Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Koppel. Move to approve. Second.

Thank you. Is this gentleman completed? Oh, OK. Thank you. I have a question to Corey or his team. Hi, Corey. Thanks for being here. I'm pretty happy to see that we're in action to actually continue to clarify and get deeper into defining what kind of category of violations. I remember I sit here We've been baffled with some of the projects that came through us and what are they trying to do and also get to take care of some of these chronic terrible bad players. I have two questions. So would this be retroactively looking at in the past of these, I'm focusing on specifically on these really c

OK, so for example, some other previous cases where we saw a new property owner purchase these property and not aware if they were illegally merged, and those would not be subject to these penalties.

That's really helpful for everyone to know about the time. Sure. The line in the sand where you draw, right? My second question relating to now we, as a planning commission, we are now talking about enforcement penalty guidelines on planning co-violations. So how are we in sync with building co-violations? Because usually when you see these situation. They're not only violating planning code. Some of them we see the really terrible situation is like I forgot the address but that property on San Bruno Avenue they literally didn't even build a second egress. So how are we, are we, so what I'm tr

Right. So I would highly recommend to have your team to work really closely with the DBI team to clarify and also identify this whole penalty guidelines. So then people are really truly aware of there are consequences of violating both planning code and building code. So I'm supportive of today's report. Recommendation. I agree with everything you said. I just wanted to move to the next step to actually looking at both. Because usually when they're violating things like this, it's planning and DBI. And it's more importantly so about tenancy, tenancy right, but also the life and safety of human

Yeah, this topic in general, planning DVI mergers, just a monster of a project to begin with. Very confident that we are on the right path, heading in the right direction. And this is a good time to just be talking about all these issues so they're looked at and addressed. Throughout this process until you know final completion and roll out of the program. I do want to acknowledge. Mr. Dradler Very participatory in these hearings over the years and I appreciate just the showing up always with you know factual examples addresses and you know concrete blueprints to really specify what his issues

Thank you, Commissioner Koppel. Thank you to the zoning administrator for another thorough kind of walkthrough of this and the history. It's always very helpful to have the clarifications. I also am in support. I just had one, two questions about some of the language in here, specifically number five, which I'll just read it and maybe Where did he go? Oh, there he is. Sorry, we can't see down very well here. Tenant harassment findings documented in rent board, court, or other records warrants a larger penalty. And I think for me, what stood out is the generality of other records. And I wondere

I wonder if it would be something to consider as adding some sort of qualifying language to the other records portion of that, something to maybe just think about. And then my next question is maybe just me getting educated on legalese. But some of the items say that they may warrant a larger penalty, and others say they warrant a larger penalty. Is there a difference between that?

Would it give you optimal flexibility, though, to have everything read as may warrant versus warrant?

It seems like you have a lot to consider when you're evaluating these. And I would be open to that if it provides more, as each condition is very unique and each situation is very unique. So those are my only two comments. And otherwise, I'm also in full support and would second the motion that's been made.

Yes, I just have a question for clarification of Monica. So if this office allocation is approved, what does that mean for the long term? Will these ground floor spaces remain office in perpetuity?

So is it right to then assume that that means that probably they will remain office in perpetuity?

I've worked in this building on and off since 1997. It used to be a very vibrant building, but San Francisco was just generally vibrant all the time anyway. To see Hills Plaza go from what it was to it's still a beautiful, beautiful building, but it doesn't have the activation it once had. And Google's a great tenant. The expansion, it'll only help to improve the area and maintenance of the area and the possibility of its upkeep. I get it. Love the retail there, but the retail is not there since 2019, 20. And that's just way too long for vacancy, way too long in any shape or form. So I would b

Yeah, five to six years is a very long time. I myself worked in the building for about a year. And considering how close it is to such a traveled part of town with the Embarcadero, you know, people leaving the Giants games, it still isn't accessible enough to draw in the customer base that we would think it would. It's one of my biggest pet peeves maybe for the whole department, just seeing empty storefronts anywhere. And so we need to give people tools to fill out their spaces. Again, five or six years of a vacant storefront, that there's been opportunity to fill those. So I'm not going to st

Commissioner So? I'd like to have some clarification so my understanding is clear. I mean, I like this building and it's a historic landmark, number 157. So looking at this floor plan here, what was previously approved for the office, And then it's in blue, and then what is proposed for the expansion of Google occupying the ground floor. What are the gray area that has been highlighted in the plan? Are they all also Google offices? I'm looking at the floor plan PRJ-005.

I'm looking at in general, wanted to clarify in public on public record whether ground floor occupants are all Google or there are other

OK, thank you. So I'm just going to re-illiterate what I'm hearing from is that

JOY HUNTINGTON- Existing office space on the ground floor already occupied Google and allocated to Google. And then now Google is applying to get more space on the ground floor. And then the other potential vacant spaces now, there's no tenants in there. So everyone is Google on ground floor.

Let's answer my question. Thank you, Amy. So my other question is, maybe Monica, can you explain to, I'm asking this question, I think Paul Peck also needs to know, what is the historic significance of this building?

I see. And then the plaza right now is just really open, right? It's not really part of this tenant ranch or lease. This is just open space?

Okay. All right. I guess, well, colleagues, I'm not objecting this, but I want to make sure that this is the first project that actually utilizing this new section in planning code as is really detail-y explained by staff and also project sponsor, but I also wanted to make sure that we have our, we do our due diligence to make sure that we do this fairly, right? part of it is this is an anchor to the corner of the waterfront and I also want to make sure that this actually really have the equitable public access and use of the space as part of something people experience a historic landmark and

So Amy, thank you for saying that. So this is a program that has been happening?

May I know what is your commitment on how often the public can use and how many people can use it? Because it would sound really a bit self-serving if there's only happened to be one for one year.

OK, well, I would like to support this motion if colleague will allow me to add a recommendation for Google to commit on a certain amount of number of times of access to the public. And it's making that easily available, accessible to people.

Well, I just want to make sure it doesn't just become a lip service.

Would whoever motioned this, would you, I would like to add that recommendation.

I'd be amenable to that and add that recommendation.

As a finding? Yeah, to really engage and allow public use and clear access to nonprofit or organization that doesn't necessarily have to do direct business with Google have a way to access some of these space.

Oh, a commitment to open some access space on the ground floor for a nonprofit to be able to, like what the project sponsor said, book it and have their meetings there. And I'd like to see it more than just one or five times. I don't want to impose a particular number, but I think it needs to be something that is equitable. And I kind of leave it to staff to determine what that means, because one nonprofit for an hour in a year sounds very like a lip service. So.

But my issue is not about a website is there or not. My issue is really about making sure that commitment to have public access beyond just the plaza, like what you mentioned before, that people actually, nonprofit, can have access to book some of these offices for meetings. And then I think I heard an answer, it's like, you don't know it yet. So that's why I want to put it in the finding to make sure that it's not a fluff.

I'll agree on that, yeah. It was your motion. I seconded. And you seconded. That was your motion. You're comfortable with that language?

Do you need to repeat it, or you got it, Jonas? You got it? Thank you. All right. I'm done. OK.

Thank you. Monica, thank you for the very thorough package and presentation. It is actually incredibly helpful to get the history and context, even though that's not what is before us today. And then I just am very aligned with some of the sentiment here from my fellow commissioners, so in full support and fine with the additions. As as proposed and I do just want to say I really appreciate the city's openness to considering non-retail uses at the ground floor of Buildings as we try to think creatively about activating Downtown especially those are all my comments Commissioner McDonald

Hi. Yeah, so I second what President Campbell said about thank you for the thorough report. It's really helpful in terms of understanding the context very much so. And I just had a couple of additional questions really I guess for the sponsor. So is there actually a commitment to the size and location of that community space?

I was just curious whether that community space will occur on the plaza or whether it's one of the streets.

I'm just curious as to whether it is something that will help to activate the plaza and signify that as a public space for people.

Great. Thank you for that clarification. Oh, and for the reasons that my fellow commissioners have said and the current context, I am also supportive of this motion that's been put forward with the amendment.

Seeing no opposition, I move to approve.

So this project seems to be, it's a residential project, but it's really an engineering project, you know. And it requires engineering controls. And the neighbors' concerns are all about engineering controls more than the engineering itself. I see the architect is here for the sponsors, the general contractor here. My day job is a union rep for the Carpenters Union. I need to get a feel of the contractor that's doing this because if I knew the contract, if it's one of my contractors, I just know that the engineering controls are built in and discussions would have been had with the neighbors p

So motor runoff, you're relying, I'm sure, Surely you've done a preliminary, yes, you're at this stage, but you have done... Sorry, I didn't hear that. Sorry, the stormwater runoff? Yes. You're at this stage, but surely you've done a survey, so you do have a detailed idea of what you're doing. Are you relying on all stormwater runoff to... We run off the property? Or what are you doing on the property to accept?

So you have taken into account and you've dropped, you've engineered it so it's just under what's required?

So last item we heard, I mentioned there wasn't any opposition. And this is quite the contrary. I do applaud the residents for coming out and voicing their opinions. And you can tell just by the emotions. These are people's homes. There is going to be dust, sound, nuisances during construction. But I don't think people should have to fear for their lives. And again, this is a great use of the land. This is a great addition to the housing stock, which in general we're always promoting. But I am not seeing enough here to make the neighbors feel comfortable with this proceeding. Is the actual own

That's enough for now. Thank you. And again, I think there's a big difference between, oh, we helped, you know, remove a tree after it fell, but that's not good enough. I want these people to, to whatever degree we can, have them feel safe to where they don't fear the tree falling in and crushing their house in the first place. Again, I'm not expecting anything magical to happen or anything unrealistic to happen, but I can't support something with this much opposition. And it's strong, strong opposition. Again, great project. I want the added housing. And I know this is a very extreme case, bu

OK. And I'm in agreement with what my fellow commissioners have said. And this is the type of a lot and site that on the steep slope really needs a lot of attention to it. I happen to live on a steep slope myself. I understand some of these issues. So I want to speak to an additional thing that hasn't been spoken to in depth, which has to do with the tree. I have had the experience, frankly, of having

Sorry about that. So I would like to speak specifically to the tree, that very, very large eucalyptus tree specifically, just from my own experience of having had a 120-foot tree fall on my house in 2023. I understand the concerns. And one of the concerns I have is that if this project goes forward, is how that tree is removed and when it is removed. Because, for instance, if the demolition of the house happens first and then the demolition of the tree happens, well, there could be destabilization of the roots of that tree. And there could also be different winds that would happen against that

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, this is like a long progress or process, and I really I think I agree with a lot of my fellow commissioners' sentiment about there's a lot that needs to be done to work with your neighbors on this project. But I also think that the architect's team had done the best they can to what they were hired to do. But I do have some questions to the architect. Can you come forward, please?

We used to be in different room. But it's OK. You don't need to see me. You just need to hear me. So I would touch on your response to one of my fellow commissioners mentioning about the three-foot setback that was previously agree between your client and some of the neighbors. And you mentioned that it's actually you have it. And do you mind show us where it is? Because I was looking at your first ground floor plan. I don't really see how it's being illustrated. It might be perhaps just the graphical nature.

OK, so your three foot setback is actually just kind of like a notch. Of the back. Okay. All right. Thank you. And do you mind, I was trying to look through my entire packet. I have not seen, I saw the total square footage of the entire project, which is the total of five lots. What is the breakdown of each unit of housing that you're proposing?

OK. And what about the one that is slated for a single family home in the corner?

OK. All right. Thank you. So let me see if I have all my questions to you. Do you have any plan to take care of that 100-year-old tree?

Okay. So it's fair to say that you do have your intent to properly take care of this potentially falling tree, but right now you're in a bit of a pickle, right? In order to properly take it out and not causing more undue erosion, you need to have actually a soil foundation plan in place to work with it. And basically all these life safety requirement that your project required to do will be a very serious like soil report and geotechnical engineering and seismic engineering, all that stuff is going to be going through when you submit for site permit. That's correct. Hopefully you go to do buil

Okay, I really wanted to make sure that people, our public, understand the sequences here. The Planning Commission has jurisdictions on land use and the massing and based on our family zoning code, but the actual technicality of the soil condition and safety, and even down to construction abatement and mitigations are all going to be continued to be fully looking at under the eyes of DBI for health and safety and welfare for everybody. Just want to say it like that just to make sure really clear I know a lot of people are frustrated and it's been frustrated for many many years I think it is mu

While I have you here, would I have to say, are you going to be committed to actually building these homes?

Thank you. Thank you for all your extra comments. I have a question to our planning staff.

Hi. Is this area has any constraint on large homes?

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I will conclude with my own thought process here is that this project really do comply with our new family zoning plan and our new design guideline, the design standards, and it does comply with the setback that is required, and I've seen it's pretty clear. Actually, 27 feet. I think, however, there's history to the evolutions of this whole block and the neighborhood that spans almost now nearly 10 years, right? So It is a challenging situation within neighborhoods and communities. But however, we want more housing to actually build in San Francisco. And I l

To speak they will ask you for thank you Thank you I think a lot of my sentiment and thoughts about this is very much aligned with what Commissioner so was just getting at there is no doubt this is these are very challenging sites and it's fair to have a lot of concerns about buildability if I live downhill from these sites and I'd be very concerned too. So I completely hear you to the neighbors that have to take time to be here today. And we want to make sure that they are not living in fear. In terms of our purview, though, we're looking at this through a the planning code. And these are cod

And the community liaison is from which department?

That would be my recommendation. Those are all my comments. Commissioner McGarry.

I agree with everybody here, but we can't be everything to everybody. But the reality, the big concern I have is the back of the property, the lack of drainage, the fact that we're saying it's flat. The sponsor is saying it's flat, but the property owner in the back has a retaining wall, and that retaining wall has gone up four feet. That's the flat. or the portion of the flat we're talking about, and the fact that basically they're downhill or down cliff. And the reason it's gone up four feet is for the slippage and slidage of the property owner's property sliding down to the bottom. And than

Thank you for that. Commissioner Koppel.

I was actually going to ask you to chime in, director, and kind of wrangle us all up, let us know what we can, cannot do. Happy to hear even from Mr. Sucre or city attorney on, you know, just clearing up what our roles are, what we can, can't do. I did, I've known of the community liaison concept. I've heard you guys mention an OMS Budman would be I'm going to ask one person, one person to come up and get one last grab at the microphone, because I did want to ask you, would that community liaison satisfy your request for the quote on the slide? Well, not sure.

So again, just for everyone's insight, what capabilities do they have as far as community liaison right they can always call DBI and make complaints or request some type of maybe visit to look at some hazardous conditions or And again, we can't tell the future. This tree might fall down tomorrow from wind. We can't ever. We're never going after anybody. But we can't up here go through who's being truthful, who's not. So we do need to look at this from a third person's point of view. Did you have anything more to add on? Maybe just some suggestions? I want them to know what their abilities are.

And so we can't really look at anything outside of the actual property lines of the properties we're actually reviewing.

OK. So thank you for some of the clarifications, Director Dennis-Phillips. And I just have a question. Beyond the idea that's been brought to the table about having the community liaison, are there any other things, language that can be put into a conditional proof like this that speak to the robust nature of the process to come, which will be looking at all of these issues that have been raised. But is there any just language within this that helps give some of that assurance as this document goes forward. I don't know if that's completely not within the bounds of what's possible for a condit

Anything else, Commissioner McDonald? No, thank you. I don't think we have a motion yet.

So Commissioner So. OK. I'm going to give this a try, but I'm open to editing or refining. So we motion to approve moving this project forward, but insist to have that community liaison program fully enforced. Would it be appropriate?

I really think that this one really needs a lot of community hands-on, even though technically in the tracking of the computer system, you get to go look, but we should be proactively helping the community, right? Okay, so would this be an appropriate...

All right. I like that. So it be very clear communication and access for transparency of accountability. So I'm going to repeat it one more time. I'm A motion to approve with the recommendation of enforcing the community liaison program specifically also in facilitating making sure through the building permitting process site permit and building permitting process and also the community liaison shall post notifications on site with clear contact information to the staff Second. Oh, Joe, you want to say something?

Was that a recommendation for the? No, I believe that was a condition of approval. So just for the public that as much as we can do is put into the motion, this is what we want to see. It's not a suggestion or we hope this to happen. As much as we can do is put this almost as a demand included in the motion. So it shall happen.

Yeah, because we typically don't do that. Yeah. Thank you for that clarification.

I motion to approve to not take the DR and approve this. Second.

Commissioner Koppel. Took the wind out of your sails.