buildings, the Perry Connector Building and the Health Center, construct two new buildings, the Bay Building and Francisco Building, add a new curb cut along Bay Street and construct a below grade garage underneath these new buildings. The product would also renovate the historically rated, Julie Morgan Building as well as the Perry Building. It will also add bulb cuts to the intersections at the Laguna Street frontage. This slide is to further illustrate the proposed changes at the site. This is the the exhibit contains the proposed site plan overlaid over the existing site plan showing the difference between the the footprints of the proposed buildings. The green at the page north and page south are the Perry Connector Building and the Julia Morgan Building, which have effectively no alterations to the exterior massing proposed. To the, kind of middle of the page is the Perry Connector, and to the left is the health center. That's the dark purple. And then the pink shows the expanded footprints of those two replacement buildings. Again, I've tried to highlight the net new area with the green hashing and the areas being removed with the red hash. Again, this is the footprint. I just wanna note that on at the Bay Street frontage on the Francisco building, there is cantilevered three floors that do extend out to the north beyond what the footprint shows. Very good. I will now pass handings over to Meghan to discuss the EIR.

[Megan Kalpin (Environmental Review Coordinator, SF Planning)]: Thank you, Jeff. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Megan Kalpin, department staff and environmental review coordinator for the 3400 Laguna Street project. The first item before the planning commission today is the EIR certification motion to certify a final environmental impact report or EIR for the project. Next slide. Oh, sorry, actually. Yeah. Perfect. The draft EIR was published on 08/28/2024, and the public comment period closed on 10/15/2024. After the draft EIR publication and comment period were closed, the project site was listed as an Article 10 landmark on 01/19/2025. The department received comments from 25 individuals, agencies, and organizations in response to the publication of the draft EIR, which included questions and comments related to historic architectural resources, air quality, noise, transportation, biological resources, and hazardous materials. The comments did not raise any new environmental issues that had not been previously addressed in the draft EIR. So the responses to comments document, which was published on 04/03/2025, responds to those issues raised by commenters. I also want to read into the record a correction, I think I believe has been distributed to you. Appendix C of the response to comments document had two figures that were outdated. The project proposes a right turn in, right turn out only for the new driveway that would be proposed, on the Bay Street frontage. And, commissioner Braun brought that to our attention. Thank you. So, that's been updated. And the correct figures were already printed in the draft EIR figures as well. So apologies for that. Next slide. Perfect. So we looked at this project. We did conduct an environmental impact report. However, we did not find any significant unavoidable impacts or said another way, all of the impacts that were identified could be mitigated to a less than significant level. We did identify mitigation measures for various topics shown on the slide here, but all of the mitigation measures, could reduce the project impacts to less than significant. As part of the sequel process, we explored our alternatives analysis even though the project's impacts were less than significant with mitigation. So the EIR included three alternatives, the no project alternative, which is required under CEQA, a rehabilitation alternative,

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: you see

[Megan Kalpin (Environmental Review Coordinator, SF Planning)]: in the middle here, which would reduce all of the impacts of the proposed project and no mitigation would be required, and a reduced construction alternative, shown on the right hand side, which would reduce all of the impacts of the proposed project, but would still require all of the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. The alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives for the EIR analysis and would avoid or reduce the less than significant with mitigation impacts of the proposed project. So the draft EIR and the response to comments document together constitute the final EIR. The planning department, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the motion before you, which would certify the contents of the final EIR, that they're adequate and accurate, and that the procedures through which the final EIR was prepared comply with the provisions of CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and chapter 31 of the administrative code. Implementation of the project would not result in, any significant unavoidable impacts as all impacts could be mitigated to less than significant. Therefore, today, the commission will not need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations under CEQA should the commission choose to approve the project. Myself and other environmental planning staff are available for questions, and I'll now turn the presentation over to my colleague Charles Enchill to discuss the certificate of appropriateness.

[Charles Enchill (Preservation Planner, SF Planning)]: In addition to adoption of the draft EIR findings that find less than significant impact to historic resources And landmark number three twenty, the Ladies Protection and Relief Society, is a request for a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to article 10 of the planning code. As noted by my colleagues, the property includes main frontages at Laguna Street and secondary frontages at Bay Street to the North and Francisco Street at South. Next slide. Significant and contributing features of the landmark property include the ladies and protection and Relief Society building, a three story '19 25 residential care facility designed in the Jacobi Jacobathan Revival style by world renowned architect and engineer, Julia Morgan. The Ladies and Protection Relief Society is significant for its association as San Francisco's second oldest charitable organization, having been established in 1853, and first established by and for women. Next slide. Significant features include all of the existing iron fencing along the north, west, and south property lines. The repaved front steps and pathways are secondary significance. The caretaker's cottage towards the northeast corner of the property is also identified as secondary significance. Oh, sorry. The landmark designation in a report found the remaining buildings, additions, and courtyards non contributing to the landmark property. Specifically, the project will include demolition of two non contributing additions slash buildings, including the two story addition Perry Building constructed in 1957 at North that is connected to the rear of the landmark Julia Morgan building. Demolition of the detached one story building, the Daley Building, constructed in 1963 at the South property. Construction of a four story building, the Bay Building at North. Construction of a four story building, the Francisco Building at South. Site alterations to non historic courtyards and parking lot for a new below grade vehicular entry. Site alterations including landscaping and a new transformer vault.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Next slide.

[Charles Enchill (Preservation Planner, SF Planning)]: The department finds that the project is appropriate for and consistent with the purposes of article 10, and on balance complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards, as it consists of demolition of non contributing buildings and non contributing courtyards, and new construction of two buildings compatible in location, size, and finishes. Along with the compatible site alterations. The department recommends that the commission approve based on the plans emailed to you, the revised plans and the revised motion regarding transformer location screening and potential future window replacement.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: Thank you, Charles. Again, Jeff Warren, planning department staff. With some final items and considerations for the project, for entitlement, the project is seeking a to modify their existing planned unit development through the conditional use process. The project qualifies by being larger than one half acre, and the initial entitlement did occur through the planned unit development project. As a use, the residential care facility is a principally permitted use within the RM 1 zoning district. Through the PUD, the project sponsor the project is seeking a modification to rear yard requirements, which I will elaborate on in the next slide. Not yet. Sorry. Additionally, the projects, although not required by the planning code for this part of the city and with no impacts found throughout the environmental review document, the sponsor is aware of, kind of loading and vehicle safety and pedestrian concerns on Bay Street. With that, the sponsor had worked with staff to create a driveway loading and operations plan to try to further mitigate any potential conflicts. Some of the components of this plan will include coordination with for hire vehicles for pickup locations of persons, having a loading attendant, and off peak deliveries schedule for these large loading vehicles, and driveway signage and directional controls. The product sponsor has conducted substantial outreach throughout the history of this project. There is a list of the meetings held both virtually in person within the sponsor's brief. It's actually the last page of the case report. At the time of the publication, planning staff, received one letter of an opposition from, the Save the the Marina, Saving the Marina's Heritage Neighborhood Group, with concerns about the scale intensity of the proposal and related impacts to the landmark and the neighborhood context. Since the publication of the case report, the department has received a 122 letters in opposition, with many of the same concerns as stated in the Saving of the Marina's Heritage Neighborhood groups letter as well as referencing that group. The department also received twenty twenty seven letters in support, many from current residents of the heritage who, as well as Francisco, the local Francisco Street on this block, citing the need for additional senior housing in the city in this part of the town. Next slide, please. Thank you. This slide is to help demonstrate the request for the rear yard modification. In our RM 1 district, the site is required to have a rear yard equal to 30% of the lot depth. We actually have two rear yard. It's noncontiguous rear property line for this project when considering the frontage on Laguna and then the rear yard being against the adjacent buildings to the east. There is a middle portion as a 75 by 75 square foot open space courtyard that is part of the project site, and this actually serves to provide a well open mid block open space to both this project and the surrounding residential buildings. The red line on the site plan to the left shows the rear the required rear yard. The existing Perry building, which is existing legal nonconforming within the required rear yard, will remain and will not be expanded. So any of the new pink develop pink, which is new building area, will actually occur to the west of this existing Perry Building and should have limited to no potential to increase any privacy or light and error impacts to the existing mid block open space and adjacent residential buildings.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: Well, thank you. And with that, department recommends approval of the conditional use authorization and all other applications to find out the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of general plan, and the project maintains and expands an institutional use, to provide additional senior living within San Francisco. Again, to reiterate the actions before you today, we're requesting the planning commission certify the environmental impact report, adopt CEQA findings, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. There is one modification I'd like to read into the record for the CEQA findings motion, which is a removal of remnant language from the template motion. Specifically, this is located on page 12 of the PDF or page three of the CEQA findings motion. This is the fourth paragraph. There is a line, quote, including finding alternatives as infeasible, which should be stricken from the record. To the Historic Preservation Commission, we recommend approval of the certificate of of appropriateness per the, amended motion submitted to the commission by staff. And, again, back to the planning commission, we request approval of the conditional use authorization for the planned unit development pursuant to planning code sections three zero three and three zero four. This concludes staff's presentation, and we are available should the commissioners have any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. Thank you. With that, we should hear from the project sponsor, and you have ten minutes.

[Randy Gridley (Board Chair, Ladies’ Protection and Relief Society / Heritage on the Marina)]: Good morning, commissioners. Thank you for your time today. My name is Randy Gridley. And I'm the chair of the board of the San Francisco Ladies Protection and Relief Society, also known as Heritage on the Marina. Relief Society also known as Heritage on the Marina. We'll have three speakers and we'll limit our time to the ten minutes. We're a non profit with a one hundred and seventy two year history of service to the San Francisco community. Today we serve about 80 seniors in independent and assisted living. Our mission statement is to be an innovative charitable model for serving the needs of seniors and to utilize our resources and expertise to serve the San Francisco community. Over the last twenty years, especially the last decade, we've seen near a near exponential increase in our operating costs. Caring for seniors is a labor intensive task and the cost of paying our employees a living wage, and fair benefits has increased enormously. In addition, our basic overhead costs for insurance, utilities, and complying with the ever increasing regulatory requirements, not to mention the preservation of a 100 year old building, have pushed us into an unsustainable financial situation. Despite our considerable efforts to control expenses, we've seen our annual operating deficits increase from around $3,000,000 dollars to cover our deficits over ten years ago to more than $8,000,000 Raising revenue on the backs of our senior residents is not something we can or want to do. In the past, we've been able to cover most of our deficits through contributions and investments. But our operating deficits have grown to the point that we are draining the corpus of our reserves and don't take my word for it our invite you to look at our audited financials which are available on our website to the public We clearly are an unsustainable path that will lead us to financial failure unless we act now. After considerable analysis and effort, we have determined that the best path to financial stability is to increase our capacity to serve seniors and add to our resident population at Laguna Street, hence this project. Rather than raise fees on current residents beyond what they can afford and we can afford to subsidize, excuse me this plan allows us to increase revenues by serving more residents. In the design of this project, we have made careful consideration to respect the Julia Morgan building that we love. And we've limited both the size and scope of this project to only what we need to reach what we hope will be financial stability. Let me be clear. We are a nonprofit, always have been, and have no plans to change. This project is not about making money. It is about allowing a 172 year old San Francisco charitable organization to survive. On behalf of the board, the current and future residents of the heritage on the marina, we ask you approve this project so we may continue to preserve the Julia Morgan Building and to support San Francisco seniors thank you

[Carolyn Kiernat (Principal, Page & Turnbull)]: Thank you, Randy. Hello, commissioners. My name is Carolyn Kiernat, and I'm an architect and principal with Page and Turnbull here in San Francisco. My colleagues and I have been working with the ownership and design team at Heritage on the Marina for the past couple of years to ensure a sensitive and standards compliant treatment of the historic Morgan Building and its associated landscape features. We began the project by preparing a historic resource evaluation several years ago with findings about the history and significance of the property that aligned with and were referenced in the landmark designation report that was prepared last year, which I think most of you have read by now. We all believe that Heritage on the Marina takes their stewardship responsibility seriously. They and their residents celebrate and cherish the building's history and its connection to Julia Morgan. We have also completed a preliminary conditions assessment, ground level conditions assessment, of the Morgan building. And we've provided treatment recommendations for brick repointing and anchoring, slate roof repair, rainwater leader repair, steel window repair, and restoration and repair of the surrounding iron fence. So with few exceptions, the building is in good condition and has been well maintained and cared for over its one hundred year history. The secretary of the interior standards analysis that is included in your packet was not prepared by Page and Turnbull. But it was prepared by the city's environmental planning staff. This was to ensure consistency between the EIR findings and the certificate of appropriateness findings. I think it's important to understand and reflect on the fact that buildings change over time and and that the standards allow for change. They've been designed to allow for change. This building and the surrounding property will continue to be used as a residential care facility. The changes that are proposed to support this ongoing use are in substantial compliance with the secretary of the interior standards. It should also be noted that the property has very different conditions to respond to on its north, west, and south sides. And the project architect is here to talk more about this. But just briefly, on the south side of the property facing Francisco Street, the proposed addition has a more residential rhythm and character, which responds to the massing and height of the surrounding neighborhood. It continues the the street the the street line, the residential face of the the street. On the north side of the building facing Bay Street, the building is somewhat hidden from view and is set back within a more utilitarian zone. On the west side of the property, the full expanse of the Morgan Building and its primary facade, as well as the lawn and fencing that frame the current view of the historic property will be retained, repaired, and restored. There is nothing in the proposed project that will diminish or otherwise alter the important building or its eligibility to remain a San Francisco landmark. I think that's what this comes down to. With this project, the Morgan Building will remain the great and cherished landmark that it is today. Thank you.

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: Hello. My name is Frank Rockwood. And my firm, Rockwood Pacific, has been engaged by the Heritage on the Marina to serve as development manager for this project. As Randy stated, this project is about enabling the Heritage on the Marina to remain a sustainable nonprofit and to continue to support seniors in San Francisco. Clearly, if the Heritage on the Marina ceases operations, it will have a detrimental impact on its current residents as well as the broader senior community here in San Francisco. However, I ask you to consider also the likely implications that this would have on the Morgan Building. The Heritage on the Marina has been a good steward of this building, and only if they remain a sustainable organization will they be able to continue to provide this stewardship. It's worth emphasizing, it's been stated previously, but the proposed project includes a rather major investment in the maintenance and rehabilitation of the Morgan Building. In addition to myself and to Randy and Carolyn, we have on hand our architect, our civil engineer, and our general contractor to answer any questions or concerns you may have. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: If that concludes the project sponsor's presentation, we should hear from organized opposition. There was a request and received and granted. Save the marina's heritage. So pursuant to our rules and regulations, you need at least three speakers, and each of you will have two minutes. But you will have a total of up to 10 if you have five.

[Masai Matsumoto (Public commenter)]: Should it be up there?

[Tanya Albuquerque (Save the Marina’s Heritage)]: We can just pick up one now. Line. Yeah. How

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: do SFGOV, can we go to the computer, please?

[Tanya Albuquerque (Save the Marina’s Heritage)]: Thank you. Good morning. I'm Tanya Albuquerque. I'm with Save the Marina's Heritage. Did you notice the disclaimer stamped on the architectural plans by HKS? It reads, these documents are incomplete and are released for interim review only and are not intended for regulatory approval, permit, or construction purposes. This disclaimer is stamped on every version of these plans submitted to the city, including the update distributed yesterday. Our position is you can't proceed today because you don't have valid plans to make regulatory decisions about and that this is true of everything the city has done to date that relies on these plans. But even if these plans were valid, we believe you should not approve this project. Take a look at the two images from Francisco Street. One is how the property looks now. One is the Heritage's proposal. Approval of the Heritage's projects will destroy this landmark even if the mansion itself is minimally changed. It violates the standards applicable to historic landmarks and should not receive a certificate of appropriateness, as Christopher Verplanc, the expert who prepared the Heritage's landmark application, will explain. We also ask that you reject the recommendations to issue a conditional use authorization and to adopt the final EIR. The planning staff says the project is necessary, desirable, and compatible with the neighborhood. The neighborhood disagrees. SF Planning has gotten a 122 letters against this proposal in just the last ten days. And unlike the Heritage's supporters who just spoke, who were all paid to be here, we are all motivated by our desire to protect our neighborhood and are using our limited free time and our own resources to do so. I don't think you can look at this image and agree that it is desirable. Thank you.

[Christopher VerPlanck (Principal, VerPlanck Historic Preservation)]: Vice President Moore, President Matsuda, my name is Christopher Verplank, principal of Verplank Historic Preservation. It's an honor to speak to you today. As you know, I prepared the city landmark nomination for thirty four hundred Laguna Street, otherwise known as The Heritage. I also prepared a memorandum regarding The Heritage's proposal, that's in your packet today. I will spare you the technical blow by blow analysis of my memorandum, but I do wanna summarize my conclusions for the public record. I determined the proposed project fails to comply with rehabilitaries standards one, two, nine, and ten, and possibly eight. Although each of the standards takes a different tack, the essential gist of my analysis is that the proposed new construction is simply too big. It will take up much more square footage, further eroding what is left of both the site's historic landscaping, as well as the non historic open space that surrounds it today. Even more harmful is how the new construction will physically dwarf and shadow the Morgan Building, relegating it both visually and functionally to becoming an appendage to the new construction. Indeed, the Morgan Building will no longer serve as the main entrance, as this will be moved to Bay Street. In addition to relegating the Morgan Building to backwater status, this repositioning, as they term it, will reorient the campus toward Bay Street, which will, strangely enough, allow this project sponsor to build much denser on Francisco Street, which will become the back of the campus. As an aside, much of the contributing fencing will also be removed. That's really not been made too clear. It's also important to point out that in 1962, the planning commission approved the construction of the health center on Francisco Street with the condition that it be limited to one story. Although it's not known today whether this decision was motivated by a desire to avoid overwhelming the Morgan Building. It probably wasn't. The end result was that the Morgan Building continues to read as the dominant building on the property, with plenty of breathing room around it on all sides.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: The proposed project will unseat That is your time. All done.

[Christopher VerPlanck (Principal, VerPlanck Historic Preservation)]: Thank you.

[Michael Hebel (Treasurer, Save the Marina’s Heritage)]: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Michael Hebel. I'm the treasurer of a recognized neighborhood organization, Save the Marina's Heritage. My family and I have lived for over twenty five years on Francisco Street, directly, opposite the iconic Julia Morgan mansion. My decision to oppose this repositioning stems from a continuing statement from management of the Ladies Protection and Relief Society that it would protect and ensure and allow all its residents to remain on campus with construction done in phases. Their residents would be protected and sequestered for this year long construction project causing immense neighborhood disruption. Yet neighbors like me would not. As the relief society will protect its residents, I look to you, commissioners, for protection similar to what they're giving their residents. SF Planning recommends approval of this project because it supports the city's goal of adding more senior housing. But the relief society has systematically reduced its capacity by combining units together to make larger, more luxurious units. It now has sixteen, one six fewer units today than it had fifteen years ago. As recently as May 2024, SF planning allowed the society to combine more units. The society shuttered a 32 bed skilled nursing facility in 2023 and has left it vacant rather than remodel. The society has removed 10 units of affordable housing by purchasing three residential building on the on the blocks without apparently obtaining permission. Our neighborhood based organization urges rejection of the society's proposal as now conceived. Thank you.

[Terry Peckham (Public commenter)]: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Terry Peckham, and I'm here today to urge you not to approve to not approve the, heritage expansion project as currently proposed. At the heart of this project is one of San Francisco's true architectural treasures, the Julia Morgan Mansion. And it's one of the most iconic buildings in the marina and a designated historic landmark. As California's first licensed female architect, Miss Morgan holds, her work holds special significance. And she designed the mansion with elegance, restraint, and a deep sensitivity to the setting and proportion. In fact, I think most people would agree that in terms of significant buildings on the North side of the city, it's on par with the palace. Yet the Heritage's current proposal would enclose the historic structure on three sides with looming four story, four plus story, modern buildings. These new structures will physically and visually overwhelm the mansion, turning what should remain a focal point of the site into something that appears subordinate and nearly hidden. The proposed Francisco's and Bay buildings are not only taller than the Morgan Mansion, they're also massive in scale. Together they're adding almost 60,000 square feet and crowding the mansion from the North, the South, and the east. As shown in the rendering submitted by the Heritage, other than directly in front of Laguna Street, these new structures would all but eliminate public views of the mansion. And as Mr. Vander Plaek said, noted a minute ago, the proposal violates key standards for rehabilitation and fails to protect the mansion's visual and cultural significance. Please do not allow this extraordinary building to be dwarfed, crowded, and diminished. Like many of my Marina neighbors, I support the heritage's desire to modernize, but the the expansion must be scaled back and redesigned to per to preserve this architectural jewel, not, for everyone in San Francisco. Thank you.

[Maurice Fitzgerald (Public commenter)]: Good morning, and thank you for this hearing. My name is Maurice Fitzgerald, and I live on Bay Street in the middle of the 1400 Block. This may not be apropos necessarily to the historical nature, but I did want to make a comment on the safety associated with this project. I'm an attorney for thirty five years, and I've lived on Bay Street for twenty five of those years. I have two young children, and my wife and I know better than almost anybody the dangers associated with that portion of Bay Street. The dangers are associated because of the unique nature of both the configuration of the street and the location in proximity to both Fort Mason and Moscone Fields and the Safeway there. In the morning, cars who don't want to use Lombard Street, they come around Bay Street, whip around a very wide intersection. That intersection then narrows on Bay Street to 50 feet, causing those cars to to have to swoop wide, disappear from view. And then as they continue along Bay Street towards downtown, often speeding, by the way, and and high performance vehicles. Anyone who lives there can attest to the weekly, if not daily, missing mirrors, side view mirrors. It's because you must be very attentive if you're driving down Bay Street from Laguna to Octavia as the road narrows. So when you pull your car out or pull any vehicle out, it's a dangerous condition. It truly is. This plan will render a dangerous condition substantially more dangerous. Pedestrians who traverse Bay Street, either going to Safeway, going to the fields at Moscone Fields, or going to the Great Meadow, are also in danger. They are often inattentive. We have tourists looking at their phone. They have a dog, a stroller, maybe

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: all three. Pulling out of our driveway is just a matter of

[Maurice Fitzgerald (Public commenter)]: luck that we don't

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: exceptionally dangerous under the plans

[Maurice Fitzgerald (Public commenter)]: as proposed. And thank you. Thank you. So that can under the plans as proposed. And thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. So that concludes organized opposition time. We will now open it up to general public comment on this matter. Again, each of you will have two minutes. You wanna line up on the screen side of the room?

[Teo Armour (Resident, Heritage on the Marina)]: Good morning, commissioners. I've gotta get out my little prompting app. Okay. Note back. My name is Teo Armour. I have been a resident at Heritage on Marina at 3400 Laguna Street for the past five years. I moved in because I was disabled during the virus. And what I've found is that living here provides significant peace of mind for both me and my three daughters regarding my future care. In other words, I've given them their freedom by living at Heritage on the Marina. The quality of care that I've received at Heritage on the Marina has been consistently excellent. Furthermore, being a resident here and part of the Marina neighborhood has allowed me to remain productive, engaged, and connected to my community. I believe that the expansion is crucial for ensuring that Heritage continues to offer this high standard of care and quality of life for San Francisco seniors long into the future. The expansion represents a vital step in securing the facility's ability to to serve residents at this particular location. Furthermore, the project offers broader community efforts. The larger planned apartments are likely to attract seniors looking to downsize from their mansions elsewhere in the city, freeing up larger homes in the city for families, a positive outcome for San Francisco's housing landscape. Since 1853, the leadership, people like Randy, of the San Francisco Land Use Protection and Relief Society have had an extensive and commendable history of serving the people of San Francisco, adapting wisely to the numerous occasions of which they've had to pivot and change to the needs of the community. This expansion project represents yet another necessary adaptation to ensure that the safety of the society continues to its worthy mission effectively. I sincerely hope the commission will recognize the merits of this pivotal project and grant Thank

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: you, sir.

[Teo Armour (Resident, Heritage on the Marina)]: Speedy approval.

[Charles Enchill (Preservation Planner, SF Planning)]: Thank you.

[Mark Herman (Public commenter)]: Good morning. My name is Mark Herman. I'd like to build on what the prior speaker said about safety on Bay Street. You know that there's actually if you don't know you don't know if you don't live in the neighborhood, there's two entrances to this building. There's one on Bay Street. There's one in Francisco. And those are being consolidated into one on Bay Street. And if you live there, you know that every week there's a fire truck. There's an EMS truck. Every day there's a delivery van. Every day there's the heritage resident van pulling up on the Francisco side. There's double parking there all the time. The traffic that is going to be consolidated to Bay Street, I think, is higher than you realize. And at the same time, you've got how many 17 parking spaces going to 36. You've got 80 residents going higher. It's only going to get worse. And I think what the prior speaker said about Bay Street is very true. And I sent you some statistics in a letter that in the last and this is from the San Francisco traffic crash report that talks about injury crashes between Laguna and Octavia on Bay Street, which is exactly where that driveway is proposed. In the last ten years, there have been 14 injury accidents, including cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and DUIs. 10 of those accidents occurred in the last five years, all in that same block. Last month, a block away on Bay Street between Octavia and Gulf, the city put up one of its 33 cameras for speeding because the city determined that

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: that

[Mark Herman (Public commenter)]: a thousand vehicles per day on this block were traveling more than 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. So I don't see how adding a lot more traffic to this entrance is gonna be safe. And the the sponsor spoke about a parking plan. I don't know if we've seen that yet. Thank you.

[Larry Albuquerque (Public commenter)]: Hi. My name is Larry Albuquerque. I live in the Marina on Francisco Street. It matters that no one in the neighborhood wants this project. I have spoken to hundreds of our neighbors, including heritage residents. Everyone was in opposition. Not one supported it. The recommendation of San Francisco Planning states, this project will not impact the character of the surrounding neighborhood and that the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. Money. Nobody ever asked us, but I know we are saying it is not desirable nor compatible. Mary Lindy sends us letters which makes the same argument that she's made to you. This snippet from her March 28 letter. However, to minimize impacts on our neighborhood and on the Julia Morgan Building that we cherish, we chose to work within the constraints of the existing 40 foot height limit. Of course, the irony is that 40 foot monolithic buildings on three sides of the Julia Morgan Building would tower over it and not cherish it at all. Then we then she goes on to threaten that the commercial developers would be much worse, but I'm not sure how. This project maximizes every square inch for development, and at least the commercial landowner would pay millions of dollars in taxes to support the nearby parks, schools, and streets. And there might even be affordable housing requirement. The recommendation also makes it sound like they are listening to their neighbors, but they are not. For example, on September 22 Zoom meeting consisted of muting microphones and shutting off the chat. The Heritage agreed to meet with some of its neighbors April '23. We shared our concerns about the scale, scope, and completely inappropriate neighborhood would devastate the Julia Morgan Building. Their response? Crickets. I implore you to stand up for the taxpayers of this city and the neighborhood and act on the will of the people, not on behalf of the large service providers that are paid and will profit from this project. Please do not approve

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: this project. That is your time. There's a lower mic.

[Margaret Jacobs (President, Residents Council, Heritage on the Marina)]: Okay. I think this will work. My name is Margaret Jacobs. I'm the president of the Residents Council of heritage on the marina. Twenty four years ago, I moved into the Juliet Morgan Building. I've seen changes come that weren't necessary. Some I liked, some I didn't, but in this fantastic community of of compassionate care, I have thrived as have so many people who would not have had this kind of life without the heritage. Change is inevitable. We all understand that, and we know that those of us who are going to live through construction are going to be perhaps as disturbed as as our neighbors. I'm 96 years old, and I'm not the youngest by far or the oldest by far in this community. To preserve it, it has to grow to the extent that it can be financially capable of maintaining the kind of service that we get. With the closure of the skilled nursing, we have started what is actually a a aging in place program, which has seldom been done before. We're trying something new. We're adding to the care for seniors in the city that is desperately needed. Thank you.

[Patrick Murphy (Neighbor, Francisco Street)]: Good afternoon. My name is Patrick Murphy, a native of San Francisco who has lived on Francisco Street since 1989 and purchased my property on Francisco Street, abutting to the heritage in 1999. For the past thirty seventwenty seven years, the management and occupants at the Heritage have been great, helpful, and friendly neighbors in every way. They have always been considerate, especially during times of construction. I have enjoyed coffees and meals with many of them since of people extends to their neighborhood where they have kept their property and surrounding area in better condition and cleaner than anywhere else on the block or in the neighborhood. I did hear there's a Francisco Street group opposing this. As I said, I've been on the street thirty seven years, never heard of this group before. I think it's specially designed for this one thing, and that's why it was formed. To continue on my letter, I fully support the efforts of the heritage to become a sustainable community through expansion in order for them to have the ability to continue to provide a much needed service to the city and people of San Francisco. They are only one of three CCRLPs in the city. I am 65 and I am considering where to live in retirement and the heritage provides a different and distinct relatively affordable alternative for seniors such as myself looking to remain in San Francisco where we've lived our entire lives and for those who have moved to San Francisco and fell in love with the city. The property's current use, including 3400 Laguna Street project, represents the best use in my opinion. I would hate to see that heritage determined it is unable to become and stay a sustainable community. What will become if an owner or developer in the future? More multimillion dollar homes benefiting only the wealthy Thank you, sir.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: That you have a

[Patrick Murphy (Neighbor, Francisco Street)]: better impact. Thank you.

[Woody LaBounty (President & CEO, San Francisco Heritage)]: Good morning commissioners. My name is Woody Labounty. I'm the president and CEO of San Francisco Heritage, not affiliated with Heritage on Marina. We just share a great word in common. Our projects and policy committee of our board of directors has wrestled with this project for at least a couple of years now. For the draft EIR, we specifically wrote a letter of concern about the proposed massing along Francisco Street and its possible impact especially on the Morgan Building. We recognize the contributions of Warren Perry, architect of great merit and the proposed loss of his addition to this building. We read the report by Mr. Verplank, an architectural historian that we have the greatest respect for and our board committee has asked me to request this body pay close attention to his evaluation of the compliance with Secretary of Interior standards. We have made multiple site visits, have corresponded with the project sponsor team, neighbors along Francisco, and not, insignificantly with residents of heritage on the marina about this proposed expansion. I've personally walked Francisco Street a number of times to evaluate how the proposed construction there would impact the experience of the historic resources on-site, the Morgan Building in front and the garden there especially. In the end, this is where we have landed. The continuance and spirit of this organization's mission, which dates back to the Gold Rush, is an important intangible aspect here. The preservation of the Morgan Building, the front garden, and particularly the view sheds from Laguna and the corner of Bay are the key physical elements to preserve. So on balance, taking the sponsors word that this expansion is necessary for this site's future economic viability And encouraged by the recent city landmarking of the Morgan Building, San Francisco Heritage is not opposing this project. Thank you.

[Tony Hanley (Resident, Heritage on the Marina)]: It's almost lunchtime. My name is Tony Hanley. My wife and I have been living at the heritage for the last seven years. I just wanna make a couple of points. When people come to look at our building to come and live, they want a one bedroom or a two bedroom unit. That has been going on now for the last three or four years. So consolidating units, taking two studios and make it a one bedroom, makes sense. Now we do have some studios. And one of the things that I would like to see is an opportunity to offer these studios to teachers and people who are low in income. Whether you know it or not, about 25% of our residents have some financial support from the organization. Second thing I want to note, safety. Safety is critical on Bay Street. But I don't know whether you've ever been on Bay Street when Cisco comes to deliver the groceries to us, they have to back across Bay Street and then back into the loading dock. We'll now have a drive in to the loading dock and a drive out. So those two things I think are important for you to understand. I agree with the neighbors on Francisco Street that this facade changes the whole look from our buildings to the bay. Thank you.

[Patrick Alexander (Resident, Heritage on the Marina)]: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Patrick Alexander, and I am a resident of the heritage on the marina. I've been there approximately four years. I came there originally because I wanted to have a place to stay and not have my family. I have just one daughter, and I not have my family take care of me in my old age. Now if the heritage in the marina does not go ahead with this project, the problem will be that eventually, it may be that all the residents there, and we have 80 or 90 residents, will have to find other accommodation. Now there's certain people that the heritage supports that have not enough financial resources to who remain staying there, and what are they going to do. And I think it's gonna be on the on the backs of of the people who are looking at this project to think about what is gonna happen to us if it does not go forward. So I'm appealing to you to think about that particular factor that we need this and what's gonna happen to us if it doesn't go forward. I thank you for your time and your, appreciation.

[Masai Matsumoto (Public commenter)]: Hi. My name is Masai Matsumoto. I live in on 1500 Francisco Street, nearly thirty three years. And I have a severe allergy problem with dust. If this massive construction start, I really start thinking about moving to somewhere else, which is so pity because I've been living set nearly thirty three years. And I and, also, I saw the new building look like look like a prison, and that really does much to the aesthetic of our beautiful street. Thank you. So I really oppose this project. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Can you come forward? Sir, have you already spoken? Yeah. Then you don't get to speak again. If you've already spoken, you don't get two bites of the apple. All right. Final last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Commissioners, again, I will remind you that at this time, the Planning Commission should consider the certification of the final environmental impact report. If the Planning Commission then certifies the environmental impact report, they should consider item 3A for the adoption of CEQA findings.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioners, do we have any comments? Commissioner Brown?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: You know, from my perspective, I I took a careful look at the response to comments and the EIR. And, for me, I believe the analysis was was adequate and accurate. And so as far as the environmental analysis is concerned, I think our, you know, our team, as usual, has done a very good job on this. And I make a motion to certify the EIR.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Imperial, please.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Oh, I would second that.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Are there any additional comments?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Seeing no further deliberation, please.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I have a few comments on my own. Is commissioner Williams, please first? No, go ahead.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I just had a a comment on the the existing residence. I know it's not privy to the the EIR, but it does reference the how this construction is going to impact the residents there. And so I know that there wasn't too much cover here on that. And can anyone speak to that? Like how, what are the mitigations as far as protections for the residents during construction?

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: And

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: how is the project sponsor going about taking care of the residents?

[Megan Kalpin (Environmental Review Coordinator, SF Planning)]: Thank you for the question. Megan Kelpman, department staff environmental impact review coordinator. So we we looked at the noise impacts from construction, on the project, on the most exposed residents on the site, as well as the workers. And then we looked at any nearby residences or other sensitive uses. And the the construction period, the most noisy construction period will be about five months during demolition and any groundwork that would occur. And then after that, the the noise conditions would reduce a lot. Though I think the the full amount of construction would be twenty nine months. So we did look at that. There were not any mitigation measures identified for for noise. We do have a vibration impact for the historic building. But I can ask the project sponsor to come up and talk about their protections that they're planning for the residents.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah. I would like to hear if they have anything in place. And will all the residents stay there during

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: construction? Hi. I'm Jordan McKeown with Panko Builders, the general contractor for this project. So for the neighboring buildings Could

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: you lift the microphone up a little bit so I can hear you better?

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: So I am Jordan McEwen with Panko Builders, the general contractor for the project. So for the surrounding neighborhood, right, we would have BMPs where we'd be able to control the dust. We'd have vibration monitoring in there for the surrounding, buildings that are adjacent, right, so that we would know any impacts. And then for the I think the question was to the existing, residents.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: To the people. Yeah. To the residents inside the building.

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: Yeah. So we would be doing it in stages. So they'd be able to stay in the Morgan Building and the Francisco Building. And then we would work to be able to make sure that they can go in between. And we would enter the, construction site from Bay Street and be able to do our construction during normal working hours, allowing them safe access to both their their, buildings.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Are you finished?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'm done. Mhmm. Thank thank you for that.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Sure. Thank you. I'm also in support of certification, but in a similar vein, maybe just because we heard so much public comment around concern with traffic on Bay Street and cars coming in and out and loading and loading, could we just maybe take a minute to talk through that aspect of the EIR?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Of course.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you.

[Megan Kalpin (Environmental Review Coordinator, SF Planning)]: Megan Kalpin, department staff. Maybe I'll just share under the and, in the resubmitted, appendix to the response to comments document, you have this visual as well. So under the existing condition, the freight vehicles that come to the site, they are are maneuvering within Bay Street very close to the intersection, which I think the intersection is, like, a big area of concern. And we heard the gentleman speak about people taking a a fast left turn onto Bay from southbound Laguna. So what I'm showing here oh, sorry. The closed caption around top. Is that the the loading would occur further away from the Bay Street Intersection and more of the maneuvering would actually occur on-site. So from a CEQA perspective, we look at what's the existing condition and then would the proposed project exacerbate or make worse the existing condition. It was our conclusion that by by moving the loading operations further away from Bay Street, or from the Laguna And Bay Intersection. And then also, building a loading dock that's actually long enough to accommodate a 40 foot vehicle. Right now, the 40 foot vehicles, if there are any 40 foot delivery trucks that come to the site, they would actually be blocking the sidewalk when they're fully parked in the existing loading dock. So the proposed, condition would be a loading dock that's long enough to accommodate the freight vehicle. I think, you know, this is an institutional use. They are providing meals on-site to the seniors that live there. So there is there is a need for freight delivery to the site, but, this proposal, we considered that this would be an, we don't say improvement under Sequa. It would be, it would not exacerbate the existing condition. And then to speak to, you know, there is a proposed, below grade parking garage that would accommodate, vehicles for residents or for staff or visitors to the site. That would the expanded the overall expansion of the site by 58,000 square feet would increase the number of vehicle trips to the site. Let me just get my

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: numbers.

[Megan Kalpin (Environmental Review Coordinator, SF Planning)]: So we conducted a transportation analysis looking at the new trips that would be generated by the additional, use. There would be 22 new employees that would come to the site as, the per the expanded use. We found that 27 new peak hour trips would occur to the site. Our threshold for whether something would have an impact on, like, transportation delay, for example, is 300 new vehicle trips. So that's just to show kind of the the level of of difference. There aren't any, bus routes on Bay Street. So that's transportation analysis. And then for looking at hazards for vehicles, for pedestrians, and for bicyclists. We looked at you know, there's some conditions on the or not conditions, but as part of the project description, the turning into the new driveway will be right turn only and turning out will be also right turn only, and the same will be for the vehicle for the freight vehicles. And then so under CEQA, we didn't find any additional, transportation impacts. I know that, my colleague, Jeff Horn will speak to, driveway loading and operation plan, that is proposed. But under CEQA, we didn't find any transportation impacts.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. That's all my comments or requests.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'd like to add a few comments on my own. I comment in the, DEIR on my concerns about traffic, and they have been addressed, but I remain concerned. And it's not necessarily the very kind of controlled operation that is proposed by adding the second driveway, but it is actually the behavior of the public on that particular section of Bay Street. The addition of a third lane going past Octavia going west is hardly noticed, except when people are jogging with their cars to go straight, traveling in the very right lane of Bay Street. There is no announcement that the that there is a third lane, and with traffic speeds exceeding what's allowed on that street as a constant, it gets very, very difficult. I myself travel on Bay Street going to the North Bay at least three or four times a week, both in the afternoon, late morning and returning in the evening, and sometimes even later at night. But in all cases,

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: this

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: is an extremely difficult intersection to manage, and it's partially the uncontrolled behavior of people driving on Bay Street. People are rushing to some destination, going to Fort Mason, going to the farmer's market, having a kid's soccer game on the Marina Green. Everybody's rushing was not really consideration for each other, And it is in that unregulated and uncontrolled situation where it is often very, very difficult. I found the reporting on traffic incidents that one of our speakers made quite interesting, and there was them with pretty much the concerns that I have traveling on that particular part of Bay Street. I would like to ask perhaps mister Horn to speak a little bit more about driveway management so that at least the traffic coming out of the facility is more protected. Alright.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: Thank you, commissioner Moore. Commissioner Moore, Jeff Horn, planning department staff. So the major aspects of the new or loading activities are directly covered twice in our, in sponsor prepared sponsor and staff prepared driveway loading and operations plan. The first will be to have an attendant to potentially help aid vehicle drivers with their maneuvering into Bay Street. And then the second would be to limit those hours of deliveries to the more off peak hours where, hopefully, usage of the roadway is at a less than less than, you know, the maximum capacity.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Is there any possibility to get SFMTA or somebody help monitor that part of the street actually lower the driving speed on that entire block to to suggest that there has to be slightly more coordinated civil behavior in terms of driving?

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: I would not wanna speak for MTA, but I think the department would be happy with exploring with that agency on additional reviews or measures that could be placed on this segment of Bay Street, and we'd be happy to incorporate that into the approval.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'm I'm in principle in strong support of this project, but I would appreciate if additional requests are being made, because I do believe that this is potentially an unsafe, disaster in the making. And I do not think that we can afford other incidences in order to justify the change in the behavior and in the management of that part of Bay Street is extremely important. And that also relates to residents who, with their dogs on the cell phone, going to jogging in Fort Mason or walking with bags coming from the Safeway, not really looking very carefully left to right of what's happening. The conflict points at that particular part are too many, and anything that could be done to alleviate that concern would be, I think, of would be very important for me, at least, to make as a comment. Thank you.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: Absolutely.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. Otherwise, I am in full support. I believe that the densification of the project is something that we encounter on all levels. I do also believe that we are in urgent need of senior housing and the type of housing that you're providing. There are no issues there whatsoever, so I am in support. But I see Commissioner William having an additional comment.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Just I noticed that there was some public comment about the dust. And I would like if the contractor of record or whoever the project sponsor Just kind of go over for the public what mitigations are in place and kind of explain them to reassure the public that you're not going to create a dust storm. That's Yeah.

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: So Yeah. So the majority of the dust is created during the excavation phase. Right? And so we use water, really, right, in the morning, during the excavation, during the off haul. We'll have trailers that are covered that'll be entering and exiting out of Bay Street, so they won't be coming from Francisco. And those are the two main things. So we'll be using water to keep the dust down as well as street sweepers that are gonna be going around the neighborhood when we're hauling and doing excavation. Those would be the two primary.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I one one question that kinda came to mind. Because because of, there are seniors living there, is there any extra precautions, you know, as far as dust or construction noise that you might consider or that's part of

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah.

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: So we're not so for the, like, the excavation and shoring phase, we'll be drilling our shoring piles rather than driving them, right, which will significantly reduce the vibration and the noise. And then we would, you know, obviously reduce our or I'd say, delay our working hours until 8AM in the morning, rather than start at, you know, the 07:00 that's typically allowed in San Francisco.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: So Okay.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah. I think the only reason I brought it up because it's obvious this is a closed community. And it seems like it's going to be disruptive as far as the normal course of activity for a lot of the residents. And so Understood. I just want them to be assured that you're going to be taking those precautions and making sure that that's mitigated as much as possible.

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: Yeah. We understand that construction is disruptive to the community surrounding it. So we try to be good stewards and make sure that we're doing our part, meeting all of the measures, and trying to do everything we can to to mitigate those impacts during construction.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Do you guys meet with concerned neighbors? How how do you do with, that that process?

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: On other projects, we do typically, like, monthly updates. And then we can do, community meetings at certain points. And we try to keep make sure that they know any large activities that are going on, right, when we're gonna off all concrete pours. All of the significant activities that we believe to be disruptive around the site, we try to make sure that they're informed ahead of time so that they know. And, of course, we get all of the appropriate approvals through SFMTA, DPW, well ahead of time as well, and we post all the signs. So Okay. We try to make sure that

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: we have a Yeah. A

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I I think that that dialogue is really important

[Christopher VerPlanck (Principal, VerPlanck Historic Preservation)]: Yep.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Not only here, but everywhere in our city. Correct. So I I appreciate you having that in place, and I think the neighbors will appreciate that as well. Thank you.

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: Thank you.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Can I add an arm? Yeah. Please.

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: I just wanna add a comment regarding, the partition between active construction areas and residential areas. So there is a rather involved process for partitioning that and basically

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: Providing that.

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: Providing so that nothing can get through. And actually, part of that is actually the mechanical systems. So a lot of times, we have to rework the mechanical systems, the mechanical ducts, etcetera, to make sure that that doesn't become another pathway for dust to get from a construction area to a residential area.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: That's a good point.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Well, thank thank you for that. That's all my comments.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Before I call on commissioner Brown who has also asked has another comment, I'd like to thank everybody for coming. Your experience and your testimony is extremely important to us. We rushed unusually fast in not thanking you, and I know from my commissioner's typical thanks that I'm speaking for everybody. This is very and a very important project to us, so I apologize that we individually not thanked you while you were speaking. Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yes. I I wonder if I would have saved this comment for the conditional use authorization, but either way, we've kinda gotten into some of the interaction with the community. And so I just wanna also note that should the project be approved, there is a condition in there, one of our standard conditions, that there must be a community liaison for the project. And so, the project sponsor would, you know, that person would be available for interaction. Hopefully, that's not an issue that needs to be handled through our condition. But, you know, hopefully, that's just something that good neighbors do for each other. But at the same time, it is there will be a community liaison that the sponsor must provide to the should the project be approved. Thank you.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: you. Secretary Aon, are we calling both items, EIR and CEQA together?

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: I think

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: it would be best if we, consider them separately. So you should take up the certification first, which I have already received the motion and, a second.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. Thank you. Call the question, please.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. If there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to certify the environmental impact report on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: And commission chair Moore? Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. And now, Planning Commission, you should take up the adoption of CEQA findings.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Do we have a motion? Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Move to adopt the CEQA findings.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt sequel findings and mitigation and monitoring report program on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: And commission chair Moore? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously three to zero. Historic preservation commissioners, now that the certificate that the EIR has been certified and findings have been adopted, you shall take up item number two for the certificate of appropriateness.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. Maybe before we start, commissioners, I'd like to ask staff to just remind us of the fact that we received the revised certificate of appropriateness draft motion this morning or yesterday. And if you could just briefly share the differences for the public to understand between, the previous motion and the revised motion. And also, commissioners, we did get a memo from mister Verplank about this particular agenda item.

[Charles Enchill (Preservation Planner, SF Planning)]: Thank you. Charles Enschel, planning department staff. Revised plans were circulated to you yesterday. And those plans and scope of work are otherwise the same as the original project. However, the site plan on Chi A 1.12 was color coded to show exactly which historic fencing remains, And that includes all the fencing along Laguna and portions at those intersections. And then fencing to be reconstructed all along Francisco Street. And obviously, the fencing that will be altered would be at the north at at Bay Street. And then in addition to the plans, you received a revised motion. And the revised motion, which is page 13 of the motion and page 87 of your original packet, revised finding e of the eight priority plan policy findings and removed incorrect references to PDR use, being at the subject property. Page 16 of the motion, 90 of the packet, corrected clerical errors within the first paragraph, the authorization update section. And lastly, on page 16 to 17 of the HPC motion and originally pages 90 to 91 of the packet, clarified the exhibit f reference, which was the significance diagram from the executive summary.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. Commissioners, we were allowed to hear a lot of public comment today. But just to remind you and members of the public about what we are being asked to do, we're being asked to approve a certificate of appropriateness. On the staff report, it lays out it lays out what the project description is and how we are to evaluate that through the standards of the secretary of the interior. So I open it up to any comments that you may have. Commissioner Nagas Warren.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: To follow your, you know, outline for the for today's hearing, I wanted to just just read out some of the section 1,006.6 standards for review for certificate of appropriateness applications. For applications pertaining to landmark sites, the proposed work shall preserve, enhance, and restore, and shall not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of a landmark and where specified in the designating ordinance pursuant to section 10 o four c, its major interior features, the proposed works shall not adversely affect the special character or special historical architectural aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site as viewed both in themselves and in their setting, nor of the historic district in applicable cases. The proposed work shall comply with the secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties, for individual landmarks and contributors to districts as well as any applicable guidelines. That's just paraphrased. In appraising the effects and relationships mentioned here in the decision making body shall, in all cases, consider the factors of architectural style, design, arrangement, texture, materials, color, and any pertinent factors. And I I I read that out because I I just wanna make clear what we're looking at. Sometimes it can get sort of clouded by other factors of of of the design and also just to set set the parameters of what we're looking at. Sometimes we don't know if we're going too far, too too short, but I think that is a helpful start to this. I also wanna just reiterate the character defining features of the property. The Morgan Building, the front garden, stone cottage, and then the wrought iron perimeter fence are the character defining features. And then the non character defining features of the Perry Building, the health center, the central courtyard, and the rear courtyard. And so we can understand the areas in which there have been alterations. I I talked about the non contributing areas. And then the definition of rehabilitation is, I think, helpful here. From the secretary of the interior standards and guidelines, it talks about rehabilitation as the only treatment that allows expanding a historic building by enlarging it with an addition. However, the rehabilitation guidelines emphasize that new additions should be considered only after it is determined that meeting specific new needs cannot be achieved and alter by altering non character defining interior spaces, then an attached exterior may be considered. New additions should be designed and constructed so that the character defining features of the building, its site, and setting are not negative to negatively impacted and are subordinate to the historic building compatible but differentiated. In in looking at the scope of work for the rehabilitation of the historic building, I I feel like the the firm evolved, PH and Turnbull is well versed in how to manage the preservation of it. But I would like to make sure that we're all comfortable with what we're doing. I know that in the supplemental that Page Interval provided, they were not too specific with what specific windows are damaged or need work, and where on the facades, there there there needs to be work. So I think one of the, you know, recommendations I would have for a condition would be that the exterior facade and windows and landscape elements be photographed in a detailed way so that we have a record of what they were like before construction and then a a schedule to show what work would be involved with these features so that we have a basic level of understanding what the scope is rather than just saying if something's gonna get replaced or if it needs repair or if it's if it is beyond repair. I would like to have that established as a condition and followed up. And then in terms of additions, I wanna go back to the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation and their guidelines. Designing an addition to a historic building in a densely built location such as downtown or commercial district to appear as a separate building or infill rather than as an addition in in such a setting. The addition or the infill structure must be compatible with the size and scale of the historic building and surrounding buildings. Usually, the front elevation of the new building should be in the same plane, I e not set back from the historic building. This approach may also provide the opportunity for larger addition or infill when the facade can be broken up into smaller elements that are consistent with the scale of the historic building and its surroundings. It also talks about how the historic building should be consistent with the building's character, the site, and the setting, and should, you know, accommodate the new use while adhering to that. And and that the addition is subordinate and secondary to the historic building and compatible in massing scale materials relationship solids and voids. And that's kind of an overall thought process to some of the more specific comments. In looking at the different facades, the on the west facade, which is where the main facade of the Morgan Building is most visible, The end of the west the the west end of the south addition has has to have some sort of relationship to the historic building. And it is, you know, slightly setback, but we do see that it is quite you know, it has a height that appears more prominent than the historic building. And there is a central bay that is a glazed bay that projects. So I think it needs to have a better relationship and design with the historic facade on on that the facade so that it it can relate better. Now that same end appears on the south facade facing Francisco Street, and it it extends forward of the Morgan Building, and I know there's a smaller addition in that area that we're replacing. But this is at the full height that it it is getting close you know, it is bringing out to that that earlier earlier smaller addition. So it appears more prominent. And I think it would benefit on both the west and the south side for that end building to defer to the historic building and have it either step back or have some sort of, you know, deference to the historic building. We also wanna consider on the on these facades that the relationship of the articulation, the window articulation should be somewhat similar. I see that sort of happening on the south facade with the smaller windows. But on the north facade, I see that the the windows of the projecting element are a little bit larger. That is, you know, set back further from the street and from the Morgan Building. So it's not as, visible, but something to consider for that facade. And then similarly for the west elevation, we have, two bays that have smaller windows, and then we have the central large window bay that projects out that is full glass that has no relationship to the Morgan Building, and that is clearly the case. So I I think those are comments that should be considered. The rectilinear form of that building that is the the west end of the South Building is also something that that should be considered a little bit because the hipped roof of the Morgan Building is in contrast with it. And maybe other commissioners have a different feel for that. I feel like the the new building needs to soften a little bit so that it it kind of defers to the adjacent building, and it might also benefit from stepping back a little bit so that the height isn't as conflicting. The one other element on the south facade, there are trellises that are on that facade. I don't know that there's a a an example of that across the street. I think the projection projection projecting out and the stepping back of the upper uppermost floor is is reflected across the street, And I know that shading is something that would be desired there, but I think we have to be careful about, you know, maintaining sort of a formal character in that in that area of of the of the city, and especially next to the Morgan Building and the buildings across the street so that it it looks more formalized. And I'll defer to my other commissioners at this point.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. Commissioner Baldauf?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Is this microphone working? No.

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. I would like to completely agree with Commissioner Norris Warren's comments. I think that the heritage and I want to start by saying I totally admire the mission, the longevity, and the future, which I hope will be bright for this institution. But I do think that we all, as San Franciscans, have a stake in this important site and this building. And getting this project right is a huge opportunity. It's an opportunity to show that we can add onto a gem in a way that creates a setting that's worthy of this gemstone. And I think of projects like Renzo Piano's addition to the Morgan Library. This is that level opportunity. And it needs to be embraced fully and done well. And I think that right now, I can't support voting for a certificate of appropriateness at this point based on these documents, particularly under standard two, because I don't think we know enough. We don't see renderings with materials on them, because how the materials play against the Morgan Building is incredibly important. This building is unique in the marina as a masonry building. The marina is very much of a stucco environment. And I think this building hints at, in its massing, bridging between these two vocabularies, but hinting at and actually convincing me that we're achieving that is, to me, not there at this point. And I would recommend and I can talk about lots of different parts of this But I think that this needs to go back to our architectural committee for real presentation study. I completely agree that the massing on the West Side is very aggressive and undermines the setting of the Morgan Building. I'm personally concerned. I know the courtyards are considered non contributory. But I think the notion of how open space is on this site is contributory, and that the two courtyards, the way they break up the space on the site, to me, seems under whelming. And I think I want to reflect back because I personally shared Mr. LaBounty's concern about the Perry Buildings not being considered contributory. But what I would say about the Perry Buildings, if we were to lose them, which we're going to lose most of them in this scheme and I concur that that's acceptable is to look at how a master architect at a different generation added to this building, that scheme with that connector, the 40 foot piece against the 40 foot tall buildings of the marina, the low it was brilliant. We're in a different time. We need more density. I accept that. But I think that this project is so important. It deserves really thoughtful design, fully presented to us with renderings. And I would encourage that we use our architectural committee to be the forum for that. Thank you.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. Excuse me.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: If you could refrain from clapping or any kind of outburst, we would certainly appreciate that.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Commissioner Foley?

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Yeah. I have a lot to say. First off, for the project opponents, I I understand changes is not pleasant. Dust is not pleasant. I I appreciate your opposition. I I do wanna bring up a couple facts, though, around some of the concerns. One, on the Bay Street speeding. I believe the city actually just put in a a, one of the speeding light camera things, which is gonna slow down things dramatically. People are gonna get a lot of tickets. They're gonna generate revenue. The other thing is people talked about there's no need for senior housing in San Francisco. There's this thing called Google, ChatGPT. Senior housing in San Francisco is in great demand and needed. There's 8.780.7% increase of seniors 65 in nonprofit. How many people live there for free or pay very little money? It's very little. My focus is getting this thing built sooner rather than later so they can actually not go bankrupt, and Margaret can live there for another ten years. Thank you very much.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the commission? Commissioner Baldough?

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: No. No. Sorry. I meant to turn off.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Commissioner Nogus Warren?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: I I do wanna go through the standards that mister Flair Plank had brought up. Rehabilitation standard one, a property will be used as a historical historically or given as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, and spaces, and spatial relationships. I think, you know, he brought up the fact that there are units that that were combined and reduced the total number from a 102 to 86, and now they will be increasing from 86 to a 109 and that the overall square footage will increase by 71%. It would be helpful to understand a little bit more about the historical use and how it's changing with this use and what the what are the sizes of the existing units and what are the sizes of the, new units. I'm trying to understand why there is a larger massing.

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: Hello. I'll talk about the use first. The community is currently regulated by the California Department of Social Services. Residents move in. They pay an entry fee. They have a contract, a continuing care retirement community contract that has elements of promise for future care. That's the current business model. With the proposed project, no change in that business model. So it's exactly the same regulation. It's exactly the same type of contract, business model, etcetera. Do you want to talk about unit sizes? So the average unit size presently is about 400 square feet, with units as small as two fifty square feet. By the way, I've been involved in developing senior living communities now for several decades.

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: Could you

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: repeat those sizes again? 600 square feet, you said?

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: The average unit size presently is about the smallest is two fifty. And I think about 500 feet is the average unit size.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Actually, I

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: think it's about 400. I can double check that. But I wanted to put that in perspective. So I've been working on developing senior living communities now for several decades and involved in several major new developments or major renovation projects. Generally for this type of senior living community in Coastal California's areas, the average unit size is 1,500 square feet. This project would result in the average unit size going from actually, it is 400 square feet to about 400 square feet to a little less than it's about less than 800 square feet. There would still be those small units. But I think as you heard in some of the comments, people that are looking to move into these communities are moving out of a home. Not necessarily what I mentioned. They're moving out of a home. They're downsizing. And that's just the nature of where the market is, where the needs are. And so again, we'll be much, much smaller than a typical continuing care retirement community after this renovation. But it will increase the average size of the units.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Is the type of care changing?

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: No, it's not. So continuing care retirement communities and by the way, there's industry associations now that I like to promote a different name, life plan communities. It's about providing a continuum of care as your care needs change over time. For many reasons, primarily due to personal preferences, fifty years ago every continuing care retirement community, I think without exception, had skilled nursing as part of their offering. And so as someone would age and need more care, they'd end up spending a significant portion of life in a skilled nursing bed. Today, again, I've been involved in lots of communities of this nature. Just about every community that I'm involved with, even when we're building it from ground up, even when it's large scale, no skilled nursing. Because people want to be in a more home like residential setting. State of California regulatory limitations allow these companies to provide that care effectively in the privacy of someone's unit that feels more residential. But the entire campus is currently licensed to provide higher level care. And again, the proposed project would be consistent. It would remain the case.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Is there a reason? I know, and I forgot to disclose that I had come to a site visit and met with you and was with president Matsuda. Is is there you had mentioned that you have other buildings within the block. Is there a reason why you wouldn't choose to develop those those areas?

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: So those buildings are actually part of the existing communities. So they are providing kind of housing units for residents that want to move in. They can potentially move into one of those units. So they're already part of the campus. We haven't looked at tearing them down and building bigger versions of them, if that's the question. I mean, they're thirty, thirty five feet height already. They're already kind of considering the 40 foot height limit, they're already kind of at an appropriate level of density. So they're already kind of part of the business model, if you will, and would remain so. So the proposed project doesn't change anything vis a vis those what we call the flats. So there's 10 flat units.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Okay. And is there any particular reason in addition to the fact that the size of the units is more generalized to what maybe more other other areas of the country or the coastal areas have. Is there any other reason health, you know, with the health care wise why the units would be bigger?

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: Is there a reason in terms of the delivery of health care? Is that the question?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Yeah. I mean, since you're going away from skilled care nursing, you know, do the individual units have to be a certain size for your licensing? Or I don't know, any other reason that you would need the size of the unit

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: to be larger? To my knowledge, there's no regulatory requirement regarding minimum unit sizes. Again, we're trying to create a unit that feels like someone's home versus being in a nursing bed. So that's kind of what drives min and min units. Let me talk about the kitchen. So for instance, now everyone generally wants some type of kitchen amenity in these units. Even though the community generally provides three meals a day, a full meal service, it's just something people associate with home and makes it feel more like a home setting. The regulatory requirements kind of related to making that a setting that we can provide care kind of deals with fire safety, any kind of universal design features, etcetera, so that as someone ages in place, they can continue to be cared for in that setting safely. So that part is regulated. But it doesn't generally I guess there's minimum bathroom sizes, but there's not an overall minimum size.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Okay. So I think as far as the standard one, I feel that, you know, the the use part of it, I think, is consistent. I think we we do need a little bit more understanding of the design in terms of how it relates to the overall property. And then rehabilitation standard two deals with the spatial relationships. And we I talked a little bit about that and how there should be some sort of stepping back. And then rehabilitation standard nine, again, we're talking about the massing. And from what I recall, you had mentioned in our site walk that the roof that you actually walk on is at 40 feet, and then the parapet actually rises above that 40 feet. And then above that is any, you know, rooftop things like the elevator, penthouse, or other equipment. So the height is affected by that parapet, as well as the actual height of the building.

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: Yeah. I'd like to ask our project architect to come to the podium to Thank you. Respond to that.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: Hi. My name is my name is Bill Cornelli, architect for the project.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: So I just wanted to ask you, with the with the top of the building, you know, 40 feet is actually the rooftop and not the and then the parapet rises above that. Correct?

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: Correct. The the, the general bulk of of the buildings in the in the neighborhood is 30 foot height 40 foot height limit. And above that, certain appurtenances are allowed, which are typical for buildings, which includes the building parapet above the roof, which in this case is quite low, elevator enclosures, overruns, stair overruns, and any mechanical equipment or solar panels that are required for the building. So those can go above the base 40 foot height. That's the community standard. And so in this case, we will be managing the heights of those and trying to anywhere those are appurtenances are required, there'll be internal centralized

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: in

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: the project adjacent to the internal courtyard and as far away from the street facades as practical. And we will utilize current technology for elevators and mechanical equipment that will reduce the height of those to their minimums, including potentially heat pump, VRF type condensers in the roof, which are typically four to six feet tall, rather than cooling towers, which might be, 18 or 20 foot tall.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: So what you show on your elevations, is only really the elevator penthouse and not the other equipment that might be going on there.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: Correct? There's there's one elevator that extends to the roof, which which will require an enclosure. We will do the technology today mostly is machine room less elevators, which don't require an elevator equipment room above the elevator. So we will be able to keep that height down in the, you know, 12 to fifteen, sixteen foot range, which will be lower than the elevator enclosure on the existing Perry Building.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Okay. But you're not showing the six foot high equipment? Yeah. The mechanical equipment.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: The mechanical densest. It will be is is shown on the roof end. Okay. And it will be screen a screen as well. So there'll be a a visual screen, so you won't see that equipment.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: The the stucco wall system is what you're

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: I'm sorry.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: The the notes with the stucco wall system.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: Well, the the the well, the the enclosure around the equipment probably won't be a stucco, but it'd be probably some metal panel system or something that's appropriate for it.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Oh,

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: okay. So it's different than what is on your drawings. And the finishes of the facades from what I recall looking on this is a metal panel system?

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: There's different expressions depending on the different conditions. Bay Street is handled differently than Francisco. Francisco's character is consistent with the residential neighborhood with a brick first story and stucco upper upper floors with different colorations, very consistent with the residential neighborhood on

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Is the stucco, got joints in it? And what how is it jointed?

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: Is this stucco?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Are there expansion joints?

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: There there there will be. Where the building facades are broken up in in a character similar to the neighboring residential. So the facade kind of expresses the same rhythm that it would have if it would have been individual

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Well, I guess what I'm saying is that most of the neighborhood has stucco facades that don't have

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: Expansion joints?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Joints. Right. And if you're having a bunch of squares everywhere for

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: expansion breaking up the facade to be consistent with the scale of the keep it down. Of the of the streets currently. So we won't be

[Carolyn Kiernat (Principal, Page & Turnbull)]: Okay.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: We won't have that have that requirement that we have broad expanses of stucco with relief joints. Okay. But then on on the other facade, on the on the bay facade, we're using a different expression. It's still using the beige or the cream colored Roman style brick for the base course of the building. And above that is a weatherized zinc metal facade, which is a small textured panel facade that is intended to mimic the slate that is on the Morgan Building, but not duplicate it. And it gives a kind of biophilic expression of color and texture. And that goes along with some instances of curtain wall for the projecting bay windows on that facade, But it's all detail of the materials we submitted.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Yes. And that's what I'm looking at and asking questions about it. Yep. So and then you have glass railings. Where where are those glass railings? I'm looking for them, but I

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: can't remember the roof. And some of the, balconies that that, overlook, both, Bay Street and Francisco Street.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: At the roof line. Okay. Alright. I Those are all my questions for that. And then with standard 10, new additions and adjacent related construction will be undertaken in a manner that could be removed in the future. I think the only question would be that the condition where you're adjoining the Morgan Building with the hyphen and how that's articulated if there's some sort of seismic joint there or how you're going to connect with the Morgan Building.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: Right. The the intent is to have a kind of a neutral expression that separates the, new building from the Morgan Building. That we're calling it a hyphen, but it's mostly a glassy element. It will be shorter than the eaves of the of the of the Morgan Building. So

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: What I'm asking is how is it connected?

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: There there will be

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: being very specific.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: Yeah. There there there will be a what's called a reveal, at at actually where the, the glass facade would touch the Morgan Building. That does provide a seismic separation, and a relief, from the existing facade.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: So it's a gasket and then you're you're attaching it with anchor bolts that are

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: I I don't think it's going to be rely on the Morgan Building for structural purposes. No.

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: But how

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: are you attaching it?

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: There will be a you say you called it a gasket. That's probably a good characterization. There'll be a closure but not a physical connection, not a structural connection. So we will not rely on the Morgan building for structure

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: asking about the structural connection. I'm asking is there going to be well, how is the gasket? Is the gasket connected to the new building, but not not the Morgan Building? There's and I'm being very specific because I'm a preservation architect.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: Right.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: And I've done technical details for all of these things, so I'm asking very specific question.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: You know, I I don't know that we've gotten into that level of detail at this point. But what we would do would be respectful for the Morgan Building and and and as minimally impactful as we can. The condition was gonna have to be studied as we

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Is there any evidence that parts of the Morgan Building on that facade where you adjoin the hyphen are extent, any old window openings or windows that are encased in the wall?

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: That's a question we were having or discussing ourselves recently. We're we're curious to know as well when you pull that facade back. It is a cast in place concrete building that was put up against it. So there's a potential that the Morgan Building could have been, you know, changed or, you know, something could have happened to that section of the side, but we won't we won't know until we start to do the demolition to see what the condition actually is.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Yes. Okay. Thank

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: you. Commissioner Regara.

[Commissioner Vergara (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. I wanna express my my gratitude to the Ladies Protection and Relief Society for their many years of stewardship of this beautiful building. They've taken such building. They've taken such good care of it, and I completely understand and support their need to to keep up with the competition. I'm also concerned that the west end of the proposed Francisco building tends to overwhelm the Julia Morgan Building, And I do think that the architectural review committee is a good place where that might be ameliorated. Thank you.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. Commissioner Foley.

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Yeah. Again, I think that one thing that got brought over, that I didn't bring up yet, is Sisters of the Poor just closed down 300 Lake, which is about a 120 seniors were living there, and they all got displaced. This particular building and this particular nonprofit need more revenue so they can actually stay alive. Otherwise, the people living here and the people here right now are gonna be displaced. And some of them will have a place to go. Some of them won't. So the economics, which I think, the project sponsor probably didn't, discuss in great enough detail, is that these larger units people are paying more money for, which actually allows them to borrow the money to amortize the cost of construction and stay alive and to keep the Julia Morgan intact. So I wonder I wonder if I think that there's people on this commission right now that are very focused, and they should be, on the exact details of how the new construction is going to affect the Julia Morgan Building and how the Julia Morgan Building was actually constructed. And I don't know if we've ever done this before, but could we approve this with staff and the ARC work together to finalize all those deals with the project sponsor? That's my my question for staff.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Yeah. I I believe that from the comments that I'm hearing from the commissioners that we we are not feeling like we have enough detail to go forward to support a CFA. So if I could ask staff to come forward, I don't I feel that many of our commissioners or the commissioners who've spoken in great detail today feel that there's a lack of detail. They need a little bit more detail to feel comfortable about moving forward with the CFA. So if you could propose to us a path to consider, I think that would be great. But before you do that, I understand that there is a representative from supervisor Cheryl's office here today and wanted to acknowledge you. Thank you for coming. And if you wanted to also make some

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: brief comments.

[Lorenzo Rosas (Legislative Director, District 2 Supervisor’s Office)]: Commissioners, vice president Moore, commission president Masuda, thank you so much. Lorenzo Rosas, legislative director for supervisor Cheryl. While I will respect the process for this project and the approvals and in no way, I'm a preservation architect. I just wanted to be here today to say thank you to the neighbors for coming, Margaret. It's great to see you again. And thank you to the Heritage for providing these site visits, not just to supervisor Cheryl, but in my prior capacity with supervisor Stephanie and reaching out to each one of the commissioners to provide an opportunity to do site visits as well. I will say that this has been a project that has been on my radar since I started in the District 2 office, and there has been opportunity for comment and an invitation for site visits throughout this process and to commission or, excuse me, vice president Moore, regarding Bay Street. We share your similar concerns. I am a neighbor, actually two blocks down from this area who walks my dog on Bay Street. I am very familiar with conflict points, that happen on that right turn. We are absolutely examining each and every way, both enforcement, the automated speed cameras on Bay Street that we are seeing have optimistic or we are optimistic about the research that has been proven to slow down speeds on that area, and we'll continue to look at ways to reduce conflict points on Bay Street. That's my comments to this point. I wanted to be brief, but I'd just say we are absolutely paying attention to this project, and thank you so much for your detailed work on this. Thank you.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you very much. So if I could ask staff to come forward and help us move through.

[Charles Enchill (Preservation Planner, SF Planning)]: Yes. And I'm gonna rely on our city attorney and my supervisors in case I misspeak. Great. But so far, we've affirmed the environmental review, and, we have not taken any action on the entitlements. In regards to paths forward, we can, recommend approval with, conditions that these architectural details, be ironed out, you know, subsequent to the entitlement approvals. And and, we can have a subsequent ARC meeting, which may result in limiting, the massing further. Or we can, recommend that this be forwarded to the ARC, and I think that would likely result in another, joint meeting in the future. Jonas can not necessarily.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Not necessarily.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: If we could

[Elizabeth John-Keir (Planning Staff, SF Planning)]: yes. Hello, commissioners. Elizabeth John Keir of, planning staff. As Charles recommended, the HPC can add some of these conditions that we've heard as part of an approval today. And we can take a look back with the HPC on some of these items that you have concerns, concerns about. Our environmental staff has indicated that as part of the environmental review, there is a, protections program. And so that could possibly also be reviewed by the HPC regarding the connections and the massing and, and details of protection.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: I'm sorry. Could you, further elaborate what a look back means?

[Elizabeth John-Keir (Planning Staff, SF Planning)]: Yes. It would be an informational, hearing, based on some of the conditions that you would put on the approval today.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: I see. Thank you. Did did the city attorney want it want to make any comment or provide further information?

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: Thank you for asking. I just wanted to say I confirmed that those paths would work. I do just wanna remind both commissions that the other project approvals cannot go forward until the certificate of approval is, oh, sorry. Certificate of appropriateness is approved.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. Commissioner Baldoff?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Sure.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: Thank you.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: And Commissioner Barone, did you also wanna make comment maybe after Commissioner Baldauff?

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: I really share Commissioner Foley's support of this project, but I also want to say that I really feel this is a very important project to get right. And I think sending this project to ARC with the full purview of ARC, not saying, oh, we've approved this, but then you go tinker with the details. Because I think that there's a lot to be thought about here. I think there's a talented team of people that can come to bring their full creativity to this. And this is a building that just celebrated its one hundredth anniversary to spend an additional month to get its next hundred years right seems to me not inappropriate. Thank you.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. Commissioner Nangas Warren? Commissioner Barone, sorry.

[Jordan McEwen (General Contractor, Pankow Builders)]: Thank you.

[Commissioner Barone (Historic Preservation Commission)]: President Matsuda, is it possible that we could propose a vote that would encourage going back to ARC but not coming back to the full commission and both commissions. That's what I I wasn't quite clear from staff.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: It wouldn't well, the planning commission wouldn't be able to act until we act. I I'm hearing that there is not, full confidence of bringing this C of A forward at this time and that we do need more detail and that there are commissioners that are interested in making sure that we spend much more time with the ARC. And I totally, commissioner Foley, get with your what you have shared with us. In my day job, I am an estate planning attorney. I work with a lot of seniors. We have to do a lot of placement in senior homes, and I understand the lack of quality care. And we are all going to get older. So we all need to think about that too. But this is you're not gonna get older, but we are. But but this is an important building, and I think it's an important project. And we have members of this commission who have expressed some concern that we look into further detail. So I'm asking you as the commission, staff, and the city attorney's office to help us move, on a good positive step forward considering what has been expressed today. Commissioner Nutter Warren.

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: Can I

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: I'm sorry? Did step

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: in just for a second to respond? Thank you so much, commissioner, deputy city attorney Kristen Jensen again. So I think there are two paths that are being discussed and I just wanna make sure that everybody's very clear on what they are. One of them would be the certificate of appropriateness could be approved with the condition that staff go back and work with the ARC to finalize some of the specific details. And you could be very specific about which portions of the project details you wanted to be focused on or you could be a little bit more general. The other path is the one that I think that the commission was just discussing, which would be to sort of press pause here on the project approvals, go back for further work either before the full HPC or just before the architecture committee, and then have it come back to the planning commission. So I just wanna make sure that everybody understands those are the two different paths that we're talking about.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioners?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: So I just you know, I don't know that I think we're all in support of this project. I don't think that there's anything that is unusual in this process, except that we've put together a joint hearing with a lot of agenda items all at once. That's unusual. Typically, we would do an EIR and CEQA review, and then the project would come before the Historic Preservation Commission with a space between. So I think we're just taking the next step forward. I don't think we're stopping anything. I think we're moving it forward, and the next step of design will go you know? And and keep in mind, we get these packets on a Thursday, last Thursday. So even though we've looked at this project before, we still have to review the packet. And it's a short period of time in in which to, consolidate a lot of information and provide commentary, and also, you know, coming on the tail end of the EIR and CEQA process. So I don't think there's anything unusual here. We're just taking the next step. And my my purpose in providing some of the comments that I did today was to move it forward, you know, take in the comments that the commissioners have given, and the next step would come. And I think, you know, I've I I have I haven't experienced it where we've said that we have a condition to go back to the ARC, if that's possible. Maybe that's appropriate. But I do think that we need a consensus among the group here. And so, I think first it would need to go to the ARC separately, and then the certificate of appropriateness would be looked upon by the group. That that would be my recommendation, but I'd like to hear from the other commissioners.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Commissioner Foley.

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you, president Matsuda. I I I wanna say a couple of things. One, I appreciate everyone on this commission because we can actually kind of have different opinions and still get along at the end of the day. So I really appreciate everybody on this panel. But I I do want to ask the deputy city attorney, if we have a motion to approve this and it has to go back to the ARC, the ARC has the power to make the final adjustments to the building in relationship to the Jubilee Morgan? So could could that be could that be a motion, and could the ARC have the authority as the final decision maker of the of of what the final building's gonna look like?

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: Thank you for that question, commissioner. Yes. I think they could. I mean, I think it's all in the wording of the the conditions on which you send it back. I mean, I think you can set the scope of the review by the ARC by your conditions of approval so you can determine how much of the project that they are actually looking at. I thought that I understood from some of the commissioners that there were very specific aspects of the project roof line and things like that that you wanted considered. So I think you could tailor the referral to the ARC so that it's not sort of a global decision on the certificate issues.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah. If I could jump in there, it would be similar to a condition of approval where you approve the project and let the project move forward and then have a condition that the project sponsor continue working with staff on details. It would be now instead of just with staff, but with the architecture review committee as well.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: I I think they're yeah. It's gonna be more than just details.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Well, I'm just using that as an example of how you might phrase a condition of approval that would still give the ARC authority to modify the project?

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: I I I think what the ARC I I think what some of the commissioners want, which I'm not I'm not argumentative against at all, is the relationship between the new building and the Corner Of Bay And Laguna, Julie Morgan, and that massing. And I think that I'm

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: sorry? Francisco.

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: And I'm sorry, Francisco. And I think we can identify that massing so it's very clear. We can identify the connections, because the seismic connection and what is inside the Julian Morgan Building, we don't know what's there. And I renovated I renovated Landmark 1120, and when we opened up that building, we had no idea what we were gonna find until we found it. So I'm hoping that my fellow commissioners would allow this to move forward with the conditions that it has to go back to the ARC and staff to finalize the project, and that includes the massing. That would be my hope.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Is that a motion, commissioner?

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: That is a motion.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Commissioner Baldough?

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. So I would then further try to amplify or modify the motion to say that the Architectural Review Commission would work with the applicant to modify the massing of the southwestern corner of the building, which involves the redesign of the West Southwesterly bay and might result in the loss of the upper floor of that bay, and that that or the upper two floors of that bay. Because I think I was prepared to go to ARC because I didn't want to get the specific. But if we want to do this and sit here, I'm happy to be very specific about that bay. I also would like to see the ARC be provided with photorealistic renderings of the Francisco facade with all of the control joints, the brick modeled as designed, the fenestration and the specific windows provided for ARC's approval. I think that brick is such an important material in this project that I think that they should bring brick mock up panels to ARC, including grout colors, and put that and photograph it next to the Morgan Building so that we know how the brick works on the Morgan Building. I quite love the zinc idea. I mean, I'm I'm getting way more specific than I ever intended to go out.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: And and I think I think what we should do

[Elizabeth John-Keir (Planning Staff, SF Planning)]: is I

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: can accept those modifications.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: What I don't wanna see you do is be very specific and then forget something. So I think it would be good to make sure that we have categories in which the ARC can clearly discuss and be able to recommend to the full commission. So I

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: But they're not recommending to us. This is they're they're negotiating for us is is the way this is being set up.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Is that correct, city attorney?

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: But but the the ARC will have final approval

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: I don't

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: over the modifications. Correct, deputy city attorney?

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: Thank you for clarifying the question. Yes. That is the way that I think both mister Ioanan and I were trying to describe the process to you. It it's a and forgive me for not being more familiar with HPC's processes since I don't usually sit here for your commission. But in the planning context, it is very common for the planning commission to approve a project, but with this condition that it go back to staff to say, you know, one of the commissioners may have particular design elements or ask, you know, massing or other aspects of a project and say, you need to go back to staff and negotiate this detail. But it doesn't come back to the commission for another review after that. So they're basically authorizing staff to sort out whatever issues are on the grocery list for you. So but if the HPC is more is concerned about missing things, leaving things off that list, the two options there, I'm all about two options today, apparently, are to either, as, the president of the commission has suggested, provide categorical direction. Meaning, we want you to look at these categories of things, not the specific details. Or And you you have the the sort of press pause option where it's going back for further consideration before the planning commission will hear the project approvals today. I hope I answered your question.

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Well, I I do have a a question. I I thought we were talking about referring it to ARC and not to staff.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: That's correct.

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: That's correct.

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: That is correct. And I was saying that the the analog for planning is that it would go to staff. But here, it would be going to ARC.

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: So we so we, on a regular basis, send these projects back to planning staff to finalize this. In this particular respect, we're giving the authority to the ARC to make the final decision of approval. So the ARC, which has great preservation architects and architects on it, can make that final decision and the project sponsor has to make them happy. And we have to fit the standards. But I think that way, we can actually move this project forward. We can get this thing done, and I think it's a really good solution. I'm here to make people happy.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. Commissioner Baldough, I think Are you

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: I I I guess I I I'm happy to stand down, I would, from my list, but I I guess I'm trying to understand what list we're creating. No list. No list.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: So I will interject. You don't necessarily even have to present the categories today. You're referring it back to ARC

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: That's correct.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Even in a general scope That's correct. Overall review of the final

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yes. Same

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: as same as we always do. The ARC That's right. Instead of planning staff has final decision, the ARC will make the final decision on that en massing and all that other stuff you're focused on, which is totally reasonable.

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: Okay.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: But

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: you'll have authority.

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: And and I guess the concern I have, and again, maybe the city attorney can help us here, is we are saying something's appropriate without knowing what is appropriate. We're we're we're we're what are we are we saying the the process is appropriate or the design is appropriate?

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: We'll ask the city attorney to provide some information on that.

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: Another excellent question. You're keeping me on my toes today. Thank you, commissioner. In this case, I I don't know that I would say it's either or. I mean, I think you're sending you're describing the process by which certain design features will be decide decided. So it's a little bit of both. But you're right. It it's probably not the typical situation because you're saying it's appropriate with the condition that some things are going to change. So one of the questions is whether the commission has an appetite to do that, to sort of defer the some of the details to the ARC's, attentions.

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: And so to follow finish my thought for a second, I am willing to cede this to the ARC with a very clear expectation that this West side, the Southwest side is not only modified from a materials point of view, but from a massing point of view.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Commissioner Foley?

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: I think I think in in listening to city attorney and listening to commissioner Baldauff and commissioner Ruchera, I think that what we what might be a good way to kind of wrangle this down and have it be a certificate of appropriateness is that massing is gonna lose up to two floors. So that way, we're still within the box. And all your other and and other than that, the ARC has full authority to make all the other final adjustments to the property.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Commissioner Regara.

[Commissioner Vergara (Historic Preservation Commission)]: And and and that, again, that's also my question, I guess. How much authority does the architectural review committee have in terms what do we mean by details? Does details mean that that the ARC has the authority to say the the last x number of feet of this proposed building must be shortened to two floors, or the last x number of feet of this building, we don't want at all. We just want the building to be shorter in terms of length. Do they have that authority?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: The answer is yes if you condition it in your motion today.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Is that

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: That that answers the question. That answers your question.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Okay. Commissioner Barone.

[Commissioner Barone (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. I stand with my commissioners on the some of their concerns. I too am interested in seeing this project proceed expediently. With that said, to propose that we go to ARC for minor revisions and massing on the western side of the building on Francisco would be probably the most appropriate manner along with some construction detailing. Is that an appropriate statement we can put together?

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Or or would you just like to refer this project to the ARC to provide the details and the decision for the commission. So I'm I'm asking you, and if you are in agreement, please share either a revised motion to

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I wanna make sure.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Commissioner Foley or

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I would leave it more general to allow the ARC more flexibility. Okay. So if you wanna be specific, you can include just, you know, final say on massing and and

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Including. Yeah. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah. Final say on that.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: So I hear commissioner Foley has made a motion.

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: And I and I've accepted modifications.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: And you haven't accepted commissioner Barone or my my modification.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Is there a second?

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Is there a second?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'll second that.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Oh, and we have a comment from commissioner Nagas Warren.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Mister Ayanna, who who is on the ARC at this point? I've forgotten besides myself.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Question. I believe it is yourself as the chair.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Would be recusing himself if he's on it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: That's true. But two will still retain a quorum.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Could we could we assign another? And if

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: need be, Commissioner Matsuda as the ex officio member could could could be added to that. Could

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: we get

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: some help?

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Or could I appoint somebody?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Or you could appoint entirely new committee members, that is your authority, as the chair of the commission.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: I'd like to, appoint commissioner Barone to participate in the ARC for this particular project.

[Tony Hanley (Resident, Heritage on the Marina)]: Okay.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: In addition to commissioner Naga Sworn and commissioner Waldorf because commissioner Wright will need to recuse himself.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Very good.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Can we hear the motion, mister Ionian again?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: The way I understand it, the motion is to approve the certificate

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: here. Sorry.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: The way I understand it, the motion is to approve the certificate of appropriateness, but require that the project go back before the architecture review committee for final massing and details.

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: And it and it should be that generic. I appreciate that.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Well, I

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: think it gives it

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: more I

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: think it gives the agency more flexibility. Yeah. Yes. I don't want specificity. It has to be generic.

[Randy Gridley (Board Chair, Ladies’ Protection and Relief Society / Heritage on the Marina)]: If it's

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: that general suggestion, the more general it is, the more flexibility you have.

[Commissioner Foley (Historic Preservation Commission)]: I accept that motion.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Thank you. I think we have a motion and a second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Very good, commissioners. If there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the certificate of appropriateness, adding a condition that the project return to the ARC for final massing and details on that motion. Commissioner Barone? Aye. Commissioner Baldauff? Aye. Commissioner Vergara? Yes. Commissioner Wright? Excuse me. Commissioner Foley? Aye. Commissioner Nagas Warren?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Nay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: And commission president Matsuda? Yes. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes five to one with commissioner Nagas Warren voting against. Historic preservation commissioners, you are hereby excused if you Thank you. And adjourned.

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: Members of the public for your participation today. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Planning commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. Planning commissioners, if you could restay with us for one more item. We're probably gonna take a break in between.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: It was just given to me in passing of the lawsuit to to all of you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Three. Well, no. It didn't reset. I will like to remind the historic preservation commissioners that the planning commission still has an item to consider and that we're still in session. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Commissioners, before we conclude this special hearing, We have one remaining action item before you, item three b for case number 2022Hyphen009819CUA at 3400 Laguna Street for the conditional use authorization.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you, vice president Moore. That was a very interesting conversation with the Historic Preservation Commission, And, and it was really good for me to hear about, the challenges that they see. And, also, you know, for me, I the way I see it, there is generally, I'm supportive of the project. I I see the great need of residential care facilities because we have seen here in the commissions in terms of residential care facilities that have been, converted into someone's youth or a different youth. And there has been, of course, concerns of what those residential care facilities and going to turn into. And I don't want that to happen for this project as well in terms of the current residents. However, the this residential care facility has also, it's also designated as a landmark, historical significance into it. And I really appreciated other commissioners mentioning the 100 the more than hundred year significance of it in the in the San Francisco history. So I really took that also in consideration. And I know that they're you know, they just made their motion to certify the appropriateness with a condition that it will go to the architect review committee with, you know, with them having making the final decision, which made me feel a little bit uncomfortable, to tell you the truth. I always feel like, the historic preservation should also see those changes as well. And, you know, I would like to hear what other commissioners would say. I feel like for the next item that we're going to vote on in terms of CUA, I feel like I also need to see or to hear about the changes of that of this issuance of certificate of appropriateness. So if there's a way that the certificate of appropriateness arc committee's decision can also be reviewed can also be informed by the planning to the planning commission as well. I know the COA is around the rear yard at this point. The the the decision is around the rear yard of this of this, you know, of this property. But but, yeah, that's how where I'm feeling right now in terms of the CUA. In in a way, I I'm more leaning toward continuance than approving it as of now.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you, commissioner Imperial. I would like to actually echo some of your sentiments. I am impressed by the rigor with which historic preservation commission argued was respectful, but there was a lot of challenges they made to each other. And in the end, I think their decision was very, very difficult. If I would have been sitting on that commission, I would have probably taken the more conservative stand and have the experts work on it further, and then the commission by itself reconsider it. But that is not what we have in front of us. What is really for us, the challenge is to amend the PUD, approve and support the demolition of two of the five buildings and see an increase in care capacity suites from 86 to 109. I do not even see actually that the modification of the rear yard is actually ours. I may have overlooked that, but that, mister Horn, could you clarify? Is this something we are deciding on or not?

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: Jeff Warren, planning staff. Yes. Thank you for the question, vice president Moore. The the way planning code section three zero four, where the planning unit development lives, provides the planning commission power to grant exceptions to certain features of the code in lieu of other products you may see where to have joint, variance hearings with the zoning administrator. So, effectively, it would give the planning commission discretion to make those, findings of a project not being compliant with a certain section of the planning code, in this case, section one thirty four of the rear yard.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you for clarifying that. The package that we had to read to was quite extensive, so that may have eluded my attention. But be that as it may, I believe that we have come to a very good and insightful discussion. I hope that the ongoing deliberations by our historic preservation commission and their experts will be sufficient to alleviate perhaps concerns about some of the architectural solutions that I would have echoed, but that is not in my purview in this particular case. But I thought I needed to perhaps support what they are doing. And again, I'm in support of the project, but I'm very curious to hear what my other fellow commissioners have to say. Commissioner Brown, I see your name.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. You know, on on the whole, I'm definitely I I will I'll echo my support overall for the project. I think that, many of the concerns that have been raised, maybe they're not being addressed in satisfaction of the folks who have raised those concerns, and I appreciate your participation in this hearing today. However, you know, especially the issue around traffic safety and what we heard about the driveway loading and operations plan and then also the supervisor's office perspective on on you know, they're on top of that as well. It's a broader issue that's not just related to this site. I really appreciate, many of the responses that have been been brought forward. I did it was also very interesting. We don't often get to to sit with the Historic Preservation Commission, so it was very interesting to listen to their deliberations, and their specific concerns about the project. I think I'm a little in in some ways, I'm trying to find the line between sort of how the project might change, because it goes to the ARC. I mean, if if from that conversation, the southwest corner of the new building is potentially the massing has changed. You know, I could see the number of units in the project changing without the sponsor themselves going back and looking at it. I don't know if if they were to do that. They would have actually just reconfigured parts of it. So it's very it's very difficult to figure out what I'm actually approving in some ways. I I would like to ask department staff,

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: the

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: for our, CUA for the PUD, a lot of acronyms, the what let's say ARC were to change aspects of the product design, particularly at their location concern in that southwestern corner. Does that affect anything as far as what we would be approving for the

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: Again, Jeff Horn, plaintiff. Thank you, Commissioner Braun. So this is an institutional use. And the main control for the size of development,

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: as

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: a nonresidential project within the RM 1 district is the floor area ratio. The but the planning of sec that section of the planning code provides a ratio of 1.8. So that's the amount of square footage per, the size of the lot. As a corner lot, it actually has a provision to get another 25% bonus written, into the into the code. The project right now is a little bit below that allowed, floor area ratio maximum. I am assuming that any modifications that come out from the ARC will be a reduction in the overall gross square footage of the project. So I think the only real concern would be, at a code perspective, would be somehow if the ARC wanted the building bigger and it wasn't being caught that there is a certain maximum amount of square footage the plan that the planning code allows at the site.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. And so, you know, as part of what we are approving, there are certain, you know, numbers of units. There's a certain amount of square feet. There is, as you say, there is a FAR

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: On the project. You're kind of telling me if it if we stay under if the product stays under that FAR, it's less of a concern. I could see that also being a very valid point for a sequel analysis. But it's still you know, it but we would be making a motion that our COA is for a certain size of a project. So is it is it normal for I'm sure it's not normal, but is it a situation that comes up, has come up before or is not uncommon to to do an make an approval here and then with minor modifications in the final project design phase, the project shrinks or slightly gets reconfigured in this manner?

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff, SF Planning)]: It is. And we the projects do occasionally have some modifications when they get their final approval from what the planning commission, may have entitled. There are conditions of approval are written in ways where there are discretion for staff, or the zoning administrator to make, effectively just determinations that subs the project substantially conforms to what, the commission may have entitled. We have projects that will drop by a unit or two that doesn't necessitate having a rehearing and have the entire entitlement come back to the planning commission.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you for that that response. I I find that helpful. Until I heard those those answers, I was leaning towards continuance, so that we would actually know what we were finally, you know, ultimately looking at. I I would be comfortable approving the conditional use authorization in the PUD today, but maybe with an additional condition that the approval is I'm not sure how to craft this quite right, but maybe something like the approval is contingent on, the FAR not increasing, and on the heights not increasing. And I don't know if there's a way to structure this so that it would come back to us

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Well, I think I I think I understand where you're getting at. But hearing the historic preservation commission's comments was only interested in the reduction of the massing. And I think any increase in massing would certainly trigger staff to bring it back here if it resulted in moving or shifting massing more than 10%. I think deputy direct or director of current planning, Waddy, may chime in. But there is sort of some wiggle room for approvals that you make here, and I think the zoning administrator makes that determination of general compliance with your determination.

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: Yes. So no no project can have a significant increase in intensity from what the commission approves. Significance is defined in, the planning code interpretations. It's usually around 20% or no more than 500 square feet. So a project of this large of nature, you can't anticipate it's really gonna get much bigger. And again, I believe the HPC was really focused on reductions in massing, not increase or shifting of massing. So I think they're really going to be focused on architectural details, the massing, sort of westbound of the line where it currently is, you know, whether that line shifts back and whether the height shifts down. So I I think the commission, if you're comfortable with the land uses and the intensity that's being proposed today as sort of a maximum boundary of intensity, effectively thinking of it in those terms, I don't anticipate that any change that the that the ARC would make would further intensify your approval.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. I I find that I find that satisfactory. I I would like to just it's not necessarily a condition, but I would like to provide guidance if if this is approved today, if that were the case. I I would like to provide guidance that, any I don't know how to find significant increase, let's say, you know, 10% increase in project size, it must come back to to the planning commission?

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: Certainly. And and the planning commission can certainly define a different standard of review. That's sort of the general zoning administrator generic approach, for the average typical project. I think we can all recognize this is not a normal project nor a normal site for San Francisco. So I think you guys can certainly define that. That gives really clear expectations to the project sponsor moving forward of where that line in the sand would be. I think we can also absolutely send a copy of the final approved plans that the ARC will review to the commission as an informational, you know, in your packets as well. We can just send you a copy of the final plans that so that you're made aware of what the final version is. I think it's also important to know sort of the distinction in the conversation that was happening with the ARC, as sort of an analogy to how we often refer things back to staff for final approval. Just to make it clear, we have final authority of signing off on the building permit, and we will not be signing off on the building permit until the ARC has has closed their deliberations and approved the final design. So there is an order of operations. We take direction from both commissions, so we will not be signing off on any final approved plans until the ARC deliberations have concluded.

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: If I may, commissioner, just to give you a little more confidence. In the packet that you received, there's the the typical changes and modifications language that miss Waddie was referring to. And the language, as it reads in standard form, says, changes to the approved plans may be approved administratively by the zoning administrator. Significant changes and modifications of conditions shall shall require planning commission approval of a new conditional use authorization. So, you know, if if you have a significant level of discomfort with making sure it comes back after a 10% instead of a 20% modification, you could put some language in there saying, you know, something specific about an increase in square footage by more than 10% shall be considered significant for purposes of this project. Or you can leave the language in its standard format. And as miss Vadhi has pointed out, they do have sort of standard protocols for what they consider to be significant or not from a zoning administrator determination standpoint.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. I appreciate that. And Yeah. You know, I'll also point out that if there is a motion to continue, that would supersede the inapproval motion. But I I am gonna make a motion to approve, but with the it's probably a little bit more cautious about this. So let's say if there is even a I'd even say, like, a 5% increase in square feet on the project as there's all of the changes resulting from the ARC. You know, I'm less concerned about the standard sort of post approvals issues. But so the motion would be approval, but there would be a need to be a new CUA by the commission, or we'd have to rehear it if there's a 5% increase in square feet of the project as a result of the ARC's review?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Paul, with all due respect, is it the square footage of the product or the massing of the project? So in other words, any exterior modifications that would increase the massing in more than 5%?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I think the massing is more what people

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: what would be concerned about, and it's also and shifting of Yeah. Of floor areas that become usable space. I just wanna make sure that the language is correct. So it's more the exterior impact. Right? The massing, not the square footage itself.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah. And do we have an observed objective? I mean, if we just say 5% increase in massing, is that that's the strange So kind of a metric.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Can be reduced, just not increased.

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: Or or perhaps we could say that the, you know, put put some limitations around the westerly wall. Again, I think most of the conversation was around that south westerly portion that the westerly wall, you know, if that increases any further west, that would trigger coming back to the commission, or if the height of that, portion of the building increased in height, that that would have to come back to the commission. But that way, if they find some below grade portion of the building and there's some increased square footage, it doesn't seem like that's necessarily the the issue that the commission has. It's more what that volume reads as at the Southwestern corner. So I think you could put parameters around, you know, no further, extent forward or vertical, for that bar of the building.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I I like that better. Okay. So the motion would be approval, but, any increase in, volume, at the Southwest corner as a result of the ARC's actions would require coming back for reapproval of the CUA. And

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I don't

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: know if it's a second. It sounds like we had to we had to deliberate on that a little bit more, but I'll put it out there.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'd like to make a connecting comment here. We all know, after very careful deliberation by historic preservation commission, that there is no intent of increasing massing. It was indeed significant concern about the slightly too much massing, particularly because the jeweler Morgan Resource is only 40 feet tall and has a pitched roof, which in itself is already a different way of how you perceive a building. I do also personally believe that we individually have met every person who sits on their architectural review group. And I think at the end, it was summarized. It will be commissioner Nagasara joined by commissioner Baldauf and commissioner Barone, and President Matsuda will also be part of it as an ex officio. I have total and 100% trust that everything we're saying was very much in line, at least, with my own observations and it was my own serious concerns. Under normal circumstances, we would be deliberating on the building and making those observations. So I do not want to put any shackles on them other than fully supporting of how they go about their work. And we can always attend the meeting in which it's being discussed to personally witness how thorough they are and what their recommendations will be. So I'd like to have our recommendation be supportive of what they suggested for themselves and not be too prescriptive of how I want to breathe down their neck. The certificate itself is ultimately their full invested responsibility, and I support that. So I want to give that personal acknowledgment to see their capabilities, having witnessed a very thorough discussion and not make it look as if I am going to try to control them in any form. I don't think you were trying to do that, but assurances of that kind when they get into percentage is a little bit too much for me because I don't even know what 5% means. So anyway, I have commissioner volumes and commissioner imperial commissioner volume space.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. I just just as as far as timeline, if this was to happen to get continued, what what would that look like as as far as the timeline? What what process? Because I know it's gotta go through a couple different process before it could come back. So I'm just trying to get an idea of what that looks like.

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: I mean, I'll I'll defer to Jonas on when the next ARC hearing is scheduled, but it it I think think it depends on exactly how you're crafting the continuance motion. If you're drafting the continuance motion, to be to follow conclusion of the ARC's decision, I don't think any of us have a crystal ball of when that's gonna happen, whether that happens on the first hearing, a second hearing, a third you know, I think it Sure. It depends how their deliberations go, and that could take any amount of time. I think it wouldn't be probably any sooner than Jonas. When's the next day I see him?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Well, I've already been in conversation, with preservation staff, and it looks like we're gonna target May 21 for the ARC meeting. As Liz mentioned, the ARC may decide to continue the matter again further out for another hearing. So they it may not conclude at that point. Having said that, assuming they do take an action on May 21, we could continue this matter as as soon as May 22, the next day.

[Tony Hanley (Resident, Heritage on the Marina)]: It'd be

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: a little soon. May 29 is canceled, and then June 5 would be the next hearing after that. So you're punting it out a month or two. I

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I I haven't heard any argument in favor or, not for a continuance. So I I just wanted to see what that looked like. That's

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Peleo?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. Yeah. There's part of me, and I'm still a little bit uncomfortable. And I I do appreciate vice president Moore in terms of, like, having the confidence on the architect review committee and for them to look in, you know, for them to look at and, yes, the a lot of the conversation was around the massing, around the height. I think the the historical preservation don't want additional height, don't want additional massing. However, as commissioner as a planning commissioner too, we I I personally would like to see how's that massing going to look like, and and are there going to be reductions? And it seems like there are going to be reductions, I can anticipate. But perhaps in terms of only the the the the facade area, but I'm not sure how is it gonna, you know, point out in the in the units themselves. Is there gonna be changes in the units? So I feel like if there's part of me that to part of me wants to approve the CUA. However, but with perhaps, you know, with the arc with the arc to forward their, you know, their plans to the planning commission and whether, yeah, and whether that's for us to, you know, for us whether we would like to have informational hearing about it. But I'm still a little bit uncomfortable with that because we don't know what I'm approving at that point. All I know is that there is going to be a new two new buildings that are going to be built. That's all I knew at this point. And that so yeah. And and whether that would change the loading dock, I'm I'm not sure if that would change because I I heard that, you know, one of the commissioner was talking about the Bay Building where, well, you know, they're they're were they were having some really interesting conversation there. So, I'd like to hear what other commissioners thinks of that, like, whether we would like to, continue it to June 5. Are we comfortable of that? I'm more comfortable on that, or I'm also comfortable of if we're approving it today, to have the ARC plan be reviewed by the planning commission. But are you comfortable with that? Is that so so I'll I'll you know, that's what I'm putting it to my fellow commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'm not a huge fan of continuances.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: About this one.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: But I I also kind of have reservations too. And I think my concerns might be actually in the opposite direction. And with all due respect to our fellow commissioners, I was on the HBC, and I was actually on the ARC as well. And, so maybe I should know the answer to this question. But, I'm concerned that they, they they may, reduce the building too much, and it might actually impact the business model that this particular project sponsor needs to preserve. I'm also concerned that there it may become there might be some overreach in terms of the materials. I heard Baldov, starting to tiptoe around that. He said, I wasn't planning on doing that today, but I I am very interested in, revisiting some of the proposed materials. So I think my concern is actually a little bit more in that opposite direction, and so would maybe be more in favor of having another chance to review it. And I guess my question is, what does that sequence look like? If we if we are not in favor of what we are hearing from the ARC, then do we re are we in a position to revisit that and then it goes back to ARC? Or is that is that it?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: But that's it.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: And I should probably know the answer to that question. Sorry.

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: And maybe if I can sort of restate are you cons are you suggesting, like, what would happen if the ARC approves something that's reduced

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: and

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: then it comes to the planning commission and you want it to be larger than what they the ARC approved or Right. Or sort of reverse some of their conditions?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Correct. Hypothetically. Right? Just if they go

[Diane Matsuda (President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: a little too crazy. Sure.

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: And and maybe I need to tap city attorney, Johnson on this a little bit, but I believe this is a situation where both actions you know, the project needs to be consistent with both the certificate of appropriateness and the conditional use. And so I think there would be an inherent tension there if the commission was trying to make design changes that were in conflict with the ARC's certificate of appropriateness. But I'm I'm a little over my skis on that.

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: Thank you, miss Vadhi. And I am also a little over my skis as I do not generally represent the HPC. So I'm not sure whether the ARC's authority is, sort of binding on this commission. And I'm happy to reach out to my colleague, who I know is on the other end of a phone right now. And I can, see if I can get a little further guidance on that, but I don't have an answer for you as I sit here right now.

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: If if I could also suggest, I do think there could be, some value if the if the commission if there are four votes on this commission who want to see this project approved at a certain intensity, the land use side of this, to be able to make that approval today with that very clear policy statement around the number of units and the number of, you know, senior housing units effectively that are being or or residential care beds that are being preserved in this project. Right. And that this commission wants to see sort of the retention of that program even if architecturally it shifted. You know, even if massing is shifted elsewhere, you know, if the ARC had particular concern around a particular corner, which which could be reasonable, if this commission is saying, you know, any reduction here needs to be, you know, made whole elsewhere so that the programmatic and the the intensity of land use is preserved at a certain intensity, that could be good feedback for our staff to be able to, have as part of the conversation with the ARC so that it, you know, again, kind of that win win can be achieved at the ARC with them understanding your policy position in the same way that you're factoring in theirs.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: So commissioner Campbell, if I understand you correctly, you're talking about the number of units, not necessarily a slight tinkering with the size of the units. I mean, there were 1,500 square foot units. Some were mentioned in there, like, two bedroom or stuff like that. Yeah. So the 400 and the 250 was flexibility that they stay with a total increase of units to a 109, which they had programmatic set, and I would fully support that. Yeah. How they do that is another thing. Yeah. But that they stay with the programmatic objectives of the plan. Mhmm.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Might might we ask the project sponsor I I you nodded when I made this comment. So I'm wondering if you maybe have you can provide a little insight into how you know, it would inform, I think, maybe what yeah. Okay.

[Randy Gridley (Board Chair, Ladies’ Protection and Relief Society / Heritage on the Marina)]: Yeah. Again, Brandy Gridley, the chair of the board of the San Francisco Ladies Protection Relief Society. The it works both ways. We need residents there obviously paying monthly fees to give us the revenue we need to pay staff, basically, and pay all our expenses. But we also rely on entry fees. And the larger the unit, the bigger the entry fee. The entry fees normally amortized over the the time that the resident is there. There are different models. Some, they get refunds. Some, they don't. It's their choice, coming in. But as far as the economics go, both the number of units and the size of the units matter. It's our goal and has been consistently from the beginning to have a broad mix of units. We don't want all big units. We don't want all small units. The economics in all small units don't work, unfortunately. We want a broad group that frankly reflects the neighborhood, because there are a lot of different people renting apartments in the marina and so forth, different socioeconomic levels. And we have tried very hard to keep that kind of mix. We want to continue to keep that mix. But we approached this project with coming in with what we hoped and thought was a reasonable design and not trying to push the envelope, but would get us to a point that is not quite but close to break even. So the extent to which that gets reduced will rapidly become problematic for us economically.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: So I last heard a motion. I haven't heard a second.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Oh, I think commissioner Williams.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'm sorry. Commissioner Williams. I didn't forgot.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you, commissioner Moore. I'm hearing some some apprehension, and and I'm I'm gonna go out on a limb and make a motion for a continuance just in case that isn't in in our thought process here. I can go probably both ways, but just wanted to throw that out there.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Is there a second? No. I'll second the motion, which I'm allowed to do.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: And did you have a specific date in mind, commissioner Williams? Commissioner Williams, do you have a specific date in mind, June 5?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: June would would that be enough time for

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: That would be enough time for the ARC to meet and act on the twenty first, I think. I mean, you're you're meeting on the twenty second, I feel like. It's just the next day. I don't I'm not sure.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah. I mean, I I I could I could be fine with the with the fifth.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: June 5. Very good.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner McGarry. Sorry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: My concern here is the financial feasibility of

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: the

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: project. Basically, I believe the massing is, as we've just been described by the sponsor, is basically to what their tolerance was that's financially feasible to keep going. I would hate to think that any lowering of the massing of this is by de facto killing the project. That is a big problem I have here, so I wanna make sure we're all aware of that. As far as, basically, the residents are concerned, I'm totally confident with the contractor on record, Pankow. They're they literally write the standard on ECRA, infectious control, risk assessment, all of their all of their employees. It's just a standard practice. But I really think we have to take into account here that, yeah, I believe it was industry standard in California's 1,500 square feet, and that your units are gonna be 400 square feet and two fifty square feet. Was that correct?

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: So just to clarify, yeah, the existing condition, the average square footage of the existing of the units in the building now is a little less than 400 square feet. With the project and the addition of the projects, so again, as Randy said, we're going to maintain a mix of units, but we're adding larger units. The average will go up to about seven fifty square feet.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. And California as a whole is 1,500 square feet? Was that

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: So all the projects that I'm building now Right. For other clients Mhmm. I actually work for other nonprofits Okay. But not in terms of average.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: But not on this project?

[Frank Rockwood (Development Manager, Rockwood Pacific)]: Not in this project. They're highly constrained. It's you know, San Francisco is more constrained than than than the other locations I'm working.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Right. So basically, seven fifty, it's literally half of what California industry standards would be in the same. So I think we have to take that into account, the financial feasibility, the actual, residents that are gonna be there, and I'd hate to think that by de facto, we're by not doing something, we're actually killing this project. Well, I two stories could possibly go off the Southwest Side on Laguna. Is that if this goes back to the there's a possibility that two stories could be. So if two stories goes, you're you're no longer financially viable. Is that correct?

[Randy Gridley (Board Chair, Ladies’ Protection and Relief Society / Heritage on the Marina)]: Yes. Any reduction in units is going to or reducing the size of the units is gonna impact us financially. And and again, we designed this to try to get to a point of approximate breakeven. We're not profit. We're not trying to make money with this project. We're trying to get a mix that will enable us to cover our expenses as much as possible. The more we can cover our expenses, the more of a charitable mission we can provide for people in those smaller units. But if we're spending money just keeping the lights on in the general facility because of regulations and and so forth, then that makes it harder.

[Bill Cornelli (Project Architect)]: So,

[Randy Gridley (Board Chair, Ladies’ Protection and Relief Society / Heritage on the Marina)]: yeah, we're we're right at the cusp now. So if there's any meaningful, reduction, it it it will turn this into a non viable project pretty quickly.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: So based on that, what can we do here today to make sure that it is it's not gone to a committee that basically is gonna bring back a finding that will make the project not viable.

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: I mean, I think I think the best thing that this commission can do if that is where the majority votes are is to make a motion today to approve with very clear findings about the, you know, retention of program effectively. And whether that program shifts a little bit, maybe that's, you know, that then gives also the HPC some direction of, you know, you can work on architecture, you know, cladding treatments, glazing treatments. I heard a big conversation around sort of the singular glass panel on the bay. Sure. That's sort of that doesn't impact either of those things. If there's a need to shift back, well, then maybe there needs to be a shift in as well into the courtyard to accommodate that, you know, 200 square foot here means 200 square feet here. But I think having this commission really put on record the the criticalness to retain the overall programmatic needs of both unit count and overall, programmatic square footage of the project, I think would be a very helpful tool as our staff work with the ARC on fine fine tuning those details because it also gives a little structure to that conversation.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: So how do we craft that into a motion even though we've got a motion on we have a motion.

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: I think you could do something along the lines of a motion to approve as proposed with an additional finding that, you know, the planning commission, you know, finds that the overall size and intensity of the project is critical to the, you know, financial viability of the project and would not wanna see the an a reduction in either of those components or something wordsmithed.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah. I mean, I would add just recognizing that it's going back to the r ARC and that finding to, you know, provide to provide them with that direction. Yeah.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner McGill, were you, still speaking? I see your name. Sorry. I can't yes. Okay. Commissioner McGill.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah. I'd like to make alternative motion where motion to approve with a condition to retain the motion to approve for the ARC committee to retain the programmatic or the programmatic needs of this project. That means maintaining the 109 units and also as proposed as well in terms of the unit sizes. Is that yeah. And and also to to provide the planning commission of the art art plan.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Second.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Synchronize synchronize seconds.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Permission of Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Just real briefly. I just don't I don't, you know, don't want to is the word I'm looking for. I I don't wanna tie the hands of of the process that still has to play out, and I'm not sure if if if we go in that direction, that we're actually, you know, if if the historic preservation commission and and the the the other commission the other,

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Architecture review commission.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: The the architectural review commission. You know, they they have to make some adjustments. And so if we put this motion forward, you know, will it inhibit them for doing what they have to do?

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: No. It will it will not inhibit them. Ultimately, they need to be able to get the votes

[Commissioner Baldauf (Historic Preservation Commission)]: Okay.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: To to

[Director of Current Planning ('Waddie'), San Francisco Planning Department]: get it out of the ARC. You are giving them guidance of what your priorities are in approving the CU. Now there will be a little bit of a conflict if they don't agree with that and can't get to to a a compromise effectively that achieves both. We're gonna be in a little bit of a pickle. But we're gonna be in that predicament anyhow if the ARC, you know, if the ARC were to have done that and this commission is continued, we're still gonna be in that predicament, just we won't be there until June 5. So this is sort of cutting to the chase and giving that really clear guidance to the ARC now.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. Thank you, miss Swati. I just wanna really respect, you know, the process that happened here and what they with their deliberations. And so that's that's why I'm making this comment.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'd like to add one comment in response to what you were saying. I would like to convey to the historic preservation commission that the number of units, including the unit size as it was presented today, would not be tinkered with. But any architect has the ability to find a little extra square footage somewhere that may be comfortable to reduce without changing the quality of service or the intent of the mission of how this organization works. So I would not put a cap on the square footage itself, but basically say that we are expecting that the numbers of units, which were represented as an economic model for the success of this project, are maintained, including their size, not just the numerical number but also suggested sizes. And let the architect, if they can, find other areas where there may be a tweak, not perhaps two stories, but it could also be a subtlety, a little less, to modify the building in order to meet the objective of their mission, which is a certificate of appropriateness. That would be my kind of compromise. I do not want to basically say you can't do anything because by capping it, by saying you have to use the same square footage, we're basically telling them you can't do anything. Yeah. So I would suggest that we leave it with a number of units, the size of the units, and support of the of the economic model, and leave it with that. And they know themselves what they can and can't do. They have done this many times before.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'm sorry. Commissioner Moore.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. You know, I would just say to the concern that we might be tying the hands of the ARC, You know, I I don't I think we are we are certainly asserting kind of an opinion on the matter, but, regardless, you know, with the motion that we have or if it's modified. But, they ultimately can still, I believe, do what they want to do. And, you know, it's just I if the if the change is so significant, it could potentially trigger me to come back for CUA again. That's, you know, that's possible. So they they still have a lot of latitude. I also kind of I don't think we need to get into this, but I also sort of wonder in the background also about, you know, what level of change triggers the certificate of appropriateness, you know, that they approved maybe not still being accurate. So I don't know. These are probably concerns that that are I'm just sort of thinking about academically for no good reason. But, yeah. I but either way, you know, they still have a lot of latitude, I think, in the end. So I'm comfortable with the motion.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. Commissioners, there is a procedural motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to June 5. Shall I call that question? On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: We could withdraw that motion if somebody does not.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Well, you can withdraw it. But there's still a motion on the floor that has been seconded. That's why I asked if I should still need to call that question.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you, Jonas. I'll withdraw that.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Very good. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: For a second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioners, then that leaves us with the remaining motion, that has been seconded. And I just wanna clarify, commissioner Imperial, that we're adding a finding, not a condition of approval. Right? It's a finding as part of the motion.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: It's it's part of the motion of it's it's CUA with a condition.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Right. The conditions are, but we're adding a finding essentially with the same information that you articulated. So let me just read it in as a findings. I think it's most appropriate to be added as a finding.

[Kristin Jensen (Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco)]: Yeah. I would I would second that from a

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: So there's a motion that has been seconded to add a finding recognizing, the review by the architectural review committee to retain the programmatic viability and unit size and numbers, with the revised plan to be shared with the Planning Commission.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Very good. On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Carolyn Kiernat (Principal, Page & Turnbull)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner and commission chair Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. Concludes your special joint hearing. I'm assuming you're gonna wanna take a at least a short break. No? No? Well, we need to we need to break and I need to sort of rearrange the seating, so at least a five minute recess. How long do you wanna recess for? Commissioner Moore, how

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: long do

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: you wanna recess for?

[Ruchira Nageswaran (Vice President, Historic Preservation Commission)]: I think

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: I'm gonna be like him. Guys, fifteen minutes. Okay. Yes. Please.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Yeah. I think we need fifteen minutes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Okay. Very good. Sam or

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: something like that.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: SFgov TV, we're gonna take a fifteen minute recess.