San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 05/01/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. 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 President So?

[President Lydia So]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commission Vice President Moore? Here. Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner Campbell? Here. Commissioner Imperial?

[Melinda Sarjapour (Counsel for Project Sponsor, Ruben, Junius & Rose)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry? Present. And Commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Items 1A and B for case numbers twenty eighteen hyphen zero one three eight seven seven DRP hyphen zero five and CRV at 2,588 Mission Street discretionary review and the adoption of findings are proposed for continuance to 05/15/2025. Item two, case number 2024 hyphen 7305. DRP at 14 Through 16 30th Street, discretionary review is proposed for continuance to 06/05/2025. And item three for case number 2021Hyphen003547, CUA 243 Staples Avenue conditional use authorization as proposed for indefinite continuance. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these items proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Williams. Thank you, President Tsao. Regarding 2588 Mission Street, next week, I I was informed just recently that, Commissioner Imperial won't be able to attend. And I'm just concerned that we won't have a full commission, for that particular item, and the gravity of of of the item is so I just wanted to put that out there and see if any of the other commissioners had anything to add, any other concerns. But

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: yeah.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Imperial?

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Yeah. Just, you know, I informed commissioner Williams about this. And on May 15, I will have to leave early by 5PM, so I will not be able to participate if the discretionary review reaches at that time. I think it's up to the commission if they would like to continue it, but I will not be able to participate if it falls at 5PM.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioners, I know you've made a commitment in previous hearings to start that item in the afternoon at 04:30. Alternatively, you could have it first on your agenda or continue it out further, obviously.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Brown?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: I I've said this before. I do think it's important that we have the full commission for that item. And so if it's something that we I I'm in favor of either approach that allows the full commission to hear the item, whether it's taking it up first or continuing it. I I think personally I would prefer to take it up early and keep it on the same date. Yeah. But, yeah, those are my thoughts.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you, commissioner Brown. Commissioner vice president Moore?

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Did anybody make an outreach to the community to see if they could come earlier? We would then take it earlier on the agenda.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Yeah. It it is the second it would be the second hearing. It has been heard already, as you already know. But just

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: The point I'm making since we put pushed it to five because it's a preference for that everybody's there from from that group, has anybody reached out to the group to ask if they could come earlier in order to take advantage of commissioner I think this is the first

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: we're hearing of commissioner Imperial's inability to attend at 04:30. So we would have to do the outreach

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Mhmm.

[President Lydia So]: Now. Commissioner Williams?

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Yeah. I did try to reach out last minute. And I didn't get anything back. But I remain concerned. This this is there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot been a lot of energy going in into turning people out. And and so I'm not sure if an earlier time would would work because they've been concerned about an earlier time and people having to work and and not being able to attend this this really important hearing. And so I I would suggest that we move it out if possible. And I know I understand this this is, it's the second time we're doing it, but, I think the gravity of it, I I really think it's important that all of us are here to to weigh in on it. And so I I would propose that we move it out, again so that, we can have a full commission.

[President Lydia So]: Why thank you, Commissioner Williams. And Commissioner Brown?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: I'm I'm okay with moving it out. It looks like the following week on the twenty second, it's not a super heavy agenda, unless I'm misperceiving something, But I would support that.

[President Lydia So]: I I think what I'm sorry. Commission, I'm here. Would you like to say something?

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Yeah. I would just say that, I'm available by May 22, if that's your proposal. And, yeah, I it was a shortcoming on my end that I didn't realize. But, yeah, I'm available May. And after that, I don't have any conflict at that point.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Maybe we should confirm from everyone their ability to We should. I think second before we pick that.

[President Lydia So]: Yeah. Commissioner, I do respect everybody's schedule, and I also respect the community's schedule. And also in light of today's date with the protest on May Day, that's why we proposed post postponed this due to the request from the community. And, well, this item had been continued to be, postponed for more than a month and a half already at this point, we do have a responsibility to uphold our timeline that we had already been slipping. So I do ask ourselves to make sure that we commit on a particular time of day, as nearly as possible in our future meeting, because we do have to, maintain a balance of our responsibility sitting on this commission. But I really, respect everybody's concern and, about the availability and also the all the other circumstances that are beyond our control outside of our chamber too. So I think that, what I would like to recommend is what Commissioner Vice President Moore mentioned to, check with the community again. I'll see one if they can half hour meeting happen earlier that day of the '15, so then commissioner Imperial can attend. Other option, like commissioner William suggest, is to postpone it to the week after the '15, but we will have to get our secretary's help to get our all of our commitment to be there that day, which would be May 20

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: May 22 is that hearing day. I mean, I I mean, I would just, you know, respectfully request the commissioners look at their calendars now before we do that because this has been kicked down the road several times now.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: And it's just, you know again, it's it's the second hearing.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: It's not

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: the first hearing. It's the second hearing.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Okay. I I, I think that's fair. And, I I want to thank the all my commissioners, for this consideration. Thank you. Yeah.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner Williams. Appreciate that. Okay. Can can we hold on a second? Okay. So I do also wanted to make sure that we in addition to my two, recommendation for these two options, another thing we need to do is check-in with our city attorney to make sure is that we are still within the confines of our Housing Accountability Act. We really is running out of

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So are you

[President Lydia So]: our time there.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: So

[President Lydia So]: okay. I appreciate it. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Oh, well, it it will be

[President Lydia So]: They count every time. Schedule.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Well, then it will be the sixth.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Well,

[President Lydia So]: Alright. Commissioners, I think that after, our city attorney checked, we got some legal counsel advice. We have continued this matter for several weeks and months. We can no longer continue it beyond the May 15. So that leave us only one choice is to move that hearing earlier that day to accommodate Commissioner Imperial's presence, and also will, give us half a month of time ahead of time to, inform our community to, make their arrangement to come to our hearing on the May 15.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: So I'd I'd I'd like to to have the opportunity to check-in with the community in a couple days at least before I get an answer, and then I'll let I'll let you know. And we can let Jonas know and everybody know. Maybe have have them respond with a letter if if they wanna change the time.

[President Lydia So]: Commission Williams, we oh, yeah. We will we will, we will only have an option to have them pick a time

[Rudy Gonzalez (SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Right.

[President Lydia So]: Between noon to five

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: I understand.

[President Lydia So]: When Commission Imperial is present.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: You're yes.

[President Lydia So]: We can no longer defer and postpone it to beyond the fifteen. Yes. Thank you. I really

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: appreciate it. I understand. Yeah.

[President Lydia So]: K. Mhmm. And commissioner Braun, you have more comments?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: No. Actually, it looks like that's staying on the fifteenth from way or another, and we know what needs to happen next to determine the viability of the earlier time, but either way, it's still on May 15. So I move to continue items one, two, and three as proposed. Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: K. If there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to continue items as proposed on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[President Lydia So]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. And that will place us under commission matters for item four, the land acknowledgment.

[President Lydia So]: The commission acknowledge that we are in the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming the sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. Item five, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 04/10/2025, April 17, joint and regular hearings. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Brown?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Move to adopt the minutes. Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[President Lydia So]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero, placing us on item six, commission comments and questions.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Williams?

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Thank you. I I'll I'll let, commissioner McGarry go first. I know he had something to say.

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: Today is May 1 or International Workers Day. I would like to thank, or take a moment to recognize on behalf of the international union I belong to, the Carpenters and Joiners of America and Canada, 50,000 members strong. The NorCal Carpenters Regional Council, which is 38 to 40,000 strong, and Local twenty two here in San Francisco, where I represent, 4,000, strong. Basically, our founder was PJ Maguire. PJ Maguire founded the International Carpenters and Joiners of America in 1881, chartered Carpenters Local twenty two here in San Francisco, in 1882, and basically went on to have, on the same year, basically, established the first Labor Day in America's history. Then basically after that, got the ten hour day and down the and then the eight hour day. So I would like to thank our founder, PJ McGuire, for that. Then on to our twenty ninth mayor here in San Francisco, P. H. McCarthy, who, who was basically, the president of the Carpenters Local twenty two. So coming from a rich tradition of labor, I would like to thank all the members of the Carpenters Union, that basically has 11 apprenticeship trades within it. I would like to acknowledge their hard work, the past members that have gone, the future members, the members we have today. And yesterday, I was at DPW and 500 kids came through on a on a fair. And we were there, all the trades were there and it was just great to see literally future, the future kids nailing together little planter boxes and taking them home as proud as punch. So it's a great day. It's basically, it's a it's a a tortured history, but on behalf of all carpenter of all carpenters out there, I would like to say happy Labor Day to everybody. I can't speak for everybody else, but I see my fellow tradespeople in the audience here. Happy happy Labor Day to everybody. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. That was really nice. Commissioner Williams.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Thank you. Yes. Happy International Labor Day. And I'd like to read a little something. And this is the origin of International Labor Day. The very first International Labor Day was celebrated on 05/01/1889. It all began in the late nineteenth century when 400,000 workers across The US organized a peaceful strike in Chicago on 05/01/1886. They were protesting to demand an eight hour workday. Unfortunately, the strike turned violent and several unarmed workers were killed by the police. It came to be known as the Haymarket Affair and was a turning point in the struggle for workers' rights. It was also a catalyst for change as socialist parties and trade unions in The USA rallied workers to peacefully protest for the eight hour workday. This protest became a global symbol of workers' rights, and May 1 became to be known as International Labor Day or even International Workers' Day sometimes. The impact of these protests were seen was seen when public workers in The US finally secured eight hour workdays as a legal right in 1892. It was a monumental victory for the labor movement. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: My two fellow commissioners jog my memory that in other parts of the world, Labor Day is indeed a full national holiday. But it's actually, mister McGarry who who, actually gave me preface to mention something which I have been approached to by many times, not turning on your microphone or not speaking in your microphone. I have the public repeatedly coming back to me and said, if only your commissioners could carefully adjust the microphone and bring it to their mouth because this is not the latest technology relative to how we communicate. So I urge all of us, because we have many people listening to us, to please make sure before you speak to bring this too close to your mouth and including people who are commenting out there because we have many, many people who are interested in what we're doing here. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: All right, commissioners. If there's no further comments and questions, we can move on to department matters for item seven, director's announcements.

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: No announcements for today.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Item eight, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Appeals. The Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. I do have two weeks of, board report for you, so I'll start with last week's land use. First on the agenda was supervisor Schell's ordinance that would remove the form of the retail CU requirement on Van Ness. The week prior, this, item was amended and continued for one week because the amendments were substantive. Without much discussion of public comment, the committee voted to recommend the ordinance to the full board. Next on the agenda was supervisor Melgar's ordinance that would create a special sign district at 3215 19th Avenue. Commissioners, you heard this on April 3 and voted to recommend approval with modifications. The proposed modification was to modify the ordinance to specify permitted signs may be indirectly or directly illuminated. At the land use hearing, supervisor Melgar introduced the item and the commission proposed amendments. The amendment was accepted, and there was no public comment and no significant discussion from the committee members. The item was then forwarded to the full board as a committee report with recommendation. Next, it can be considered supervisor Ingardio's ordinance that would allow condominium conversions for some ADUs. Commissioners, you heard this item on April 13 and recommended approval with modifications. Those modifications were to, one, limit the program to existing single family homes and existing condominiums proposing to construct a new detached ADU through the state program, and new construction single family homes and new construction condominium projects proposing to construct a detached or attached ADU through the state program. The second recommendation was to move the state mandated requirements to the subdivision code, and the third was to make several clarifying amendments. At this hearing, supervisor Angadio introduced the amendments that would incorporate the commission's proposed amendments. Supervisor Chen asked some clarifying questions about the amendments, but there were no other significant comments from the committee members. There were a couple of public commenters who spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. After public comment, the committee accepted the proposed amendments and continued the item for one week because they were deemed substantive. Last on the committee's agenda was supervisor Dorsey's item that would, amend the nighttime entertainment provisions in SoMa. Commissioners, you heard this item on April 10 and recommended approval. At the land use committee, there were no public commenters. The committee then voted to recommend the item to the full board. And then last week at the full board, the, supervisor Walden's ordinance that would amend PDR controls in the PDR 2 District passed its first read. The notice for housing element rezoning sponsored by supervisor Chan passed its first read on a three two eight vote with supervisors Melgar, Mahmood, and Dorsey voting no. The planning the sorry. The special sign district at 3215 19th Avenue sponsored by supervisor Melgar passed its first read, and the formula retail on Van Ness Avenue, sponsored by supervisor Cheryl, also passed its first read. Then this week at land use, supervisor Chan's ordinance that would create the Alexandria Theater SUD was on the docket. Commissioners, you heard this on April 3 and voted to recommend approval. As the land use hearing supervisor, Chan, introduced the item, there were also presentations by the property owner and the project team on the proposed project. There were no significant comments from the committee members and no other public comment. Supervisor Chan proposed an amendment that requires two that requires two public hearings, one before the planning commission and one before the historic preservation commission, which will facilitate review by the interested members of the public and organizations relevant expertise such as SF Heritage. The committee voted to accept the amendments and forward the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. Next, the committee considered supervisor Ngannio's office, ordinance that would, allow condominium conversions for some ADUs. This item was continued from the last week after the planning commission's proposed modifications were added to the ordinance. This week, supervisor and Gardeo indicated he wanted to continue the item to provide more time to work out some issues with tenant advocates. The issues were summarized in a letter from the SF Anti Displacement Coalition. They were one, to protect tenants of existing ADUs that do not have certificates of occupancy by limiting applications of the ordinance to ADUs not yet constructed. Two, to protect tenants who move into newly constructed ADUs that are not converted to con condominiums until some later date, and three, protect tenants of existing single family homes that are not owner occupied. The letter provided some remedies to their concerns. Supervisor Angadio indicated that he would be meeting with the tenant advocates the coming weeks to see if he can address their concerns. The committee then continued the addendum to the call of the chair. Then at the full board this week, the special sign district on 19th Avenue passed its second read. The Venice Avenue, form of the retail controls passed its second read. The housing element noticing for the rezoning passed its second read. The SoMA Entertainment Uses, ordinance by Dorsey passed its first read. And then there was a hearing for, appeal of environmental determination and a CU for a project at 1310 Hunebro Sarah Boulevard, which was continued to May 13. And that's all I have for you today. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have. Thanks.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: Alright. Good afternoon, presidents of commissioners. Corey Teague, zoning administrator. The board of appeals did meet, both last night but also, Wednesday of last week. They did not take up any items last night that are of interest to the commission. But last Wednesday, they did hear an appeal for a building permit for the project at 79 Langton Street. And this was part of a larger project, that was approved by the planning commission back in 2018 as a large project authorization in eastern neighborhoods. It's a double frontage lot. There's an existing building that'll be demolished. And the proposal was to build two separate buildings, one that fronts on 7th Street, which would be a larger building, and then a somewhat smaller building in the rear that would front on Langton Street. The permit was issued at the very end of 2024. For that project, the property owner for the adjacent property, which is a three story two unit building on Langton Street, appealed that decision. Interestingly, between 2018 and when the permit was appealed, the performance period for the large project authorization lapsed, but the plan planning code also changed such that the large project authorization was no longer necessary. So, that could be approved administratively through the planning code today. So we went through that process as part of this appeal, and the appeal was heard. The concerns raised by the property owner were, impacts from light and air, and also they had some property line windows that were gonna be covered. And the original approval, the developer at that time had had conversations with this neighbor, but eventually sold that property to a new developer. And, obviously, there was no, no amendments made to the project, to the planning commission's approval, and any conversations the neighbor had with the previous developer were, you know, private private considerations there. So there was conversation about the lack of protections for property line windows and discussion about how the design of the building was actually very much in keeping with what the intent for the Western Soma rezoning was in that area, and that it actually hadn't been as large as it could have been under the zoning and had been designed in a way to be very respectful to lengthen the street, actually. So after hearing all that, the board did kind of acknowledge that, you know, building lot line to lot line, you're gonna have impacts on adjacent properties, but that the proposal was very much in line with, kind of the the codes and design guidelines at that point and also still consistent today with the planning code and the design guidelines today, and they voted unanimously to deny that appeal. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Seeing no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Catherine Howard (Neighborhoods United SF)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Catherine Howard. I'm here today on behalf of Neighborhoods United San Francisco. You can learn more about us at nusf.net. At your March 27 hearing, we delivered a letter to you regarding senator Wiener's senate bill seven nine. As far as we can tell, s b seven nine will result in essentially upzoning the entire city of San Francisco. Among the impacts of this legislation will be disproportionate harm to vulnerable communities, a threat to historic and neighborhood character, a strain on local infrastructure, and concessions to developers that will take precedence over neighborhood voices. All of this will happen with no affordable housing guarantees. San Franciscans have a right to learn about this legislation from their city. Therefore, on March 27, we requested that you ask the planning department to do a full analysis of SB 79 with illustrations of the impacts on our neighborhoods. I am here today to inquire about the status of the planning department's analysis as well as how and when this information will be conveyed to the public. We appreciate your attention to this matter and I have this submitted for the record and an additional copy of the letter in case you would like to see it. Thank you for your consideration.

[Paul Wirmer (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Paul Wirmer. And as someone who was last here when parking minimums were a really hot topic, I want to warn you that bicycle minimums is the next one that's going to cause a ruckus. And I was looking at the 3,700 California project, and this is inspiring it. I'm not talking to that item. And there's a lot of parking, class a bicycle parking. But class a bicycle parking, really, if you look at the definition, deals with the traditional 10 speed. Really great for the single bicycle owner, the mammal, the if that phrase means anything to you. The problem is or the change that we have that might not be recognized in these requirements is the development of the electric bicycle, the development of cargo bikes, and for seniors, the development of electric tricycles, which are, for many seniors, vastly superior in terms of safety and functionality than they're continuing to drive. It's not clear to me that in the planning, strategizing, and looking ahead, how those requirements are being understood or considered. I mean, a a a planner, Stephen Wertheim, who some of you may remember, was telling me how we didn't need we didn't need cars. People could get by with bicycles. And he got married and had a child, and in less than six weeks, they had a car. Today, I am talking to young families, mother with two kids in a cargo bike saying, oh, we have no need for a car. We can do everything with this. So how can we make sure that new construction accommodates that? And I urge you to ask the planning staff to look at that. Related to that and following up on miss Howard's comments, I don't know if you guys believe in the residential nexus studies that planning has done, if you think those numbers make sense. Personally, I do because I have experience with that form of analysis in other areas, environmental areas. But when you are approving projects for 20% inclusionary or 25% inclusionary paid into the in lieu of fund, you are putting the city not only behind the need of the induced demand from the new large project. You're not coming close to providing you're not coming close to providing any new affordable housing through these inclusionary programs. It's only getting worse with the change in the tax credit or the threat to the change in the tax credits. I'm really concerned that I am not hearing the city educating the residents about these issues and how that plays into things like the upzoning plans and will it meet the intent or not. Thank you.

[Georgia Chudish (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon. Happy May Day, Georgia Chudish. I hope that you looked at my email that I sent on April 21 regarding Block 1731. It's pertinent for the It's pertinent for the zoning, and I think it's pertinent too for SB 79. Anyway, I think it's timely to have a discussion of the section three seventeen demo calc and the definition of demolition, particularly given those recent projects on Clipper and the demolition of the flats and the UDU on Day Street. Section 317, as you know, was developed over the years, and it was a response to the loss of existing sound housing through a loophole of no clear definition no definition, actually of demolition in the planning or the building codes. And I previously submitted a timeline of the section three seventeen history, and I'm going to submit it again. There it is. And just for the record. And I'm also resubmitting my April 5 letter about the flat definition, because flats were also lost due to problems with the demo calcs never being adjusted. I sent you a letter the other day about the demo calcs never being adjusted, and it's a loophole. And that was clearly stated in the 2012 article called Bringing Down the House by the former head of the RBA, and you can find that article online. I sent you the comments from the minutes, from 2021, and I appreciated Commissioner Imperial and Commissioner Dimon's comments at the time and for having a hearing. And, of course, that never happened. And, actually, commissioner Imperial brought up the issue of a definition of demolition again at the April 10 hearing. I think she did that at the fifth hour. No. Six hours and thirty three minutes and forty seven seconds, she brought that up. So thanks for that again. So in my October 2021 letter that you have in the email, I made several points about why section three seventeen could be discussed and what could be discussed. And I think the most important point is number seven, which is a question, and I'll read it again to you. Does the planning commission have a responsibility to do such adjustments, the adjustments under section three seventeen b two d, given its legislative authority? So that's the question. Don't you have a responsibility? Does the commission, any commission, any commission of the last since 2009, have a responsibility to adjust the demo calcs per the code that you have, three seventeen b two d. So there's my timeline, 03/17 history again for the record. Here's my April 5 letter with the definition of flats. I think it's very important. And here's my 150 words for the minutes. And please do look at my April 21 email on Block 1731 if you haven't already. Thanks a lot. Have a great day. Happy May Day. Thanks. Thanks for the talk about the history.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Sir, are you here to speak on under general public comment?

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: Yes. Okay.

[Chris Schroeder (DBI Building Inspector, Public Commenter)]: Overhead, please.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Can't see anything. See anything.

[Chris Schroeder (DBI Building Inspector, Public Commenter)]: I'd like to begin my time. I'd like to begin my time. My name is Chris Schroeder, building inspector for almost quarter century with DBI. I wanna speak about illegal demolitions. 125 Crown Terrace, a violation of San Francisco building code one zero three a point one. Is a demolition exceeding two thirds of the structure? Is an unlawful demolition? Why does the Department of City Planning approval approve permits without the Department of City Planning without the San Francisco building code compliance? And this was denied okay. Then it was a vertical horizontal addition out there. Bernie Coran was out there as well as Santos, director O'Riordan, and deputy director Matt Green. Here, I reported to director O'Riordan that the the big tent was built blue tent over the whole building that was supposed to be saved after it was pulled up the hill after it went down the hill. The the the tent was built completely around it. I reported to O'Rearton that the entire building had been demolished except for a few old pieces of, rough sawn two by four nailed here and there. You can see here Bernie Coran abates the case. Structural aspects have been included. No. There were just a few boards nailed here. Okay. And here's another one permit for the illegal demolition. As you could see, the team of, Bernie Kuran, Patrick O'Riordan, Rodrigo Santos, Matt Green worked together on the former Vic president's, he was also on 3418 26th Street in which the same team, worked together on, which was built five stories up, without any DBI inspections. O'Rourke accepts a, a letter from Santos in lieu of any DBI inspections. And here you could see O'Rourke is on the, permit here too. Coran, you could see his, filing it. And, when I reported this to he said, don't worry about it. Your name's not on it and Santos is gonna sign off on it too. Here's 79 Craigmont, another unlawful demolition. It was, I'm the inspector on it, and, Joe Duffy, the senior, wrote the notice of violation. I should have written a notice of violation because I was the inspector. Nothing was left to the building except for the, floor and the foundation. Obviously, a complete illegal demolition. Why does, Department of City Planning approve, permits without San Francisco, building code section one zero three point a, point one, unlawful lawful demolition compliance. And I also reported this to O'Riordan. And he said, don't worry. Your name's not on it. There are many, many projects in which O'Rearn accepts letters from Santos for work that is not correct. And it this shouldn't be limited to just one day and or same day inspections. This this audit should include all inspections performed by Bernie

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: and Santos. Thank you. Last call for general public comment. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. Commissioners that will place us under your regular calendar for item nine, case number twenty twenty five hyphen 1,748 PCA, amnesty for properties in the Department of Building Inspections, internal quality control audit planning and building code amendments.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Starr, filling in for Veronica Flores today. The item before you would create an amnesty program for properties in the Department of Building Inspections internal quality control audit. It is sponsored by supervisor Mandelmann, who is here to speak on the item, and I will continue my presentation when he's finished. Thank you.

[Supervisor Rafael Mandelman (District 8)]: Hello, commissioners, president Soh, vice president Moore, all of you. Good to be up here visiting. Thank you for your service to our city. The ordinance before you will provide relief to scores of property owners who were unwittingly and through no fault of their own swept up in the sad and sorry saga of Bernie Curran and Rodrigo Santos. In January 2023, Rodrigo Santos, a building and construction engineer who had done extensive work in San Francisco and served on the city's building inspection commission and city college board of trustees was found guilty of leading multiple fraud schemes, tax evasion, and providing falsified documents to the FBI. Santos had defrauded his clients, submitted false plans to the Department of Building Inspection, and worked beyond the scope of his permits dozens of times. He also stole money from his clients by misrepresenting the fees that were owed to DBI and keeping the difference. That same year, former DBI inspector, Bernie Curran, was found guilty of accepting illegal gratuities for personal gain in connection with building current to approve illegal work including unauthorized demolitions and unpermitted construction. Not the city's best moment. These convictions were not the end of the story for the city or for the owners of properties that Santos and Curran had touched. In May 2021, DBI had initiated an internal review of properties that were associated with either man. DBI identified nearly 5,500 such properties to be audited. The internal quality control audit looked for evidence of work done beyond the scope of a permit, unpermitted work, missing inspections and other violations. It was, completed this past January and the good news is that no imminent life safety hazards were found. However, roughly 2% of audited properties were found to have unauthorized work that needed to be brought up to code. Of course, the vast majority of these owners had either had purchased their properties without knowing that either Santos or Current had done unpermitted work on them. They had no way of knowing that that they would be hit with notices of violation requiring them to undertake potentially costly corrective work on the properties requiring payments of payment of tens of thousands of dollars in unanticipated unanticipated permit and architectural fees. One owner learned that their staircase was illegal and had to pay $21,000 to cover DBI fees, legal fees, and the hiring of an architect to create new drawings and permit permit sets to rebuild the staircase consistent with code requirements. Another owner learned they had to redo a driveway because it was not permeable and renovate their front doorway because it did not have the right transom. A third owner learned that their home had not gotten its required permits and therefore, among other problems, now required a conditional use permit to comply with my my luxury my large luxury home legislation. In that particular case, this poor owner had to spend more than $50,000 in permit planning and legal fees. So the ordinance before you, which we introduced in February, will establish an amnesty program that will waive local planning code violations for this discrete set of properties that were subject to DBI's internal quality control audit. The legislation will further waive fees that would otherwise be required to remedy such violations and will allow for refunds to property owners who have already paid such fees. The ordinance was heard at the code advisory committee on March 12, and the committee members voted unanimously to make a recommendation to the Building Inspection Commission for approval. The ordinance was then heard at the Building Inspection Commission on April 16, and the commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of the item. You are our last stop before we take go back to the board of supervisors to the land use committee. We're asking for your positive recommendation. And if you move this forward, we're hoping to get this to land use in June and have it approved by the board and signed by the mayor before our August recess. I have there were a bunch of staff along the way who who helped us with this. Director DBI director, Patrick O'Reardon, Chris and then Christine Gasparak, Tate Hanna, Patrick Hannon, Matthew Green, also from DBI. Liz Waddy, thank you for your help. Aaron Starr and Veronica Flores from planning. Austin Yang, Rob Cap Capla, Kristen Jensen, and Peter Milyanich from the city attorney's office, and then Calvin Ho from my office. It was sort of a cast of thousands, but, we've got it done. I am not gonna be able to stay very long, although if anybody has questions, I can try to take them. Otherwise, mister Starr will continue. And then, Tate Hanna is here from DBI, in case there are technical questions. Mhmm. Alright. Thanks, everybody.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you, supervisor.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Thank you, supervisor. You did an excellent job summarizing the ORN. So all that I will say is that the department is recommending approval of the proposed ordinance, and we are happy here to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: There are no immediate questions. Commissioners, there is we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Jerry Drentler (Public Commenter)]: Good morning or good afternoon. My name is Jerry Drentler. I'm in favor of the concept. I have a large problem with the execution. DBI has a spreadsheet listing 134 Bernie Kerr and Rodrigo Santos complaints that were opened by DBI in the permit tracking system. You have a simplified copy of the spreadsheet. The proposed legislation should list the specific properties that will receive amnesty. It does not. 25 of those complaints were opened in 2023. That's pretty late. And a 109 were opened in 2024. That's very late. 35 complaints on the spreadsheet have been closed. 99 complaints, 74% of the complaints on the spreadsheet remain open. One of the complaints, which you have a copy on the back of the first page, the comment is continued awaiting legislation. What that means is DBI has stopped working on complaints. It makes no sense to propose a legislative solution that is not property specific when 74% of the amnesty complaints have not been fully researched. Again, I support the concept, but it looks like another effort by the city to sweep a problem under the rug rather than deal with it. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: I'll get one of the commissioners. Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And if I'll take this opportunity to remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. With that, commissioners, this matter is before you.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Thank you for the public of weighing in. Anna shares many of the concerns because the legislation in front of us does cover 5,000 projects, and the detailed list and the percentages of projects having been reviewed, or are being still in process or not having been reviewed, is not not disclosed in the legislation. Some commissioners may remember a few of the projects which are covered by this legislation, others may not. The time period covers more than twenty years of projects, an excessively long list of problematic decisions that are very difficult to sort out given the lack of information that is basically available to us. As commissioner, I remember at least 20 specific projects over the years, and it's a hard call for me, given what has not been disclosed in this legislation, and the reason why I am personally not ready to support the legislation today. I remember that the majority of projects that were in front of the commission since I've been sitting here were difficult. Many of them, most of them were controversial, and others were painfully laughable, some bordering on the absurd. Like, for example, the project described by an earlier speaker here today, like 125 Crown Terrace, a renovation on this very steep site, which just collapsed and tumbled down the hill. Another one which I found very laughable was that there was a seasoned, licensed engineer who was looking for approval of a building with a driveway of 28% grade. And it was presented as buildable, code compliant, and approvable. But those are just jokes aside from the real serious questions that are in front of us today and on which we are encouraged to decide on. And I have a few questions regarding amnesty. Amnesty is a difficult word. Is there precedent of any form of amnesty legislation in the city, in any department, or particularly in planning and TBI? Amnesty means forgiveness. And I appreciate president Mandelmann acknowledging the severity of what has been happening here for an extended period of time, decades indeed decades indeed. The amnesty legislation, in its own right, I do believe is well intentioned, but it raises a series of questions of what I would need to know to really support it. I'm looking for personally, I'm looking for a stronger foundation and better reasoning why this legislation is necessary. It is not just mayor Kohlberg. I'm looking for clearer, more traceable facts as a foundation for this legislation. And what I mean by this is, given the larger number of projects, I personally need to have clear data by which I can justify supporting this legislation, the hows, the whose, the wheres, and the whens. For projects considered for amnesty, the legislation requires clarity, transparency, and traceability. Where are the projects located, the specific addresses? What type of projects are involved, single family home, flats, merger of flats, or multi family buildings? What is the nature of the notice of violations? What type of work are we talking about? Demolitions, rehabs, mergers, or new construction? And who are the benefactors? Individual building owners or ownersdevelopers with multiple buildings, LLCs or investors? For each incident, was it the engineer or the inspector or both together who were involved? That is not clear from any of the, information given to us, nor what we briefly saw today in any of the tables that were handed out to us. For amnesty consideration, why is there no distinction made between projects where people innocently bought a building which is now attributed to mister Sanders or mister Kern, and those who unknowingly hired mister Sanders for his services as the most thought after permit and that is by people who knew that he was that he had the in vote to get things done. There's no distinction of who are we talking about. What I'm asking is, could this legislation inadvertently reward the wrong people? The next follow-up question is looking into the future. For owners who will receive amnesty, and under the right circumstances, I would strongly support that. We had a case a few weeks ago not related to this particular group of people, but it was something where inadvertently a mistake was made, and the new owner we decided that the new owner would not be responsible for paying for that mistake. For owners who will receive amnesty will be there are notes of special restriction on the title of their legally noncompliant building so that in the event that they are selling the building, that the next owner would be obligated to bring the property up to applicable codes. Out of curiosity, would San Bruno, 2867 San Bruno Avenue be eligible for amnesty? And what is the likelihood of people in similar circumstances who had an NOV but have already remedied the violation would now come back and ask for a refund for work performed prior to the amnesty? I heard President Mandelmann briefly comment on it. This is not clearly expressed in the legislation or in the summary. There was a lot to be read, but I did not see it. In conclusion, as drafted, this legislation lacks specificity, and I will not be able to support it today in its current form. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: You know, I think, Vice President Moore raises some good questions and concerns. And I had a couple of questions about the legislation as well, just to clarify a few things for myself. So first of all, as far as the well, as far as the DBI audit goes, as I understand, that was completed in early this year. There are the 5,000 properties identified. There the packet says there are about a 100 notices of violations issued. Is are the NOVs still forthcoming or is the even though the audit is complete, do we anticipate there's gonna be more properties caught over time?

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Tate Hanna, legislative affairs manager at DBI. We have cases that have open complaints, but the NOVs have been issued for the properties that it would be they would be applicable to.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Okay. So it's it's believed that for the most part, the properties to which this amnesty would apply have already been fully identified. Correct. Okay. Thank you. And then my my other question is, I think the packet said that so far about a dozen properties have come to the planning commission or not planning, to the planning department because there is a planning code issue, it sounds like. Could somebody just kind of expand on that a little bit? What's what's the what have been been the nature of the issues raised for those dozen properties? Are there some examples that staff are aware of?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: Alright. Thank you, commissioner Braun. Corey Teague. So I I don't know all of those examples, but just to give you a couple, one was referenced in the introductory remarks where because all of these situations, obviously, work was done in a manner that went beyond the permits that were issued. Sometimes those that work could be legalized through permits and it was it was permitted. They just went beyond scope and all it took was, you know, one or more new building permits to legalize that work. But sometimes the work that was done was not co compliant in various ways. Right? Whether there was an amount of work done that, like I said, the one that was referenced resulted in a building area larger than what could be approved administratively and it, therefore, it required a conditional use authorization. And I know that there was at least one project that came before me for a variance where there had been a rear addition and excavation and basically into the required rear yard. And so the the options were either demolish that portion completely or obtain a rear yard variance. So I think that's what's being referenced in terms of some of the projects that were impacted by these violations in order to legalize under the current code required some additional approvals beyond just new building permits.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Thank you. And then vice president Moore also raised the 2867 San Bruno project. I'm not sure where he got the address quite right. But I think we we know the one that we're talking about in in the portal. Is would that be subject to this legislation? Is anyone aware of of that? I'm I'm just throwing some questions at staff here, but

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: I don't know if you know.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: I I'm not aware of that one being identified on the audit, and that project has basically already kinda gone through the process of legalization. There's there's still finalizing that work, but in terms of all of the basis to getting to a legal state, it kinda already predated the audit. So I can't speak with a 100%, you know, assurance that it's not on the audit, but I'm not aware of a of that property being, in the inventory.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: And

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: and, commissioner, I just confirmed with our city attorney that one has a binding legal settlement. So it is not part of this bunch. It would be held to the standards of that binding legal settlement.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Okay. Thank you. And then one last just verification from from me. So as I understand it, even though these projects, as far as planning goes, will become, legal sort of nonconforming, the building code still applies. Right? There's still so it says in the packet there needs to be a a final inspection. And so all life safety issues, everything under the building code still has to be completed. Right?

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: Correct. We cannot waive any building code requirements. And so these properties, although the planning violations will be waived, would still need to abate the building code violations.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Okay. And so the property owners would still obviously have to pay, you know, their own costs to do that, I assume.

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: So the ordinance waives everything that we're essentially capable of waiving. But, yes, if they have to go get plans developed or hire contractors, we obviously cannot cover those costs, unfortunately.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Alright.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Thank you. You know, I so much of this is a mess that was created by people who are working for the city. And I just don't you know, I know that everyone's been casting about for a fair fix for this situation for a while, the situation that in many ways was created by the city, to be honest. I mean, it's not it's not all of us, but if you're working for the city and and the city has oversight, it's it is the city. And, I just I think that this is a reasonable approach. This is it sounds like the planning code the number of projects coming through with the planning violations are not very large. And I'm satisfied with the response I heard about a cup you know, about the San Bruno Avenue project. And, you know, I just don't think it's reasonable to be punishing people all the more for the failings of the city. They're still having to pay out of pocket for changes to the to their properties anyway to comply with the building code. And so, I I do support this legislation, and I'm I'm would be comfortable supporting it here today. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Yeah. I have a question for DBI. Obviously, this corruption was going on for many years. And what can you identify for the public to have confidence in the Department of Building Inspection? Can you point to some things, some changes that you've made? And and has everyone been held accountable? Because, you know, there there I've heard talk about about corruption, and it's, you know, it's legitimate. So how how can you assure the reassure the public? What what has DBI done to to step up and and take care of this?

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: Absolutely. I appreciate the question, commissioner. We've changed numerous internal practices, A few that I can think off the top of my head, we've increased our reporting to state licensing boards to make sure that the folks that are coming into DBI are properly certified and licensed. We've also changed our internal processes with regards to same day inspections or out of district inspections. If the senior inspector is assigning something to themselves, that is escalated so that we're more aware of that. So that can't be sort of a misused tool there. We also have escalations

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: in

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: the plan review process that we've added in where if there are numerous plan review comments or if a applicant chooses, they can be escalated to a supervisor. So there are more eyes, more accountability on both the plan review and inspection side. In terms of accountability, certainly the employees of DDI were held legally accountable. All all of the participants in this, the the legal process has played out and prison sentences have been given out. And so the accountability externally and internally has has gone through its process, but we wanna be clear that, you know, there was also a leadership change at DBI around four or five years ago that that instilled a new wave of, you know, ethics as a as a main priority of the department. And I think director O'Riordan has pushed for this type of amnesty program because, as you mentioned, some of these faults were from the department. And so we're really trying to rectify that, make sure that we've changed our processes, but also that we aren't creating an unnecessary burden for the folks that were tangled up in this.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: And if I can

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: just add one other is the, expanded compliance control program. I'm not sure if you were on the commission when that piece of legislation came forward, but it's effectively a sort of a three strikes, you're out, system for applicants. So, anytime that there's an applicant where it's identified that they have falsified plans or exceeded scope in the field, they get put on kind of a little naughty list. And if you get to three of those, then there are increased measures that go into place, including no longer being able to pull over the counter permits. So for applicant and that's where any subsequent application that they file, they would automatically get, you know, routed upstairs effectively instead of at the counter. They would be required to have a site visit before any approval. They would require management escalation and oversight. So it sort of kicks in a whole series of additional oversight requirements, and then their name also gets posted a little bit of public shaming. Their their name gets posted on a list that is published on the Department of Building Inspections website. So that's just one more example of kind of trying to attack this problem from multiple vantage points.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Yeah. Thank you, miss Swati. I I I appreciate thank thank you for for your response. I I I think the public appreciates all the work, that has gone into making sure this this this doesn't happen in again. Having said that, I think the legislation is is isn't perfect, as commissioner Braun and others have said. But I'm ready to support this because I believe there is a lot of innocent folks that have been caught up into this mess, and it's not fair that they have to pay for others' mistakes. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Imperial?

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Yeah. Thank you. I one of the public comment gave us this, you know, this piece. And I do have a questions in terms of the what is mentioned in the comment where seventy five 74% of the amnesty complaints have not been fully researched. Can we, I'm just trying to verify, because I think, kinda like with vice president Moore in terms of, like, the the verification of the of the properties. There are enlisted five five thousand more than 5,500 properties, that are being said, that are part of these, issues. Have there's been, in terms of this audit, have there been what kind of research has are we talking about that has been really done?

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: So thank you for the question, commissioner. I wanna be clear. The audit is complete. We have done review of all properties. We have established the status of those properties, not the certification under the ordinance, but we internally have done the research. We have the breakdown of tier one, tier two, tier three. We understand the quantity of NOVs that have been issued. We have that information, and I apologize if that was not included in the packet. We'd be happy to provide more details on that information. But I in terms of the actual enforcement, we have halted on some of that enforcement because I think that there was it was causing quite a bit of anxiety for folks to receive this NOV, especially if they were a new home buyer and they had no idea this work was even done. Receiving the NOV without prior information or contact from the department was causing more problems than it was providing solutions. And so knowing that this ordinance was moving through, knowing that we had sort of the status of all these properties determined, we put a pause on issuing some of those NOVs or fall following through on code enforcement knowing that they wouldn't be put through the normal code enforcement process.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Okay. So can you because it's not part of our packets in terms of what are those tiers. And I think those are the kind of when I read the legislation as well, it's very it's very general. And it it didn't give me also an understanding of what kind of properties, what kind of issues that were actually part of it. Through my commission, there were, you know, there are cases here that we saw that those were innocent projects, especially if they're coming from the single family homes. But there were also some you know, one is the most egregious one that I saw was the the San Bruno one. And so I think what I'm, you know, what I'm hoping that comes out of you know, for this legislation is to the ones that are egregious, the ones that we the ones that that we feel like that, you know, again, they'll whether who's the benefactor of it, like, there were there some kind of collusion with the project sponsor and the, you know, with the inspector. That was one project that we thought that was but there was also going through some legal settlement on that. So that was kinda, like, my my issue with this legislation. Hopefully, that in terms of the implementation, that's what I'm kinda, like, you know, how do we save those, like, those ones that we made the innocent, but the ones that are that are we don't know yet whether it seems like there may there may be need more investigation on that. So can you explain of what you've seen really through that research

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: Happy to do so.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Audit? Yeah.

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: One thing that I would note is that some of the convictions of of Rodrigo Santos include defrauding his clients. And so I I think that there's a little bit of a blurred line here. When we first started these conversations with president Mandelmann, there was that feeling where we wanted to have as tight knit a group of property owners as possible so that folks that were colluding with Santos or O'Kern weren't the benefactors of this ordinance. Unfortunately, we don't have the capacity to make that determination. Right? There are not criminal proceedings against some of these homeowners. And as I mentioned, some of the crimes that Santos was convicted of are against his his own customers. And so, it was a determination a policy determination by president Mandelmann that this should be more applicable so that we catch the folks that weren't aware, that were defrauded by Santos, even if they own the home while the work was being done, and try to be as expansive as possible there, recognizing that, yes, some of the folks that maybe will be a benefit beneficiary of this might have been involved, but had we gone the other direction and made it such that, oh, you had to purchase the home after the work was done, we'd be missing out on a subsect of owners that had no clue, were defrauded by Santos, and now have to deal with the full brunt of an NOV and going through the code enforcement process. So that was a policy determination by the president that I think the department is happy to stick with, but we wanna make sure that we're providing relief to everybody that is innocent and we unfortunately don't have the capacity to determine for the folks that were working with Santos or Karen, don't have the capacity to determine who was and who was not involved.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: I have a question to miss Wadi. In terms of the the other ordinance where, you know, where they may be identified at this point where, you know, they're in the shame list. Are they gonna be part of this amnesty program? Those projects?

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: I think they they could be eligible for aspects of it, but they would still have to go through the protocols in the expanded compliance control list. So, again, they would have to go through not being able to have their projects approved quickly without additional oversight. Again, the goal more on that expanded compliance control is to make sure that they can't, sort of have projects with inaccurate plans submitted or do things in the field inaccurately again. It's sort of to ensure compliance moving forward effectively, and that's the oversight. Sort of to the point that Tate just mentioned, those projects would potentially be able to avail themselves of of refunds. What I would say is just sort of more anecdotally here, and I don't have the data on this. Every single one of these projects that's been brought to my attention, and we work closely with Mandelmann's office, have all been innocent homeowners. They've all been properties that have been flipped. I think a big, big market of Santos' work was properties that got flipped. And so we were dealing with homeowners who just bought properties. And, you know, I know I I dealt with one, not too long ago where they all of a sudden started it all started with water intrusion. And they started seeing water intrusion, then they looked into it, and they realized they had no foundation. They had no structural framework behind the walls. And then it turned out that it was actually the the site plan was drawn to show that the lot was longer than it actually was, so it turns out that addition was in the rear yard, and now it needs a variance. Right? It it sort of spiraled down, and it was a homeowner at this point that I think had spent pushing, like, $600,000 at this point trying to remedy issues. So from an anecdotal perspective, I we absolutely understand your concern. These were concerns, as Tate mentioned, that we brought up early on. I think the reality is the vast majority of the folks that aren't otherwise in litigation with the city, like San Bruno, do seem to be new homeowners who purchased what felt like a recently remodeled with plans home, and then they found out those plans weren't what the plans showed they were.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: I mean, that's I mean, again, we I do I mean, I do share the sentiment of this legislation. And I think what I would recommend for this legislation if and thank you again. I don't know if I forgot your name. Is to if there is a way for a DBI to look into the, you know, you know I mean, we're I mean, as as of now, they're not criminal activity yet because but but to increase that capacity to look into that and perhaps the list of 5,000 properties is actually going to be lower so that those also the ones that we're talking about in the amnesty or not in the shame list may also not be covered on that. So I yeah.

[President Lydia So]: That's what

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: I think. Maybe, you know, potential condition or recommendation that you could make to the supervisor could be that, you know, if if anyone is involved on the expanded control, compliance control list and also is, you know, part of the audit that they're not able to avail themselves of the of the program. I think in reality, the folks who are on the expanded compliance control, for the most part, are engineers or developers. They're not, for the most part, homeowners. I just looked at the list. So they're normally people who draw plans. And so I think if if anything, that might just be an incentive for the homeowner who's trying to remedy the problem to not hire one of those people is the likely impact. But, I mean, certainly, I think that is fair game for the commission to propose to the to the supervisor's office, and that could give sort of a level of comfort of, you know, not having the the wrong folks benefit from from this program.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: I would I would add that as a recommendation. I forgot the language that you used, miss Waddy, but that is something

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: that I exclude the expanded compliance control listees from being eligible.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: And also to increase the capacity for for DBI as well to look into these audited projects. I know it can be hard because it's not yet, but I I just feel like there I I wanna make sure that we're not rewarding where there a collusion have happened. And I think we need to do that kind of due diligence work as well. So thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Very good point. Thank you for all the commissioners to share your really candid and thoughtful comment. I do find that this president Mendelmann's amnesty legislation program, the true intent purposes is to safeguard our innocent homeowners and property owners who are inadvertently caught up with this mess and financially and mentally cost them undue distress. But, however, reading into the details about the the legislation and hearing, a lot of my fellow commissioners come in, there is some gray area here that needs to be further clarified about in certain what extent about like, for for example for example, I have a questions about this requiring a full planning code compliance is is included in this packet that we're reading. I like to get some clarity of I understand that that DBI is responsible for life safety of anything that we built. The building department is responsible for, land use and zoning and massing, right, and planning. So our planning department so some of these buildings might have violated some of our planning code by adding an additional floor or excavated an extra level. And so I would like to get some clarity about if some of these what is what are we waiving in this MSD program in terms of when they are having some planning code violations? Can someone

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: So I I think the idea is that if if the scope of work that was built would trigger additional planning processes. So as as the zoning administrator mentioned, if the scope of work would trigger a variance in order to legalize it, we are waiving the need for a variance and the commensurate fees that go along with filing variances. As Mandelmann mentioned, there was another example where legalizing the as built conditions would trigger a CU for the Central Neighborhoods large home ordinance. This ordinance would waive the need to file that CU and the commensurate fees associated with that CU. So that's what it's referring to is those additional, planning code requirements and triggers, those would be waived. Those fees would be waived. But no matter what, that, you know, the scenario that I just described for that those poor homeowners, they still are gonna need to figure out how to probably deconstruct part of their addition, build some foundation, build their structural framework. Like, they need to get that wall to meet the building code before they can resolve all of these issues. So they still have a burden upon them to to pay for that work and to get that up to the building code. As as Teeth mentioned, we're not legally not allowed to waive those standards. Mhmm. But we can waive the variance needed to get that planning sign off so that they can just cut to the chase, do the work, and get it resolved.

[President Lydia So]: So thank you for that explanation. I'm pretty sure mister Tee had been is prepared to, further elaborate a little bit on this?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: Not not much more. I mean, just to be very clear, I think, miss Swati kinda laid it out already pretty clearly, but the this is a essentially, a full amnesty from the planning code. So it's from process, but also the planning code requirements. And I think the intent of the whole program is that the only thing that would need to be done is ensure that the minimum life safety, you know, building code requirements are met. But otherwise, planning code requirements and, application fees, etcetera, are essentially kind of waived. And then once that site goes to the process to kinda document this and kinda come out the other side, if what gets legalized there doesn't meet the planning code in some way, it would be considered a legal noncompliant structure or a legal nonconforming use.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. Thanks for that explanation. So if I may allow myself to try to understand this and then for example, a property owner and really, you know, someone bought this thing that has been flipped, and they are ended up with a property that has probably, like, say, an extra floor and also an an extra roof deck, an extra floor, an extra little house behind their lot that is not co planning co compliance, nothing to do with life safety issue. Here, we just talk about increase of 300% square footages of what they're allowed to do in land use purposes. Right? Massing. With this MST program, by the definition of waiving any of the variance fees and application, it also means we are waiving our requirement to require these property owner to comply with our land use, massing. Okay. So they can have this they can continue to have this 300% more additional square footages of

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: It's legalizing the as built conditions.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. I see. And then, Corey, you mentioned that then but in their in their in their report three r report, those extra extra square footages will be classified as illegal?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: Not not in the I mean, we're not we haven't even talked about units. But, I mean, as miss Suarez was saying, like, whatever is as built pursuant to that unauthorized work, once it goes through this process and it does whatever is necessary to meet the life safety requirements of the building code, that built condition is what's allowed to stay. And if that doesn't meet the planning code requirements at the time, then it would be considered a legal noncompliant structure. So we're basically,

[Jenny Gebhardt (Resident)]: there's nothing under the

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: plan

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: there's nothing under the planning code that's gonna require these properties that qualify to make any changes to their property.

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: And this might just be a little bit of confusion around the the nomenclature here. When we say legal non complying, it just means that it's built and doesn't comply with today's planning code standards. So we have a ton of buildings throughout the city where, you know, you have a carriage house in the backyard. Well, it was built in 1890. It's legal, non complying because it's in the rear yard. So it just sort of puts them on the same status as anything that predates

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: the rules.

[President Lydia So]: But it will destinating that. Right? So when someone flip this again, someone try to buy this again, and our real estate professionals would know that, like, hey, you know, these are done inappropriately for a lot of reasons, but then so then it's not like this house, it looking like this doesn't mean that you can build yours like this. Right? I just wanna make sure I'm trying to get a really clear understanding

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: of what

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: And I mean, I can't speak specifically what, you know, will be reported by real estate agents. Obviously, there will be documentation in the record for the property when it goes through this process. But the scenario you just described kind of already exists all over the city where we have buildings that were built in the past with controls that were different than today, and maybe they were able to build taller, deeper than you can today. And so, obviously, seeing what's done on one property doesn't guarantee what you're able to do under current law on another property. So I don't think anything from that perspective will be different. I I'm not aware of any kind of special recordation related to this process project that will or this program that will go on these properties.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Mhmm.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: But, obviously, just like building permits or public record, etcetera, there will be a paper trail there. There will be public records regarding the properties that go through this process and kinda come out the other side.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. Thank you for the clarifications. Yep. Alright. Commissioner McGarry?

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: So this seems to be an example of everything that's wrong with the construction industry, and it's truly a sustain on the on the department's, permitting system. There is a department history here that is not going to go away, and I think the measures that are being put in place here to rectify this and make sure it doesn't happen again are fantastic. I love the shaming. You know? That's that's it's it's all about the shaming. But there there does seem to be a concern about possibly contractors that were in on it, but in my research of all this, these were all flips. The vast majority were flips, and then basically an an unexpected homeowner paid top dollar at the time to move into something, and they're left holding the bag, which is pretty much we've got 5,500 people holding the bag in there. So I'm confident that the city, the DBI, and supervisor Mandelmann's office have done everything they can to actually try and rectify this, and it would appear that everybody, as soon as somebody of one of these properties, does call DBI, there's somebody there to actually help them because of how why they're calling in the first place. So I'm doubly, basically satisfied on that. So I would recommend approval of this today. I would make a motion, but there's two supervisors. I will make a motion, to approve this as is, but I have two supervisors who wanna talk. Or, sorry, two commissioners. Sorry.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Sure. Excuse me. I think a lot of my questions have been answered. I do agree this is an unfortunate circumstance, but I do appreciate the ordinance. It feels very logical to me and a reasonable way of righting a wrong, our city's collective wrong. It hasn't been focused too much that the it is it does sunset after five years just so the public is aware of that. I wondered if the homeowners will be pro are we just waiting for people to, come for they get the notice of violation, but then will there be any active outreach just given that it does sunset?

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: Thank you, commissioner. Yes. There will so the NOVs will have specific descriptions. It's not just going to list, you know, noncompliance with this code section. It will be specific to say that coming from DBI's internal quality audit, you are now, you know, in violation of this code section. So the NOVs will be specific. We'll also be doing additional outreach to those folks that have gotten those NOVs, just so they're aware of this option. This is being published in our community, excuse me, customer forums and other public outreach things that we do at the department. So, yes, we're trying to blast this out and make sure people are aware of it. And that five year timeline is just to make sure that people are proactive. We don't want these non compliant conditions just sitting there unrectified for years on end.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Great. And then I know we're talking about waiving fees moving forward, but we're also refunding fees for those that have already paid. My first question before I got through the packet was, well, how much is that gonna cost us? And it seemed there was an estimate of $20,000. Is that what we've currently tallied, or does that count what we kind of anticipate the total being? And are I just know we're counting pennies right now, so do are we confident we have the funds to cover?

[Tate Hanna (Legislative Affairs Manager, Department of Building Inspection)]: Yes. I I can't actually speak to that 20,000. I have not seen that estimate. I know for our total side of DBI's violations, it was over around 300 and 300,000, excuse me, that doesn't include the planning code waivers. But, miss Waddy, if you wanna. Sure.

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: I think the 20,000 is retroactive, I believe, is sort of looking back at what we've done to date. And so I think that although we are counting every penny, I think that number felt de minimis enough, to be comfortable with that. Again, I think we also don't assume that every single person is gonna come forward and seek a refund, but the option is there. Moving forward, I think the good thing is because this is waiving the planning code work requirements, we're not gonna be spending much time on these projects. And so our fees should be commensurate with cost recovery. And so if we're not seeing them, we're not spending money on them. It's okay if our fees just don't exist because we're not spending time on them. So That

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: makes sense.

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: I don't think we're anticipating a huge sort of time commitment being put into them without being compensated for our time. It it should sort of right size to the to the level of effort moving forward.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Great. Thank you. So I would second the motion that's been put out there. However, I did hear an interest in, a modification. So I don't know if you would be interested in adding this to your motion, commissioner, but there was an interest in potentially excluding entities that are on these expanded compliance control lists from eligibility of the amnesty program. K. Then I would second your motion. Thank you. He's you support that modification test? On your yeah.

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: Yes. I'd support that. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: That sounds great. Commissioner Campbell, are you

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: I seconded that. Thank you. And then I'm done with my comments. Alright.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner vice president Moore?

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: I have an additional question, and that's for mister Teague. Mister Teague, when we have an enlargement of a home, be it either adding a floor or doing something below grade and expanding or into the rear yard, does the nature of taxation on that altered home increase, and is it recorded with the assessor?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: Sorry. I couldn't quite hear the last sentence about the taxation.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Would the taxation that we pay annually increase for this particularly altered or enlarged home?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: If I'm understanding your question, you're asking is for projects that have done expansions, you know, without proper permits under this program, if they go through the program to essentially legalize that, will those expansions still get, documented with the assessor's office through this this being taxed? Well, that's okay. I I don't have an answer for that question, because that's really more of a process through building permit process and the assessor's office.

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: I was just gonna add on to that. Usually, there's, a sort of a direct feed from when a building permit is, finaled. That information gets forwarded to the assessor's office. So that the connection between taxation and a project comes from sort of a building permit being finaled out, not through the planning department. So there shouldn't be any change in that since they still need to file a building permit and deal with all the life safety issues.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: The second question is, there is a possibility that somebody will not be able to afford rectifying of what is wrong. As you pointed out, there may be people of lesser means who bought a home, but will not have the ability to rectify the, violations. What happens to those people in case they sell? Will the next owner have to basically be ante up for that mistake?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: So I can't speak to what happens with those particular owners. I mean, my understanding of the program is that essentially if one of these properties are in the program, that is a, something that runs with the property and is not specific to any owners. So any future owner who who would purchase such a property would still have the opportunity to use the program, but also would still be required to do what was necessary to meet the minimum requirements of the program.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: I see. Those are my questions. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: First of all, I'll just point out to, vice president Moore's question about the valuation. I mean, once the property turns over, the assessed valuation would be based on the sales price of the property. And if it is a property that got built larger than it should have been, then then at least the sales price would reflect that, and the assessed valuation and taxation would reflect that as well. So if they are turning over, it sounds like most of them have, then that should be captured in the property taxes. The I I wanted to just clarify one thing about the the motion that was made. And so as I understand it, the intention of excluding projects from eligibility, if they have involvement of people on the, expanded compliance control list. The intention is to provide a disincentive for for folks to continue to work with those the the people on that list. And so I'd just like to clarify. I mean, this the modification is about, you don't qualify if you have involvement for your legalization process, of anyone on the expanded compliance control list. Is that is that the intent, commissioner McGarry? So I I think with the way the modification was made, to the motion, it was kind of like if anyone on the com expanded compliance control list is involved in the project, they don't qualify for this exemption. But I thought it was more of a disincentive to work with them now. Because I I think that if if we just say if anyone's involved at any point in the project who's on that list, then if there has been turnover of the project, if there's been a sale of it and now it's, like, somebody who was basically defrauded is is trying to come into compliance, they should still, I think, be able to access this this legislation, this this pathway. So I think it's more about you just can't have anyone from that list involved in the legalization process now in trying to address the notice of violation.

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: Correct. I I think that's what we were discussing is none of those those folks can be the applicant nor the design professional of record to go through the legalization. So when you file the application to legalize in response to the NOV, none of those people can be the applicant, basically the authorized agent, nor can they be the person who prepared the plans.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Is that the intent? Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. Just wanna make sure.

[President Lydia So]: That's a really good clarification though, commissioner Brown. Clarification. Yeah. I I do like to really encourage DBI to really actively do your outreach, If anything else, you don't have to do anything else on this, but just please let them know their mental wellness will will improve and right? And then no no longer having financial distress. Yeah. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval excluding properties on the expanded compliance list from the program. On that motion, commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? No. And commission president Soh?

[President Lydia So]: Aye. So

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: moved, commissioners. That motion passes six to one with commissioner Moore voting against. Commissioners, that will place us now on item 10 for case number 2019Hyphen017622ENV for the property at 570 Market Street. This is an appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration. There are two appeals that have been filed against the mitigated negative declaration. So they will each receive a ten minute presentation following staff's presentation, followed by the project sponsor, who will also receive ten minutes. And then we will hear public comment.

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Is the presentation shown?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: It's okay. Okay.

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, President So and members of the commission. My name is Ryan Shum. I'm the environmental case coordinator for the proposed 570 Market Street project. The item before you is the appeal of a preliminary mitigated negative declaration or PMND for the proposed project at 570 Market Street. You should have before you a packet containing a draft motion, the appeal letters, a response to the appeal letters, and the amended PMND. The decision before you is whether to adopt the motion to affirm the PMND if you find that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment or to refer the PMND back to the planning department for specified revisions. You may also overrule the PMND and require staff to prepare an environmental impact report if you find that there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. My colleague Jonathan Vimmer will be presenting the project approval items following my PMND appeal presentation. However, if you decide not to affirm the PMND today, then the project approvals cannot be acted upon at today's hearing. As a reminder, upholding the PMND would not restrict your ability to consider whether or not to approve the proposed project as that is a separate deliberation. The department determined that the project would not qualify for an exemption and therefore prepared an initial study to assess the project's potential impacts and determine whether an environmental impact report was required. The department issued a PMND for the project in October 2024 determining that the project would not result in significant impacts with implementation of specified mitigation measures agreed to by the project sponsor. On 11/20/2024, two appellants filed separate appeals of the project, mister Shaffer representing the owners of the Chancery Building at 564 Market Street and mister Flynn representing the owners of 44 Montgomery Street. The appellant submitted supplemental materials in December 2024, March 2025, and two days ago on April 29. The department has carefully reviewed these materials and they do not alter our conclusions that a PMND is the appropriate level of environmental review for the project. The PMND documents the department's determination that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, the impacts would be less than significant because of mitigation measures. The appellants have not met the legal burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise as we will describe more in this presentation. Staff respectfully recommend that the commission affirm the department's determination to issue a PMND. Project would replace two existing two story commercial buildings with a 29 story hotel with 211 guest rooms and a new 4,200 square foot public open space on the 15th Floor. The new hotel would not include any off street vehicle parking and would replace the existing commercial loading zone on Sutter Street with a passenger loading zone. Project construction is anticipated to last twenty four months. The primary topics that the appellants brought up include geology and soils, construction noise and vibration, construction air quality, and historic preservation. The appellants also raised questions regarding freight loading, shadow, and wind. The department has addressed these latter topics in the appeal response and can any questions that the commission has. Lastly, two appeal letters from one of the appellants included issues related to planning code consistency, which are outside the scope of CEQA review. We don't plan on addressing those issues here, but my colleague Jonathan Vimmer can address them if needed. To begin, staff would like to respond to one of the main concerns raised by the appellants, which is that the PMND did not adequately analyze the geotechnical impacts of its construction on nearby buildings. This contention is incorrect. For environmental review, the department considers the question of whether construction of a project could have substantial adverse effects on geology, on soils or geologic features of the project site, and whether a project could be feasibly constructed and supported by the underlying site conditions. The geotechnical report concluded that the proposed building is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint and that the project would be required to undergo more detail reviewed by the building department at a later stage. As background, the building department has a number of administrative bulletins to guide their review. For example, AB 111 for tall buildings greater than two forty feet in height, such as the proposed project, requires an independent engineering design review of the geotechnical and structural design by geotechnical team members of the engineering design review team. AB 82 specifies the guidelines and procedures for independent structural and geotechnical design review, including an assessment of the project's proposed foundation system and its appropriateness for its structure and ground conditions on the site, and the potential effects of construction activity, the predicted foundation settlement, and the project's long term interaction with foundations of existing adjacent and nearby structures. Staff would like to clarify that the building department's review occurs after the secret process and project approval, but before construction permits are issued. At this later stage, DBI ensures that the construction documents incorporate geotechnical recommendations made by the licensed civil or geotechnical engineer. And if necessary, the department will require the sponsor's engineering of record to revise the plans to ensure compliance with state and local building codes. This review is mandatory and project sponsors must comply. Through this regulatory process, the city ensures that significant impacts related to geology and soils do not occur and therefore CEQA mitigation is not required. Stepping back, CEQA requires that environmental review be completed before a project is approved. In San Francisco, this review takes place early on in the project timeline alongside code and policy review and is based on architectural level plans. These plans illustrate the project elements and assess feasibility, but do not include the detailed structural information found in permit level plans. Permit level plans and construction level plans, which can contain engineering details, are submitted after environmental review and project approval. It is at that point that qualified staff in other city departments, such as licensed engineers in the building department, conduct further technical review. Appellants have not have not provided substantial evidence to support a fair argument that this process would result in significant impacts related to geology and soils. With respect to construction noise, the appellant's contend that the PMND construction noise analysis was improperly calculated. One of the appellant's submitted a noise study to support their contention. However, as detailed in the apartment's appeal response, the appellant's analysis is incorrect and misleading because it conflates two different methodologies and does not follow the general assessment methodology that the appellant claims should be utilized. Moreover, the department directed the preparation of supplemental noise analysis with more conservative assumptions in accordance with FTA general assessment methodology to further substantiate the PMND conclusions that construction would not have a significant noise impact. The department analysis uses the correct noise attenuation factor and equipment usage factor and confirm that project construction noise would not exceed the applicable noise standards at the nearest residential and commercial receptors. The appellants also contend that the project would result in significant construction vibration impacts to nearby structures, but did not provide evidence to support this assertion. Consistent with CEQA, we conservatively analyzed the project impacts and determined that the project would could not could have a significant impact, but that mitigation would reduce the risk of significant damage to a less than significant level. This conclusion is based upon substantial evidence. As described in the PMND, mitigation measure MNO2 would require a project specific vibration management and monitoring plan to employ all feasible means to avoid damage to nearby structures, including procedures to actively monitor vibration levels at the construction site. It is also remembered important to note that Caltrans vibration standards are guidelines for assessing potential vibration damage and not bright line thresholds, contrary to the appellant's assertions. This is because all buildings are constructed using unique construction techniques and materials and have different underlying soil conditions and surroundings. As a result, construction vibration interact with buildings to varying degrees, and there is no bright line threshold above which vibration impacts are certain to occur. Therefore, the appellant's contention that any exceedance of the threshold would result in significant impact is incorrect, and the appellants have not met the legal burden of proof of providing substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the vibration mitigation measure would be inaccurate. With regards to construction and air quality, their project would be required to comply with existing local and state regulations to control construction dust and handle hazardous materials. As described in the PMND, lead and asbestos is heavily regulated, and the city will not issue demolition or alteration permits until a project sponsor has demonstrated compliance with the law. Similar to more detailed geotechnical review by the building department following project approval, if granted, the health department would review the specifics of construction documents related to the handling of hazardous materials at a later stage. Compliance with these mandatory regulations would ensure that the project would not result in significant health impacts to nearby receptors. Following the appeal of the PMND, department staff directed a qualified air quality consultant to perform additional health risk analysis to inform the results of our initial analysis. The analysis takes into account the use of tier four clean construction equipment required as part of air quality mitigation measure MAQ four a, and confirms that project construction would not have a significant impact to nearby sensitive receptors, including office workers. No additional study or mitigation is required. Lastly, we would like to briefly touch on historic preservation. The department's historic resource evaluation response identifies all adjacent or nearby historic resources, including the Chancery Building and 44 Montgomery Street. These buildings were accounted for in the preservation analysis. The HRER also clearly concluded that the property is not part of a designated or eligible historic district. The project would not affect character defining features on adjacent properties such that their historic status could be altered and no significant impact would occur. In conclusion, the PMND and supplemental analysis fully support the findings that the project, with implementation of the agreed upon mitigation measures, would not result in significant impacts that could not be reduced to a less than significant level. These findings are based on substantial evidence in the record, and the appellants have not provided a fair argument to require preparation of an EIR. We recommend that you uphold the PMND and not require further analysis or an EIR because such efforts would not provide any meaningful new analysis beyond what was already conducted for the PMND, and more importantly, would not yield different results from what has already been disclosed. For these reasons, the planning department respectfully recommends that the planning commission affirm the PMND and reject the appeal. Again, by upholding the PMND, you do not restrict your ability to consider whether or not to approve the project. Thank you very much for your attention. I'm joined by my colleagues, Josh Pollock, Chelsea Fordham, Tanya Schaner, and we are all available to answer any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. With that, we should hear from the first appellant. You have ten minutes.

[Richard Drury (Lozeau Drury LLP, Counsel for 44 Montgomery Owner)]: Thank you. And you have red, please.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: SFGov. Thank you.

[Richard Drury (Lozeau Drury LLP, Counsel for 44 Montgomery Owner)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, honorable members of the commission. My name is Richard Drury with the law firm Lozo Drury, and I am representing the owners of 44 Montgomery, which is immediately adjacent to the proposed project at 570 Market 12 inches away, one foot. So we're very close. We're urging the commission to require an environmental impact report for this project to analyze its very significant environmental impacts, make sure that they're minimized, so that they don't damage our building or the other historic buildings that are immediately adjacent to this project. As a threshold threshold issue, this project requires a conditional use authorization. To obtain that, the this body has to determine that the project is, quote, necessary, desirable, and compatible with the neighborhood and community, and also must consider the market demand for hotel and or or motels of the type proposed. As we all know, hotels are empty in this city or or or having trouble in this city. With president Trump's recent, proclamations. People are afraid to travel to The United States, and it's affecting the hotel industry throughout the nation, including in our own city. And I don't think that that finding can be made in the existing market conditions. Right now, the city is relying on market surveys done prior, to the most recent events that have really harmed the hotel industry. As far as the CEQA findings go, I'd like to point out that this building is 12 inches away from very historic buildings, the Chancery Building, the the financial the Finance Building, and my client's Building 44 Montgomery, which was built in 1967. Under CEQA, a project that will cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource has a significant impact under CEQA, including, to the immediate surroundings. So not just the building itself, but the immediate surroundings. I'd like to show you another overhead here. This shows on this block, I'm sure you're all familiar with this block, it's very prominent. Every single building on this block is a class a historic resource with the exception of one. So all the buildings on this block are historically significant. This building really sticks out like a sore thumb. It towers over the adjacent buildings, and as I'll explain, it threatens the historic buildings around it. That's a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act that must be analyzed in an EIR. And I wanna emphasize, we're talking about a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration. The fair argument standard applies to that. Mean that means if there is, quote, a fair argument that the project may have any significant environmental impacts on the resource, an EIR is required. So if experts disagree, if there's experts on one hand and on the other hand, an EIR is required. The the city staff, seems to think that if they have substantial evidence, they prevail. That's the wrong legal standard as a matter of law. We've submitted an expert comment from Catherine Petrin, very noted, well respected, architectural historian here in San Francisco. She's concluded that this 300 foot, 29 story building will have adverse, historic impacts on the neighboring buildings and the entire block, both in terms of the visual contextual alterations, the shadows on the neighboring buildings blocking light and air to the especially the Chancery Building and my client's building at 44, Montgomery, but also structural and vibrational risks to the adjacent buildings. The PMND itself states, quote, settlement from the new building loads would occur beyond the perimeter of the site and could affect adjacent structures. That's the city's conclusion. That's a now what we've heard from the city is they acknowledge there are geotechnical risks. Trust us. We'll study that later. CEQA doesn't allow that. CEQA requires the mitigation measures to be analyzed upfront, put into the environmental impact report so that the public can analyze whether those measures are adequate. The city has said they're not gonna do that. They're gonna look at this at some later stage after you've already approved the project. At that point, we've passed the point of no return. The PMND also found that there would be significant vibrational impacts. The vibrational impacts here are as high as 1.2 inches per second. Imagine that, over an inch per second of vibration. The significance threshold for Caltrans for historic buildings is 0.25. We're 500% above the significance threshold. Now staff says, well, that significance threshold, that's kind of a a it's not a hard line threshold. We're 500% above it. I mean, is it a 100% above it? 200%? I mean, five times, that's significant. The way significant thresholds work, if you exceed them, there's a presumption that the impact is significant. And we're not even close. Again, there's deferred mitigation on vibration. The MND says, if there are vibrational damage to the neighboring buildings, we'll look at it then after project approval and make the building owner repair it. Well, these are historically significant buildings. They may not be repairable at that time. Noise. We've also submitted evidence that the noise impacts of this project are significant. They're, reach up to 96 decibels at adjacent buildings. That's the noise level of a jackhammer at 50 feet. 85 decibels is sufficient to cause permanent hearing loss. We are the city got around this by assuming degradation of six decibels per dis per doubling of distance. That's the the, the hearing, degradation in an open field. As we know, this is far from an open field. This is the middle of the financial district with tall buildings around it. In such a scenario, we've submitted an expert comment from Wilson Irig, the best in the business in terms of acoustical engineering. They found that the the degradation is three decibels, not six. Again, under the fair argument standard, the fact that a well recognized acoustical engineer has found a significant noise impact causes a significant impact that must be analyzed in an EIR and mitigated. I'd also like to talk about building code variances that are being sought here. Staff says that those aren't CEQA issues. That's untrue. Under CEQA, when there's a policy violation that results in a significant environmental impact, that itself is a significant impact under CEQA. Here, the developer is seeking, variance from setbacks under one thirty two point one so that they can build right up against the neighboring buildings blocking, light and air to my client's building, to the chancery buildings, making probably those units very difficult to lease. That will have significant impacts on the historic resources themselves. They're also seeking a variance from freight loading, requirement to have a freight loading and a bus unloading space under 152.1 And 161, which require an off street loading, which is very logical. Instead, they're gonna load in the street on Sutter. That will have dramatic impacts on the entire neighborhood. Sutter Street's already a narrow street. It's already very crowded. Imagine having, you know, these towel trucks, soap trucks, toilet paper trucks backed up, unloading into a 211 room hotel every day on the street, not even off street at all. That will have very significant traffic impacts, which again is a significant impact under CEQA. We're not saying don't build the project. We're not saying kill the project. We're saying analyze the project, require an environmental impact report, analyze this and mitigate the project so that we have mitigation measures to address the historic impacts, the vibrational impacts, the noise impacts, the traffic impacts, which are very serious on this project. This project is affecting one of the most historically significant blocks in the city of San Francisco. Every tourist who who visits here walks down past these buildings. The Hobart Building is here, Chancery, Finance, 44 Montgomery is very significant. These are prominent buildings. We've got the city admitting that this project can have vibration impacts, settlement impacts, geotechnical impacts, and they're saying, trust us, we'll look at it later. CEQA doesn't allow that. It's time to take a pause, require an environmental impact report, require that these impacts be analyzed publicly where the the public can look at the adequacy of the mitigations and require that all feasible mitigation measures are implemented. With that, I see my time is almost up. I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. We should hear from the second appellant.

[Edward Schaeffer (Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, Counsel for Chancery Building Owner)]: Good afternoon. I'm Edward Schaeffer with the law firm Burke Williams Sorensen, representing the owner of the Cancery Building. I echo everything that mister Drury had said. I've submitted several letters, which I hope you've had the opportunity to review. The facts show a high likelihood that there will be significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, and that does require an EIR. As he said, the staff has cited the wrong standard of saying that we have to submit fair evidence, fair argument with evidence that an impact would occur if it may occur. And the problem here is that we could not generate information on what kind of vibration damage would occur, how much settlement might occur, because we don't have the facts. We don't have the details. The plans say they're going to drill a six foot wide, 160 foot deep holes. Doesn't say how many is there going to be like Swiss Keys, how close to the cancer rebuilding, one foot away. It relies mainly, as you said, on trust us and we'll adopt we'll we'll impose mitigation measures. We'll we'll say create a buffer distance. The entire property is 40 feet wide. I don't think this room is that wide. It's impossible to say that you would move equipment that's causing vibration far enough away on the site to not be damaging the cancer rebuilding here or the other historic building on this side. So that's not that's an illusory mitigation. It says they'll use alternative equipment, alternative techniques. Doesn't describe those so that we can have our consultants evaluate and opine whether that's a reasonable mitigation. Again, trust us. And then what happens? You have a monitor on-site and suddenly vibration is causing damage. What do they do then? Do they stop the project? Do they shut it down if there's no feasible mitigation? And that's where the word feasible is in the conditions. They'll say, if nothing's feasible, full speed ahead. And then they say, repair any damage. Well, if the foundation is undermined and the entire front of the entire side of the cancer rebuilding is collapsing the concrete structure, that can't be repaired after the fact. The vibration of the structure can't be repaired after the fact. We don't know because we don't have the information. If you decide not to order an EIR now based on this testimony, you have to recirculate the negative declaration. There were three studies in the staff report that just caught us flat footed. They were received by the city in February and April. I made repeated requests to receive any documentation, anything new regarding this project so that we could review them ahead of time. So surprise, surprise, here are three reports. It's not given at the last minute so that we don't have an opportunity to review them. However, I did spot in the noise study a new impact that has been ignored. That is the increase over ambient existing noise that will impact the office workers, going from 51 decibels to 99 decibels. That's a fivefold increase where 10 decibels is an is perceived as as a doubling of the volume. So that's gonna be five times as loud to the occupants of the office building. That is a CEQA impact. The NEDDIC admits that anything over 10 is a significant impact. Not addressed. No mitigation measures that need to recirculate to address that and or just say that requires an EIR. The staff report wrongly says they can ignore impacts on the privately owned public open space because the city code protects public parks. Well, that's it's apples and oranges. Just because the city code says protect public parks, it doesn't say don't protect private open space that's a bit publicly accessible. That's a CEQA impact. In fact, the checklist that the city uses recognizes impacts of shadows on privately owned public space as a potential impact. So that requires, at a minimum, recirculation to properly address those topics or move on to an EIR. The studies have ignored the special circumstances related to a 100 year old building that does not have an HVAC system where they rely on opening the windows for air circulation so that during construction, this construction one foot away from the building is gonna have make those offices Okay. Impossible to continue operating and occupy. As I said, we can't describe the likely damages because we don't have that information. There is no evidence to support that there are feasible, practical mitigations that can avoid these impacts even if you accept the trust us. The standard they're requiring that you can defer studies and you can say, we'll apply city procedures that will prevent impacts, under the law, the Sundstrom case and others, that only applies if you have some assurance, some comfort that, in fact, at the end of the day, significant impacts won't remain. And there are too many uncertainties and unknowns here to be able to make that finding. The city does not have substantial evidence in the record to support finding that it's appropriate to adopt a negative declaration. I am available to answer any questions. We have coming up to speak next a structural engineer who will elaborate on the potential risk to the building and the owner of the property to discuss the impact on the tenants of the building. And if you have any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. With that, we should, hear from the project sponsor. You also have oh, I'm sorry.

[President Lydia So]: They have the engineer. Right?

[Structural Engineer for Appellants (Name Not Stated)]: Just specific asked us to review the geotechnical report in regards to the transfer of building as to what the effects would be on the building structure and the finishes of the building, along with possible settlement in regards to, disruption of the foundation. Unfortunately, due to the amount of information we were given, we were unable to provide exacting evidence one way or another as to what the effects of the work done on the subs on the subsequent, structure would do to the existing building. This, the Chancery Building, be because of its age and the way of construction and not being up to current structural standards, is going to be more susceptible to, vibration and settlement. In in regard especially to the settlement that the building's structure or foundation will not be able to withstand much change. It can have a cascading effect, along the building, making the damage more substantial. The lateral system in the building could be upset, and in which case, we require repairs. Due to the age of the building, that could, require a substantial amount of money in order to repair it. The so the finishes and fixtures on the buildings are of an, much different time frame, in which case the methods in which they're attached to the building may be substantially damaged in the vibrations that have we don't have we don't know how much it's going to do to the building or how it's going to affect it. So those finishes, due to the age, might become extremely expensive to repair, if even possible. It may require some modifications to the finishes in order to get them to look appropriate for the area. So the due to the unknowns, especially in regards to the foundation settlement and to the vibration, they could have unknown effects at this point in time on the building without additional information as to how they're going to go about this in order to make sure that the building is not upset. The the foundations, because of the fact that the soils could be disturbed along the length of the building or in pockets, could cause significant damage, not only to the whole building as it affects its levelness, but to the damage to the foundations that would cause collapse in certain areas. Or

[Joe Sanders (Painters, Drywall Finishers & Paperhangers Local 913)]: and I

[Structural Engineer for Appellants (Name Not Stated)]: don't wanna say collapse as in a major collapse, but, damage to corners, buildings where you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: could have,

[Structural Engineer for Appellants (Name Not Stated)]: shifts in the floor structures. So those are the items that we, after reviewing the information provided to us, we don't believe have provided enough information so we can feel comfortable with the idea of going forward without additional information. We would like to see some kind of plan as to how they're going about with the drilling, with any soil mitigation or movement, along with how the the the the buildings on either side of it are going to be protected from any of this movement or shifting of the foundations. So with that, that's kinda generally, at this point in time, with just we feel that there's not near enough information to perform any kind of a structural study to see whether or not the buildings next to it are going to be in any danger, risk, or, maybe cause damage due to the work that's going to be performed. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: K. That is your time, unfortunately. Okay. The each appellant gets ten minutes, so that was ten minutes. The commissioners may want to call

[President Lydia So]: I don't know. How many minutes do you think you will need to talk? Yeah. I'm just trying to be kind here, like realizing your lawyers and your engineers took up a lot of time. So do do would you able to do it, like, in sixty second or a minute or two or something? Okay, please. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: One minute?

[President Lydia So]: One minute or so. One minute. Yeah.

[Kaylin (Asset Manager, Chancery Building)]: I'll skim it down. Thank you. Let me know when I can start.

[President Lydia So]: It's okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Go ahead.

[Kaylin (Asset Manager, Chancery Building)]: Okay. Well, first, my name is Kalyn. I'm the asset manager for the Chancery Building. I I'm only here to ask that you help us protect our historic building and the people that work inside of it. For reference, I help with all the leasing, and so all the tenants, I really want to protect. Firstly, you already heard from our structural engineer, but we're very worried about the impact on our building and the structural integrity due to the vibration and the construction of the proposed development. Secondly, we're very concerned about the effect of the construction that'll have on the people working inside the building. Our sorry. Our offices don't have any HVAC, so the only way that people can get fresh air into the office is by opening up the windows. It's a historic building, so this is how they used to do it, and that's how we still do it now. In addition, these are single pane windows. So even if the windows remain closed, it'll those the offices will still hear a lot of noise, and they're not airtight because of how old they are. So dust will still get inside, and tenants definitely won't want to open the windows and allow fresh air and dust inside. So we just ask that you please help, maintain our historic building. Thank you. Thank you for letting me talk. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. With that, we should hear from the project sponsor.

[Melinda Sarjapour (Counsel for Project Sponsor, Ruben, Junius & Rose)]: Okay. Great. Good afternoon. Melinda Sarjapour, Ruben, Junious, and Rose. I'm here on behalf of the project sponsor. I'll be speaking on the MND appeal specifically. However, I am joined by the project team, the architect, and other members who look forward to presenting the building design as part of the entitlement discussion. The planning department has provided a thorough technical analysis memo and comments today responding to appellant's concerns and explaining why this project has no potential for significant environmental impact. At the outset, it's important to understand the standard of review on an appeal of an MND, which was misstated by the appellants. The key question here is whether appellants have provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have a significant impact. To constitute substantial evidence, statements must be supported by an adequate factual foundation. CEQA is clear that not all information rises to the level of substantial evidence. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, clearly inaccurate or erroneous evidence or analysis is not substantial evidence. So simply stating a concern about potential impacts without a factual basis behind them is not enough. Further, the commission must give the city the benefit of doubt on a legitimate disputed issues of credibility in the evidence that's been presented. Appellants have not met this standard. Their appeal letters and supporting materials touch on a range of topics but do not provide substantial evidence under CEQA. Instead, they're filled with conjecture, opinion, erroneous and misleading statements, which are pointed out in the briefs and memo. And they're unsupported by fact. This is not enough to overturn the MND. By contrast, the MND is supported by substantial evidence. It is a 130 page document with addenda containing detailed technical studies prepared by qualified consultants using established review standards and subject to thorough review by the planning department. Planning's memo to the commission and comments today have walked through each of appellant's concerns in detail, more so than we could do in a five or ten minute period, and then explain why their comments and supporting materials do not rise to the level of substantial evidence. We provided similar information in our brief. I'm going to touch base on just a couple of the topics that were raised. First, appellants speculate that the project could have geotechnical impacts from issues like soil settlement, dewatering, liquefaction. This is incorrect, and the claims do not have a factual basis. The MND appropriately analyzes the potential for impacts to soils or geological features and whether a project could feasibly be constructed here based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation and report. That document was prepared by a licensed consultant, in this case, Langan, which is a firm that has five decades of expertise and experience in this firm. In determining that no significant impact could occur, the MND also properly accounts for the existence of stringent local and state building code requirements and a pre construction review process for foundation and structural design. Among other things, these standards require independent structural and geotechnical design level review by qualified professionals based on construction level drawings and calculations that will be developed during the building permit review process. The project must implement these requirements as a matter of law. CEQA is clear that local agencies may rely on compliance with state and local building code requirements like these in determining the potential for impact. So the MND is consistent with both the city's standard process for building review and CEQA standards. Appellants have provided no substantial evidence that a significant impact may occur despite these well established requirements. Second, appellants provide a letter from a consultant attacking the MND noise analysis. However, as the staff mentioned, this letter is inaccurate and misleading and therefore does not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. As discussed in the staff's memo, the consultant first claims that the MND should have applied a usage factor of one, which is under the FTA general assessment methodology. However, a supplemental analysis prepared by the project's noise consultant and included in the department submittal shows that even with the required usage factor and other more conservative factors, the project still would not result in a significant impact. So that concern is meritless. The consultant next attempts to cherry pick between conservative review standards applied in different assessment methodologies while ignoring other nuanced factors that would apply in those methodologies. This is an improper process that results in an unrealistic forecast of impacts and simply does not rise to the level of significant impact under CEQA. Similarly, appellants provide no substantial evidence to support their claim that the project could result in significant vibration impacts despite the applied mitigations. The MND finds that adjacent buildings could be affected by construction vibration, but finds that applying site specific monitoring and vibration measures would reduce that impact to less than significant. Among other items, project mitigation requires a pre construction survey to document the condition of adjacent buildings, preparation of a vibration monitoring plan by a qualified consultant that is subject to staff approval, establish maximum allowable vibration levels and methods for monitoring vibration during construction, submittal of monthly reports of any vibration exceedances and actions taken to reduce those vibration exceedances, which are required, and periodic inspections throughout construction with any required remediation work to be overseen by qualified preservation professionals. Appellants provide no substantial evidence that vibration impacts could occur despite these detailed measures. Appellants also argue that the project could result in impacts to historic resources. This is meritless. They have provided a letter from a consultant claiming that the MND did not accurately describe resources and failed to analyze a theoretical historic district on the same block. Both of these claims are incorrect. The MND and supporting materials thoroughly describe all nearby resources and include a finding that the buildings on the subject block would not qualify as an historic district. I would also point out that to have a substantial adverse impact on an historic resource under CEQA, you must be demolishing or materially altering the physical character divine features of those resources. Simply being located next door and having a different design style is not enough. Appellants provide no substantial evidence suggesting otherwise. By contrast, the MND does provide substantial evidence that no impacts would occur, including detailed analysis regarding geology, soils, noise, and vibration impacts to adjacent historic structures. Further, the appellants speculate that the project could result in significant air quality impacts despite applied mitigations. There is no evidence, much less substantial evidence, provided to support this contention. And the project's health risk assessment clearly documents that this is not the case. So overall, the appellants have not met their burden to overturn the MND because they've provided no substantial evidence under CEQA supporting a fair argument of significant impacts. We ask that the commission uphold the MND and allow the project to proceed to entitlement hearing. Thank you, and we are available for questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Great. Thank you. With that, commissioners, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the the appeals of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration and or the adequacy and accuracy of the mitigated negative declaration.

[J. Anthony Manhivara (NorCal Carpenters Local 22)]: Good afternoon, president, members of the San Francisco Planning Commission. My name is J. Anthony Manhivara. I'm an organizer for Norco Carpenters Union in Local twenty two. Here in the beautiful city of San Francisco, I represent approximately 4,000 carpenters in San Francisco County and 37,000 in the Greater Northern California. Today, I'm speaking on behalf of my brothers and sisters, carpenters that live here in San Francisco in support of Frontier's group proposed hotel development located at 570 Market Street. I was born and raised and continued to live in San Francisco. I have been in Unicarpenter for eleven years, and I understand the important benefits that a project like 570 Market Street brings to the city and the community. This project has been in the pipeline since 2019 and underwent a multiyear design and environment review process. As a hotel, occupancy continues to grow year over year because of increased travel and conventions activity. 570 Market Street is is positioned to take advantage of this potential growth. The proposed 570 Market Street development will create economic opportunity by creating union jobs for San Francisco residents as well as uplifting the community. Frontier Group has made the right decision by partnering with labor on this project. They made a commitment to use a union general contractor. A union general contractor means average standard wages and benefits and the opportunity for apprentices to begin or advance their career in construction. There are plenty of local developers who are unwilling to make this commitment. In conclusion, the Norco Carpenters Union Local twenty two fully supports a proposed development at 570 Mark Street because it would help elevate the quality of life for the working class as well as the community. We ask the commission approve the project that our members can go to work. Thank you for your time and service in moving this project forward.

[Stephanie Williams (Public Commenter)]: Hi. Hello. Thank you for having me. I'm Stephanie Williams, I implore the board to stand up for what San Francisco has always represented, a prosperous, diverse, cultural cornerstone of our country with a rich history of supporting powerful and productive workers. Thank you.

[Dan Torres (Sprinkler Fitters UA Local 483)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Dan Torres. I'm a business agent with Sprinkler Fitters, UA Local four eighty three. I want to just say, to Commissioner McGarry, thank you for acknowledging International Workers' Day. Happy May Day to everybody. And with that being said, I want to say I would like to uphold the staff recommendation and deny the appeal. This project will bring a lot of apprenticeship opportunities to the men and women in in San Francisco. And in a time where, yes, there's not a lot of people coming to San Francisco, but mayor Lurie is changing things up. San Francisco is open for business. We need to provide more, hotel units for people to come to visit this lovely city. Thank you for your time.

[Joe Sanders (Painters, Drywall Finishers & Paperhangers Local 913)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Joe Sanders. I represent painters, drywall finishers, and paper hangers here in San Francisco. I'm here today to speak in favor of the proposed project. This project will bring a multitude of job opportunities for skilled journey workers and apprentices learning their craft, not to mention an economic revitalization of the surrounding areas. Mayor Lurry is doing a good job of cleaning up the city and making it welcoming to tourists again, and what better than a new hotel on Market Street? Thank you for your consideration.

[Greg Hardiman (International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 8)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Greg Hardiman. I represent the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local eight. And on behalf of the San Francisco Building Trades, Rudy Gonzalez, who can't be here today, he's in arbitration. So on behalf of them too, I urge you all to support this project. San Francisco is in need of construction. We have a lot of out of work members right now. And, this project, like, you heard from my previous labor friends, that, hotel is much welcomed in San Francisco. We need more places. Like we said, we have the cities open to business. I heard some of the concerns from the, opponents. But right now, I think San Francisco needs to move forward, push projects, in in the downtown area, and this is good for everybody. And it's good to see our friends and family and labor standing together, the carpenters, building trades, and the rest of our affiliates. This is a good project. So let's get it passed. Thank

[Luis Lima (IBEW Local 6)]: you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Happy May Day to everybody. My name is Luis Lima. I am a native San Franciscan. I am a business agent for IBEW Local six. I represent workers in the electrical industry, and, I'm here to support the project and call out the importance of the economic impact it will have on the city. Skilled tradespeople and future apprentices are counting on this project for their livelihoods and their well-being as well as for their families. I respectfully urge you to support the project and the planning staff recommendations. Thank you.

[Stephanie Williams (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Cynthia Gomez, research analyst. Unite here local two, and happy International Workers' Day to all of you. So local to support this project, and we are coming here to urge you to support all necessary approvals. As commissioners have heard me say again and again when I come before you, when someone wants to bring a new hotel to San Francisco, the questions that we think are critical to ask include whether the jobs are going to uplift and support the hardworking people who work in this absolutely crucial industry for our city.

[Cynthia Gomez (Research Analyst, UNITE HERE Local 2)]: Hotel developers historically can support the creation of good quality jobs by agreeing to remain neutral, present no encumbrances to the efforts of their employees to form a union. And in turn, these agreements ensure that the jobs that will be created at these hotels are good quality jobs. And they set a standard that we believe every single hotel developer should follow. The developer of this project has signed such an agreement in working with Local two. And as you've heard, they have also signed an agreement that cover the construction of this project as well. So that means that all of the jobs connected to this project will be good quality jobs in an industry that, again, is absolutely crucial to San Francisco. So we support this project. We support for the quality of the jobs that it will bring. And we ask that you support it in all necessary approvals today. Thank you.

[Griffin Lee (Public Commenter)]: Griffin Lee here, very passionate San Franciscan. Actually didn't come to the meeting for this agenda item today, but wanted to come up here and express the support for the project. The fact that the developer and architect are betting on San Francisco in the midst of a crisis that we have downtown. I think this would be the first hotel developed south of market or on market in years. I mean, I think when think about years longer than I've been around. So I certainly urge you to support the project and support developer architects and the workers here who are investing in San Francisco. Thanks so much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Last call for public comment on the environmental review document. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Commissioners, this matter is now before you.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Thank you. I do have questions in terms of the I think some of the appellate's that issues that they have sent to the to the commission and to the department. I'm looking into the amended mitigate mitigated negative declaration, and I believe around first, I'll ask around the construction noise, which is and my question on this is that, you know, as based on the on the studies conducted, the dBA or the I I guess that's a decibel measurement. It ranges around 92 to 99, and the threshold is a 100. And so I guess my question is that considered conservative in terms of 99, and and the 100 threshold will require the the mitigation measure at that point. So I'm so 99 to me seems to be very close to the threshold, and that is on kinda like on the page I don't know what on my it's page 211 on this. And so, yeah, if if someone can answer in terms of the it's very close to the to the threshold that is a 100, d

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: d a. Yes. Commissioner Imperial, Chelsea Fordham, planning department staff. And the 99 decibels is a way there's there's many different ways to look at construction noise. It's you know, what's the absolute maximum level combined when you have all the equipment operating at one time? You have the noisiest piece that's, you know and then throughout today, every piece can be extremely loud at one point and then quieter. The 99 represents the absolute loudest with multiple pieces of equipment at one time. So it's important to remember that's the maximum that would occur based upon our analysis, you know, which is based on FTA guidelines. But there's also important to remember that the San Francisco noise ordinance limits each individual piece of equipment to 80 decibels, at any period of time. So if there is a violation of that lower standard, then they can call the building department or the police department, and they will come out and measure the noise. And there's a complaint, and you have to address that.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Okay. So it will be through during the construction phase where, I guess, the the neighbors can complain to the police and and that's when the mitigation measure will be

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: That is just the baseline ordinance for all of San Francisco. So, you know, the baseline ordinance has a level of protection. And then above that, for secret purposes, we look at what's the overall construction noise from all the pieces of equipment together. So it's one of those circumstances where we ensure that the ordinance is you know, we've addressed the the overall impacts of the project.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: I mean, it it does, you know, the language that in the study is that there it's I'm trying to quote, because it's underlined. Anyway, it's and I guess, thank you for that answer. But I you know, it it the the fact that it's closing to the 100 to me, and I understand that's the maximum, it gives me a little bit of, you know, that perhaps there could be more study and more mitigation. But but yeah. That that's where I'm coming from right now in terms of, like, the ranges from 92 to 99 decibels. And I feel like if it's closing to the 100, then there should be a measure a mitigation mitigated measures for that. Another thing too is the vibration that is also brought up. The vibration that can affect the chancery building. Some page two eighteen. And it's also based on the Caltrans, you know, the Caltrans standards. And and it looks like in terms of the drill rig, I think it's going to affect the May, five eighty market, the 44 Montgomery. And correct me if I'm wrong, in terms of the FDA reference, is the threshold for that point zero what's the threshold for the FDA reference?

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: Are you looking at a page of the M and D?

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Based on the vibration levels from construction equipment table 13, that is page 45. I'm looking at the table of vibration level. And if we're referring to FDA reference, it looks like it's 0.089. And then on the the vibration level, that could affect on five seventy six to five eighty is 0.4. And then other so ons are about 0.4. That's 44 Montgomery. And then 562566, 0.4.

[Speaker 36.0]: Mhmm.

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: So Yeah. So can you just repeat your question then?

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: I guess my question is, is the the FDA reference, what is the threshold for FDA reference in terms of the drilling?

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: So these numbers are, you know, the both FTA and Caltrans have studied construction vibration, and we rely upon their studies to conduct our analysis, which is very consistent with other California cities. They both have different vibration criteria of when you evaluate the pieces of equipment. They may they say if you may exceed these levels, you may have a vibration issue and then you have to conduct monitoring and mitigation. They have slight differences within them, but they are mostly the same. I think for, you know, for FTA, it might be point two instead of point two five. We rely upon Caltrans because it's the California standard. But either way, you would be exceeding these standards and both FTA and both Caltrans say if you exceed these levels, then you should institute monitoring and a plan for vibration. So they have very similar standards. They're just have slight differences.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: K. And it looks like the the planning response, if there are any issues in the vibration, it's that there's going to be construction, engineer on-site, and the historic preservation on-site, where depending you know, again, if there's then that's when the mitigation measure will apply, if anything applies.

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: It will always apply. So Always. No matter what, we are going to, you know, apply this mitigation measure to construction. Mhmm. The the mitigation requires a plan to be prepared by a structural engineer and a historic preservation professional, and they have to oversee that plan. They monitor for vibration. They go, you know, as often as the plan states and monitor how the buildings are performing, and then they institute additional measures if they see any concerns are happening or if they see the vibration levels are going above the Caltrans criteria. So that's when they, you know, they will report back to us. Mhmm. If they're going above the vibration criteria, what are they doing to address that? Maybe it's using a different piece of equipment. Maybe it's hand digging near a site. Maybe it's, you know, moving the equipment further away. It's a very, you know, iterative process that's overseen by the structural engineer.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Thank you very much. Those are my questions for now. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: So

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: Downtown San Francisco is the economic engine of the city. It's the heart of the city, and we've been in a recession construction wise. Fellow construction pea building trades out there, construction coworkers, I worked with Dan Torres twenty years ago in the field downtown. Downtown San Francisco is is the bread and butter for the construction industry in San Francisco, and as I said, we have been in a construction slowdown. Basically, we've been in a recession that we're denying we're in for the last three and a half to four years Downtown San Francisco. We haven't recovered. We haven't come out of it. The fact that somebody is taking a chance on downtown on a new building, a crane going up, I'm not too sure what the piling is on this, but I'm pretty sure at the end of this project, either buildings on either side will be better off structurally based on the foundation that's gonna go on, going on this building. I'm not an engineer, but, basically, that has been my experience in the past. So I I am in support of this project going forward in every every aspect of it, and this is the first, part of it here, but I will be in support of the other ones going forward. And so I'm eagerly, basically trying to figure out what my fellow commissioners are saying. But the fact that we have Local two here, Local six, Local eight, Local 22, I'm gonna be so bold as to say that basically, Larry on thirty eight would have somebody here if he wasn't in arbitration today. And four eighty three, we don't normally get this group of people in, one room and certainly not in full agreement on something. So basically, that is very nice to see. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Vice President Moore?

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: The first part of our task is at the moment to talk about the appeal to the preliminary negative mitigated negative declaration, and that's a very difficult subject. That doesn't have much to do with liking or not liking the building, but really responding to something which we don't do that often. We're not really well, let's let's see without any further comment. I would like to direct my questions to mister Drury, please. Mister Drury, you made a comment regarding CEQA on an element I'm quite unfamiliar with. It is something that actually is described in the conditional use document, and it's findings on the viability of the hotel. When I look at that particular page, and that is actually a lengthy list. Where's my my my document here? What happened to it? Here it is. It's a lengthy document, a chapter written by book that that identifies a large number of hotel foreclosures and and hotels which are in financial distress. Could you please explain of how that affects CEQA?

[Richard Drury (Lozeau Drury LLP, Counsel for 44 Montgomery Owner)]: Thank you. To this this project requires a conditional use authorization, and under planning code section three zero three and three zero nine, in order to make that authorization, the commission has to make a finding that the project is both compatible with the neighborhood, which I've explained because of the historic resources it's not, but also has to consider, quote, the market demand for a hotel or motel of the type proposed, and that's planning code three zero one c one. Market demand is is for hotels right now is not good, and it's getting worse. The tourism industry is in turmoil. Unfortunately, the current administration in Washington DC has made things even worse. Tourism is down by half from our best neighbors to the North and South in Canada and Mexico. People are literally afraid to come to The United States because they might wind up thrown in a gulag in El Salvador. And I'm not even exaggerating. I mean, it's bad. So I don't the studies that are being relied on by the city were all done before even the COVID disaster happened. Now that was unusual. But the current political disaster is going to extend for at least four years. I don't see how that market demand finding can be made in the current political context. Finding can be made in the current political context. As far as the relationship to CEQA, the the project can't be approved without that conditional use authorization. Under CEQA, inconsistencies with policies of general applicability are considered to be significant impacts under CEQA, which gets us to this finding, but also to the findings about off street parking and the setbacks. The developers requesting a setback an entire setback waiver

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Could I inter interrupt you for a second?

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff)]: Of course.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Because that was part of my second question. We're moving now, looking at at the CUA as it reflects on potential issues in CEQA. I have to believe that the diminished or the request for modification of setbacks has indeed a significant impact on the viability of the continuance of office uses to both the Hobart as well as to the Chancery Building because there's just not enough grazing I I I would I I personally believe that the impact on air quality is correctly stated with a building that does not have air condition and uses operable windows for ventilation, that there will be impacts both in terms of of both in terms of dust and noise, air quality, and potentially of in noise because single pane windows are probable single pane windows leave in a lot more noise than an air conditioned building. So those are impacts, but I still have not really gotten quite a reading as to whether or not the not expressed viability of the hotel study is an is equal impact.

[Dan Torres (Sprinkler Fitters UA Local 483)]: The

[Richard Drury (Lozeau Drury LLP, Counsel for 44 Montgomery Owner)]: on setbacks and also the viability of the the hotel. The viability of the hotel is a threshold finding that has to be made by the city in order to issue the conditional use authorization. That's only a sequel issue to the to the effect that it to the to extent that it could have environmental impacts. Of course, having vacant buildings has negative impacts. There are urban degradation cases that say that when a project contributes to urban degradation, that is a CEQA impact. Here, if we're talking about a building that could cause the neighboring buildings to be very difficult or impossible to lease, like the Chancery Building, which has no HVAC system, and now the entire face of that building will be covered and people can't obtain any lighter air, that building could become part of urban decay. Urban decay, urban degradation, urban blight, which in the Bakersfield Citizens versus City of Bakersfield case the court held, that is a CEQA impact. Similarly, causing urban decay in the Finance Building next door and a hotel that may be vacant or may be very hard to lease. This whole block, which is currently a very viable, very historically significant block, could be subject to decay if we don't make the right findings here and mitigate the impacts of the building. Similarly, by blocking light and air, by waiving the setback requirements entirely under one thirty two point one. That makes the neighboring buildings very unviable, very difficult to leash. It it affects their historic significance, when you can't open a window and there's no ventilation. How is that building usable? Under one thirty two point one, one of the findings to grant that variance has to be that there's adequate light and air. There's just not. We're talking about 12 inches here. If that Chancery Building goes from being a viable building where doctors, psychiatrists are having their practices to be a vacant building, we know how that looks. That looks like urban blight. And we've seen that spread through areas of the city. ES commissioner.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Let me ask one quick question because I do not want to kind of tilt the conversation too much. Reading through both the appeal document as well as the CUA document, having worked in the Financial District down the block for almost twenty and thirty years, I became concerned about the shadow impact on five, what I think are subpartially proposed, but they're basically the public realm on Market Street. Could you comment on on that are those CEQA impacts?

[Richard Drury (Lozeau Drury LLP, Counsel for 44 Montgomery Owner)]: Commissioner, I believe they are CEQA impacts under the city's own shadow guidance. They believe they state that shadows on POPOs or publicly owned publicly occupied privately owned public open space POPOs, is a significant impact under CEQA. This is gonna affect, I think, four or five POPOS Right. Very significantly, including some pretty widely used ones. The city has taken a more narrow position more recently saying that POPOS don't matter. People use these. In the MND, they say that the people who use these are passive users of the parks. What other kind of user is there of a park? I mean, you you go to the park to passively use it and enjoy some free time or lunch. So so this will cast shadows on those POPOS. These are some of the only available open spaces in this area, and they're important open spaces.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: And they fall under CEQA consideration. That is my question.

[Richard Drury (Lozeau Drury LLP, Counsel for 44 Montgomery Owner)]: There's not a published case on that issue yet, but, yes, I believe that the city should be held to its own guidance document.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Thank you. That is a very important comment. I appreciate your your

[Structural Engineer for Appellants (Name Not Stated)]: Thank you, commissioner.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: My questions. I think for me, CEQA is primarily focused on issues that I'm very familiar with, and I very closely listen to areas and expertise of vibration, geotech, and all the technical issues has come together. I have to look at urban impact in terms of light air, quality of air quality, etcetera, as being primary together with historic preservation. And I have some concerns, but I will be carefully listening to what my other fellow commissioners will be asking.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Yeah. I'd like to thank all the the labor that's come out. I don't think there's anybody more wanting, you know, to keep people employed in San Francisco and the building trades. And so thank you for coming out and and, you know, advocating. But having said that, I do have, I do have, you know, some I think the the, the appellant's made some some good, arguments. And one thing that I'm I'm really concerned about is the vibration. And so I'm looking at attachment a, and, I wanna just read the proposed building should would include a basement beneath the entire site. The basement would be supported by a hybrid foundation that would consist of four foot mat slabs supporting approximately southern the southern half of the building. Ground improvement would extend at or below 15.5 feet and below BART ZOI of 18.5 feet as needed. The northern half of the building, which would include the tower core, would be supported on a six to 10 foot mat slab bearing on six foot diameter piles that would be socketed approximately 40 feet into the bedrock for a total length of around a 160 feet under the mat slab. BART would be reviewing the project structural plans and the building department would not issue permits without receiving confirmation of BART's review. You know, just just my concern right away is a historical, you know, building that's directly next door. And honestly, I I can't see how there won't be any impacts, which, you know, stating what I just described, as being these, piles that are being driven 140 feet down into the soil. You know, so again,

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: I

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: I, I I have, you know, I that's that's a serious concern. And

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: so,

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: you know, I don't know if the CEQA will, will address that. And I see you're, you're up here, wanting to, say something. Go ahead.

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: Oh, I was I was just gonna clarify that there's a just a little distinction that we are saying that there would be an impact. Mhmm. And we've identified mitigation. And, you know, the mitigation is robust. It has a, you know, multistep process. And, you know, I manage our mitigation monitoring team at the planning department. You know, this is a very standard mitigation, and

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: we do construction next to historic buildings quite often.

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: And we see the reports that come in. We see buildings quite often. And we see the reports that come in. We see the vibration levels and how they're dealing with it. So not to say it's not a concern. It is. But it's you know, we've we've said there's an impact. There's now a mitigation, and they're gonna have to do a robust plan, and then it's overseen by the planning department throughout construction.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: K. I'm just wondering, what what kind of foundation is is, the foundation next door to the chance Chancellery Building? What kind of faith are you and are you undermining that foundation? And because the all those things are I I've seen mishaps, you know.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Yes. Maybe not not not

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: not, you know, in in context of of these huge projects. But I know how things can happen.

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: Yes.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: And again, you know, these these older buildings aren't as sturdy as the newer buildings. And there are, you know, I I'm I'm actually concerned reading through this. And and so, have you guys have you guys analyzed the the foundation of the buildings and what what's happening there?

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: Well, that would be, you know, addressed on the geotechnical conditions. The vibration plan just looks at what's the structural condition of the adjacent buildings. And we said these are historic, and they're older, and they're fragile. And we have to then monitor them like they are fragile in older buildings. I'm sure my colleague can respond to what type of foundation is under the building. Mhmm. But, you know, we we do understand that these are fragile buildings, and we've accounted for that.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Let let me ask you. So if if it if if it, you know, it it obviously, it it reaches a level if it's a fragile building. So what kind of mitigations, and maybe your colleague can speak to that, you know, are we looking at, to to make, you know, be sure that, you know, that the building will be taken care of and that there are, you know, it's sufficient,

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: the mitigations.

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: So are you asking about the adjacent foundation? Or are you asking about the vibration plan?

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Actually, both. But let's start with the foundation. It would be good.

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: Okay. Ryan, do you know can you respond to that question?

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Ryan Shum, project coordinator. We don't know the specific foundation of the Chancery Building, but I wanna reemphasize that a lot of this engineering level review happens with DBI, and it's not something that happens in during environmental review with the planning department. Later on in the process, if the project gets approved, we have engineers with the department building department who will look at this very closely and look at structural level plans which are not yet available just because it doesn't make, you know, time and money sense to get into that level of detail at this point without project approvals for any project. So it's not this in particular. So DBI, they're qualified by the state. They follow building codes that the state has and local building codes to ensure that adjacent buildings are not structurally impaired during construction. And as Chelsea mentioned, it's not the first time that we have a project occurring next to a historic building, and other projects have followed the building code. DBI has reviewed it, and we have mitigation in place to mitigate any potential impacts to a less than significant level.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Could could you could you, talk about BART a little bit? And I know other buildings have been built along the BART Tunnel. But could you just touch on that? Because it's interesting to me. I'd like to know more about how you guys go about building around a BART Tunnel. And mhmm.

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Sure. I can touch on it. You know, I must admit I'm not super familiar with how the entitlement process and the structural design works afterward, but there is development that happens over the BART zone of influence all the time. Mhmm. And so, again, after when DBI is reviewing this, they coordinate with BART to ensure that the building and foundations will not have a significant impact on BART operations. It is in everyone's best interest that the BART tunnel is not structurally damaged. And so the project sponsor, in coordination with DBI, in coordination with BART, will work together to make sure that the foundations follow code, the building and structural engineers, adhere to the standards that exist.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: As far as I want to get back to the pilings again. I've been on sites where they're driving piles. And there's a lot of vibration.

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Yes. Yeah. There's no pile driving proposed?

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: There is no?

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: No. They're being drilled.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: They're being drilled.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff)]: They're being drilled.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: They're being drilled.

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Okay. It's not packed pile driving. Which is the most That

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: that that relieves a little bit of my concern. Yeah.

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Thanks.

[President Lydia So]: Well, thank you for all these comments. And I would like to say thank you for all the workforce members here that stay here for many hours, and happy May Day again. I also really appreciate our planning staff. You gave us, like, a pretty detail oriented presentation on the time line and the procedures. I hope that gave not only our fellow commissioners, but in general, our public a good understanding of what our environment ERR team responsibility is. And the presentation and also the material presented to me in regard to item 10, which is the preliminary mitigated negative declarations, it was really clear to me that it had listed, like, over about 20 pages of specific items relating to all these matters that are presenting to us by the two appeal sponsors of their concerns. It is a procedures that, as our staff have mentioned before, that at this preliminary level, without imposing a undue cost hindrance to any property sponsor for project, this is a very robust assumption of potential environmental impact that needs to be mitigated. And then to take it to the next phase, that's where it gets to the other items. Right? Like, the rest of this on today's agenda. And also, with the oversight of our neighboring agency, Department of Building Inspections, that has a lot of robust procedures to follow through life safety and engineering aspect of it. So but I think that today, what these two sponsor that come out in front of us to appeal the preliminary mitigate and negative declaration had eliminating a lot of the factors of the neighbor's concern, which I would seriously take into careful considerations in looking into the rest of the meeting agenda today for item 11 a, b, and c with in in respect to a lot is the aspect that you had put forward to your concern, which is also is a pretty pretty standard procedures of how we eval evaluate a project. But I really do recognize and respect everybody's concern here today with the neigh with the neighboring view and access of quality of light and air and also the stability of your foundation and so forth. And I will take into serious consideration, and I would assume that the rest of our project team will do the same in addition to our DBI counterparts. And I do want to emphasize that in regards to creating stability of our economy in San Francisco, allowing continue to allowing an opportunity for a tremendous amount of job opportunities, not just for construction, but also for operation of a hotel with that magnitude. This is something that we should be seriously consider to continue to encourage San Francisco for its economic revitalization, especially in the downtown corridor and for our tourism. And I do hope that if anyone still would consider, I do think that still people would like to come to United States because we're pretty cool. If nothing more than that, they would probably they would rather choose to visit San Francisco and take a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge than the capital right now. So I'll leave it with that. I would like to see I would like to hear more of my fellow commissioners to talk. Commissioner Campbell?

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Thank you. I think I'm going to echo some of your sentiment, president. I think that there's no doubt that there's going to be impacts with this project. Construction is messy and building in tight conditions like Downtown San Francisco is no doubt very complicated. In in my mind, we can't let that inconvenience get in the way of making progress and continuing to build, especially downtown. I think we are specifically talking about in this appeal of this PMND these very specific categories that have been highlighted, the geology and soil impacts, noise and vibration, construction air quality impact, and historic preservation. While there are impacts there acknowledged as being less than significant, and I am confident that we're gonna address those with the mitigated mitigation measures that are being required by the department. And I think we have to have faith in that system. We have checks and balances. There are standards. There are engineers. There are professionals that will be monitoring this project every step of the way. I'm also not comfortable speculating on things outside of this particular appeal, the future of the hotel market in San Francisco. Who knows where we'll be? So I am in support of upholding the preliminary mitigated negative declaration at this time. Those are all my comments.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: There are two issues raised that I'm curious to hear the response about from the planning department's environmental review staff. The first one is sort of a new issue in a way, but it was the, the discussion, the commentary that one of the appellants had about the urban decay analysis. You know, I've seen those in environmental impact reports, but at this stage of analysis, I'm curious what the how we how that's taken into consideration or or if you have some commentary on those on those statements by the appellant.

[President Lydia So]: Miss Gibson.

[Lisa Gibson (Environmental Review Officer, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Commissioner Braun, thank you for your question. I'm Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. And thank you for raising this point that was raised regarding urban decay. So I'd like to establish that under the California Environmental Quality Act, there are topics that we are specified as being within the purview of our environmental review and those that are not. One that CEQA clearly establishes is not a significant impact in the environment is our our social and economic impacts, unless those can result in a physical effect on the environment. And so the example that mister Drury raised, I agree with that there's the potential for if there were potential for a project to result in a cause of chain and effect where economic conditions resulted in building vacancies and then that vacant building was subject to, say, graffiti and, you know, decay that could that urban blade is established under CEQA law as being a a could be a significant impact. Where I disagree respectfully with our, appellant, is that this is a very speculative chain of of conditions that he's outlined. There is no evidence before us that this project is going to be infeasible and would be vacant, and then that's going to cause vacancies in surrounding buildings. So I think that there is not that is that doesn't constitute substantial evidence in the context of this hearing.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Thank you for the explanation, and I agree about there not being substantial evidence. The other question I had, there was also an assertion that because some of the additional studies or updated studies came out more recently that there's a need to recirculate. What what is the typical I guess, what's the response to that? You know, why is that not necessary? Or what's the usual process for that?

[Lisa Gibson (Environmental Review Officer, Planning Department)]: I'll take the first pass at this and then pass on to Ryan, if you like. So again, Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. The under under the environmental law, basically, as as long as a report provides informational value, it can be relied upon. And we and, of course, we have to have ensure that it is accurate. And so the the age of a of a report is not in and of itself evidence that it cannot be relied upon. So there have to be specific points that have to be raised to identify how their the report is lacking in the is providing evidence to support our analysis. And so there have been points raised regarding specific points of contention and we're addressing those. I just wanna point out that the age of a report in of itself doesn't mean that we have to necessarily update it or or or categorically disregard it. So let's if there are specific points, we hope that we've responded to those. And I don't know if, Ryan, if you have anything else to add and and certainly if there are specific questions you have about reports given their age, it doesn't really provide satisfactory evidence for us to rely upon.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: I think the the issue raised was more about the recency of some supplements to the reports that were went into the original PMND decision.

[Lisa Gibson (Environmental Review Officer, Planning Department)]: Understand about that. And that was regarding then what's in the record that we've added, and does that require us to perhaps recirculate the environmental document Yes. In that case? Okay. Ryan, are you prepared to answer that?

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: I can I can respond to that? So supplemental analysis was conducted after the PMD publication to substantiate the conclusions of the PMND. The studies, however, don't change the conclusions of the document. Recirculation of a PMND under CEQA guidelines fifteen thousand and seventy three point five is only required if the document has been substantially revised after publication but prior to adoption. Under CEQA, a substantial revision means that a new a new avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effects to insignificance, or new information becomes available such that the lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measure or project will not reduce potential effects to a less than significant level. So in summary, the supplemental information provided does not meet the criteria outlined above. It reinforces the conclusions that were already discussed. There are no new mitigations required or new impacts, and it merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Negrilift Declaration.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Okay. Thank you very much for that. And I'll just say I I my take on this is that they're the, you know, the the analysis followed the appropriate processes. I think the basis of the analysis is appropriate and that the mitigation measures are adequate. And so I am in favor of upholding the preliminary negative declaration and rejecting the appeal. And I I move to do so.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Second.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Williams, you wanna have some more remarks? Just

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: a a a thought. What what about the the shadow impacts? Is there what is that ever is that gonna be analyzed now? Or what what happens with that? Because I I think that's that's important to people to to understand what what what comes next or what's included or what's not.

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: So thank you, commissioner Williams. Shadow impacts in the planning code, section two ninety five, protect properties that are under the jurisdiction of Brecken Park. POCOs are, you know, not protected under that section. Use the shadow impacts are transitory. The Popos are located in downtown. There are already tall buildings around that are being shaded year round. It's very hard to, you know, it's not something that we analyze under CEQA in the plant, under CEQA. So shadow shadow analysis is conducted for properties that are protected under two ninety five. POPOS have historically been added just for informational purposes, but they're not protected under the planning code.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Okay. So so there hasn't been any shadow

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: There was shadow study conducted Yeah. And it's in the PMND.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: It's in there.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Yeah.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Okay. That was it. Thank you.

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: If there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? No. Commissioner Moore. And Commission President Tsao.

[President Lydia So]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes five to two with commissioners Imperial and Moore voting against. Commissioners, that'll place us on items 11A, B, and C for case numbers 20Nineteen-seventeen622 DNX, CUA, and VAR. For the project and property at 570 Market Street. You will be considering the downtown large project authorization and conditional use authorization.

[President Lydia So]: Jonas? Sorry. We'd like to take a break.

[Joe Sanders (Painters, Drywall Finishers & Paperhangers Local 913)]: Commissioner Very good.

[President Lydia So]: More would like to take five minutes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. SFGov, we're going to take a five minute recess.

[Kaylin (Asset Manager, Chancery Building)]: SFGovTV,

[President Lydia So]: San Francisco government television.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioners, members of the public. Welcome back to the San Francisco planning commission hearing for Thursday, 05/01/2025. We left off under the regular calendar on items 11 a, b, and c for case numbers 2019Hyphen017622. DNX CUAN VAR. Commissioners, you will be considering the downtown project authorization, conditional use authorization, and the zoning administrator will be considering the request for variance for the property at 570 Market Street.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Jonathan Vimmer, department staff. The applications before you are a request for downtown project authorization with certain exceptions pursuant to planning code section three zero nine and conditional use authorization for a hotel use for the property commonly known as 570 Market Street, a through lot with frontage along Market And Sutter Streets located within the C 30 Zoning District and 300 S Height And Bulk District. As Jonas mentioned, the z a will separately consider the proposed elevator penthouse exceeding 16 feet in height above, the the zone height limit. As previously discussed, the site is currently occupied by two story non historic commercial structure that's proposed for demolition and redevelopment with a 300 foot tall 29 story building including approximately 3,000 square feet of lower level retail, Apopos Terrace on the 15th Floor with ground level access occupying a total of approximately 4,200 square feet, and a two eleven room hotel use covering approximately 123,000 square feet. Exceptions from a variety of code provisions are possible through the the section three zero nine slash downtown project authorization process. In this case, those requested pertain to tower separation and interior lot line setbacks, as well as freight and tour bus loading requirements. I briefly like to just cite the exception under one thirty two point one, which states that exceptions may be allowed in lots with a frontage of less than 75 feet provided that, one, it is found that overall access to light and air will not be impaired, and two, that the granting of the exception will not result in a group of buildings that have a total street frontage greater than 125 feet without a separation meeting chart aids. That's basically just saying they need to have a gap that is at least 15 feet, which exists. Exceptions or I'm sorry. As detailed in your packets, department staff support all requested. Measuring 50 feet at its widest point, the site is abnormally narrow for downtown lot, and satisfaction of tower separation provisions would result in an overly thin structure that will not function from a programmatic nor financial perspective. Similarly, the ground level retail is best suited for access, circulation, and active retail uses. Complying with loading requirements would substantially cut into such spaces and below grade options are infeasible given the site's proximity to underground Muni and Bart lines. Regarding the proposed conditional use authorization, the department supports a proposed hotel use and that it would represent a substantial investment within the heart of the downtown area, is properly aligned with existing zoning, and is the core component of a project with an inviting POPOS at a site that is among the most accessible via public transit within the entire city and county. Excluding one or two exceptions, department staff are not real estate or financial investment experts. As such and per standard practice, a hotel demand analysis was prepared by the qualified firm CBRE, which anticipated that upon the time of construction, this specific type of hotel would open in a quote, strong and viable market. The analysis was updated as recently as February, though we acknowledge that even in the short time since then, to an extent the tourism environment has, to put it very kindly, evolved. The two appellants from the previous item have expressed opposition to the project, with one of the parties having submitted a brief that is included in your packet. Since the date of publication, the department itself has received three letters in support, Those from Unite Here Local two and NorCal Carpenter's Local twenty two, and another from the Downtown SF Partnership, a community benefit district centered around Union And Jackson Squares. They generally express support for design, the project's investment in downtown, and its contribution to bettering conditions for workers, residents, and visitors. For the record, I would just like to note two types of nonsubstantive type typographical errors. In certain instances, the overall project size is referenced as one twenty three one five seven square feet when it should universally be one two six three three three, and there's a few instances where the proposal reference is being on the 14th Floor when it should universally be the 15th Floor. This concludes my presentation. The project sponsor is in attendance with their own to focus on entitlement and design considerations. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, project sponsor. Product sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: Okay. Hi. My name is Jason Bujheit. I'm from Diane Forster in Architecture, the architects of the project. Yes. Hi. Very quickly, thank you very much. The site location as described is on the through lot between Market And Sar Street. As noted, there are a number of historic properties on that block. We were very deferential to them in our analysis of the site and understanding of their importance in the urban fabric. In that, we pulled the massing back from the Market Street facade so that the sight lines of Hobart would not be constricted, as well as the lower tower portion is maintaining the Market Street facade along Market Street connecting between, the finance and chancery projects or buildings. As you can see on the programs or on the plans, we have our entry to the POPOS at the Market Street side, as well as the entry to the retail space. The hotel lobby is off of the Sutter Street side within the building core is sitting within the middle of the site. As we go up in the building, the hotel rooms along the lot lines actually pull back substantially to provide legal light and air to all of those hotel rooms along the Chancery Street facade, as well as, to a certain degree, along the finance and 44 Montgomery sides of the project. As we continue up, we have the POPOS that's occurring with the bar and other public amenity spaces linking in with some of the hotel amenity spaces, and then the continuance of the hotel rooms up to the completion of the tower with the mechanical penthouse at the very top of the project. One I am to note is the massing of the project also is attempting to discretize the tower, not just have a large slab, and instead relate to the proportions of the adjacent building fabric. As noted in a lot of the discussion, there is the exception that's being requested for the setbacks. That is, of course, a requirement that's above 150 feet, which is substantially higher than the adjacent finance chancery buildings, as well as the loading dock of the 44 Montgomery Tower that we are adjacent to, not the main building. So we are providing light and air to all of those and are not actually MP ing into this exception is not actually deviating from the planning requirements. The facade articulation is very much trying to reference the level of texture, the proportions, and the variation of adjacent historic properties while interpreting it in modern materials and detailing. As you can see in the renderings and our analysis of adjacent detailing, We are really trying to look at that in the development of the facades and the facade articulations. If we continue through the facade elevations, you can see the three dimensionality being created along the various facades, as well as

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: some

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: variation of of it. Continue. Okay. And That's the Market Street screen wall here in relationship with Billing Heights to the finance and chancery billings, and relaying to the proportions of the facades of those projects while not creating awkward hotel room spaces behind. And that's the project. We feel very strong.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Great. Thank you. Commissioners, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing maybe one, two.

[Edward Schaeffer (Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, Counsel for Chancery Building Owner)]: Good afternoon again. Edward Schaeffer on behalf of the CancerAid Building owner. The staff report has ignored several important issues that I raised mainly in my mostly in my most recent letter. They've made a serious mistake in calculating the setback by treating Market Street as the principal street under the city regulations. And my letter explains that Sutter Street should be have been treated as the principal, and that changes the calculations. It's a technical error, and you should require them to redo the calculations so that you understand the extent of exception that they're requesting for that. The second thing is that their light well does not match the Chancery Building's light well. It overlaps it by 10 feet. So for a distance of 10 feet, where the Chancery has a light well where offices rely on for light and air, there's gonna be a solid wall for 10 feet of their light well, and that violates the city guidelines that say match light wells. That should not be rocket science to do. They've, this is a 100 year built hotel that you should be working and helping to protect, not endangering its its physical status and its economic viability. The wall will be only one foot from office windows, and where there are hotel rooms, they'll be it'll be about eight feet away. So hotel guests, if they can even rent those hotel rooms looking at offices and vice versa. As far as the parking zone, the studies separately consider the guest parking, the delivery truck parking, and the tour bus parking. It doesn't recognize that those those may happen at the same time. You've got a 40 foot wide frontage, but you could have a 100 feet of parking being used or desired required, and that's gonna have impacts on traffic on Sutter and on the neighbors and makes it difficult for you to adopt a finding that

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: the parking exception and the loading zone exception will not have an adverse

[Edward Schaeffer (Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, Counsel for Chancery Building Owner)]: effect on the exception and the loading zone exception will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. As a minor kind of nitpick, they're asking for a variance for height so they can have their elevator rooftop shelter, but variances require some hardship finding or unique circumstances. There's nothing unique here. Simply make the building one story less and problem solved. I guess, you know, say as far as respecting the city regulations. We have a consultant who will discuss why, there is, no demand for a hotel here. You may ask, what what do we want? What does the CancerAid building want if they if this is going to proceed? They want increase to increase the separation to make so that the all the offices, 40% of the building, are remain economically viable and can be rented for a decent rate. They want the light wells matched. Given the concern with the windows and noise and dust and and toxics, a heap of filters in each office would be desired to be provided by the developer. Thank you.

[Rudy Gonzalez (SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. I'll try to avoid my inclination to wax poetic sometimes. I do think that there are forces out there that when they decide, and I've been in conversation with folks before around this, that when they decide they don't want a project to move forward, as the last speaker said, I think he used the word nitpick, they will find reasons and justifications to do so. As the last issue you took up, was narrowly defined, I think you here have, although it's consolidated in one agenda item, you have some definitions you have to deal with, both the variance, the large project authorization, and the CUA. I think you'll find that planning staff has done due diligence. I think there may be some speculation around whether or not the market demand will be there. I can tell you affirmatively that in our conversations with other developers and with other market forces that the demand will be there. It's a question of when. We believe that the timing and phasing of this construction actually will line them up in exactly the right time. Now I wish I had a crystal ball, and I frankly wish I could rewind it, and that was the case, you know, years ago. To commissioner McGarry's point, we have been in denial about a construction recession for some years now. And I think we're living the consequences of that denial today. I stand here before you humbly to request your support. I think the planning department has gotten it right. I believe that the recommendations are appropriate, and the project will, in addition to, of course, bringing, hundreds and hundreds of good jobs to San Francisco, will also provide a necessary and much needed shot in the arm to the entire area. Notwithstanding the concerns of neighbors, I think those should be taken and they should be weighed. But ultimately, they should be weighed against the relatively narrow authorization that you were asked to take up today. And I think in all cases, you'll find that it's appropriate. It will meet the market demand at the at the right time, and the project should be moved forward. So with that, I respectfully urge you to support the project and move all three of these items forward. Thank you.

[Joe Sanders (Painters, Drywall Finishers & Paperhangers Local 913)]: Good afternoon again, commissioners. I'm Joe Sanders with the Painters Drywall Finishers and Paper Hangers, Local nine thirteen.

[President Lydia So]: And can you speak to the microphone? Yeah. Thank you.

[Joe Sanders (Painters, Drywall Finishers & Paperhangers Local 913)]: Sorry. Painters drywall finishers, and paper hangers, local nine thirteen. Stand here again to urge you to approve the conditional use permit. Thank you.

[Greg Hardiman (International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 8)]: Good afternoon again, commissioners. I'm Greg Hardeman with the Elevator Constructors Local eight, and I stand with my fellow brothers in labor in urging you to support the conditional use authorization and the variance

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: for this project as well. Thank you

[Luis Lima (IBEW Local 6)]: very much. Good afternoon again, commissioners. I stand here, Luis Lima, Local six. I stand here in solidarity with my brothers asking for your support on the conditional use. Thank

[Anthony Duannes (Painters & Allied Trades)]: you. Good afternoon, conditioners commissioners. My name is Anthony Duannes, and I represent skilled members of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. I'm here to support this project before you. It will bring good jobs, apprenticeship opportunities, and revitalization of the surrounding area. Thank you.

[Jennifer Dorman Alpert (Cayuga Hospitality Consultants)]: Jennifer Dorman Alpert, Cayuga Hospitality Consultants, here just to speak on the market for hotel in this area. Prior to COVID, San Francisco was one of the most lucrative hotel markets with occupancy regularly exceeding 82% and average daily rates exceeding two fifty dollars Its strength was driven by international travel, dense convention volume, and strong corporate demand. Since COVID, however, the city has been one of the slowest major markets to recover. In 2020, occupancy dipped to 37.7%. And although it rose to 60.9 in 2023, last year, it dipped back down to 57.9. So we're still a far cry off from recovery. San Francisco Travel and the CVB here do not expect Citi to return to pre pandemic levels until 2028 or 2029 at the earliest. And it should be noted that each year those projections keep getting pushed out further. And although there are some other reports that speak to a full recovery within the next two years, at current growth rates, it would take eight to nine years for the city to surpass pre pandemic levels. Compared to other US gateway cities, San Francisco is continuing to lag. They are facing it's facing the market's facing a drag from reduced convention activity, weaker international travel, especially from China, and constrained downtown economy. One of the other factors affecting the hotel market is downtown office occupancy rates, which dipped to 37.5% vacancy, which is the highest in any major US market right now. And this has caused a reduction in business travel and a reduced downtown foot traffic, which indirectly or directly is impacting weekday hotel occupancy and corporate group bookings, to which are two major drivers for hotel demand. Should also be noted that debt distress is important to look at. The CMBS loan delinquency rate for hotels in San Francisco is at 41.6% as of mid last year, which is the highest in the nation. Notably, park hotels had to surrender two properties, Union Square Hilton and Park fifty five, after those properties lost a combined billion dollars in value. Other projects, major projects are being put on hold or abandoned completely, noted Waldorf Astoria and Oceanwide Center. And these new developments will continue to face challenges given that acquisitions of existing properties are now at Also, the San Francisco hotel supply continues to outpace demand, so any additional new supply would only serve to erode an already struggling and slow to recover market. I'm running out of time. So, basically, I would just like to close with the the San Francisco Hotel is still market is still deeply in a state of distress, and any new project in the city already slow to recover undermines existing recovery efforts and places pressure

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: on the challenge. Comments, but that is your time.

[Dan Saffir (Prado Group)]: Hi.

[Kaylin (Asset Manager, Chancery Building)]: Pardon me. Again, my name is Kaylin. I am the asset manager for the Chancery Building located at 564 Market Street. Part of my role as asset manager is I actually oversee all of the leasing and the the, keeping the building occupancy levels high. To paint a picture right now, we're actually really lucky. Our building is has more occupancy than the average building in the Financial District. A lot of this has to do with the fact that a lot of people in San Francisco wanna work at a historic building. There's not a ton of them left in the Financial District, so it's really important to us that we wanna keep the historic historical integrity. However, with that being said, a lot of the new tenants in our building are AI tenants. It's been great for the economy and for us to have these new AI tenants come. However, they expect maximum flexibility. With that being said, they only do twelve to eighteen month term leases. And the problem with that is that when there's construction or when they see it, a red flag or a negative with the building such as, you know, no more natural light, not being able to open windows, having someone changing, you know, a couple feet away from them. They won't wanna rent from us anymore. We're trying to dig ourselves out of the hole from COVID like everyone else, and just hitting us with one more thing is not, to put it politely, not great. We've we obviously understand that our neighbor is allowed to to do something with their property. We've been in situations where we haven't been allowed to do something with our property, and that's extremely frustrating. We're not trying to stop them, but what we'd be and especially, I work with contractors on a daily basis, and I understand that we it's important to support everyone, but we ask that, we ask that the projects looked at in a way that economically benefits everyone, not just one party. The the hotel is probably relying on renting the rooms above our building, which is leasable. Even if it's as leasable, let's say demand skyrockets for offices and, you know, there's not enough supply. So our offices that aren't great get rented for how much? It's going to severely it severely affect the valuation of river building. You know, to talk on a broader scale, you know, we get loans for our buildings. So what happens when the valuation drops? Our our loans drop. It just has such a domino effect. And I'm sorry to go off on a tangent, but bottom line is I don't think that most definitely, we won't be able to lease during construction. Most definitely be due to the short term leases in our building. The tenants won't stay. I wish they would, but I don't think they will, especially because there's so much supply. And, we don't want to hurt our neighbors. We don't want to hurt the wonderful contractors here, but we would like to come up with a solution that works for everyone. Thank you for your time. And I think I only have ten seconds left, but I'll, leave with that. So thank you. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and these items are now before you, commissioners.

[President Lydia So]: Mister Tee?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: Alright. Thank you. I would just wanna take the opportunity to speak first because there's, like, three different separate approvals here at the project, and by far, mine is the smallest. So I just wanted to clarify, like, obviously, you're Can

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: you please speak continuously to the

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: Yes. I'll try not I know. I don't wanna wanna look at you while I'm talking to you, but I'll try to try to make it work better here. The I just wanna clarify, it's true the requirement for the additional height for the elevator overrun, it requires a variance process. It is not an actual variance as was mentioned. An actual variance under section three zero five of the code has five specific findings, but you actually can't grant a variance for height. But under our height exceptions, where you get exceptions for things like stair and elevator penthouses, there's a separate provision that calls out the authority for the zoning administrator to grant an exception for additional elevator penthouse height if it's deemed necessary to meet state or federal laws here. And so this is not uncommon for high rise projects because you have more needs for your elevator overrun for these types of elevators. And typically what happens, which is with the case here, is that, a licensed professional provides, a signed letter dictating and outlining what those regulations are that kinda require this additional height here. And that that was done in this case, and the design here was actually done in a way where it wasn't as high as it could have been, and it only results to basically a couple feet over what's permitted in the code. So that's the narrow sliver of this project that I'm that I'm here for today. So I just wanted to clarify that distinction before you all deliberate it on the other parts.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Imperial?

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Yeah. Thank you. I find myself weird in this situation because usually, I'm in terms, you know, as a commissioner, I've, you know, I think I've always advocated in a way that when it comes to office space uses, you know, it depends on which neighborhood and how neighborhoods are being affected in office use. Or this one actually is a hotel use. Sorry. And and I'm also listening to the the the other properties that submitted your appeals and also looking into their perspective as well in terms of the the economic viability of their project as well as, you know, I do think that the construction of the hotel and I do also think that the hotel use in this area is reasonable. I I also see it that it's a proper place. Mhmm. I in terms of the the economic study of the hotel use, it is, you know, I definitely appreciate of the chancery giving out giving us that analysis of where the hotel use, hotels are right now. So, you know, I find myself weird in a way that I'm trying you know, I'm hearing what the chancery is looking into because they are gonna face some economic issues, economic viabilities for their tenants when this project comes into construction. I do think it's gonna affect your leasing and perhaps your, you know, how it's gonna impact your sustainability as well. And I think you're, you know I'm seeing that what you're, you know and I'm trying to consider as well as to how is this hotel used, this hotel project, as it's going as it's going to have, you know, provide jobs, provide, you know, union jobs, good quality jobs, cannot, help the economic revitalization depending on where, you know, we cannot really see whether that can be in five years or more. I'm, you know, I'm also trying to understand where where the chancellery is. So I think that's where I'm kinda, like, leading into is, like, how how do you is to balance those two different things in terms of the office use of the surrounding area and at the same time, the complementing the hotel use at here. So this is where I'm coming from. I do think that in terms of the downtown large authorization, I'm approve of it. I think it's around the I don't know if it's gonna affect the variance when they're talking about the light wells. So it looks like it will not. But I think those are the issues that they are mainly concerned about and how they're going to affect their building. So I'd like to hear what other commissioners say. And I think that's for me as well and why I voted you know, in not in favor of upholding the preliminary because I do think that there needs to have some sort of yeah. I mean, in terms of mitigation measures and how it would affect the chancellery while the construction is going to happen.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: You know, this is a really, as has been pointed out, very uniquely sort of narrow and constrained site. And it's the source of so many of these challenges and and why it would be so difficult to to build a building with the 15 foot step backs adjacent to its neighbors. I mean, it leaves very little space. I'm sympathetic as well to the Chancery building owners. I agree that, you know, construction this close to a building, especially a building that might have historic single pane windows and no kind of central cooling system definitely sounds like a challenge. And I recognize the difficulties that construction could have to that building. You know, the construction ultimately, if something gets built on this site and is fairly tall, I think some of the construction impacts are a little inevitable. But I also wonder about things that we can do to explore, the design a little bit in a way that might be a little bit more friendly to to the neighbors. So with that in mind, I just wanna explore for a second the light well issue. And so I guess I'm gonna start with the project sponsor. So so the light wells don't fully line up. And I see that the building design for the hotel has its elevator primary elevator core and stair stairwell, kind of in the space that is the misalignment with the light wells. You know, it kinda encroaches under the light well. So why what drove the decision what drove the series of decisions that ended up resulting in a design that has that doesn't line up with the chancellor's light well more completely? And if you need to refer to drawings or schematics, please do.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Let me

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: just get to that.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: SFGov, can we get the laptop? Thank you.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: There we go. Alright. So as you can see, the what we tried to do was we provide our hotel rooms for street frontage along Sutter Street and Market Street. And then because of that alignment to get the bulk of the light in there for hotel rooms along those two street faces. The hotel core had to stay as far away from Market Street as possible because of the zone of influence for the BART Station. So that moved behind the hotel rooms along Sutter Street. And the requirements of the three three elevators for servicing the size of hotel, The and the stair core, which would have to be there anyways in order to have the separation of the stair cores, drove the location of the hotel elevator core. As you can kind of see, if that moves to the opposite side, it actually gets into the zone of influence of the BART station adjacent.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Did you I am not at all the architect or designer on this commission, and so I'm hoping they'll weigh in. But I am curious about whether or not you you looked at whether this building design would work with that core on the west side of the building and and maybe have been able to open up a little bit more of the light well space.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: As you can see, the act the the core actually goes from lot line to lot line. I mean, with the setbacks, there's actually a sheer wall on the other side of that corridor that is part of the lateral stability of the project.

[Melinda Sarjapour (Counsel for Project Sponsor, Ruben, Junius & Rose)]: I'd just point out as well, because I don't think that we did, that above the 2nd Floor in this building, which is built to lot line under the current condition, the light well that's being provided up to the 15th Floor adjacent to the Chancery Building is about seven and a half feet deep and 81 feet long, which is much longer than the light well on their property, which is a little narrower, but also much deeper. It has windows that face into the interior of it. So that is going to allow them to keep windows facing into the interior of that setback on their property, as well as some other windows that are aligning with the remainder of the 81 foot long light well on our property. So it's a design consideration.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Moore is asking for all your description, which is wonderful, amazing, but do you have a diagram that illustrate what you described?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Yeah. Even the site plan shows how they line up. Oh, yeah. If you go to the site plan, you might you can at least see the light wells.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: I wanna see the other building.

[Paul Wirmer (Public Commenter)]: There we go.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: So as you can see, hopefully you can see, the light well of the Chancery Building and the light well of the back of the finance billing to the north, page north, plan north, are outlined here. And, of course, the words are going right over the spot on the plan where you can see the light well adjacent to the hotel rooms, but you can see that the hotel rooms and the length of the hotel rooms. Is that helping illustrate?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Well, then also I think part of it's also the how it, aligns or doesn't with the neighboring building and to the east. And so I assume that is the where it says one story over basement portion is is there is that there, like, well?

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: Yeah. The one story over basement is the loading dock for 44 Montgomery. It's a one story building there adjacent to their tower.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: The eastern side at the bottom where it says one story over basement portion. I believe that's the neighboring building. It's like, well, it's very small.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Oh, yes.

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: It's great. You can

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: see a bigger here.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: Sorry. That's that's the that that that is the basically, a lot of times on these historic buildings, you have the full floor of the Ground Floor going from lot line to lot line. And then the light well starts above the first above that 1st Floor to the top of the building. Okay.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Thank you. I mean, I I wanted to explore this. It but what I'm again, not the architect here. So I'm waiting to hear from them. But, you know, it it makes sense to me that the with the core just I it doesn't look that realistic to be able to shift the core in the building significantly. And a large portion of the Chantries Building light well is not there is a a a corresponding light well on the other opposite side, even though part of it is also up you know, has the core closer to it. So I wanted to at least look at that, but, yeah, maybe that's as far as I'm able to take that right now. But, the other question I had was the issue raised about, and this is more a question for planning staff. The the Market Street versus Sutter Street sort of primary frontage for purposes of calculating the building step backs, I believe it is. So what drives the decision about what constitutes the primary frontage of the building for those calculations?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: Sure. I'll take a stab at that. So if you have a lot that only has one frontage, that makes it easy. Right? Because it only has one lot that fronts the right of way, and that is the front. When you have a lot that fronts multiple streets, like this specifically is a through lot, so the front and rear, both front on a street, the code instructs the zoning administrator to look at a couple of different things and make a determination. One is, obviously, you wanna look at if that determination has been made in the past. Right? If if prior development has already determined made this consideration, you wanna you wanna keep that generally unless something has changed. And then it's a situation of looking at and it's really more about what's the existing building there and what's more co conforming, what would be the most appropriate pattern to consider. This really is mostly an issue in residential situations. This doesn't come up that often in these types of situations downtown. I think here, when you have a lot like this, especially a narrow lot that's kinda minimally developed the way it is, it clearly has Furniture Market and Sutter, and they're both substantial streets. It's not as if Sutter's an alley a back alley.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff)]: But I

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: think it's also hard to make a case that Sutter is a more prominent street in terms of frontage, and it would absolutely I I don't think it's an unreasonable determination that Market Street is the primary frontage for for the lot.

[J. Anthony Manhivara (NorCal Carpenters Local 22)]: Jonathan, you're our department of staff.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: I would just briefly add to that. Thank you very much, Corey. That the again, the Market Street frontage is 50 feet wide. The Sutter Street frontage is 40 feet wide. So again, when we're talking about what is your primary frontage, I think it's a difficult argument to say that it would be Sutter for all the reasons, Corey.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: No. That's not that's not true.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: So one of the objections raised by the neighbor is that by using Marcus Street as a primary frontage, the I don't have the exact wording in front of me. But essentially, my understanding is that it's the bulk of the building is sort of shifted because it the calculations allow for a greater setback at a certain level or higher. This is this goes beyond, like, what I'm able to sort of interpret. And so does Steph have any reaction to how we're using market versus setters, the primary frontage matters for calculations for the building form?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: We I know we don't typically and the code definitely doesn't instruct to kind of make that determination based on the potential impacts of development on adjacent properties. Right? It's really more about following a pattern that already exists on on the block. And and to look and see if there are other, again, patterns here, as Jonathan mentioned, Market Street is just generally a more prominent street, a wider street, and the lot has more frontage on that street than it does on Sutter. And so those are the rationales for making market history. Now, of course, no matter what scenario you look at, if you pick one frontage instead of another, it's gonna change the development potential, like where the massing may shift, etcetera. But that that alone is not something the code kind of instructs us to look at when making that determination.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Okay. Thank you for the explanation. I'm curious to hear what other commissioners might have to say about the design issues. But generally, I'm in favor of the project. I just if there are some minor adjustments to it that are possible in order to make it a little bit friendlier to its neighbors, that's the kind of thing that I'm just trying to think about and explore here a little bit. Also, just lastly, on the issue about the economic viability, the market analysis, yeah, none of us I do that partly for a living as well. And, you know, there is no crystal ball, and I would never claim that there is. The varying studies that I've seen, both the ones submitted as part of this, but also more generally, there is a recovery in the hotel market projected. But again, I get that that's a complicated issue. And, but, you know, by the time this project might move forward, there does seem to be a lot of projections out there that are suggesting maybe not complete recovery back to where we were, but, that the market will have improved. And also the update to the CBRE analysis, I noticed, does make some adjustments for the subsequent sort of slower recovery than was originally projected. And so it does sort of acknowledge and seem to incorporate that. And I still think that that there would be market demand or I I support the idea that there's market viability in the future. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Well, thank you. Commissioner Vice President Moore?

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: I hate to jump into a middle of an argument, but I do. The reason is that the hotel is clearly addressed off Sutter Street. It's a through lot, and the Market Street side is what is the address of a retail space. So there is no confusion that if I take a cab or or whatever mode of transportation from the airport, I would be delivered at the Sutter Street side. So the building is really given its through lot, a two sided building. And whatever that means, well, chief to who measures what, the hotel is the main purpose of this application, and the address of that hotel comes off Sutter Street. So just to explain that, I have the drawing in front of me if you would like to see it. It was a little bit difficult to see on the on the screen. Let me start with a really positive comment. I think this hotel is really cool. It is very kind of fresh. It's a very different kind of hotel than we typically have in San Francisco because we mostly have older hotels designed around a completely different premise with with all of the extra space that at perhaps at this moment is part of why a lot of rooms are a lot of hotels are not working anymore. There's 6,000 rooms apparently that are going out of operation, and perhaps there is a demand for hotel. This is a very New Yorkish hotel for me. It squeeze itself in. You shoehorn it in, and it has a lot of positive aspects. And here comes the except. It does not quite really has carefully enough examined all of the attributes that are important to us in San Francisco. I think our planning and building code speaks to a set of different issues, which are indeed more context, overall city directed than what you have in New York. Redesigning context. And one of the biggest questions that came up actually initiated by the questions from commissioner Brown is, how does this really work in relation, for example, to the light well next door? And there's no convincing drawing anywhere, with writing over whatever even for me to see that that is fully explained. The other thing that I do not see and that we typically see here in other situations with downtown buildings, be they're high rises, be they're everything in between, is really a three d illustration of all buildings in the surrounding downtown with this new building inserted to see the building also in a three-dimensional context relative to what else we have. And that is when start things to matter, and that's where we ask the kinds of questions that people who design in the city, and there are quite a few people who do or know how to do it, really start to first consider what what are the impacts that can that I can avoid? Matching light wells, shadow on open spaces, not just park and rec, open spaces, but propose, light on sidewalks, adjacencies, historic buildings, distance to historic buildings and the impact on them. All of those are basic questions before we put the pencil down. And I think that if if we just briefly reflect what happened about half an hour, an hour ago as we started to talk about the mitigated negative declaration, I think many of those questions already came up in that in in that particular discussion, and we're repeating them here right now. What is the actual impact on the physical historic resource as well as viability of business, both in the Chancellor Building and in the whole world building, and in 44 Montgomery. All of them will be impacted in a way that raises serious questions because we also decide decisions in context here. We think about what else do we have to think about. Going on, I had questions about the viability of the hotel as a as a as a conditional use authorization question. The report attached to this package is rather sobering. It affects literally every part of downtown and extended downtown, and I understand that the convention industry is seriously impacted. Nobody has any idea if it ever will come back. There's real concern about where the hotels are that are going out of business and where are the hotels that are currently being impacted scrambling to have occupancy also competing still with Airbnb. There I am sitting on the fence about this building. There are many things I like about it. I deplore that the depiction of the project is relatively insufficient for me to see it with all of its positive attributes that are listed, and I am concerned that the timing of this particular hotel is a little bit out of step given most recent events that make tourist visitors in the city as well as in other parts of the country more questionable. And I wanna leave it with that. Let me add one point, and that's my comment to, zoning administrator Tighe. I am concerned that power power tower separation and a variance on the side setbacks exasperate the problem.

[President Lydia So]: Right. Thank you. So I generally would like to support this project, but this project feels like it is such a tricky site. Right? You try to, like, shoehorn, I was gonna borrow this word, into such a narrow lot so deep, but then you have this amazing height that you can continue to build up. Right? So I feel like you're really trying to do the best you can. But what we see today, it seems like maybe, hopefully, there's some more room to continue to massage it a little bit so that, you can be more responsive to the neighbors' concern about their business, their tenant. So commissioner Braun brought up and a point that I really think that is really important about the alignment to the light well to the neighboring building. I know that you might felt that you had given them more than you could, but given that your tower is gonna be over 300 feet, so the whole massing is pretty massive. I am not gonna be trying to draw over your drawings, but I'm thinking you could maybe consider doing different configuration of your elevator shafts to allow that to happen. Instead of bank of three, maybe you can do bank of two. Just a little bit configuration of rearrangement, you might consider that. I found that will be very much more stronger, proposal to, allow these lights to to your neighbor. Certainly, they're really upset about, really upset not because of just the feelings. It's really the concern about their viability of their business. The other thing that I like to ask is about the request for the additional height to accommodate the elevator. I would assume it's your machine room. But then I'm looking at your drawings in your elevations. Just maybe I'm just trying to understand what this is because you you you that your zoning limitation is about 300 feet, but your drawing shows to the top of screen is three twenty. So there is two levels that is the elevator machine room on the back, but so so is this what my understanding is that you're asking for close to 20 feet of increase in height?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: I'm happy to let Tim speak to the

[President Lydia So]: specific design that While while you also try to explain that, I'm also wondering why do you need that on the other side of the tower because, certainly, there's no elevator there.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: I can speak to some of that. Yes. The height is actually, allows for the mechanical and elevator machine rooms to exceed the 300 feet height. What we were in excess of was actually, as mister Tighe indicated, a couple of feet. I think it was like two and a half or three feet. That was because of the speed of the elevators for the height required a little bit of additional elevator machine room overrun space at that point. And that's what was being requested. As to the other question, we are not just providing the elevator machine room within that volume of space, but also all of the mechanical equipment at the top of the project and enclosing that within the screening as part of the massing of the project so as to not have visible mechanical or a setback separate mechanical space, but instead integrate that into the massing of the project.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. Thank you. That is really helpful. That answers my question. Okay. I will let my other fellow commissioners share their comments. So thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Thank you. I generally am in support of this project. I do think it's appropriate for the neighborhood. It will be a significant contributor to downtown, and our recovery efforts, which I think we all acknowledge. I think with that will come increased footfall activity and revenue to the city. You know, somebody earlier was commenting on people not coming to downtown, empty offices, you know, not enough people. And I do think it's a chicken egg thing. So I think the more we can, bring and drive business and create a mixed use environment downtown, the better, better off we're gonna be and the more downtown will actually start to turn into a neighborhood, which I think is what we ultimately would love to see. I think I struggle a little with this project just because I wanna love the design, and I'm a designer and I don't love the design. I think, for what it's worth, I think there's just a little too much facade patterning happening, and it gets very busy and it loses elegance. And I worry that over time, it just it's missing a timelessness. So take it or leave it, but I I do think that there's room for improvement on on the facade especially. But I I do I do appreciate that it's a complicated site. And when it comes to planning it, it's very constrained. So when it comes to matching and aligning the light wells, I can see that that was difficult to do. But I do think you you've done a nice job with the setbacks in terms of honoring some of the neighboring windows. I think I wondered as well about the the significance of the primary entrance, Sutter versus Market. I'm I'm not sure I see a difference there. I think it's just about where we wanna see that big offset. But I do love the POPOS there. We love our POPOS in San Francisco, so I think that's gonna be a very popular offering. And I do applaud you for integrating that. The one thing that did come up that I think I heard in public comment that I don't know if I quite understand is the loading and unloading. And I don't know if you could just take a minute to walk us through that. I think one of the comments was concerned around that happening on Sutter Street. It's a very busy road. So maybe we could just take a moment to walk us through that.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: Although we don't have a hotel operator on board yet, given experience on similar types of hotel projects, these are typically off hour deliveries, maybe one or two trucks every other day. Not significant. And usually, they're timed for three, four, five in the morning, well outside of standard traffic times. They're usually for laundry, pickup, or delivery, or other deliveries, but not a substantial flow for a hotel of this size.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: And then one last question about the POPOS is and I know you don't have an operator yet, but it's just to encourage you to think about how people actually access the lobby that leads you to the elevator, that leads you to the POPOS, and what the security layers are of that. So if you know, that'd be interesting to hear. Otherwise, good to

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: Yeah. We have our separate entrance with this with that is separated from the adjacent hotel and retail lobbies Mhmm. To get directly to that elevator to take you up to that space.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Right. I saw that. But just curious, when the public comes to access the POPOS, are they getting buzzed in by security in the hotel to enter that lobby and go up the elevator?

[Melinda Sarjapour (Counsel for Project Sponsor, Ruben, Junius & Rose)]: No. It's just envisioned as an open access area. Right? And if, you know, off hours late late evening when POPOS wouldn't typically be available, then that lobby wouldn't be accessible. But otherwise, you can walk straight off the street without being buzzed in. Planning wanted to ensure we had easy access for the public to get there as well as clear signage in a separate lobby. So it's it's an easy path up to the POPOS.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Yeah. That might be something that we'll have to address at some point. But, you know, almost every poboz I know has some layer of, eyes on the eyes on the street and making sure you're getting the right people up in Yeah. Up in there and utilizing it.

[Melinda Sarjapour (Counsel for Project Sponsor, Ruben, Junius & Rose)]: So We can accept it.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Yeah. Other than that, those are all my comments.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner vice president.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Picking up on the, comment regarding the FOPO that, commissioner Campbell just raised, I do not have a clear understanding over the last two or three years the accessibility of these particular spaces. And you can say that's not a question for you. It's a question more for mister Teague and Bab staff. Since since COVID, actually, since 09/11, the use of proposed, particularly those integrated into lobbies or on upper floors of office buildings, have been basically closed to the public. And that includes Salesforce, where there's supposed to be a really large public open space. Not well, it's perhaps three years ago, and I was just dressed like a downtown office worker, tried to go into the lobby of one of the Salesforce buildings where the lobby is a public open space. And it took me about two minutes where somebody approached me and asked me what I was doing. So I I felt that I looked appropriately part of the crew, and I felt so uncomfortable that I had to leave. Take that for a moment and you come in with torn blue jeans and, looking a little bit more disheveled, you would not even have a chance to make it over the entry door. And I believe that potentially, even on this pope of being on the 15th Floor, being associated with the bar as you showed in your drawing, that this raises a lot of additional questions. One, the haves can go at 05:00 and have a drink. The have nots have the right to be there, but they cannot afford one, nor perhaps should they be around alcohol. I think there is a zone near that I believe that any popo on the Ground Level or on an elevated 15th Floor has to have clearer guidance about who can be there, and we know it should be everybody, and when and how. Because the screens that come upon you coming through the lobby are still basically unsurmountable. So in that sense, I would say that Popo on the 15th Floor is perhaps not as desirable, particularly because the building will affect five purpose on the Ground Floor and on on Market Street further to the east, which are actively be used by everybody. So that would be my comment here. I am I like the idea of having a bar upstairs

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Mhmm.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: But the combination bar of Popo on the 15th Floor is public, I think, is a misnomer.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Moore?

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: I think this I think this hotel has real potential, but I think it needs tweaks. And I'm I'm excited, as I said very early on in my opening remarks, that this is kind of a really fresh, wonderful idea about a different kind of hotel. However, the peripheral questions that we have all asked require a little bit more consideration. And I would say that at this moment, I would encourage that this hotel design goes back a little bit and comes back in a month or two and answers at least some of the questions that have been raised. Otherwise, personally, given the question that I feel are unanimously expressed in different forms by commissioners have not been fully answered. I think we all like parts of this, but there are the things which I feel need a little bit more thoughtfulness. Thank you. I make a motion to continue.

[President Lydia So]: Oh, commissioner Braun, you have something you wanna say?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: First of all, just say I I I second the motion to continue. I I don't I'm really on the fence, and I think it's because of a lot of the issues here. And it's not my instinct to to wanna continue a project with it. But I I think that there needs to be, at least from my perspective, the reason I'm I'm struggling to approve today is more around the need to further explore ways to better align with the light well of the Eastern Building. The other thing I didn't really bring up because I don't really know if there is a fix for this, but, you know, the fact that the the building is also 15 feet away from 44 Montgomery, these windows are very close to each other. It's a concern, but maybe not a a fatal one from my perspective as far as approving the project. But even so, I think the basic just for me is is trying to further modify the design or explore ways to modify the design that would, essentially, open up more, light with the neighbors, maybe get a little more distance with the neighbors. I get that it's a very constrained site, but at least it needs to be looked into. So thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Yes. I guess my I also support, having a continuance. I guess a question I asked for how long. And, I wonder if the project sponsor would give us, like, in terms of timeline of the design, whether you can do it in two weeks or three weeks, or what is a measurable timeline for you?

[Melinda Sarjapour (Counsel for Project Sponsor, Ruben, Junius & Rose)]: I think is there any more parameter you could give us about the design for the desire for light well redesign? I mean, just to to stress here, because it's a narrow site, we're pretty limited in what we can do and still make this a viable, buildable project. While these light wells don't align, because they don't, we're likely able to maintain more of the windows on the chance of rebuilding, which is a of a concern to them. Are we looking for a shorter, deeper setback that's directly aligned with their labor laws?

[President Lydia So]: I think that we had given a lot of detailed description of all of us has shared some of little pieces of here and there. I myself also be very much like you can also try to consider the configuration of the elevator shafts. So we do not want to tell the architect exactly how he's gonna do his creativity, but we have shared enough information about the access of light from the neighbors, the light well misalignment. There is a concern about the access of the POPOS. Right? And there's a concern about the, the facade design to make it more timeless. What else? I think there are plenty of things that we had already articulated. And right now, we just wanna know realistically how long or how short you think respectfully you can come back so then we can be efficiently use each other's time? Commissioner Moore, you might wanna say more. Yeah.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Yeah. I think this is also a question to the architect who is basically the one who does the drawing, who thinks about what we said. So if you could answer that question, perhaps that would help us.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: I mean, it seems like probably in order to Could

[President Lydia So]: you speak to the microphone? Sure.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: Probably that's two months to just go through this review studies and update renderings and have time to get that in front of everyone and get any feedback. In the meantime, before that next meeting.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: July 10.

[President Lydia So]: That seems acceptable. Yes. Alright. Thank you.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Yeah. It's a motion that's already made. I already beat it.

[President Lydia So]: Motion of Braun.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: I think one of the other comments that, vice president Moore made was also a little bit of of additional understanding of the surrounding context of the building. You know, just, again, thinking about what I'm kind of wondering about, I think it would be helpful to understand its relationship to 44 Montgomery as well. I I can see the the 15 foot distance between them, but it's very hard in any of the renderings if you go the route of producing renderings as well, you know, kinda how that that the two buildings relate to each other. So anything to help just sort of understand the context between them a little bit would be

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: helpful. I

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: think we'll just leave it at there for today.

[President Lydia So]: That's really good point.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Let's just leave it there for today.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: We actually do have a rendering that does show that if if you wanted to see

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Well, maybe I Okay. So do please do pull it up because I'm seeing just the one from the propose.

[Jason Bujheit (Project Architect)]: If if you pull up, the laptop and it's on the left hand side. You can see the relationship. And I'm sorry. The the screens are a little far away here, but you can see the relationship there to the Montgomery Tower in terms of separation. And if desired, we could definitely take another one from the Montgomery Street side. The reason we didn't do that is it obscures most of that view. So it's harder. It's not an easy spot to see.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Thank you.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Thank

[President Lydia So]: you. Commissioner Maury.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Could this gentleman see the modeling that we use on midraterally all taller buildings, not perhaps at this moment, but he he could use the San Francisco model to put his building into that. We really focused on that general block, see how we do this. Sure.

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: We can we can definitely work with the sponsor on the renderings for the next page.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Thank you so much. You know what I'm talking about.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Okay. Last point, I swear. But but I think if if it's not possible to adjust the building designs in the ways that have been brought up by the commission, I think what for me again, this is just me speaking, but what would be helpful is to have a clear walk through of why it's not, why what we've asked for is too difficult to pull off or something like that. So that's that's my other last point. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to July 10 with direction from the commissioners. On that motion, commissioner Campbell? Nay. Commissioner McGarry?

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: Nay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president so?

[President Lydia So]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes five to two with commissioners Campbell and McGarry voting against.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, Planning Department)]: And I will also continue the elevator exception to July 10 as well. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Very good. Thank you. Commissioners, that will place us on item 12 for case number 2017Hyphen003559, CUA Hyphen 03 at 3700 California Street, conditional use authorization.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff)]: Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon, president Tsao, fellow commissioners, Jeff Horn, planning department staff. The item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to modify a previously approved planned unit development at 3700 California Street and surrounding parcels. The proposed project is located at the former California Pacific Medical Center campus, referred to as 3700 California Street, within the Presidio Heights neighborhood. The approximately five acre project site encompasses 14 parcels on one full city block, referred to as Block B, within the project description, bounded by Sacramento Street to the North, California Street to the South, Cherry Street to the West, and Maple Street to the East. The project also includes portions of two other adjacent blocks, referred to as Block A on the West Side Of Cherry Street and Block C on the East Side Of Maple Street. The product site is located on a south facing hillside, which slopes relatively steeply down to the south from Sacramento to California Street and gradually slopes downwards to the West. The project has twice been previously reviewed and approved by the planning commission. On 02/27/2020, the commission certified an EIR, adopted CEQA findings, and approved conditional use authorization and a planned unit development, which included modifications to permit the change of use from an institutional use to residential for the existing building at 3698 California Street and the demolition of five institutional use buildings for the construction of 31 new buildings ranging in height from four to eight stories and containing 264 new dwelling units. Through the PUD, the product received modifications to the rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, street frontage, moderation of building fronts, and building height requirements. On 03/02/2023, the planning commission approved an amendment to that project in order to extend the validity of the approval for three years till 02/27/2026. The current proposal also includes the demolition of five of the six former hospital buildings on the project site. It also includes renovation and retention of the Marshall Hall Hospital building at 3698 California Street and the construction of new residential buildings. There are nine residential units at a building at 401 Cherry Street that will remain. Additionally, the revised project will construct one mixed use building on Block C by expanding the Marshall Hale, hospital building and creating a mix of residential and institutional uses for senior residents. In addition to a high number of multifamily residential units, the revised project retains approximately the same number of single family homes, that will be on separate fee parcels as the original project, and we'll actually increase that from 12 originally approved to, 15 within the revised project. The proposed project would be constructed on three blocks with residential buildings ranging from three to seven stories and 40 to 80 feet on Blocks A And b and with a seven story, 80 foot tall mixed use residential and institutional building on Block C. In total, the project would contain 456 new dwelling units, 74 institutional assisted living and memory care units, and a public publicly accessible restaurant. The project also will provide mostly below grade parking, 458 within parking garages within these multi multifamily buildings and another 30 within the 15 single family residential lots. For the modified project, the sponsor seeks conditional youth authorization and approval of the modified PUD with request for modifications from the planning code requirements for rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, moderation of building fronts, freight loading, bulk limits, and commercial uses within our district. The bulk, freight loading, and commercial use modifications are new requests with within this revised proposal. To summarize at a high level, the changes in this current project from the original project include an increase in the total unit count from 264 to 456 Duane units, adding a 74 unit resident senior residential care facility, the consolidation of development from 31 new buildings into 19 new buildings, which provide an additional approximately 1,000 or sorry. Yeah. 150,000 square feet of habitable space and a new commercial component to provide a neighborhood serving restaurant. In regard to outreach and correspondence on the modified project, the product sponsor held a community meeting on February in February 2024 and has held other meetings and communications with neighbors and neighborhood groups over the past year. The product spot product supporters include the Northern Neighbors, YIMBY, Grow the Richmond, SFHACC, the Bay Area Council and the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco, and Booker t Washington Community Services Center. Since publication, staff has received support letters from the Pacific Heights Residents Association and about six other individuals citing support for the increase in housing. Four letters were received with concerns about the loss of existing street trees as a result of the project and another with concerns on construction activities. Planning staff ministerially approved an addendum to the environmental impact report for the modified project as no new impacts were found. There is no CEQA action before the commission today. However, the mitigation and monitoring report has been updated to reflect changes in the project scope where applicable, and that is included as an exhibit and a condition of approval of this project. In summary, the department finds that the proposed modifications are consistent with the objectives and policies of the city's general plan, the planning code, and the commission's previous approvals. As the project will develop an underutilized site to deliver new housing at a variety of housing types, including family sized units, as well as a new residential care facility. Therefore, we recommend, based on the revised motion that the commission received yesterday, approval of the project. This concludes my presentation, and staff is available for any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, mister Horn. With that, we should hear from the project sponsor. Through the chair, you will have seven minutes.

[Dan Saffir (Prado Group)]: President Tsao, Vice President Moore, and commissioners, I'm Dan Saffir with Prado Group to present our proposed modifications to the 3,700 California project. It's nice to see all of you. Our design team includes three local firms with deep experience in multifamily, infill, and the nuances of San Francisco's unique neighborhoods. Haendel Architects is the architect for the senior housing component, and BDE is the architect on the multifamily and single family residential components.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Sorry to interrupt you. SFGov, can we go to the computer, please? Go ahead.

[Dan Saffir (Prado Group)]: Thank you, Jonas. They are all here if you have any questions for them. As mentioned by staff, the 4.9 acre site is located in Presidio Heights adjacent to Jordan Park and Laurel Heights. It is a highly walkable area on flat streets to restaurants, shops, and services along Sacramento Street and the adjacent Laurel Village Shopping Center. The site has excellent public transit access to all parts of the city, and the neighborhood backs up to the 1,500 acre Presidio Park. The site, as mentioned, is currently underutilized and a shuttered hospital occupied by the former CPMC Children's Hospital. The site has a long and evolved history. It was originally home to the hospital founded in 1920. The building became obsolete after hospital operations were relocated in 2019 out to Van Ness, due to seismic concerns. The previous developer optioned the site in 2017 and then secured entitlements as was referenced in 2020. Those entitlements were then extended by us and now we're here today to discuss the modifications to those entitlements. Due to the onset of COVID nineteen, subsequent market challenges, that project by the prior developer ultimately proved infeasible, and they did not move forward. We acquired this property in 2022 from Sutter Health, and since then, we've worked to improve the project's feasibility while preserving the most important elements to the city and the community. We hosted our pre application meeting in February 2024 and submitted updated plans shortly thereafter. And over the past year, we've continued to refine the design and engage in the city's review process, leading us to the hearing today. In short, this table shows a comparison between key project features of the approved project and our proposed modification. Importantly, we're staying within the current zoning. We're staying within the current height limits. We're creating family friendly housing. We're retaining and restoring the Marshall Hale Building in addition to 401 Cherry. We're doing contextual neighborhood architecture, and the only real material addition is the addition of senior housing on Block C, and then also, as staff referenced, the increase in density to the project. Overall, the residential unit count has increased from 273 to 298 homes, which includes 283 residential flats and 15 single family homes. 63% of the residential homes are family friendly units with two bedrooms or greater. And with the modified plan, we've added 232 senior housing units, which includes independent living, assisted living, and memory care. The revised project preserves the core elements of the original residential plan that was approved by this commission, while expanding the housing supply and incorporating senior and assisted living facilities. Some of the key benefits also include the significant new housing that will be added to this part of the city and the city overall, environmental sustainability, prioritizing green building with a target of achieving LEED gold, city revenue delivering substantial impact fees, including major contributions toward affordable housing and job creation, both, quality construction jobs and permanent roles tied to the senior housing and the residential project components. As, I think all of you are aware, this is one of our beautiful classic San Francisco neighborhoods. Our architects and landscape architecture firms carefully studied the prior approved project, its design widely supported by the community and the staff, along with the neighborhood design elements to ensure that the new architecture and landscape integrates seamlessly with the surrounding context. As referenced by staff, the site is currently zoned 80 feet, that's in the blue area up here, and 40 feet shown in purple. Our project is consistent with this zoning. The site plan also illustrates how the buildings were designed to complement the surrounding neighborhood. Blocks A And B feature three distinct residential buildings and 15 single family homes, while Block C is now dedicated to senior housing, a mix of independent assisted living and memory care. Here's an aerial view of the existing hospital site today. The buildings today range up to 112 feet at the tallest point. Here is the proposed project, which hopefully you can see behind the words coming across the screen, which is a mix of building scales and forms to create visual interest and break up the massing along the site consistent with the surrounding neighborhood context and the scale of each of these streets. The buildings range in height up to 80 feet. Here are a series of renderings of the project. This is the view from Jordan Avenue looking north. This is the view from Jordan Avenue looking east along California Street toward Cherry Street, which goes up to the north, with the first level activated by common areas and residential units. This is a view looking north from Commonwealth Avenue toward the entry garden courtyard, which is set back. This is a view looking west along California Street showing the senior housing facade and the historic entry element of the Marshall Hale Building and its proximity to the Laurel Village Shopping Center, which is right across the street, making the senior living highly walkable on a flat street to shopping and services. This view looks west on Sacramento Street from the corner of Sacramento And Maple. And this image of the senior building looks southeast from the corner of Sacramento And Maple Street. With that, thank you for your time and consideration of these modifications. And we welcome any questions or comments at this time. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. With that, we should open the public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter. Again, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room.

[Jay Natoli (YIMBY Action, SF Organizing Director)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Jay Natoli. I'm the San Francisco organizing director with UNB Action here in support today. We appreciate the work that's gone on in this. I personally live fairly close to this location. I ride by it and my bike a lot. It'll be great to see some actual activity over there again. I have been doing advocacy for this since 2018. So I'm also particularly excited if we could get moving on it. It's been a while. So glad to see that they found a way to move forward with this, add more homes. We like all the components here and please move forward expeditiously. Thank you.

[Craig Fields (Nearby Resident)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Craig Fields. I'm a homeowner. I live on Maple between Sacramento and Clay Street. I'm generally supportive of this project, which has grown substantially in the last five years in terms of units. But I have two major concerns. One is has to do with car traffic, and the other has to do with street parking. The first is that the project is partly on Sacramento Street. And I'm concerned about the effect on of car traffic between on Sacramento between Arguello and Spruce. In this area, Sacramento Street is a narrow one lane aside residential street. As I read the plans and elevations for the project and the project sponsor and city can correct me, it appears that for blocks a and c of the project at least that there are car entrances and exits located on Sacramento.

[Chris Schroeder (DBI Building Inspector, Public Commenter)]: And is that

[Craig Fields (Nearby Resident)]: If there are, I believe this will cause an irremediable adverse traffic problem on Sacramento Street, especially if cars will try to enter Sacramento Street into the project from the north side of the street opposite of traffic. I believe that auto access to this entire project should be limited to California Street, Maple, and Cherry because at least Cherry and California are two lane streets. And therefore, they can accommodate, traffic going in and out of the project, but not Sacramento. I don't think that, I think we'll have a bad traffic problem on Sacramento if there is car access from that street. If this project really needs car access from Sacramento, then I believe it is too dense for the area. The second is is that parking in that area, public street parking North Of Sacramento, is already like musical chairs. And I don't know whether that can be part of the condition. But if the residents of this building and there are gonna be over 400 units and there's only gonna be about one parking space per unit, as I read the plans, if the, residents of the these buildings are able to get street parking, public street parking North Of Sacramento, then the parking is gonna be completely irremediable there for the current residents. So I would request that a condition be that if this is approved, that residents of these buildings are not allowed to obtain street permit parking North Of Sacramento Street. Thank you.

[Matt Regan (Bay Area Council)]: Good evening, commissioners, president So. My name is Matt Regan. I'm here representing the Bay Area Council. We are a business sponsored advocacy organization. We represent about 350 of the Bay Area's largest employers public and private. We survey our members every year and every year they tell us that the housing crisis is their number one issue of concern. Our members are moving jobs out of state. They're moving themselves out of state because they can't find talent. They can't afford to hire people with rising rents and rising home prices here in the Bay Area. We have effectively become a gated country club and the price of admission is a million and a half dollars. That's the current median home price in San Francisco. You have before you over 500 homes if you include the senior living facility. And we have the the beginnings of a solution to this problem. To put things in perspective, if you look at the metros where our population is fleeing and California is losing population, San Francisco is losing population primarily lower and middle income families are leaving for because of the very high cost of living here. If you go to Austin, Austin is building 37 new homes per existing 1,000 residents, Residences rather. Raleigh Durham is building 33, Jacksonville 28, Nashville 26 per existing 1,000 residences. San Francisco is building four, not a typo, four. So we have an opportunity here to start reversing that trend and building some homes and stopping the exodus of our population. We're going to lose three congressional seats in California and reapportionment in 2030. It's because we're not building homes for our residents. So we urge that you move this forward with all speed and haste. I was also here with Jane in 2018 lobbying for the first iteration of this project and here we are seven years later and still debating plans. So let's get this thing done as fast as possible. Thank you.

[Danielle Boris (Merchant/Resident)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Danielle Boris, and I am a resident in the neighborhood on Clay Street as well as have a retail location and can talk for the Merchant Association for Sacramento Street. My location is at 3600 Sacramento. I do pop ups currently. And we are seeing a huge increase of designers wanting to come particularly to Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, rather than downtown right now. So I actually went on a mission last summer to look at Dublin and nor parts of Norway, and I really came back with an invigorated commitment to San Francisco and projects like this that will keep us competitive with designers and with local small businesses, I was ready to move. And I am a resident for forty nine years. I opened my first business in the neighborhood in 1999, so I really can tell you how much every merchant needs this. We need the energy. We need the foot traffic. And we need the space for designers. And we need the space for young and older people to live together and a place to gather. So I'm hoping that you guys will push this forward. Thank you.

[Friday Apalisky (Resident)]: Hello. My name is Friday Apalisky. I'm also a resident in the neighborhood. I've lived in this city for quite some time, but I've lived in this neighborhood for five years, the entirety of which this space has been decrepit and falling apart. I walk by it. It's four blocks from my house. I walk by it every single day, and it's horrible. I look at it out the window of my bedroom every single night. The lights are on. Nothing is happening. I strongly urge you to please move forward very quickly with making this decrepit old buildings into something beautiful and vibrant for this community. I wanna echo my support that you've heard before. The density of the increased density and the increased number of housing units is vital. I'm so excited for more neighbors. I'm so excited for more foot traffic and more people, to be patrons of the local businesses. We absolutely need this. It cannot wait any longer. Please, please push this forward quickly. Please make this into a a great project that can come to life soon, not another five years.

[Joe Sanders (Painters, Drywall Finishers & Paperhangers Local 913)]: Good evening, commissioners. Again, I'm Joe Sanders with Painters Drywall Finishers and Paper Hangers Local nine thirteen. Gonna echo what I said about the hotel project. A project like this is gonna create a multitude of jobs for skilled journey workers and apprentices, not to mention the increase to the housing goals that we're trying to meet here in the near future. So I urge you to push this project forward. Thank you.

[Luis Lima (IBEW Local 6)]: Hello again, commissioners. Luis Lima, Local six. I'd like to echo my sentiments from my brother who just spoke here. Not only that, but I have two children that will be adults in a few years. And this is a great opportunity for them to maybe own in the city, maybe live in the city they grew up in. So, I didn't realize that this had taken so long. This has been planning for so long. I I urge you to please, support this and move forward. Thank you.

[Davy Kim (Resident; YIMBY Lead)]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Davy Kim. I'm a renter. I'm also a lead for San Francisco YIMBY. And I'll be speaking in favor of this project. My advocacy with my group, including for this project, is driven not necessarily by my own opinion or feeling, but the recommendations, instead the recommendations of many urban economists who have identified the clear need for our city to accommodate more housing. This project, I feel, and many of my colleagues, is certainly a step in the right direction. We love infill because infill means more more numerous units, more numerous smaller units. It's housing conducive to more mixed income populations. And this project will also serve needy populations with its carve out for senior residential care, which we especially love. Not to mention, it's beneficial. Infill generally is beneficial environmentally. In general, we care a lot about the trajectory of sustainable growth, especially into the twenty first century. This was submitted by email, but I also have with me 347 signatures of people who more or less feel the same that I do in support of this project, including a close friend who was born in the hospital site, who would love to see it being converted into housing. From a personal level, I'm about to become a dad, and I'm thinking more intently about the city that I want to see for my future child. My wife is also here today. And it's one where we feel like all populations are sufficiently welcome, regardless of their means and who can enjoy the dynamism of our great city. So please, please don't let process lead to failure of what seems to be such a a common sense type project. Thank you so much for your attention.

[Jenny Gebhardt (Resident)]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jenny Gebhardt. You just heard from my husband, Davey. What he didn't tell you is that I am eight months pregnant, and getting ready to have our first child and thinking about how long we'll be able to last in the city as a young family. We often tell our friends we are San Francisco lifers. We're not going to the suburbs. We're not moving out. And when I see a project like this, it gives me hope that there will be more space for families like ours to be near day cares and schools and transit and vibrant communities and green space. When I see the senior residential facilities, it gives me some hope as part of the sandwich generation as I both prepare to bring a child into the world and move my parents and in laws closer so we can take care of them. And a kind of personal poetic note for me, I could have been born in San Francisco, but I wasn't because it was too expensive, even back then. My parents lived here and they left. And I was born in Roseville, which is nowhere near as iconic. So there's something some some righteousness to you about bringing a child into San Francisco, bringing my parents back to San Francisco. But then thinking and looking ahead of how can we really make this work? I work at a nonprofit right down the street, the Electronic Frontier Foundation. My husband works in academia. We're committed to our careers there. And again, when I see a project like this, I see hope for families like ours for more possibilities in the city for us to indeed be as we want to be San Francisco lifers. Thank you.

[Greg Hardiman (International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 8)]: Good evening again, commissioners. My name is Greg Hardeman, elevator instructors, local eight, and, also, I was born at Children's Hospital. I'm familiar with the neighborhood in the city, and, this project fits in this area. It's, it's not gonna I don't see it being an issue. We heard from the merchants, some of the residents, San Francisco is much needed of more construction. And, we do have plenty of available people to put to work, that are eager apprentices, that are in a living wage with benefits. So I urge you to move this project forward. Thank you very much.

[Anthony Duannes (Painters & Allied Trades)]: Good afternoon again, commissioners. My name is Anthony, and I'm a business representative for the Painters and Allied Trades. And I am support of this project before you. It will bring good jobs, apprenticeship opportunities, and economic revitalization in the surrounding area. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you.

[Deborah Cooper (Resident)]: Hi. My name is Deborah Cooper, and I live across the street from the project. And I found out about this meeting not by getting notification. I Googled it

[President Lydia So]: a few weeks ago.

[Deborah Cooper (Resident)]: I have not gotten notification. So my immediate concern was finding out I I didn't know how far along this project was, and I wanted to find out about demolition and timing and issues like that. And I was able to speak with, representatives of the Prado group outside, and they informed me that, you know, pending approval today and maybe, you know, some other developments, the demolition wouldn't occur until at least fifteen to eighteen months from now and that it would be done in stages. But the reason so I got those questions answered. But the reason I wanted to speak is just to put on record that not everyone is getting notification on directly across the street, so clearly within the 150 feet. And I when I told one of the told the group, the Prado group where I lived, one of the representatives pulled up a contact list and showed me that my building is on the list, but my unit was not, as well as at least two other units in the building. And I doubt we're the only addresses that are missing from the list. So they told me that they get that list from the city. So I guess the from the planning department. And I would ask that they go over that list again and make it complete so that

[President Lydia So]: all of the

[Deborah Cooper (Resident)]: residents around this project get important notices of planning and, of course, demolition and construction updates. Thank you.

[Speaker 50.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I live across the street, the development on Sacramento Street, and I've been there for twenty six some years. My daughter was born in the hospital. I lived in the Fillmore. So I've been in this neighborhood a long time, and I really support this project. I know there's been a lot of work done on it in terms of integrating the design to to reflect the neighborhood. Sacramento Street really could use, you know, more traffic in terms of business. There's a lot of closed shops. You know, hopefully, this project will help to revitalize that. We definitely need housing in San Francisco. I really would love to have my daughter live here and afford something. I would really, like to see this project expedited. You know, there's been talk about doing that, you know, whatever the planning department, the city can do to help this, you know, of course, I'm all for making sure, the construction phase, you know, protects us in terms of, you know, air quality, noise, and all of those things. And I'd like to really encourage excellent, not only building design, but landscape design in this in this neighborhood. So thank you.

[Rudy Gonzalez (SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Good evening now, commissioners. Rudy Gonzales, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. Really excited to announce our partnership with Prado on this project. We think it's a really smart design. On a personal note, as a native San Franciscan, it is a once in a generation opportunity to put housing stock in this neighborhood and to really open up an opportunity for other generations to, you know, sell their own roots in this part of the city. I I can't think of a a more exciting project right now. You know, there's a conversation that's happening in California around how we interact with housing projects and housing developments. And I think that, unfortunately, you know, the politics kind of get in the way of the real impact we can have on people's lives. You've heard from some of the residents and the merchants today. I wanna talk about the lives that we just celebrated at CityBuild's twentieth graduation ceremony where carpenters and steamfitters and electricians and laborers all came together to promote a city sponsored program to put pre apprentices in registered apprenticeship in our unions. Those lives only get changed. Those promises only get fulfilled when we have actual projects that are entitled that we can put people to work on. And with every person, with every woman, with every man, with every non binary individual in our trades that goes to work, it opens up another opportunity for a local hire, for a kid to get picked up out of the community and put to work in their own neighborhood. So we're tremendously excited. There's an all trades agreement. Everyone will be on this project in the building trades. We're excited to partner with a credible developer again. I can't say enough good things about Prado, and we are looking forward to your expeditious approval and, moving this project forward finally. Thank you.

[Brianna Morales (SF Housing Action Coalition)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition as their San Francisco organizer. And I don't think I am going to be the first person to say that San Francisco does have a housing crisis, and we are currently in it. We hear every day from people who are being priced out or from seniors who want to age in place but are unable to stay near their families and from longtime residents who can't find a stable place to raise their children. And that's why we believe in good housing projects, especially ones that bring a wide range of high opportunity neighborhoods, homes, and that they deserve our collective respect. And while the Housing Action Coalition hasn't completed a formal project review, I'm here today because we believe in the overall vision of this project. It would bring new life to a building that has had a lot of history and unfortunately, a lot of vacancy. That includes 283 multifamily apartments and 232 homes for seniors, including both independent and assisted living. As someone who caretakes for her family members, I can't tell you enough how influential this is for a lot of people like me who have a full time job and don't live near their relatives but still travel two hours plus every weekend to go take care of them. I think these homes bring a real opportunity for people, including older adults who want to stay independent and near their families. And I think this area is something that everyone should be able to enjoy. From what we've heard today, it seems like there's a lot of widespread support from trades and residents and small business practices. And the number one thing that I'm hearing is not just to move it forward, but to move it forward with the urgency that a housing crisis requires. So I'm really happy to be here today. I really hope that this project can contribute to alleviating a problem that touches all of us in the city. And, yeah, I'm just excited, and thank you for the opportunity to speak about it. Thank you.

[John Jensen (Neighbor to Block C, 3700 California)]: Hi there. I'm John Jensen, and I live to the immediate east on Building C or sorry, Block C on California Street. So I just wanted to offer my support for the project. I've gotten to know, Prado over the years, and, I can't think of a better steward for the, for the development, of the project. So,

[J. Anthony Manhivara (NorCal Carpenters Local 22)]: anyway, I

[John Jensen (Neighbor to Block C, 3700 California)]: did wanna also, offer, one of the folks that spoke here had suggested maybe put in the parking entrance on California. You know, we have a huge parking garage right now for this project. The previous existing project that is on Maple, essentially. It enters, you know, and exits on Maple. So if that could be kind of taken into account, that would be great. So much going on at California Street with buses and everything, as well as cars. Anyway, thank you so much.

[AJ Thomas (Resident)]: Hello. My name is AJ Thomas, and I'm actually a local resident as well. I live just down the street one neighborhood over, and I actually spent a lot of time around there. I was just having coffee in the neighborhood across the street from that area last week with friends. And I can't tell you enough, like, as a brand new homeowner in the city, how hard it was. It took almost twenty years to be able to buy a place in the city. A big part of it is supply and having good quality housing available so that you can raise a family here. And as somebody living in the neighborhood, people are excited about the project. So I'm here to speak on behalf of it, not just as a delegate to San Francisco Trades, but as a local resident who wants to see more housing and housing like this built with good partners and that has also been thinking about the community as well. So encourage everybody to support this.

[Enrique Landa (Public Commenter/Developer)]: Commissioners, Enrique Landa. Normally, I come and see you all, for a part of our project. But, I get a chance to come be a District 2 resident and talk, about this developer who I'm very impressed with just as a team. There's a lot of developers who develop projects to sell them, flip them, or do something else. This is a development team that is incredibly focused on delivering housing, delivering infrastructure, and doing it as fast as they can. And they have the kinds of ethics and values that are what, at San Francisco, we should really be proud of. So this is a great project. I live just down the hill. It's been sitting for a long time. Both my kids were built there. And I would love to see it come down and welcome new neighbors. Thank you so much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: So this is my zip code. Two of my three children were born in that hospital. I know every corridor, every room we, every nook and cranny where you can basically hang out, wait for a sonogram or whatever, but I'm not gonna miss it, you know? It's a big, ugly institutional building and, yeah, outside and in, and we have an opportunity here to turn that all around. And so I'm gonna go straight forward and I'm gonna make a motion, to approve this. I'm eager to listen to my fellow, commissioners and what they have to say, but I believe this project is actually perfect for the neighborhood. This project is actually a perfect example of what up zoning would look like throughout the city, and it's a prime example of that. So I'm definitely looking forward to my fellow commissioner's opinion.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: And I second the motion. Lovely.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: I also am in strong support of this project. It's great to see it come forward. I'm really excited to see that this is now with this new iteration adding two fifty seven additional housing units, which is just phenomenal to see. Now I do wanna I just wanna address two points that have been made along the way. So not in today's hearing, but we received some correspondence about trees at the project and the removal of some trees. And I just want to acknowledge that that is part of the project. It's happening. Ultimately, there is a net increase in the number of trees at the project. I recognize that losing a mature tree is not something any of us want. But in this case, ultimately, there will be an additional number of trees planted, a net increase in number of trees. And it's just a really big project that is going to involve a a little bit of a trade off there, I I think. But I do wanna just recognize the concerns that were raised about that. And then also to another point that's been raised by two of the commenters here today about the access of the automobile access to the project off of Sacramento Street. My read on this is that not a lot of the big garages have access off Sacramento Street, but I'm curious if the project sponsor could just, speak to that concern to the extent that there are any garage entrances off of Sacramento Street.

[Dan Saffir (Prado Group)]: Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Ron. So the access along Sacramento Street, the previous approval that went through this commission had seven garage entries off of Sacramento Street. The current proposal has six, so we've reduced it by one. Out of those six entries off of Sacramento Street, two of them are actually the Porta cochere entry and exit for the senior housing in order to get the seniors in off of Sacramento Street on a flat street. And honestly, those senior housing entries are not used in the same way as a underground parking garage. It's really drop drop off, pick up. The other four entries are four single family homes all the way at the west end of the Sacramento Street portion of the project, which is now a setback mid century kind of office building, not very attractive, but with a very large curb cut for that entire building. So effectively, we're putting driveways into homes where we already have a large curb cut. So hopefully that answers the question.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: That does. Thank you for verifying that. And so all of the major garage inter major garage inters are not on Sacramento Street. So like I said, this is my full support. I I too have, seen physicians at this building in the past. It had its time, but I'm excited to see this project move forward and for the site to move on. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. I do like to say this is a very culturally appropriate and also very tastefully curated way to redevelop an old, hospital come campuses. So I really applaud the entire project team, everyone who worked on this, our staff, the developer, and all the other specialty consultants. The architects and engineers have done a really good job. And also collaborating with the community and the neighbors, it's also very important, and it is a a great happy ending for for all of us. And I do actually, I did live on California in Spruce, and then later on, it was just on a rental unit. I wish I could afford to live there at some point. But my daughter practically was actually growing up around that neighborhood. We saw we our dentist is there, and now I'm really happy to see that there will be some senior living apartments there. People can continue to live age in grace in our really beautiful neighborhood and city of San Francisco. This is a very good example of how a very, how would you say this? Like, a very conscientious developer and sponsor to actually look into not just what is the most cost saving way to build exactly the same thing over and over and populate the blocks. What you actually did skillfully curated different design types for the few blocks. So you kinda break it down to scale, and then you make it blend so nicely to this whole neighborhood. And I think that this is something that many of us should really recognize and use it as a takeaway for anyone who try to build anything in San Francisco. So I am in full support of this, and I think it echoes with the majority of my fellow commissioners. And please get this built

[Speaker 36.0]: pretty quickly.

[President Lydia So]: I hope. I hope the bank works out. Commissioner Williams?

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: No. I think I was first.

[President Lydia So]: Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Got too excited. Commissioner president Moore.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: I think president Sewell said it very well. As second generation thought about building, this commission supported the first version, but even at that tiering, people ask why not a little bit denser, however, the special design, this was kind of very specifically designed, did not allow that. Here we are, and I'm delighted to see it designed at higher density in a form that did not require any SPs, which makes it even better. Sorry for saying that, but I do think that densification can occur without stringent rules that push us beyond of what sometimes good contextual or good architecture allows us to do under those SPs. So congratulations to everybody who participated seeing this project mature on its own. And as I supported the previous project, this project has an even more wholehearted support as far as I'm concerned, and it does wonderful things. We did not have time to get into the senior housing component, which I had the opportunity to talk with mister Safer and mister Roscaldo about. And perhaps we have already spent a lot of time today on sitting on the stage. So I will just acknowledge that that particular design is exceptional and will very, very well complement the continuation of the entire spirit of California and Sacramento Street in that particular stretch. We already have the JCC, which is kind of like the gateway to this part of Sacramento. And I think the Nathan Hale Building and its adaptation is just brilliant, particularly the introduction of what typically but what we typically don't have, and that is the integration of a restaurant for public use within the complex. That is something that myself as European background are very familiar with. It's almost like a must because that is where the family and the grandchildren meet their grandparents, and it's kind of the blending between the normal busing life of the city and the more quiet part of being in a senior living facility. So I think I'm really delighted about that as the next door exclamation mark on this really well conceived project. It has all my support, and I actually seconded its approval. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Just briefly, I wanted to thank, the project sponsor for, giving me a, a detailed presentation. It's, you know, you look at this, I'm not an architect, but you look at it and you can tell that there was a lot of time and consideration to the surrounding community, the buildings, the way that, you know, that that that they're designed. There's a lot of great takeaways from this. You know, the the building heights are are respectful of of, you know, the the surrounding neighborhood. And, you know, the fact that they're see senior housing is is is a bonus. The only thing that, you know, that that I could say that I I wish was the inclusionary affordable housing part, You know, because it is a beautiful part of town. And, you know, it would be nice, if folks on the lower scale income could live there as well. Having said that, there's there's gonna be fees, that are paid. And I'm hoping that maybe we could find a site close, in that neighborhood, that could, accommodate, like, a 100% affordable, housing site so that other folks can also enjoy this beautiful area. And just to let you know, when I was a teenager growing up, I grew up in the Mission District. I used to go to the JCC. They were the only ones that used to let us work out for free. And so we used to catch the bus there. And I have a lot of fond memories of that area growing up here. So that's all I wanted to say. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGary? Aye. Commissioner Williams?

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore?

[President Lydia So]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: And commission president so?

[President Lydia So]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commissioners, it'll place us on item 13 for case number 2014Hyphen002541 PHAHyphen07For 700 Innis. This is the India Basin development block h one request for major modifications.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff)]: Thank you, Commission Secretary. And now good evening, President Tsao, fellow commissioners,

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Jeff Horn.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Sorry to interrupt you, Jeff. For those persons leaving the chambers, if you could do so quietly, we would certainly appreciate it.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff)]: Yeah. Jeff Horn, planning staff. The item before you is a request for major modifications from two standards of the India Basin Project Special Use District code and design standards and guidelines. For the vertical design of a 100% affordable development located at Block H 1 A within the hillside area of the India Basin Mixed Use Project. Planning commission approved the India Basin Mixed Use Project development agreement and design standards and guidelines on January July 2638 in conjunction with several other other actions that established the India Basin SUD and approval of the India Basin mixed use project. The project entails the redevelopment of approximately 29 acres of largely undeveloped land along the Bayview Hunters Point shoreline just Northwest of Hunters Point Shipyard. The completed project will include up to 1,575 dwelling units, approximately 2,009 square feet of nonresidential use, and approximately 15.5 acres of new and improved publicly accessible parks and open space. This project specifically is located on Parcel H 1 A in the hillside portion of the site and measures approximately, 292,000 square feet or 6.72 acres and is currently vacant. The India Basin project is bound by sorry. Generally located in the Southwest corner of this of the India Basin project bounded by the India Basin project boundary to the Southwest, the newly constructed New Hudson Avenue to the North, and Aurelius Walker to the West and Innis Avenue to the South. Parcel parcel h one a is 46,970 square feet in area located on the Southwest of the bend of the New Hudson Avenue. This includes the connection of New Hudson East and New New Hudson West and north of the intersection with Aurelius Walker. The product consists of a 205,000 square foot, 66 foot tall, six story multi use building with one level of retail and amenity spaces and five upper levels containing 179 affordable housing units and two managers' units. At the ground level, the product will provide two commercial retail spaces, two residential lobbies, residential amenities, secondary entrances, and building operations. The project will provide 106 37 vehicular parking spaces within a partial leave below grade parking garage, a minimum of 150 class one bicycle parking spaces, and and 10 class two bicycle spaces within public realm. The building will be six stories tall facing New Hudson Avenue and on a portion of the east elevation on the hillside laneway. Due to slope changes, the building is five stories at the south and east elevations with stoops at and and at grade entrances for units facing directly onto the hillside laneway. Staff's review of the application and plans found the product to be in compliance with all relevant design standards and guidelines, provided with the amended DSG, with three exceptions. The proposed development deviates greater than 10% from certain standards set forth in the India Basin SUD and design guidelines, thus requesting or requiring major modifications. Specifically, the project is seeking major modification to step back and active frontage type building standards and a minor modification from the retail frontage diversity building standard. For the first modification request, active frontage types, the DSG and SUD define three different types of retail frontages or active frontages and provide a certain percentage of the linear frontage to be provided as an active use. For this parcel and its this project and its location, it's required to meet the requirements of the type a and type b frontages. And as mentioned in the project description, the due to the slope, this project's building only has two frontages at the street level, both along New Hudson. And within this location, the building provides multiple, necessary non active programming elements that require street access, and therefore, the product fails to reach the 85 requirement for active uses in these location. The proposed building is required to accommodate two separate building loppies to access two separate circulation cores as well as accommodate electrical and transformer rooms directly adjacent to the street per PG and E requirements. As such, the project provides their type one active frontage at 60% and, type a and b at 57% along New Hudson West. The second major modification is a step back requirement. Design standards require the uppermost floor of a building to provide a set a step back. In this again, in this location, the project is required to provide a six foot step back at the top most floor. The proposed project is the proposed six story building for the request is to not provide a step step back at the 6th Floor. The project is only six stories where the height could accommodate a seven story building in this location or due to the height. At six stories, the proposed building anticipates to achieve enhanced light access to the public realm and improve pedestrian comfort with a perceived building height of six floors, which would be the same as a seven story building with a six foot step back of that seventh floor. Additionally, the DA anticipated the potential for the greater India India Basin project to meet their inclusionary obligation through standalone 100% affordable buildings. And in such cases, they restricted or set a maximum of 180 units for such buildings that are purely 100% affordable. With that, this project seeks or reaches this density maximum by providing a 179 units within just the six floors of development should the modification be required, thereby not requiring the potential construction of a seventh floor providing substantial cost savings further the furthering the viability of the project. The last is a minor modification for retail frontage diversity. The DSGs provide a maximum of 75 linear feet for commercial, active use. As designed, the project is seeking to develop an 82 foot six inch long, frontage or commercial frontage on New Hudson, which is, at the 10% threshold. That the department recommends approval of design review application and major modification request to the project. On balance, it is consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan, the India Basin shoreline area plan, the Bayview Hunters Point area plan, and complies with India Basin Special Use District, and the India Basin design standards and guidelines. The product will develop an under developed portion of the city with a desirable residential development with the construction of a six toy building providing 179 affordable housing units. This concludes staff's presentation. We're available for any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, project sponsor. You have five minutes.

[Matt Wiley (Affordable Housing Developer Representative)]: Okay. Good evening, commissioner and president So. My name is Matt Wiley. I'm representing the affordable developer and the project sponsor. With me is Promod All good? Okay. With me is Pramod and Andrew with BAR. They're the project architects. This affordable project has been developed in lockstep with BUILD's effort to develop the backbone infrastructure as well as the flats and plays a critical role in the master development by fulfilling the requirements of the DA's housing plan as well as achieving the milestone performance requirements set forth in the IGC funds award, which was awarded to the master development.

[President Lydia So]: Next slide.

[Matt Wiley (Affordable Housing Developer Representative)]: The project is located at the corner of the future street of New Hudson Street on Parcel H1A, which is across from the flats in the Big Green. The project consists of 181 units total, which includes 179 affordable large family units and two manager units, which is a requirement of CDLAC and TCAC regulations. The project will also include 3,200 square feet of retail and will, and construct a portion of the Hillside Laneway, which is a privately owned benefit, public benefit, which will lead to the future transit hub on Enos Avenue. The building design is an ode to the geographical location of the project within India Basin. We have two distinct facades, which have two distinct material palettes. One's labeled landslide and one is labeled seaside. Seaside is what you can see on the screen here. And this gives a glimpse of both distinct facades. The Ground Floor will house back of house functions, retail space, leasing office, parking, bike parking, and resident support spaces. The second story here will have a, in the courtyard, will house a child play area, which is another requirement for large family housing under TCAC and CDLAC regulations. And the Top Floor will have a, space for residents as well as a, outside deck space.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Pramod Sanur. I'm an associate principal at BER Architects, working with Andrew and the development team on the design of this project. So as Jeff Jeff mentioned, we will be we are requesting two major modifications for this project. The first one is 85 first one is related to the section four point five point one, which is 85 which is the requirement for 85% active frontage types. And the second one is in reference to the section five point five point one, which is a requirement for six feet setback at the top floor. So I'm not sure if that's clear out there. The graphics are a bit smaller. But per section 4.5, ground floor use requirements, that is a 85% frontage requirements for, a, b, and c active use types. A is the red out there on, on our site that's called our H 1 A, that's facing New Hudson. Blue is the A and B use types and yellow is A, B and C use types. A use types includes retail. A and B use types includes retail as well as ground level lobby entrances and other building users, active users. And yellow includes A, B, and C, which along with retail and active ground floor entrances and lobby users, it also includes residential. That's in yellow. So this one shows the exact, the the the relation of a, b, and c use types to our plan. So, along New Hudson West, which is on the left side of the plan, the requirement is for 85% type a and b in combination of type a and b. That's red and blue. We are able to achieve about 57%, active frontage. This is mostly because of the, requirement for a garage entry, two transformer rooms, and an electrical room, which takes up about 43% of the active frontage on this facade at at the ground level. At New Hudson East, the requirement is to provide 85% type a active frontage. We are able to achieve, what, 82%, but with a combination of a and b. So we have about, 50 we have about 57% of type a and 25% of type b active frontage. And along the laneway, the requirement is 85 type c. We get 92% type c active frontage out here that are five units with tubes that open out into the laneway.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, sir. That is your time. Okay. Commissioners may have clarifying questions and call you up later. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Scott Eshelman (Partner, Build Inc.)]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Scott Eshelman. I am a partner at Build Inc. We are the master plan developer at India Basin. Excuse me. How's that? Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: I'm sorry. You affiliated with the project?

[Scott Eshelman (Partner, Build Inc.)]: We're the master plan developer, Build Inc.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Yeah. I mean, you're sort of part of the project sponsors team then. Wouldn't you be?

[Scott Eshelman (Partner, Build Inc.)]: Okay. Well, we we were just supporting the project because we're not actually a developer on the affordable development.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Oh, alright.

[Scott Eshelman (Partner, Build Inc.)]: Either way I can't

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: give them time.

[Scott Eshelman (Partner, Build Inc.)]: It's up to you guys. Okay. We we, I'm here just to, obviously, to support the project. We spend a lot of time interviewing, affordable development specialists. This is a critical component of our initial phase that also includes, as you know, the flats and the small lot homes and additional development pads in the hillside, which will be part of the phase one development. The sponsor, who's the developer that just presented, is uniquely qualified for this development. They've got a strong track record of designing, financing, and constructing these types of projects. They are a BIPOC entity that, will continue to manage the project after it's built, and they intend to stay involved with the project for a long period of time. They're incredibly community focused and have had several community meetings leading up to this point in time. And importantly, this project is tied to our infrastructure grant at the master plan and will help finance the infrastructure, the backbone infrastructure for the the entire project, which ultimately unlocks the development of more than 1,500 homes that have been approved here at India Basin. Accordingly, we're hoping for an expeditious approval and appreciate your time. Thank you.

[Brianna Morales (SF Housing Action Coalition)]: Hello again, commissioners. My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition as our San Francisco organizer. I'm also here to express my strong support for the project at India Basement or India Basin. The project will bring a 181 affordable homes to a neighborhood that has long deserved this kind of investment. These homes are designed with families in mind and represent a critical step forward in delivering on the city's promise to build more equitable community rooted housing. As someone who organizes in communities across the city, including in neighborhoods like Bayview Hunters Point, I've heard firsthand the frustration from families who feel like the city is leaving them behind. Families who've lived here for generations, who've built their lives here, are now getting priced out and are forced to leave. This is a solution. It's the kind of family focused affordable housing that San Francisco urgently needs. In the midst of a housing crisis with tens of thousands of households stuck on wait lists, we cannot afford to delay projects like this. These homes will directly serve working families who are struggling to find stability and remain in their communities. The project's location, which is adjacent to the flats, makes this a natural and cohesive extension. It supports a truly mixed income neighborhood and reflects the kind of thoughtful community oriented planning we need more of. The work has been done by the project team, and I think that we should find more opportunities to support and move forward teams that do their due diligence in San Francisco. If delayed, the project risks losing critical state funding, which would have real consequences, not just for the development, but for the families who are counting on it. So we urge the commission to support the requested modifications and to help move this essential project forward without delay. Thank you for your time and your continued commitment to advancing housing solutions that serve all of the city.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: This project to to look at this project today is a heavy lift given the amount of work that has already gone into the first six hours of this day, but I want to try to give it a shot. This project has been fully supported in its master plan version together with the first request for modification as it has moved to this commission with very thoughtful participation and support. When projects come through for approval based on a strong master plan, together with a development agreement that has extremely thoughtfully worked out design guidelines, To look at this again and take the responsibility to approve modifications, it's a question of a look back at what was intended and what is proposed. Just a few weeks ago, we had a fabulous project. That was Balboa Park, which was just shining, where the architect really accelerated in creatively interpreting guidelines, and really made it even better. There were challenges in the guidelines that could not really anticipate a realistic building yet, and so this brought forward this unanimous approval from the commission. I'm a little bit more hesitant today to look at some major modifications and be as enthusiastic as I was a few weeks ago. And I want to start with the major modifications, and that is the upper floor setback. I opened the old guidelines, and it's clearly expressed that the upper floor expression is not necessarily restricted to the building being seven foot seven seven stories and apply to any upper floor. So that's a clarification that I think we all should think about, and then the question arises, the building as I see it, sorry to say that, is a very large building, and I think it requires scale and modulation that in this current version, I don't quite see enough of. So what does modulation of the upper floor mean in order to give it scale, to give it interest? And there are all kinds of ways of doing that. That is kind of creating an extruded pattern on the materials that are being used on the upper floors. There are all kinds of ways of doing it. And I think the guidelines provide for how to potentially give more variety and scale to the building without dictating it needs to be it needs to be so, but becomes ultimately a matter of creativity. I am it's very difficult for me to say, but I have to say it. This building looks already cost engineered before it has even started, And I think there is a certain amount of lack of attention to the specific subtleties of the guidelines and the interpretation by which I would say that I could support the two foot this is a work of setback requirement without asking for more creativity how to treat the top of the building. That would be number one. Number two, I like to speak about and there are two sides of the building. There is the Aurelius Walker facade, where I think specific expression to the building is very necessary because this building ultimately is the gateway to the entire project. And I think thoughtfulness, particularly

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: when

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: it comes to affordable housing, is of extremely high priority to me. This could be a normal owner occupied or rental building, and I would ask the same thing as I ask for an affordable housing project. And I think it's genius, and I wanna commend the architect for having been able to get the number of acquired units into six floors. I do think six floors is potentially really more desirable building in what is otherwise something that cascades gently down to the bay. So I comment you on that, but I basically feel that the facade and step back guideline need to be explored further. When it comes to your and I'm gonna take it to you randomly. It's it's kind of complicated and a lot of work as a commissioner to go all the way back into the guidelines and read them and try to think through of how it could be done. I wanna speak about what am I gonna first talk about? We'll talk about active furnitures. That particular aspect of the request, while it is not a major modification, is harder to understand because the sheet you're referring to as six g one seven was actually not available in the uploaded set of drawings. So to understand whether it actively occurs is hard to understand. But what I would say is, oh, one second. Oops. I don't know. Actually, I don't know. Spill this water here. What I would say is that we have two frontages in which the extreme lengths of facade requires us to introduce certain elements that do not allow for these facades not to be activated, and more interesting, so are the means. By having the transformer room, I believe that we need to find a way to break the pedestrian facades along along those frontages down to a more humanized scale, that we need to perhaps consider introducing green walls, or finding some kind of wall art by which we create variety and interest in these very, very long facades. That's particularly a long, a very small corner. It's possible to consider the building lobby as accessory and activate that more, which would require taking it out of the relentless rhythm of vertical mullions that really characterize the Ground Floor along New Hudson Street. I'm trying to not condemn the project, but ask for a more thoughtful interpretation of guidelines, and that is what's in front of us. That is not a non support for the project, but I do believe that if we are to comment on the modifications, major and minor, that is what I feel is our responsibility. And I hope that I find a receptive willingness on your part to give that some additional thought. We are speaking about affordable housing. This commission is extremely concerned about the quality of affordable housing to exactly match that of all the thoughtfulness you'll bring to the rest of the site. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Nkirion?

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Thank you, vice president Moore. I also shared the concerns in terms of the modifications, especially the two major modifications. One particularly is the setback. It you know, 100% affordable housing is really important, especially in this neighborhood, especially in this area. And I think when designing a a 100% affordable housing, it has to be also in the context of the neighborhood. I believe this is also in the African American cultural district. And even though there is no guidelines yet in the design, However, there can be an inspiration around the surroundings. And so the you know, just aesthetically, when I look into the to the drawings, the massing, I think that's kinda like it doesn't have the, I guess, the the better word, it doesn't have the variation that you would, I would like to see. If we're, if there is no setbacks, then it would be again, there would be the the lack of variation on that. And I think what I'm also, echoing what commissioner Moore is saying is that, it you know, I think it takes some creativity, and also to be able to accommodate all those units, And also, at the same time, in their in terms of the the requirement for the active uses as well, I I hope that, you know, maybe the architect maybe walk us through in your, you know, in your thought in your thinking process on why is this the the active uses cannot be done, or the requirement for that cannot be done, or why there needs to have a setback. Because the way it looks to me right now is that it's just amassing a mass building. And it doesn't yeah. I I'm wondering what's your process and also looking into how it feels to be in that neighborhood as well.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: So I can address both the questions, starting with the setback. One of the main reasons I was not able to get through this during my initial presentation, it's the last page of the handout on the reasoning on why we haven't provided, why it was difficult for us to provide the setback. One of the main reason is if we have to accommodate 181 units in six floors, once you have a setback of six feet, then automatically we have to build the seven story. We thought building seven stories with a setback will increase the bulk and the height of the building and reduce light in the laneway compared to a six story building without a setback, and that was one of the reasons. The other reasonings out here is we were able to keep the building 14 feet less than the total building height allowed, which was just keeping it to six stories. Third one out here is the cost of construction and the type of construction. Six stories allows us to keep it into a very efficient construction type, six levels of type 3A wood construction or one level of concrete construction, which is for the garage. So as soon as you go to seven stories, you have to introduce one more level of concrete construction. So it's two stories of concrete construction and five stories of wood frame construction. The two stories of concrete construction becomes very complicated when it's like one story of garage and one story of residential because the grids don't align and you have to put a lot of transport columns and all and it becomes very expensive for affordable housing. So cost was a major consideration of not making, of trying to fit all units within six stories. The other thing that's also related to cost is these units are affordable housing units and they are only about 27 feet wide. So as soon as you provide a setback, it becomes like if you add a six feet setback at the top level, the units are only 21 feet deep. Sorry, they're 27 feet deep and with six feet setback, they become 21 feet deep units and they're almost unworkable with 21 feet. So these are like, you know, the market rate units are usually about 28 to 30 feet deep, affordable units are between 27 to 28 feet deep. So along with the setback, it becomes somewhat unworkable, the unit plans. And also addition of roof decks increases waterproofing complexity at the top level, increases cost. And then if the unit plans don't stack properly, there are issues with plumbing stack, plumbing lines not stacking up. All this, when things don't stack up, when units don't stack up, it just adds to the cost of affordable housing. And then a seven story building with setback would also, we thought it would also add to the construction timeline and delivery. So keeping it smaller to a more efficient construction type with workable unit types, we thought would be a lot more feasible project to build. That's sorry, go ahead.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Thank you for the explanation. Can you also explain your thought in terms of the context of the because I'm looking at and list looking at this, there's it's a green building, and then I'm looking at the materials as well. Can you elaborate on that more? Why I mean, I don't know why did that color pop up for me, but it's

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: So the original shoreline is really connected to the site. So the original shoreline actually approximately bisected the site, the original shoreline way back before all the industries developed out there. It approximately bisected the site. So as a concept, as a party, we thought the front part facing the sea would be a, we would call it the seaside building. So the two facades facing the sea and the backside we would call it the landside building and we treated it accordingly. This front side is very undulating facade and it got the seafoam color because that's what as team we thought that would reflect what the sea would look like, what the bay looks like, so there was a reasoning behind that. And the backside we thought it's more grounded. It's simple, it's grounded, so the two facades at the back are like, it's simpler, and it reflects the barn. The barn is a very simple historic barn, it's a very simple building, and the horizontal siding also reflects what's currently on the barn. So it was very, the design was very influenced by what's on the site right now.

[Commissioner Theresa Imperial]: Okay. Thank you for your, those are my questions. And I'd like to hear what other commissioners would say.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Braun.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: You know, I, first of all, I appreciate this project being brought forward, and I'm thinking a lot about the challenges of just getting an affordable housing project funded and built and, the need to look at ways to do that efficiently while also still maintaining good design in a project. Because as the commissioners have said, we can't just let all the design standards slide just because it's difficult to get an affordable housing project built. But I'm sort of balancing, you know, acknowledging and balancing the fact that this is this is gonna be 100% affordable. Out of actually, before I keep going, out of curiosity, Alta Pacific Properties, do you have other projects in the Bay Area?

[Dan Saffir (Prado Group)]: This is our first project in

[Matt Wiley (Affordable Housing Developer Representative)]: the Bay Area, but we have multiple projects in Los Angeles.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Oh, okay. And and other, affordable housing project?

[Matt Wiley (Affordable Housing Developer Representative)]: A 100% of we're affordable developers, so that's our bread and butter.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Okay. So you would be the as was said earlier, I think, but you would be the operator as well?

[Matt Wiley (Affordable Housing Developer Representative)]: We would.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Well, I mean, I I would just say, you know, if it is their first foray into affordable housing development in the Bay Area, also all the more reason to try to work with the standards and and guidelines that are, put forward here and do your best to meet them them as as best possible. Okay. So then getting into a couple of the major modification requests, The first one I wanna talk about is the ground floor retail and the percentage of the space that is the ground floor retail space. I agree with other comments. I think it's a little unfortunate the way the the active space, the retail space is being broken up by the utility, serve space as well as the entrance to the garage. It creates this gap in the street along Aurelius Walker. And so at minimum, I'm if we do approve the major modifications, I am hopeful that you can explore ways to try to do as much as possible to not make that a blank facade, to try to create visual interest on that. I agree with that comment. The major modifications are about some pretty dimensional things, but that doesn't mean there's not still a lot of room to work within that on detailing. So, I would just encourage that. What I do appreciate about the retail arrangement on the Ground Floor is that the most important corner well, most important part of it the corner site there is where there is a larger retail space. And so there'd still be that visual activation and street activation, at that most visible highest traffic kind of location as you come into the site. So on the whole, I'm I'm comfortable with the Ground Floor retail and active use sort of modifications. It's not my favorite, but I understand why it's being done that way. And I just hope that the design can address the sort of blank wall. And the step back modifications, I I totally recognize that the step backs are supposed to be regardless of building height. And ideally ideally, I'd like to see that, but I do place a little less personal emphasis on them when the building is not maxing out the height in the first place. I agree with the idea that you actually kind of increase the bulk in some ways if you were to add a seventh floor to this building, which doesn't seem in keeping with the spirit of the intent of those step backs. And so for me, I'm not terribly concerned about the six story building not having the seven you know, not having a step back on the sixth floor, especially if the alternative is a seven story building with a step back, which also might not even be financially viable. I agree with the comments about, you know, just in terms of construction types. You start doing a second level of concrete podium type one construction, and the costs have just gone through the roof of the building. So I'm okay with that major modification with the step back request. And then no. I think I think those are all my comments. In a perfect world, I would like to see the building comply completely with the guidelines, the requirements. But the modifications seem reasonable to me. The justifications for the modifications seem reasonable to me. And overall, as far as other design considerations, I do hope that you can, again, take the commission's comments, do more work around the issues raised, especially by Vice President Moore, about the overall building facade and design because you still have plenty of room to work on that as well. And and I hope staff can kind of take that to heart as well. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: I really like this project. I'm in full support. I think there's it's a really tricky site, actually. And I think meeting all of the requirements, I think you've actually done a really great job of of of getting there. I I don't disagree about the hoping to kind of fix some of the blank spots along New Hudson Street. I I would actually welcome you to maybe walk us through because I suspect you did a lot of studies looking at lots of different ways to to fit everything in. It's a little bit of a game of what's the one where you fit the pieces and they're falling from the it's like Tetris. It's like a little bit of Tetris here. Right? So if you'd like just to walk us quickly through any other iterations or how we landed on this in terms of the frontage on New Hudson Street? I would just be curious because, for example, could you consolidate the could you shift, say, the transformer and the electrical closet down to get more continuous frontage? Was that studied? And if was there a reason why we couldn't do that? I suspect it's cost driven.

[Chelsea Fordham (Planning Staff)]: Right.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Yeah. So just so I'm clear, is the ask So

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Yep. Go ahead. So about three or four years ago, PG and E as of POC would allow transformers below grade in the pipeline?

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Speak into the microphone, sir. Thank you so much.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: The utility companies would allow below grade transformers, and they no longer allow it. So when the design guidelines were returned, it was returned for below grade transformers, I would think. And right, they were not written for current guidelines, which require you to have transformers within buildings. They no longer allow transformers below grade unless it's within the city. It's a zero lot line, 100% affordable building. So and they make it really difficult to get that approved. So that's one of the reasons we started with the transformers within the building. The most ideal locations for the transformer is on the right hand side where the entry lobby is Because the utility lines comes through New Hudson East. Mhmm. So but we recognize that that's a very important facade along New Hudson. We want to have maximized retail out there. Mhmm. That's why we moved the transformer room and the electrical room around the corner. But further we take it down south, the more expensive it's going to get because you have to pull all the utility lines all the way around and further south. So again, that was a cost consideration, but it was not laid out without any thought. There was a lot of thought given to why it's laid out there. And there is really no other option because we'd only have two facades. It can't go anywhere else, and it has to be street facing.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Thank you for that. So I think that the the ask is to this this arrangement is okay, but we would like to see that activated somehow either with greenery or I just wanna make sure we're clear about the ask to the project sponsor. Is that what we're we're saying? Or what? Or art? Art. Yeah. So a mural or some sort of greenery or something to

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Definitely. Jazz

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: it up a little bit. Okay.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Definitely.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: I can get on board with that. I also am okay with the concession around step backs on the Top Floor. I get that it's tied directly to economics and you're really again, there's that game of Tetris, right, where you're just fitting every single unit really efficiently. So that means that I I I actually think you've done a really nice job with the facade. I suspect you're also on a tight budget, and you're using some articulation to to create a lot of visual interest and break up the mass into two different zones, with the seaside versus the landside, and, I I don't have comments, in from that perspective. So I'm I'm actually in full support with with the addition of maybe adding some art or greenery to to the new Hudson Street side. Those are all my comments.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. I do have some general questions of trying to understand your graphic presentations. That particular slide that you had opened up, if you don't mind bring it up again. So I'm seeing the overall building footprint on the little diagram next to your table is different shape than this x and large one. So what is what is the shape of your building?

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: So the shape of the site, the site ends where the dashed line is. So the the the full site includes the affordable building, and along Innis, there are there are market rate buildings which is not designed as that's a separate project. It's not designed as part of this project.

[President Lydia So]: So you're you're, in the smaller diagram, the one next to the table, the black dash line is the footprint of

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: your building. That's the that's the extent of our building. Yeah. That's the extent of our site. Yeah.

[President Lydia So]: Affordable housing.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Yeah.

[President Lydia So]: And then you are literally right next to a another building.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Yes. There will be another market rate building right next to it.

[President Lydia So]: And so the calculations of your ground floor use requirements is share with the neighbor Market Rate

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Building. That's that's that's correct. Yes.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. So

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: So that's the plan. You can see a part of the the the plaza, the courtyard that will be shared between the affordable building and the Market Rate Building.

[President Lydia So]: I see. So can you walk me through about what So then then it brings back to that back to that original, page that you have that shows the overall entire block that actually has two parcels. Mhmm. Then explain to me which part that you're required to provide and which one you're asking us to give you a modifications because you're sharing these percentage with the neighboring building.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: So our site is H 1 A. I think the market rate site, which is on south side of the dash line, it's H 1 B.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. So your 85%

[Speaker 36.0]: the actual standard is applied per building frontage. This standard, as it's diagrammed from the guidelines, would apply to both buildings. However, the percentage of the frontage is of the building itself. So they don't share that 85% required, but they couldn't do all of the non active frontage in one building and push the requirement onto the other building. So just clarifying, the requirement is per the frontage of that building.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. So thank you for that. So then I'm only looking at that little corner between New Husson East and West that define of type a requirement, and then that half of the blue line, which represent the type a or b require. Okay. And then within your segment, you're saying you only can provide close to half of what's required.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: That's correct.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. Alright. And then on the other side, you have you can provide more on laneway, more of the a, b, or c?

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Yes. Along laneway, we have five units. They all have stupes opening up to the laneway.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Mhmm.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: And then on Level 1, that's about 82%, I think. And on Level 1, we have part of the lobby that

[President Lydia So]: Yeah. Okay. Got it. Understanding. Thank you for the thank you for the clarification. And I have similar questions about clarification of your graphic representation on the other point, but just stay on this ground floor use requirement. I I'm also sentimental with some of my fellow commissioners' point about falling short of the requirement. Way back when, maybe not only not too far long ago, but six years ago, we were so proud of being in San Francisco. We provide affordable housing. The affordable housing actually win design award. Like, they look better and they build bet their the design's better. They build better than market rate housing. And now it is heartbroken to see that we are providing the opposite of people who deserve to have the dignity to live in a to to be housed. And then now we're basically providing them with a lot more lesser than quality of design and quality of construction. So it is a very set trend that we continue to allow ourselves to be in the situation. I really wanted to see if you have a way to shift your percentage of the ground floor use requirement to make it not only providing half of what you're requiring to to do. It's it's it's it's it's not equitable to my perspective. Just looking at the history of the evolution of affordable housing for San Francisco I mean, like, everywhere I turn around, I was I was I once upon a time, I was really proud of walking around Hayes Valley because I can point to my friends who visit San Francisco. I'm like, see these? These are 100% affordable housing or some of them are extremely below market rate, and they look actually much nicer and much quality design than the the other one that the developer built in the market rate. You know? I mean, you know what I mean? So I I I'm not sure why we evolved into this point. I I don't know why. Can you explain I I guess you just explained to commissioner Campbell. It's other elements that drives you to to this. Is I would hope there's a way to move some of these around so then you are enabling New Husson West not only having just 57 of ground floor use requirement. I'm looking at it. It is actually a major thorough way to the entire development of Indian Basin with that public rim. This is actually the big thorough way of street that there will be bike lane, level three bike lane, I I hope. And then yeah. It just this is actually a major major road that people walk or people drive through, and the bus hopefully eventually will go through there. And I I felt like it kind of deserved a little bit better than than what you have right now. So that's that's that's one thing I wanted to see if you can do better than that. The other question I have is about the graphic representation on the step backs. On on this page, is this figure 5.19 is just is not your building. Right?

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: That's the adjoining site that's H 2 A. That can be confusing, but that's the only graphic we had from the design guidelines. So it says

[President Lydia So]: because this is only a five story.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: This This this this is this is from the DSC guidelines.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. So this is not your building.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: It's not the address. No. That's not our building. Sorry about that. Yeah.

[President Lydia So]: Alright. Okay. Well, it was anyway, sorry. I I have jet lag, so I'm just trying to make sure I'm seeing stuff, you know, not to presume you have different design and different floors. Six foot versus nine foot setback in the Top Floor, is that what we're talking about?

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: That one's actually for H 2 A. That's a joining building from across the laneway, but that's the only diagram we had in the in the in the DSG.

[President Lydia So]: No. I mean, talking about, like, your your your your your request on step back is

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: It's

[President Lydia So]: Oh, you're requesting zero setback?

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: We are requesting zero setback on the Top Floor. Yeah.

[President Lydia So]: Oh. Wow. Let me go on. Oh, I'm I'm not sure. I'm sorry. Do you mind elaborate a little bit again?

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Yeah. The the units are 27 feet deep, 27.5 feet deep. So once you provide a setback, it they become too narrow to make them nice units. The other thing is as soon as you provide setback, it introduces decks which require waterproofing. And as soon as you change unit plans, the plumbing and the toilets and the kitchens don't stack. And it all goes back to cost. It adds cost as soon as we start doing that. So we're trying to balance cost and design and guidelines. And probably Matt or Carlo can explain that better, I think.

[Matt Wiley (Affordable Housing Developer Representative)]: Well, you covered most of the points, but I just want to point out that so the max height we could go up to is 80 feet. We aren't asking for we're we're not abiding by the step back, but we are only going up to 60 I think 66 feet for the parapet. So we're we're under developing the site height wise, but we're able to yield the most amount of units possible. I would add that I think you guys are all aware, but with the current administration, the financing behind the affordable housing is really, really challenging right now for a multitude of reasons. So we're trying to provide quality housing, but also be mindful of the actual viability to build this. Because if we push cost too much, we may not be able to finance this.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. So you're saying that, it might cost you a lot more if you have to to provide that same amount of unit. It might require you to build another additional floor, which will be cost prohibitive.

[Edward Schaeffer (Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP, Counsel for Chancery Building Owner)]: Yes.

[President Lydia So]: So in in re in return to that, you will have to maximize the floor plate to achieve that without turning red in your pro form a.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Correct.

[Melinda Sarjapour (Counsel for Project Sponsor, Ruben, Junius & Rose)]: Okay.

[Pramod Sanur (Associate Principal, BAR Architects)]: Yeah.

[President Lydia So]: Alright. Well, thank you for that explanation. I I don't think this is typical for your case, but I really appreciate you come up here to San Francisco to help us build more affordable housing. I just have a sentiment about that I hope this kind of times will pass soon, that we really honor the dignity and equitable quality of design and build environment for our most, least, what do you call it, least represented demographics, which is 100% affordable families and communities. And I think you all know what I mean. I know bar architects did great buildings and market rate and below market rate and affordable housing. It is the situation we all don't want to see right now, but it's become like a trend. I do want to make sure that I share this with not just you guys, but just in general, everyone who try to come forward and try to massage another 100 per 100% affordable housing, do keep that in mind that we're here really try to bring dignity to people who otherwise cannot actually afford to live here, to try to do our best that we can to to have that quality of life and environment. But I I do hope that you can continue to get your books balanced to to get this built. I hope. Please. It's it's kinda sad.

[Matt Wiley (Affordable Housing Developer Representative)]: It is. We'll we'll try our best.

[President Lydia So]: Okay. Alright. That that concludes my comment. Commissioner, vice president Moore.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: I wanna very slowly explain one more time what my ask is about not a building setback, accepting and actually appreciating that the number of units can be delivered on six floors. That's a very strong supportive comment, but I do believe that that building is an institutional looking building, which needs to have a datum to express that that is the height of the building. In older buildings, you call them that's a cornice line, you call them that something. But this is kind of an institutional building that could go on and on and on, and does not have the expression of a residential building that is not an institutional building. Combined with the green, I have to just inject that comment for a moment, So this particular green, and again, it is perhaps the way to squint it, it looks even more institutional because that is the color of convalescent homes and elementary schools, old elementary schools on the inside. And I think that is not a particular good neighbor to ultimately market rate buildings with joint courtyards, but I think it should be like a normal looking building, and a normal color that reflects light and sun in a green environment. We don't need more green because we have the park, we have the sea, we have everything right there. It should be just an eye friendly, warm, light color, which is typical for all recommendations we make for San Francisco buildings and should not attract attention because I understand that cost constraint constraints will require a certain tightening of the bell to deliver this building. And I'm in full support of that because I support the building. I just would like to get a slightly different understanding

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: that

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: I'm looking for a datum at the top of the building that is not a setback. And I understand that the unit size is reduced by any amount of foot, by two feet, by six feet, or whatever would not work. But I think you create some modulation, perhaps a low relief carving or something to differentiate that upper band from the West of the rather simple facade. Am I making myself clear for Commissioner Browning, Commissioner Peckhample? I'm not asking for seven stories and a setback, I'm asking for a six story, non setback building with a datum, in a lighter, more compatible color with the future of the West, not to make this building stand out by an unusual building color. And how you vary the seaside looking versus the hillside looking thing, I would have complimentary lighter tones that kind of makes the building break down in its relentless massing, and where possible, introduce perhaps even two variations in certain segments of the facade to make the facade look as if it's composed of even different facade elements. Change in color can do that. And that is my ask for taking this building without increasing costs, a little bit more into a building that in the future will just blend into a normally designed and normally executed housing environment. Those are my comments.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Brown?

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Question for staff. So usually I mean, the item before us is the major modification here, and and that, again, to my point earlier, I think that mostly deals with sort of dimensional issues with with the the step backs and and retail act ground floor retail percentages, things like that. But, I mean, is there's still typically, there's still capacity for the the project developer or project sponsor to continue to work with staff on final materials and, like, visual elements of the building. Right?

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: Absolutely. I think this commission could absolutely make a motion to include, you know, continued refinement on details like color, final materiality, you know, termination of the building, things of that nature. You guys can absolutely, you know, ask staff to continue working through those details after granting a major mod.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Thank you. I think that's absolutely what I would like to do. It doesn't sound like the objection is to anything to do with the major well, we have concerns about the major modifications, but the primary objection is more to some broader building design issues. And I I'm not gonna try to articulate that. It might be best for commissioner Moore to try to articulate that or or another commissioner. But, I can take a stab at it later if necessary. But I see other folks do wanna speak. So yeah.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: I think there have been a lot of fair observations made. They do feel subjective to me. I do I do I don't have the design standards handy. Are things like the cornice detailing and the color, are those captured in the design standards?

[Liz Watty (Planning Department Manager/Current Planning)]: I'll need to defer to Jeff on that level of detail.

[Jeff Horn (Planning Department Staff)]: Jeff Warren, planning department staff. Apologies. I also do not have the full standards with me. Typically, the standards are for, again, numerical controls for the most part. And then a lot of those again, the documents design guidelines and standards, The guidelines typically do carry kind of those more I won't call them discretionary, but more subjective aspects of the building. And I can't say specifically for India Basin, but, you know, for, like, Balboa Reservoir, building colors was a a guideline where it provided guidance similar to what, commissioner Moore, explained in terms of lighter tones, as, you know, the encouraged building facade material. So those type of things could be guidelines within the, the DSGs, but unfortunately, I can't specifically call out any specific ones right now.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: That would just be because I do think it's a slippery slope where we start to get very subjective versus, objective. And so I would say if we are going to have the design dialogue continue with planning staff that it it does, you know, work within the realms of those objective standards that we've outlined in the design standards.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Williams?

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Yeah. Just real quick. I I I really resonate a lot with with what Commissioner Moore said about the institutional look. Given the sensitivity of the Bayview Hunters Point, given its low income housing, I think it's not a big ask to make sure that we don't have that institutional look. I think we're trying to, actually go the opposite way. And so I I I just wanna, you know, lend my my 2¢ in that. I agree with everything. I think it makes sense what you're asking for to make it affordably feasible. I don't have a problem with that. But I do think she makes a good point. And so I just wanted to reiterate what she said. Yeah.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Braun.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Okay. I am going to try to make the motion. So, at its heart, this is a motion to approve. But with, direction provided to the project sponsor as well as staff to continue to work on the color with the the statements expressed by vice president Moore about this is subjective, about selecting a lighter or warmer color scheme, potentially. And then also efforts to better visually articulate the facade through measures such as a datum, cornice line, or and and, color choices. Does that seem

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: The wood cornice is really inappropriate here, but the wood datum define a datum that the building is fully finished there.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Okay.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: The top of building different a date differentiated datum.

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: Differentiated datum.

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: Second.

[President Lydia So]: Oh, commissioner Campbell?

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: I do just want to reiterate that though. In fairness to project sponsors and for future project sponsors, these things should be objective and they should be captured in the design standards. So it's really clear and we're not just designing from the bench here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: If there's nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve the request for major modifications with direction to continue working with staff on final facade design color materials and differentiated datum.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Correct.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: Aye.

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Commissioner

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[President Lydia So]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. And we'll place us on the final item on your agenda today. Number 14, case number 2024Hyphen010420PPS for the property at 64 Winfield Street. This is an informational presentation.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Connect that and have

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: You can connect it, but then And

[Commissioner Derek W. Braun]: I can't have

[Matt Regan (Bay Area Council)]: the WiFi.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Can't have your USB because it's just the one port.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Really?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Well, you can you can use the pad, the mouse pad, the tracking pad. Right? That's the mouse.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Just go? Alright. Yeah. Hello, commissioners. Thank you for having me. My name is Dan Paris. I'm the architect for the proposed construction at 64 Winfield Street. This image shows the existing site plan. It's an existing single story single family home that is not historic. The project proposed to demolish the existing single story single family home and replace with a three story building with three units plus a basement with a state law ADU and parking, one parking space for a total of four dwelling units. The current home is occupied by the owner's family. Here's the proposed site plan. The project is located within the Bernal Heights neighborhood with RH2 zoning, which allows a height limit of 40 feet and a maximum of four dwelling units. The project proposes planning code compliant front and front and rear yard averaging. The basement has a

[President Lydia So]: I'm sorry to pause you. Can you speak through the microphone? Thank you.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Yes. Sorry. The project proposes planning code compliant front and rear yard averaging. The basement you see has a state law ADU of 580 square feet. The 1st Floor has a common stair and one bedroom dwelling of 970 square feet. The 2nd Floor has a common stair and one bedroom dwelling unit of 964 square feet. The 3rd Floor has a one bedroom unit of 1,141 square feet. The roof has a deck of 485 square feet. Private and common usable open spaces provided at the rear yard setback and decks on upper floors. The proposed construction also provides a large matching light well adjacent to the south's neighboring building. The building would be 40 foot height as allowed by the zoning. And that's that's my presentation.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Great. Thank you. We should open a public comment.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: I don't

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: see anyone else in the room.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Wrong day.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So I will close public comment and leave it to the commission.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner vice president Moore?

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: Our comments just are our comments are advisory, just kind of like kind of sending you into the future. I think it's a great info project, very comfortable with it, except there are just a few things. Just a reminder, probably all on your fingertips. The submittal requires an architectural stamp so that we know that you are licensed architect, which I assume you are.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Yes. That's my stamp on the drawings.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: I don't see any. I didn't see any stamp. I have a set of drawings that do not have a stamp.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Okay. Apologies for that.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: That's a whatever. Perhaps the ink didn't print. I I cannot tell. I don't have a stamp. Otherwise, I wouldn't say it. I would appreciate if you would show the site and its setting. Just having the buildings on either side makes it slightly harder to understand what the rest of the neighborhood is like, and we mostly have a smaller drawing that shows it. A three d simulation would be helpful. Material selection and color will probably come at a later point. Too bad. We cannot see that today. And the site survey will be required because this is a demo. Yes. Further to that, just as a positive comment, unit sizes, as I said earlier, and the attempt on this densification are very reasonable. I could not quite distinguish, and it's maybe the drawing about your averaging the fund setback. I could not properly read that. I have a little concern about crowding, particularly with the building on the north. The existing building the existing building to the north does not sit on property line. There's more breathing room. The proposed building will sit on property line, not respecting the small light well that I at least see, not quite understanding because I don't have a photo on the building that is to the north.

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: To the north.

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: And I think the combination of sitting on property line and not giving any relief anywhere makes it a little bit tight. And those are my comments.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Just wanted to say, I I lived on Winfield Street for a brief moment. Yeah. 157 Winfield, which is maybe the next block over.

[Dan Saffir (Prado Group)]: Yeah. I think so.

[Paul Wirmer (Public Commenter)]: Are you

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: is the properties closer to Cortland, or is it closer to It's Casita?

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: It's kind of right in the middle. If you come up

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: I didn't Google it. I my bad. But If

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: you come from the North, it's it's it's sort of the first block, but it's a really long first block. And it slopes up.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: So it's Right.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: So I guess it'd be closer to the north end than it would be to Cortland.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: It it it because yeah. Okay. And it does it have the cobblestone? Does it or the brick the brick

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: This doesn't have the

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: This doesn't. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: The cobblestone.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Anyway, I was just trying trying to get my bearings. Yeah. I mean, you know, it's it's I mean, my, you know, my my first my first thought would be that it's a little imposing, you know, on your neighbors. And, you know, having said that, you're you're you're going through the state density bonus. And so

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: It's not the state density bonus, but it is the SB four twenty three program.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: And SB four twenty three.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Yeah. It hasn't been vetted by planning yet. So

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: that's Okay.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Okay. I've said before. Planning still needs to review it, and there's gonna be modifications once we get through planning. So this is just a requirement of that.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: Yeah. Yeah. I got you. I got you. I mean, my my my only comment would be, you know, again, it it's a little imposing, on your neighbors. And and so I would, you know, if it was me, and and I was built building this this home, I I would, you know, I might want to make some adjustments. Having said that,

[Ryan Shum (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: you know Sure.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: And so just just as a consideration to my neighbors, it is, again, it's a little intrusive in a few different ways, but I'll just leave it there.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Okay.

[Commissioner Gilbert Williams]: I'll leave it there.

[Commissioner Sean McGarry]: Sure. Thank you. Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Brianna Morales (SF Housing Action Coalition)]: I appreciate the project.

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: I think we're getting four units in, you know, in exchange for one.

[Jonathan Vimmer (Planning Department Staff)]: I

[Commissioner Amy Campbell]: think you've done a really nice job in, doing something that actually feels quite modest, for four units. So and I really appreciate the design. So good luck to you.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Thank you.

[President Lydia So]: Yeah. Good luck to the project.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Thank you very much. That's it?

[Vice President Kathrin Moore]: That's it.

[Dan Paris (Architect, 64 Winfield Street)]: Awesome. Thank you. Have a good evening, everybody.

[President Lydia So]: Let's conclude our meeting. Meeting adjourned.