And do some vital programming for the programs and families that are going to be moving into the area. We support this project and the market octavia amendment. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I am a hays valley resident and a longterm supporter of market and octavia. When this was coming up and talking about 400foot towers, they would say you support this . Yes, i do. This is the transit hub. So to much criticism from some people, i was an aggressive supporter of all of this. I think some of what concerns me about this in addition to some technical points and the points raised by the other speakers about the adequacy of muni and other things like that for services, when the proposal to raise some of the 400foot towers was first voiced, it was look at the esthetic of this tower with 400foot towers. We can do thinner, elegant, beautiful, very tight and its going to really look gorgeous. Well get some extra housing out of it. Isnt that good . Yeah, that sounds good. However, as its developing now, we have a very different profile. The only approved project at 400 feet, 1 oak, is looking to go up to 600 feet. 30 vanes is 400 feet. We see how big that really is. 600 feet is 50 higher than that. It looks like all four corners are going to be 600foot towers. Thats mammoth. Thats also back to one big blob of everything the same height. So thats something that really concerns me a great deal. In terms of the adequacy of the report, just a couple of examples. On page 84 where theyre talking about commercial and passage or loading, the conclusion is there is no feasible way to reduce this impact. We know the t. A. C. S werent adequately taken into account on that and theyve grown and mushroomed since then. This doesnt even begin to take into account the food delivery services. Ive had conversations with some of the sponsors and theyve talked about where u. P. S. And fedex can go in and they think theyve solved the problem, but this is not something on their radar. That is a huge concern. Were not playing catchup. We are more reactive. When you look at 98 franklin, theyre using a 38 dropoff rate. If anyone sees french american student base and they think the same 30 applies to all school applies to french american, you have another thing coming. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is jason henderson. Ive been involved with this plan for over a decade. I was involved with the formation of the plan. So this is an excellent location for housing. However, i want to talk about the adequacy of this document. Im going to go by the page numbers to help you find what im talking about. So, first of all, 3 b8 this is all from the transportation section. The volumes are excruciatingly detailed. There is a peak all day on all the streets in the plan area and outside the plan area. You miss a lot of nuance when you dont look at the volumes. The bike traffic is coming from another direction. Theres a lot of traffic heading to the boulevard that is coming from this area, westbound, thats not even in here. Your technical documents say you can look at different peaks, so you should be including that. The v. M. T. Threshold, you guys adopted this a few years ago. Youre allowing suburban mentality. Ask yourself how far you drive or take an uber every day. Your threshold should be 1 mile. This area is between 1 mile and 3 miles per capita per day. Thats fair. Not santa clara threshold. So thats 3b10. The loading, the statement made about the mitigation of the loading is there is no feasible mitigation. There is very little analysis of loading when you study it. Its very Old School Like a u. P. S. Delivery coming at 4 00 in the afternoon. We know that theres all kinds of apps and services. And passenger and commercial loading is a huge its going to swarm this area. And the document says there is no feasible mitigation. Thats at 3 b46. Travel demand. The travel to the south is underestimated. The document says that its going to be about 3 . Thats crazy. I dont know where that comes from, but it underplays the commuting patterns. I suggest a few mitigations that could be put into this document. Metering. The Gold Standard of transit does metering all around the city to control the flow of traffic. The load lg can be dealt with by having a break point outside of the area, empty out the vans, put it on electric cargo bikes. You can keep this area from being overwhelmed. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I think as i just went over i do think i want to reiterate, we dont think this is a time to be upzoning here and we would like to see this project held until the city has an equitable policy in place that say what are the guidelines here, particularly in light of the fact here we are not able to do meaningful value recapture. If thats true, i think we would hold instead of transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth off the top without getting anything back for our services and infrastructure, et cetera. I think to look at a few of the particulars here, i wanted to point out that i do have some concerns again. I see, for example, in the jobs numbers things like 30 vannes we have here 230 square feet resulting in 1,460 employees, 240 square feet for employee. As we presented before, im not sure how we are stuck on these high, high numbers. Pretty standard number is about 60 of that or about 151 square foot per employee. Thats pretty easily findable on the web. You can google it right now. We take that as a very reasonable average, especially in San Francisco where we know its not uncommon to walk in and see people sitting at picnic tables and the numbers are much, much denser. We do think jobs are a significant part of this. We have in the evaluation also that it says it will not displace any existing residents, but we do think that the creation of these housing studies are starting to show like the minneapolis study. It shows that we should expect a 2 to 17 increase of the lowcost rental using surrounding these housing units. Based on our own evaluation there is a sidesable amount of very low income population, along with of course a fairly sizeable Homeless Population in this area. I was not able to find anything on impacts to potentially any of the existing Homeless Population which is living in some of those areas that are set to be redesigned. So i want to go with one more. I have a state density bonus is only allotted for 15 increase, but i would like to see the data from the Planning Department integrated. We can effect a much higher number to be reflected in the report. Thank you. Next speaker, please. This is probably all 50 comments. This area really struck me like its gobbling up the city. This is Tech Industry right here. Theres a lot of projects on this map that have been approved that have not been built. 1 oak right here. 1370 mission right there. Across the street from the Planning Department right here. So and those projects account for 800 units of housing that have already been approved but not built. One of the fantasies we engage in is approving projects built in. Thats not really the case. I have a couple of comments on this. Based on the academy of art is coming to you in a couple of weeks. There are nine projects that are in the van ness quarter which are major i will put this map just because its helpful to see what area is being commented on. Van ness avenue should not have any private buses approved by the planning commission. One of them is coming to you for approval in a couple months, academy of art. The Planning Department has a lot of work to do to fight back and the c. I. R. Is part of the fighting back. We dont really have a handle on the private buses, the google buses, that come right by the Planning Department and through this area and interfere with traffic. We are spending billions of dollars to reconstruct transit on van ness avenue. If we make the transit situation worse by not dealing with uber and lyft and everyone who does dropoffs like private buses and dont go to the state as a city to say we need some relief and policy to be approved, this is a mitigation measure. One of the major mitigation measures is city getting a handle on controlling t. M. C. S, uber and lyft. Second very specific one, i dont understand what ty the analysis of transit doesnt blue the buses. Anyone whos a realist knows that they are a major vehicle distribution point in this city. The market plan was done in 2008. The eastern neighborhood plan was done in 2008. The downtown plan was done in 1985. I will have a lot of written comments. One thing you might consider is extending the Comment Period a couple of days. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is now closed. Any comments from our fellow commissioners . Okay. I will say i do have comments. I think that several of the speakers said things that i agree with as to the adequacy of our e. I. R. This is not enough for me not to move forward with it. But to have our analysis and review keep up with the reality of the world that we live in where there are deliveries in uber and also the reality of our disinvestment in public transportation. I do take seriously and i would like to have an analysis that is supportable. Based on the publics reality of getting around the city. So that does speak to me. While i also empathize with wanting to have an equitable value recapture of zoning, im not sure that not moving forward with the c. I. R. Is the proper strategy for that, although it would be nice if we had that kind of power but we dont. But i hear you. So thank you. If theres no further comment, commissioners, we can move on to the next item, 12, for case 2019000268cua at gates street, the conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, commissioners. You have before you request for conditional use authorization to legalization an unauthorized demolition of a 1,337 gross square feet. Please note, theres been a revised floor area calculation from 1,432 and allow the reconstruction of a 1,370 square foot residential building with bicycle automobile and no automobile parking within the district. In order for the project to proceed, the Commission Must grant a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317. The project is exempt from the California Environmental quality act as a class 1 and 3 catego c categorical exemption. Public comment, the department received one Public Comment on the project from a neighbor who is asking the project sponsor to install a trench system for hydrological drainage on the system. Although this is not an item under Planning Department purview, the planning structure submitted a structural drawing to show a type of drainage system. The project site no longer possesses an existing structure. The Property Owner who purchased the property with a firedamaged building attempted to repair the previously existing structure and, unfortunately, the contractor demolished the structure. The basis for the recommendation to approve is the Department Finds that the project on balance is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. And although the Property Owner is responsible for the unauthorized demolition, the previously existing structure was severely damaged by fire. There is no longer a structure on the site and to deny the new construction of a replacement residential building would not be consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. That concludes my presentation. Im available for questions. Thank you. We will hear from the project sponsor. Hi. My wife and i are the owners of the property with our son. We purchased this property on december 2017. It was severely fire damaged. At the time we had even to sign a waiver to let us go and take a look at the property. Later we decided just to remodel the house and repair the existing house, but unfortunately because of the severe damage, when they were starting to demo the house and shoring, whatever, the house collapsed. It was about a year ago. Right now the project has been stopped for more than a year. You know, even at that time and also at this time we just want to put whatever used to be there and just thats our request. And about the the contractor, we had to fire this guy. He was he mentioned that hes bankrupt. We paid him more than 100,000, which is gone, and hes another loss over there. So this is the history of the property. So more yeah, thank you. This is the architect. Do you want to Say Something . Hi, we are the architect for the project. Its the homeowners mentioned when they first purchased the property, we investigated what was possible. We had a meeting with planning staff to review what options were available for them. Having discussed that and weighed their options their decision was to repair the building, do an interior remodel, and get into the property. The initial application which led to the cuckets project was an interior remodel. Since the project collapsed and the site was cleared, weve been working closely with the owners and d. B. I. Weve had a hearing with the director and weve essentially been following everyones advice. The new application was to restore the building to its original Square Footage which is 1,337 square feet. There have been some minor changes to the building. Weve reduced the back wall a little bit and provided some space for offstreet bike parking which wasnt available on the street. Were available for questions. I was asked to help on this. I dont like doing these cases, but i think this is an example of the other extreme of the demolition process. Ive been in front of this commission on this case because i think there should be triage on different levels. This project was a severely damaged fire damaged building. The seller didnt mention to the buyers that the Building Department recommend that it be torn down. They bought it and their conversations with planning were the options without the knowledge it should have been torn down. Planning made some recommendations. They submitted a set of drawings, basically fixing the same building. The contractor shows up the very first day he showed up, they shore it up so they can do the soft demo, it collapses. It wasnt over three months or two months, it collapses during the shoring. They have taken those original remodelled plans, changed a few things. Its the same drawings that are in front of you. A very modest 1200 or 1300 square foot house theyd like to rebuild. Theyve made some changes to address the rear yard setback. If theyd known they could have torn it down. They probably would have considered something else, but they viewed this as a remodel. And during the first day of construction when the building collapsed, that is under the planning code a demolition because their permit was for remodel, not demolition. But because of the collapsing on the first day i feel comfortable in saying there was no malicious activity. There wasnt something they were trying to gain to go from 1300 square feet to 4,000. They probably couldnt even afford 4,000. This was a fixerupper house. Were trying to be able to get these people back in the house and let them fix it up. So we hope the commission could grant them c. U. And allow them to build and move back into their house. I truly believe this is not a spec, this is their home and this is what it has always been. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. We will now take Public Comment on this item. Is there any Public Comment . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner moore. I have to believe that this is a true story, given that the rebuild is exactly what was there. The only question, its my own curiosity. What did the contractor do for that thing to collapse . Would it have collapsed anyway . I wasnt there. They paid him 120,000 to start. I believe he was attempting to shore the building up when it collapsed. No one died. No one got hurt. I dont know, why the grace of god why no one did, but thats what they were doing the first day is attempting to shore for the fire damage. During the hearings with the Building Department for the demo because that was the first step, the Building Department was surprised we didnt turn it down. And it turns out the previous owner was advised to tear it down. I think it was a teardown that they bought as a remodel. Thank you. I was going to make a motion to approve. Second. Seeing nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this with conditions. [vot [vote]. That motion passes unanimously 60. Placing us on item 13 for case number 2008. 0023cua. This is a conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, planning commission. Chris towns with Planning Department staff. The project before you is a conditional use authorization for the proposed demolition of an existing singlefamily dwelling and the construction of a new fourstorey approximately 6400 square foot twounit dwelling building with two class 1 bicycle spaces and Parking Spaces. Pursuant to planning code 317 c an application for a permit of the loss of one or more residential units is required to obtain a c. U. Authorization. And the application for the replacement building shall also be subject to the c. Requirements. The site is located on the south side of 9th street. Lot 033. It is a typical rectangularshaped lot. It has an area of approximately 2,850 square feet. The lot is slightly down sloping and contains a twostorey 750 square foot home with a onecar garage. It is located in the noi neighborhood. This includes a fivestorey building. The property is n r in one block of the Recreational Center and within two blocks of billy goat hill. With regard to the replacement structure, the proposed 40foot Tall Building will provide two dwelling units with two Parking Spaces and bicycle places. The units themselves included 2,988 square foot lower unit and a similar upper unit. Usable evidence is provided in the form of the rear yard for the lower unit and for private decks for the upper unit. Archite architecturally it is designed and