Include 14 Single Family homes and 19 multi Family Residential buildings with buildings from three to seven stories or 36 to 80 feet in height. 416 vehicle Parking Spaces and over 450 class one and class two bicycle spaces would be provided. The draft e. I. R. Finding that the project would result . No significant or unavoidable impacts. Impacts related to the following topics could be reduced to less thansitionnificant with mitigation measures. Historic resources archeological, Tribal Cultural, nesting birds and construction noise and vibration, all other impacts were found to be less than significant. The draft e. I. R. Identified three project alternatives. No project alternative is required and assumes nonacute medical uses with minimal alteration to existing buildings. The reduced construction alternative would reduce construction related impacts associated with grading such as archeological, Tribal Cultural and construction noise impacts. The rehabilitation reuse alternative would reuse impacts related to construction noise and nesting birds for less than significant with mitigation to less than significant. Since the project would not result in unavoidable impact they would not reduce the impacts to less than significa significant. Sorry that is the slide that shows the alternatives. Today the Planning Department is seeking comment on the adequacy and accuracy of the information contain understand the draft e. I. R. For members of the public who wish to speak please state your name and speak slowly and clearlily so the Court Reporter can make an accurate record. All verbal and written comments received today will be transcribed and responded to in responses to comment document. Revisions will be made as appropriate. Those who wish to submit written comments on the draft e. I. R. Nay give to the Commission Secretary today or deliver to me by email or hard copy by the end of the Comment Period which is 5 00 p. M. On tuesday, september 24th. Unless you have procedural questions i respectfully suggest the public hearing be opened. Thank you. Is there a project sponsor . Let do Public Comment. I have speaker cards. If i call your name, please line up. Rose hill son, leonard, victor harget. Anyone else is welcome to speak. Please address the Environmental Impact report. I submitted this document of comments. We sent it because because i didnt want to go over it. I hear showing a bunch of things i wrote in summary. I will read it. There is a reduction of onstreet parking. We dont talk about level of service, i want this point. Reduction of onstreet parking in high occupancy level of service d. This is a level of service d area, drivers will circle. Maple driveway is predicted one to two vehicles a minute. That is 250 increase and 214 . 38 traffic increase on the south side of parker and that is going to conflict with the parker euclid bike path. Vision zero failures. Two blocks parker south. Decrease the garage ceiling parkers to decrease california street impact. French laundry chemicals a concern, increase radius depending on tribal desires. Net numbers used reliance on cpnc Hospital Data is not environmentally friendly. Prior hospital stats would be used to analyze this 3700 project. New low pressure fire hydrants for safety there should be high pressure. 361,800 so 61,800 oil movement. 7320 trips. Need for construction Transportation Management plan, contractor parking plan, rooftop appurtenances. Negative 23 street trees not environmentally friendly. 150 Parker School as recenter within the dir modeling included in the 3333 california. Decrease cars seven to two. Thank you very much. 30 seconds left to go. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, president melgar and fellow commissioners. I am victor hargate. I have been a journeyman carpenter for 34 years. I live here in San Francisco, and i am speaking in support of the 3700 california street project. There will allow a carpenter like me to continue living in the city of San Francisco. This project will help me continue my career as a carpenter moving toward retirement. This project will provide me with the necessary income to provide for my family. This project will bring much needed housing to the area. I am in full support of this project, and i ask that you move to forward this project. Thanks. Next speaker, please. I will remind members of the public this is not on the project but the Environmental Impact report. Good afternoon. I am a field representative with carters local 22. I am here to ask you accept era to move this on. Tmg partners is using a general contractor to provide a good wage, health and Retirement Benefits to members. They will offer training and education for those entering the carter trade. This includes women, minorities, veterans. This will bring much needed housing in the area. We heard over 30 people have said how much we need housing. This is part of it. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak and urge you to accept the e. I. R. Any other Public Comment on this item . I am marie sullivan, and i am a Property Owner across the street from 3838. Actually since 1968. My parents bought the place. I certainly support new housing. And jobs for people. But i am very concerned about how this is going to affect the environment and parking. That is why i am here to say that i will speak my concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment on this item . Public comment is closed. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore i have a few questions. Generally, i think the draft e. I. R. Is well structured and clear. I appreciate that. However, i am concerned the cumulative impact between two large projects they have cumulative impacts which remind me of creating something too car centric. I am concerned that the high number of Parking Spaces for each of these projects. I am addressing the 3700 california has an impact not fully evaluated without shifting overlay of uber and lyft. I am in support of density, however the massive excavation both projects are trying to undertake to achieve this outcome is of great concern to me, particularly because i believe that the infrastructure of Public Transportation should be increased prior to the two projects starting in the area. It is not just th the expansionf the buses but cross connections which kind of weave this particular Large Development for cusinto the larger project anddedestination throughout the city. I would like the e. I. R. To address that. There is a challenge probably not within the traditional structure of how we do e. I. R. S. I like to start to address what we do after cars diminish. In our agenda are two other projects seeing the reinterpretation of parking and if we are talking about higher and better uses of parking, we have a project coming up in a few minutes, i would like this project as it is providing below grade parking to already anticipate that change to a higher and better use. Those are my comments. They are a little bit looking into some future interpretations, but i believe they are important to address. Thank you, commissioner moore. I agree with all of your comments. Very good, commissioners, that places us on item 12. 20140926dnx at 1270 mission street. This is an informational presentation. Good afternoon, i am the department staff. Before you is an update regarding the project at 1270 mission street. This was approved by the commission on october 27, 2016. Proposing the demolition of the existing one story commercial structure and surface parking lot and new construction of 21 story with tw with two 00foot. The increase was requiring the project to provide 25 on site units or 75 units. The project sponsor has revised the project eliminating the setback and changing the overall design of the building with a new architect. The elimination of set back is 5 of the Square Footage and provides 7 more units for 321 new total. Still held to the 25 on site this increases affordable units by five to 80 total. It will maintain the rear and west side set backs provided in the original project and similarly propose to improve the east side of the site with shared street with raised crosswalks and special paving. As stated in conditions of approval changes may be approved by the Zoning Administrator. He has found it to be in general conformity with original project. No action is required today. This is an informational update for the commission and public to be made aware of changes to this approved project familiar thank you. I am available for questions. Is there a presentation from the project sponsor . No. Just informational. Okay. Do we have any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore are we allowed to comment on this project . While i believe that the attempt to create more housing is always a noble one, i do recall that we spent a significant amount of time shaping this project particularly in the context in which it occurs. Many of the moves we spent quite a bit of time on and there were at least four or five minutes where we reexamined this over and over again, i believe that the project as it is presented in the new design is actually a step backward. I want to b see that mr. Cider s what i was saying. I believe in project is a step backward. Not in terms of numbers of units but in the physical appearance. The project ex trueds itself as a single shape from what was previously carefully modulated between base, middle and top is a step backward in ever taller inner city environment. I believe this project with its numbers is not doing us a favor. By differentiating it is in color is not enough. If i would be asked to vote i ask the architect and developer who are in a new partnership on this go back to the discussions we had surrounding the particulars of the previous building and carefully exam why we chose what we did and do more study. I cannot support what is proposed. Commissioner fung. Commissioner fung it appears that every project in front of us is expanded to the absolute max possible. I guess this is reflective of it. I wouldnt use the term step backward, but it is the current approach from the urban design point of view. It is not an improvement. Both in terms of what the setback used to do for separating the base and the tower and also the large on and dated approach in terms of the precasts shown. It is not necessarily an improvement. Mr. Snider. Commissioner moore, i apologize for the side bar. What we were trying to do is figure out what the range of options to this commission might be. There are, of course, many. As the sponsors heard the comments just now. You could direct us to prepare a resolution recommending further changes to the sponsor, advising staff, providing comment to the Zoning Administrator. It is a fairly unusual situation. You have granted thi this entitlement already. It is in place. You have these options available to you should you pursue them. We dont have an action item in front of us. That is it. Item 13. 2017002136 c. U. A. At 340 town send street. This is a conditional use authorization. Good evening. Michael christian son, department staff. This is a request for conditional use authorization 249. 78, 303, 848 to establish a 178 space Public Parking garage by converting an existing parking garage used for accessory parking to a public garage. This is 340 townsend street within the central soma zoning use district. The Western District and the 130 district. The site is currently developed with five story structure. First three levels are devoted to parking and top is office space. The existing garage is under utilized with 100 spaces unused on a given day, according to the project sponsor. The department considered if this is appropriate use for the site if the auto parking could be converted to higher use. The site is transit accessible with the fourth and king transit station across the street. Central subway is Opening Service in 2021. The context of the neighborhood undergoing significant change. The tennis club and creamery will generate Construction Activity in the coming years. Crews come early before transit is in fullservice, it is likely providing additional parking capacity in the immediate term may provide relief during the construction. As the neighborhood develops Public Parking may impede less auto dependents pattern and it may be redeveloped to higher and better use. The departments recommendation is for approval of the authorization with three year Expiration Date so the department and commission may reevaluate after three years if the sponsor wishes to continue. The department completed environmental evaluation and found it would not have a Significant Impact on environment. Department has not received formal support or opposition to the project from the public. The Department Finds it is necessary and desirable and in compliance with the planning code. As such the Department Recommends approval to limit authorization to three years. This concludes my presentation. I am available for any questions. Do we have a sponsor. I am here on behalf of the project sponsor. Reuse of the accessory garage. It is an odd building, if i could get the overhead. It was originally approved with two floors of office and they came back to get three floors of parking underneath. That is how times changed since the mid 1980s. We are going to modernize it so we have 24 new bike spaces, four new car sharing spaces, well more parking than necessary for the use on site. The traffic study where we had folks go out and watch found that there were 112 spaces empty during the peak occupancy period. It is heavily underutilized. We also know we are going to lose a clot a lot of public parn the future. They will be removing Public Parking lots and coming next year the wells fargo site behind the brick house cafe will be coming in the next couple years here. There is definitely going to be the demand. I did watch the hearing from last year not quite apples to apples. I wanted an indication where the commission was at. In terms every use of the space, it is a very difficult situation to do anything other than maintain it as parking. The comment about does it cost involved with updating the parking garage and eliminating the space to justify that . You have the practicality of doing this underneath an operating office space, not to say you couldnt empty the office space for a while. Financial aid doesnt make sense. If we look at other uses, residential use, this site is inappropriate. We dont have any dwelling unit exposure, no open space. Former parking garage, office each floor is 50,000 square feet. We are going to be out of small cap in the next year. That is going to be discussed in the coming months. Office space isnt available. Finally, we have talked about retail on the block before. If you will remember 505 brannan across the street. This is the back side. Mr. There was discussion if 505 brannan should put the retail space on the back. They agreed the retail space right there did not make sense so, you know, assuming it didnt make sense for Brand New Development to craft good retail space, this is more challenging. Thank you, commissioners, for your consideration. We have the three year relook to check in three years. Thank you very much. Do we have Public Comment on this item . Okay. Public comment is closed. Commissioner moore. Commissioner moore i have a question for you. Higher and better use, these years is not a long time. Is it inappropriate to ask what your view beyond those three years might be . For this building itself . Commissioner moore yes. This was originally as far as central soma to be rezoned to 330 feet to 350. It was brought to 130. 330 town send is going to be developed with residential tower. We didnt want that conflict. There was no developer ready to do anything with the site. I thought this was a great redevelopment site. It has highest density in the city and 130 feet. You have an existing building with an existing tenant and existing parking operation. My guess is that everyone is getting rid of their parking garages to do new development in central soma. I would say at least midterm that is not unexpected. Commissioner moore thank you. I voiced my concerns about parking to parking before. If i would have a clear idea what could happen with the site, i would be happier to support an interim three years to know what is at the end of the tunnel. I am not interested to see three years later for the project to come forward and ask for the same. We are maturing within district with the central subway and cal tran and everything else, i would like to see this site become Something Different from the use that is dependent or promoting parking in the way that it does. I am curious what other commissioners have to say. I am supporting it, but i would like to know more. Commissioner fong you said this building was built in the 1980s . Correct. What is the floor to floor on the parking . Probably less than 10 feet, right . If we can get the overhead. I am guessing 15. Commissioner fong that is not going to make your case. If it was done back then, the ada requirements now would have required the ground floor to be substantially higher to get the clearances, and, therefore, adaptive reuse of the space might be possible. If this was done back then at a minimum floor to floor, then it is probably not likely to be able to be adaptablebly reused on any of the parking levels. The options are keep it as parking for some other develo