Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20240713

Item 2, 2019003900drp, 1526 masonic avenue proposed for continuance. Item 3, 2019017837prj proposed for indefinite continuance, and item 4, 20154109, 33 12th street has been withdrawn. Item 12, the Hazardous Materials Management Procedures informational presentation is proposed for continuance to march 19, 2020. Items 13a and b for case numbers 201913cuavar proposed for continuance to april 30, 2020. Under your discretionary review calendar, items 15a and b, case numbers 2825drp at 780 kansas street has been withdrawn. And the variance component of that project is being proposed for continuance to march 25 to the Zoning Administrators variance hearing agenda. I have no other items proposed for continuance. I did have one speaker card from mr. Dr atler on item 13a if he wishes no, he does not wish to speak to the continuance. So that is all i have. Would anyone else like to publicly comment on the items proposed for continuance . Come on up. Ryan patterson representing the project sponsor for items 13a and b. This is a cu for section 317. We are, its a section 317cu trying to preserve an existing unit that was reconfigured with permits about 15 years ago. This unit is tenantoccupied, and while we have recently received concerns from planning, we would like to work with planning staff to try to resolve those and to support a continuance, request a continuance to april 30 to do that. Thank you very much. Commissioner moore. Im sorry, so one more time. Anyone else for Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner moore. Move to continue items as indicated in addition with item 12, 13, 15, with dates in the record. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed then. [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 60. If the Zoning Administrator could opine on items 13b and 15b. Sure. Item 13b, variance will be continued to april 30, joint hearing of Planning Commission, and item 15b will be continued to the regular variance hearing on march 25. Thank you. Commissioners, that will place us under your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. There will be no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the commission the public or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. 49 missouri street and item 6, case 022530cua, 4 west portal avenue, conditional use authorization. I have no speaker cards. Would any members of the public like to comment on the consent calendar . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner johnson. Move to approve items 5 and 6 with conditions. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items 5 and 6 under your consent calendar, [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 60 placing us under commission matters, item 7, consideration of Adoption Draft minutes for february 20, 2020. I have no speaker cards. Would anyone from the public like to comment on the draft minutes . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner diamond. Second. On that motion to adopt the minutes for february 20, [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 60. Item 8, commission comments and questions. Seeing none, commissioners, department matters. Commissioner moore. I would like to thank commissioner richards for his service. And i will miss him as a colleague and an effective person being on this commission with us. Thank you, commissioner richards. If there are no other comments, we can move onto department matters, item 9, directors announcements. Commissioners, good afternoon. With the Department Staff here in a unique week as we bid farewell to director ram and await director hilli say. Director hillis. Item 10, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and Historic Preservation commission did not meet yesterday this weeks Land Use Committee heard the in length occupancy. The ilo ordinance proposes to regulate occupancies and dwelling units between 30 and 365 days. You heard this item twice, back on january 30 when you voted to recommend approval with modifications. Those modifications include enacting interim controls on new i. L. O. S, collecting data on the scale and clarifying admin amendments for nonprofit organizations. Monday was the second time the ordinance was heard at the Land Use Committee. This week at the beginning of the hearing, supervisor peskin announced another continuance to give him time to meet with representatives and advocates. He invited planning staff to co. Staff expressed concerns over the Unanswered Questions in the ordinance. Supervisor peskin moved to continue the hearing to march 9. The ordinance that would amenity bay windows and horizontal projections passed its first read. The appeal for the environmental termination of 1581 Howard Street was continued to april 14. Thats all i have for you today. Thanks. Seeing no question, we can move onto 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. I have two speaker cards. [calling names] i have three minutes, please, sir . Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. I second Vice President moores comments about commissioner richards, and i totally agree with them. Anyway, i looked on your website for roof deck policy and you cant find it there on the website. And so i think the official roof deck policy installed since 2018. So something last spring that was tried but i dont think that went ahead. And i have a handout but i cant find that on the website. So i think that roof decks should be defined as the following open space on the uppermost area of a structure requiring a stair penthouse or hatch for access. I think the plans often conflate this type of roof deck with the access required at the top with a roof deck that is off living space, created by setbacks that reduce the mass, particularly setbacks overlooking rear yards, and i told these should be called terraces because that matches the definition in the dictionary. Roof decks that require stair penthouses or a hatch should not be permitted on smaller projects if the open space requirement can be met through preservation of natural carboncapturing rear yards. Here are the negative issues as i see them with roof decks that require a stair penthouse or a hatch. They add hundreds of thousands of dollars to Construction Cost and sales price of one to threeunit buildings and that decreases relative affordability. They increase the mass. I mean even if you have the glass, when you see them, its mass, and people put couches from Restoration Hardware up there, and that makes mass. I think theyre also used for the marketing of the projects by capturing views and my favorite mantra is no one entitled to a view. I dont think they should be up there for that reason. And finally, theyre really not viable in a windy, foggy city like San Francisco. So thats my comment on that. And heres the 150 words for the minutes. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Can i get the overhead, please . Great. Commissioners, my name is joe butler. Im an architect here any city. Im here about 526 lombard street which is on your agenda for next week. Only recently hired by aquaintances of 20 years who live near the project but were traveling during the period of 311 notice. Several things are missing. And several things are incorrect in the application that was submitted by the project sponsor and their architect, second architect on the job. First on the permit application, you can see that the new construction, and im talking about the rear building which will be wholly new construction on a required year yard for which variances will be sought, you can see that a site survey done by a Civil Engineer as required, we dont have a site survey. Second, it fronts on two streets or more precisely, a street and an ally, at the back of the property is fielding street. The back of the property is fielding street, at the front is lombard street and if one reads the code carefully you have to use the street to measure. So in the back, they are reducing the required rear yard by adding a new building where theres currently lawn. And its at least 34 feet high from grade. But thats not where we measured. We measured from the top of the curb, at the midpoint of the two on the up and the low ends of the lot, on its main frontage. Also when we reduce the rear yard, the last 30 feet, the last 10 feet of the building is supposed to be reduced to 30 feet in height. So that we dont have a big, shady yard. In this case, there is no such setback, but we think two things. One that 261 should apply, and the sun point should be observed. You can see what happens to the third floor. There we go. If, however, the project sponsor were to drop that to 30 feet above grade or the midpoint of the top of the curb, maybe four or five feet as ive shown here, the sun plane wouldnt interfere with the 30 height thats required for the last 10 feet of averaging. You go down a longer list. Heres the Planning Department submittal guidelines which call for the site survey. Heres the fee schedule. This one is rich. The first architect put 300,000 for a 3800 square foot new house. Its really over a million. That means that the Planning Department has lost down on about 12,000 in fees. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, president koppel and members of the Planning Commission. My name is kathleen cortney. Russian Hill Community association. Two years ago, the russian Hill Community association sent a letter of support for the reappointment of rich hillis as a commissioner sitting on the Planning Commission at that time we noted that there were a couple of things that we disagreed with the commissioner about, but we appreciated his comments. Now, you more than anyone else knows that theres a difference between the skill set required of a Planning Commissioner and a skill set required of a planning director. Youre also well aware of the concerns Many Community members have expressed about the appointment. But more than this, youre complicit in the decision of the reappointment or the appointment of rich hillis as Planning Commissioner, because you are the commission that recommended reviewed applicants, that gutted them, that looked at the minimum requirements and recommended the recommended names to the mayor. So i call to your attention, and i urge you, and i really request that you be aware of your responsibility, because starting now, your responsibility extends beyond the idea of simply looking at what comes before you at the Planning Commission. Your responsibility also is to the Planning Department. It is up to you now to make sure that the qualifications, the protocols, the mentoring, the education of our planners is really disciplined and professional, because if we dont have a professional architect or urban planner in charge of the Planning Department, may i respectfully request that that responsibility now falls to you. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, everyone. My name is anna and im a resident and artist at 221 11 street, also known as the dovetail community. At dovetail we house artists and their workspaces at affordable rates. We are being threatened with eviction despite working with the landlord in good faith to legalize our space. We need the Planning Department to accept our application for conditional use of our space under the act. We are one of the last communities in San Francisco of offering space for movement arts, visual arts, live workspaces at below market rate. As a dancer and Movement Artist personally dovetail represents to me a haven. The availability of affordable indoor practice spaces and the possibility of hosting Creative Community gatherings are rarities in San Francisco. Spaces like dovetail make it possible for me and many others like me to pursue the arts and foster Strong Communities around the arts. We want to be in good graces with the neighbors and landlord. We support the success of the restaurant downstairs from us in many ways like encouraging the patronization, being conscious of noise, especially during their Business Hours, and offering other forms of assistance throughout the years. Sadly, the landlord has blocked two times our notarized permit request and trying to evict us on the platform that we are not doing the work. City ordinance requires this to proceed and obligated to provide codecompliant housing. Planning allowed the withdrawal of conditional use application by the property owner. The legislation which you read into the last meeting is clear, the owner should not have a discussion to withdraw legally filed conditional use application. Instead they are required to bring the building into compliance with residential code and legalize the space. Please help protect dovetail and the artists of San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is brittney, and im also a tenant at 221 first street. Im a Mental Health counselor. We work with people struggling with housing and im also a student in the urban studies and Planning Program at s. F. State with a focus on homelessness and Affordable Housing. The dovetail Community Means a lot to me as it provides a space for me to live affordbly as im working and going to school. It is also a place for hosting activism events around topics like Affordable Housing and encouraging people to participant politically such as voting parties to inform people about ballot measures. It is critical to me to maintain currentlyexisting Affordable Housing in the city so students and social workers like myself and avarices can live, work and study in a home that offers secure and Affordable Housing and encourages participation in the greater community. This is our home, and it would mean a tremendous amount if you would support the Planning Department to accept our conditional use permit as it is required by the act and your applications that we can move forward in the legalization process to become residents. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else . Come on up. Good afternoon, president koppel, fellow commissioners. With no neighborhood counsel and San Francisco coalition. Im here to echo what ms. Cortney brought to your attention and our basically total surprise from the outcome of who you recommended as part of the roster for the planning director. We have brought up issues in terms of mr. Hillis qualifications, thats not new. But one thing we have not talked enough about is his outlook on what neighborhoods are supposed to be transformed in light of all this push for denseification. We really look to you to make sure that something that is going to come out of the Planning Department that most likely is going to reflect that is going to be equitable and just. As an example, i know that director hillis used to often time bring up the residential expansion threshold and would oftentimes bring up that maybe we should bring it back. As some of the speakers here mentioned, that program was kneecapped, guilty as charged, i was one of those people that worked very hard to make sure it was kneecapped. The reason it was kneecapped was because it was unjust. You cannot go and up zone well, up zone in a sense, of the Square Footage of the entire city of San Francisco to come up with a Floor Area Ratio that is virtually covering maybe 5 of San Francisco would live up to that. So thats an example that we are looking to you to look into these programs that are going to be coming out of the Planning Department and look into you to make sure we are not going to have back door up zoning. Weve already had front door up zoning thanks to Assemblymember Phil ting and his two adus per lot. We would appreciate it if you look into the programs and side with us, the residents of the city of San Francisco, who need to have a just program, fair planning. Thats what were asking you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anyone else for general Public Comment . Seeing none, general Public Comment is closed. There are no questions, we can move onto your regular calendar for item 11, 49 south van ness avenue, permit Center Project informational presentation. Hi. My name is Melissa White how is. Im the permit Center Director in the city administrates office, and im excited to address the commission today. Im probably going to present for somewhere between ten and 15 minutes and im hoping theres time for questions at the end. Before i ive in, i wanted to say thank you to all the Planning Department, in particular, i really would like to thank every individual there but in the sake of time i want to thank liz watty and the whole core pick team for how wonderful theyve been since ive been in this job for a little over a year. I want to thank jonas and this commission for helping us have Christine Silva to support electronic plan review. Im going to talk about how integral she has been to this process. I hope while you are hearing my presentation, you are taking pride because we could not be doing this without your support of having christine support us and your whole department being so open to change, which has been really great. So i also am joined by samuel who is a project manager at public works for all of 39 south van ness and then Jeff Hamilton who is a Communications Director for the project as well. So im going to give you an overview of the 49 south van ness project and the permit center which is the driving force for this building. Im going to talk about how we are preparing through pilots at your existing locations and lastly im going to talk about electronic plan review. So this building, im sure you are very familiar with it. When i took this job, we spent four months where i went in depth observing. I sat with the team, i got to know them, i sat at the mission. I had a lot to learn when i took this job. I came from the Mayors Office where i was used to improvements and being cheerful and pushy, but i had never worked in the perming world, so i really got a crash course from the employees in my first few months, and we did strategic planning. And this is the mission and vision statement that came out of that process, ultimately signed off on by the mayor. John ram and many others were involved in that. What i love about this is we are going to be a one stop shop is what we are trying to say, and we are going to be friendly, streamlined and efficient. So i think about that quite frequently. What does it mean to be friendly, streamlined and efficient . So, well, we are going to be moving into a new 16story building, 430,000 square feet. We sold three buildings to finance this project as a city. The whole second floor, which is the main Public Policy push for this, is to improve our service to the public. Its going to be a onestop permit shop, about 40,000 square feet. We are going to have up to 500 transactions a day, up to 16 different departments interacting on the floor, and we are really using this move as a function for change. We are going to keep things that are working well, and we are going to change things that need to be improved. And by the way, we are moving, starting to move in less than three months. So heres the picture of the building. You probably notice as you walk by. Its looking similar to this now. This picture has been here since before it was up at all. You can see theres going to be beautiful trees, balconies, light, planning will obviously be on floors 13 through 15. Its going to be so beautiful up there. Beautiful views. Yesterday i was there at the end of the day when the sun was setting. Beautiful sunset. You can actually see future tower over the twin peaks. Its going to be very bright, everything new. New furniture, really wonderful. These are renderings of the permit center floor. Another thing as i mentioned, we are going to colocate. We are going from 13 locations that we send customers to right now, and even just like at 1660, we send customers across six different floors of one of these 13 locations to one floor of one building as much as humanly possible. So a really big change for the staff. And after we move, we are down to the orange dot on the page, we are going to be leaving port out on the port because its more efficient for the port tenants. They already operate as a onestop shop on the port but everyone else is coming in. So we are moving, we are colocating, does that mean we are immediately efficient, friendly and streamlined . Not necessarily. We still have to be super thoughtful about how we organize. And when i was doing the discovery period, what i saw, which i was really pleased by, is i saw just huge i wasnt pleased by this but didnt find it surprising. Theres a lot of bureaucracy. Department staff want to do a good job. They are working super hard, but they have subpar technology and subpar space, and theres not a lot of everyones nervous to tell anyone else what to do. So as a result, we kind of see a lot of silos. So really the benefit of this building is breaking that down, starting to work together, we are going to all be together. So i feel like its not any individual departments fault that things are the way they are, and im sure you all can appreciate that. But its just really this bureaucracy. So how are we organizing the permit center . We have eight departments that we are calling regular station departments. They are going to be staffing our hopefully regular standard hours of operation, 7 30 a. M. To 4 30 p. M. As of a week ago, thank you again to the Planning Department, you have expanded your Historic Preservation hours, which is amazing. Customers are so excited about that. And we had ten different sets of hours of operation across these eight regular station departments when i did our initial analysis. And we are pushing everyone to the same hours of operation every day. So when youre a customer coming in, you know who you are going to be able to encounter when you come in. And then theres another group of departments that dont need to be sitting there all day, but they are going to have access to the floor. Maybe they are sitting in an upper floor, and well call them down to the next floor to meet with a customer. Heres the floor plan. This is the second floor. Another big thank you to planning. So instead of all planning staff being together, planning is going to have one business in one in the business area. We did this intentionally. A lot of thought went into how we structured the floor plan. We are trying to organize it around customer goals, instead of department. We are trying to think about this as what is a customer trying to do and how can we organize the whole floor to help them accomplish that. So the permit Services Area is the equivalent of the department of Building Inspections i. P. R. And c. P. B. Today which are permit techs who take your plans and help route you. The construction area is the equivalent of planners and engineers, people doing the technical review, and special events and business are not related to construction permitting as much although there can be overlap. And so what are the changes that we are implementing . Huge change is coming. We are going to be colocating in the space. We are going to have a print shop, a onestop print shop on the floor so that planners in the middle of the day, when someone rips down the signs all around someones building and a planner three or four is like being called from city hall to go and print the signs again can seemlessly send the customer to the print shop on the floor where the job will be saved, and they can get them reprinted. That was on a idea that came from planning and public works. We are going to have valuized cashiering cashiering centralized cashiering. We have people who will smile and greet you when you you arrive. We have such a wide range of customers. We have customers that come every day, and we have customers that come once and every return. The customers who come once were wandering around lost and confused, getting in the wrong line and sometimes crying. We cannot have that. Last week we had a team of model molded after your 311 classifications. Their job is to help the customer and route them appropriately. This should hopefully take workload off of your permit Department Staff who are just working so hard to issue thousands of permits a year as well. So its a benefit for both customers and staff. And then technology, we also implemented we started in august, thank you again to planning, to try out our new electronic cueing system. We just went live last week across the fifth floor of mission. It was a big deal, and it went fine. No one freaked out. Its going well. People are seemlessly moving around the floor. It was a massive change. I was very nervous. But im really happy. I think we showed proof of can september. When we move into the new building, instead of everyone having their own sign in, theres one location where everyone gets in the cue for all the departments. When i finish with planning, planning recused me into the building queue. If you havent been by 1660, you should check it out. Your team was supportive. The last one is electronic planner view. This is showing you, so how are we preparing for the change without overwhelming your employees . The answer is piloting. We started a pilot with planning and fire in august. Then we implemented at public works in january. Last week as i mentioned, we took a huge change live to test out all these concepts at our existing space, and thats what we are trying to do is slowly ramp up over time. And really so that we can get feedback before we move. So heres the fifth floor map. So you can see you come off the elevator. Theres a giant start here sign. And then you go to one location on the floor where the team greets you and helps to get in the line. We took a new routing step. The new Customer Service team, pictured now, lovely folks. A new system, a new Customer Service team. We implemented a new routing slip with no acronyms. That is a paper sheet that helps you understand your whole journey. And where you are going. We implemented signage changes. There was signs everywhere with arrows and all that got taken down. It was really fun. Late at night one night. And now theres clear signage across the floor. And i should also note planning moved from the first floor to the fifth floor in january to fill at a time this change. We flipped your staff. They were so patient. So lovely, moving four months before another move. So im just really appreciative of how wonderful planning is. And that is it on the physical space changes. I now wanted to talk to you about Digital Space changes. So its really exciting the changes we are making in the physical space but if we want to have a huge impact on the customer experience, especially with intake permits, we really need better digital tools. So these are photos of actual cubicles full of plans and we are really going to try to go paperless. The permit center team is taking on the implementation of electronic planner view. We have huge support having christine on board to move this forward. And why are we doing this . It seems like it would be obvious but just to be clear, process improvements, no lost plans, efficiency, time saving, paper saving, environmental savings, cost savings, many, many reasons why we want to move away from paper plans and into the product weve selected. So we procured blue beam. Its being used frequently in the private sector right now. S. F. O. , the airport has been using it for their projects for two years. We have up to 15 city departments involved right now. We also brought, in addition to having christine who is so amazing and has so much experience with the Planning Department, we also brought on ae, they have implemented blue beam in other jurisdictions that went to no paper as well, and its been really helpful having them on board. And this is not a big bang implementation. We are not saying starting tomorrow we are paperless. Instead, what we have done is we have done three pilot projects, three 100 affordable projects. One teacher housing project, one 71units for formerly house and one set of affordable units. And we are just piloting. Our first project got completed entirely electronic review, 966 oak, that just finished last week. Every department, what this means is, the plans live in the cloud. Every department got invited in by christine. They marked up their comments, and we yesterday invited the applicant in to review the comments. And this also date and time stamps everything that everyone does. So its very clear who is doing what, who is saying what, really, really excellent tool. And really though, a big change. So its did take us a little bit to ramp up in scale. We are in the middle of a massive move, as i mentioned, so we dont want to overwhelm people, which is why we are going to learn from this pilot and scale up over time. And ive also been told i talk very fast. So i am happy to answer any questions. I just wanted to be really respectful of your time today. And thats it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any more presentations or Public Comment . Public comment. Just the one speaker card from georgia. Thank you. We may have questions for you later that was really great. I need three minutes, please, i guess. A couple things occur to me. The thing that im looking forward to is that d. B. I. And planning will be together. And theres two things that come to mind as to why its good they are together. One is the flat policy. So if somebody comes in, and they have a pair of flats, and they want to do something, its caught if they are not doing something they should be doing. One thing that puzzled me are over the counter permits going to be with permit services. If you are just going to redo the flatlies would that be with construction . That information could be lost. So theres a lot of problems as youve seen with over the counter permits coming on. The other thing is reviewing plans that are extreme alterations for the demo calculations. Sometimes what happens is the plans are submitted, they go to the planner, and then six months or longer later, the planner has to write an n. O. P. D. R. Saying i need the demo calcs. So thats when the project sponsor comes in with the plans, those demo calcs should be on there. I hope that with d. B. I. And planning together at that, the construction section, they can check on that. Because right now, i dont know that thats always happening. And i know that d. B. I. Looks at vertical expansions over 350,000 as demos. I assume theyll continue to do that unless something happens with 317. So thats what im hoping, and it sounds like that will be the case. The other thing i have the question about, the paperless. Right now, if you want to, as a member of the public, you can buy, for 5 a sheet, and its pretty cheap, i know, a fullsized set of plans each sheet. And sometimes its very helpful to people. So does that mean if you are going paperless that you wont be able to buy that anymore when you get it all ramped up . Its just a question. The other question i have is when the public comes in to see plans, if theres not, like i laughed at that scene but ive experienced that with all those plans. Will you be able to see them on a full screen when you come in as a member of the public to review the plans . Or will you have to look at a little screen . Theres a big difference between a little screen and big screen. Thats why the fullsized plans are sometimes important to look at at. Thats basically it. But i worry about the over the counter permit things and things getting missed. If over the counter is going to permit. The surgery between d. B. I. And planning is the most important thing you are going to get from this. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else for Public Comment . Public comment is closed. Commissioner fung. Question for the presenter. I understand theres a Software System that is going to be able to cross the departments. I understand thats a Software System thats going to be able to cross between the departments. Is that Software System very expensive system finally in place . Are you talking about so bluebeam is the system where im not talking about bluebeam. You are talking about d. B. I. s p. T. S. System versus what planning is using or planning will be going into that. They are using the software for their Case Management and a lot of times p. T. S. Is being used as well. By planners. So they are going onto p. T. S. , which is the department of Building Inspections system. And they are signing off there and the other one. I understand theres going to be a common system. Isnt that correct . I cant hear you i understand its going to be a common system. Is that not correct . You know, it would be better to have d. B. I. Come and present. Im not involved in that project. But im aware it is on hold at the moment. Okay. Commissioner imperial. I just want to address one of the Public Comment. Is there going to be an option for paper for the plans . Yes. And i will be happy to give anyone my card that wants to meet with me so we can walk through the details. We are committed to meeting the customers where they are at. So for some customers, they love bluebeam, they are using it, and they are going to make comments back and forth with the city staff in bluebeam, but for some customers, they dont want to do that, so we are thinking through the need for different work flows, and we have the case where some people are not interested in using a computer, and we have a beautiful new brand new permit center where we would love to accept them and help them. And we can scan in their plans after they have submitted them for them. Commissioner johnson. Thanks. I just want to thank you for this presentation and to all of the staff and our wonderful planning staff who has been flexible through all this change. Love the idea of having a crossdepartment collaboration in this space. We know that space is the only thing that fill dates collaboration between departments facilitates collaboration. I think she is an expert in the use so im glad you switched information, and i hope you will talk. And a special thanks to ms. Silva. Ive heard from many people about your expertise and support in this process, that its been really helpful and excellent. So thank you all so much. Thank you. Mr. Snyder. Not to pylon too much but i want to acknowledge and thank this particularly dynamic group, samuel and jeff and particularly melissa. The impact and benefit to all ability to serve the public is going to be tremendous. And work that you and your team have done, herding the various cats involved is herk hercul. Thank you. Im sorry i couldnt hear well before. Thank you. Item 12 has been continued as have items 13a and b, places us on item 14 for case number 201012576cua at 1769 bombard street. This is a conditional use authorization. Good afternoon, commissioners. David, planning Department Staff. The case before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303, 145. 2 and 71220 authorize an Outdoor Activity area in conjunction with a previously authorized kennel use at 1769 lombard street, as well as a required oneyear review of the approved kennel use. Condition number 13 of motion number 20355 approved on december 13, 2018, requires a oneyear review of the establishment and its adherence to the conditions. The establishment has adhered to a number of conditions but failed to adhere to others. I will summarize them here. Condition number ten required interagency consultation between planning Department Staff and staff of other agencies of the city. Since the Previous Commission hearing, staff maintained continual correspondence with staff at the department of Public Health, and the report includes a list of requirements that will be placed upon all animal care facilities by d. P. H. It will be subject to these conditions once the Health Permit is approved. That Health Permit is currently on hold at the Planning Department pending approval of this c. U. A. And a corresponding Building Permit. Condition number 12 is a required staff to conduct unannounced inspections of the facility, three held on may 24, july 23 and december 12 of 2019. During each inspection, staff was welcomed to view the interior of the establishment but prohibited by employees from walking through the establishment to the rear yard. Condition number 11 required a neighborhood meeting to be held that included the attendance of Department Staff, to date this meeting has not yet been held. Conditions number 14, 17 and 19 are operational conditions relating to minimizing nuisances on the adjacent properties. They have adhered to the conditions including assuring that employees use low voices, practice zero tolerance for animal cruelty. The establishment also has begun to drain all waste from the rear yard toward a sewer and away from adjacent properties. They have begun use of a bioenzymeenzyme product to contl odor. They have not replaced artificial turf with concrete for one of the conditions, nor have they consulted a sound engineer, but they plan to do so upon approval of this c. U. A. As well as a corresponding Building Permit. Condition 20 restricting use of the rear yard to 7 00 a. M. To 7 00 p. M. However because the area was never authorized, use of the rear yard is currently prohibited. The sponsor claims the rear yard is not in use, although this claim has been contested by some neighbors. The project sponsor also has volunteered a condition that no more than eight dogs be in the rear yard at any time and that all dogs in the year yard be supervised at all times. This has been reflected in an update to proposed condition number 15. Prior to the 2018 hearing, authorizing the kennel use, staff received 23 letters of support as well as a support petition with 127 signatures. We also received one phone call and three letters of opposition to the request. However, since that hearing, and up until today, staff received 38 letters of support and 22 letters of opposition, all of which are included. Staff recognizes that there are significant concerns with this facility and nuisances on adjacent properties. However, on balance, the Department Finds the project to be compatible with the general plan and recommends approval with the recommended conditions. This recommendation is based upon community support, Previous Commission approval at a hearing in which the rear yard was extensively discussed, and continual monitoring per the conditions of the commission of this pending motion as well as the department of Public Health. Thank you. And im available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Project sponsor. Five minutes. Can we have ten because its a c. U. , and we would like to have them explain it . Well, seven. Seven. Okay. I have a handout too. Representing the project sponsor. So ill speak very briefly about the c. U. That was approved a year ago, and this current c. U. Does not change the physical size or capacity in any way. Although the most, a year ago, most of the discussion we had here was about the year yard and the use of the rear yard, they determined after the hearing that the rear yard is categorized as an Outdoor Activity area and does require a separate c. U. That the prior hearing was not noticed for, and thats why we are here today. A typical n. C. District includes a bistre and retailoriented street with zoning at the same block at the year. That is the case here as well. If you look at overhead, on the overhead, i have a current image of lombard street in front of the business. Not only is lombard street lined up a busy street with three lanes in each direction, you have businesss on both side of the street including a gas station. Theres significant amount of construction going on and with respect to dogs, we also do have neighbors in our rear who also own dogs. The purpose of n. C. Districts is to provide for a wide variety of commercial youings, including neighborhood uses, including neighborhoodserving uses. In a city that has more dogs than kids, kennels provide an extremely necessary service. You had in the record a number of support letters and signatures. What i just handed out to you are additional 32 letters in support that were written since last friday. Including three letters from the residential neighbors who live above the space who would be the most impacted. In terms of the conditions for the use of the rear yard, those were already laid out in the c. U. A year ago. And while that c. U. Did not address the rear yard as an Outdoor Activity area, it absolutely addressed and conditioned the use of the rear yard. So given that, we are going to focus some of our points today on really on the oneyear activity and kind of bring you up to speed as to what has been done and then what has not been done and why. So in your packets and on the overhead, you have this chart. You have this chart that summarizes the conditions of approval. And then it gives an explanation as to what has been implemented and what are the few items that are yet to be done. As was mentioned by staff, we have not yet consulted a noise consultant, and we thought it would be better to do that once the concrete is in place in the rear yard, since thats where i think the noise complaints are coming from. We did not change the turf to concrete, because in order to actually use the rear yard, we need this c. U. For the Outdoor Activity area. The last item is the neighborhood meeting. There have been meetings and discussions with michelle who has been the unofficial representative for some of the concerned neighbors. Theres a meeting with her in early april. Another meeting was scheduled by her late april. It got canceled. But theres been other communication with her. So im going to turn it over to the general manager and the owner of the project to talk a little bit more. Thanks for hearing our case today. My name is earnie, and im the general manager and owner at the grateful dog. All we want to do at the grateful dog is to provide a muchneeded service for our community, taking care of dogs and live harmoniously with our neighbors, residential, commercial, all our neighbors. A lot has happened in the last couple years and it has been very draining on this company and all involved, physically and financially. To summarize our progress in the last year, we have done a lot to address the operational aspects. We want to continue to be Good Neighbors, and we will do what is necessary to accommodate any concerns that may come up from time to time. We have implemented many of the Operational Plan requirements even though our backyard usage has changed. As much as we have done, the reality is there were neighbors who want us gone. Some of the neighbors are here today and want us gone. Thats not going to change. I want to emphasize we have been operating here since 2009. We chose this location because it had an outdoor space. No one opposed us then. All the opposition and complaints started a can you remember years ago when we were forced to apply for a c. U. As if we were a new business. There is a clear pattern of these complaints, an effort to paint the grateful dog in the most negative light. Please keep in mind that we run a dog care business, and just because we have implemented the Operational Action plan steps doesnt mean a neighbor would never hear a dog barking. Most of our immediate neighbors have dogs, and they bark during the day, and guess who gets blamed for their barking. After every complaint that is reported, that i hear about, i always respond, investigate and go over with my staff. We want a peaceful relationship with our neighbors. We want to work with them, and we will do whatever it takes to address and mitigate any issues. What we do and have done is to implement a number of operational steps that minimize any noise and odor concerns. We run a business that is dependent on our customers trusting their dogs in our care. We have been around for over ten years, and we plan on being around for many more. We ask that you approve the rear yard subject to the conditions that were listed in a prior c. U. And accept our oneyear report. Thank you. Hi. Thank you. Im car do. Im the founder of the grateful dog back in 2009. This business means the world to me. And our neighbors have made it really difficult. And i feel like its maybe because we didnt hear from them in 2009, and some of those neighbors resided there then. And so here we are ten years later, and it seems like theres an opportunity to try to get us shut down. Despite everything that earnie has said, i dont think theres a lot that we can do when thats somebodys ultimate objective is to shut down a Small Business. I dont know how much we can do to try to satisfy or appease them. And yes, we can always get better and we are working to get better. Thanks so much. Your time is up. We may have questions for you later. Okay. Seeing the project sponsor is done, Public Comment. Is anyone here to publicly comment on this item . Come on up. My name is dr. Stewart kaplan. Im new to San Francisco. I moved from the east coast, north carolina, about a year ago. I have a dog who is a relatively large lab mix, probably has some pit bull in him, and looks like it. When i walk him down the street, people are nervous seeing him. When he is exercised and well wellrested, he is as quiet and sweet as can be. When hes not, although, i dont think he would be aggressive, he can sound it. He can growl and be scary. He was in doggy day care every day that i had him for five years in north carolina. I never had an issue. When i moved here, i couldnt find a place that he would go to. Well, when i used to drive up to the place in north carolina, he would run out of the car, he would get excited, and he would not want to go home. I tried four other facilities in the city, and he was scared to go the second day. So i crated him at home, because that felt better, and his energy got up and got up and got up. So it was a Public Service to the city. Now that i have found a place that he runs back into, he is again a quiet, peaceful dog that is completely nonthreatening to everybody who sees him. I cant speak to whatever the neighbors have to say, but i know in the short time ive been with them, they have been responsible, they have been good Small Business owners. And i think provide a Huge Community service thats needed in this city. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else for Public Comment . Ive lived in San Francisco for 25 years. Speak into the microphone. My name is dory craig. Ive lived in San Francisco for 25 years. I have had a dog for a year. And when looking for a day care provider and border, it was nearly impossible to find anyone that was affordable and close. I dont have a car. Im a true San Francisco resident. So it made it very challenging. When i found the grateful dog, they were affordable, they were close to my home, and they treat my dog like with all the respect and care. I feel safe with her there. And like this previous gentleman said, sometimes she doesnt want to come home. It really wounds my ego, but she does enjoy being there. I can understand where people would have issue with barking dogs. But that whole neighborhood owns dogs. And there are more dogs in San Francisco than children. If you live next to a school, you dont ask the school to shut down because they are too loud during recess. In addition to that, its a Small Business. Its successful and providing a huge service to people of San Francisco. And i just think it would be a shame to push them out when theyre doing such a huge service for residents. And finally, for the ive heard that people are concerned that their Property Values are going down because of the doggy day care, and i would say that they should look at the sidewalks and know that my dogs not sleeping on them. My dog is not defecating on their front porch either. So thank you. Anyone else for Public Comment . Come on up. Hello. My name is elaina and im here on behalf of the grateful dog. The last three years ive lived directly above them in my apartment with my husband. And im happy to share that weve actually been pleasantly surprised on how great its been living above them as well as our other residents in the apartment building. They have lived there for nine years. And im speaking on behalf of them also. We moved here for work. Before we even chose that neighborhood to live in, we sought out to find whats the best place for a dog, whats the best day care, we are going to be gone so many hours a day. And after speaking with some residents and some research, it became abundantly clear how wellrespected in the community they are. And in the district especially there are dogs everywhere. Almost every friend i have in the marina have a dog. Its a very dogfriendly and active community. And as you have recently heard, you are hearing how important this business is. This neighborhood needs this business. It is not only just a doggy day care, but its a great one. They provide so much care and love, when we drop off my dog when we have family troubles or a late day at work, i dont have to worry about it, and it is such a relief. I want to discuss concerns about the location and noise. So regarding the disturbance, theres a few things we questioned before moving in, would it be too loud when we are at home spending time, would this be bothersome, would it smell. And we were pleasantly surprised at the outcome. I see them constantly cleaning and performing maintenance on this place. Im in there every day. I can see them doing. We have become friends with them. They are our neighbors, you know . And as well, we dont really smell anything. Theres no wet dog smell or any issue. And we live directly above, and we have the same address and everything our mail goes to there. And also we dont have a problem with noise, even so much so that when people come over, they cant believe we have a doggy today care below. We tell them every time. Further like they were saying before, we live in a city that has construction on lombard. You can hear cars driving and motorcycles driving. Its a busy area. But it comes with the turf. And although i do understand the concerns, even if its not those dogs barking, its aa dog five doors down. So i really consider to be lucky to have them as neighbors. And they have held quite a reputation in the marina, and it takes time to do that where people can have such great things to say and be so trusting. Thank you. Anyone else for Public Comment on this item . Yes, im with the Southeast Asian community center. And we are a Small Business Assistance Center in San Francisco. We have been doing this for over 20 years actually. The grateful dog and carla has been our client now for over ten years. And we did help them get started in the beginning. Weve been working with them for over a tenyear period. And seeing how successful they have become over the years, they offer an Excellent Service in the area and a veryneeded service. And as you know and many people have said here, there are so many dogs in this city. And there is a need for these kinds of services, especially in their particular area. So i want to voice my support for the grateful dog and car do and hopefully the carla, and hopefully the committee will approve. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else for Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Commissioner fung. Question for the applicant. The beginning of your presentation, your attorney indicated that you are going to discuss why some of these conditions were not maintained. I didnt hear any explanation. Maybe i could briefly recap. So one of the conditions was to change the artificial turf thats currently in the rear yard into concrete and install a concrete barrier at the edge. We did not do that one yet, because that is in the rear yard. Lets deal with the two issues that are the most prevalent from the opposition. One is noise. One is sanitation. Lets deal with the noise. Why wasnt the sound study done . So because we have not yet changed the turf into concrete. Because i think the noise concerns were not coming from the building. So the windows to the building, the doors to the building are kept shut, so noise is not a concern coming from the building. Its the noise from the rear yard. And i think once we have the concrete in place, i think that is, we felt, the more appropriate time for the noise consultant to opine on the additional things that should be done. Im not sure what i heard from the opposition that the noise is also coming from within the building. Some of the mitigation measures we had last year was to make sure that the windows are shut, the doors are shut during the Business Hours so the noise is confined, and that has been implemented. All right. Then the question is do you folks dispute that theres noise supposedly affecting some of your neighbors . I dont think theres a lot of noise coming out of our facility, because the back door is usually always closed except for when we are going out thats not my question. My question is do you dispute that the neighbors who have complained about noise is hearing the noise from the building . I dispute a lot of their claims, yes. Commissioner diamond. Question for counsel. Why didnt your client allow for the backyard to be inspected . And the fact that they said that theres a liability issue is not really a satisfactory answer, because it was a condition. So i need to know why you didnt figure out a way to solve that. So the visits that were done by staff were unannounced so we dont know about them ahead of time. There is, and i think carla can speak to it more, but there is a liability of letting people into the main area inside where the dogs are free. They are not in cages. They are free in the floor. So theres a liability. But what we can do is if they decide to visit the rear yard, we can provide access through the upstairs neighbor so the person doesnt have to go through the main floor. But thats my understanding. Can you speak into the microphone . We have to give them notification. As a matter of fact elena, she is the one who i would have to get in touch with, and she would go downstairs and unlock the door. Its always locked for security reasons. Before i ask a question on that issue to staff, i would like to know why you didnt hold the neighborhood meeting . We did. We had one meeting in april, and we had another one scheduled. And michelle wool canceled it. She said there was nothing to cover. And then we had a liaison, bruce bedroomen, who was in charge of that, and bruce berman, who was in charge of that, he tried to rally up another meeting, and they didnt have any interest on that. Can i ask two questions to staff . I can clarify too a little bit. It wasnt a noticed neighborhood meeting as i think the Planning Department typically expects. So we can certainly do that. It was a meeting with michelle wool who was the main representative for some of the concerned neighbors. Okay. Thank you. Staff, i have questions for you. When the conditions were put in place last year, was it your expectation there would be unannounced visits to the rear yard . Mine . Yeah, staff. Well, its written that way in the motion. It says, so if i announced them i would not be adhering to the motion. And says here that they didnt meet the condition about a neighborhood meeting. They are saying they had one. Yeah. Any meetings that happened, i dont know about them. The meeting that was put in place by the condition said that staff should attend. I dont think it says anything about notification so meetings may have occurred but a meeting specifically that satisfies that condition that says attended by staff was not held. Another followup question, which is what is the enforcement right of the Planning Department, assuming we go forward, if we go forward, does the Planning Department and also the department of Public Health have the right to go back and do inspections and shut them down if they are not in compliance with the conditions . Well, i can speak only to Planning Departments enforcement requirements, basically any condition of any motion must be enforced. But are you required you had a oneyear inspection rule. Are you suggesting additional inspections be carried out on a regular basis . Im suggesting nothing other than the conditions that are proposed here. And they dont require that at the moment, is that correct . No ongoing inspections by the Planning Department to ensure thats not whats before you. Correct. If you have other conditions that you would like to place upon it, thats your prerogative, is my understanding. Going back to your original question, basically our Enforcement Team handles not just Building Permit issues, building beyond the scope but also conditions of approval. If any of those conditions are not met, then enforcement staff will helicopter to work on that. Theres an enforcement planner who has been assigned to this case for quite a while, and we have been in constant communication so make sure they are working towards adhering to all conditions. One of those conditions would be getting the Outdoor Activity area certified, which they are seeking to do today. Thank you. Ill say to the other commissioners, i wasnt here a year ago when this was approved. I believe there is a need for more dog facilities in the city. I own a dog and probably a number of us own dogs and want to be able to accommodate dogs. But im really troubled by the fact that they didnt comply with two conditions that exist already. And i personal at the moment would be in favor of continuing this until they comply with the exact language of those conditions. Assuming they do that and staff comes back and tells us, maybe that would change the nature of staffs conditions if they actually held the neighborhood meeting that staff attended and actually saw the backyard. And i dont feel at the moment, prepared to make a decision until theres full compliance with those conditions. And on top of that, assuming we get there, i would like to see a condition that has periodic inspections at least for a while afterwards so we can make sure that they can, once the noise is taken care of, and the concrete is in place, to see actually whether or not its working. But thats just what im thinking at the moment, but i would love to hear from the rest of you in terms of where your views are. Commissioner fung. Another question for staff. It was similar to the question i asked the applicant. But when i read the condition about the sound testing, it was to the premises, not related to the yard. Sorry. Yeah. Is mine on . Yeah. When i read the condition for the sound test, and it applied to the building, i believe. As part of the original conditional use. And so the applicant is saying that they are going to do the sound test after the turf is in the rear yard is changed. Well, that has nothing to do with the sound prevention from the building. Is that not correct . Ill refer specifically to the language of the motion. So that would be condition number 19, which reads, let me see, the project sponsor shall consult a licensed sound jeer to determine best practice of noise abatement concerns and shall implement any methods recommended by the sound engineer. The premises, so i guess maybe your definition of premises. The premises shall be adequately insulated for noise so the noise shall not be audible beyond the premises. I dont think its my interpretation of the word premises. Its your condition. As far as you know, then, they had the one meeting but no mitigations were discussed between the project sponsor and the neighbors . If meetings occurred outside my knowledge, i cant speak to it you are not aware of any . Correct. Ive heard what the sponsors told me today which is that they met and tried to discuss issues and whatever the outcomes of those were was the outcome. Just to conclude my comments, im also not supportive at this point. Based upon the fact that if there is noise in a facility and its bothersome to some potentially, the generator of that noise in their Business Needs to take care of that within their own facility. Commissioner moore. Were you the planner last year on this project say that once more. Were you the planner last year of this project . Ive been the planner since the beginning of the project, yeah. For those commissioners who were not around last year, it was an extremely contentious meeting as you will recall. The opposing party is not here, but that does not make me not remember how controversial the meeting was. One of the reasons why its controversial is this commission very much supports Small Business, and particularly the lombard corridor. However, the adjoining residential neighborhood, as you move up towards the south, is all residential. Its high on residential, they live pretty much right on top of this small open yard which is in question. The noise issue is a matter of personal sensitivity. And even one dog barking too many hours in an apartment during the day can be of great annoyance to one person. In this particular case, we had an entire Representative Group of adjoining neighbors coming and saying they just could not really envision having multiple dogs barking out there, and dogs not necessarily bark but they do. And when we speak about Outdoor Activity areas, for example, an outdoor sitting area for restaurant or bar, we always are very, very careful in order to find appropriate noise attenuation members or not permit it at all depending how close residential is nearby. Im on the fence on this one. I was not really supporting outdoor at that time either. I support the operation as an indoor facility with the proper noise provisions. But just as my fellow commissioners here to my right, at this moment, i am not in support of this being permitted for an extra outdoor area. Particularly i believe that the concrete surface for this particular rear yard is not the appropriate measure adjoining to other outdoor open spaces for residential use. Seeing as that there is very high demand for these businesses in this location, i would be supportive of denial. Im leaping toward supporting but would be okay with the continuance. Commissioner imperial. Incidence i was not here and opposition are not here. But i am support this Small Businesses as well. But i would like to see as well as like a plan for more consistent inspection and to have Community Meeting, it would be great to have a planner to be in that Community Meeting so that you can also give us that kind of feedback when you return as to what has inspired. So i would support in continuing this item as well. A motion . Commissioner johnson i will make a motion. I agree with my fellow commissioners. I think not having met many of the conditions gives us pause. I think the benefit of meeting with the holding a Community Meeting as well is that i think some of us are on the fence about whether or not this Outdoor Activity is actually a good use in this space. So understanding what mitigations you might be willing to put in place with Community Members or other things you might do to operate outside with your dogs is important to us in helping us make a determination. So with that, i will move to continue this item. Second. Do you have a clarification before you do that. Does your motion also for continuance, can it be amended to include the unannounced inspection of the backyard . Absolutely. That was the original condition, so i would like to see them do that. I dont know if commissioner im in agreement with commissioner fungs condition about the study on the premises that currently exist. Thank you for helping me be more specific. I think what were looking for is a Community Meeting held. A sound engineer around the interior of the building. And also an inspection which will be unannounced by nature of the inspection. Of the outside area. The outside area as well. Thank you. Then i second that. Or there already was. I seconded it. Is that amendable . You mentioned there were restrictions on allowing that inspection, correct . Can you elaborate on that . Yeah. I think you need to work with the Insurance Company to figure out. Well, i can probably make that happen. I can probably it is for the safety of the inspector, with dogs. I would get a key from one of our neighbors upstairs and always have it there accessible so any time an inspector came in, i could take them straight upstairs, and he wouldnt have to walk through the pit area and be exposed to the dogs. Right. No problem. Can i clarify on what the motion is . Is the motion to approve the c. U. Subsequent to the continuing . No. So heres my question. Are you requiring them to do the rear yard improvements without the right to use the rear yard . Clarify on that. Yeah. Come on up, staff. From my understanding, im not there every day. To my understanding, they are not permitted to use the rear yard now. From what we have been told, they are not using the rear yard. I will adhere to any motion that requires inspection, but i think what they are trying to say, and i maybe need to clarify, is i mean, i can inspect the rear yard, but my understanding is there wont be any dogs there, which is fine, im happy to do that nonetheless. I just wanted to clarify what that is from my understanding. Unannounced inspection, it maybe to confirm that there are no dogs in the rear yard. Also id like planning staff to see the rear yard, because it may be that once they are there, and they see where the windows are that they may come up with additional suggestions for conditions. So i still think its beneficial. Did you have a time frame for the continuance, commissioner . Seems like they have a lot of work to do ahead of them. Do you have a suggestion . As soon as they can excuse me. As soon as they can do it. I dont want to continue this on some arbitrary number. They are anxious to get going, so how fast do you think you can satisfy the conditions . Come on up. Im at the point where its difficult for us to stay open in San Francisco. We have been serving thousands of clients for the better part of the decade, and this cost us hundreds and thousands of dollars. We are at the point of bankrupting the business. We are doing the best we can. Theres a need for the business. We are losing clients and we are losing staff because we are getting harassed by neighbors. The corridor is really loud. So we could bring an acoustical engineer. Ive worked for one of those companies before. We are happy to have someone come out but we are not the only noise in the neighborhood. Its commercial lombard corridor. Its highway one. We are getting beat up because of the noise but nobody is thinking about the fact that theres a lot of noise, and we are not the only dog. Im so tired of how much work weve done on this and how hard it was for us to open in 2009, and we keep getting put through the ringer, and im sorry, but i just cant stay in San Francisco anymore if this is going to continue to happen to us. We need use of the rear yard. Weve lost so much on this already so the neighbors can be happy about that because they want us shut down ultimately. Having a meeting with them, i dont know how much thats going to help. Because they want us shut down. Theres nothing we can do to appease them. Okay. Thank you. I believe in experience, acoustical engineer can judge on the levels of noise, depending on use, not on this very specifics of the facility. I do think that commissioner fungs request to also reflect on the noise coming from the interior is equally important, but that cant be done without the rear yard being fully built out. So i personally would suggest we give this four to sixweeks if you can do it earlier, that would be fine but having also meeting is obviously something you need to prepare for. Given the nature of the meeting, i think actually giving them a couple of months just with schedules and things like that would feel a little bit better. But again agreed that dont want to drag this out longer. The urgency. April 23rd. Yeah. Do you have a comment . April 23rd was the continuance. I mean, i think what are we now . March i think we can probably do it a little bit sooner. Clarification that we need to be done again. I think just from being here, they want just another, like, outline of what needs to be done. Then they would have a better idea. The commission in their motion made it explicit. Compliance and adherence to the original conditions of approval. They have attended noticed Community Meeting. That was part of the original conditions of approval. Correct. Im explaining. Things that have not been done to date commissioner diamond. So we have two times when we are not meeting between now and april 23. So i want to make sure that theres room on the agenda, to do it before april 23. There really isnt unless we do march 19 which i dont believe theres enough time. April 23 then. Very good, commissioners on that motion to continue this matter to april 23 with direction for the project sponsor so adhere to the original conditions of approval, [roll call vote] so moved, that motion passes unanimously 60. Commissioners that will place us under your discretionary review calendar, item 15a was withdrawn and 15b was continued places us on item 16 for case number 201913012drp02 at 621 11th avenue. Good afternoon, commissioners. David winslow, staff architect. The item is a public initiated request for a discretionary review of Building Permit application 20190613. 3354 to construct a second story horizontal rear addition of 12. side setback to the north and of side setback to the south along with a first floor horizontal rear addition that extends 8 10s beyond the first floor and the 4 side setback to the north of 621 11th ann. There are two d. R. Requesters. Kevin wong, the adjacent neighbor to the south and chao of 619 11th avenue, neighbor to the north. They are concerned the proposed project violates the residential Design Guidelines related to neighborhood character, light, air, privacy and scale and access to the midblock open space. The proposed alternatives are to reduce the extension of the second floor by three to five feet, stagger the windows facing their properties and make the sidewalls to the deck transparent. To date, department has received no letters in support or in opposition to the project. Because the extent configuration of the proposed rear addition including the four foot and six foot side set backs, echoes the pattern of massing found on the two adjacent properties that preserves access to the midblock open space, light, air and privacy, staffs recommendation is to not take d. R. And as the project does not present any exceptional or extraordinary conditions. This concludes my presentation. And im happy to answer questions. Thanks. Thank you, mr. Winslow. So we have two d. R. Requesters. We are going to hear from d. R. Requester number one first. Come on up. Is that on . Sf gov, can you go to the overhead, please . Good afternoon, commissioners. I hope you are well. My name is kevin wong and my wife and two sons, 11 and nine, live at 625 11th avenue. We are the south neighbor to the proposed project. We have lived there since june of 2011. Before i begin, i would like to acknowledge that we have enjoyed being the neighbors. They are good people. But the past years, we have been their neighbors and we hope they dont take this process personally. We understand that regardless of the outcome, our hope is they see us in the same vain as we see them. We truly value being Good Neighbors. We believe in being considerate, conscientious and communicative in building Good Relationships. We wish we did not have to take your time in this matter. But despite this sponsors good character, their actions have shown zero consideration and next to nothing in regards to communication while drafting this project. I say extremely disappointing that the sponsor and their architect refuse to discuss the project with us. I have seen this department and commission prohibit projects from moving forward for approval until the owner tries to at least listen or work with their neighbors. In this case, we are attempting to sit down with the sponsors to voice concerns about the project. And each time the sponsors and their team have either denied the request or ignored them. When we first saw the plans, we were concerned that the plans may not have been accurate. Submittal did not show windows on the north side of our property. We requested the adjacent building be shown accurately so we can understand the impact of this project. We have asked the owners to provide three renderings of the light and shadow studies so the impact can be better understood. I have seen many projects from this commission provide this information to neighbors when requested. In fact when we did our remodel, a light and shadow study was provided, reflecting our attempt to be considerate to those around us. Despite the refusal of any discussion about this project with us, we believe there are exceptional circumstances that would deem this condition to take d. R. The residential Design Guidelines and planning code require that light is maintained to adjacent propertys and consider the impact an expansion has on light and privacy for structures. The volume of the project shall reduce our light and privacy and specifically will box in the rear of our second floor where our family and i spend most of our time. This is the main gathering space for us and contains our desk which my wife and i use daily since we work from home. In addition, our sons in the afternoon spend most their time in this room, basking in the westerly day light, reading books and doing homework. The decks will look straight into the windows of the properties on either side, reducing privacy. We are not trying to stop them from building and developing their home. Their current proposal creating a large Family Structure with nearly 4,300 square feet. Given this amount of Square Footage, we believe this is an opportunity to make minor changes that will help minimize impact to our light and privacy. The sponsor refused to talk to us. We would have the commission to have the extension match ours. This would reduce their current extension by three feet which is a 75 square feet reduction to their proposed project. We would also like the sidewalls of the deck to be cable railing or glass to further preserve our light. We would like to request the windows on the south side on the second floor be staggered to preserve privacy. As you can see from the exhibit, it creates a visual highway into each others homes. This element of design is a lack of thoughtfulness while taking away our privacy. We feel these three items are minor alterations and had they been willing to show an ounce of consideration, a little bit of Community Spirit and openness to dialogue as Good Neighbors do, we felt we could have reached a compromise to satisfy all parties involved and avoid taking your time. However, since we cannot force the owner to speak to us about what we believe are reasonable concerns and requests, we respectfully ask this commission to take d. R. And include these minor modifications. Thank you. Thank you. Now we are going to hear from d. R. Requester number two. Come on up. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is chao. I have been living at 11th avenue since 1992 with my wife and daughter. This is my first time here. So please excuse my accent. When we were first notified about this project where there was no date or time for the required preapp meeting, we have been able to obtain, but it was giving little detail of the project and promised by the architect to follow up which never occurred. We had a time, numerous time to walk with the owner and architect only to be ignored. We had a time to relayout comes about inaccurate plans as we know that most of the work done to this home in the past was done without a permit, without waiting for the permit for plans. We are concerned about the order Property Line windows. We are also impressed with plannings effort to have us meet to reach a compromise and given mr. David winslow open gate for the meeting. Once again, the project sponsor refused. So, commissioners, we have left with no choice but to file d. R. We are simply asking for the following items. One, accurate showing of all windows on the property. We believe this will provide a better understanding of the impact that this extension has to our light. Two, new windows on this project should be staggered so that it does not look into our windows, thereby affecting our privacy and light. Three, any vertical part of the deck should be either rail or glass to further minimize any impact to our light. Four, scale back this proposed secondfloor extension by five feet to minimize the impact to our light so we can see in this photo. We have little light. Which would be totally lost in this living room. We are supportive of the project sponsor renovating their home. We are also concerned with the impact to our daughter, my 36yearold daughter is autistic the and living with us. She spends most her time in the living room which would be most affected by this project. She does not allow she loves the sunshine. She not only love the sunshine in the living room but also her Disability Access to light is necessary to her health. We are surprised that the Planning Department and this commission would approve a project where the project sponsor refused to discuss the project with adjacent neighbors. Any application to accommodate to serious concern to light and privacy. We ourselves made numerous changes to our home renovated to accommodate mr. Mcclaire by eliminating our deck and decrease the size of window because he wants to see the open space of our backyard. The owner was a without any consideration to adjacent neighbors. There were other San Francisco property to minimize impact to the adjacent neighbors light and privacy. Commissioners, the proposed project does not even attempt to minimize impact on light and privacy to adjacent properties. The project sponsor is seeking to build a large singlefamily home nearly 4,300 square feet. We have heard about numerous projects that would not only makeling minor modification or accommodate neighbor concern but also including an a. D. U. , other changes to ensure that the project is consistent with the citys housing policy. And all direction to work with others neighbors. We respectfully request that the commission take a discretionary review and incorporate the minor modifications which will still result in a home over 4,200 square feet. Thank you very much for the attention. Thank you very much. Now we will take any Public Comment in support of the d. R. Requesters opposed to the project. Okay. Seeing none, project sponsor, your turn. Good afternoon, commissioners and mr. Winslow. I am jim mccare and my wife mary and i are the owners of 621 11th avenue. We have lived there for 37 years. We have always had a Good Relationship with our neighbors, including the chens to the north and wongs to the south. These are the two neighbors that are requesting the d. R. Application. These two neighbors have extended their houses in a way that is very close to what we are proposing. When the chens added on years ago we were not happy with the amount of light and view we lost but at that time we thought this is what the city is allowing, the planning and we will just have to get used to it. We also thought at some point that we might do a similar project. A few years ago, kevin wong at 625 did a similar addition and resulted in the same situation, blocked light and view to our house. And again, we did not interfere with this project. Now it is time for us to add onto our house. Our daughter and soninlaw and grandchild live with us. They work in the city, and Everybody Knows what housing in the city is like. For this reason, we want to maximize our allowable space at our house. We were very surprised when these two neighbors objected to our plans since we felt they already did what we planned to do, and we felt our plans were reasonable. The size of our second floor additions extends a little further than the wongs addition but less than the chens addition and is narrower than both. Our setback is four on the north which is less than their setbacks to our house. We feel our plans are very reasonable, and thats what i we did not want to change them, and we felt like what is there for them to do should be fair for us to do. So i would like to show a few pictures. So this is the relationship between the three houses. You are going to have to pull that microphone over and speak into it. Their houses are outlined in red. As you can see, the 619 is about three feet from our Property Line, we would be four feet from theirs. And kevin wongs is four feet, while we would be six feet. Ours is outlined in the green. Its a little further out than him but not nearly as far out as theirs. If we cut back five feet, we would be nine feet back from where they are right now. As far as the Square Footage they mentioned our house is about 2500 now and we are going to be putting on around 700 so thats not 4,000 feet like what they were saying. This picture is actually from the chens application, and it shows the relationship of the three houses where they state our house is out of character with the neighborhood. I would say that the picture of our house in the middle fits in quite well with the houses on either side of it. This right here is a picture from my roof looking down at the chens addition on the righthand side over here. Our addition is going to mirror our deck right here. So you can see the difference in size and what we are adding on to the second floor. This is another picture of the chens house next to us and our deck, the size that we are going to add on. As you can see, this is the size of our addition again, same thing. We are going to add on the size of our deck right here. Theres a lot of room between our house and the wongs house to the south. Theres at least ten feet right there. This is the wongs addition. Its a beautiful addition. And our lower floor will be the very similar to his, sticking out below the fence line. And our second floor will be the same height as theirs. We will be narrower because we couldnt go all the way to the Property Line on that side. This is a view of the wongs house looking out of our dining room window. You can see the addition comes right to here that they added on. It does block some of our light and view from that side. And this is what we look at every day out of our kitchen window is the the chens side. The windows they are worried about are back in here so partly are blocked by their stairway. So we know they want us to change the size of our building, but i feel like our plans are very reasonable, and i actually talked to kevin wong about that before, and if you remember seeing my response, i address the thing about the window. I said we would put fogged or ribbed glass in so we wouldnt be looking into his house. We really dont want to do that anyway. So we just, we feel like it was fair for them to do, should be fair for us to do. Thats why, you know, we knew they wanted us to knock a lot of space off, but we felt like we wanted to pursue the plans the way they were drawn up and approved. So thats it. Thank you. So you have four minutes left. If theres someone that lives in the same house as you, now would be their same time to speak. Otherwise theyll be called up as Public Comment later. I think weve said it all. You know, not meeting with them is just because they knew what we wanted to do, and they knew we felt like it was fair so why would we want to chop five feet off when theyre already almost four feet past us. And talking about how much Square Footage, thats not even true. And we will have you back up here for a twominute rebuttal if you want too. If theres anyone from the public in support of the project sponsor in favor of the project, now is your time to speak. Okay. Seeing none, the d. R. Requesters, you each have a twominute rebuttal. Thank you, commissioners. So some of the ideas, on the plans themselves, to say that will house will be 4,287 square feet. So theres the discrepancy, its not being reflected in the plans that should be accurately drawn. Second of all, in terms of the character, youll see that on the foes he presented photos he presented, desid i did have cable railing as well as the i did have cable railing as well as the neighbors twodoors down have cable railing. He mentioned having ribbed glass but those are temporary solutions. Those are areas where the windows could be easily replaced to be clear from another owner, so we aring for something more we are looking for something more permanent to preeve our privacy. The preserve our privacy. The other thing is theres no objection to the building of the property. We just want to ask for modifications. The fact that we couldnt sit down, as you can see, they felt they had the right to do whatever they wanted to do. We felt thats not very communityspirited as well as not consistent with the Planning Commissions guidelines for building. And again, we havent seen if there were going to be ribbed glass or fogged glass, there werent any modifications shown in the submitted plans that were provided. So that is all. Thank you for your time. D. R. Requester number two, you have a twominute rebuttal. Thank you, commissioners. I dont think because he say on the application that you can see the 4,000 feet. You look there. The extension the building to where the current deck is, in addition to extension of those severely impact my light and the entire rail portion, my building. Okay, you can see that from this. And the extension here, this is the extension to the house. Almost equal to my house. In addition to what they say. You can look at the back. Because they are sitting on the top of the hill. Five feet above us. So you can see the back of this, the extension here, totally out of my house. So blocking our light completely. So the neighbor deck transparent or glass. Theres no deck that can close a solid wall. You can see the deck is enclosed. Looks like a building out front. So totally no light goes through. So i dont think hes talking about is correct description if you look at it, their plan. Okay. Thats all my, the end of concern about this. Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor, you now have a twominute rebuttal as well. I still dont get where they are getting the 4,000 feet. But anyway. The walls we would like to put on the deck, on the side of the deck, would be similar to this, obviously. The microphone on the end, we were planning to have, it shows in our plans having a wire thing. But on the sides we feel like we would like to have the walls with the siding that matches our house to keep some privacy between their deck and our deck. I mean, their deck has the wire on the side. If we are sitting on our deck. So that kind of keeps things separate as far as we are concerned. I dont think thats a major thing because where his windows are would be looking over the deck. And the deck is at the ground level. Its not up at the second level where the addition is going to be. So anyway. Like i say, they extended out way past us. We have had to get used to that gigantic addition where they put their stairs out to the side. Weve lived with that for 12 years. And we just had to get used to it. Thats just what we figured in life. So we dont feel like our plans are unreasonable at all. We would like to pursue them the way they are. So thats about it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the Public Comment portion of this item. Ill just start off by saying im in favor of staffs recommendations and really think that this addition is smaller than the two on either sides of you. Commissioner diamond. Im also in favor of staffs recommendation. I didnt hear any description of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that in my opinion would justify taking d. R. Commissioner moore. I believe that the applicant is showing the modulation that is very much reflective of whats to the left and to the right, to the north and south, and i could not see anything exceptional or extraordinary myself either. I make a motion to approve. Second. Seeing nothing further theres a motion that has been seconded to not take d. R. And approve the project as proposed. On that motion[roll call vote] so moved. That motion passes unanimously 60. Places on us item 17 for case number 20177931drp02, 2630 divisadero street. Discretionary review. Good afternoon. David winslow, staff architect. The item is a public request for discretionary review of Building Permit 20190613. 3554 to demolish a threestory Single Family dwelling and construct a new threestory, 7700 square foot singlefamily dwelling. The proposed new building will be three feet shorter than the new building as it will have a flat roof, above which 720square foot roof deck is proposed. There are two d. R. Requesters. Laura and raphael of 2673 broad way and cindy of 2682 broad way. Both parties are adjacent neighbors to the south. She is concerned the proposed additional is not articulated to reduce impacts to privacy and light. The rear is not compatible with the scale at the midblock open space. The roof deck impacts privacy and violates an existing view and that the noise from the roof equipment will be excessive. The proposed alternatives are to confine the project to the footprint, and to eliminate the proposed roof deck. She is concerned about noise due to mechanical roof equipment as well, nighttime litem nateing from the skylight and privacy light emanating from the skylight and privacy. Her proposed alternatives are to reduce the size of the roof deck and limit the usable area to the east of the skylight, reduce and provide coverage of the skylight, relocate rooftop mechanical equipment and reduce the massing at the southeast corner. To date, the department has received no letters in support nor letters in opposition. Staffs recommendation is to take the d. R. And approve the project with the following modification to reduce the massing at the southeast corner, at the third floor, the original line of the rear wall, the bay projections, provide an adequate notch that allows for midblock open space and light to ms. Yus property in particular. This concludes my presentation. Im happy to take questions. We will hear from d. R. Requester number one. I have some documents. [please stand by] cindy was fair and you would expect a Good Neighbor to be. They have asked for mitigation of mechanical noise and line of sight and mitigation of personal mitigation of the skylight and they, as well as the solar panels and low profile brackets for which we thank them, they have been inflection able with respect to the rear yard massing and roof deck. The mass of skylight is a pollution concern but with respect to the roof deck, the proposal is massive. Its a thousand square feet and it covers almost the entire roof, the deck would be close to lauren and rafaels home and the window into the main living area would be 15 or less feet away. It would have a negative impact on their privacy as the deck would have direct line of sight into their main living area and would create significant Light Pollution and rooftop clutter. Further, this deck, which exhibits many features such as cooking and storage facilities, is meant to be a party deck with an intensity of use out of charter with the neighborhood. It presents noise concerns and an unreasonable imposition on neighbors in general. Therefore, we ask the roof deck be denied in full and the rear yard massing be consistent within a used position and confined at the second and thirdstorey of the project southeast corner to the current building envelope. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Lets hear from d. R. Requester number 2. Sf gov will go to it when you start speaking. Ok. Hi, good afternoon commissioners, david, and hello everybody. My name is cindy yu and i live at 2682 broadway and my house is directly perpendicular to the project sponsors house. Im showing you a diagram of hoe looking down on their house and its kind of exactly like how you are looking at this, my hitech demonstration right here. I built this myself yesterday because i thought it would best and most efficiently explain my concerns. So, the viewpoint where you are sitting is where my house is. This is the project sponsors house as it currently is. With its current footprint. The new proposal that they plan to have is to build out a rear extension such as this. So, in essence, this is what im going to be looking at. The lines you see here from this loin to this line is the current width of my house. My house right set up above to this and my direct line of sight. I do understand that planning has suggested and made a recommendation that you will approve this house with the modification. Modification being that this part is removed and this part is going to be the new proposed plan according to modification recommended by planning. To me, this doesnt serve the purpose. I know you are all vested with why this discretionary power to deny and grant permits. Im not asking you to deny it. Im asking you for a chance to look at this from my point of view and i also fall under the am bid of your power to protect my power with my access to mid block open space. Thats what im asking. So for me, the best scenario is they can maintain the current footprint leaving their existing open balcony on the third floor open but extend first, second flor floor, in the back on the lower floors. To me, i feel this is effective because it essentially protects and up holds this section which is my only access to mid block open space. My building is odd because im sandwiches between two houses on both sides with non confirming, which are no non conforming structures. I dont have open space on this side at all because lauras building is right here. This is my only slit for air light. This is my only access to mid block open space. By just enclosing this and cutting this notch out, it doesnt really relief the light her tailment and i want to bring to you the attention of what the Planning Commission did about 20 years ago. My house is my whole block went through demolition and construction. I went through remodeling adjacent to my house, we went through demolition and remodeling. So planning has ruled that my neighbor here, oops, my neighbor here, they wanted to push the back rear to this line. Planning has ruled, because of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of restricted space in the back. Leaving me with only this mass of open space, for light and air, that they had asked them to move the line back to be flush with my building. I ask you to uphold the ruling that you did 20 years ago and protect that little con constrid space in the back. Thank you. Well take Public Comment from members of the public in support of the d. R. Requesters in support of the project. Seeing none, the project sponsor. You are up. Good afternoon, commissioners, jody knight. On behalf of project sponsors tella and thomas. Were here today on a project that we think is compatible with the surrounding buildings and reasonable for the site. As you hear when you hear about the design, although, theres Square Footage being added only 469 feet is above grade because every effort has been made to minimize any impacts. Weve had many discussions with the project and we had followup conversations and unfortunately were here today. A few issues that were working with the dr requesters regardless of any other outcome in terms of the sky light issues related to the mechanic als and solar panels and were working with the dr requesters on that and theyre just goodneighbor issues and well continue to work on that. The house is designed to be built below that easement. The dr request that people on the roof violates its an object on the roof that violatesment. We did think theres legal merit to that but it may be a question for a judge for another day. Its not a question for the commissioners here. I will now pass this off to jim westover who will present the design and we have questions and thank you for your time today. Good afternoon, this is Dustin Foster and im jim. This first image we will start with is an areaal view to give you context. Our clients house is outlined in red and. The main takeaway is the two houses are up the hill from us and theyre top two levels and theyre roof deck do look directly over our project so i dont think theres an issue with light and air. Also theres no blocking of direct sunlight just ambient sunlight and well go into more detail on that. The next i am age is a front elevation in relation to the u residents. The blue dash line is showing the existing profile. And i think were showing here is were expanding the profile in this view and were adding throw feet at the side and its occurring next to the other house on the corner and it was not one of the dr requesters. Were increasing, were not increasing the roof height but we have a railing that increases the over all height by 14 inches. The other thing we want to know is the u residents does have a 25foot rear yard so if i look at this theres access to light air and mid block open space. The next exhibit one other thing i also want to. This is looking at the back of our clients house in relation to the residents. The blue dash line is the existing profile and weve stepped it back to address concerns and this dark line is showing the rear wall and a hatched section and that setback five foot eight and theres another line that you will see. Its at the front of the house so that doesnt occur adjacent to the dr requestors. Since the residents abuts our rear yard its important to note were not blocking any light or access to midblock open space. The concern there is really just privacy. So well talk about that in a second. This is the south elevation so this is what the d. R. Requesters are looking at. The big takeaway is most of the area being added is a new basement. The existing first floor shown in green on the side facing the dr is below grade and below the fence. Were looking at the green and blue area where were adding 46. The next one is the third there were plan which is the top floor plan on this project. The original in blue and the original design was in red so that complied with the planning code but there were concerns from the neighbors and rdat about the visual connection to mid block open space. Since that meeting, with the neighbors and at the rtat we have setback the notch at the top two levels throw feet. There was a concern about no light coming in and if we look at the corner house on this image, which is 2690 broadway its a one story gorge so theres afternoon light coming in that yard. On our roof plan, we do have a small backyard in shade. We have proposed a roof deck to get access to sunlight and enjoy the same views that are enjoyed by the dr requesters. The area is about 750 square feet. Its set away from the dr requestors and its setback 16. 2 from the bay window and 39foot four from the yu residents. Again, the massing is setback at the corner so theres still some visual connection from the yu residents. As recommended by david winslow, we also offered to move this rear wall back that setback 58. They were offering to move it all the way back to its existing location at the third floor but that was rejected by the neighbors. We also understand that the current staff report is recommending making this same change at the second and third floors and if we are required to make that change, we would request that it be at the third floor. The reason for that is if we switch to the next exhibit, what you will see is that the second flor, which we like to keep as proposed is at the basement level of yu level. So at the first floor where the bedrooms are and all the floors above that theyre not going to be effected by that. The other things we want to note here is the relative height difference and ms. Yu favorite us photographs we used from our home so we did before and after exhibits when we met with her. And i think these are instructed what were seeing on the left is the before image with the house in pink. You can see the view, access to open space or to public mid block open space and a view of alcatraz. If the proposed version, we still have light and air. Weve reduced the view to mid block open space but it still occurs to the right of that post and theres also still a view of alcatraz. Private views arent protected and it was mentioned by the neighbors when we met with them so we wanted to show we were trying to preserve that. This next one is going up one flor in the yu residents. This is her living room. You see our clients house in pink and then to the right, you are seeing the new project and this demonstrates theres essentially no difference in view, light or air from this level. And at the mess inine level theyre up one there were. This is where theres a privacy issue the thing to note is theres an existing balcony that i would think already presents what they might consider a privacy issue in the new scheme, the roof deck is actually going to be setback a little bit so i think any privacy concerns are really no change from exiting to proposed and again in terms of light, air and that kind of thing theres no impact whatsoever. How are we doing on time . I think that concludes our presentation. Are there any questions . If theres any members of the public that want to testify in support of the project sponsor, now is the time. Seeing none. The dr requestors you each get a twominute rebuttal. Laura will give the rebuttal we are happy to answer questions afterwards. Hi, thank you all for listening today. I just want to keep it chick. Privacy is a really big issue for us because we do live in that non confirming house. One of them that cindy mentioned they were nice to rearrange it to be slightly further away so we appreciate that. But theres such a closeness there that we are really concerned about the privacy on our main living space. The houses were designed. All of the houses on that block were designed with contractual agreements that impact the way the house was designed and the way it was lived in and when we rebuilt, basically the kitchen and the living space are on a floor to take advantage of light and views absolutely but its also just that main living area and theres an expectation that you have that privacy that came with those deeds and. I just want to get those out. Time is up many of. You are welcome. And dr requester number 2, you have two minutes. Ok. Thank you for listening to me. Id like to show you a little drawing that i it again. I am only concerned about the third there were of the project sponsors hes building. Because this number one, is my building and my bedroom. I am not concerned about anything about views. I know that the planning code does not. 99 of the design i approve and im happy theyre going to build it. A small change for them is a huge impact on me. And that is why im here today to ask for your consideration. And to put it in light, this is the section wore talking about in terms of the mass this is very little its just the end of the top third there were o floow building. I hope you will take this into consideration and help with the modifications that is needed before you approve the permit for them. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you, very much. That closes the public side of the hearing. Ill just start off by saying im in support of the proposed project minus half of the roof deck. I would be ok keeping the front side of the roof deck. Id like to also speak about the roof deck. The question to the architect, i see mechanical equipment, could you please come up . Thank you. I see mechanical equipment indicated could you specify what it is . It is airconditioned or heat pump . Wore trying to get planning approval so we havent engineered anything and i dont know if well do airconditioning but its heat pumps at the place holder for equipment but we have a section and a diagram. Its going to be below the level of i believe of the para pit and well to whatever best practices for noise. Just anecdotally, the house on the corner has rooftop equipment on top of their garage adjacent and we to have any noise issues. Im asking you questions and thats i do. We would very much like to know as to whether or not you are doing aircondition. Im sure a house of that kind of large set up, you know that already. The rules will change and i will ask mr. Winslow to help us with that. If its airconditioned were in a different ball game in comparison to heat condensers . Im not a mechanic allen guinear its well beyond my knowledge between the two and their sound. Maybe you can can show that section again. There we go. So i think what this is showing is we have a wall which will block visual access and the other thing we would be happy to do if theres any criteria for sound transmission like they have in atherton if we need sound a ten youation on the wall or with partial cover, were happy to do that. That aside for a moment, the size of the roof deck, given that this commission has discussed roof decks for quite a few years and were working with the department to establish policy, the roof deck is larger than a Single Family home in some cases in the city. I am concerned that this type of a roof deck given the neighborhood is creating more problems than anticipated. That is noise and visual interference with people who live slightly above ann an a jog streets. The commission has basically generically spoken about that onethird of the roof area is recommended in roof deck. Onethird was proposal i believe that never went further than that but when we are what wove done in the meantime, is weve adopted commonsense approach to looking at the roof deck in terms of size and locations. So, when we see large roof decks, its naturally we assume there are large gatherings of people and nuisances from time to time and so we do troy and tend towards reducing that to the thing of a third or 500 square feet per that original roof deck policy. The non authorized roof deck policy. In this particular case, could you guide the commission a little bit your thoughts on which part of the building that would be best accommodated . Given the key lot conditions of the adjacent properties and the proximity outlined by the dr requestors it could be more appropriately located towards the front of the building without detriment to the users and nuisance to the dr requestors. I would agree with you and that would be for me, one of the conditions. Im still trying to fully understand the concerns about dr requestor number two, speaking about being blocked and relative to the strange location of the key lot. Is that anything you as a rd talked about . So in our rereview and subsequent negotiations i think we identified the recommendation in front of you which is incorrectly revised which was the third floor notching the third floor to the existing building until a point where the existing Buildings Bay protrudes out. That allies with misused basement level if you will. It was a reduction to the roof deck would be the minimum i would suggest if we are taking dr so id like to make a motion we take dr. Reduce the roof deck as outlined together with the notch on the third floor that you are already discussing with the applicant. Id like the architect to respond to what the appropriate line would be assuming we were in favor of reducing the roof deck, could you tell us . Its a good question. Just to clarify a few things. These are two foot by two foot squares if we can get the roof plan up so just its closer to 250 square feet which is probably a little more than a third of the area so, one proposal is to move the rear portion of the roof deck towards the front until we get to onethird. We would be happy to cut it in half and knock it back another 12 feet that means anybody on that roof deck could be further away from the bay window then they currently are on the balcony at the third floor. Could i make an observation as well. Typically the roof deck policy has a 5 for th 5foot setback. Im not sure it makes sense to maintain that 5 for the setback as well as on the Northern Edge at the front. Theres also a side setback separating you from the downhill neighbor. That might be a way of having, you know, having more area available to you and reducing the deck from the year. I think if i can can chime in. If im not mistaken, its very specifically for the firefighters being able to access the roof. Not to my knowledge. I only know about the one we imposed from our continued deliberations on roof decks. I would be supportive of maintaining that 5foot and i thought onethird was too big for this roofdeck. I would support the commissioner moores position to notch the they had floothird flor at the d and we accept the reduction of the deck by the eastern portion of that from the stair be cut in half. Just to clarify. When you say cut in half, are you talking about the line wove drawn on the image here . Yes. Thank you. So there is a motion and i did not hear a second. I did hear an alternate suggestion. I dont know if the motion clarified ex lo exactly what too with the roof deck. Reduce it by they ha third t. Mr. Winslow, could you just mr. Winslow indicated is onethird or 500 square feet maximum or Something Like that but this is a little different. Were doing all the math. Pull it forward here. Please, mr. Winslow. I will use the overhead. This is the outline proposed by commissioner moore as the roof deck. Are you proposing that the front of it could move forward . Yes, i would agree with mr. Winslow it could move forward by two feet. That is Still Holding behin givt more area. Chair m. Marquez is everybody ok with that . Is that part of your motion, commissioner moore. Yes, it is. Second. Did that also encloud your comments. Roughly. Theres a motion that has been seconddegree. On the motion, reduce the roof deck allowing a two foot extension forward and on the third floor. Mr. Winslow, a question, is the motion in words explicit enough to the degree of reduction on the right side of the deck . I heard two feet but not the dough lynthedelineating commentt side. There was a diagram submitted into the record by mr. Winslow that i believe he will use to address that. That would suffice otherwise the wordings does not express what were s