Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20240713

On april 3, 2020, the Planning Commission received permission to reconvene through the end of the shelterinplace. They prioritize infrastructure, housing and Small Businesses. This will be our fifth remote hearing. Im requesting everyones patience in advance. The merged platforms are not perfect and at times may even seem clumsy. If you are not speaking, mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. Do not hit any controls that may affect other participants. Allow the producer to do her job. To unable participation, sf gov is streaming this hearing live and we will receive Public Comment for each agenda. They are streaming the tollfree number across the bottom of the screen. Comments or opportunities to speak during the Public Comment periods are available via phone by calling 888 2045984, hitting access code 3501008 and pressing pound and pound again. When you are connected, dial 10 to be added into the cue to speak. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. When you have 30 seconds remaining, youll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When youre allotted time is reached, ill announce your time is up and direct my ta staff to take the next speaker. Speaker clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. At this time, i would like to take role. role call . Commissioner fung, you may need to unmute your mic. Commission imperial. Here. Commissioner johnston. Here. First is consideration of items proposed for continuance, 201900711c, 1,417th street. Propose ford a continuance to june 18th, 2020. 2018002124c at 54 fourth street, conditional use proposed for continuance to june 18th, 200. 2019016388, ocean avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for a continuance to june 25th, 2020. Item four, 201800162 drp at 26 diamond street, discretionary review proposed for continuance to june 25th, 2020. I have no other items proposed for a continuance. Chan, if we can open up the Public Comment portion. Your conference is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question, press one and then 0. Members of the public, this is your time to dial or call into the 800 number and to press 10 to get into the cue in order to submit Public Comment. Operational you have one question remaining. This is matters proposed for continuance and clayton street is under the consent calendar and we are aware members of the public wish to have it pulled off of consent and will be doing so when we reach that section of the agenda. Thank you. Thank you so much. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. The matter is now before you. No do i hear a motion . Through the chair, i pushed a button and i move to continue items 14 to the dates suggested. Second. Thank you, commissioners. If theres nothing further, theres a motion seconded to continue matters as propose pro. role call . Commissioner president koppel . You may need to unmute your mic. Commission president. Aye. Thank you. And commissioners, that will place us under your consent calendar tor matters under constituted consent calendar considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single role call by the commission. There will be no discussion unless the member of the commission, the public or staff so requests, in which it shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered at a future hearing. Im trying to say aye. Can you hear me. We can, commissioner koppel. And weve moved on to the items under your consent calendar. Can you hear us . I dont think he can. Ok. And so we can continue. Item 5, for case number 2018 201804176 1045 to 1048 claytop street and item 6 for 2019022072 cu at the 858 brandon street. As previously acknowledged, item five for clayton street, weve received multiple requests to remove this from the consent calendar is so we will do that automatically and consider that under the regular calendar. Commissioners, we should probably take Public Comment on any other item that may be either commissioners or members of the public would like to pull off of consent. Chan, lets go to q a. Operator your question is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question, press 10. I will remind members of the public that this is your opportunity to call the 800 number and hit 10 to get into the cue to speak. Operator you have one question remaining. Yes, and maybe im confused. Would liki would like to have te opportunity to comment on 1043 clayton street. Yes, sir. Well be considering this as a regular item later in the agenda. Thank you. So youll have to call back in or hit 10 again to be cued up to submit your testimony at that time. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. We will go to the actual regular hearing, since this is being removed from the consent calendar, thank you. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. Then item 6 under your consent calendar is before you. Commissioner johnston. I move to approve. Second. Very good, commissioners. On that motion, then, to approve item 6 under your consent calendar, commissioner diamond. Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. Aye. Commissioner johnston. Aye. Commissioner moore. Aye. And commissioner president koppel . Commissioner koppels Internet Connection seems to be poor. So we will approve. That motion passes unanimously 50 at this time. Commissioners, that will place us under commission matters for item 7, consideration of adoption for april 23rd. inaudible . The minutes are before you, commissioners. And chan, lets go to q a for anyone who would like to submit Public Comment for the minutes. Your comment is in question and answer mode. To summon each question press 10. Again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to hit 10 to get into the cue. Operator you have one question remaining. Question hi. Im calling into support the project on 10431045 clayton. inaudible . Sir, im sorry to interrupt you, but were taking point comment on the draft minutes. Youren opportunity to speak to clayton street will come up later in the agenda. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners, the matter is now before you. Commissioner moore. Move to approve. Second. And thank you, commissioners, and on that motion to adopt the minutes for april 23, 2020,. role call . Seems as though president kop particulakoppel is still having difficulties but that motion passes 50. Commissioners, that will place us under item 8, commission, comments and questions. Commissioner imperial. Thank you. I just would like to thank the staff, the Planning Department in coming up with a covid19 social distancing Public Participation guide and i think overall, its a satisfactory guide. I may need somewhat of a suggestion, but thank you for doing this. Greatly appreciated. It appears as though there are no other commissioner comments. And we can move on to department matters, item 9, directors announcements. Et. Good afternoon, commissioners. Just a couple of quick items. One, i want to let you know and you may know that this president yee has nominated dee lin chan to fill the vacant seat and she has to go to the committee and full board and as early as two weeks, she will sit on the commission. She currently works on samford in urbastamfordas an urban plans well qualified and familiar with our work. And also eric shaw was approved as director and dan adams has experience in background and planning with Economic Development with Salt Lake City and he was working for the state of california related to the fire and youll no doubt see him in the coming weeks. And thats my report. If there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on to item 10, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and the preservation commission. This is eric star. At this weeks land hearing, the land uses was continued. And there was a provision from 317. Commissioners, you heard this item on april 23rd and voted to recommend approval with a recommendation to add a grandfathering clause. At the land use hearing, there was another modifying amendment. In addition, supervisor peskin proposed two amendments of his only to section 317 which would significantly expand the definition of what is considered a defacto demolition and would strike the word and in b and c and place them with an or. This would have number of impacts on the types of projects this commission would see. For example, the demolition would be the removal of more than 50 of the sum of the front facade and rear facade or all exterior wall. Previously it had to meet both criteria to be considered a defacto demolition. Future projects would be significant and staff estimates that this change would put 445 projects that are currently pending at the department on the commissions doctor. While this antidepressan amendmt debated, this idea was stated at the hearing. In this case, it was proposed by a Planning Commissioner. And since it behave ththis is bt would have not only on staff time but Small Businesses seeking approval for proposed shelter in place. We dont believe this is the right fix for 317 and will make the process worse with a few benefits. There was some significant back and forth between staff and committee members. Supervisor safaye expressed reservations and thought a more wholeisic approach to revising 317 was warranted and mentioned a possible approach. There were 50 members that commented and many were opposed and many inaudible . There is an additional time to resolve issues with the Planning Department. Since that time, the appellant has augmented their project team and provided plans that accurately are reflect the scope of work on the building. Appellant provided the variance hearing. They wantethey wanted to cancelr permits and submit revised permit expospermits and plans ot property. And the Historic Preservation commission did meet yesterday for the second time remotely. Among a variety of items, they heard the Certified Local Government Program annual report and they approved the landmarking of the new royal bakery on Mission Street and also received an informational presentation related to the Small Business commission and legacy business program. I have to other items to report and seeing no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general Public Comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission that are within the subject matter. Operator youre in question and answer mode. Again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to call in to the 800 number and press 10 to get into the cue. Operator you have two questions remaining. Question im concerned the Planning Commission and Planning Department are ignoring district 6 residents and the situation therein. District 6 has the biggest concentration, the low income people of the city and i have never seen this in the Planning Commission, even when it was alive. You have put an entire project out which is mostly market rate housing and 500 units an. 701 harrison street, we dont have an abundance of need for in the city. The market has been dealing with the neighborhoods plan, western soma plan, central soma plan and now theyll be the hub. And there has been no opportunity to talk to the supervisor and you are set to adopt that plan next week. And next week im guessing the entire thing that you will have to read is a couple thousand pages long because its three big hours as well as an amendment to the plan, as well as certification of the eir. And in addition to that, which is inappropriate hearing, when a lockdown is going through, you have on your calendar the conversion of an entire Residential Hotel at 54 fourth street. Residents deserve the time to meet with themselves and supervisor hainey, not a remote callin, as youre doing. So i am pleading with the Planning Commission, as well, to look to your souls. I think you have souls. And its the wrong thing to tell people they cant talk to themselves when theyre dealing with a housing crisis. Youre stressing people out by not paying attention, thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Question good afternoon. This ii want to push my opinionn large project authorizations. Ive mentioned this before with the valley projects, but i think its worth your consideration. That within six months of the cfc, thats by the building department, that you get back information on tenure and occupancy. I think that thats a key thing to know, especially the occupancy. It would be nice to know the occupancy of the buildings that have been approved in the eastern neighborhoods and downtown for the last, i dont know, 10, 12 years and there a way to do that with meta data, but thats a different issue. Going forward, after we get through this emergency and as you dense few, it would be nice to know if you are getting the density that you want and its the type of density you want in terms of the affordability and tenure rental purchase, whatever, and if and how theyre occupied. Now maybe it would be hard to get that information out of the project sponsors, i dont know. But its worth a try, because i think its data you can use Going Forward as you dens densiy throughout the city. Take care and be well. Operator you have one question remaining. Question im with the San Francisco coalition. To echo miss hesters call from taking a break from approving these projects as they come to you, i just want to read what i read at Mission Local regarding the state of the city and this is what this one lawyer has brought up and im just reading it to you vertebra verbatim. People are hoping to break lease agreements to live with their families but are reliable for the remainder of the leases rent and people who cannot pay and no where elsand have nowher. People should be allowed to break their lease. Its not fair to people who lost their jobs who have to be on the hook for their full lease and this is one little antidote of whats going on in the city per mr. Tobiners account. But in reality, you know what is happening and you know you have friends, you have family and you know that people are having a hard time paying their rents and some who have families outside of the city are just giving up their units and moving out. So densification as you know it and has what has been the o orthodoxy needs to be revisited. I dont know if your plans will go forward in light of the economic trouble that were facing. And i do not believe the banks will be lending money for towers to go up and speaking of towers, i really urge you to put a break on revealing the hub and market octavia expansions and these are things that need to be revisited once were out of this crisis and once the city takes on the task of evaluating where we are and how much damage the crisis has done to us. We do not have to approve these projects and instead, we should focus on what we can do to deal with the crisis of people leaving the city and roommatroos that with the rent and with the lease and how theyre going to be paying for these. These are serious crises and i hope this commission would use its discretion to do something about it. Thank you. You have one question remaining. Question hello. Im a resident of the excelsior and i think the commission is not making good use of its time. I saw before the one item was pulled off the consent calendar, the only things that were being to discuss were hours of neighbors, rich neighbors complaining of the other neighbors Construction Projects and we spend more time on that than, say, zoning the Industrial Area of the city. It seems to me it would be more productive to reexamine things like when you approve so many projects, so many of them dont actually get built for such a long time after they get built or examine why housing is so expensive to build around here. And can we reexamine the neighborhood that puts towers downtown while the middletype housing has been ban from the valley and exc elsior and the west side of the city executive would like t. San francisco doese shanty towns, why not . We have Homeless People living in crosshomes and i am not convinced this was better. I think we should reexamine what types under what conditions are we allowing construction to happen in the city and adjust our expectations accordingly. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. Question good afternoon, commissioners. Im a district 8 tenant. I am also supporting what miss hesters comments were about jamming comments through. Particularly the hub project where districts five, seven and nine are all involved. There are many neighbors, constituents, groups there that need to be brought into the process and they havent had the opportunity to talk among themselves as to what the effects would be of passing these things, just like that. So there needs to be time for robust discussions and outreach before bringing these items forward. So i urge to delay write bringim forward. Thank you. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. Seeing no additional Public Comment, we can move on to your general regular calendar, which at time of issuance, there were no ims under your regular calendar. However, we have pulled item five under your consent calendar off for case 201810431045 clayton street, conditional use authorization. Staff, are you prepared to present . Good afternoon, commissioners. Im with the Planning Department staff and the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization, pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317 for the demolition of a twounit resident building that spans across three contiguos lots. They will demolish lots 131 and 133 at 1033 to 1045 clayton street to facilitate the cop construction of two new buildings. This includes six dwelling units, sixoffstreet Parking Spaces and six classone bicycle Parking Spaces. The project comply wa complies h planning code 317. Since the publication of the staff report, the department has received seven letters in support and six letters of opposition regarding the project. And the Department Finds the project is on balance consistent with the policies of the general plan. The project has been designed to be in keeping with the existing Development Pattern and respond to the neighborhood character along clayton street. The project will provide a total of six familysized dwelling units to the citys housing stock. Thereby, bringing this into conformance by the planning code. As such, they find this to be necessary, desirable and compatible and not to be detrimental to adjacent properties. This includes staffs presentation and the sponsor is on the phone and prepared to present. Thank you. Project sponsor, are you prepared to present . Question, can you hear me. Im jeremy shaw with shawlee architects, representing the owners of 10431045 clayton street and thank you for hearing from us today. I want to thank sylvia jiminez for sheparding us through. This is three separate lots. And so sylvia, can we go to photo one, significan exhibit . It shows the current state of the house, the twounit building situated across three lots and two lots adjacent to us on the north and south side of the project site. Exhibit 2 shows the original structure that was first built here in 1910, as a twounit building, situated across two legal lots and the building suffered catastrophic fire damage from 1039 clayton street. Exhibit three shows after the fire, the Property Owner purchased the adjacent burneddown building and then combined the structure to make the building across three legal lots. And also shows one of the buildings that burned down was a threeStory Building that matches some of the adjacent buildings. And significant 4 shows how the project consolidates the twounit building from three lots into a single lot while maintaining the current legal status and avoiding the demolition of any pre1979 dwelling units. Exhibit 5 is the proposed site plan and this consolidation allows for the construction of two additional buildings and each situated on the adjacent rh2 lots on the north and south. And this project transforms the existing duplex into three. It will have six familysized units for a net gain of four new homes. Consolidating the existing structure into a single lot would increase compliance with the planning code and allow the owners of the three lots to own improvements, each on their own lots. And exhibit 6 shows a rendering of the front, proposed buildings offer modernday design with familysized units. And significant 7, another ron rendering with slate tiles, wood flaps and custom aluminum windows and each home will have three or four bedrooms, which is a stark difference from the layout of the existing units which are nested rooms, unfinished basements and work spaces. The increase in utility is accomplished by over 900 square feet. Exhibit 8 shows a typical crosssection and allows for both pedestrian and vehicular entry at the middle level of the building and each duplex offers two levels of living space for the bottom unit, below street el elevation and an area behind the garage. Residents may utilize the stairs or elevator, creating easy accessibilities for families of all ages and mobilities. Features twocar sParking Spaces off the street as well as bicycle parking. Open space for the top units is provided as a deck off of the rear of the main living floor, mimmicking adjacent buildings. Open space for the lower unit is provided in the rear yard. The rear of the building is modulated horizonally with white walls. And then exhibit 9, the last slide here, the design does not call for any stair penthouses or roof decks and it has never been occupied by a tenant. With additional background, we held our preapplication meeting in 2018, mailing three separate notices for the building and none of the neighbors attended. After the meeting with met with the neighborhood counsel who did not express any concerns. During this notification period, we have had ongoing conversations with several neighbors and we have four support letters that were included in sylvias packet for you. The inclusion, i would like to note the configuration of the existing building across three lots triggered the threshold for 317. Without this conditional use approval, we would not be able to add proposed units which provides new housing for families in San Francisco with an exist neighborhood. Housing would be upgraded while adding to infill buildings and project complies with rdt and the planning code and requires no wavers. We request you approve the project. Thank you. If there are no questions, we should move to Public Comment. Operator your conference is now in question and answer mode. Press 10 to summon each question. Members of the public, you can call into the 800 number, press 10 to enter the cue for this matter. Question you have four questions remaining. Question i live with my family and my husband who is here with me and we are the coowners of 5 penn belvedere street to the west of lot 131 in shown in 0. 2 of the applicants architectural renderrance. My husband and i wrote this appeal and i want to start by appreciating the work of the planners. In 2003, we worked closely with your commission, the entire neighborhood and the process of working with our neighbors and the entire community on the process. So were familiar with it and very collaborative and weve had no objections based on the we work with our communities. So we look forward to doing that again in this process and one thing i want to say is that we are in agreement that San Francisco absolutely needs more housing and are not opposed in any way for there to be additional housing in San Francisco and for this block to have that and for some form of construction to go up in place of what is currently there. So thats important to start at the joh onset and to request a continuation businessed on when the architectural plans were put online and notify offed of that. Notified of that. We immediately went to the link, the plans were not available and thats one reason for the continuance, as well and so, where we have having an objection, while we want to have a continuance is to have more time to review the lanes and pld understand the impacts that the rear view and one which is ours and the dramatic impact, it could have has rendered today with the monolithic exist of the back. Ence of the back. There would be an opportunity to spend more time with the plans and in conjunction with the architect who spoke about what the impact would be. So if you compare the photos of the west side of the home that currently exists at the project site with the renderings on a0. 3 and 3. 1, we would appreciate the visual impact. We do agree with a continuation, we will have the opportunity to move forward to understand the impact and for some things to be constructed allowing for more housing while nining and living the project experience and value and what we have built here. One of the letters are in support and none of the neighbors on bell hav bell belv. Operator you have six questions remaining. I am an adjacent homeowner. Im in 1025 clayton, which is the closest lot on this project and im here to comment on the project and i will be similar to the other parties. Im not here to oppose in general and i understand the need for housing in the city. My concern is, the first thing, much like the member that just spoke a moment ago, the neighbor, i did not receive any notice until a month ago concerning this projec project. The adjacent neighbor had been interested all along. I was surprised to see in the packet that there was a meeting that was supposedly held a year and a half ago. I got a new notice of that meeting. Although, im likely the closest neighbor no that project. When i did receive the information, i did have the chance to talk to miss jiminez and one of the questions i have is actually three areas of concern and one is to whether it conforms with the neighborhood, the size, whether it will be too close to my building that is directly adjacent to it. And also, i had concerns about the light and how it would affect the light with the side. And also, with privacy concerns in that directly adjacent building. I addressed those questions and she provided me similar information. I asked whether any lighting study had been conducted to see how the unit that will two stories higher than my house, if that available unit would be affected. She says she was not aware of any lighting study. I had the opportunity to speak with mr. Bash, one of the owners of the project and directors behind the project. I asked him if was willing to do a light study and said he wasnt adverse but not required and did not offer to do it. I would like to ask for a continuance of time so that we can assess the light, the affected light on this building that is now two stories tall. And my adjacent building. My other concern had to do with how this building fits in the neighborhood. If we go up the street, we feel this threeunit building inaudible . I had suggestions about windows and decks and i addressed in my email and i would like to continue to address those, as well. But i feel we should have a little more time to study this project and have the neighbors be able to comment on it in that short time period. Operator you have five questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im dave bryant and i live on the east side. This was my first notice of this project, which has been mentioned already, a couple of times by the previous speaker. Im here to ask you to add a condition to the cua approval, to reduce from the current threestory frontage on clayton, to two stories or less. And increase the number of stories at the rear. And i have discussed the project with my neighbors, the architect and with planning and my opinion is that the project is not in keeping with the context of the area. And specifically, the massing has been moved to the clayton street front or way understand to be exposure. My sense is that the massing should be moved to the rear, as has been done in numerous examples in the past. Steve barbie just mentioned 1135 clayton and this is best served by moving the massing through the rear, where spectacular views exist away from street noise and privacy issues. Im steve larson we own property at 504 belvedere street and were concerning on the malignancying towards belvedere street as a primary concern. But we have another primary concern which is that our house was built in 1907 and all through the history of the property, there has been no water flow that comes down the valley and through a Carriage House. Weve built french drains behind the Carriage House and they dont contain it very well and the water still comes through some of the foundations. The waterhouse has been converted to a home for our son and were concerned about any construction problems that happen and there are whov huges and if anything will dislodge those during the process. Were very concerned and we didnt receive any notification until just recently and my wife has submitted an email and we hope some accommodations can be made for our interests. Operator you have five questions remaining. Im sarah frankle and im at 51516 belvedere. I also emailed the Planning Commission about the plans and i received notice that a project was considered some time ago but there were no plans available to look at until two days ago. And ive only recently had a chance to see what has been planned. I am concerned because it seems from what i can tell from the plans is that this is rather massive in both threats and in height. It is a two full stories higher than the building directly to the north of it and down the hill and a story higher than the building to the south of it, up the hill, which presumely should be higher. And so, its going to cut out an enormous amount of light to everybody in the stretch of belvedere street. Im concerned but the massivety of the project at the back looks very exhibit and there have been problems in the past with trees getting dislove aske dislodgedm concerned whether there is an adequate study of the soil, the water through the property and the slope of the hill for such huge boths t problems. It seems to be that all this requires additional studies and that the project should be continued. Thank you. Operator you have four questions remaining. Question i apologize for background noise. I am in support of the project. As you know, the city is inaudible . I hope you will approve the project and i want to echo the thank yous for your ward. Operator you have three questions remaining. Question im glenn budman, and ive been a San Francisco resident for over 20 years as a renter and homeowner. As other people have said, we are clearly desperate need for more housing in the city and i am excited about this project, adding four more dwelling units where people can live and make a home in San Francisco seems incredibly important and valuable. The design looks beautiful and its a nice addition to the neighborhood. The units seem distinct, but theand ithink it will be a nicee for the neighborhood. I fully support the project and encourage the commission to approve it and thank you for your time and consideration and helping in general with providing housing in the city. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Question im calling in support of this project. I think this project is an example of the way that section 317 of the planning code has failed us badly about affor affordability, because as all of the best science has discovered, the unaffordability in San Francisco is muted in this housing shortage and here we have a lot that has two units in the space zoned for six units. And if were going to reach that potential were going to have to manage the existing building and that makes a demolition that needs a conditional use. I dont think the policymakers appreciate the requirement of the conditional use authorization has biasedded our housing process towards gentrification and higher prices. I would urge to reexamine our policies that this can be done more easily. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. Question this is ge georgia shudish. I just happened to see in this morning and said portion demolished executiv and i didnt understand what that meant and i looked at the plans and the packet. And i saw the demo calcs and i thought, wow [ laughter ] question i have one question, why are they bothering to save anything because these demo calcs are astounding . Its very, very close to the fourth and such an intellectual question and i am just curious, but my other point, if you dont continue this and you do approve it today, this is opened by three llcs and i really encourage to ask for the report back after the cfc is issued for all three due politic duplexes t what the tenure and occupancy is. You are dens densifying. It would be nice to know for all of these projects and it is a conditional use, you could put that condition on and it was certainly an interesting history of the house, if you read the packet closely. Thats it and thank you very much and take good care. I really hope you will consider the condition of asking for information when the cfc is issued for this project and all of the others that you approve when you densify. Thank you very much, goodbye. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. Seeing that there are no additional Public Commenters, the matters before you, i will simply note that due to the remote hearing circumstances, we are leaving the Public Comment line open for members of the public who may be arriving late in order to accept it up until such time that you make your decision. There are additional publicc. Operator you have one question remaining. Question im chris dirken, 1055 ashbury street and i got off of a Conference Call and wanted to call in and provide Public Comment in support of the project, 10431045 clayton street. I think its really, really well designed. I can see it from multiple levels. I went through a similar process and approval for my project. I built the groundup house here and its rh2 and its a Single Family home. I think what the project sponsor is doing is phenomenally beneficial to me and other neighbors in the naked. Neighborhood. I urge the commission to approve it, as is today. And very much looking forward to this really wonderful project being built in our neighborhood. This is fantastic and i want the commission and all of my other neighbors to know thats how i feel about it. So thank you for the opportunity. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. The matter is before you. Commissioners johnston . Thanks. Just a question for now. We had some neighbors bring up the fact that the project might not have been properly noticed or that they didnt receive or have access to the plans in time. I just would love to hear staff comment on the noticing and timeline as we deliberate. While we wait for staff to unmute themselves, i will remind everyone to mute your microphones when youre not speaking. And sylvia yes, im prepared to answer. So the project did comply with all of the notification requirements and initially, they did generate a preapplication meeting that theyre required to do prior to submittal of the project application. And as you can see by the application date, dates back to 2018. So thats probably part of the reason why neighbors dont recall hearing about this for awhile. Touand i should note as part ofe preop requirements, its only requirethedocumentation shows pr noticing and that was done back in 2018. Near not require any outreach. Theyve been working with staff to come up with a design that is before you today and then the notification they received is a part of this conditional use authorization. As far as materials being posted, everything was posted on time, made available on our website. So the information has been accessible for the time required for conditional use authorization. Thank you. Commissioner diamond. I also have a question for staff. Two of the downhill neighbors raised concerned about drainage and geotech and im wondering if you could comment on when in the process the city has oversight of drainage and geotech plans and what department has responsibility for that . So geotechnical report was submitted as a part of the Environmental Review and so, information related to the soil and any erosion or release of the construction may have been noted in those documents. As youll see in your packet, they did obtain environmental determination which cleared them of any issues representative re. Anything related to drainage and what happens during construction would be under the privy of dbi. Thank you. Commissioner imperial. Thank you. I have a question for the staff, as well. So it looks like that this building is under the rent board, looks like building 19 and then 1973 and then it looks like 1975. When it comes to i guess this is my request. Whether we can get more information from the rent board, particularly when it comes to this type of demolition. And if that can be added . It looks like right now its a vacant unit and well be good if we could see some sort of a history or tenant history in this kind of building. An eviction history was completed and i believe a report was included at the end of your packet. Perhaps im not understanding your question clearly. But i also invite the City Attorney to if they have anything to add in terms of the rental issues regarding the existing unit, but in terms of finding any eviction histories or placement, that would have been noted in the eviction history included in your packet. I did not see it. Its just like a small information and it doesnt give the details of the tenants so is why im asking if there can be more information coming from the rent board. If there has been any filing against it. Yeah, we did request, like i said, an eviction history which dates back a minimum of ten years for the property. And none was observed as a part of it. Commissioner moore. In an rh2, what this project does is actually what we normally do want. We want density cas densificatie three compliant lots are build with two units each, which is being done here. And aside from the fact that this project should have come through as a demo, which i would agree with the previous speaker, there is in principle nothing really wrong. The only thing i would do is comment that staff did not really look in detail at the rear of the building where decks on the second floor sit on Property Lines, something that we normally discourage. These are built almost like adjoining townhouses, so to speak, still three individual buildings and that would be the only comment i would have or i would ask to modify the project. And in a topography im still sharing some observations before i make a motion, president kop particulakoppel. This is a steep, slope site, uphill, as well as descending in the western direction and one would prefer to see the building modeled in context, together with its neighbors in order to really understand the interrelations, so one has to work really hard to get into the subtleties of the site and i personally did not find anything really objectional to the project other than asking for the balconies on the second floor being pulled back from the Property Line. I will ask the other commissioners to comment on my observation before i make a motion. Commissioner johnston. You may need to unmute your mic. I support the observation of commissioner moore about the roof decks. One thing that i would like to put out for conversation is ive been really interested in the commentaries shared by miss shudish about beginning to track and make sure that as were dens densifying were getg what were looking for. I think we would need to hear from the City Attorney whether a lookback of occupancy would be possible, but i certainly think its an interesting idea, that we need more data so we can make better and more informed decisions. And i would be open to entertaining that as a condition. Go ahead, mr. , yang. Deputy attorney yang. Any information would need to be reasonably tied to a governmental purpose. Its possible to do that and im not sure if the commission today is ready to make the findings to require that type of information, but that certainly is a policy choice that could come in the future. To my fellow commissioners, i would like staff to consider that as an idea. Commissioner diamond. I have two questions and one is, on the suggestion that miss shudish mentioned and commissioner moore just raised, i would like to see staff look at this holiesicl holistically t as oneoff, as opposed to an individual basis. So my request to staff is that they really examine the issue and come back with a staff report and a suggestion for how we address this. My question for commissioner moore, could you describe in more detail, these balconies and if you want to leave the balconies there and if you want to reduce the depth. I would like to hear more about your suggestion. Commissioner koppel. I was waiting for you to call me. Commissioner demo diamond, ad fellow commissio commissioners,e modification of the deck, which is the proposed second floor plan and, perhaps, mr. Shoop can put it on, because we can ask him. We basically like to take any deck or balcony, to th not to sn the Property Line and a certain amount of breathing room in the open spaced attached units is guaranteed. And in this particular case, all three units have the second floor balcony on the south side of each parcel and sitting on the Property Line. I would like to ask these be moved by three feet and that would suffice. Sylvia, if you share your screen, you might be able to show that. If you look at the green rectangles and the botto bottom, its three feet off the Property Line and i would ask it be moved three feet off the Property Line. I would move to approve this subject to the modification proposed by commissioner moore. I think this project is definitely in line with what were trying to accomplish, which is increasing the density in this area and i would be in favour. Second. And let me call on director hillis. I just wanted to clarify that is a demo. This is not a full demo, but it is a demo under 317 and thats why its here. We can look at this issue of occupancy i in trying to find data. I think commissioner diamond, it may be jerusalem o easier on a r basis, but we can look at that. Very good, commissioners. If there is nothing further, there is a motion to second this with approved conditions. If members could mute their mic. To approve this project with conditions, as have been amended including a condition to pull the secondfloor balcony off of the Property Line three feet and that is the southern edge. role call . Commissioner moore. Can i ask you make it plural balconies. And i approve. Yes and president koppel. Thank you, commissioners and that passes unanimously. Commissioners, this is under the discretionary review calendar, 2015 at 804 2nd street 804 22nd. This is a discretionary review. Mr. Winslow. Im the architect and this a request for discretionary review for 2018013. 7232 for the construction of addition of 430 square feet and at the first story to add groundlevel commercial space. And a third story vertical addition of 1250 square feet with a roof deck above. And new decks are also proposed at the second story in the rear and third story at the front and rear of the building. And restoration of the storyfront to support commercial use is also proposed. This blocks light and air and three rooms served by a light well and it creates privacy and noise impacts to the same rooms in those locations. Her proposed alternative is to delete the horizonal and vertical expansion at the rear and to date, the department has received one letter in support of dr request and eight letters in support of the project. The departments open design team reviewed this and will modify to ensure reasonable maintenance of light and air, as well as privacy to the dr requester is maintained. Staff recommends the deck to match the adjacent neighbors light well and providing a screening sense line of the deck as reflexe reflex reflected in. Im ready to share the screen with the dr requester. Thank you. Dr requester, are you prepared to make sure presentation . You may need to unmute your phone by pressing star 6. You will have five minutes for your presentation. We will start with the dr requester and in it, youll need to press star 6. Can you hear me . Yes, yo we can hear you. Good afternoon, members. Im annette carrier and ive lived in the dog patch district since the early 1980s and my tenant and i have lived at 107 10781080 tennessee since the mid90s. I discussed a review because of a proposed addition is large and out of character with the neighborhood. It will have significant and reasonable impact on my home. For example, the lot line, rear roof deck will box in my lightwell and create privacy impacts. Its not necessary for the project sponsor to build to the lot line to expand commercial space. However, the project sponsor has been unwilling to make any meaningful changes to the project poin. Please preserve the light and privacy of my home. Thank you. To slide show, it results in 100 lot coverage, covering their rear yard and most of the proposed rear Building Space is for residential functions, not commercial, because this is a key lot, the rear extension will have a greater impact in a net carriers home and the project proposes 1200 square feet of private roof decks, five times it requires for open space and slide three shows a view of their roof deck including a screen that abuts the light well. This blocks in the bathroom. Reflected noise will reflect directly into the bedrooms. The code requires roof decks to be set back five feet or so from the lot line and slide four shows that anyone on the third floor roof deck can look directly into the bathroom and bedroom windows at the lightwell. This deck is on a nonconfirming portion of the existing building. This deck is not necessary for open space, given this unit also has a large top of building roof deck and then slide five shows the proposed jutting roof form circled in red at the rear of the thirdfloor addition and this looming form is unnecessary. And it is sloped and maximized with negative impact on sunlight and it will block direct sunlight in the winter months. This can be mitigated by reversing the angle of the roof and shifting into a compact array. The elevators needs ten feet. A justification for the high wall is based on alignments with sidewalls and those can be eliminated with a onehour rated roof. This lowers perceived height for all neighbors by about three feet. Thank you. S. This is the attorney for mis. Just to wrap up, on slide six, you see this project doesnt comply in a few respects. The second floor is 11 feet and the project will intensify that nonconforming condition by putting a stair structure in the rear yard setback and you can see that on slide six. And if we move on to slide seven, were proposing some pretty modest revisions to mitigate the impacts weve identified. We completely endorsed the Staff Reports recommendations that more needs to be done to ensure light and privacy is maintained and the lightwell is a great start, but i have a few additional revisions suggested, namely, as you can see on slide seven, pulling back the footprint by five feet eliminating storage areas and bicycle parking to be placed elsewhere and deleting the thirdfloor deck and switching the angle of the deck. So that concludes or presentation, but i just would like to thank David Winslow and all of the Planning Commission staff for their work and making these hearings happen with everything thats going on. And we are available for any questions. We should probably hear from the project sponsor. This is craig peters and mark topiture. I. If you could go to paige of oupage one ofour presentation. And our screen is delayed for actual time so we may not be seeing images as quickly as you are. As long you make your presentation and direct mr. Winslow to go to the next slide, hell follow your presentation. You have five minutes. Is your screen up . I see the screen, david. please stand by . Weve tried to balance neighborhood interests of improving the Small Business space for the dogpatch Small Business district that we sit on the street of, 22 street, as well as the community interest, including accessible housing [inaudible] david, if you could go to page a3, please. So weve been in this process now for almost two years. The Planning Department and monica, who has been really patient and thoughtful about this project has taken in input from neighbors throughout the area, has talked with the folks at the design advisory team, bounced this off of the dogpatch advisory association, tried to keep this within the code as well as the residential Design Guidelines, and what you see on page 3 is just a rough representation of the triangle. The triangles are folks who are not opposed to the project in any way, and then youll see the red triangle, which is miss carrier. Shes the only one whos objected. So the two years weve spent trying to put this project together, as i mentioned, theres been all of this input. Theyve requested numerous revisions, including revisions to open space and other things. Theres not a single request that we have not [inaudible] this building is only one of 11 [inaudible] ten of the 11 properties in this area that are commercial or mixed use covers the entire lot. Ours is the only property that does not. Over 70 of the properties in our area are three stories. We are not. Half have open space at three levels, we do not. The only light well that is not blocked in our area completely by a solid wall is that of the complainant in this case. Hers is open now, and it will be open if this is approved. If you look at a6, the requirement where d. R. Should be granted if theres something exceptional or extraordinary, my position to the commission would be that the only thing thats exceptional or extraordinary is how the property exists now, how it will exist should this project be approved will keep it consistent with the other buildings in the area. We have tried repeatedly to come to some compromise with the complainant. We have offered to have a mer ors image on the secondfloor deck that would mirror the light well as a set back. That was rebuffed. She wanted to have veto power over our project, including the building, which we have not been agreeable to, and the delays have been constant. We are trying in our best effort to move this thing forward. Were a family that just wants to try to improve our property so that its more accommodating for our needs and, quite frankly, for the needs of a lot of san franciscans, many of whom have left the city because there isnt sufficient housing stock, particularly for folks who are aging. Clerk okay. Your time is up. Okay. Thank you for your time. Clerk you will have a twominute rebuttal. Thanks. Clerk why dont we go ahead and open up the q a for Public Comment. Operator your conference is now in questionandanswer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. Clerk i will remind members of the public that this is your opportunity to call in to the 800 line. Enter one and then zero to submit your Public Comments. Operator you have two questions remaining. My name is bob melke, and i live at 1074 tennessee street, which is around the corner from this project, and i think the requesters the requester for the d. R. S, i think her requests are perfectly reasonable, to ask for more privacy and light and is perfectly within within the residential design guideline. I support her request for d. R. And hope you will take it. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. Hi, there. My name is katie henson, and ive lived next door to the property at 804 22nd street for 20 years. I am here to support annettes request for d. R. I am the other building that will be most affected by the changes to their structure. Specifically, we share a wall, and i am in the lower flat at 804 22nd street. The changes are complete incongruous with any other property on our small block. There are a number of other properties, i think 12 or 13 in total, that sort of form a square, and all of our back yards face each other. If this is built as its currently designed, it will be unlike any other property on the block, because any other property that is visible that can see the addition as it would be built, every single one of them is residential. So while i understand that they are also zoned commercial, theyre comparing themselves to other commercial buildings in other parts of the neighborhood and not to any of the units that will be directly affected by the buildout. Id like to make a couple of other points. I know in an earlier discussion of another property, there was a huge discussion about roof decks. Thats a huge issue of this property as theyre building exactly to the lot line. That changes the view for every Single Person in the neighborhood, not just annette and myself. I cant stress how anomalous the changes are in terms of the neighborhood. Theyre shuffling the way that the residential and commercial parts are being allocated, and the biggest area it will have an impact on my unit, 808, and the upstairs unit, 810, is the stairway, the egress we share on the west side of their property, by moving the residential unit thats currently on the ground floor, shuffling it up to the second floor, and expanding the commercial property to the entire length of the first floor, thats totally anomalous, as well, and has never been the case for that unit. And what it will mean is that is that breezeway thats directly below all of the windows and all of the bathrooms on the east side of my building or the building where i rent will now become a commercial corridor. Itll be the primary access. Were a restaurant to go in there, itll be where deliveries and garbage and the like would go. Clerk your time is up. Operator you have three questions remaining. Hi, good afternoon. This is ozzie reaum. I came across this project by sheer accident. I was doing a presentation for the neighborhood association, dogpatch im sorry, d. N. A. , about supervisor peskins legislation on demolition that unfortunately did not get traction last year. And the d. R. Requester presented this project, and everybody at the meeting was aghast at the scale of this project, including myself. So thats how i got involved, and i am so grateful to mr. Winslow, who somewhat intervened and reduced the scale and mass of this project. But i would ask the commission to please grant the d. R. Requesters ask, which is a very reasonable ask. All shes asking is just a reduction of 5 feet so that this project will not occupy the entire lot. This is very unusual, as the previous callers did state. Its very unusual for this part of the dogpatch, as well as most of San Francisco, to allow a presuoperty to consume the entire lot. I was also surprised to see the neighbors who had supported this project were mostly well, actually, i wasnt surprised, i was actually reaffirmed my thoughts is these neighbors are the ones who are actually across the street. That part of 22nd street, its a very wide street. It has absolutely no impact on the people that will live across the street. But for people like the previous caller and the d. R. Requester, it is its just ghastly to have this project. Also, the previous caller mentioned shes been a tenant for 22 years. The d. R. Requester has a tenant living on the first floor, and her light is going to be completely taken away. As you know, these days, tenants in San Francisco do not have the luxury of moving around if they do not if something happens to their surroundings where they dont like it. Tenants have to stay where they are. Even the Planning Department itself has done studies to that effect. So you you know, please take into consideration that this is an unusual project, it encroaches on the lives of many people, including the tenants who do not have the luxury of moving out, and they could have their two units plus a commercial space without having to encroach on much mu on th of neighbor and without having to consume the entire lot. Theres no reason for building a project this big. Thank you. Operator you have two questions remaining. My name is patricia watson. I am the sister of annette carrier. I have visited annette over the past 30odd years from my home in connecticut and have stayed at 30 tennessee street during most of these visits. I saw the unit just after annette purchased it. It was a daunting task. She has done a remarkable job restoring her home. She served as a Police Officer for San Francisco and has lived in San Francisco 36 years, mostly in the dogpatch neighborhood. The proposal at 804 22nd street would adversely impact her property in the back yard open space and area. Her home is a respite from the city and her work area. The size and scope of this project is way out of proportion to the rest of the neighbors and would set a precedent that may be difficult to stop once started. I, too, own property in a historic district. I feel that people are caretakers of Historic Properties rather than owners. The buildings have been there long before us, and with care, will outlast us all. Thank you. Operator you have one question remaining. Hi. My name is susan slayton. Thank you, commissioners, for this opportunity. I submitted a letter [inaudible] i am in support of the modifications to the proposed remodel at the rear lot of 804 22nd street. [inaudible] which people have referred to, and i am most affected by the project. Many of the supporters ive read all the letters of the proje project view it as a commercial Development Development of the lot. However, none of these people are affected by the proposed extension in their living rooms or working spaces. They see it as a contribution to commercial property, and thats all fine. [inaudible] in agreement with the design of the property. My main concern is the loss of privacy and most of the Natural Light and air that would affect this unit. [inaudible] i brought these issues to the Historic Preservation Commission Meeting and at the conclusion of the item, a few commissioners voted that the issues of light and air were not matters for their commission; rather, a Planning Commission issue. Therefore, a certificate of appropriateness [inaudible] clerk maam, im just going to interrupt you. I paused your time, but whatever reason, however youre talking into your telephone, its very difficult to hear you. Go ahead. Okay. How far did we get . Clerk no, just is that better . Clerk much better, yes. Thank you. Okay. Where should i start again . Clerk just where you left off is fine. Okay. Im requesting changes to the proposed remodel to keep the amount of light and privacy [inaudible] thank you very much. Clerk thank you. Operator you have zero questions remaining. Clerk very good. D. R. Requester, you have a twominute rebuttal. Are you prepared . Yes, im prepared. Can you hear me . Clerk we can, thank you. Okay. Thank you, commissioners. So i think its important to keep in mind that were looking at a mixeduse commercial zoned building and a project being proposed directly adjacent to several residential lots. As such, we need to be really sensitive to what the impacts are allowing a fulllot coverage would be when it relates to properties adjacent. In particular, we know that the general comments were from the guidelines. They say it should respect the open space corner [inaudible] where youve got a configuration such as this one. This project doesnt do this one. Theres a parapet and deck effectively on the light well, affecting the light well, including the two bedrooms and bathroom for her tenant. Moreover, we note that the code requires only 120 square feet of open space per unit. This project provides 1200 square feet, including the rear roof deck. The third floor roof deck would be 1 foot from a bedro first deck would be 1 foot from a bedroom window. [inaudible] we simply seek a collaborative review and approval process about the shoring and instruct al elements that were directly adjacent to miss carriers building. Thank you very much. Once again, we ask that you take discretionary review while allowing us to continue to work with the project sponsor to find a solution that works for everyone. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you. Project sponsor, you have a twominute review. Yes. This is mark toppinger, of toppinger associates, the architect. If i can ask david to pull up slide one, and i can address some of the points that have been brought up. First of all, we have tried to find a solution with the d. R. Requester to no avail. In any event, the light well thats in question exists at the second and third floor. Our proposal at the rear of the structure is only at the first floor, so we will not be building anything in front of the d. R. Requesters light well, so the idea that that will be blocked by a structure is incorrect. We did offer to provide a privacy screen initially at the Property Line, and we have since offered and made recommendations that we would match the light well footprint and set back the deck on top of this new rear first floor addition to match the light well offset that exists at the d. R. Requesters property, as well as enclosing this offset with a sixfoothigh privacy screen, details to be determined, whether its translucent glazing or whatever the materials are. If we can go to page 3, which is the satellite view, you can see that the d. R. Applicant as well as the western neighbor both have decks on the rear of their property that actually [inaudible] and our property does not take advantage of that. So my clients do not have any open space, unlike the more than 1200 square feet that both the d. R. Applicant as well as the adjacent property to the west, which has decks at three levels and their yard get to take advantage of, where the current subject property that were looking at here does not. If we can go to page 6 clerk unfortunately, that is your time. You will have an opportunity if commissioners call you up for questions. Commissioners, that concludes Public Comment. The matter is now before you. President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner fung a question for staff. Mr. Winslow . Yes. Commissioner fung the light well provides can you be a little more specific in what rooms the light well supplies and what those rooms are at the front or back of the building . Sure, and let me well, let me describe it. I wont try to go to a drawing right now, but my can you hear me . Clerk we can hear you, and if everybody else whos not speaking could mute their mic, we would appreciate it. Thank you. So my understanding is that the light well serves both two bedrooms and one bathroom. One bathroom has access to light at the rear of the property, and i believe the one bedroom has access only to the light from that light well. I think, commissioner fung, you might have to unmute yourself. Commissioner fung i just unmuted or muted based upon our secretarys comment. The other question related to a comment made by the project sponsor that the other properties along 22nd street all have 100 lot coverage on the ground floor. The google map doesnt show that, and their satellite image doesnt show that, either. That was an incorrect statement if it was made on the northside. We do on the southside of the block. Ten out of the 11 mixed use commercial properties do have structures on the entirety of the lot. Commissioner fung how about on this side . On this side, we are the only lot, even though everything is zoned commercial. The church, even though i guess its technically not considered commercial, does, and you can see that as it currently exists on page 3. Commissioner fung okay. Clerk commissioners, any more deliberation or possible motion . President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner fung when i first looked at this project, it bothered me a little bit, and i would say the thing that bothers me the most is 100 lot coverage at the ground floor. The its not necessarily 100 related to light and air into the light well. I mean, a light well traditionally only provide secondary sources of light and air to our residential building. However, this appears to be overdoing it in terms of what theyre trying to expand the building to. I dont have any issues with the scale of the building above the ground floor. Perhaps there may be some further discussion on limitation of the deck on the second floor, but i would take d. R. And remove that portion of the ground floor beyond the existing bedroom wall of the existing building. President koppel commissioner moore . Clerk commissioner moore, your mic Vice President moore yeah, im sorry. I just turned it on. I share commissioner fungs concern about turning the noncompliant commercial lot to have zero set back in what is predominantly still surrounded by residential. I would be interested to see a physical manifestation in what the d. R. Requester asked by a fivefoot set back of the Property Line. Mr. Winslow, do you have an image of that particular requirement . Mr. Winslow . Sorry, no, but i do have a let me share my screen with the project sponsors floor plan at that level. Bear with me. [inaudible] commissioner fung i think the attorney provided a sketch of that, commissioner moore. Vice president moore could somebody put it on for all of us to see if that is a sufficient solution . Thank you, commissioner fung. Project sponsor here. Page 6 shows that floor plan. Vice president moore would you bring it up to that particular page, please. That was page 6. This is the attorney for the d. R. Requester. Slide 5 and slide 7 shows what were proposing. Vice president moore its basically replicating a mirror image of the roof deck as a cut and mirror image of the roof deck cutin starting at the second floor, right there. Project sponsor, yes, that is correct, commissioner. Vice president moore i am prepared to see that kind of a modification and would just be curious as to whether or not other commissioners are a little bit concerned about the excessive size of the rest of the decks. But if this is what meets the d. R. Requesters level of comfort for maintaining access to light and air in their bedroom, then i can make a motion that this is the change we would make to the d. R. Commissioner moore, Sarah Hoffman for the d. R. Requester. I think were talking at cross purposes with the project sponsor. What we are speaking is to the entire footprint to be pulled back by 5 feet, as shown on our slide number 5 and also slide 7 shows the impact to the light well window to do that. Clerk miss hoffman, i believe its the motion that was made by commissioner moore. If the d. R. Requester can refrain from responding until called upon, we appreciate that. Vice president moore mr. Winslow, i would ask you to clarify one more time what we are asking for since we dont have the confirmation. Certainly. I believe i have the drawing up that illustrates what youre discussing. Can you see my screen . Vice president moore yes. Okay. So i believe what youre asking for, this is the rear portion of the subject property. The d. R. Requester is requesting that that be pulled 5 feet from the adjacent Property Line, which is here, and along with it, the deck on top of that. Vice president moore thats correct. President koppel mr. Sucre, do you want to add something . Hi. Confirming, commissioners, you can hear me. This is rich sucre, Planning Department staff. Clerk yes, we can hear you. 804 22nd street is located within the dogpatch landmark district, so any exterior changes that occur on the building have to be done and approved by the Historic Preservation commission. So the project before you has already received a c of a granted in its current form by the h. P. C. So as you are crafting recommendations, youll probably want to phrase them more as recommendations for revisions. And then, what staff would do is bring the project back to the h. P. C. To basically approve what those recommendations are. In this particular instance, the Planning Commission doesnt have final authority on the exterior revisions to the buildings. Vice president moore thank you, mr. Sucre. This is a very interesting comment and definitely something that the commission needs to take into consideration. However, in most cases, the Historic Preservation commission is not as interested in the nonvisible part of the building but what is basically perceivable from the public side. In this particular case, also, as commissioner as our planner explained to us, the Historic Preservation commission deferred to the Planning Commission because they do not have any jurisdiction over considerations for light and air. For us, its a question of liveability. For us, its a question of protecting the quality of living and residential, which is one of the most highest responsibilities we have. So just for the sake of making a proper motion, we are referring our decision to the Historic Preservation commission. Id be delighted to do that because i know they understand the severity of responsibility that we have, and so im making a motion for a recommendation with the modifications that mr. Winslow just described to us on the screen. Clerk thank you, commissioner moore, for that. And mr. Sucre, i will disagree slightly in semantics. I believe you have full authority to impose a condition of approval as opposed to a recommendation, and if the Historic Preservation commission needs to see this reduction in mass and make a new decision, then it will create an awkward situation for the project sponsor, but i believe you do have discretion to condition that. Vice president moore if i may ask, this would be actually, as a policy matter, similar to a situation we had earlier in our meeting, an interesting joint meeting, to talk with Historic Preservation commission about liveability, protection of residential integrity regarding alterations to historic buildings. But thats not part of my motion, thats a policy recommendation that im making to the rest of the commission. Thank you. Clerk do i hear a second . Commissioner johnson second. Clerk thank you, commissioners. Then there is a motion that has been seconded to take d. R. On the project with a fivefoot reduction on the deck on the rear. Commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond youre phrasing it that it doesnt have to go back to the h. P. C. , that it wont have to go back to the h. P. C. Again for hearing . Clerk no, it will have to go back to the h. P. C. You are simply making a condition for approval. Commissioner diamond theres no way for us to do it on the issue that they said they didnt really have jurisdiction on, its up to us, its still going back to us. Clerk well, they didnt take up the matter of building separation, they were taking up the matter of the exterior dimensions and massing of the building itself. So they will apparently need to take that matter up again, but for your purposes, for your condition of approval, youre requiring the fivefoot set back. Commissioner diamond i will vote in favor of it because i think the fivefoot set back is a good idea. Im feeling i wish there were a way to accomplish this without having to subject the project sponsor to more time to go back to the h. P. C. , but if thats not possible, we cant do it, but i will vote in favor of commissioner moores motion. Clerk in all likelihood, we can set this for an expedited hearing at the Historic Preservation commission. On that motion [roll call] clerk thank you, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 60, placing us on item 12 for case number 20180017375drp for 3732 divisadero street. This is a discretionary street. Good afternoon, commissioners. David winslow, Planning Department staff. This is for the construction of a first floor horizontal rear addition, removal of the second floor rear popout, and third and floor vertical additions to an existing singlefamily dwelling. It includes alterations to the front facade and roof decks at the third floor and the fourth floor at both the front and the rear. The buildings historic category is a category c, no Historic Resource present. There are two d. R. Requesters. The first, adjacent neighbor to the south and adjacent neighbors to the north. [inaudible] the proposed design does not comply with residential design guideline, and proposed alternatives are to relocate the fire rated parapet at the roof deck and two, to provide a threefoot set back at the third level deck. Mr. Millers concerned with three main issues. One, that the fourstory addition impacts light and air to roof skielts, and second, that the fourstory addition is out of scale and character with the building, scale of the street, and neighborhood, and third, that the proposed decks will create unreasonable impacts to privacy. His proposed alternatives are to set back the fourth floor 20 feet, provide a set back or light well adjacent to the d. R. Requesters rooftop sky lights, Residential Design Advisory Team rereviewed this project in consideration of the d. R. Request and confirmed that the project meets the residential Design Guidelines related to scale and privacy in that the proposed fourth story vertical addition is set back 16 feet from the front to maintain the threestory scale of the street. The front and rear decks of the home are modestly side and set back 5 feet to maintain adequate separation from the adjacent properties. There are no parapets on the roof designs, there are, staff found the d. R. Requesters concerns are not exceptional or extraordinary. This concludes my presentation. Im here to answer your questions. Let me cue up the d. R. Requesters presentation. So am i up, david . Bear with me while i queue up the screen. Sorry. Who is going to speak first . I am i think you said shelley was speaking or the manigettis were speaking first, but i dont care. It could be the millers. Clerk each d. R. Requester will receive five minutes, and the project sponsor will receive ten minutes. Tell me when to start. Clerk we will let you know. Clerk mr. Winslow does not have the slides up yet. We will notify you when he does. He seems to be having some difficulty of some sort. Okay. Looks like hes bringing up your slides now. You can go ahead with your presentation. As stated previously, youll have five minutes. Good afternoon. My name is shelley mannigeti, and we are using this hearing as a final way to voice our concerns to protect our home the best we can in front of you, at least virtually. Please know that were supportive of the projects desire to create a multigenerational home f sut sponsors desire to create a multigenerational home for his aging parents. On slide one, on the fourth level, we are asking for fivefoot permanent set backs along the Property Line to block the visibility into the sky lights over our master bathroom, and are assuming with the set back, no one can see into our bedrooms and bathrooms. We feel its important that the fem on the fourth floor open space not be able to walk over to the property roof line and walk over. Also, putting a vinyl covering on the sky lights wouldnt allow us the ability to see the sky the same as on a clear window. We move to the third level deck to be added as part of the project sponsors renovation. We were originally left with concerns about this deck, however, once we received the displayed text from the sponsor, we became concerned. The reason is that the project sponsors third deck third level deck is a living room deck off our master bedroom. A set back provides some buffer to noise and smoke, so on slide 3 so based on this, and this is important to us, we are requesting 3 feet set back like the two newer homes third level decks have constructed on the block. What we are asking for is just a good, deep look by all of you who know way more about all of us than we do. Our home is not an investment. Its a home, our home, our kids home, and possibly their kids home. Thank you for your consideration. Clerk clerk if. If the second d. R. Requester is prepared, and if mr. Winslow has gone to your presentation, which it appears he has, you can start your presentation. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Hi. My name is rich miller, and i live in the home to the north, and i thank you for your time and consideration today. Back in 2018, the laptop plans we were shown had a fivefoot set back at the fourth story along the north and south Property Lines. That, today, is no longer the case. Unfortunately that meeting at the time became quite uncomfortable for several neighbors. No copies shown at that meeting were ever provided to the attendees despite numerous requests, and no plans were emails per the signup sheet either, which i know was sort of protocol. In may of 2019, rdat came forward in may 2019 with their recommendation, and you can see at this bottom of the slide, the guideline clearly states to design the scale of the building is incompatible with the height and depth of surrounding buildings, which was sort of all we were basically asking for to begin it. If you look david, if you could show slide 2. If you look at the top of slide 2, rdat original recommendation was for the adjacent third story set back, and we were relieved at this original rdat recommendation because it addressed all of the neighbors concerns. I guess its important to point out that all of our requests align specifically with that original decision that rdat had made. In august of 2019, there was an rdat reversal where the fourth story was supported but with a minimum set back of 20 feet from the building front and with no roof deck. When the 311 plans came out in november 2019, the fourth story set back showed only 16 feet, not 20. So we met with the project sponsor to address our concerns on how this would have impacts on our light and air flow and our solar from 16 feet set back, and also because of the lack of a fourth story set back along the Property Line. Unfortunately, that sponsor did not agree to make any modifications based on our concerns. In january 2020, another 311 meeting plans came out, and there was no agreement. Also, i want the fourthstory parapet was never shown. We have sky lights and solar panels, and those were never shown in any of the plans, either. Additionally, the site line study that was put together showed inaccurate and incomplete site lines. Divisadero is 82. 5 feet wide, and the surrounding streets are 62. Getting quickly to our requested alternatives, were requesting that the fourth story be set back 20 feet, which would put the project in the range of acceptable projects. You can see we put together some projects here, and at the top of that spreadsheet, you can see that similar projects in the area all have set backs between 19 and 26 feet, which is basically what were asking for, as opposed to the 16. Were also asking that a fourthstory set back exist to create a light well adjacent to our sky light. And as mentioned on that spreadsheet, other relevant projects in the area, there are light wells on both sides of the vertical addition. In fact, the project sponsor actually brought up the project at 3645 scott, and its an example of an acceptable alternative design where the set back is adequate, and theres a set back from the fourth story Property Line. Our last request is the parapet be set back 5 feet from the Property Line. We would love to accept that so that theres no parapet. That would address one of our concerns, so if that parapet is removed, we would gladly accept. Thank you so much. Can you still hear me . Clerk we can still hear you. You were right on time. Thank you. Project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation . [inaudible] clerk great. You will have ten minutes, and your slides are up. I dont see my slides up. Clerk theres a slight delay, but just go ahead and hit next slide as your presentation progresses so that mr. Winslow can move to the next slide. Got it. Thank you. Well, goverod afternoon, commissioners. We purchased our subject property in 2017 with a wish to provide multigenerational living and a multifamily home. So the d. R. Requesters home has already been remodelled, and as a result of those remodels, miss mannigettis home has been towering over ours for three years. Mr. And mrs. Miller is towering 15 feet above ours, too. Now were literally blocked between those two houses. If you take a look at millers 2018 remodel, typically, you would see about three to 5 foot side set backs, but the millers added a deck without set backs that results in a view into our master bedroom with no regard to privacy. Could we please go to page number 3. So the mannigettis claim that the fourth floor parameter got bigger, well, if you take a look at the attendance sheet, miss mannigetti never attended the meeting. I also heard mr. Miller claiming that there were no Copies Available. We actually had 15 hard Copies Available at the neighborhood meeting for takeout. During this time, we spent lots of time working with miss mannigetti answering her questions, and didnt hear back from her regarding any of her concerns until she filed the d. R. Page 4. So miss mannigetti is having privacy concerns, and shes concerned that somebody may look in her sky lights. Shes making a baseless claim. Furthermore, the open guardrail is recommended by r. D. G. And is consistent Design Elements on our project. We already made multiple concessions concerning neighborhood property. We added 5 foot side set backs on all four sides, and we installed a 42inch parapet wall. Were willing to install landscapes on the north wall, and happy to do the same for millers. Page 5, please. So theres another request regarding miss mannigettis privacy, asking for threefoot side set back on her third level bedroom deck. If you take a look, miss mannigetti does not have any set backs on her third floor deck. In every conversation, we offered to install privacy screens on our deck, as well, to buffer any privacy and security concerns. So that concludes miss mannigettis d. R. , and we respectfully ask the commission to reject d. R. And accept the project as proposed. Now onto the miller. Before katie miller had seen a single sketch or drawing of the project, they had sent a lengthy letter to us and the entire block expressing concerns about the project. We were surprised about that considering the millers had just completed their remodel, and their home was towering 15 feet above ours. So per millers request, we went through numerous, lengthy, inperson meetings at their home. Every time we would ask for concession, they would present another concern and revision. In a may 22, 2019 meeting in their home, she said they would continue to challenge through subsequent challenge in order to delay or completely block the project. I just want to point out that miss miller is a licensed California Attorney for the city of San Francisco, and she is threatening that she will do everything in her power to block the project unless we agree to her requirements. Needless to say, this is not in good faith. Even David Winslow reached out to the mannigettis and millers twice, but the d. R. Requesters refused mitigation. So the millers are concerned that our project is out of scale and out of neighborhood character. Our project sits across from the Elementary School that takes up the entire school. Its 40foot high and solid mass. There are no neighbors or residents across the street that will be impacted by our project. In order to minimize appearance of the property, and thats the one that mr. Miller was talking about, the d. R. Review, the r. D. G. Pretty much suggests two solutions. One is to set back upper story recommended 15 feet from the building wall or to eliminate a building parapet by using a fire rated roof with a sixinch curve. So we used one our fire rated roof which reduced it from 45 inches down to 6 inches. Which reducing the parapet wall, we reduced the light impact to both our neighbors, and we also preserved the building scale by setting front story floor 16 feet when 15 feet is recommended. So the millers are requesting set back along their Property Line to the north, and theyre also requesting that we install an additional light well. Well, if you take a look at the drawing, the millers house doesnt have any light wells, and its and shes filing d. R. And requesting two light wells from us. The reason why millers house doesnt have any light wells is because during the 2018 remodel, they shut off our light well and instead constructed fourth story sky lights. We, on the other hand, are sharing, preserving, and expanding our light well with our neighbor to the south, which is miss mannigetti, another d. R. Requester, and are accommodating light well on the first floor whenever possible, and in addition to that, we dont have any Property Line windows. The millers are concerned about the light, and they are complaining about shade that our project will cast on the roof during the winter. Take a look at what used to be the shared light well, and now its their newly constructed private sky light, providing light to their home only. Our project will have no further impact on their light. Pa the millers home is just like most San Francisco homes. Its relying on front and back windows as primary light sources. Light wells and midlevel windows are two sharing points. On all three floors throughout the whole house, front and back windows, the millers have an abundance of air and light. In fact, the millers have complained about having too much light, and they regularly have them closed off. Why . To protect against it. Theres about a days worth of daily photos that weve included, and its during this lockdown. If you take a look at our proposes project, youll proposed project, youll see that its been extensively reviewed multiple times to comply with residential guidelines, with planning rules and has also been approved by Planning Department and rdat. The project fits in well with the character and does not provide any exceptional nor extraordinary circumstances, nor does not require any variances. We respectfully request the Planning Commission to reject the d. R. And approve the project as proposed. Thank you again for your time. Clerk great. Thank you very much. Each party will also receive a twominute rebuttal. We should now receive Public Comment. Operator your conference is now in questionandanswer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. Clerk i will remind members of the public, this is your opportunity to present testimony by pressing one and then zero to enter the queue. Operator you have two questions remaining. Hi there. My name is kathy dennehy. I am the Property Owner at 3615 divisadero street. Its 36153617, and the property has been in my family for about 70 years. I submitted a letter of concern on january 29 to christopher may. Christopher may sent that letter, along with several photographs that i had submitted, to mr. Winslow. I only found out today mr. Winslow stated that he did not receive that, and i forwarded him the email messages with my letter of concern and my photographic images in it, so im hopeful that the Commission Members have my statement and the attached photographs. My primary concern is that the design height and depth of this building is not in scale with existing homes. There are seven homes on this block. They are all three stories tall. The idea that the building the homeowner thats proposing the build is using the argument that theres a School Across the street and there is the size and scope of the height is in keeping with the block is silly because we dont its a singlefamily home, its not a school. Its not the Apartment Buildings that exist on the corners. So building a fourstory structure in the middle of the block, literally smack dab in the middle of the block is concerning to me and to my family. I will say that this block was featured in the documentary on fire, about the 1989 earthquake. Myself, my grandparents moved out of our building. We were female ayell yellow tad we were a year where we had to put liquid cement into our ground to support the house, so i have concern that a fourstory structure on an already vulnerable block poses a [inaudible] i encourage the commission to plead read the totality please read the totality of my letter of concern since my time is up. My letter had to do with the total number of deaths proposed, rear and front facing decks that total, it looked like four, for light and privacy issues because third and fourth will look overall neighboring homes clerk thank you, maam. Your time is up. Operator you have three questions remaining. Clerk caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony . Im sorry. Im sorry, yes. Dear public officials. I am a resident in the Marina District since 1989 and own a building on divisadero street. I am adamant lly opposed to th project. The project is to convert this to an airbnb, and the sponsor has a history of converting to airbnb in the past. A. D. U. S need to are already de in the area, and parking is highly congested. Tenants and airbnb dont really care about the longterm benefit of the neighborhood. [inaudible] the applicant has had a history of airbnb conversions, and i understand has been disciplined in actions. The applicants tone in various correspondence has been dismissive, condescending, and disrespectful. The applicant has a very devious Development History in the past. Please reject this applicant and the application and not manhattanize the Marina District and not cover up your earlier mistakes of the Planning Department. Operator you have two questions remaining. Clerk hello, caller. The floor is yours; youll have three minutes. Hello . Caller, are you prepared to submit your public testimony . Okay. One last chance, caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony . Okay. Lets go to the next caller. Operator you have two questions remaining. You have two questions remaining. I dont know how to do this. Clerk start speaking. Youll have three minutes. Hello. Can you hear me . Clerk we can, but we recommend that you mute your computer or your television. Hello . Can you hear me . Clerk we can. Yes. My name is ann haskell, i live at 2129 beach street, and am very opposed to this project and dont understand why a fourth floor would sit into the neighborhood. Oh, its not working. Clerk its working. Maam, you need to eventually mute your computer or your television. There is a broadcast delay that is creating the echo. Clerk maam, are you prepared to continue your public testimony . Clerk okay. Lets go to the next caller. Operator you have one question remaining. Hi. My name is rose, and i live around the corner on beach street, but i just wanted to make a couple comments. A buyer looking for housing to locate multigenerational Family Members under one roof is wonderful, but they must have realized they would be taking a risk in buying an expensive small house that clearly would not fit the number of people intended without making aggressive enlargements to the property which would not necessarily be a slam dunk. That would be my first comment. My second comment is i remember an owner couldnt swap out wood windows of a 1920s Apartment Building in the marina for vinyl windows a few years ago because it would change the neighborhood. I dont understand how a four Story Building wouldnt change the neighborhood when youve got apartments on the corners and smaller buildings in between. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Operator youve got zero questions remaining. Clerk commissioners, youve got oh, weve got rebuttal. If the first d. R. Requester is prepared to make rebuttal, you have two minutes. Okay. This is shelley. Hi. For clarification, our home was built in 1990, with a third level and the deck already on it, and we purchased it in 96. We didnt build the third deck or the third level or the deck. We did not, as the project sponsor states, build with total disregard for the home. We brought the home like this. The project sponsor states i didnt attend the First Community meeting. I met with her shortly before this presentation and reviewed the plans with her. In fact, my husband attended on my behalf and signed in, too, on the signin sheet. His name is tony mannigetti, and he signed his address next to it. The proposed 5 foot set back on both the north and south prevent any future possibilities of looking over into the home for anyone who is in the home. We all designed our homes with, you know, three levels in mind. The third floor set back that im asking for lessens the noise and the smoke impact, and they are in line with the newer Construction Projects. My home was built in 1990, to whatever the codes were, and the threefoot set backs are more in line. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Is the second d. R. Requester prepared to submit their rebuttal . D. R. Requester number two, you may need to unmute your microphone or your telephone. Are you prepared to submit your testimony . Project sponsor, are you prepared to submit your rebuttal . Yes, i am. Clerk okay. Why dont you go ahead skpr, a the second d. R. Requester would like, you can go ahead and submit rebuttal. Yes. Can you hear me . Clerk yes. Why dont we go ahead and take the second d. R. Requester rebuttal. Yes. Throughout this project, again, elements have been omitted, drawings were being presented as available throughout the process, but they really werent. Unfortunately, several the meetings were very contentious. My wife, mrs. Miller, never threatened the project sponsor. In fact at the last meeting we had, the project sponsor abruptly left the meeting aa, using profanity, and thats how that meeting. The project sponsor said that we, the millers, closed off the light well. Thats not true. There were no shared light wells, and no shared windows, so the statement that we closed off a light well is false. Also, our parapet, it affects slightly a sky light, and it doesnt affect anything else. It doesnt affect our solar tubes or our solar panels. Our parapet doesnt shade anything at all on our home. The claim that theres not a light well is not true. The project sponsor also mentioned that midhouse light wells in her homes are sky lights and tertiary entrances. As far as the [inaudible] on the set back to 20 feet, and that theres the fivefoot set backs on both sides of the Property Lines. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I appreciate emverything. Thank you so much. Clerk thank you, project sponsor. Are you prepared to submit your rebuttal . I am. Clerk okay. Go ahead. Miss mannigetti making false statements. I never met with her and showed her plans privately. We had 15 plans ready to take. It is true that her husband attended, but in her d. R. , she is the only one filing, and she says she is the one who attended, so it really bothers me that shes making false claims during this public hearing. Once again, what r. D. G. Is allowing and recommending that majority of privacy concerns and noise issues can be solved with privacy screens and privacy landscapes. As much as we would love to have privacy, all of us would, we are living in a city thats high density and zero saet backs. So we have been respectful of all of our neighbors. That is why we have 5 foot set backs, and that is why we are willing to provide additional privacy landscapes and minimize impact on our neighbors as well as having them, you know, minimize looking at us. When it comes to miss miller, reason why we left the last meeting was because his wife, katie miller, who is attorney for the city of San Francisco, has threatened that she will block the project unless we agree to her concern. That is the reason why we left, so thats all i have to say. Clerk thank you. Commissioners, ive been made aware that there is an additional Public Commenter. I believe we should receive that testimony. Operator you have one question remaining. Yes, thank you for taking my call. I was online, but somehow i couldnt get in the queue. My name is brett mcdonald, and i am representing the interest of adjacent neighbors who prefer to remain anonymous. My involvement with the project began with the mailing set that was sent out and set to expire during the yearend holidays. The initial mailing was required to be revised and redistributed as a result of my comment that they werent showing the fourth story on the street elevation. As youve heard, this seems to be one of the biggest issues. My services were retained by several adjacent neighbors, not the d. R. Requesters. The project does not conform to the residential guidelines in terms of block structure. The pattern is clear in the marina of larger four Story Buildings at the corners and smaller, three Story Buildings typically in the middle. For this reason, the Residential Design Team wanted the fourth story removed. Apparently, they changed their opinion, but this is where the Planning Commission can exert its powers. The Planning Department needs to send a strong message that this project does not meet the residential Design Guidelines in the Marina District. Larger, four story builds ingsn the corners and smaller, three Story Buildings in the middle. I hope you will take discretionary action on this project and require revision. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you, commissioners. The matter is now before you. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore i think it would be fair to say that i am disturbed by the project not just only in the terms of neighbor disagreements here, which is not really contributing to our discussions, but generally, i observe that this project is out of scale in rh3, where we are still encountering do i have an echoing here where we are encountering large homes, but this is exceeding what i would like to see in an rh3 and a singlefamily home. Were going from 1900 square feet to over 4300 square feet, and i would agree with some of the observations that looking at the plans itself, i consider the fourth floor not necessary unless this project takes an attitude towards considering designing a threefamily home or adding an a. D. U. Im not in support of the project and would like to make my views known right at the beginning of our discussion. President koppel commissioner imperial . Commissioner imperial thank you. What got my attention are the comments by the public earlier when it comes to the airbnb or airbnb use of the of the of the sponsor, and so this is and, you know, this project is the d. R. Requesters, it sounds like theyre both homeowners. And being that this is in residential, rh3, as well, this i would like to add on add on the recommendation in terms of prohibition of airbnb or shortterm rental uses in this type kind of project. Im also concerned about the design guideline that doesnt seem to mesh with the neighborhood. So those are my concerns, and i would also say that im not wholly in support of this project. President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner fung i dont see unusual or extraordinary circumstances with this d. R. Request, and im prepared to support the project. President koppel commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond i agree with staff and commissioner fung. I dont believe theyve made the case for exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, so i, too, would support the project. President koppel i also am aligning with commissioner diamond and youfung on this on. Commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson thank you. Im also aligned with commissioner fung and diamond and staffs recommendation, so i would move to not take d. R. And approve. Commissioner diamond seconded. Clerk seeing nothing further, commissioners, theres a motion that has been seconded to not take d. R. And approve the project as proposed. On that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes 42, with commissioners imperial and moore voting against. I have no other items on your agenda, commissioners. Congratulations on another successful remote hearing. Commissioner diamond thank you. President koppel and we are adjourned. Hi, youre watching coping with covid19. Today im going to the pharmacy. [music playing] now im not a medical professional or a doctor of any kind. Sorry, mom. Im a video guy. And this is my personal story. I have a Family Member whos in the atrisk group so im the one going to the pharmacy. To get the most detailed and uptodate information about the virus, go to sfgov. Org. Theres a really good f. A. Q. There. Ive been taking a plastic bag from the house and putting a sanitizing wipe and for this trip, i feel safer wearing latex gloves. Im taking the smallest number of items with me. My debit card, i. D. , the gloves and the wipes. And that means therell be fewer items to wipe down later if they come into contact with shared services. When i get to the pharmacy, i put on my gloves. My goal while im inside is to not touch any common surfaces and try to keep at least six feet away from anybody else. This is my second visit of the day. The first time i came, there was a huge line so i just left. This time there is no lineup. Im very careful after i use the p. I. N. Pad to pay for my purchases. This is a point of contact that many people have touched, which is why im wearing the gloves today. I thank the pharmacist for her important work and leave. On my short walk home from the pharmacy, im careful not to touch my face. I keep the gloves on and until i get to my recycling and trash containers, where i remove the packaging from the medicines and i put them in the recycling. Now we dont need the instruction for these particular insulin medications because were already very familiar. As soon as i get through the door, i wash my hands for at least 20 seconds. Then ill wipe down my debit card and i. D. And, as an extra precaution, i wipe down the medicines packaging and anywhere where they have touched indoors. Then i wipe down the front doorknob and, finally, i wash my hands again. That is it for this episode. I hope you enjoyed my story. Good afternoon and welcome to the may 5th, 2020 regular meeting of the San Francisco board of supervisors and i want to wish everybody a happy cinco de mio. Madam clerk, please call the ro