On april 3, 2020, the Planning Commission received authorization from the Mayors Office to reconvene through the end of the shelterinplace order. Recogniseing that the commissions consideration of certain projects is an essential government operation, and that the authorization directs the commission to prioritize consideration of action items pertaining to infrastructure housing and small business. I will also remind everyone that the platform that we are operating on is not perfect. And will be clumsy. There worrytherefore, we requesr patience. In event the at t bridge fails us, we may need to recess in order to log out and log back into the system, at which time we will notify members of the public to call back in. To enable public participation, we are broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda. Sf gov tv is streaming across the bottom of the screen and comments or opportunities to speak are available via phone by calling the 888 2733658 number and entering the access code of 3107452, pressing pound and pound again. When you want to speak to an item, you need to press 10 to get into the cue. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds left, youll hear the first chime and at the end, ill notify you your time is up and we will proceed to the next speaker. Best practises are to call from a quiet location, to speak clearly and lowly an slowly and alternatively, as always, you may submit Public Comment by email to commissions. Secretar commissions. Secretary. Gov. And i will ask you to ask staff to mute microphones when not speaking and before you start speaking, you need to unmute your microphone. Ok, i would like to take role. role call . Commissioners, first is items proposed for a continuance, items 1a and b on lombard street, review and variances, it was proposed to may 24, 2020 and they were proposed to june 18th, 2020. Item 2, number 201910421 at 657 mississippi street, discretionary review to may 21, 2020 and 3, 1042 drp and discretionary review to may 21, 2020, 4, 2016003164 gpa for the Healthcare Services matte mat n and item 5, 1769 lombard street proposed for continu continue w. And item number 6 and a variance and item 7 and 8, 0039 drp at masonic avenue for review and proposed to continuance for june chair, commissioners, we have received a request from the Supervisors Office to continue item 17, but again, through the chair, we will take up that matter of continuance when the item is called under the regular calendar. I have no other items proposed for continuance. Chan, any members of the public in cue . If you wish to speak to continuance, this would be your opportunity to press 10 to get into the cue. Operator your conference is in question and answer mode. You have three questions remaining. Question good afternoon. This is ty sullivan representing the project sponsor on item number 1 at 526 lombard street. We worked hard to revise and we have met with them and the neighbors have opined. However, we remain open to additional meetings with them, as well inaudible we are amenable to an extend th extended continuano june 1st to do continued outreach. Available for questions. Thank you. Operator you have are three questions remaining. Question im with the Neighborhood Council and coalition. Good afternoon, commissioners. I would like to request and support the request for continuance. I believe that the office of supervisor mendelman has requested a 30day continuance for the item and number 17, i believe, which is 3118 31s 3118 31st street. Were not considering that matter right now and well take that when its called under the regular calendar. Question im sorry, i thought the request for continuance is issued at the beginning of the meeting. I had no idea this wasnt requested at the beginning of the meeting. Im sorry. We shall wait until the item comes up before you. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Question good afternoon, president kop particular el and memberper, im speakingon items0 lombard street. I represent the dr requester who is the neighbor of the project. I sent out a letter asking for the continuance last night and hopefully everyone was able to look at it. We, too, support the continuance and im not sure that june 18th is enough time because the Zoning Administrator issued a ruling this morning at 8 30 and im not sure miss sullivan has seen it, determining that the new plans will have to be produced and that the project as it stands is in violation of the planning code and thats why we need more time. So im in support the continuance, was hoping it would be june 25th or maybe into july because of the need for new plans and, perhaps, need for new notification. But we can probably take that up in june if we dont make any progress. Thank you for your support. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. The items proposed for continuance are now before you. Commissiocommissioner johnson. I would like staff to talk about item 1a and b and tha. Im the staff architect. Can you hear me . Yes. So, yes, this morning we finally received a determination on the correct measurement of height for a narrow street on a condition that was being contested by the dr requester. And that information was forwarded to the project architects team. I think need time to reconcile that with the current design and two months from now or six weeks from now is probably sufficient time. If it isnt, we can certainly continue the item further to accommodate the desires of the community process. Im prepared to take that advisement and to continue items a and b for six weeks and continue items 28 to the date specified. So june 18th is ok . Yes. Very good. Second. Fine. Very good, then, commissioners, seeing nothing further, we can move on well, theres been a motion to continue items as proposed on that motion. role call . Thank you, commissioners. That motion passed unanimously 60. As acting Zoning Administrator, i would continue item 1b to the date specified. And you need to continue 7. 7, as well. Thank you, acting Zoning Administrator. That will place us under item 9, the Adoption Draft for april 9, 20. Commissioner diamond. Move to approve. Operator there was no Public Comment. Was there anyone in cue . We need to activate. Operator your question is s now in question and answer mode. Press 1 and then 0. No Public Comment. On the motion to adopt for april 9, 2020. role call . So moved, commissioners and that motion passes 60. Item 10, questions and comments. Seeing no requests to speak, i will move on to department matters, item 11, directors announcements. Good afternoon, commissioners. I wanted to give you an update. I mentioned the mayor had established an Economic Recovery Task force that work is starting this week and the task force has been put together, i think, and there are close to 100 people or more on it and i will serve on it former commissioner fong as well as mr. Chu are on the cochairs and well come back to the item to update you on the task forces work is our staff will be involved, as well. I wanted to thank that mary annf our staff are working and we have about 20 or more employees serving now who have served in various capacities from frontline staff to helping with the Planning Efforts and i wanted to recognise and thank them and thats my report. Very good. There are no questions, we can move on to the board of supervisors and board of appeals. There was no board of Commission Hearing yesterday. Good afternoon. Im aaron star, manager of legislative affairs. At this Land Use Committee meeting, there was no hearing. The chair plan station mixed use project, general plan, planning code, zoning map and agreement passed the second read. Also, the bayvie bayview triange passed their special read and the masonic passed its second read and the ocean avenue sponsored by supervisor yee passed the second read and thats all i have for you today. If there are no questions, the board of appeals met last night and conducted their first remote hearing using a zoom is broadcast the sf spaw gv tv usie conference line. Everything went smoothly and the boards next hearing is on may may 6th. It was a permit for horizonal condition and removable of a bay window that was remove without permit. The Planning Commission her this as a dr in july of 2019 and at this hearing, the Planning Commission took dr and required restoration of the bay window. At that hearing, the Planning Commission also heard a dr for the proposed construction of the adjacent lot off proving the project with modifications for the restored bay. However, the permit has not yet been issue thed and not the be subject of appeal. In approving this, they allowed the sponsor to remove windows from the restored bay that face on the new construction to be consistent with the residential Design Guidelines. The appellants argued the decision required that all windows be restored. The board of appeals and heard the matter upheld that by the Planning Department and the proposal was cocomplaint and c. I have nothing further. If there are no questions, we can move on to general Public Comment, where at this time, members of the comment will address the commission. With respect to agenda items, the opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when its reached in the meeting and each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes and when the number of speakers exceed the 15minute limit, general Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. And through the chair, we will be holding a strict policy restricting general Public Comment at this time to 15 minutes. When we exceed 15 minutes, general comment will be moved to the end of the agenda. Chan, lets open the answer and question through the at t bridge conference line and i will remind members of the public at this time, if you wish to submit testimony on items that are not on our agenda, this would be the opportunity to dial 888 toll free number entering the access codes and hitting pound, pound and 10. Any members of the public in cue. Operator your conference is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question press 1 and then 0. You have four questions remaining. Question just wanted to comment on the board of appeals hearing last night, wanted to compliment the Planning Department staff that represented the department at the board. I thought they did an excellent job of explaining to the commissioners how they reviewed the Planning Commissions decision back in july, the fact that the decision was not as clear as it could have been and that they felt they had an adequate compromise to allow the project to proceed forward. Thank you, commissioners, and if you for continuing city business virtually. Operator you have three questions remaining. Question hello, commissioners. Nami called in last week about a project on the mixeduse project to add a new building on the site that had a lot merger. I know you cant change a decision and i dont want you to change a discussion, but i have an issue with the way you deliberated it. When i sent the letter in and there was no acknowledgement from the board you received a letter and i was in general support of the project, but when you talked about it, you talked about it as, well, maybe we can consider an adu on the property. And the project th is addinga mixeduse project and im in full support but you didnt acknowledge the fact its commercial corridor expect storefronts are valuable to the neighborhood. You actually kind of suggested that, maybe, one of the commercial buildings be taken away and made into a residential unit. I hope thats not a policy that on commercial corridors, commercial storefronts can be converted without any notification. So again, thank you for hearing the item and moving it forward but it is an asset to the community but storyfronts are also an asset and for that, yes, we have a lot of vacancies, but those are potentials, that they become residential or take away to fill the commercial corridor. But thank you again and hopefully in the future commercial corridors are looked at and thought of as commercial corridors and not potential adu units. Thank you. Operator you have three questions remaining. Question good afternoon. Im with the new neighborhoods council. I have a question for the commission. I just noticed that a project that will be before you next week, then this is a conditional use authorization for the demolition of two units. The plans do not include drawings for the existing property that already is situated on site. So my question is, is this ok for planning procedures and planning code to not have any drawings of the existing structure on the property. Particularly for the commission, i suppose it is important because if you are looking at whether or not this property should be demolished, you certainly would want to see the current and existing structure on this lot. But no such drawings, as of now, exist for this property and as for the public, as you know, the planning does not send these drawings as part of the packet, as part of the neighborhood notification packet. And instead, the public will have to log onto the website of the planning to withdraw the plans, to download the plans. I did check this yesterday and the plans that were submitted on accela, they do not have drawings of the existing condition, either. My question to the commission if this is a oneoff, if this is an anomaly or if this is a standard operating procedure. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is georgia shudish and i hope youre all doing ok. I want to make two points today, if i can and one involves the rear yard expect ability to capture carbon and i think as you proceed with plans, particularly in the rh and were seeing these lot excavations of the entire site, tha i hope you consider looking at the plans holistically for the entire lot and to make sure when a project, especially when its a demolition, that the rear yards are not, basically, sanitized and become extensions of the structure and that the removing of the soil and the natural growth does not happen. You think of the rare yard open space and given what were going through now, beyond the carbon capture, theres a potential for the farms. And i think thats something you should look at as either an individual or policy. And similarly, individual projects or policy, i would hope that you would consider getting reports back when theres an increase in density in the rh and all of the rs, whether its a cua or lpa, to understand vacancy, occupancy and i think it would be useful to the staff and commission and the public and neighbors alike that within six months, a checklist is sent back to the city. It could be done as a commission of approval. I dont think its a burden. And i think that it would be Important Information because people are concerned about housing and occupancy and how housing is used, if its being used. Weve heard all of these stories about zombie buildings downtown in the eastern neighborhoods and certainly in the valley, were seeing an increase in cuas. You had 1099 deloris and last week, the sanchez and then youve got one today that you may or may not continue where theres increase would be nice to know what the outcome is once the project has been completed within six months of the csc. These are two policy ideas, backyards, preserving in a holistic look at sites that are being developed and the report back and whether you do it individually or as a policy. That was my suggestion and thank you very much and take care. Goodbye. Operator you have two questions remaining. Question hi commissioners. Im calling regarding the project that was discussed last week in your agenda, 9397 leeland and, case number 2018 201800191cua. Im calling the discussions last week where there was talk about converting the new construction commercial space into adus and thats a nonstarter for our community. Like was stated, our commercial district is compromised of only three blocks and now the buildings have storefronts. So its paramount not to view this commercial space and its a nonstarter. With mr. Marinis letter to high lihighlight of the angle wy compartment located behind the commercial space, removing precious space. And thats where our objective was, to highlight all of the list of items that was making the new development compatible for any new entrepreneur or merchant to open up a vibrant commercial business. And theres other elements in that new development that was borderline not a good element. Im losing words here. Theres items from this development that need to be addressed. I apologize for not conveying that properly and clearly last week in my email. So im not sure, commissioners, if you can follow up with the project sponsor and the Planning Department about these issues, because these are glaring issues that need to be address. Since we dont have the ability to enforce that to the project sponsor, that if you can follow that up with the, like i said, i the project sponsor and Planning Department. The commercial spaces, new development and the existing commercial the Historic Building that we highlighted in our email and letter. I really appreciate it if that could be done and reiterate removing a commercial space in our community is a nonstarter. Thank you, commissioners, for your time and stay safe. You have two questions remaining. Question im calling to see if the Planning Commission can explore making something that is buyright. In these times when people are stuck inside, its becoming more obvious how important it is that everybody have access to open space and you guys, every week, probably, you yourselves, you may have seen thousands of steps get shut down by opposition. This is an opportunity to make sure that people have access to sunlight and its a lot harder to get stuck in the shade when youre on top of the building. And you can do gardening there. You can just get outside and right now, thi were extremely concerned of making sure everyone has access to sunlight and given theres a really bizarre lack of rooftop, useable open space and you can do a lot for it. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. Question this is sue hester. The hub has four items on it. The staff report is already done. Im asking that the commission request that the staff report be posted on the website for people to read it. Its already done and its going to be continued and you sh shoud ask the staff how long it will be continued. My understanding is a couple of weeks. Thank you. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. Seeing there are no other callers in cue, we can move on to your regular calendar, for items 13, number 2018001443 spa001443mat,a planning code am. Staff, are you prepared to present . Yes, prepared to present. Very good. Good afternoon. Announcement im Diego Sanchez with planning staff and im proposing you with an ordinance for adoption to amend a zoning map to reclassify properties in the m1 and m2 Industrial Districts, to production, distribution is repair, aka, pdr districts. It also amends the planning code to clarify existing retail limits in certain pdr districts and Certain Applications under new zoning controls. Commissioners, as you recall, staff was before you on februarg initiation of this ordinance for which you granted. Also, as a reminder, commissioners, the mIndustrial Districts are the citys oldest Industrial Districts still in use. These districts allow the g gamt including truck traffic and less intend siintensive such as retad housing. This has been in question for some time by sensitive uses and the needs to balance compatibility and quality of life with the preservation of industrial used land. They tend to help resolve this issue and largely rezones railways and public right o rigf way, the public district and other properties, either hr, hn or mixed use. The housing crisis act of 2019 requires that cities when reducing property expended elsewhere at a commensurate level. The mZoning Districts generally allow housing with use based on lot area and some of the proposed districts such as the pdr do not allow housing. To comply with house, they have potentialed each property proposed for zoning and quantified the possible housing capacity. Any possible reduction is proposed to be offset by the zoning capacity afforded by the market upZoning Ordinance and you will hear shortly or in the coming weeks, i should say. One last note, staff is recommending modification of proposed language on page 6, lines 810 of the proposed ordinance. This language would be 22 of the pdr zoning table and staff is recommending that note 22 read as follows, as it assures a minimum amount of pdr space at the ground floor. It would read self storage is not permitted and exezekiel elliott froexempt from2103a thr pdr uses on any lot in the eastern neighborhoods, planned area in the m2 Zoning District on october 31st, 2019 and was rezoned to pdr2 district by the Zoning Ordinance in this floor file. This shall be for operation of law on june 1, 2030, unless the board of supervisors on or before the date extends or reenacts it, providing any authorizations shall be valid for such period of time as the conditions of approval of such authorization provides. Notwithstanding the expiration of the section. Following the expiration of this section, the City Attorney shall cause this to be removed from the municipal code and that concludes the presentation and staff i recollecting this for ordinance. Thank you. And im available for questions. Ok, an members of the public wishing to speak, this is when you dial the 800 number and press 0 to get into the cue. I dont see any commissioners operator so summon each question press 1 and then 0. You have two questions remaining. Question im calling from mindy law. I sent a letter in, too. And i dont think the city is filing sf330. The section is called nonet loss. I know that everybody here was paying attention while this was being passed and well aware of the housing situation in the state of california. The point of this is that the point of sf330, if the city is downzoning, they need to upzone somewhere else. The Planning Department is trying to use an upzoning that is not concurrent. Its prior. Market octavia started in 2016. Youre messing around with the meaning and the purpose of the nonet loss. I know San Francisco likes to believe that its a city that is doing the right thing and building housing. A planning staff that wanted to build housing would say, were downzoning a thousand units and this is our opportunity to start a new upzoning. But instead planning staff initially tried to use an upzoning that already passed and the City Attorney has to say, no, that doesnt work. So then the second attempt is what about this upzoning in progress for a long time . And i can see that youre trying it out but if you go forward with this interpretation, you are making a map, a guide book for cities all over first off all, youre telling other cities, when youre doing zoning, take advantage of an upzoning and this turns this monet loss into gain. So go ahead with the downzoning, but you need concurrent upzone ozoning is fid housing as a conditional use and that shouldnt be hard. Operator you have three questions remaining. Question im Charles Whitfield im a San Francisco voter. And i want to urge the commission to do a netnew upzoning to the down zoning workers. inaudible . This requires a concurrent upzoning and the city should do an upzoning to help solve our housing shortage. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Question hi. This is laura. Similar to what the previous speakers just said, the spirit of the law was that when youre considering a downzoning, the Planning Department is supposed to go around and try to figure out how to make up for it. And if we set this precedent, where the way that you go around is try to make up for it is to look for thing that you were already doing, were to the going to make any progress. The point of the law was to say if youre going something maybe that is necessary, separating noxious uses out is a reasonable thing to do but when you know youll be losing future housing, it is supposed to spur action in the department to go look for a new place to upzone and i dont see that happening here. And if we lay out this map, we already know that every city and town around the bay area that is not helping us with our housing shortage is going to be use exactly this path in order to thwart housing more and more. And if we open the door, were going to regret it. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. Question good afternoon, commissioners. Im sarah ogleby. Im a San Francisco voter and a member of the b b action and im imploring you to listen to the previous callers. We represent a large group of concerned people who are seeing, you know, these strange tactics of basically working yourselves backwards and not looking forward when the only way to rebuild the economy right now and the only way to give people jobs and let people who are currently working in this economy, like my husband, the opportunity to look at homeownership down the line and when we see shortages like these considered, we get really disappointed and its just not in the spirit of the growth that were going to need, the revision that well need to deliver to californians. So please consider upzoning a new area. I think there are a lot of opportunities in the city of places that have been historically, you know, excluded from zoning, and maybe consider looking at those places because theyre beautiful and they deserve to have more homes and neighbors. And that should happen before this passes. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. Question hello, im a resident of the excelsior and straightening out the noxious uses and industrial uses from home uses that sort of make sense, and for item 14, preserving singlefamily homes, thats not the correct way of doing things. We should zone more homes and not be having rh1 areas where houses are unaffordable. Those should be zoned for even more housing. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. The matter is now before you and i will provide a friendly lee reminder to unmute your mics when called upon to speak. Commissioner moore . I just wanted to make sure we are really talking with mr. Diego sanchez about the rezoning of m1 and m2 from the industrial manufacturing, m2 pdr and this doesnt have anything to do with housing but the appropriate landuse category which is appropriate for this irregularly scheduled project. I want to confirm that and if so, im in full support and appreciate mr. Sanchezs clarification under item 22, which is an errata to whats in front of us and im in full support. Commissioner diamond. Could the City Attorney please comment on the argument that was being made by the various b b speakers about the need to upzone other properties and to taking issue without the staff proceeding. And if you could address this in the context of m1 and m2 rezonings, which do, under certain circumstances, allow for residential, but dont require residential. This is deputy City Attorney Kristin Jensen. Can you all hear me . Yes. Excellent. This is my first time actually guiding you all through one of these hearings and im glad the technology is working today. So i think that the comment, at least as i heard it, the comment that was being made by most of the speakers was to do with the timing of other pieces of legislation that were going to upzone. In other words, could we rely on past legislation that upzoned versus, did we need to find new sources of additional housing . And im not sure if thats quite the question you were getting at, but i believe the question or the concern they were expresseexpressing was what thet bank passed upzoning and had to have it contemporaneous and that is the advice that has been given before by our office and we are not suggesting that the legislation would go into effect before the hub is adopted, as well. And staff might want to come back online about this, but i believe there was a proposal to broaden the language just a little bit so that it could be the hub or other legislative action that involved upzoning in case Something Else was adopted in a more appropriate time than the hub will be coming online. Is that correct, diego . Yes. Diego sanchez with staff and were going to include balboa or any upzoning that the department has planned or is working on. Thank you. Commissioner fung. Diego, the change in the language that you have just recently brought forth on the exception for public storage, can you expand on that . I wasnt sure what the rationale was. Diego sanchez with staff. So this is part of off accommodating applications submitted while this project was underway and one was a selfstoragstorage project. In the initiation ordinance, we had some language and the adoption, were working on setting up that language. The reason why this is needed is because selfstorage at rates of, i understand, greater than 5,000 square feet is not allowed in the pdr district and the department is proposing selfstorage greater than 5,000 square feet. Why dont we hear from planning staff. I wasnt quite finished. Joel. Go ahead, commissioner fung. This rezoning applied to a specific area, the triangle and appears that the selfstorage and probably an appropriate use next to a treatment plant. So this project is a different from the bayview industrial triangle and thats a different ordinance and different project. The property being proposed for rezoning from approximately i80, a couple of properties from i80 to the creek and then down in the bayview, along the caltrain railway over by the recology site and those parks and this isnt related to the triangle. Ok. Planning staff. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im with the planning staff. I just wanted to build a little bit on the City Attorney jensens comments on sb330 in response. The reading of the lot, planning staff discussed this extent exty with the City Attorneys office and not only do we believe were in complian compliant with the f the law but spirit of the law and were in full belief that the word concurrence means when the legislation is adopted by the board and goes into operation. The finding process and the Community Discussions and everything that lead up to the adoption of a rezoning is not really relevant or compliant. Its really to prevent cities or supervisors and City Councils from rezoning actions that arent concurrent and ultimately, its the boards action which i. The hub, whil inaudible . The reservoir would be adopted and go into effect concurrently with this, so i just wanted to offer that clarification, that the letter in the spirit of the law doesnt rely on the process or the conversations particularly, but rather the ultimate actions by the legislative body. Director hillis. Weve got balboa that the power plant was adopted to. So i think were meeting the spirit of 330, as well as the letter of that ordinance or that law. And just historically, we have much more of the zoning throughout the City Mission Bay is pier 70 and these are the remaining areas that are still zoned industrial, the m1 and m2 zoning. Commissioner imperial. Hi. Im in support of this item and this proposal and so i would like to make and it looks like the City Attorney also clarified after the issues or in terms of compliance, the sb330 so i would like to move the motion to approve this item. I second. Commissioner moore, did you have anything to add . I have a question for mr. Shwitsky. Could you explain in what way m intensifies or less intense than pdr . I do not quite follow the land interpretation anlanlandintensim completely lost on that subject matter. Well, the pdr districts, basically, allow a subset of the uses allowed in the m district. The m district is a catchall district that allowed every imaginable use except for residential was only allowed on case by case by conditional use and this allows the same set of industrial uses, but they dont allow the office space and dont allow the residential space with the conditional use and have limits on retail and some other minor uses. But in terms of industrial uses, its not an intense vacation of the industrial uses that were allowed under m. Its a slight subset of this. That is where my misunderstanding is because i do not see where that, then, triggers catching additional intensive and residential in other areas, because it is manufacturing to pdr is thats an equal exchange. I do not see an intensification. I would like to understand the delta or metrics of the intensification so that we can move that to where its appropriate. So the calculations that diego is eluding to i in terms f residential uses, those are residential on those properties and most would be practically undevelopable under most circumstances. And so, thats sort of a maximum theoretical allowance on those properties and that is a very conservative analysis in terms of compliance, if that was your question. Kind of, yeah. Talk about that more when we come to the actual implementation of that. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner diamond. Question from mr. Shwitsky. I think i heard you say that the m districts dont allow housing and that the staff report says they do allow housing at limited densities on a case by case basis versus the conditional use process and thats why were talking about the issues raised because if we change from m1 or m2, which did under certain circumstances allow housing to pdr, that it no longer allowed housing. Is that correct . I think i said the same thing, that the residential would be allowed with conditional use. Its not a permitted use. But it is allowed in the m1 district. Seeing nothing further commissioners, i would like to clarify that the commissioner imperial, you are making a motion to amend by staff . Yes, on that motion to approve the proposed planning code and zoning amendments as amended by staff. Commissioner diamond. Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. Aye. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner kop particular el. Pel. Aye. That passes unanimously. For 2287 for the urban mixed use district planning code amendments. S. Im Diego Sanchez. This prohibits office uses in the urbanmixed use or Zoning District and required for financial and medical Services Within the Zoning District when locating at the ground floor. However, before i continue with the staff recommendation, i would like to provide supervisor ronens office, with time to present to you. Commissioners, can you hear me . Are we all good . Yes. Thank you. Im the supervisor of mr. Ronen and thank you for hearing this item today. The planning code amendments that are before you were introduced with the intent of promoting new housing and other uses instead of Office Construction in the eastern neighborhoods. I do know that the eastern neighborhoods plan was finalized in 2009 and at that point, some parcels were rezoned umu, urban mixed use, which was a designation intended to support a balance of different uses in particular to buffer the transitional period as new Residential Development spread into formally industrial areas. One crucial goal at this time was to appreciate the wide variety, the arting manufacturing while opening new housing. However, umu allowed offices on upper floors and what was not foreseen at that time was that todays reals state market would, in fact, make it impossible for other uses to compete with highrent and tech offices. While we see changes ahead to the commercial and Residential Real Estate markets, San Francisco rents office and not housing and i still the investment of choice. Particularly troubling is a new phenomenon of using streamlining bonus programs to promote housing to instead unable expand expanded officed and we dont need more offices in the mission right now and we cant create more housing. This legislation will remove office a permitted use on the upper floor and allow services on the ground floor with conditional use authorization and no change is made to other uses, which include arts and lights, manufacturing, as well as housing and all of which continue to be permitted and we want to thank Diego Sanchez for his staff report, particular to the deep thought and attention in the social Equity Analysis and its impressive to see that kind of work. I do want to note that um parcels and commission are not heavily ordered and that was one things referenced several times. They are pdr and light uses and with that, thank you for your time and attention, looking forward to your comments. Ok, commissioners the department supports the ordinances off tens to finetue controls. They are ten years old and revisiting them makes sense. The department believes the office controls and on service uses are a bit overreaching. The department is recommending the proposed prohibition in the Zoning District be limited to the missionary plan and the department believes the existing controls on professional Financial Medical Services should remain in the entirety of the umu Zoning District. Within the brief, theres a grandfather clause to the ordinance for the purpose of exezekieezekielfromthe office o. Staff would advise crafting a clause should one be desired that having been submitted to the Department Prior to the introduction date of this ordinance which was february 11th, 2020. This concludes the staff presentation and i am available for questions. Thank you. Chair, let go ahead and open up the q a. Operator your question is now in question and answer mode. So again, for the members that wish to testify, that would be the tu opportunity to dial io the 800 number. Operator you have one question remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Representing the project sponsor for 2300 harrison, a project that was approved by the Planning Commission in december. This legislation was introduced in february, 2300 harrison entitlements on appeal at the board of supervisors and through a set of unique circumstances and the shelterinplace order, the project is now in limbo as the board has decided not to hear ceqa appeals for the time being. At the same time, this legislation is proceeding and will likely become effective before the pending appeals for 2300 harrison have been heard. 2300 harrison followed all applicable planning processes, engaged in the extensive expect discussions, based on new zoning that has existed since the neighborhoods process concluded in 2009. And spent years to process approvals. It is fundamentally unfair and inequitable to change the rules and after the project sponsor has spent years and substantial amount of money to entitle the project per the existing rules. This project is a true mixeduse project in addition to approximately 27,000 square feet of office. The project includes 24 Residential Rental units on an existing surface parking lot, including six onsite bmi units which is doubled the required amount and results in 3. 5 million in payments that will fund infrastructure, schools, childcare and other programs. Even the extraordinary circumstances that have prevented the project from moving forward with the citys appeal processes, we ask that the Planning Commission recommend inclusion of a grandfathering clause in the ordinance so that the 2300 harrison project can proceed and be heard on the appeals instead of supe superceded by the spendg legislation. There are many other examples of legislation that have included the grandfathering clausing or implementation on project filing or approval status. 2300 harrison received the first approval but that approval is not yet final. Entitlements are pending on appeal. For those reasons, we ask you to recommend the grandfathering clause and thank you for your time. bell ranging . Operator you have four questions remaining. This is peter popadopolus and you wanted to thank supervisor ronen and amy binard, as well as mr. Sanchez and the staff. We think its critical at this time that we limit certain kinds of expansion through the sensitivity of whats going on in the neighborhood and as we begin to move our way through this crisis. And we think its particularly unfair that proposals currently under the state law can, in fact, invoke a law housing bill loopholes to build tech homes and we do think, as we know, weve seen some of the outcomes and we think they should be included in this legislation. I dont think that was the intent of umu and coming out of eastern neighborhoods, the intent of update umu was different than the outcomin oute seeing, never mind the pdr on that side of the equation. So we would also like to see this retained and for the Planning Commission to retain that authority to make decisions on when it thinks office use is appropriate and we think the commission will be able to decide where the more vulnerable area, where is an appropriate area for this office use. So we would ask you, with those conditions, to please recommend that the legislation go forward. Thank you. Operator you have three questions remaining. Question good afternoon, commissioners. Im calling on behalf of united emission coalition of over 15 mission su serving organizations that are working with populations here in the mission that is vulnerable, particularly during these times and we believe that limiting the amount of Office Extension in the mission due to the harmful impacts is needed, particularly looking at Planning Departments most recent 2020 report. We know that the area is not acting as intended and weve had over 4,000 square feet, nearly 500 square feet lost and weve seen an exorbitant amount added. Were looking for things that will better serve the neighborhood and we believe this code will using this as loopholes to create tech hubs like 2300 street and we believe 2300 harrison street should not be grandfathered out because we should be looking for they cannot own make it through this crisis but also continue to thrive afterward, as well. And so we believe strongly the ground of floor office uses should have a conditional use so the Planning Commission can use its wisdom and be able to look at what is happening on the ground in realtime to weigh the potential impacts of adding small amounts of office in particularly vulnerable areas and any decision made will be something that will be a protection and addition to the lives of those vulnerable residents. Thank you very much. Operator you have three questions remaining. Question im the assistant director for the california Carpenters Regional Council and thank you for allowing me to speak today. From a quality standpoint, adopting and ordinance without a grandfathering clause does not bode well for this city. Whether its this mission or elsewhere in San Francisco, the idea that the city wil consig other implementation schedules, that is under the jobs linkage fee. Considering why this exists, the project at 2300 harrison, it needs to be made clear that 2300 harrison will not be affected. They have done their due diligence, engaged in the Community Discussions, designed under the current zoning rules, to make certain that union trades were presented and participated in eight scheduled hearing dates. Ultimately, this project will die in the ordinance is adopted as is. The city and county of San Francisco loses 24 units, including 3. 5 million in impact fees that will fund infrastructure, schools and other programs and hundreds of union jobs. These are not unintended consequences, this will happen. San francisco will be faced with issues that was conveyed in the budget outlet joint report. We need to understand that every unit, every dollar contributed to the city and every job matters coming out of this pandemic. On a personal note, we have on 100 dependents in San Francisco who are hurting to go back to work and this pandemic has set back whole careers for folks working their way into the middleclass. In closing, we would ask that the Planning Commission add a condition to the amendment and include a grandfathering clause. As stated, this does not apply to any project to any inaudible . Operator you have three questions remaining. Question good afternoon. Im corey smith on behalf of the San Francisco housing coalition. I want to continue on some of the comments from the previous speaker. When the rules change on projects midway through the process, you know, you were talking about the uncertainty associated with that, and that really does add to the overall cost of the building housing. So its not just a theoretical impact that ends up pushing more dollars down the line, it means that the housing is more expensive to build and it means it will be more expensive for future residents later and so, as you all know, certainty is one of the keys to getting homes built in San Francisco and when the rules change and uncertainty is introduced, that creates a problematic situation. So, also, im encouraging and requesting a grandfathering clause in this legislation so projects know, hey, these are the rules that you need to follow in order to do something big. We are not going to change them on you down the line and that will encourage more housing to get built in sanfrancisco and in the mission and everywhere else. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Question there is already so much uncertainty when youre trying to build anything in San Francisco and so if we dont automatically include grandfathering of existing projects in the pipeline, we are going see not just this project, but were going to open the door for a lot more uncertainty and costs for projects all over the city and i think at the leave, we need grandfathering. Also, i try to avoid commenting only things when it concerns office and the mission in general and i think that we all need to think about what is the economy that we are heading into . And i understand that this was sort of brought forward at a time when things were really different and i just want to encourage everybody to think broadly about how a relationship in San Francisco to jobs is going to change over the next six months to a year, how we think about whether we want jobs in a neighborhood, i think that nobody has caught up to the amount of whiplash were all going to feel about this. And i just want to encourage everybody to think about whether what they wanted six months ago is what they want today. And i just want to encourage everybody to think about it. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. Hello, this is an i am in suppoi agree with peter from meta and carlos from united to save the missions that we shouldnt be creating loopholes using state law to change things and should reserve those mixed uses for neighborhood. Thank you. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. The matter is now before. I do just want to say that im confident we took enough of a close look at this project that im not secondguessing the integrity of our process and how we voted the first time and i would be supportive of the legislation with the addition of the grandfathering clause. Commissioner fung. A question for either staff or the legislation sponsor. Whenever we discussed minor uses within more sensitive areas, were always told that a stakeholder process needs to be incorporated. What occurred here and this is a fairly substantial change to a plan, the neighbor plan which took so many years to work its way through . So either mr. Sanchez or mr. Binard, if you could discuss whats the stakeholder process in developing this change . There was a concern that some members of the Planning Commission while they might have preferred to see more housing on that site, that the stoning than place allowed for office use. And so we have spoken with folks who are participating in the map 2020 process and determined that its with the planning staff and it was identified as the appropriate change to propose at this point and introduce the legislation. Since the legislation has been introduced, weve been certainly open to comments and discussion about it. But i think we dont have any weve not heard any objection other than what weve heard here today. S. Some of the Public Comments reference the commissions but the classification stands for broader areas than just the mission. What is the intent of the legislation . We introduced the supervisor ronen introduced the legislation to cover the entire eastern neighborhoods where th t included districts 6 and district 10 and given the impact of the shelterinplace and the timing of this, this has been difficult for district 6 and 10 to conduct the outreach they would have wanted to do and i know that staff was recommending that the legislation be amended to limit to the mission which right now, i think supervisor ronen would be open to excepting an amendment like that and moving it forward. Thank you. Commissioner diamond. I believe rezoning are appropriate to reflect changes over time and be responsetive to acquired learning as we see the zoning implemented and understand the consequences. Refinements are a way to understand whats not working and tweak it and to deal with a change in the economy. I feel this needs to be fair consistent with the old rules and that is a project thats been in the pipeline for many, many years and has received Planning Commission approval. If i understand it correctly, without grandfathering, this project is dead, but with grandfathering, the project appeals can be heard by the board of supervisors and judged oon merits. They use grandfathering t grandr those caught midstream. And i do believe that predictability is an important way to keep costs down so that money isnt wasted pursuing a particular project only to find out that the rules are changed at the very end of the process. Because that money generally isnt absorbed by the developer and just makes the project more expensive. I support the legislation as proposed by the supervisor, but only if it is modified by staff and modified to include a grandfathering clause. Pouim really concerned about whats in the pipeline and i would like to understand if other projects are caught midstream. Diego sanchez. Staff did look at the pipeline and we found four to five other projects that would potentially be affected. And have those projects been noticed about this potential change . They have not. The typical notice through online newspaper and the commission agenda. How far along are they in the process . Ill have to get back to you on that. I dont have that data at my hands, given all of the different phases in the development plays. Process. So i think its difficult to construct a grandfathering clause, to know how far back in time we should go, if, in fact, the Commission Wants to do any grandfathering at all. But if we do, i dont think the focus should just be on 2300 harrison. I mean, they want to draw the line, if they receive Planning Commission approval and i gather it would be 2300 harrison. But i feel like we should understand where those projects are in the process and its a bit of concern to me that those other projects werent notified of this. So they didnt have the opportunity to show up and testify i woul. I would like to hear what the other commissioners think. Commissioner imperial. My question for staff and also to amy, i know that there has been a process and the process of the map 2020 has finished and that was a long process, as well. In terms of this 2300 development, and as what commissioner diamond mentioned about other previous developments, that if we are i mean, i think if we are thinking of grandfathering, i think there needs to be a lot of consideration and that needs to be in reference to the mission, to the map 2020 planning. So if we are going to go with the grandfathering, i would like to see that its actually in compliance or its aligned with the map 2020 that has been set forward. It looks like it will be denied for the mission but the original proposal is for the Eastern Region plan and other supervisors or districts are probably not in this conversation, as well. I mean, i can agree that it should be only be limited right now to b9, but hopefully there will be more actually, one of the comments was looking into the conditional uses being retained. I wonder if that can be something that we can add on to this recommendation in terms of, like, looking into what other areas in, you if this will be focusing on just b9 or focusing on more than b9, other neighborhoods or other districts, if they should be theres some flexibility where there can be conditional uses. Commissioner johnson. Im in support of this legislation, and as commissioner diamond mentioned, il weve red over the project at harrison and one thing we agree on is that the code could be updated and revised and here we are. I first want to thank mr. Sanchez for this thorough report and the social Equity Analysis. I support staffs recommendation to limiting the use district and i also am interested in entertaining the idea of maintaining. inaudible . I just want to Say Something brought up in the case report and has come up in other projects is just the issue of nonprofit office space and about the same time, the use of the neighborhood context, making sure that were not unduly including Nonprofit Sector and making sure that they have access to office space without additional pi inaudible . We always have challenges with figuring out how to support the neighborhoods serving the nonprofit space because it isnt make tax status in the code but there are creative ways to do that by thinking about size of office space. But overall, im in support of legislation. Director hillis. I just wanted to chime in on grandfathering, because the proposal that mr. Sanchez made was one we typically do and i know that in past, weve set the date when the ordinance was introduced at the board of supervisors, which, you know, wn to the public and that effort is out there to change the code. It would be speaking to projects in the pipeline and set it as a date that the legislation was introduced at the board. Commissioner moore. please stand by president koppel commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond i would second commissioner fungs proposal. President koppel commissioner imperial . Commissioner imperial okay. [inaudible] commissioner imperial on commissioner moores motion that this needs to be aligned with map 2020. I believe the supervisor ronens office is willing to amend the willing to amend it primarily this for the mission. I would support that. President koppel commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson i second commissioner moores motion and would agree with commissioner imperial. Clerk okay. Commissioners i do see commissioner moore wanting to speak. President koppel go ahead, commissioner. Vice president moore i just want to say i do not see any reason to continue. I think this legislation is very well thought through, with a particular stress of restricting it to the mission. I think its appropriate at this time, albeit we spend a lot of time over the past spent a lot of time over the past few years talking about Significant Development in the mission. Since its going to be in the pipeline, i think we can approve that today without having stakeholders. Theyre well aware of whats on the agenda without speaking to us today. President koppel commissioner diamond . Clerk okay. Somebodys got their sfgovtv on with their mic. If you could mute that, that would be helpful. Commissioner diamond, you have the floor. Commissioner diamond could you clarify . Are you only saying those that receive Planning Commission approval or those that go to the board or something in between . I want to be clear. Diego sanchez, Planning Department staff. I mentioned that a Planning Department date could be tied to the development of this ordinance, and that would be when you submitted an application to the Planning Department, so that would be a little more than Planning Department approval as of february 19, 2020. Commissioner diamond and im hearing some comments from other commissioners about wanting to introduce something into our language about consistency 2020, and im not understanding how that would fit into the proposed language and how that might effect 2300 harrison, so if you could maybe elaborate on that. Diego sanchez with staff. Yeah. Im understanding that map 2020 is aligning the office plan with the Mission Area Plan as proposed in the case report, but perhaps some other commissioners want to confirm or correct that understanding. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore i think mr. Sanchez summary is expressing the intent by which i mentioned it. Commissioner diamond so that the language, it would include the grandfathering language, it would include out from this ordinance projects that had submitted applications prior to the time of introduction of this ordinance, and were talking only about projects that are in the mission area, were not talking about the rest of the eastern neighborhoods, is that correct . That is correct. Commissioner diamond well, if were exempting all the projects that have submitted applications, then, i dont think we need to continue because those applications would be covered, so im inclined with not continuing. If we wanted to limit the exemption only to those who had Planning Commission approval, then i thought we needed to give the others an opportunity to be heard. President koppel lets hear from miss lainhart again. Thank you very much. I would ask that this not be continued. Its very hard to keep legislation rolling right now, and we are scheduled before land use. Its very hard to vet them before supervisor ronen, not to mention how to specifically apply some sort of grandfathering, but certainly, that could be a discussion that we would be open to having, and i would ask that we be able to take your recommendations and move them through the Land Use Committee so that we can work through some of these amendments and keep the legislation rolling. President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner fung the other issue that hasnt been brought up is the staffs recommendation of certain allowable office uses, certain financial and others that theyve stated would not require conditional use, and then i would be supportive of that. Clerk if theres nothing further, commissioners, commissioner fung, does that mean youre withdrawing your motion to continue . Commissioner fung i think i would have to. Clerk okay. Well, as a procedural matter commissioner fung i would withdraw. Thank you. Clerk then there is a remaining motion to approve, with staff modifications, including a grandfathering clause, to exempt those projects that submitted applications to the Planning Department at the date of introduction. On that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 60. Commissioners, thatll place us on item 15, 2020003035 pca, conditional use authorization demonstrably unAffordable Housing board. Is the Planning Department staff ready to present . Yes. [inaudible] to speak on behalf of the offices ordinance. Thank you, audrey. Good afternoon. Jacob bentliss here with supervisor mandelmans office. Its a pleasure to be back with you, even if its only virtually. The item that you have before you is an ordinance that, along with supervisor peskins office, introduced back in february to close what we see as a loophole in the way that the city sees permits in existing family homes only. There is one exception that we dont believe is justified at the time, and that is that existing singlefamily homes can be demolished without a Planning Commission hearing if the value of that property is above a certain amount. That value is currently 2. 2 million, set by the Planning Commission. When section 317 was added to the planning code in 2007, the original logic for this exception was, you know, that the loss of these sort of exceptionally expensive home was essential to the city. However, the average home sale price in San Francisco has more than tripled since that time, and as we are also aware, many investors are certainly willing to pay top dollar for a smaller home or older home that they plan on demolishing and construct a more expensive singlefamily home. So this in our opinion would only serve to worsen the housing crisis. This has become a loophole whereby many singlefamily homes that housed middle class families could be demolished without Planning Commission review. [inaudible] when these existing homes are proposed to be demolished just like any other demolition of a singlefamily home or any other home. As we continue to address this issue from multiple other angles, you know, this ordinance today is really just a very targeted change that we hope will allow for Greater Public scrutiny over the demolition of these types of homes and [inaudible] that makes a nonsubstantive change that we feel is a cleanup. We arrived at this after discussions with deputy City Attorney Kristin Jensen who is on the call today. The change is to simply change the reference to [inaudible] in this list of existing exceptions that currently appears in section 317c, so youll see in the version of the ordinance thats in the staff report, youll see at the bottom of page 2, section c5 is struck out. Our intention is to simply retain that language for clarity, and that would be a nonsubstantive change in the ordinance. That change is reflected in the ordinance that i presented to the commissioners yesterday. Finally, i do want to acknowledge Planning Departments thoughtful review of the legislation. Thank you, audrey. We have reviewed the legislation and included a grandfathering provision for projects filed before february 11, which appears to be the grandfathering date of the day. That also appears to be the introduction of this ordinance, february 11, and so we are supportive of this change and would plan to incorporate it in your deliberations today. With that, thank you very much for your consideration, and i am here for any questions you may have. Thank you so much. Okay. Great. Thank you to jacob. Again, audrey merloni, Planning Department staff. The following amend would require conditional use authorization for applications to demolish a singlefamily residential building on a site zoned zoned as rh1 or rh1d. The proposed ordinance will not solve one of the main problems of section 317 as it does not prevent demonstrably unAffordable Housing [inaudible] aiding and protecting relatively Affordable Housing. As of the date of this report, the Planning Department has received one letter from the public, which is attached as exhibit b, and one additional Public Comment received yesterday, which was sent to the commissioners. The Public Comment sent yesterday is a petition requesting the commission amend the legislation to include a provision that would grandfather projects that have submitted applications before the active date of the legislation. The Department Recommends that the commission approve with modifications the proposed ordinance. The departments proposed recommendation is as follows. Modify the ordinance to grandparent projects submitted before the ordinances introduction date of february 11, 2020 that would have qualified for a conditional use authorization exemption under the did emonstrably unaffordab housing provision. Projects will not be submitted in the interim period between introduction and enactment of the ordinance specifically to avoid the new regulations. While the department does not find that the proposed ordinance will help solve any of the major horde comings in section 317, it also will not cause any additional harm. The Department Still believes that regulating defacto demolition does not help preserve affordability mainly because there are no size limits or density requirements. The resulting housing are often much more expensive than the original. This will allow an opportunity to have concerns heard by the Planning Commission. By extension, it will also allow the Planning Commission to encourage more density in these types of projects. This concludes staffs presentation, and im available, along with jacob, to answer any questions. Thank you. Clerk okay. Chan, why dont we go ahead and open up the q a. Operator your conference is now in questionandanswer mode. To answer, press one and then zero. You have seven questions remaining. Hello. Im theodore randolph, resident of excelsior and member of yimby action. I think this resolution doesnt address the actual loophole. The middle class housing is unaffordable because of the [inaudible] the high price reflects more demand on the site of that middleclass housing, and simply adding unaffordable singleFamily Housing to the requiring of conditional use, that wont make it affordable. That just directed even more profits to existing landlords. So so i think that the way that this legislation was the idea of the legislation that existing housing is relatively affordable is a mistaken believe, and a better way to close the loophole is to upzone any unaffordable singlefamily home. There should not be any singlefamily home that if you demolish it, the only thing you can put on it is another singlefamily home. You should have at least a duplex. Thank you. Operator you have 12 questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is john, and i run an Architectural Firm in San Francisco focused on Residential Housing. Ive been asked that the proposed ordinance include a clause for grandfathering, but for any permit already active in planning. The day legislation is introduced is no guarantee of new rules being put into place. Weve seen that many times in the past as recently as supervisor peskins demolition legislation last year. Asking commissioners to speculate if something will pass prejudges proposals. [inaudible] these projects, many under formal planning to do over a year should be included in the grandfathering. This brings a larger issue to light. Grandfathering, specifically projects in the pipeline at the time of submission, is the only approach to reject this unfair burden. Project sponsors enter the project under one set of rules, and then suddenly, the set of rules change midstream. [inaudible] sponsors are left holding the bag with tens of thousands of dollars of design and permitting fees, and putting the project into jeopardy. We respectfully ask that on this and all future legislation, you consider that projects be reviewed for compliance based on the applicable law at the time of project submission. Its the only equitable way for all parties involved. Thank you for your time and consideration. Operator you have 12 questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is carolyn kennedy. I chair the delores heights improvement club, a Neighborhood Association just west of dolores park. We support the proposed ordinance to require continuous authorization for proposed demolition. Existing rules exacerbate the Affordable Housing crisis in our city. San francisco housing process is very clear. The most Affordable Housing stock in the city is our existing homes, yet the current planning code allows a project sponsor to demolish an existing home with only staff review. This is an example of why speculators seek homes to demo. T each demopermit uses the demonstrably unAffordable Housing legislation to get out of that. Being exempt in a few authorizations for demolition is a big selling point to developers who are seeking big profits. Please approve this change to our planning code to create a level playing field, and i would add, without grandfathering, as all the work that has been done, including the demolitions, will still be possible to move forward. It just will require one additional review and an opportunity to be heard on the merits of this specific project. Thank you. Operator you have 11 questions remaining. Hi. This is sonia krause. Im commenting as a member of yimby action and housing advocate. Im totally against this law. Its ridiculous. Im totally against this conversation. Its insulting. I like when people disagree actually have substantive disagreements, but what were thinking about here, were calling a 2. 2 million house middle class. Thats ridiculous. You have to have an income of 400,000 a year to afford a house that expensive, so this is not about middle class housing. I would like to have this whole conversation with what its really about. This is people that live in an expensive, inclusive neighborhood of delores heights, diamond heights, who want their neighborhood to stay as pretty as it ever was, homeowners, with security housing, who cannot fathom the idea that a large structure will be near them. The amount of time this city should be spending on their buildings is szero, so this thing is insulting to all of the work that you guys really need to be doing. I do agree that all of the singlefamily houses that, you know, propose demolition should be under that same rule, and that should be that you dont need a conditional use for anything. If people want to tear down a house and develop it into something other than a singlefamily structure, we should be all for it. I recommend upzoning, and i think thats something that everybody would want on the Planning Commission and a lot of the commenters. So do something that actually adds affordability. Dont do something that doesnt, because exclusivity is in itself a luxury good. If you approve this, you are ac going to be making delores heights an even more exclusive and desirable place because you have nothing going on there. Operator you have 13 questions remaining. Good afternoon. My name is Charles Whitfield. Im a San Francisco voter and yimby action memorier. Im asking the commission to oppose this legislation. Demonstrably unAffordable Housing should not be allowexe from demolition. Demolition controlled from singlefamily homes cannot [inaudible] instead, the commission should upzone to rh1 areas around the city so that after a demolition, it can be a duplex or threeunit Family Housing in the city. Operate operate you have 15 questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is anastasia yovapolous. Id like to thank Planning Department staff for bringing this item forward. This is about demolition. Its about having a conditional use authorization process for the commission to hear the voices of the people in deciding whether this demolition should take place. The reason many of them should not take place is because the housing that they would be demolishing is affordable, and the people who want the Developers Want to building housing that is less affordable, so i think its a very good piece of legislation. I support it, and i hope that you do, as well. Operator you have 12 questions remaining. Hi. This is laura, yimby action. I get this was written in the before time, but what are we doing here . Im so frustrated by this legislation. Its one of the most backward ways of thinking about the problem we should. And in a San Francisco housing shortage, making housing more expensive, because weve made housing more expensive, this legislation is saying we should preserve this housing and make it more difficult. I cannot wrap my head around why we should be thinking this is a good idea unless youre taking into account the neighbor of a 2. 2 million home who lives in Something Like a 2. 2 million home wanting another place to complain about the spectre of a large building. Why do we need a place complaining about that . Ive been spending the last few weeks trying to get emergency fema funding to get people into shelter . This is not what we should be doing . This is not in line with any of the strategies of affordability. This is nonsense, and i really do think that we do not have time for nonsense right now. I cannot stress strongly enough there is no more time for nonsense, and everything thats on your docket that is rich people nonsense needs to be pushed off the table. Just push it away and say we do not need this nonsense. This is crazy. Thank you. Operator you have 12 questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is goose bowen from delores heights and the delores heights improvement club. I am neither rich nor guilty of the many things that ive recently been accused of. I would also like to thank supervisor mandelman for bringing this important change forward and also supervisor peskin. This loophole has been exploited by the developers in delores heights for many years, as has been pointed out to you today. The commission has seen an increasing pace of delores heights in recent years of homes both large and small, and public oversight is needed to protect the Public Housing as discussed in the excellent staff report. Im also fully supportive of the proposed grandfathering amendment as it stands with the Effective Date of february 11. However, the proposed change in the code, it exposes a proposed short in the code. It requires a soundness report as required and defined by the code in order to support the sound use calculation. Otherwise, i fear the intended consequence is demolition by seeking owners. The demolition of any property should require conditional use authorization. Thank you. Operator you have 11 questions remaining. I support this amendment as it allows all neighbors to express their concerns and be part of the process, which is what we need these days. We need controls overall the housing, not just some, and the unfortunate reality is a 2. 2 million home in San Francisco is not expensive. Thats the reality of today. Thank you. Operator you have 11 questions remaining. Hello. This is jonathan randolph. I have mixed feelings about section 317. Its a mess of a law whose tantamount to demolition provisions encourages developers to preserve studs and joists instead of bedrooms or even design details, and it doesnt have a coherent idea of what affordable entails. Its not always that old equals affordable. In San Francisco, housing is unaffordable because of a shortage. We need to build, and sometimes that building involves demolishing. So we need to identify situations where demolition should be encouraged and stream lined. Therefore, im generally not in favor of expanding section 317. I think it makes a mockery of the original intent of the law, which is to preserve Affordable Housing for the people. I disagree with Audrey Malone when she says it doesnt cause harm. It would cause harm to a. D. U. S and any upzoning that sd50 would have done. That said, we can salvage this bill by approving it with modifications. We should approve it with modifications with any projects during housing shortages. Thank you. Operator you have ten questions remaining. [inaudible] i am calling to support and thank supervisor mandelman for this legislation and also support supervisor peskin for working on this. Its a much needed amendment to making sure that certain developers are not gaming the system. We often see developers buying these starter homes that they outbid everyone, the starting families, so that they could demolish them. If its an r. H1 zone shortly after they buy it, they get another praiser to come shortly after they buy the house to appraise it at a much higher value, so theyre gaming the system. What were doing here is closing the loophole. This is not a revolutionary idea. This should not result in the drama of insulting certain people. Were just here making sure that certain people are not gaming the system, period. So please support this legislation. Thats my ask from the commissioners, to please support this legislation, and please make sure that we are going to remove the grandfathering clause. It is very important because that is only fair to everybody. If you have applied for demolishing if you have submitted your plans, and your plans are not approved yet, its only fair if youre going to be subjected to the same law of the land. Thank you very much. Operator you have ten questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im corey loftin, an architect. The Retroactive Application of planning standards within the plan check process places an undue burden on us, the project sponsors. Were entering into an already unpredictable and prolonged process under one set of standards to only have those standards changed beneath us. Projects in the planning process should be held to the substantive law at the time of their submission. I only ask that a grandfather clause be included with all projects with s. F. Case numbers. Thank you for your time and consideration. Operator you have ten questions remaining. Hello. This is david 2kgaffe. Im a longterm resident of the city and a longterm architect in the city. Im going to add my voice in for adding a grandfathering clause to this process, and having that based on the enactment date of the ordinance as theres a huge amount of time and energy that goes into preparing a presentation and a design to be able to go to a preapplication review with your department or be filed for a permit. You do have legislation that you passed last year in changing requirements of rh1 and rh1d Zoning Districts in the back yard. It was based on the date of enactment. I would ask you to do that in this case, as well. Based on the amount of time spent submitting and approving a plan in San Francisco, it only makes sense that its at the time of submittal. Thank you. Operator you have nine questions remaining. Hi. My name is robert buckman. I live in lower haight. I oppose this ordinance. The report notes that the bill will offer the Planning Commission an opportunity to approach more density in these projects. The current average wait time for a Planning Commission hearing is around ten months as reported by the s. F. Board of supervisors legislative analysts office, so this would give the project sponsor an opportunity to present the project, only to be told to include more density. I really think thats not a good solution. It looks at our housing shortage and say, why bother . Why do anything . Things will only get worse. Only the rich homes will only be affordable. San franciscans play record rents every month. Are you really believing the best response is to protect luxury housing, because a 2. 2 home is luxury housing. This is the only rezoning legislation entry since january, so i think this really reveals the message of our legislators, which is that they dont think we can fix the loopholes in equity housing. [inaudible] operator you have eight questions remaining. My name is andrew caldman, and i support supervisor peskins proposal. Thank you for supporting it. Operator you have seven questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is karen payson. A long time resident of San Francisco and president of my own Architecture Firm since 1992. I am asking that this ordinance, if approved, contain a clause that specifically grandfathers all projects that are already in the planning process. It is not enough for the legislation to state an Effective Date. The Planning Department takes any new legislation and implements it immediately, applying it to every project it has in its pipeline, regardless of its stage of approval. Any given project will be set on a given day. Its just wrong. The San Francisco department of building inspection and every other jurisdiction ive worked in applies the date that the project was applied for and submitted for review. Its difficult to imagine how this kind of capricious review benefits anyone, including Planning Department staff. I hope you will use this opportunity to incorporate a grandfathering clause into this and future Planning Department ordinances. Thank you very much. Operator you have six questions remaining. My name is luke and im a partner at o. T. A. , an Architecture Firm based in San Francisco since 2004. I believe this ordinance and all future ordinances should include a clause for grandfathering for projects already in the process. The Planning Department should review projects under the code at the time applicable at the time of review. Thank you. Operator you have five questions remaining. Im ann, a resident of district 8. I support supervisor mandelmans amendment to control the demolition of all Residential Housing in order to contain or make way for the construction of more Affordable Housing. Thank you. Operator you have four questions remaining. Im just calling to support the statements made by my colleagues laura and robert. Im opposing this item because demolition on singlefamily homes preserves the housing stock. Please listen to the architects and listen to the neighbors who understand that the housing crisis is severe, and creating unnecessary and thorny complications for these people really goes against the states goals of the commission. Thank you. Operator you have three questions remaining. Oh, hi. Its georgia sciutish. First of all, i like the report as written, and its a very honest assessment of the ordinance. I want to commend mrs. Meloni and mr. Stark, whose names are on it. Ive been listening all day, and i dont know if you read my submission that mrs. Meloni did include in the packet, but i submitted a particular project up on 27 street. This thing had two appraisals, and the demolition came in. I did oppose it at the board of appeals, and i lost. I have to say that miss croc was there, supporting the demolition. She called it gentle infill, and i think the house that was there, if you look at 650 28 street, that was a house that people lived in, and you could have added an a. D. U. In. Instead, its a monster, and who knows who will be living there and how much itll be costing. But any ways, back to the legislation, the flaws of section of 317 are always acknowledged, but never the flexibility, and i think this legislation or the flexibility as shown in the chart or the staff report for the flexibility of a conditional use where you can add a unit, you can add an a. D. U. The example that i cite, a 100foot house on a 100foot lot [inaudible] but the value in the rh1 has been adjusted in the last few years, but the value of the democuts has never been adjusted, and i think its something that should be done because we dont know what the impact of it would be if it would be done. I think ill just leave it at that, and i just want to thank mrs. Meloni and mr. Stark, as well as jacob, and supervisor peskin for cosponsoring it, and thats it. Take care. Everybody be well. Byebye. Operator you have three questions remaining. My name is michael morrison. I work in an Architectural Firm in the mission and have been recently priced out of the mission, moving to the east bay. Id like to make three points here. First and foremost is the necessity of the grandfathering clause for any permit. Any project should be subject to the laws at the time of submission. Second point id like to make is that 317 is just a really flawed piece of legislation. Many of us have known this for years. The Planning Department openly acknowledges this in their staff report, and this is not the first ordinance to try to address 317, although it seems every one of these attempts to address it dont acknowledge the issues and seem to exacerbate or sidestep all of them. This code makes a focus on framing, it adds no incentive to housing. It forces individuals to go out to the site to document individual studs, which is bizarre, and has nothing to do with Affordable Housing quantity in the city or the general housing quantity in the city, bringing prices down through supply and demand. This is regulating based on the color of the house and nothing else. And then third, id like to note the change to the legislation thats little effect on the actual legislation itself. The one piece of it having to do with the actual affordability of the building is similarly trying to be removed, which makes no sense. If the building is not inherently unaffordable, why would affordable protections affect it . Similarly, this appears to be window dressing. It makes no sensed why this is not proposed. Thank you. Byebye. Operator you have two questions remain willing. Remaining. My name is osh. Afilliation not important. I grew up in a singlefamily and a singlefamily home, certainly not one with the worth that were considering exempting them from today. I know in the past, one way San Francisco has addressed housing issues is by subdividing large homes. Thats where more people can live, and so i think theres some inherent value to having large homes to subdivide in the future, even though its not allowed today. And also, i think theres an inherent cost in adding the number of projects that can be queued up for conditional review because i know that the waiting period for that is extremely long. Thank you for your time. Operator you have one question remaining. Hi. This is martin munoz. Im calling in opposition to this item simply because we should not be destroying anymore singlefamily homes in San Francisco because we are in a housing crisis. Unfortunately, were at the point where lowincome households, up to 97,000 can qualify for lowincome. That is ridiculous, and adding more barriers. Bringing more Affordable Housing and singlefamily homes in its absolutely ridiculous that were doing this during the pandemic. Just consider the fact that we have zoning that allows for fourstory singlefamily homes but not fourstory multifamily dwellings. These homes are 1 million minimum, which nobody my age could never afford no matter what your job is. Thank you. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Clerk very good, commissioners. The matter is now before you. President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner fung the interesting thing is its a little bit of a disconnect, you know, to even equate this exception to what is reasonably affordable. At 2. 2 million, this is something thats not even considered to be affordable. The questions raised by this legislation relate to whether notice is given, notice will continue to be given, whether its a c. U. Or not, but staff will continue to look at the context of the design, theyll look at historical value, theyll look at whether the design is appropriate. So the questions that have been raised are not necessarily whether demolitions by themselves will create a lack of notice to the neighborhood, to interested individuals, or whether it will those things are going to continue. It will add an additional layer of the process that has no meaning, and im not supportive of this amendment. President koppel commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson thank you. Well, you know, im going to echo a couple of things that were said in Public Comment. I appreciate staffs narrative of what this lemgs latigislati and doesnt accomplish. I think it does have a double standard for houses of one value versus another and understand where the supervisor is coming from on that. And i think the frustration that has been named on the call and that i also just feel, not necessarily with this legislation, but in general any time that we begin to talk about 317 and demolition. You know, just echoing what commissioner fung said and so many others, you know, 1 1. 7 o 2. 2 million is Affordable Housing, i would laugh if i didnt feel like crying when i heard that because its just so unaffordable. And the fact that weve made Home Ownership or just a home in general a luxury, and that is really problematic. Thats an average to a 7,000 to 9,000amonth mothrtgage. We havent even gotten to the heart of the issue. We have to protect places where people are absolutely at risk of displacement from development, but we have to accept or stream line projects around density. I think we need to continue to think of ways of safely encouraging it, particularly in neighborhoods where there is a chance of displacement. If anyone in a neighborhood wants to knockdown their house to create more housing, i think we need to allow them to do that, because thats the only way that were going to make our way out of this affordability and housing supply crisis. So related to this particular legislation, i guess where its coming from. I think that its good not to just have two [inaudibl [inaudible] commissioner johnson and, you know, i want to see so much more of the pressing issue that is facing the city right now. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore im delighted to see a first decisive step to help plugging the loopholes of section 317, and while this does not resolve all issues, i personally believe it is the right step in all directions, so thank you to supervisors mandelman and peskin for bringing this legislation forward. Id like to ask a question to mr. Bintliff, please. Mr. Bintliff, are you in earshot . Yes. Vice president moore yeah. I saw a statement in the running text of this legislation to actually tighten up certain conditions, and im wondering if youd be willing to at least consider that. Im looking at to demolition shall be considered any of the following. Item 3, a removal that proposes removal of more than 50 of the front facade or rear facade, and propose a removal of more than 50 of the exterior walls. So replacing and with or that, its an additional hurdle to jump over. Itll be coming in basically layered rather than an interdependent condition. I would think more greatly to further strengthen any loophole and set the bar slightly higher, i appreciate you considering that because i do think that we indeed want to tighten down we are not saying that demolitions are not going to happen, except they will go through a more indepth, underthemicroscope review of the department because i believe we still have a say. So i believe we can draw the precise lines on which Building Conditions would come forward, that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner moore. Well certainly take under advisement any decision that the Planning Commission does make. To your point, i think that were all aware that section 317 is painfully complex, and its a section of the code that we all know has not necessarily been achieving all of the goals that it was set out to achieve. We were all here for the efforts last year to get into some of those other areas, and as i tried to mention at the beginning of my presentation, were in here trying to cleanup one very discreet item and try to focus on that even as we know there is a housing shortage in San Francisco. It is a conversation that we are continuing to have, and we look forward to working with supervisor peskin, our cosponsor on this, as well as other folks that worked on that. But today, respectfully, we are trying to identify this one issue while we continue to work on the bigger picture. Vice president moore and i would agree with you, mr. Bintliff. Ive sat on the commission for a number of things, and what you are proposing, together with what im suggesting with the or is exactly what we need to address. President koppel commissioner imperial . Commissioner imperial im also in support of this legislation and proposal. I understand that the Section Three 317 is a public manner. One of the individuals raised a specific about the calculations, and it looks like im specifically talking about the sections of the commission b2d. Planning commission asked how do we assess the effectiveness of this section 317 . Arguably, this section of this legislation is very specific, and i understand the intent of it. I think the commission needs to look into this section itself. In other comments that has been raised in other terms i understand that Housing Market is really expensive really now, and one thing that makes housing really expensive is land cost, and a lot of homes right now are actually at millions, so its unaffordable, and it becomes a speculative tool, and thats why its you know, i understand the intent of it, and i support this legislation. President koppel commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond so i want to echo commissioner johnsons comments. I agree with all of them. I do not like double standards, and it looks like that is the point of this ordinance, is to eliminate the double standard, so i would be in favor of that so long as it contains the grandfathering clause. But it doesnt really address the problem, and its important to me that we try to come up with ways to encourage, by expediting approval, projects that we want to see more housing. While i will vote in favor of this, im really hoping that between the Planning Department, the commission, and the board of supervisors, we can address some of the larger concerns that were raised by some of the speakers about the need to be able to move more nimbly in approving projects that meet our goals. President koppel director hillis . Director hillis yes, just thank you, commissioners, for your comments. I think youre spot on. I think youre hitting some of the areas that we touched on, too, when we looked at this at the staff level, recognizing that 317 is not just complicated but flawed. I mean, its not doing what it was intended to do, which doesnt necessarily improving affordable. It doesnt improve density. The demo calcs, as we heard, are confusing and difficult to apply. It shined a light and asked the question over whether this is the appropriate zoning that we should have. This is what were working on at staff level. We want to come back to you and talk about 317. A couple of years ago, we tried to look at the rh1 zoning at part of our housing effort, so these are definitely on the front burner for staff. President koppel commissioner moore. Vice president moore hearing that everybody is in support of this legislation, i am making a motion to approve with modifications. Commissioner diamond second. Clerk commissioners, seeing nothing further, theres a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with modifications. On that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes, 51, with commissioner fung voting against. Commissioners, thatll place us on item 16 for case number 2019021215 cua at 3751a 24 street. Is staff prepared to present . Yes, we are. Yes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Minor interior and exterior alterations of the building are proposed. The 2,460 square foot property is located on the southside of 24 street, between church and chattanooga streets. The subject tenant space was most recent occupied in 2018 by a business previously doing business as the mill, and currently sits vacant. The department has also recommended [inaudible] of a condition which [inaudible] but also provides the public with an appropriate means to express concerns with regards to the additional of this feature. Type c for on side consumption is most commonly identified as consumption consumption production of cannabis for consumption or smoking. The department has explored other options which achieve the same goals. Among the additional options is n the implementation that establishes a conditional review for [inaudible] members of the public expressing opposition of the project state proximity of the cannabis business to schools, and the increased pedestrian traffic. Members of the public express support of the project states the ability to provide increased pedestrian traffic and supporting the neighborhood as part of their support. [inaudible] clerk okay, chan, why dont we open up the q a period. Operator your conference is now in questionandanswer mode. Clerk i apologize. We should hear from the project sponsor first. Hello . Clerk yes. Yes, ive prepared a presentation for this . Clerk okay. Are the slides up . Can you see this . Clerk could you share your screen, gabby . Yes. Clerk just one moment, project sponsor. Okay. There we go. All right. Good afternoon, president koppel and fellow commissioners. Thank you for hearing our presentation for authorization for Cannabis Retail. This is an overview. Were going to be going over the miscellaneous operation information, Community Route reach, our Good Neighbor policies supported by the office of cannabis, and our goals, which is to serve the community. One of the coowners and operators operators is a noe valley native, sharon cassidy. Hello, commissioners and commission. My sharon is sharon cassidy. Im also the landlord or the property owner, and so i think thats a wonderful condition in this circumstance, considering i will be directly accountable for anything that occurs in or around this property. Im a secondgeneration san franciscan. I grew up in bernal heights. Ive been educated in San Francisco, an alumni of ucsf and u. C. Berkeley. Also, whats important here is i donated 18 consecutive years with the noe valley harvest festival. [inaudible] and i take lots of time to donate my resources to charitiable causes within the San Francisco city limits, so thats a brief description of who i am. Alex . [inaudible] when my grandma emigrated from nicaragua. [inaudible] before this, before the shelter in place, i was working in the Service Industry as a bartender and server. Sometimes working many shifts to pay my student loans. I became an equity applicant in 2017 the end of 2017 . And yeah, here we are. Next slide, please. Just a Quick Mission statement. [inaudible] the miscellaneous operational information. Our hours of operation will be 10 00 a. M. To 10 00 p. M. We will have six to eight employees, as well as security guards, security guards who will be present at all hours at all times to enforce our Good Neighbor policy. Also, to enter, you must be 21 or older to have purchase or use Recreational Cannabis through smoking, vaping, or eating cannabisinfused products, and this will be enforced by security onsite. As far as community outreach, we have i personally passed out pamphlets on 24 and church, posted them between castro and noe, and another one on victor and sanchez. We held two town halls, and have had positive feedback on nextdoor. Com, and 36 letters of support for the project. We also have endorsements from seven other businesses and owners on 24 street also provided. Next slide. Now, the most important things to us would be our Good Neighbor policies. The Good Neighbor policy was set forth by the s. F. Office of cannabis to ease the transition in the neighborhood into the neighborhood with the surrounding merchants and neighbors. Very briefly going over that, it states all Retail Stores must do the following preventing double parking in and around the business, prevent loitering around the business, and the outside consumption of cannabis. We will put up signs banning double parking around the business, preventing loitering around the business, and not allowing consumption of cannabis around the business. Finally, our goal is to serve the community. Ive invested a lot in this community over the years and care about the neighborhood. We have been at this since march 20, 2018 to try to check as many boxes as we can, and weve had nothing but favorable feedback from our community. We intend on providing Holistic Alternatives for pain management, among other things, and most importantly, we will try to uphold the Good Neighbor policy to the best of my ability and maintain healthy relationships with our neighbors, and thatll be next slide. Thank you for your time, president koppel, and fellow commissioners, for hearing us today. Clerk great. Thank you. Okay. So at this time, we will be accepting Public Comment, so if members of the public could hit onezero and queue into the system, this would be your opportunity for testimony. Chan, how many callers do you have on the line . Operator you have one question remaining. Hello, commissioners. Anastasia yovianopolous. Get out your google maps and see where this is located. This is between church and chattanooga, and the next street over is delores street. Whats going on on that block is mostly residential. Theres childrens karate going on on the corner, in the church. There is a dry cleaner on the same side of the street as the project. I live across the street from that project, a few doors down, on the 3700 block. Now during the day, youll see 100 shuttle buses in my neighborhood, stopping to let people off. Im not concerned about cannabis. I dont mind cannabis sales, but the fact that itll be open until 10 00 p. M. At night, and the fact that i dont know what will be going on, the fact that it is a residential neighborhood. There may be people coming up the hill, looking to buy things or snatch stuff away from people, there may be more kinds of crime going on, breakins happening, so thats what im concerned about. These people sound like nice people, Good Neighbors, but i dont know if theyre hip to were in a city, and things can happen. So im a resident, and im concerned because i live across the street from the project. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is michael patton. Im a 30year resident of San Francisco, and i sent a letter of support, and im calling in support of the dispensary. For multiple reasons, i think having a storefront filled is a great thing. I think employing san franciscans is a great thing, and i think noe valley having its first dispensary is a great thing for those of you unable to travel or those of you just recreationally. I think its a great opportunity, and i ask for your support. Thank you. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Clerk very good, commissioners. The matter is now before you. Commissioners . President koppel so im supportive of this c. U. Would be interested in hearing from the other commissioners. Commissioner moore . Vice president moore i am supportive of c. U. And make a motion to approve. Commissioner diamond second. President koppel commissioner diamond . Climb commissioner diamond i have a question for staff. So are they proposing types of consumption, types a, b, and c licenses . Hey, gabriela, Department Staff. So the project is not proposing any onsite licenses. What the project has is kind of limitation for when Something Like type c, which is consumption of cannabis via vaporizing or smoking, that we are kind of taking the preemptive step and requiring them to do neighborhood notification, for if there are concerns for this feature, for the neighborhood, that there is an opportunity for them to voice their concern. Commissioner diamond [inaudible] commissioner diamond is that what youre talking about . Yeah. Commissioner diamond so they apply for a typec license to the department of Public Health, and then before its issued or after its issued, they have to apply . It would be something that has to get completed before we can recommend to the department of Public Health, so it has to happen before the department of Public Health can issue it. Commissioner diamond so you say we want to do we want a typec type license, and before you then forward it to d. P. H. , you would require 311 notice . Correct. Commissioner diamond and is this a standard condition . I believe it came up one time since ive been on the commission in conjunction with the polk street project, and we ended up prohibiting a typec license. For the sake of consistency, this is a way that the department has landed on it to deal with this issue. Were still exploring options, but in terms of anything being done previously, this is the first. I know we did try to make it a thing in kind of the previous Cannabis Retail that you saw at the Planning Commission, but this would be the first, this kind of condition. Commissioner diamond okay. Thank you. Yeah. President koppel Planning Department staff, mr. Sucre, would you like to join in . He withdrew his name. Clerk very good, commissioners. If theres nothing further, we can take up the matter of the motion, and i will simply remind commissioners and members of the public to silence your mic. Were getting a little bit of feedback. But there is a motion to approve the project with conditions. On that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners that motion passes unanimously, 60, placing us on item 17, 202000021 cua, a conditional use authorization. [please stand by] one vehicle parking space, one bicycle parking space, and 140 square foot depth. This pattern has a bit of a history, so im going to do a bit of a summary to a history, so im going to so a permit was filed in 2018, and work was cuked. Conducted. And complaint was filed that the project had exceeded the scope of Building Permit 01822079, and demolished the singlefamily home. In response, the conditionaluse application, the 201826020a was filed, and heard o in 2019, and that was to legalize the demolition of the singlefamily home and the construction of a 3,340 square foot singlefamily home. That was denied on december 18, 2019. A standard condition is that once denied, conditional use applications cannot come back for another application within a year. The project sponsors are now able to proceed with a new conditionaluse application within a year of the previous denial because the new application contains a substantially different project. Planning code section 306. 65. This was made by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the City Attorneys office. In this process, we determined that a new supplemental application would need to be filed with this conditional use and prj application. A preapplication meeting is a policy requirement, not a requirement of a planning code. With the intent being to inform neighbors about a project and to receive feedback prior to submitting to the city. Because the previous project was so recently noticed to the neighbors, and the neighbors were aware of the scope of the submittal as a result, the department determined that an email set of plans to the neighbors would be sufficient, and that is what occurred in january of this year. There have been some questions raised about possible unauthorized units. Unauthorized units must meet physical characters. And the previous home did not meet the physical definition of a potential unauthorized unit. As such, the department completed a u. D. U. Search, with an affidavit for the projects sponsors. The department is determined there was not adequate evidence to determine that an unauthorized dwelling unit existed, therefore the existing project sa singlefamily home. The project has changed in the following significant ways the building is redesigned to not require variance, a second unit has been added to the proposal. And the floor to ceiling heights have been decreased. The department has received four letters of support for the project, which describe the benefits of adding a second unit, and providing upgraded building structure. The support also notes that the proposal will not extend as far into the rear yard as the previous structure did, thereby increasing the space. The department received a letter signed by 16 neighbors, claiming that the project should not be heard within a year of the previous denial. The department has received one letter requesting that the item be heard at a later date, due to the online requirements of the shelter in place city order. And the department received an additional letter requesting that the commission receive a letter on the occupancy within six months. The department and Planning Commission has received additional letters from some of the 16 neighbors reiterating the request for continuance. The Department Finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the general policies of the existing plan. The proposal includes two residential dwelling units, resulting in one additional unit added to the citys housing stock, which is a goal for the city. The Department Also finds the project be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. This concludes my presentation, ill be around for questions. Im now going to share the screen so the project sponsor can be in the presentation. Before you do that, i need to acknowledge commissioner moore for an announcement. Ive been advised by the city to make a disclosure, and the architect has a project in front of us, and is advising a large residential building, and that, in itself, is not creating any financial conflict, nor does it conflict in my participating in the full and fair hearing today. This is for the record. Thank you, commissioner moore. Is the project sponsor ready to present . Yes. Its Jonathan Pearlman on the line. Very good. Can we see the screen . We can see the screen. Thank you for that. Thank you. Let me know when it is up because im getting a delay here. Bridget, if you could let me know if it is up and ill start. I believe youre good to go. Okay. Commissioners, commissioner president koppel, Vice President moore, director hillis, thank you for hearing this project today. The image youre looking at is our proposed project for a new, threestory, two family home to replace a defacto demolition of the existing twostory singlefamily house. My clients are a young couple with a 3yearold daughter, with expectations of future family expansion. They bought the house in 2017, and in 2018 hoping to renovate and move in 2019. They always expected to occupy the property. Slide please. The slide is a legalization of the defacto demolition of the existing house. It is a defacto demolition by accident. Dpieaccident due to thegeneral g unfamiliar with the planning code limits on demolition, when extensive dry rot and terminate damage was exposed, its removal exceeded the scope of the original permit. The d. B. I. Field inspector agreed that the framing needed to be removed, and the inspector signed off on the job card in november 2018. But it wasnt until 2019 that the work was stopped. This is a nonconforming home. It will add a familysized unit. It conforms to the family code by setting the front facade back to meet the average between the neighboring houses. It removes a significant mass of the building at the rear yard that extends 11foot 2 into the setback, and a 29foot high, it is more than 10 feet below the height guides. And it has a form that rein firms the stepping down pattern. And the third floor sets back another four feet to align with the east neighbor. And the Architectural Design is evocative of early 20th century, that will be built with brick, wood shingles, and darkpainted woods. All highquality materials. Slide, please. This slide shows you the north and south sides of 21st street, between diamond and eureka streets. The subject property can be seen center right on the upper slide, the north side of the street. The characteristics of this block are an eclectic mix of architectural styles, from 1908 to the 1970s, and ground floor pattern of entry and garage doors. Slide please. This slide shows the house in our design in place. It also shows to the right, at 4112 21st street, a design that has been approved but is not yet built. So this shows that the project meets the planning code and the Design Guidelines. It has an architectural style compatible to those on the block. It fits the other two and threestory homes. The house fits on the hill, consistent with the guidelines, and it has a distinct first floor base with two stories above. Slide, please. This shows the plan of the house. You can see the two units. I want to emphasize that the lower unit at the basement and first floor, that is outlined in red, this is a familysized unit, a twobedroom, twobath unit, with large open space at the rear yard, and the upper two floors, the second and third floor, outlined in blue, is a very nice, also familysized unit, threebedroom, and two and a half bath unit. Slide, please. This shows the elevations of existing above and proposed below. The again, the house is designed to fit in both with the neighborhood, as well as the prevailing character of San Francisco in general. With very highwealthy materials, and details that are evocative of good family homes in San Francisco. Slide, please. This section drawing shows, again, how the house is oriented on the property, with the lower unit down below, with a basement, and a first floor, and it has the rear yard as outdoor space, as well as a deck off of a bedroom on the second floor. And then the second and third floors are the owneroccupied unit for george and jenna, with the three bedrooms and the two baths. So one of the most important concerns that sorry, slide, please. One of the most concerns that the neighbors have had from the very beginning, and this came up significantly in the hearing from last year, is the reduction of the rear yard massing. It is one of the significant changes from the original project, and this slide, you can see on the right the diagram showing the original house, how significantly it projects into the rear yard, and in the aerial view, that portion that extends into the midblock open space. So that space is 11foot 2, beyond the rearyard setback, extending into the midblock open space. This project removes two floors of that extension into the rear yard. In addition, the new third floor is set back an additional four feet at the top to align with the face of the new house at 4112 21st street, and the mass is further reduced by sitting back three feet on the west side to increase light, air, and privacy, which is to the west of the property. These diagrams, you can see the existing house, the middle diagram removed, and then at the become, what the final project will be. Slide, please. This slide also illustrates in plan the significant changes by the removal of that large mass of the back of the existing house. So the lines are emanating from the house, which is on the left, 4124 24th street, and you can see how there is a significant opening of view and light and air into 4124 by the pullback [audio breaking up] okay. Thank you. So slide, please. This one talks about the conditional use findings, which you have in the staff report, but it shows this project is both necessary and desirable, and that the conditionaluse authorization should be granted. Slide, please. In summary, this project is a significant project for the neighborhood. It replaces a deteriorated singlefamily home, and it proposes a twofamily home with twofamilysized units consistent with the zoning. It is contex con contextual in e design. It is consistent with the residential Design Guidelines, and meets the prepond dance of the 317demolition criteria, and for those reasons, i hope you authorize this project so we can move forward to provide a home for this young family. Thank you. Jan, why dont we open up to question. For members of the public, press 10 to enter into the cue. Your conference is now in question and answer mode. To someone each question, press 1 and then 0. You have nine questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is jeff baker. I live at 394 diamond street, im located two houses to the east of george and jennas house, two houses to the right. Were asking that you support the proposal that is in front of you tonight. This has been a long and difficult process for really all of the parties involved. Like many things in life, it involves compromises. George and jenna have been very reasonable for us to work with during the process. As an example, when they were designing the current proposal, they had a roof deck and pe penthouse, and we had problems with the placement of that, and george and jenna were very amenable, and they worked with us and they removed the roof deck and the penthouse. So we found them very cooperative to work with. The property currently sits in a halfbuilt state. I recognize this is as a result of a variety of different, unfortunate reasons. But the delay in the process has caused the property to become an eyesore for the neighborhood, and an attractive nuisance, and we would like to see that resolved quickly. The proposed plan appears to comply with the planning zone. And we urge the commission to approve the project as proposed today so we can move forward and create some muchneeded housing and take care of this eyesore. Thank you. You have nine questions remaining. Hello, commissioners. Im ann zari. Id like to request your support for a con continuance that will al time for the neighbors and the project sponsors indescernable . We received a set of plans from the project architect in january. No meeting was scheduled or held. And we understand that the plans up for discussion today have been modified since then. We would like to work with the owners to learn about their plans for their property, ask questions, express concerns about their projects impact on the neighborhood and issue a response to them. A continuance would create an opportunity to take place, and we hope youll approve it. Thank you. You have 10 questions remaining. Whats going on . Caller, youre on. Caller well, i would like to also support continuance and that supervisor mandelman and jacobs. The neighbors have not had an opportunity to express concerns about what is before you. In fact, the plans youre seeing today, we only saw with the publishing of last weeks agenda. So we have not really had any opportunity, and we would like to work in good faith with these owners to make that a house that everyone can live with. Im also concerned that in the technical limitations of the forum that we have today with callins, we have a very vulnerable neighbor that is directly next door to this project, and im not certain he can be on the call to express his concerns, which may even include encroachment on his property. I think we need a better environment to allow all of the members to speak. Supervisor mandelman is responsible. Im the owner of the property at 385 eureka street, and i face the back of this project. You have 10 questions remaining. Good afternoon. This is kate crum, ive been a neighbor since 1980. First i would like to express my appreciation to supervisors manhandleman and jacob for asking for this continuance, and being available to mediate a neighborhood meeting for the project. To review, the previous conditionaluse authorization request for this property was disapproved in december 2019. We received these plans from the new architect in january. We did not expect this project to return to the commission for conditionaluse authorization until this september, and we expected that a neighborhood meeting would be held before that so we could understand the new plans and have our concerns addressed. Instead, we received notice of this hearing. When the calendar and dockets were published, we discovered a new set of plans. Were asking for this continuance to be continued so that we meet with the project sponsors in order to arrive at a project that is compatible with the neighborhood. Please grant at least a 30day continuance to allow us the time to come together. Thank you for your consideration. You have nine questions remaining. Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. Ozi realm. Im also echoing the request from previous callers, and i just want to thank supervisor mandelmans office for requesting the continuance. As other callers mentioned, they were under the impression that this project will not be coming back until september. So in light of the emails that they received, they had no idea what the process was, and, of course, the project sponsor did not alert them to the process, and whether or not the project could be heard before september. So thats why i would like to urge you to do do postal pone this fopostpone thi0 days that supervisor mand manmandelmans office has asked. The house is going to be here for a long, long time. These neighbors and their homes are going to be there for a long, long time. So 30 days is not going to make that much of a difference in the bigger scheme of things. So please consider our request and postpone this for 30 days so everybody would have the opportunity to sit together and come up with an agreement. I also want to add a little bit about whether or not there were two units. Im totally baffled because the departments own certified h. R. E. Document does state there were two units on his property. So im totally baffled, and, of course, there was a tenant who was 59. 5 years old, and unfortunately she got displaced for 50,000. And, incidentally, she couldnt afford to live in San Francisco anymore, so she had to just move out to somewhere i cant remember, either ohio or idaho. Anyway, i just wanted to add that, that things are not just as simple and binding. There are many nuances that have happened here, and all were asking is for another 30 days so that the conferring parties can come together and come to a compromise. Thank you. You have 10 questions remaining. Oh, hi. I have been listening to two sets of comments, and the one i have seen in part of the staff report, i made the suggestion they report back after the c. F. C. It would be nice to know what is going to happen with that other unit, and i think that that could be sent into you. And also, since this new version appears to be a fulllot excavation for the new basement, for the unit, it would be good to know what the plans are to indescernable in the rear yard. I think that should be for all projects going forward, especially those that didnt specify. My comments since the staff report relate to the draft motion, in section 317, and i think that the relative affordability can be ascertained, and i dont think there is relative affordability. If you look at the history of the project, it sold for 1. 55 million on september 2017, and it sold again for 2. 2, and the value now, even though it is demolished, based on redkin, is 2. 5 million. And there is a discrepancy also on the assessors report, so im confused about that. Even though the staff report says demolished houses over 3,000 scare feet i get it is based on the plans. Based on my observations, they could be sold anywhere from 4. 5 million to 4 million combined, so the increase is pretty good. I want to give you an example of a project in alteration, 4061 caesar chavez, it probably should have been a demo. First sold for 1. 2 million in april 2016, and after they got their entitlement, it sold for 2. 35 million. So ultimate, when it was completed last fall, one unit sold for 3. 2 million, and the other unit they created in the alteration it is 2. 85 million. Thats a 6. 05 million total. Even though that is an alteration and should have been a demo. I do think if this is continued, there should be some consideration given to changing that criterion eye because relative affordability doesnt exist in this new project. It is very attractive, but i believe the neighbors have a lot of concern. Thank you very much. Byebye. You have nine questions remaining. Hello, this is an nastastasha, and im urging the Planning Commission to postpone this to a later date for two reasons the natives need more time to negotiate with the owners on this new project. It is a new project. And the Planning Department needs time to correct the record on a few misrepresentations, such as, this is not a singlefamily home or a twostory home, over basement, singlefamily home. According to the Historic Resource report, it is a multifamily home [audio breaking up] and, also, there is an issue about the Square Footage, which isnt correctly stated. Also, as a senior tenant, i am concerned that there was a tenant there, and there is proof that there was a tenant living in a separate unit. Maybe the planner did not take things into account, but there was. And i have a settlement and release agreement from the rent board that talks about where the tenant lives. Linand the neighbors have submitted documentation that there was a tenant. And the family knew when they entered into the contract, that there was somebody living there because she doesnt move out until after they entered into the contract. So there was a tenant. There was a separate unit at 418 and a half 21st street, and the new planner is familiar with this, and someone was unjustly evicted, maybe not by this particular set of people, but that happened. Anyway, it is a wrong message to developers that they can evict tenants to do things like why did they have to buy this property in the first place . They could have lived anywhere, not a tenantoccupied place. But the neighbors want to negotiate and they asked you to continued the hearing, and i think that is good for all parties concerned. So i ask you to continue this matter. [phone ringing] you have eight questions remaining. Hi, my name is david roth, and i live in 4130 21st street, im a window over to the west of the proposed project. And im phoning in to voice my strong support for this project. For nearly a year enough, weve been living with this eyesore and it is beyond time to move forward. Delaying this benefits nobody, and it is unfair to all parties. The neighbors who have to live with this blythe, and the owners lives are on hold, wondering if they can ever move forward with their new home. The property is not only an eyesore from 21st street, but it has been left completely open to the elements and visibly uninhabitable to the back of the houses along our block, as well as to the homes on diamond and eureka. I really appreciate the fact that an email was sent to everyone in january by the architect, which contained the plans, more context on the project, and Contact Details should you have any questions. This is above and beyond the usual postal mail i received from the city informing me of projects. My experience is that george and jenna have been open and willing to work with everyone about concerns that are brought to them. Theyre highly communicative with the neighbors, and yet for some reason were still not able to move forward. I reviewed the plans, and i believe they would be a good addition to the neighborhood, both in terms of curb appeal and the addition to the housing stock. Our home is downhill of 2018, and the old house was sticking so much further into the rear than the rest of the houses on this street. By shortening the depth of the house to bring it into performance and reducing that mass, will be a major improvement. It is subjective, but i also really like the look of the front house and think it will fit well in the street. And im glad it is not just another box that seems to be popular in the neighborhood right now. I hope this project is approved today and construction completed in a timely manner so has to have more families living on our street. Thank you for your time. You have seven questions remaining. Hello. My name is doris kelly. Im the owner at 384 diamond street. My home directly is adjacent to the backyard of this existing property. I am supporting and asking for the 30day continuance. As neighbors, we have not had sufficient time to really review this new plan recently submitted, since it appears to be different than our last plan of january 24th. There has been a lot of misinformation about this property, including the number of units, the Square Footage, how many bedrooms there were, and whether there is, indeed, an infringement on the Property Line to the west. There are definitely some issues that need to be clarified, and i am one of the neighbors who would love to have the opportunity to speak with the Property Owners and see if we can reach an understanding with their property and its development. Thank you. You have six questions remaining. Oh, hello. My name is richard pradoc and im a neighbor. I live at 373 eureka street. My backyard is more or less kitty corner to the property in question, so i have a very good view of the property. First, i would like to say thk thanks fothanks for taking time to listen to me, and i have to say im impressed on how youre running this meeting in this very weird time. Im very in favor of this project moving forward. First of all, i took a look at the plans, and as other people have pointed out, the plans make significant improvements to the existing property on that site. The depth of the property on the lot is significantly reduced in a way that will be much more pleasing, i think. Wit will leave a lot of the yard open for light and air and all of that good stuff. Second, as also pointed out before, the new plans actually add an additional unit, a second unit, which i just think is a good thing for having additional housing in the neighborhood. And then finally, and this is sort of sell selfish, the exiting place is quite the eyesore. It iit is in a state of disrepair. It is in a state of partial unconstruction, there is no roof, and there is unfinished plywood on the side. And in the front of the house, there are stacks of lumber lying around. You know, it is a bit of a mess. Gorks i would just like t gosh, i would like to see Real Construction take place as soon as possible. The last thing i would like to say is, i got notification of this project at the same time as everybody else. And i did reach out to the architect i reached out by email and they immediately put me in touch with the owners. And the owners have just been great at communication. Theyve answered all of my questions in a very timely manner. Theyve provided tons of information. And i think if thats the way they conduct themselves through this project, it will be highly successful. So, again, i support the project moving forward. Im very eager to see construction begin, and more importantly, for them to get in, and i just want to thank you for taking the time to listen. Thanks a lot. Take care, everybody. You have five questions remains. Remaining. Hello, commissioners, im andrew coleman. I would like to request your support for continuance so the neighbors and owners can meet as a group, facilitated by supervisor mandelman. We expected that the project would be delayed to september 2020. We received a set of plans from the project architect in january. He expected that a 3 11 meeting would be scheduled. Neither of those have taken place. The plans shown you today have only been available to be reviewed for the past week. We would like to work with the owners and we hope you will approve the request of a 30day continuance so that we can. Thank you. You have four questions remaining. Hello, im james randolph. And we were just talking about how the conditionaluse for demolition is supposed to protect affordable homes. I think the premise is suspect, but this one was already rocking into the ground, which is not a surprise for a 110yearold building, so there is no preservation here. Delaying the approval of the conditionaluse wont promote Affordable Housing at all. It only makes our homes even more expensive in the city. So i think there is no Public Interest in delaying this further. I urge you to approve the conditionaluse permit for the demolition today. Thank you. You have three questions remaining. Im here on behalf on cynthia and Mark Schroeder who support the continuance request. We are 15year residents of diamond street. Our main living areas, bedrooms, kitchen, and dining room are located in the back of our house, which directly faces all of the eastern sides of 2118 21ststreet. This is where we spend the majority of our time as a family. We rely heavily on natural light. If this project is evolved, the generationally living in an envelope, we would like the opportunity to share the impacts of this proposed building on our main living areas. As stated in my previous letter to you, my husband and i support the continuance of at least 30 days. We look forward to supervisor mandelmans office facilitating the meeting. As we expressed on september 19, 2019, we believed that the Property Owners each have the right to improve and expand their properties, but we believe these endeavors need to follow the legal and community processes outlined by the city and county of San Francisco. Thank you. You have two questions remaining. Yeah, hi. This is todd david. Hello, commissioners. And just to be clear, im speaking as a neighbor. I live at 384 eureka street. Im not speaking on the behalf of the San Francisco housing coalition. I want to say im supportive of this project, and i see no need for a 30day continuance. If i understand, this project is code compliant and zoning compliant. So i dont see what we are negotiating with the owners of the project. Certainly supervisor mandelman can bring the neighborhood together over the next 30 days and have a conversation about what is happening at you know, for the developer or the owners to answer questions. But at the end of the day, we are turning the single unit of housing into two units, which is exactly what we are trying to do in San Francisco, to add units of housing. And i have heard a couple of people talk of potential infringement, of, like, moving on to another lot. Unless they are not going to use a surveyor, and the surveyor confirms is on its own Property Line, i dont believe that is in the realm of realistic possibilities. So, any way, as a neighbor, i welcome another unit of housing in my neighborhood, and i look forward to having two new families to call neighbors. Thank you very much. Bye. You have one question remaining. Caller, if you would like to submit your public testimony, now would be your opportunity. Hello, if the caller in cue would like to submit your testimony, now would be your time. Okay, why dont we go to the next caller, if there are any you have zero questions remaining. That would conclude your Public Comment, commissioners. The matter is now before you. So before i call on any other commissioners, i just wanted to say im okay with this project. Irknoi know we did hear a previous version of this, and we disapproved it, we shot it down. This is a new project. I didnt really hear many comments about the actual project, just about timelines and asking for my time. And im actually comfortable enough that the supervisor has a good enough grip on this project that we may be able to still work with the supervisor but not necessarily have to continue it. I would be curious to what the other commissioners think. Why dont we go with commissioner moore. Im very comfortable with the project, and unless i would actually, just for the reason of a supervisor having the responsibility to find Common Ground in the community, to support a continuance not because the project, from a commission point, isnt approvable, but i would like to give the supervisor room to do what he needs to do. We dont get that many requests for a continuance, but when we do get them, i mostly defer to a supervisor to do what he needs to do. That does not mean that we can indescernable full support for the project, similar to what you were saying. Sure thing. Commissioner imperial . I have a question to the staff. And this is just for clarity, in terms of the background and information provided to us. It says that it is a single or it was a singlefamily home, and there was a tenant that was thrown out back in 2017. And it is unsure whether there is another unit. And i am just assuming since there is an authorized dwelling unit, that the tenant used to live in an authorized dwelling unit cann planning confirm that . Sure. So when we look for the unauthorized dwelling units, we take a look at if theyre meeting the physical definition of what would mean a central unit, and then we look at a whole host of other things, including any eviction documents. In this instance, it did not meet the physical definition. But because terms were raised, we looked into it. And the eviction records were quite vague. It just said the tenancy. And also in the eviction, the buyout agreement, it will be quite detailed, and it would say, pass through of unit one to two, but the City Attorneys office and the Planning Department staff all looked at it and determined we could not call this a second unit, so there is just one unit. I see. Thank you. I know we have i also, since, unfortunately, it looks like the tenant has moved out and was bought out, and now were looking into the c. U. Of this twofamily unite, unit. And for the last hearing, we have approved other supervisors for a continuance. And i guess for us, just to be consistent with our rules or how we make decisions, i would agree, in terms of having the supervisor to fafacilitate this kind of conversation with his own constituents. Commissioner johnson . Thank you. So just echoing what so many have said. I feel comfortable with this project. I think it is sensitively and welldesigned, and it has come back as a much better project. I hear the neighbors concerns that at this point it is also an eyesore. And i feel comfortable supporting this project, and also given the ask of the supervisor, supportive of the continuance with the hope that this can just all be resolved for the community as soon as possible. So i would like to make a motion to continue this project. To a requested time. Second. Commissioners, that would put us into may 21st, if were going with 30 days. [inaudible] someone might want to comment on the 30 days in particular . For Department Staff i think for staff, everything was noticed, the way we always do. And the plans, as you know, are cocompliant, and compliant with the residential design guideline, so there is not much that the staff has to do in this interim. So i think the two weeks might be sufficient to work with the neighbors and the supervisor, but i think it is more of the supervisors call on this one. Okay. Great. 30 days. 30 days. Very good. Mr. Moor commissioner moore has a comment. Indeed. The only reason why i would suggest 30 days is that meetings are difficult to schedule. Our shelter in place, together with the distancekeeping, makes it significantly more cumbersome to get everybody on schedule. I think 30 days is prudent, given the current circumstances under which were working. Commissioners, just for your advice, this continuance will count against the fivehearing limit of the state law associated with these housing projects. So just be aware that this continuance will count against that threshold. I hope that there will be a consideration given to the extraordinary circumstances under which were even meeting, and that somebody at the state level will fully take that into consideration. There has to be a little bit common sense because we are all working under really extreme circumstances. Indeed. Thank you. Commissioners, if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter for 30 days, to may 21st. On that motion, commissioner diamond . Im participating by phone. Can you hear me . Yes. I just wanted to let people know that my Internet Connection went down and i have been listening in through a dialup connection, although it didnt go down until after i saw the presentation. And had i had the opportunity to comment before, i would have, so im doing it now. Which is that i agree with the comments made by my fellow commissioners that i am in support of the project, but i want to show deference to the supervisor. And with the hope they can come to some resolution which might negate any further appeals. So i vote in favor of the motion. Very good. Thank you. Commissioner fung . Yea. Commissioner imperial . Yea. Commissioner johnson . Yea. President koppel . Yea. That motion passes 51with commissioner koppel against. Case number 201701281, drp 02, at 236 el Camino Del Mar, this is a discretionary review. There are two d. R. Filers. And each will receive a fiveminute presentation. Each member or Interested Party will receive a twominute presentation. Staff, are you prepared to make your presentation . I am. Good afternoon. Can you hear and see me . Yes, we can. Just one thing of housekeeping, jonas, do we still have a fourhour limit on our connection . Because were at nine minutes to 5 00 . No. Very well. Great. All right. Good afternoon, president koppel, commissioners and staff and architect, the item before you today is a public initiated request for discretionary review of Building Permit application 2017, 07212994, to construct a ground and second horizontal rear addition, and interior alterations to an existing sing family dwelling at 236 el Camino Del Mar. There are two d. R. Requests. The first, peter temo, the adjacent neighbor to the west of the proposed project, who is concerned that the height and depth of the building is out of scale with the existing building scale at the rear and midwalk open space and does not provide adequate setbacks. And it impacts the light to the adjacent properties. And, three, that the decks at every level would be intrusive to privacy. His proposed alternative is to match the neighboring building at 240 el Camino Del Mar, limiting the ground level extension to nine feet. The second level to 3. 5 feet, and provide setbacks on both sides, and elimination of any windows facing 240 el Camino Del Mar, and providing tall plants as a screen for privacy. Im sorry, those were the comments from both mark hei heineke and peter tempo. And theyre adjacent neighbors on both sides of the subject property. Tz department has received 69 letters in opposition, and no letters in support. The departments Residential Design Team as reviewed century the project, and found it complies with residential Design Guidelines to minimize impact to light, air, and privacy. And maintaining reasonable access to midblock open space against both adjacent d. R. Requests properties. We revised to lower the height of the lower floor by 3. 7 inches, and a setback against the neighbor to the west to reduce shutter impacts and reducing the sidefacing windows to the east as well, to reduce privacy impacts. Additionally the deck at the second floor has been reduced indepth, and that is in your packet as the latest, dated, i believe, february 27th. Therefore staff has found that the d. R. Requests concerns regarding scale and character are not extraordinary or exceptional, and recommends not taking d. R. This concludes my presentation, and i am ready to share my screen with the first d. R. Request. Thank you. The first d. R. Requestherequester is prepared o make their presentation. You will have five minutes. And as soon as mr. Winslow shares this screen, well prompt you. Just to coordinate, my first d. R. Requestor is mr. Temo. Are you cud up and ready to go . Yes, i am. Im not on video, and the video we can see is a oneminute delay, so im going to rely on you to put the slides up as asked for. Correct. Were going to share your presentation to the public facing, as soon as mr. Winslow is able to. Thank you. And we will notify you when to begin your presentation. Okay. Okay. How is that . Can everybody see this . We can. If the first d. R. Presenter may begin and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners my name is peter temo. This project has many problems. The most egregious of which was the sponsors bait and switch, making a bad project even worse. Let me explain. With overwhelming neighborhood support, i objected to the initial plans. Largely through the assistance of david winslow, the sponsor modified the plans, addressing some of the negative impacts. That plan was submitted to you on january 29th. I call it plan b. That plan was evaluated by staff and should be the plan you are evaluating today. But. After submitting plan b, the sponsor asked for more negotiating time. So i agreed to a continuance. I regret that decision because the sponsor did not negotiate. He took advantage of that time to create plan c, which has far worse priefers seprivacy impacts. My slide slide one, athletes. My house is shown here to the left of the project site. I was born and raised at 230 el Camino Del Mar, and have lived here most of my life. It is the only place my mother felt truly safe after surviving the holocaust. I helped her age in place until she died at 97. Since i am also disabled, she intended for me to age in place here as well. Sheltering in place during covid19 has given me a true window into what my life will look like when i become homebound. The sponsor lives in shanghai, and he has owned the house for seven years. Amongst what i understand are several other properties in San Francisco and the bay area. The house has been vacant for five of the seven years. He has never lived there. My relationship to my home could not be more different than the sponsors relationship to his. However, i do very much support his right to improve his property. But not at the expeb expense of my ability to age in place without undo infringement on my privacy, life, and air. Im here to ask you to support my right to dignity in my family home. Slide two, please. This is plan c. The sponsors new version. If you allow this plan to proceed, a person standing on this plan c deck will look straight into my secondfloor windows, where i spend the vast majority of my time. I have tried for three years to have goodfaith negotiations, to no avail. I offered to accept the sponsors own plan, which i call plan b. This plan is in your packet with 3d models and shadow studies and should be the plan you should be evaluating today. Amazingly, the project sponsor rejected my offer to live with the very plan he submitted to you. Slide three, please. This is plan b, and i am still willing to accept its impact on me as a compromise. A person standing on this plan b deck will have a viewing angle well below my secondfloor windows, far less innovative and obtrusive. Going back to the sponsors own plan is all that i am asking of you today. This d. R. Was to be heard on february 13th, with this plan on the table. The sponsor asked for a continuance under the guise of wanting time to negotiate. I fell for it, thinking it was genuine. He used that time only to draw up his february 27th plan, which i call plan c. Please go back to slide number two, plan c. You can clearly see that plan c has far more privacy impacts. If given the choice only between these two plans, plan b is also preferable to the other d. R. Requester. People standing on this plan c deck will have an innovative viewing angle into both of our homes. And furthermore, as you can see in slide four slide four, please it would box me in between the adjacent buildings. 72 neighbors have written you opposing the project, with zero supporting. Slide five, please. This map shows 30 of these neighbors within two blocks, including 11of the 15 located on the block face and across the street. For my sake, the sake of most of my neighbors, and my ability to age in place with dignity, i ex yoask you for one small change to modify the project so it is exposed by the sponsor himself in plan b. Thank you. [please stand by] ar. As you can hopefully see, extending their home beyond our fire walls would create significant and unnecessary impact on us and our community. Please turn to slide 3. There are three key points we ask you to strongly consider. First, theres a clear prior precedent by s. F. Planning between these same properties for the same reasons. Specifically during the 2016 remodel, we were asked to pull back our plans citing 236 specifically. We will share that email in the next slide. All we are asking now is fair, equal, and reciprocal treatments. Second, we hired our architect to show how there is a clear and obvious solution here that can accommodate everyones needs and make everybody the most happy. John will share those with you next. Lastly, the project sponsor for years has only been willing to communicate with us via his large team of architects and lawyers. This has been frustrating, costly, and timeconsuming for us and our community. There are 669 letters against. This letter from s. F. Planner sarah valls. I was able to see the neighbors deck, 236, using the aerial photos we have access to when i officially reviewed the proposal. I understand your point about the depth of the proposed deck in relation to the neighbors existing deck. Since the reduced depth we are requesting is about equal to the neighbors, and this is what we would request today. In this case, the project sponsor failed to listen to the community, resulting in two d. R. S and 72 neighbors in opposition. Im sure your commission are tired of hearing the same old cases, but when an entire neighborhood comes out against this project, theres something very unusual and extraordinary about this. This is not a case of nimbyism as both protesters do not oppose growth but want to minimize impact to their home. For a d. R. , the commission has to find an unusual and extraordinary commission. In this case, its not the project that meets the definition but the size context of these three properties being only 22 feet wide versus the standard 25, meaning any growth has more impact. We were told by the project sponsors rep that he needed the rear addition to fit his familys lifestyle, and that it was too expensive to put a meeting room in their twocar garage. When i heard this, i took this as a challenge to see if it was accurate, and here are the results. Here is the proposed project. The exposed fire wall is in orange, and the proposed modifications, next slide, which is number 8. This is the media room set 5 feet into the garage. Number 9 slide. This is the second floor, shrinking the oversize closet and bath, resulting in a reduction of 58 square feet. Slide number 10. This is the third floor, and finally, slide number 11, resulting in the proposed solution which fits, then, and matches the neighbors pattern. Given your discretion, id ask you to take d. R. And ask the project sponsor to match the set back. It would satisfy both d. R. Requesters and it would send a clear message to the project sponsor and his attorneys that the public process and his intentions should be respected. Thank you for your consideration, and we are open for any questions. Clerk thats your five minutes. If the project sponsor is prepared to make their presentation, and if, mr. Winslow, you could go to their presentation. Its queued up and ready to go. Yes. This is ryan milford. Im the architect for the project sponsors, bill and carrie ceto. I can queue it up. Let me know when youre ready. It is queued up and ready to go. Let me know when youre ready. Good afternoon, commissioners. Project sponsors are bill and carrie ceto, of corona del mar. Theyve asked me to read a brief statement from them before i begin my presentation. Hello, commissioners. My name is carrie ceto, and my husband bill and i are the project sponsors. We are u. S. Citizens currently living abroad. We purchased the property to be able to move back stateside. Letters and signatures are duplicative, with letters and signatures coming from one household. Given the large tree situated at the end of our lot, the project will be primarily hidden from them. [inaudible] possible hearings before the board of permit appeals, and even possible litigation, all of which may involve a great deal of time and money. Throughout this process, weve worked closely with planning to create a completely code compliant project and to address the neighbors concerns. Since 2016, one of the d. R. Requesters himself built multiple levels into his back yard. In 2016, someone else had filed a complaint against him for a horizontal expansion into his rear yard. We lost our innocence completely when our tenant told you th us that the neighbors had tried to enlist her by refusing to move and siding with us. But for this permit, we would have already been relocated to San Francisco. We have spent many years making many changes to what was originally proposed. Given the modesty of the project and the size of the home, we respectfully request that you do not take d. R. As there are no exceptional extraordinary circumstances. Thank you for your time. So david, ill go to the slide now. Commissioners, you can see the project before you is a small expansion of a modest size family resident, and it fits well within a Development Pattern in the overall block. If we can look at the existing site plan slide, youll see that the existing lot with its 20 feet, and the existing building has only 2300 square feet, with only 1665 of actual habitable space. The proposed project would increase the total building by 373 square feet. As you can see on the next slide of the proposed plan, the entire area of the expansion will be well behind the required rear yard set back line. As we go on, living space thats being added includes a singleroom addition to the ground floor and portions of living space that would help integrate this space into the rest of the house. Moving onto the next slide, well see that the second floor, theres only an eightfoot expansion, allowing for a dining and kitchen expansion for the family. Theres no change to the two small bedrooms that existed at the front of the house, and were also proposing no new vertical additions with this project. This is not a large expansion that is before you. Over time, the project design has evolved to address the concerns of the d. R. Requesters and Department Staff. While the original proposed project was also modest in nature and sat well within the buildable area of the lot, as youll see in the next image, we bring up a new slide, the project has been reduced. Weve added a 36 side set back to the east. To move onto the next slide, you can see the section that shows the massing reduction in yellow as well as what would have been the allowable building area by code in the bold dash lines. These reductions in massing are also meant to minimize impactions to light and air to the neighboring properties. Mr. Delmino is concerned about being boxed in in a tunnel effect in the light and air effect on his property. The shadow study thats included in your packet in exhibit 5 additionally shows that the project has minimal shadow impacts even on june 21 and minimal to no impacts the rest of the year. Go onto the next slides with regards to privacy concerns raised by the d. R. Requester at 240 el Camino Del Mar to the west, the project is only slightly larger than the existing balcony thats being replaced at this level. Similarly, weve provided a 3 foot set back from their second proper Property Line deck. D. R. Requesters have stated here today they prefer a previous Design Version with a stair and larger deck, but both designs are almost identical. Going onto the next slide, which looking at the existing rear yard conditions to the east, currently, mr. And mrs. Ceto can look into the back yard of the neighboring property. Project before you does not increase the privacy impacts that are already present. However, as you can see in the next slide, in order to address mr. Temples privacy concerns, weve replaced the outdoor looking window with a frosted glass window. We do believe, however, the balcony is a superior solution, and allows for an additional planting space along the Property Line. We go onto our last slide. Pl mr. And mrs. Ceto have heard the concerns and met the concerns while still meeting the modest needs for their family. [inaudible] and a significant reduction in an eastern facing window to allow for additional privacy. Weve met many times with the d. R. Requesters and their attorneys over the last several months. There have been many, many issues that have been brought up. Privacy and the decks being one of them, but there are many things that need design modifications have been brought up to address. Theres been no attention of any bait and switch as proposed by mr. Temple. The contract etos are moving forward in good faith, trying to find a resolution that works for them and the concerns that theyre hearing from staff and the neighbors. In sumly, this is a project that summary, this is a project that works well within the lines of the lot. It is a project that results in just 220 square feet of liveable space. I urge you to deny d. R. And approve the project. Thank you, and ill be available for any questions. Clerk okay. Chan, why dont we go ahead and open the q a. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to hit onezero to get into queue to submit your public testimony. Operator your conference is now in questionandanswer mode. To summon each question, hit one and zero. You have one question remaining. Hello. Im a neighbor of mr. Temple, and i support his proposal and oppose the modifications. To me, if the rationale is that the expansion enhances one enhances one partys enjoyment but it doesnt help anything of the others, it blocks their views, it blocks the sun light, it throws more shade, if its not an expansion that can be justified on more urgent purposes medical or other necessities i think it should be opposed. Thanks very much. Bye. Operator you have five questions remaining. Yes. This is patricia cowson, and my husband and i have lived in the cottage behind Camino Del Mar, behind the temples, and guewe are opposed to the expansion. It is much larger and would infringe on our view and our privacy. Weve lived here for 50 years, enjoying the essential gardens and open space around this block, which are diminishing slowly but surely in San Francisco. Thank you, and we oppose. Operator you have four questions remaining. Hi. This is hannah romero. I live at 78 26 avenue, which is kittycorner to the proposed project. Like peter temple, i am born and raised here, and i am living in a different house on this block with my two children and husband. Should this project go ahead, it would, as the first caller mentioned, take away light and air from our block. We have lovely gardens in the middle, and with this expansion, it would greatly reduce the light not only to my building but to all the others on the block, so i strongly oppose this project. Thank you. Operator you have three questions remaining. Hi. My name is william, and im [inaudible] we submitted a letter in support of the d. R. A few months ago, and our concerns are simple property changes that will threaten the character of the neighborhood. We believe that this project deviates from the Design Guidelines [inaudible] if we continue to deviate from the guidelines as we have with some other remodels in the neighborhood, were afraid of jeopardizing the nature and character of them. Thank you. Pra operator you have three questions remaining. Hello. My name is alejandro espinoza. Im a resident at 209 el Camino Del Mar. I just wanted to call in and say my strong opposition to this project. Im in support of mr. Peter temple, and thats all. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Hi. My name is judy. My mother lives at 246 el Camino Del Mar, our family home for 60 years, which is two doors down from the proposed addition. My mother has submitted opposition, but shes heard impaired so shes asked me to submit her statement of opposition. This project is completely out of character with every house on the block. It protrudes out so far that it will block the views of the neighborhood and beautiful presidio hill, views that my mother and family have enjoyed for decades, and we hope that we will enjoy them years more. If this is built, she virtually will be looking at a slab of concrete instead. This presents a real invasion of privacy structure as it looks into the provides Living Spaces on not just the two neighbors on either side but into my mothers home, as well. The addition as proposed is unnecessarily oversized and shows no regard whatsoever for the surrounding neighbors who are vehemently opposed to the size of the structure. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Hi. My name is gary, and my mother, jane, lives at 174 27 ave. And she when thinking about her, i am concerned about her privacy if this were to happen to her house, so i oppose this project. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. Yeah, hi. My name is george karalis, karalis. Ive been living at this area between 238 and 236 el Camino Del Mar, the subject property in this debate. I, too, was victimized by one of these richmond back yard extensions several years and vehemently disagreed with the decision that the board of appeals made to allow my neighbor to do the expansion, so im very sensitive to my neighbor, peter, across the street. I think the extension is overly large, overly intrusive, and although it does not directly affect my line of sight, as a policy of consideration, this richmond policy of taking houses and buying them up and expanding them in value and turning them over in the market is outrageous. Its very bad public policy. It affects the character of the neighborhood, and you can see some other comments, affects the character of the residents that live in the opposing structures. So im saying as a policy, this structure should be stopped, and i vehemently oppose the project and oppose the project with any permit. Thank you very much. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Clerk very good, commissioners. If the d. R. Requesters would like, you each have a twominute rebuttal, as well as the project sponsor, and so if the first d. R. Requester is prepared, again, you have two minutes for rebuttal. Scott emblish on behalf of mr. Temple. Are we ready to start his two minutes . Clerk youre running. I want to address just one issue. Im scott emblish. Im an attorney, and i got involved with mr. Temple a short time ago. When the parties tried to reach an agreement in january, the parties came up, according to mr. Temple, plan b. Youll see a january 30 letter from the project sponsors attorney that is providing all of you with plan b. Theyre saying that the project sponsor has revised the plans, in front of you, along with shadow studies and remodelling. That is a plan b that did not have site angles into mr. Temples home. That was supposed to have come before you january 13, and if it had, it would have been coming before you. Instead, the project sponsor requested a continuance, and mr. Temple agreed, and during that continuance, the project sponsor took advantage of redesigning the decks to give you plan c. They submitted plan c to you in a letter dated march 3, 2020, and in it, they say the cetos have prepared and provided revised plans to further address the concerns of the d. R. Requesters. Of course thats not true. You can see that plan c does nothing to address mr. Temples concerns. In fact, it exacerbates the problems and the privacy intrusions. When i got involved, i immediately wrote to the project sponsors attorney, who i know well, and i got no response. I followed up again, saying please just let me know if ive got it wrong. Why did you change from plan b . Again, no response. Commissioners, i urge you to approve plan b, not plan c. The second d. R. Requester could submit their rebuttal, please. Hi. Its mark heineker. I want to say that we had the project sponsors architect to our home for two hours to address our concerns. We have worked tirelessly to be Good Neighbors and figure out a compromise that work dos for everyone. It turns out that we have never been able to connect with bill ceto, and its not surprising that hes not present in this call. We have done everything we can to try to come to a reasonable compromise, but that has all been through lawyers and architects. This is all about business to bill, not home. This is our home. This is our community, this is where we live, and so we absolutely can accept the expansion an expansion of his home, wh. What we have proposed is assistance, fair, equal, and reciprocal based on prior rulings of on these properties. And ill pass it on. I want to emphasize to the commission, whats extraordinary and unusual about this . Its a site condition. This is not a normal thing. The 20footwide lots actually bring out the fact that an addition in the rear will be detrimental to the adjacent neighbors. And then two, whats extraordinary and unusual . This level of opposition to this project. It is a mundane project. It is a small project, but it doesnt fit in. If you go back to my rendering, you will see that this project sponsor can accomplish what he wants to do within the volume that would match the heinekers fire wall. So all we ask you is to take a compromised solution, take d. R. And be consistent with deciding rulings that have happened in the past. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you. Project sponsor, you have a twominute rebuttal. Project sponsor . Sorry. Can you hear me . Clerk yes. Yes. So to address several of the things that were brought up here quickly in this hearing, one, the we were told that only one project representative was allowed to speak, to the cetos would very much like to be here to talk about the project on their own behalf, however, amongst the project team, we were told we were limited to only one. Im sure that mr. Ceto would love to respond to any questions directed to him. This, to reiterate to our presentation, this is a very modest expansion to a modest home. Clerk i paused your time. Im just going to jump in here for clarification purposes. You were supplied with one email to log into the Microsoft Teams platform. We dont really care how you share your time and who gets to speak. It was not a limitation on who gets to speak, so i just wanted to make that clarification. If he would like to speak, this would be his opportunity to do so. I dont believe hes set up in taiwan. I apologize if our team has misunderstood the instructions, but to go back to the rebuttal, as noted in the presentation, this is an extremely modest project. The neighbors that are calling in in support, we fully understand the rights of neighbors to weighin with their opinion. It does not seem like an accurate representation of the scale of this project which can be seen in the aerial photograph of our presentation, so the presentation within a much larger block space. This is, within the block, a large tree that, during the meeting, the neighbors asked us to conserve, which we agreed to. It does create a lot of privacy to homes on the block. Mr. Heinekers lot is a 70foot deep lot. We are greatly matching the Development Pattern of him, and well balanced within the general block pattern itself, but were preserving an additional 19 square feet of rear yard space with this addition. Its there to meet the requirements of the family. With regard to the deck versus balcony question, we did present plan b at one point as part of the negotiations to the project team. I wasnt personally in all of those conversations, but i do understand their general substance. The there was no intention of a bait and switch, there was no acceptance of plan b as an alternative, and as the project continued to develop clerk thats your time. As noted in our basic presentation. Clerk thank you, sir. That is your time. Commissioners, the matter is now before you. President koppel okay. Before i hear from other commissioners, i just wanted to chime in and say currently, im leaning towards accepting staffs recommendation. Commissioner moore . Vice president moore mr. Winslow, do you have the ability simultaneously on your screen to describe to the commission what exactly the differences are between what is referred to as plan b and plan c . I would be very interested to have you interpret that for all of us while we are listening to you . Can i share my screen again . I think its probably best exemplified by the drawings that were prepared . Clerk yes, please, david. Okay. Can you see that now . Clerk you havent shared your screen yet, david. Christine, if you could go to jeffs screen as opposed to the brady bunch . How about now . Is that clerk yes, thats it. Very good. Thank you. So and can you see my cursor on the screen . Vice president moore yes, i can. All right. So i think looking at this elevation, this represents the ground floor addition. This this line represents the second floor. This ground floor addition poppout we popout went out to the second floor level, and there was a deck on top of this roof. The project sponsor has dropped the level of this the ceiling of this ground floor by 37, and in doing so let me see if i can they had proposed providing stairs down from the second floor to the lower roof deck of this onestory popout. Ill show you the plan first if i can find i so the plan b is not in this drawing set, so let me just describe it from this aerial perspective. Imagine, in looking at this perspective, the deck was down here. There was a series of steps that came out of this door and descended down to the level of that deck. That was plan b. Plan c proposed now is simply putting the balcony at the same level as the second floor and not having any steps, so it the balcony is higher. The roof of the first floor popout is lower, but the balcony itself is smaller than the roof deck proposed in plan b. This extends out 5 feet from the face. This extends 7 feet out from this rear wall. And im sorry, i cant make that graphically clearer with what i have readily available. Vice president moore yeah. Perhaps you know what . Mr. Lums presentation might have that, as well. Let me see. No. This one will actually show it here. So heres if i can zoom in, plan b. Theres the stairs that go down to that lower balcony roof deck. Can you all see that . Vice president moore yes. Clerk we can, david. And then, by comparison let me zoom out. And this is the proposed plan c. I do see commissioner johnson requesting to speak. Commissioner johnson thanks. That was my first question, was to see plan b and see a sidebyside. A couple of additional comments. I actually agree with president koppel, that i think the addition is modest. I think plan c is potentially the better design. Its more elegant. They also do want just listening to one of the neighbors, just a reiteration, both of the views are not protected, and that people are entitled to remodel, regardless of if they were born or how long theyve lived at a property. So i just want to make sure that we are, in the name of fairness, helping people. Just making a note that we dont make a note of residency in making our decisions. I think this is a modest addition, and i am in support. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore i have one remaining question, and that is that somehow, im a little uncomfortable on the third floor, the east side, that is still really close to mr. Temples home, and i would like to see a matching condition on the east and west side on the third floor to create a little more breathing room to the east side of the expansion. Generally, i would agree that the Square Footage of the expansion is modest, however, i would agree with mr. Lum that the narrow property exacerbates people feeling very much crowded in by each other, but that is kind of unfortunately the nature of any kind of expansion no matter where you are, with a 25foot property or a 20feet property, its pretty much all the time. But i would like to point out, mr. Winslow, if you would put up the last threedimensional image of the project. I would like to see a matching of the east and west side in order to give mr. Temple a little more privacy on that upper floor. The drawing slid down, mr. Winslow, so its harder to see. Would this be good to see . The planter creates some privacy, and it doesnt show that on the east side. Id like to see that on the addition, as well. Clerk is that a motion . Vice president moore yes. Commissioner johnson second. Clerk so if i understand correctly, commissioners, there is a motion to take d. R. And approve the project with the modification of providing similar set back on the east side as exists or is proposed on the west. Vice president moore yes, on the third floor. Clerk on the third floor. Very good. On that motion [roll call] commissioner diamond jonas, can you hear me . Clerk yes. Commissioner diamond i have a question for commissioner moore. Are you saying you want to notch the balcony the same as Vice President moore mmhmm. Commissioner diamond so he loses a couple of square feet. Vice president moore but i believe it creates a little more breathing room and a Better Privacy issue when you look out. President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner fung i have a question. The problem that mr. Temple has is with the second floor, not the third floor. Vice president moore thank you, commissioner fung, for pointing that up, but i think the addition of a transom window should alleviate that concern. Staff has already modified that. Commissioner fung there was a sketch on the deck of the second floor. Could mr. Winslow confirm that . Im sorry. I couldnt hear you. What is it . Youre breaking up on my end. Commissioner fung mr. Winslow, is the privacy issue on the second floor or the third floor . I believe its primarily well, to the d. R. Requester, its on the east side, the second floor. To the west, i believe its both the third floor and the second floor extends beyond their existing conditions, and they would like to have that pulled back at both those levels. Commissioner fung and with the pull back, my suggestion to commissioner moore is that on the second floor deck, adjacent to mr. Temples side, that we determine that there be a sixfoot high opaque screen there at the edge of the deck. Vice president moore i can accept that as a motion or pulling it in, either way, commissioner fung, youre correct. Clerk is the second amenable to the motion amendment . Commissioner johnson yes, i am. Clerk so the new motion is to take d. R. , approve the project, provide a similar set back on the third floor on the east side as there is proposed to be on the west side and include a sixfoot high opaque screen on the second floor on mr. Temples side. On that motion [roll call] commissioner diamond a sixfoot high yeah, i want to chime in here on behalf of the d. R. Requester. I think part of the concern was not just about privacy, but was a sense of being boxed in, and that condition might exacerbate that concern. Commissioner fung please repeat that again, mr. Winslow. You were breaking up. Yeah, sorry about that. On behalf of mr. Temples concerns, not only was privacy a concern, but being boxed in was part of his concern. I feel the imposition of a sixfoot high privacy screen at that second level would exacerbate the issue with respect to his feeling boxed in. I dont know how to, you know, request his opinion on that at this point, if he is available, but i dont think that would be an ideal solution from his standpoint. President koppel commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson yeah, i dont commissioner fung i dont think we can have it two ways. Commissioner johnson so i was thinking it would be good to have flexibility. Many people put plantings or plants as a way to provide privacy. I think that might be more kind to everyone as opposed to a wall, but i think it would be used to create something other than people looking at people, i trust they can find a way with planters or other types of things to make that happen. Commissioner fung agreed. It could be a planter. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore you could also consider a notch because i dont quite understand why, from the second floor, it takes five steps to come onto this balcony. If the deck has been lowered by 3 feet, as i heard mr. Winslow described, why are we seeing so many stairs coming down from that floor . I dont quite understand that. So just for clarification, the plan that this the preferred plan from the project sponsor is that the deck there is no steps down to a roof deck. It is a stepout balcony that extends 5 feet from the second floor as set back 3. 5 feet from each Property Line. The roof of the first floor is 37 below the second floor, and that is simply a roof. So there are no stairs to a deck. Vice president moore okay. Okay. Its so difficult. The package is so unwielding. Its unwielding. Vice president moore its totally unwielding. I see what youre saying, and i would agree with commissioner fung as well as commissioner johnson, that a green planting would create the grade separation that were looking for. Clerk very good, commissioner moore. Is that an amendment to your original motion . Vice president moore thats correct. Clerk and is seconder agreeable . Commissioner johnson yes. Clerk okay. Lets try this one more time. Everybody stay with me. Were taking d. R. , and were going to approve this project with the condition that the sponsor provide a set back on the third floor similar to that is proposed on the west side on the east side and to provide a privacy screen via some form of greenery or planter box for mr. Temples side. On that motion [roll call] commissioner diamond i have a question about that. I would if we can figure out how to get mr. Temples opinion, i would appreciate it. It could be that he i dont know if putting a greenery reason or some other screen there blocks his views. He may prefer to have it just the way it is rather than planters there. Im fine with the planters, but thats extra, and i dont know if he would like that or not. Is there a way to get mr. Temple on the phone. Hi, this is mr. Temple if you wanted to ask me some questions. Clerk jonas, may i a. Commissioner diamond jonas, can i ask mr. Temple some questions . Clerk yes, please. Commissioner diamond mr. Temple, would you like the privacy screen the way it is adjacent to your property . A low planted privacy screen would be better. Commissioner diamond how many feet are we talking about . 4 feet . Commissioner diamond commissioner fung and moore, is that fine with you . Commissioner fung yes. Vice president moore yes, it is, and i think what we would also ask for, that the screen is properly maintained throughout the year. Commissioner diamond with those amendments, jonas, aye. Clerk okay. With a low planting privacy screen to be maintained throughout the year that doesnt exceed a height of four to 5 feet [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 60. We are getting to the end of our agenda. In fact, we are on our last item, so i beg all of your patience, including my own. Item 19, case number 2018013511 drp at 350 liberty street. This is a discretionary review. Mr. Winslow, are you prepared to make a presentation . I am. Can you see and hear me . Clerk unfortunately, yes. Im turning my mic off. Very well. Good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. This is a discretionary review of Building Permit 201809211017 to create a three story front addition to the third floor of an existing threestory singlefamily home. A deck on the second floor is also proposed at the front and side of the location at 350 liberty street. A neighbor is concerned that the project does not respect the topography and is out of character and not compatible with that of other buildings on the street. His proposed alternative is to set the project back 15 feet and set the slope. To this end, the project has received no letters of opposition and no letters of support. Additionally, the planted median of liberty street aids in the relative subornation. Staff found that the d. R. Requesters concerns regarding scale and character are not exceptional and extraordinary and recommends not taking d. R. This concludes my presentation, and im ready to share my screen with the presenters. Clerk very good, then. Is the d. R. Requester prepared to make their presentation . Can you hear me . Clerk we can hear you, david. If you could please share your screen to show or brought the d. R. Requesters presentation. It is up on the screen as we speak. D. R. Requester, you have five minutes. Okay. Thank you. Dear commissioners, thank you for taking the time. My name is philip androlini. I live at 355 liberty street. My wife and i have lived in the location since 2005, and we are raising our kids here. Liberty street is a very special street. We have a green island in the middle of the street, thought of as an island. We think this project requires a second look as we believe, in its current form, that the project does not respect the topography of the street and does not reflect the architectural setting of its neighbors. It will bre we have a fairly ominous ensembles of facades on the right side of the street. On the upper side next slide, please there are two homes, while different looking, that are similar mass, height, and impact on the street. This addition will further make the current house stick out in the street, and its glass and angular design will break in style with the home next to it. Next slide, please. Its design calls for intention instead of blending in with the rest of the facade. We believe its not compatible with surrounding buildings and its own front facade, creating a weird mix of traditional at the bottom and modern at the top. According to s. F. Residential Design Guidelines, in order to maintain the visual interest of the neighborhood, it is important that new designs and renovations of existing buildings fit in with surrounding buildings. Also because of the unique split level in our street, this will be felt stronger on our side of the street than for people walking and driving on the west side of the street. Liberty street consists of two lanes set at different levels. Contrary to the staff conclusion, we believe unique topography will be impacted by the proposed addition. The proposed addition will be more visible than it would be on a flat street. The unique topography of liberty presents exceptional circumstances which requires d. R. To be taken by the commission. This may also set a precedent for other people on the block to break in the mass harmony on our side of the street. Were proposing two things. As the addition was pitched to us as a green room or garden room, a place to get direct sun light and do some light gardening, if that is the case, why not keep this front area open and make it sort of a green roof or terrace with plants . This would be more practical and intent for its intents and purposes. This solution would eliminate all concern about the new mass and the topography of the street. This would be a large green area, sunny and exposed, where they could take care of plants. If this solution seems too radical, we would like the project to get a larger set back from the street. Maybe this should be revisited. Also, the height of the building, while under the 35foot limit, should be adjusted on either side. Simply being in line and simply being in line with current roof from the previously addition seems to make a lot of sense and be less disruptive to the street. We do have four other neighbors on our side of the street who feel similarly to us and have written letters to this board to oppose and modify this project. They should be in the next slide, actually, if you keep on theres four of those letters attached there. Thank you for your time on this, commission, for making sure that every project is intending to follow the residential Design Guidelines in order to maintain the physical character and residential Design Guidelines, and im happy to answer any questions you may have. Clerk thank you very much. Commissioners, we should hear from the project sponsor. Is the sponsor online and available to make a presentation . Yes, i am. Clerk very good. Mr. Winslow, can you put share the project sponsors presentation . Can you see the project . Clerk well, i can see your screen. I dont think its the project. It appears now. Very good. Project sponsor, you have five minutes. Okay. Good evening, commissioners. My name is paul, and i am the architect for the proposed project at 350 liberty. Our client purchased this property about two years ago for his primary resident. Because the property is north facing, his rear yard and decks receive very little sun most of the year and its always cold and damp. For this reason, he wanted to create a small south facing sun room that he wanted to use as a playroom for his children and also space for plants and a vegetable garden. Liberty slopes from west to east with a cross slope down the hill to the north. This should be the block faced buildings on the northside of liberty street vary from one to four stories and also vary in scale and style. Here, you wican see theres a block with the north face buildings, and the buildings on this side of the street are mostly three to fourstory buildings. Here, you can see the larger three to fourstory buildings on the opposite side of willliy street. Hold on. Paul, i feel im out of sync with your slide. It should be the cross section, so youre way past it. It should be on slide slide 7. No, youre past it. Im going to continue with my presentation. In addition, theres a large planting median that separates the sides of liberty street with a ninefoot grade change. The proposed addition is a modest 343 square foot room which is set back 10 foot from the street. In addition, the 51 side yard set back is introduced on the east side of the addition. This side yard set back was introduced with a massing of the addition follows the downhill slope of liberty hill. It the project is maximized to allow the maximum amount of sun light into the room. Can you advance a couple of slides and just go to the renderings. We have elevation views of the addition from the rear and east side of the house, and we have a couple of renderings taken from the street, and as you can see, its fairly modest. And the next slide. The d. R. Requesters resident is located cross street and downhill from the sponsors residence. The primary view of the downtown skyline is northeast from his resident while the project sponsors resident is locate to see the northwest. The proposed project does not block any significant views from the d. R. Requesters resident and does not negatively impact light and air or cast any shadows. And then, if you can go to the next one, david. And ill just real quickly go through the outreach process. After the initial outreach preapplication meeting, our team made a good faith effort to address the d. R. Requesters concerns. Dont worry next slide, david. There were two main issues brought up during that meeting. The d. R. Requester expressed privacy concerns, and expressed privacy concerns about the scale of the addition. So to address these concerns, we proposed an angled roof and this addressed the massing of the third story. We are in constant back. Clerk commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson okay. I this is an interesting design. I think i i agree with commissioner moores comment about the 15foot set back and understanding it, especially if it would help alleviate some of the impacts of the neighbors, shifting from a 10 to 15foot set back, but i dont feel strongly, so i would entertain a motion. I wonder, theres two things that combined together to maybe make the liberation of the addition scale. You know, one is the comment that, i think, from commissioner fung about the discordant roof form. The other is the set back. There is an ability for that roof to be lowered to some extent and also keeping the addition in keeping more with the scale. Is that something that you might want to ponder, as well . Clerk commissioners, is there anyone daring to make a motion . Commissioner moore . Vice president moore i would like mr. Winslow to elaborate on what you just said, what you exactly mean. Lower the roof . Lower the building, lower the addition a little bit and what else . Well, the reason staff supported the 10foot set back were two reasons. The side hill set back against the downhill neighbor, and the fact that it is set behind a fairly high parapet that helps mask that new massing. What works against that might be the slope or the angle of that roof, and if you would consider maybe modifying that roof, the scale of that building might be palatable with that 10foot setback. President koppel did commissioner diamond want to chime in . Commissioner diamond yeah. If we reduce the massing, im concerned with how small the room becomes. Im sort of agreeing with commissioner fung that the roof is pretty angled and seems out of place. Id be content with another roof. Clerk is that a motion, commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond yes. President koppel i think commissioner moore wants to speak. Vice president moore this room is almost like a studio apartment, and perhaps setting it back would help the nature of liberty street and make this addition. Commissioner diamond commissioner moore, are you suggesting that they keep the roof angle and set the project back 15 feet . Vice president moore no. I would perhaps do both, moving back and lowering of angle. And if its about 15 feet, perhaps 12. 5 or 13 feet, but at least the building is a little more modest on top of that roof. Commissioner diamond and how do you describe you would want to reduce the angle of the roof by . Vice president moore i would ask commissioner fung to comment on that, if possible. Commissioner fung actually, visually, it doesnt matter too much its lower. Its really the roof form, as a shed roof. I think it would be less discordant if he put a ridge there and turned it into a pitched roof a little bit. It wouldnt have to be a full pitched roof, but it would be a partial pitch roof, and he can still maintain fairly high windows there. Vice president moore so i would ask mr. Winslow to interpret that for us. When you say witpitched roo are you describing a gable roof . Commissioner fung not a full gable. I would take a pitched roof there, move it inward from the eastern wall and turn part of the roof into a gable on the other side. Vice president moore oh, are you talking about an asymmetrical slope . Commissioner fung yeah. Commissioner diamond and im not an architect on the commission. Could you describe again what that is . Commissioner fung thats why i hate to read design things here on the commission. Ive never attempted to do that on any case, other than to, you know, address some of the issues that come up with the neighbors. I think id better stay consistent with that, you know . Im going to either vote on it as it is or not, and not to change it. Commissioner diamond okay. Clerk is there a motion, commissioners . Commissioner diamond commissioner moore, are you open to moving it back 13 feet instead of 15 feet . Vice president moore yes, i am. Commissioner diamond then i would make a motion to keep the roof the way it is and move it back 13 feet instead of ten. Vice president moore second. Clerk thank you, commissioners. With that, there is a motion and a second to keep the project but move the set back from 10 to 13 feet. On that motion [roll call] Vice President moore i will support it. Id just like to reafirm were keeping the side set back. Commissioner diamond yes. [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 60. Commissioners, that was your last item. Commission president koppel, we may adjourn. President koppel all right. We are adjourned. [gavel] San Francisco recreation and Parks Department offers classes for the whole family. Rec and parks has a class for everyone. Discover what is available now and get ready to get out and play. Henri matisse. Frida kahlo. Andy warhol. Discover the next great artist. Get out and play and get inspired with toddler classes. Experience art where making a mess is part of the process. Classes and the size the artistic process rather than the product. Children have the freedom to explore materials at their own pace and in their own way. Talks love art, especially when they died into the Creative Process dive into the Creative Process. At the end of the classes, they have cleaned and washup. Of. Com great way to get out and play. For more information, visit sfrecpark. Org. That out and play and get into the groove. Rec and parks offers dance classes for seniors. Firsttime beginners or lifetime enthusiasts all are welcome. Enjoy all types of music. Latins also, country and western. It is a great way to exercise while having lots of fun. Seniors learn basic moves and practice a variety of routines. Improve your posture, balance, and flexibility. It is easy. Get up on your feet and step to the beat. Senior dance class is from sf rec and park. A great way to get out and play. The director of the department of human services, trent roher, the director of homelessness and housing, abigail stewartkahh and bill scott. Thank you all for joining us here today and we are providing our update to begin the week. As of today, we have 1,424 cases of people who have been diagnosed with the coronavirus and sadly, there are 23 people that have logistic their lives and currently, we have