Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20240712

Possible to hold meetings remotely. We received authorization from the Mayors Office to convene through the enter of the shelter in place. This will be our 14th remote hearing. I am requesting everyones patience in advance. The platforms will not perfect, and at times, may seem clumsy. If you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. Do not use any controls ma may affect other participants. To enable public participation, we are broadcasting and streaming live and we will receive Public Comment for each item on the agenda. We are broadcasting and streaming at the toll free number across the bottom of the screen. Comments or opportunities to speak during the Public Comment period are available via phone by calling 8882733658 and enter the code 3107452, pressing pound and pound again. When you are connected, press one and then 0 to be added to the queue. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. When you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, i will announce your time is up and direct my staff to take the next person. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. At this time, i would like to take roll. [ roll call ] thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda commissioners is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, 2019016388. Many ocean avenue proposed for continuance to july 23rd, 2020. Ethe second run is proposed to continuance for july 20th, 2020. The next case on lat lawton str, proposed to july 30th, 20 to. 20. The next one Health Care Services master plan is proposed for continuance to august 27th, 2020. Item five, at 3074 pacific avenue, review has been withdrawn. Commissioners, i have no other items to propose for continuance. We should open this up for Public Comment. Your conference is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. As a reminder, this is your opportunity to call in to the 800 number and press one and then zero to enter the queue. Do we have any callers . You have four questions remaining. Hello. Can you hear me okay . We can. Yes. Im calling because i was notified of this meeting by the San Francisco Labor Council, and im calling on the topic of the amazon project thats apparently trying to set up a Grocery Store and i want to point out from a union point of view, thats not appropriate. Im not sure if this is the right time for comment on that. That will come up later on the agenda and your opportunity to address that will present itself when the item is called and we take Public Comment for that. You have two questions remaining. Hello. My name is Larry Griffen and im calling as the previous caller to speak about the amazon whole foods issue. I will remain in will my place remain in line when were called . You have one question remaining. Caller, are you prepared to submit your Public Comment . They rung up. No more callers. Very good, commissioners. The matter is now before you. Commissioner moore. Move to continue as noted. Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed. [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners. It passes 70 placing under under 6, consideration of draft minutes for the june 11th, 2020 hearing. Do i hear a motion . Public comment. Thank you. Appreciate that. We should take Public Comment for that matter. Your conference is in question and answer mode. To summon each question press one and then zero. Do we have any yes. You have three questions remaining. I will remind members of the public that this Public Comment is addressing the minutes only. It is addressing what only . Is it. The minutes. Sorry. Im confused as to how the commenting works. When the item is called that you would like to comment on, that will be the opportunity to press one and zero to get into the queue. Otherwise, youll be in the queue for every item that we call. So then what i dont understand is proposed for continuance because is it that item three is not going to be addressed until some later meeting . Thats what im unclear on. Item three was just continued to july 30th. So 3601 lawton street. Thats what i needed to know. Perfect. Thank you so much. Im done. You have two questions remaining. Did everyone get a copy of the minutes . Were those sent out. Theyre available online, sir. They were made available a week ago. Thank you. You have one question remaining. I would like to comment im sorry. Im still confused about this. Im not sure where im supposed to be. Im looking at the agenda, and i dont see anything online on the agenda that i want to speak to. I want to speak to the amazon issue. Right. If you just hold on, sir, and keep watching the hearing, we will get to that matter at a later time today. At that time, when i request for Public Comment, then you press one and zero to enter the queue. Okay. But there is no agenda online with a separate item. Correct . Yes, there is. If you go to our web page under sf planning and go to the Planning Commission, you will find our agenda. Im looking at it. Theres nothing on there, sir. It just says special calendar 1, 2, and items 3. Then item 3 the previous closed session. Right. That was the previous agenda. There is another agenda for the regular hearing. If you open that, you will see all the items that were going to address now. Okay. Thank you very much. Its item 14. Yeah. Commissioner moore you have zero questions remaining. It appears as though you were sharing your screen. If you could hit the down arrow in the middle on your floating menu bar, you will no longer share your screen. There you go. That was the right button. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you. Commissioners, well get through this one day. Now the matter is before you. Commissioner fung. Move to adopt the minutes. Second . Second to adopt the minutes. [ roll call ] so moved commissioners. That motion passes 70. Item 7, commission comments and questions. Seeing no comments or questions, commissioners, we can move on to department matters. Item 8, announcements. I have no items for today. Great. Item 9, review of past events of the board of supervisors. I dont have a report from the board of appeals and the Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday. I will just announce that they did cancel their july 1st hearing. So they will reconvene on july 15th. Commissioner star. Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron star, manager of legislative affairs. The Land Use Committee authorized 9 Planning Department to apply for 1. 5 million in early Action Planning Grant Program funds for the California Department of housing and community development. Four citywide planning projects that streamline housing approval and accelerate housing production. During the hearing planning made a presentation. There was no comment and the item was recommended to the full board as a committee report. This week, the full board considered the conditional use appeal for 95norhop. They came to an agreement and the supervisor made a motion to amend the authorization to include the agreed upon compromise. Compromise included lower the height of the proposed buildings by two fee feet and require a 12foot front set back and stilted foundation on any proposed building on the proposed lot that faces the avenue. Since they had agreed on a compromise, Public Comment was minimal and planning sorry and planning did not present. The board voted to approve and file the hearing. Also, the appeal for the condition allution authorization at 1420 was continued for one week and the grant expenditure resolution was passed. Thats all i have for you today. Okay. Seeing no questions for mr. Star, we can move on to general Public Comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. Your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached until the meeting. Each member may address up to 3 minutes. When the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. So i will stress again this is not Public Comment for the whole foods matter that we will hear later today. This is general Public Comment only for those items that are not listed on the agenda. Lets go to Public Comment. Your conference is now in questioquestion and answer mode. To summon each question, press one then zero. Again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to call in to the 800 number if you want to enter the queue. You have two questions remaining. Oh, good afternoon. Hello, everyone. Its georgia shooters. I want to comment on something that i think should be done within six months of the cfc issued. The project sponsor should be required to send the following info to the Planning Department, and this is for projects that didnt comply with the cua or large project authorization. I think they should send the information on the status of the property if its been sold or rented, more than one unit. Percentage of occupancy in the larger buildings or even threeunit building, and the type of tenure, whether its rented or condo or whatever. Once that data is received through this process, various project sponsors, the cumulative amount will give the commissioners and the public an understanding of how approvals are adding to the Residential Housing stock or not. For example, for existing large multi unit buildings, Something Else that you could do, which would be those buildings that have been approved within the last ten years, primarily throughout the eastern neighborhoods, the bulk data should be collected from the Water Department to understand usage. Units that are occupied only parttime will show a lower rate of usage while units that are occupied fulltime will show a higher volume. And just for an example of that, i think since weve been staying at home, im sure were seeing higher water bills for those of us who worked and have our children at home from school because theres more water being flushed and run every day. If this bulk data is compiled, it will help understand the percentage of fulltime occupancy in these past approvals. Ive mentioned this before for the smaller projects that youve approved like 1099 delores which is three units and the legalizing the demo on 21st street which is two units. I think that there was a sense that they wanted you wanted a holistic approach, but do it for everybody not just individual projects. But i think this is a useful condition to impose on everyone, the burden is not that great. It is part of the businesses that a project sponsor needs to this information a project sponsor would need to compile for their own finances when they are dealing with a project. So thats my suggestion. I think its a good way to figure out whats going on with things that you approve once you identify the cuas and certainly the large project authorization. Thank you very much. Everyone have a wonderful 4th at home and take care and be safe and well. Byebye. You have three questions remaining. This is sue hester. Last weeks report, weekly report said there were no items at the board of supervisors at the land use meeting that was relevant it the Planning Department. Thats not true. As part of the problem, the Planning Department doesnt Pay Attention to things that are not in the planning code. What is not in the planning code is a, rent control, and b, Residential Hotels and c, ceqa. Theyre all in the administrative code. We have a lot of Residential Hotels, particularly in district 3, nob hill and chinatown, district 6, tenderloin and south market. Theres five mostly in the quarter and the southern area, even some in district 2. Academy of art which was before the board a couple months ago had taken over a bunch of Residential Hotels and converted them illegally as student housing. One of the things theyre trying to they are tasked to renovate is the housing back to regular housing. We have also had Residential Hotels we do have one coming up on your calendar in three weeks, 54 fourth street. Its a conversion from Residential Hotel into tourist hotel. Its governed by addendums to the code and you have to approve it because its governed by the planning code as a hotel. You have no guidance from the staff or from anyone else that i can detect on both rent control, which is different section of the planning code as well as Residential Hotels. You have the opportunity to have some of this issue really talked about. I would recommend that when you have the hearing in two weeks on the Housing Inventory update, in three weeks, july 16th, that is an opportunity to have instruction on how the staff complies with the rent control provisions and the Residential Hotel. A person like me who reviews all the notices finds a lot of rent controlled housing that is inspented by the proposed project. Staff doesnt even catch it because theyre not grounded in looking for rent controlled units that may be affected by a pros he had approved process approved. I ask you to do this, please. Thank you. You have two questions remaining. Is the caller prepared to make their general Public Comment . Yes. Your time is running. Sorry. Im just wondering, are you taking comments on the building on lawton avenue and 42nd avenue for the proposed building of the five story Apartment Building there . Maam, the 3601 lawton Street Project was continued to july 30th. So that matter sorry. July 30th. Lets go to the next caller. Okay. You have one question remaining. Hi. Im confused on the Public Comment session. On item 14, it was heard on may 28th and then Public Comment was closed. So will Public Comment for item 14 be open . It will be, yes. Great. Thank you so much. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. That concludes the Public Comment portion of the hearing. If there are no questions by from the commissioners, we can move on to the regular calendar. For item ten, case number 2020003039pca for the arts activities and social service for philanthropic facilities for temporary uses planning Code Amendment. Are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes. Thank you. Planning Department Staff, before i give staff presentation, i wanted to introduce paul from supervisor own ans office who is here to speak on behalf of the ordinance. Can you hear me okay . Yes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im paul and im aid to district 9. Its a pleasure to join you today. Ill be touching on legislation that seeks to establish a temporary use permit that will make it easier for nonprofit agencies that are providing arts, cultural philanthropic and social services to operate out of vacant storefronts throughout the city. Prior to the covid19 that we mind ourselves in, San Francisco was already reeling from an affordability crisis that was destabilizing our businesses and nonprofit tex sectors. We have exacerbated this for our businesses and nonprofits. You see dozens of empty storefronts and they will be expected to grow in number. As we begin the very challenging process of restoring our economy, the blight they create will undermine or neighborhood. We have dozens of nonprofit agencies and arts and cultural organizations facing displacement and are trying to find new places to operate. This legislation seeks to create a solution for establishing a new temporary use permit option that will allow nonprofit agencies providing arts and social services to operate out of unused vacant storefronts throughout the city for up to two years. Current planning code restrictions make it difficult for nonprofit, arts and social Service Organizations to open up along our commercial corridor. With this, a temporary permit would offer a fas faster, flexie way to occupy them with uses that support the health and wellbeing of our surrounding community. It will help provide access to new spaces which to operate on a short or midterm basis and that can assist during periods of transition between facilities and also minimize the disruption in programs and service delivery. On the other hand, for our owners, this will be an efficient way for storefronts but avoid fees with obtaining a blight violation or registering a vacant storefront under the program that was established last year. As we allow this initiative, we will be partnering with the diagnose inspections so Property Owners who receive notices for vacant storefronts are informed about this new temporary use permit as a way of supporting local nonprofit agencies while avoiding we will be partnering with workforce investment to support and connect nonprofit agencies at risk of displacement or experiencing transition to these owners who might be willing to bring them into their storefront. Although we introduced this back in february, after covid struck, we consulted with Planning Department staff to find ways that we could broaden the scope of the legislation so its more responsive to the present reality that we found ourselves in. We ask that we propose amendments that define covid19 relief and recovery uses such as food distribution, financial assistance, popup testing facilities, and uses that would be eligible for this brand new temporary use permit and be exempt from the application processing fee as a way to encourage the use of these type of permits. That way service providessers can use the permits as a tool to easily set up Critical Social Services in our storefronts to assist our vulnerable residents in the month of head. We believe that by creating a streamline process, this will lower this lower barrier temporary use permit will eliminate blight and promote activities as well as bolster Recovery Efforts in impacted neighborhoods throughout the city. I would like to wrap up just by expressing my appreciation to audrey and Planning Department and judy at the City Attorney as office for their guidance on this. With that, ill turn it over to audrey. Thank you. Thank you, paul. So to continue with staffs presentation, the proposed ordinance would establish a new type of temporary use authorization which would allow arts activities and social service or philanthropic facility uses as a temporary use in any nonresidential joined vacant ground floor space. The initial approval process period which paul outlined would be for one year with a oneyear possible extension available at the discretion of the Planning Department. The Planning Department has been working in conjunction with supervisor ronens office as paul mentioned. I wont go into great detail about the anticipated amendments that we have outlined in our staff report, about you buti will again state that the 1st amendment would be to define covid19 relief and recovery uses and make those uses eligible for the proposed tua and the second would be to create a fee waiver for covid19 relief and recovery uses seeking the tua through section 205. 6 as it is currently outlined. It would be a different section under the proposed amendments, but were talking about the new tua. The department has not received any Public Comment regarding the ordinance and we recommend that the commission approve with modifications the proposed ordinance. The departments proposed modifications are to include the two anticipated amendments described and which again are outlined in the executive summary. So that concludes staff presentation, and both paul and myself are available for any questions. Thanks. If that concludes staff presentation, we should open up for Public Comment. Your conference is now in questioquestionquestion and ans. To summon each question, press one then zero. This is your opportunity to comment on this planning Code Amendment by pressing one and zero to enter the queue. You have one question remaining. My name is khi, and i live on 3601 lawton street. I dont want any new we are not taking Public Comment on that. That will be heard on july 30th. Lets go to the next caller. You have zero questions remaining. Very good commissioners. The matter is before you. Im excited to see this and thank all those for bringing it forward to us. Over the course of my experience on the Planning Commission talked a lot about nonprofit displacement. We know that nonprofits and arts organizations really knit together our Community Fabric and also provide opportunities for folks to gather to get the support and resources they need and to celebrate their cultures and contributions to the city and here at the Planning Commission. We experience that especially arts activities uses. Sometimes nonprofit uses. Not only are they dealing with the displacement that is happening citywide, but often there are code carriers to them be barriers to them being able to operate in the areas they serve. Really excited to see this offering. Love the addition of the amendments. The best legislation can adapt to the times and being able to see the addition of the anticipated amendments related to covid relief and recovery are an absolute bonus, totally support staffs recommendations to include the anticipated amendments and also create a fee waiver for the class of uses under covid19 release and recovery. Again, excited to see this legislation. Thank you. I am extremely excited to see this legislation especially as modified. I have spent the last ten years of my career working in the Nonprofit Community and really would reiterate everything commissioner johnson said. This ordinance was important even before covid19 and all the more so. Its the right way to go and very, very pleased. I propose to move it forward. Second. Commissioner moore. I am in full support echoing and commissioner johnson and diamond said. Two years is a short time, particular Community Services develop a clientele that will continue to rely on coming to a particular location. How can we ensure the economic downfall lasts longer the leases will be extended and we continue to support the program just not as a short time shot in the arm but as a gesture that looks ahead . Thats a question for audrey. Thank you, commissioner moore. I think its a great question. We did not look at extending the time period as it was originally proposed, which was when legislation was not yet considering the covid19 outbreak. We could either recommend to create a longer initial time period or potentially an additional number of years that it could be renewed at the discretion of the planning pla g director or there could be other legislation introduced to make them more permissive as permanent uses across the city. I think thats one strategy. Do others have anything to suggest along those lines . Commissioner chan. Thank you. So i just want to echo my fellow commissioners. Im curious to know if theres any thinking about prioritizing applications that focus on covid relief. Is there a prioritization of applications that might come in . Absolutely. Thank you, commissioner. So the great news about this ordinance is that temporary use authorizations are a very fast permit approval process. Its the beauty of temporary uses and these covid19 relief and recovery uses along with arts activities and philanthropic uses being able to establish themselves in these communities through tua process and the sense that most of these permits are something that can be reviewed overthecounter or over the virtual counter as it may be right now. Theres no long lengthy neighborhood notification process or, you know, any kind of Planning Commission here. The projects have to go through the only caveat to that is if there is a question about whether a particular covid19 relief or recovery use qualifies as such. The staff may feel more comfortable routing that permit for additional review, but otherwise, these are permits that generally take less than 15 minutes to review and approve over the counter. Great. Thank you. Seeing no further questions or comments just a comment on the time line. Two years, we would be supportive to make a recommendation that should be extended. Right now its one year and then under directors approval can go for another year. But, you know, no reason that cant be two years with another two years with directors approval. So if you want to make that recommendation, i think its certainly appropriate. Is the maker of the motion amendable to adding that . Yes. Tell me what the proposal is, what you would propose amending it to exactly. There were some options laid out. One year now with a oneyear extension at the approval of the director. Youve got flexibility. You can make it two years with a twoyear extension. Commissioner moore, do you have i would love to suggest two years with a possibility to extend after review, 18 months into the occupancy. So we need to give people lead time. After two years, that space might not be available or other reasons require for it not to be there, they need to be given six months. I would ask that after 18 months reconsideration. Two year initial approval and after and then an extension for 18 months . Am i understanding that correctly . I dont know exactly for how much, but at least another two years. So i would be very supportive of a twoyear amending my motion to make it a twoyear time period with twoyear extension. I should note also, thats on the November Ballot to allow for uses for these uses to be permanent so they wouldnt need commissioner moore, i will take it you are amendable to that. Yes, i am. Thank you. Yes. Seeing no further audrey, did you have a comment . May i just ask a clarifying questioning. So do the commissioners which to have oneyear extensions at a time, or do you want the extension to be a twoyear initial extension . Would you i would like to have, perhaps, have them weigh in. Were getting into the weeds. I would rather have an expert to deals with the entities comment on that. I personally am fine with two one year extensions or a two year extension. The time periods are short and it takes time to go through this process and we ought to allow for a longer period of time. But im indifferent whether its two one year or two year extension. Whatever the pleasure is with the commission i would amend my motion. Im going to weigh in. Please do. In ab earlier iteration, when we were thinking about time line, the initial proposal was actually to have a maximum of a fouryear period with the initial period being two years with possibility of extensions for another two years. The reason i think we discussed rolling it back to a shorter time line was just in thinking about the temporary nature of a tua. But i think given the circumstances and the importance of stability, the recommendation of the commissioners here is very much in line with some of the initial thinking and we would certainly be supportive of that type of slightly extended time line for use of this permit. I would support a twoyear extension just to give more leeway for the use and covid19 since we still dont know especially with covid19, you know, we should just anticipate or we should give that much longer period of extension. So i would support a twoyear extension. So just for clarity sake, is the motion for a straight twoyear extension or up to two years with one year increments . Two straight extension. Well, im asking the maker of the motion. Yes. Initial period of two years with the ability to request a twoyear extension. Very good. Very good, commissioners. If theres nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the proposed amendment with the modifications proposed by staff and a recommendation to increase the initial period to two years with the ability of a twoyear extension. On that motion, commissioner chan. [ roll call ] so moved. Commissioners that motion passes 70. Thank you. That will place us on 11 for 2017004557enb at 550 ofarrell street. Are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes, we are. Before you begin, jennifer, i would like to introduce the commission to jennifer who joined the Planning Department in 2016 as an environmental planner. Shes originally from canada and jennifer completed undergraduate degree in chemistry as well as economics before spending 8 years working in the private sector. During this time, jennifer had the opportunity to live and work in different cities which inspired her to complete a masters of Public Administration in Environmental Services at in Environmental Science and policy at Columbia University with an eye on transitioning to the public sector. After working, she joined the San Francisco Planning Department as an developmental planner. She performs Environmental Review under the California Environmental quality act and contributes to broader department initiatives within the air quality Analysis Team and the racial and social equity team. Welcome, jennifer. Thank you. Good afternoon, president and members of the commission. Im jennifer Planning Department staff and eir coordinator for the 550 ofarrell street. Im joined today by my colleagues, tanya, justin, alison, principal preservation planner and maya, architecture and design manager. Members of the project sponsor team are also present. I will now attempt to share my presentation and continue from there. There appears to be some background noise from your computer, i think. Its a squeal. I dont know if theres anything you can do about it. Its pretty strong. No. Im not sure what the source would be. All right. Go ahead. Should i continue . Yes. Maybe ill just try turning off some things. Much better. Thank you. Oh, great. Thank you. The item before you is the review and comment on the 55 ofarrell Street Project Draft Environmental Impact report for draft eir. The purpose of todays hearing is to take Public Comments on the adequacy, accuracy and completeness according to ceqa and San Franciscos local procedures for implementing ceqa. No approval action on this document is requested at this time. The public review period for the proposed project draft eir began on may 21st, 2020 and continue through 5 00 p. M. On july 7th, 2020. I will now provide you with a brief overview of the project and a project variant both of which were analyzed in the draft eir. The project is comprised of 11,800 square foot parcel that fronts ofarrell street in the Downtown Civic Center neighborhood. It is developed with one building, a Public Parking garage, which was constructed in 1924 and designed in the gothic revolve architecture style. The building is individually eligible for listing in the california register of Historical Resources under criterion three as a good example of this style of architecture. The existing building is also a contributing resource to the National Register tenderloin Historic District which is significant under a for association with the development of hotel and apartment life in San Francisco during a critical period of change, under c for mix of building types that served a new urban population of office and retail workers. Based on this, the 55 ofarrell Street Building and the uptown tenderloin National Register Historic District are Historical Resources for the purposes of ceqa. The project would demolish most of the building but retain the facade. It would construct 105,000 square foot 13 story, 130 foot tall mixed use building with 111 dwelling units and 1300 square foot of retail and amenity space. 22 of the 111 units will be affordable units. The draft eir also analyzed a project variant which would demolish the existing building and construct a new approximately 106,500 square foot 13story, 130 foot tall mixed use building with 115 dwelling units and 1300 square feet of retail or residential amenity space. Approximately 23 of the 116 dwelling units would be affordable inclusionary units. The draft eir concluded that both the proposed project and the project variant would result in a change to the significance of the individual Historic Resource at 550 ofarrell street which would result in a significant unavoidable impact. Both the proposed project and variant were determined to have a less than Significant Impact on the tenderloin district. Other impacts to resources were found to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation for the project and variance. A draft eir found that projects and variants impacts, human remains, noise, vibration, and air quality could be mitigated to a less than significant level. All other impacts associated with the proposed project and the project variant were found to be less than significant. Two mitigation measures have been identified for the significant and unavoidable impact to the individual Historic Architectural resource resulting from the proposed project. The first measure requires the project sponsor to undertake Historic American Building survey documentation and video recordation of the building. The second measure requires a permanent display of interpretive materials concerning history and architectural features of 55 ofarrell and its relationship with the up down tenderloin Historic District. While these mitt occasion measures would reduce the project impact on the Historic Resource at 5 50 ofarrell, it would remain significant and unavoidable. Three mitigation measures have been identified for the significant and unavoidable impact to Historic Resources resulting from the project variant. The first two are identical to those identified for the proposed project. The third measure is applicable only to the project variant and would require the project sponsor to consult with Planning Department preservation staff to determine whether any character defining features could be salvaged during demolition and the project sponsor should patient a good faith effort to salvage materials to be part of the interpretive program. Similar to the proposed project, while these mitigation measures would reduce the project variants impact on a Historic Resource, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. To address the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project on the individual Historic Resource, the draft eir analyzed three alternatives to the project. The no project alternative would keep the existing building as a parking garage and not construct any residential units on the site. The full preservation alternative would retain and rehabilitate the front portion of the existing building and construct a four story addition. The first two stories of the addition would be set back from the main facade by 30 feet. The upper two stories would be set back approximately 67 feet from the primary facade. The partial preservation would construct a 13 Story Building with an 18 foot set back from the primary facade of the existing building. The preservation alternatives were developed in consultation with the historic Preservation Commission whose members provided feedback during the april 17th, 2019 hearing. They recommended a project sponsor explore putting more height on the full preservation alternative and increase the setback above the retained facade of one of the partial preservation alternatives. Hpc feedback was incorporated into the revised set of alternatives which were analyze in the draft eir. Additionally, the project sponsor with direction from the Planning Department decided to convert one of the draft partial preservation alternatives in the proposed project. A new project was modified to be the project variance. In terms of impact, the no project alternative would reduce impact to a less than significant level but would not be meet any pardon. Thats incorrect. It would not meet any project objective. The full preservation alternative would avoid Significant Impact to Historic Resources requiring mitigation measures and meet some of the project objectives. The partial preservation alternative would have similar impact to the proposed project and reduce impact compared to the project variant. However, it would not avoid Significant Impact related to demolition at 550 ofarrell and mitigation measures would be similar to the proposed project. The alternative to meet most of the objectives. A hearing to receive the historic Preservation Commissions projects was held on june 17th, 2020. I provided you with a copy of the letter which i will summarize now. At the hearing, the hpc found the analysis of Historic Resources in the draft eir to be adequate and accurate concur with the findings. Determine the identified mitigation measures to be adequate and agreed that the draft eir analyzed a reasonable and appropriate range of preservation alternatives to address Historic Resource impacts. The hpc also noted that this was the first project where a draft was reviewed by the full hpc instead of members of the Architectural Review Committee and this change in procedure greatly improved the process by allowing the full hpc to provide design comments earlier during the development of alternatives. Finally, they expressed full support of the project and requested Additional Information on restoration of the facade be included in the draft eirs project description section. Today, the Planning Department is seeking comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the information contained in the draft eir. For members of the public who wish to speak, state your name for the record. Speak slowly and clearly so that the Court Reporter can make an accurate transcript of todays proceeding. Staff is not here to answer comments today. Comments will be transcribed and responded to in it writing in a response to comments document which will respond to all relevant verbal and written comments received during the Public Comment period and make revisions to the draft eir as appropriate. Those who are interested in commenting on the draft in writing by mail or email may submit their comments to me at 1650 Mission Street, swee suite, San Francisco or to the email provided by 5 00 p. M. On july 7th, 2020. We anticipate publication of the response to comments document at the end of this year followed by the eir certification hearing in early 2021. Unless the commissioners have questions, i respectfully suggest that the public hearing on this item be opened. Thank you, jennifer. We should open this up for Public Comment. Your conference is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. This is your opportunity to comment on the draft eir regarding accuracy and adequacy. Press one. You have three questions remaining. Hello. Can you hear me okay . We can. Yes. This is daniel franco. Actually, im here for another topic, but since you brought it up on this, i merely have to point out taking away parking in San Francisco right now is super dumb. Its a terrible short sided idea. You need to understand in covid, nobody is going to be using Public Transit for years to come, which means youve been spending the last decade taking away parking, taking away even more now just seems to be incredibly pointless and dumb and you should rethink that. I am done. You have two questions remaining. Hi. Im gabby ruiz and im the policy and planning manager at tndc, and as an agency, we are supportive of new housing as long as it brings benefits to the residents currently living in the neighborhood. I would like to ask what residents and organizations the developer reached out to in order to truly understand the needs of the community. I invite the project sponsors to reach out to me and other Community Groups so they have the opportunity to talk more with the community about their vision of the neighborhood. My colleagues at the tenderloin Peoples Congress would love to have this conversation and i would be more than happy to help facilitate this. On page 21 in appendix a, it states that while the addition of 255 to 267 people would be noticeable to residents of immediately adjacent properties, those numbers would not result in a substantial increase to the population of the larger neighborhood or the city and county of San Francisco. This may be true, but as representatives of the neighborhood, we are concerned about the impact that a higher income population may have on the residents. We would like to see more of a Socioeconomic Impact analysis of this project on this neighborhood. The Commission Approves a resolution calling for the Planning Department to center racial and social equity by developing strategies to counter Structural Racism in collaboration with communities of color and we urge you to apply that to this project. I look forward to hearing more and thank you so much. You have one question remaining. Hello. Im william rink in. I live adjacent to the garage. It will be significant negative impact for me and my neighbors. The building proposed is an eyesore. Its ugly, hideous, esthetically, it has no value. It will block sunlight for the entire neighborhood, and i personally work from home. So there is no way i would be able to have an income with demolition and construction going on. I just hope that you come up with a better design. Its a cookie cutter building, looks to be done [indiscernible]. Its good for no one by the developer. We need parking in the neighborhood. We need character in the neighborhood. We need diversity in the neighborhood. This project will be a disaster. Thank you. Thats all i have to say. You have one question remaining. Yes. I would like to second hello. Go ahead, caller. Im sorry. I would like to second both the last caller and the previous caller that it sounds like this is a cookie cutter type of proposal. I has the agency reached out to the community and spoken to them about the demographics and what is about to take place around them . I would suggest in closing that if you plan for ventures and concepts within communities, that you touch base with those community organizations. Thank you. Joseph manner, juvenile hall. You have one question remaining. Caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony . Caller . You may need to press star and then six to unmute your telephone. Lets go to the next caller. You have two questions remaining. Hello, caller, are you prepared to submit your testimony . Hello. All right. Lets go to the next caller. You have one question remaining. This is sue hester. I am following up to the comments. This is an existing neighborhood that the Planning Department sometimes understands is a neighborhood and sometimes doesnt. The map was shown that had the lavender and the gray at the top, 315 of the eir shows the top of the area that is located between basically pine and geary street is a Lower Nob Hill Apartment Hotel Historic District. Thats the area that has Residential Hotels. Tenderloin has Residential Hotels, and theres deep housing that exists already in the neighborhood. This area doesnt have so many traditional Apartment Buildings. It has sros and it has Residential Hotels, and it has other housing that was accommodated by peopl people eag out a lot and not having kitchens. There needs to be an understanding at the Planning Department about the different types of housing that exist and who they serve and what benefits they give to lower income people particularly. This has not been an area that has upscale housing for a long time. Now people want to make a lot of money and turn everything into upscale housing. But existing residents need to be protected from being pushed out by unthinking development pushed by the Planning Department or by private developers wanting to make a bit of money. I dont have any problem with the garage going away. There is an abundance of garages in this area. This is a good site to have additional housing, but you need to have outreach thats serious to the people that live there, the people that are represented by organizations like tndc and other area organizations. So im submitting written comments, but this is an opportunity to start understanding how the city was developed in this area, which doesnt have a whole lot of additional housing. Thank you. It doesnt have Single Family houses at all. Thank you. Bye. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. The matter is before you. If there are no comments from the commissioners, commissioner moore. I generally find the draft eir complete and accurate. Its well organized, easy to read, and i found the discussion of the proposed alternative rather convincing, including the one which analyzes the proposed alternative with all of the pieces that are possible, that is one i found convincing. I am in full support of what is in front of me. Commissioners, if theres no further comment, we can move on to items 12a and b for case numbers 2018012065cua. You will consider the conditional use authorization and Zoning Administrator will consider the request for variance. Staff, are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes, im prepared. Thank you. Good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission. Linda, Department Staff on april 30th, 2020, and july 11th, 2020, the Planning Commission continued the conditional use authorization for the project at 5500 Mission Street to allow the project sponsor to have additional time to review the project with supervisor safais office. The request for the conditional use authorization is to allow a nonresidential use greater than 5,999 square feet within the outer Mission Street neighborhood commercial Zoning District located at 5500 Mission Street. The project is seeking a rear yard variance from the Zoning Administrator. It includes the demolition of an existing 2,750 square foot industrial building, a lot merger, and new construction of a four story, 40 foot tall mixed use building with a 73 bed Residential Care facility for the elderly, 8 Group Housing rooms on the fourth floor and 8 888 square feet of ground floor commercial to include one off Street Parking sprays, four bicycle spaces, and six class two bicycle Parking Spaces. To date, the department has received correspondence from one member of the public expressing concerns about parking. Since the last hearing date, the project sponsor has submitted revised plans as follows. The number of beds in the Residential Care facility have been increased from it 72 beds to 73 and the number of rest rooms on each floor has been revised so each room is shared each rest room is shared by no more than two residents. The Department Finds that the project is unbalanced consistent with the objectives and policies with the general plan and will redevelop an underutilized site to provide beds for the elderly, Group Housing rooms and 888 square feet of ground floor commercial space. They find the project to be necessary and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. The project sponsors present and has prepared a presentation for the commission. This concludes my presentation. Ill be available for any questions, and i would like to introduce the project sponsor wholl present to the commission. Are you on the line . Yes, i am. I did want to let everyone know that sandoval from supervisor safais office is trying to call in. I dont know if you can let her speak first. It would be from supervisor safais office on the line. She said she was muted. You have to press star six to unmute yourself. Are you with us . Well, i can begin my presentation, and let her join in when she gets through. Why dont we do that and remember there is a small delay. So if youre following, just go ahead and speak to your slides and direct linda to go to the next slide. Your presentation is up. Thank you very much. Youll have five minutes. All right. So dear president koppel and commissioners and vap, im jeremy representing the owner of 55 Mission Street. Many thanks for hearing from us today. I would like to thank supervisor safai and linda for all of their help in this project. Im happy to present this proposal. Slide two, please. So the existing site is an approximately 9,100 square foot lot. Its currently occupied by an auto repair facility. Slide three, the subject block face measures approximately 5 foot 8 inches shorter than shown on the title and assessors map. To account for this, we will file a record of survey with public works showing this deficiency. We have asked for a variance to ensure this error does not affect our allowable building size. Slide four, please. The proposed project would merge four parcels into one of 8,705 square feet as measured and construct a four Story Building. The building will provide 73 beds for ambulatory patients and 8 Group Housing bedrooms plus one owners unit and commercial space. Slide five. Three stories of Residential Care for the elderly are on the lower levels with Group Housing on the top floor. Rcfes are certified by the department of social services. Non ambulatory residents are restricted to two lower levels. Ambulatory services are on the third floor. The top level Group Housing is intended for elderly who did not require 24hour care. Slide six shows our ground floor. Retail space is provided at the Mission Street corner to activate the block face. Two separate residential entries are located down the street. Each requiring its own elevator access. Care facilities have monitored doorways for security and safety and the front office that can screen visitors. Weight loading down would be created on Mission Street. The sidewalk will contain six class two bicycle Parking Spaces and 9 others. It has 12 rooms and 18 beds on the ground floor. Slide 7, please. California licensing restricts room to a maximum of two. Theres no requirement for single rooms, but we are providing 23 rooms as singles and 25 as double occupancy. This will help maintain affordable options while also providing socialization if desired. The second floor has 20 rooms and 30 beds with open space on the rear deck. Slide 8, please. The third floor is for ambulatory residents and has a dining area. Rooms are arranged for maximum sanitary efficien he fish effic. This is above and beyond the statutory requirement of one per six residents and there are also 8 shower facilities provided in total. Slide nine shows Group Housing level with one Owner Operator unit as well as common kitchen area and recreation spaces. Slide 10 shows a common roof deck that will also be utilized for all residents. Slide 11 shows our facade, the exterior of the building will feature high quality durable materials such as porcelain tiles, stucco, aluminum widows and screen panels. Last but not least, we obviously understand concerns about elder care during the current pandemic. I have discussed in detail this project with dr. Anderson at ucsf. She is a licensed architect and geriatrician. Weve gone over best practices as theyve been evolving with the current research. We analyzed the project in the context of emergency outbreak preparedness, Incorporated Provisions into our layout. Increased hand washing stations, segregating them into clusters of 10 to 15, allowing six foot separation for each resident enhanced mechanical capacity, and last but not least, the Research Shows that the staff training is the most important aspect of elder care. The project sponsor has good records, zero cases of covid19 and this building meets or exceeds all other licensing requirements. Thank you. Does that conclude the sponsors presentation . Yes, it does. Very good. Is the supervisors aid on the line to submit comment . I think she dialed in the Public Comment number. So she should be able to chime in. Okay. Very good. If thats the case, lets go to Public Comment and the supervisors aid hopefully will be able to be first. Your conference is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. This is your opportunity to hit one and zero to enter the queue. With regards to everyone, unfortunately he couldnt be here. Hes at another call right now or on at call with Community Leaders and grassroots leaders. He wanted to make sure that he expressedded his support for this project, jeremy, and the project sponsor has been very flexible and, you know, even went above and beyond and rescheduled everything so that the supervisor could just make sure that everything was okay. We are in a pandemic, so from supervisor safai, hes happy with whats before all of you, and he thanks everyone for the consideration and hopes that you all can support the project. Thank you. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. The matter is now before you. Commissioner moore. Im very happy to see this particular project as an example of how we can turn a project around. I really want to commend the architect for taking the time to weigh the sensitivity to the project and addressing the concerns that commissioners had expressed when we first heard this project. The attention to the Coronavirus Crisis and what it does to elderly care homes, i appreciate the possibility for single rooms, but double rooms being slightly enlarged in size for social distancing. I like the spaces for socialization indoors and outdoors and overall, i think the project is 100 approved. It has my full support. I move to approve. Second. Zoning administrator, did you want to chime in . Is. Yeah. Thank you. Just to speak briefly on the variance, i would note this is a large corner parcel. This is an establishment open space, but this parcel is effectively cut off from the mid block open space by the buildings on that lot. The proposal is only a couple feet away from the requirement and because this is a neighborhood commercial district, it qualifies for kind of a lower bar rear yard modification than a full on variance. I think that the project qualifies for both the modification or the variance either way. Im also supportive. Seeing nothing further commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. Commissioner chan [ roll call ] that motion passes 70. I will close public hearing on the variance and grant with the standard conditions. Very good. Thank you. Commissioners, that will place us on items 13a and b at 4333 26th street conditional use authorization and the Zoning Administrator will consider the request for variance. Is staff prepared to make their presentation. Im set. Great. Good afternoon, president , members of the commission and Zoning Administrator. Jeff warren, Planning Department staff. I am before you for a request for conditional use authorization and a variance to 132 for the project located at 4333 26th street. The project is located on the south side of 26th street, mid block between diamond and douglas. The lot is 114 feet in depth and slopes upwards toward the real and west along the front age. Some areas have slopes in excess of 25 . The subject property was developed with a 2 bedroom, one story garage singlefamily dwelling 1,992 square feet in size. It was constructed in 1900. The buildings existing garage encroaches into the required front set back. The existing building was constructed in an irregular manner as a side walls are skewed and not parallel with the side Property Lines. The parcel totals 2,850 square feet and is located in rh1. The project proposes the existing Square Footage, one family dwelling to construct a new three story basement garage, 4,367 square foot four determine one family dwelling with two Parking Spaces. The product requires condition use authorization for the demolition of a residential unit and approval of the construction of a new building. The project also seeks a variance to 132, the front set back requirement. The properties required to have a front set back line of 15 feet based on the location of the structures on the two adjacent properties. The front wall of the proposed building is set back a proposed come client 16 feet 6 inches. However, they seek reconstruction of the protruding garage which is located within the required front set back. The existing structure to be demolished is developed with a legal non conforming structure on the south side of 26th street. The residential design found the proposed garage structure could be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood context and consistent with the residential Design Guidelines. Since the noticing of the project for hearing, there was a concern over the lot occurring at the site for the protection of existing trees within the required rear yard. Several letters of concern were served when this project was first submitted and sponsor has worked with those neighbors to address their concerns. The existing structure was determined to not be Historic Resource by plannings preservation staff and it received a categorical exemption from ceqa. Its consistent with the objective and policies of the general plan although the project results until the demolition of an existing Single Family home, the replacement structure will provide an increased number of bedrooms suitable for a family. Overall scale, design, and materials of the proposed building are consistent with the subject block and complements the neighborhood character with a contemporary design. They find the project to be necessary and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. This concludes staffs presentations. The sponsor has a presentation as well. Project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes, im here. Can you hear me . We can. You have five minutes. If you could share your screen, project sponsor, ill notify you when your slides are up. Your slides are up. You have five minutes. Thank you. This is jeff gibson. Commissioners and Zoning Administrators, thank you for your time and managing to have these hearings during this challenging time. So were before you today with a Single Family project that requires conditional use authorization for the demolition of existing structure as well as a variance for the garage in the front yard. There is a delay. Great. Jeff, if you could go to the next slide, please. So the existing structure was built in layers over time. Theres no permit history for the rear most portion of it. It sits in a strange way, skewed to the lot and so when we analyzed the possibility of doing this as an addition, staying within the threshold calculations, we just didnt feel it was possible. A lot of strange wedges of extra space were being left behind to stack on top of walls and awkward interior spaces, driving unconstruction costs. Existing foot was large and we could really pull it in and actually make a more modest footprint on the site. Thats the home in red. In blue, you see the existing front garage a elevator advance iadvance variance is required for that. Im going to talk about the variance for a minute. We have an existing garage noncompliant. The two neighboring home as well as most of the other ones on our side of the block have a garage. The planning code does allow for a front garage in front of the front set back if your front set back sleep is 50 . Ours is 43 . Were under that threshold. So i feel that between the context of the existing garage and garages on the street as well as the fact were close to that 50 threshold, i feel like this is a pretty minor ask. The main primary wall of the home is actually set back further than the minimum set back to really fit in context with the neighboring buildings. At the rear of this proposedded site plan, you can see a heavy red line which is the sort of tail end of the existing footprint. So you can see we pulled our building in. Furthermore, the two different shades of blue you see at the back are the volume at the ground level and then the first floor level above ground level at the rear. The gray is the top level. Jeff, you can advance the slide here. So weve tried to really sort of taper in the rear. We worked closely with the homeowners on either side of us to sculpt the building, change windows, address privacy concerns, eliminate an elevated terrace, and i think it was a productive dialogue with them. They were wonderful to work with. We spent a lot of time with them. Waiting for the next slide. Great. One thing i like to clarify is were not trying to build a monster home here. The habited availabl area is 33e feet. Its reasonable size in this context. We have another 1,000 square feet of garage level which is excavated there. Not too much to have a large garage but we need that stability built into the hillside. So i think 3300 square feet, its an okay size here. Here were seeing the front elevation. You can see we worked with architecture but a massing and volume. Go ahead to the next slide. A gable roof really fits in the context with the two neighbors. So weve worked to design the form of the building. Theres a lot of stylist stylic variation to the homes on this block. This was important here to make the new building really fit better with the existing conditions than the existing one does. You can go forward another slide, jeff. Overall, i think it was a productive process working with planning, working closely with the rdap on this project in parallel working with those immediate neighbors to try to amalgamate everyones concerns and make them work into a comprehensive design. Its been before you before with these conditional uses. Its not our taste thin favorito do. We dont like to take up your time with conditional use authorizations with full demolition. With you understand the strange way its laid out on the site here, this is a reasonable case for full demolition and new construction in a much better way than what was there before. Im available for any questions. Thank you so much for your time. Great. Thank you. That concludes sponsors presentation. We should take Public Comment. Your conference is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. Again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your comment on this matter. Press one and zero to enter the queue. You have two questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im with the neighborhood council. I just want to draw your attention to the size of this Single Family home, 4,300some square feet for a Single Family home. Incidentally, im sure most of you know that the average family size is 2. 1. So the number of bedrooms that have been increased, the question is, who are we increasing the number of bedrooms for . This house is not affordable by design. It is replacing a modest home with two bedrooms and one bath. So i would like the commission to question whether or not the demolition of a modest home, two bedroom and one bath, is worth doing to replace it with an unaffordable by design house of 4,300 square feet and furthermore, if you look at the plans, this house, the proposal for this project, goes way beyond the two adjacent homes. Why are we doing this . Why should a house be so much further deeper than the adjacent homes when you could perfectly add maybe one more bedroom, maybe one more bathroom to make this more livable. It will probably even allow the homeowner to have a couple of roommates if you want to make it not so much for a family but for single people who want to room with other folks. But 4,300 square feet is excessive. The depth, the expansion in the rear yard is excessive, particularly for a Single Family home. So oftentimes, you know, people from another camp show up here to talk about singlefamily homes, how evil they are and how evil Single Family homeowners are. So here i am to remind you that yes, it is evil to spend this money and 4,300 square feet for a Single Family home. So i would like to draw your attention to that. Im opposed to a house that is so big that is not affordable by design, and i hope you are, too. Thank you. You have one question remaining. Hi. Its georgia shooters. I wrote a letter to mr. Horn. Thank you for mentioning it, mr. Horn, about the yard. You know, these excavations, theres been a pattern of basically sanitizing the rear yard. Another thing is, with this house, the tree is going to be lost in the front. That will be the second tree on 26th street thats lost because of moving of the curb cut. That happened with 4363 which is interesting because that was not a demolition but it was extreme alteration. You took the fourth floor off because you thought it was extraneous space, i think. That was a dr hearing though. Anyway, this fourth floor has the recreation room and a bedroom. I think falling off of the other comments about affordable by design, this project, as in the staff report and the draft motion, does not meet criteria ix9 of section 317. It doesnt protect the affordability and has a lot of bedrooms. Thats a family size housing. Well, you know, if it didnt have the top floor, it still would have three bedrooms. So thats just a question to raise. I mean, this block is so interesting because this has been to me ground zero of these extreme alterations. Theres been a huge average increase in the price. They are all speck projects. I dont know about the one at 4363, but thats another story. Around the corner, up on douglass, it has a huge issue with enforcement that occupied a lot of your staff time, and then theres another one right now next to it that kind of looks like extreme alteration aka demo and then around the corner on clipper, theres one there. I sent some info on that. So i dont want to accuse these guys i understand his problem. I think he made a reasonable point about the fact that he didnt want to do a demolition. I guess thats educational to me, the constraints, but its a demolition. Its going to have a huge increase in price. At this point, im just really concerned with the loss of the rear yards because i think its necessary and desirable to keep as natural as rear yard as possible. I said in my notes to mr. Horn, healthy and natural and flourishing rear yards are necessary and desirable and particularly with the loss of that tree and the other one up the street, something to consider since this is a conditional use authorization. Thanks so much again. Take good care. Be well. Be safe. Be happy. Byebye. You have zero questions remaining. Commissioners, that concludes Public Comment. The matter is before you. Thank you. I was waiting. I have a question for the staff. I understand that this is in rh1 zoning. This is going to expand up to 4,300 square feet. Is there i guess can you inform us when it comes to expansion of a Single Family home in rh1, what are the terms that usually the Planning Department looks into . Is there limitations in terms of expansion . Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Jeff horn, Planning Department staff. When a project is reviewed, particularly in the rh1 zoning, there are a few basic controls within the planning code with regards to front, rear setbacks in yard and height. But theres also the contextual review requirement of the residential Design Guidelines. So this project for the most part the Main Building structure is compliant with the required 15 foot front set back and 30 rear set back. It meets the height requirement. Its allowed to be up to 35 feet due to the upward sloping nature of the lot which is a provision in 261, i believe. The context of the building was also reviewed by Residential Design Team. A lot of their initial comments were in regards to support of the overall design of the front facade although was compatible. The building provides a shake roof which is consistent pattern on the block space. A few comments that came from the Residential Design Team were records to the depth of the floors within the rear of the building and the sponsor responded to many comments and provided more of a terrace as the floors get taller, they are further deep into the rear yard. The second and third floor provides setbacks from the adjacent Property Lines. Another thing, too, is that other, i guess, callers have mentioned is that the context of the neighborhood. I understand that listening to the context of the neighborhood as well, but did we look into the context of the neighborhood of the and the number of bedrooms, what are aside from the design, are we looking into the context of the neighborhood as typical, you know, initially two bedrooms or three bedrooms . What are yeah. Planning department doesnt generally get into the interior functions of buildings, particularly the adjacent neighbors in regards to reviewing for residential uses. Part of this buildings volumewise and the way it sits on the hillside, its very contexcontextualized with the neighbors. Its coming from the technologies now to use part of the hillside as, you know, excavated area for ground floors. But the planning code has no far requirement in regards to our residential properties. In regards to bedrooms, there are some findings within 317 and a lot of them serve to see an increase in the bedroom totals, which is a feature of this project. So thats not really has some criteria ive heard that term many times from the public. Im wondering, the approach of the Planning Department in looking to that. But i would like to hear other commissioners comments and thank you for your answers. Commissioner fung. I have no Planning Issues with this request. Im prepared to support the requested conditions. Commissioner moore. I have a few questions for the architect if hes available. Is the architect available for questions . Mr. Horn, can the architect are you there. Yes, im here. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Yes. I have a question that is more applicable to the detail on your drawings. Thats number one. I like the project actually. On drawing, on the fourth floor, youre showing a recreation room that looks full height window or sliding door, opening to an area where you indicate that there is no roof deck proposed which would be appropriate because if there would be one, there would be a privacy issue with the adjoining neighbors. However, when you go to your rear elevation drawing, that is on drawing a301, you are hinting a comment which has terrace. Am i misreading your drawings or is that a contradiction in your drawing depiction . It could be a contradiction. Are you talking about the fourth floor or the third floor . Im talking about the fourth floor. The fourth floor. Thank you. At one time, we were intending to use the flat roof at the rear as a terrace. Even they were okay with that, but in communication with the immediate neighbors, they had privacy concerns. We were happy to address their concerns. So thats just an unoccupied roof there. It doesnt have a guardrail. It has a window you can walk through to go clean it, but otherwise, its not occupied at all. But then the word terrace would need to disappear because otherwise, thats an ambiguity that would mean you are asking for an approval of a terrace. Correct. Sure. We will address that o on the aa plans, we called it unoccupied roof and not used as terrace. We want to make sure thats consistent. I appreciate that. Could you comment observation on my part, could you please comment on the tree and why the garage require this tree is removed. Youre flipping the garage from one side to the other. Weve slid the garage over to the east which is with the cross slope of the site, thats the downhill side. The reason we did that was actually to sort of accommodate the rdat request, i would say, that we keep the height of our front yard garage as low as possible since were requesting that variance for that front yard garage, they wanted us to hunker that down and the only way to do that was to sort of make the garage door on the low side. Weve been actually discussing that tree with the immediate neighbors. They would also like us to try to keep it, if we we might try to nudge the garage door back uphill a little bit and see if we can clear the tree. We have to talk with the bureau of urban forestry about it. If we cannot do that, we are committed in a separate agreement we have with the neighbors to planting a very large boxsize replacement tree immediately east of where the existing tree is. The existing tree is, i would say, indubious health. Its kind of rough. It maybe can be improved or not. Im not sure. But one way or the other, were committed to a robust tree, either retaining that or a new one immediately adjacent to it. I appreciate your saying that the public indeed knows its an arbitrary termination of a tree but thoughtfulness looking at this house together with the department of urban forestry but working on potential retention or replacement. Replacements are never the same, but i hear that are making an effort. Could you also briefly comment on loss of vegetation in the rear yard . Again, a comment made by the public, something were concerned about so it will help explain the overall landscape toward the site. Absolutely. There actually isnt any loss of green space in the rear yard in this project. The existing footprint of the building actually extends rearward of where were planning to build. Then even beyond the existing footprint of the building, theres a concrete terrace and retaining wall back there. So our new footprint doesnt extend as rearward as the existing building, we are also proposing a small terrace and stairs up there. That is using the existing footprint of the existing concrete improvements. Thats a bad word for it because theyre not improvements in the backyard currently. So very much appreciate the callers comments and her letter about the importance of greenery in these rear yard open spaces. The common asset of these mid block open spaces is so important in San Francisco, but it doesnt work if theyre just concrete wastelands. So i believe well be able to retain the three existing trees that are at the rearward edge of the yard, and well have substantial planted area as much or more than there is today. Thank you for explaining that so thoughtfully. Im in support support of the project. Im curious to see what the other commissions have to say. Ill mute myself again. Im available if there are more questions. Commissioner johnson. Thank you. Yeah. I just wanted to add my support of the project. I really appreciate the conversation that was just had about the tree and the rear yard. Overall, the first thing i want to say is the design of this project is refreshing in a sea of gray boxes. I think its visually interesting. The second thick i wan thingi want to add is i appreciate the distinction of the new development and the Square Footage that its a garage versus the rest of the house. The third thing i want to name is i appreciate the design of adding a terrace over the garage in the front and also think its contextual. I want to add that im grateful that the project sponsor both came forward and said that a demolition felt like the way they wanted to go so we dont see the project after the fact and also, they tried to work with neighbors to address issues. For all of those reasons, i would move to approve with conditions, but i see mr. Teague might want to make a comment. Yes. Thank you. I did just want to speak to the variance briefly. As was mentioned, the proposal actually reduces the depth of the building on the lot. Just relative to the front set back variance thats being requested, it is very close to being cocompliant. Its just slightly not enough slope at the front. As you can tell and as stated, theres an existing context on this side of the block of protruding garages at the front and from a design perspective, its preferable to keep that context consistent here and i also am in supportive of the variance. So i did hear a motion to approve the conditions. Do i hear a second. Second. Thank you. Commissioners, if theres nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. [ roll call ] ill close the public hearing and attend the grant with standard conditions. Thank you. Commissioners, that will place us at item 14. Case number 2019004110cua. On may 28th, 2020, after hearing and closing Public Comment, you continued this matter to june 25th, 2020, but a vote of 43. Through the chair, project sponsor will be allowed three minutes and Public Comment will be limited to one minute as this matter has already been heard. Staff, it appears as though youre prepared to make your presentation. You have the floor. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. On may 28th, 2020, this commission heard a request for conditional use authorization to permit retail use within the Zoning District, the Center Center special design district. After hearing and closing Public Comment, the commission continued the item in order to allow the project sponsor an opportunity to engage in discussions with organized labor and building trades. The project sponsor has met with the united food and commercial workers local five union. The sf building and Construction Trades Council and the booker t. Washington Community Service center and they will go into more detail shortly. Commissioners, the department has received at least 15 letters in support and one letter in opposition to the project, all of which have been emailed to you directly and. The department continues to find that the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. It will add a Grocery Store, a restaurant, coffee shop in a location that is historically and currently occupied by a number of large retailers. The project will not displace any existing commercial tenants as whole foods will be the first retailer to occupy the space formerly occupied by best buy which closed more than two years ago. The Department Finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and not detrimental to adjacent properties. This concludes my presentation and i will turn it over to the project sponsor. I am joined by my colleagues in Environmental Planning and we will be available for questions afterwards. Thank you. Project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation . I am. Can you hear me okay . We can. And your slides are up. You have three minutes. Great. Good afternoon, commissioners. On behalf of whole foods. I would like to run through reasons why whole foods will be good for this neighborhood. As i mentioned last time, whole foods will generate 9. 6 million in Union Construction trade labor. In earlier this month, whole foods committed to hire through the general contractor 100 Union Construction trade labor to the extent possible that includes mechanical, electricalling and plumbing work by union trades. As a reminder, whole foods has general constructers hired between 84 to 94 union trades on past projects and expends to spend 31 million. Whole foods selected union trades because of their training, skills, certifications, and other qualifyingses that set them apart. Your recommendation, we had a meeting with local five last year. It was beneficial in that it allowed the parties to listen and share their perspectives. We certainly appreciate the work of ufcw5 and are glad to have a didialogue. I want to spend time talking about the employees. The vast majority live in San Francisco and have fulltime jobs many more than half of them identify as nonwhite. Using these figures, the project is estimated to provide numbers to 152 sa san franciscans, more than half we expect will identify as people of color. With unemployment in San Francisco hovering at 12. 5 and unemployment rates higher for people of color, it will provide good and stable jobs to all sann franciscans. The letter i sent you yesterday from two employees demonstrate the pride and satisfaction that a whole foods can provide. You can go to the fourth slide. Finally, whole foods announces a partnership with the Community Service center in the Western Addition. Whole foods is a unique position to provide jobs, food, and services to neighborhood that has been subject to the kinds of exclusionary zoning practices that can contribute to job insecurity and food deserts. Whole foods will prioritize hiring 30 of its store employees through booker t. Washington. Thats 60 jobs. It will hold recruitment events in collaboration with booker t. Washington and other nonprofits. On top of these workforce initiatives, whole foods will make an ongoing monthly 1,000 donation for healthy snacks, set up a volunteer program, sponsor booker t. Washington upcoming 100th Anniversary Gala and upgrade the garden facilities. You can go to the fifth slide. Just to sum up here, this is a great project and its in a perfect location for a new Grocery Store. It is supported by neighbors and merchants groups who you will hear from shortly and does its part to support the community. Please approve it and thank you for your time. Thank you. Seemingly, that will conclude project sponsor presentation. If there are no question questions to the sponsor, we should open this up for Public Comment. Your conference is now and question and answer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your public testimony regarding the whole foods proposal as this has been heard before and as stated previously, you will have one minute. You have 12 questions remaining. Hi. My name is bradley. Im a front line worker. I believe that whole foods has been antiunion and antidemocratic right of worker to choose across the country. So, you know, projecting a store thats going to undermine or democratic rights at work is really undermining our environment. Given that there are other choices on geary, there are other opportunities for people to go and get a Union Support workers who are on the front line. We offer support of this application through the covid19 pandemic. We have come to understand the importance of immediate access to healthy options. They provide high level of anxiety in Grocery Stores. Because of in and the jobs during construction and permanently, employing many san franciscans in opening. Because of these reasons we firmly support this construction. Thank you for your time and consideration. Have a great date. You have 16 questions remaining. Caller this is alex. I am a resident of the marina in San Francisco. I an in strong support of this project. I think covid and this pandemic has shown that groceries are essential. Without groceries there are no options for food. When the pandemic first happened i remember driving all over the city to get groceries and waited in line for hours. Additionally, with San Franciscos biggest industry being tourists i am concerned about our citys ability to pay teachers, firefighters, employees to clean streets and provide services to the homeless. This location is central in San Francisco and it is going to provide more groceries for everybody. Especially for the Western Addition which is underserved by groceries. I am in strong support. I hope you can bring more retail, more sales tax to San Francisco. Thank you. You have 14 questions remaining. Caller i am ron. Organizer with ocw local 5. Amazon wheel foods works with a whole foods has racist policies to discriminate against im grants and people of color and have had adversarial relationship with organized labor across the country. They are a Company Whose values are inconsistent with the values of our city. I am opposed to this project. You have 13 questions remaining. Caller i am jackie. I am a resident next to the project. I want to speak in support of the project. This is a large retail space, very few other store to fit in here. I really appreciate the union perspective, but would note there are several whole foods in the city. The city needs to address important issues, it should be a separate matter from this particular store opening. I dont have a car. This allows me to have better access to groceries, which is important during covid. Please vote in support. You have 16 questions remaining. Caller San Francisco Labor Council. I submitted my comments directly to the commissioners. I want to point out wheel foods whole foods are predatory re. 50 of the employees are women and people of color, but they dont offer the same wages and benefits that other grocers do. I would encourage you to vote against the project until they come to the table and make sure that they have adequate pte. They are notic bad on pte. Thank you. You have 15 questions remaining. Caller i am oliver dib bell. I work in San Francisco and i have been involved in the Union Building trades over 40 years. I shop at whole foods at other locations and would welcome this location to be added. It is a good use of the space, which has been empty for several years. An added bonus they provide parking for shoppers, which is unusual in San Francisco. Thank you very much. You have 14 questions remaining. Caller i am dan flanagan maybe of this building. Neighbor of this building. I am in favor of this building. It has parking, it will be a good anchor for this complex because it has been empty three years. It would be operating needed tax revenue desperately to the city in a time when the city needs the income. This is over 150 people employed is a strong reasons to vote in favor of this project. Thank you very much. You have 15 questions remaining. Caller i am natalie, resident of San Francisco. Whole foods is a Company Whose values are not consistent with the values of the city and does not allow with racial and economic equity. They have a history of low wages. They been given a chance to connect. The projects in San Francisco including. [ inaudible ] they have refused to prioritize the workers. I oppose the project. Thank you. You have 15 questions remaining. Caller i am richard harold. I live two blocks away from the site. I am in strong favor of bringing whole foods in for the reasons other supporters have mentioned. I am a Lifelong Union member, currently member of the San Francisco teachers union. I think some of the issues of concern can be handled not directly associated with approval of this site. We need this in our neighborhood. Thank you. You have 14 questions remai remaining. Caller i am president of the Neighborhood Association which is just across the street from the city center. This space has been vacant three years. The reason is simple. It is a gigantic area that thanks to the old sears layout cannot be broken up into smaller spaces. Only retail would be successful. I have lived in this area since 1980. Toysrus, mervyns fail when they couldnt compete with online sales to generate enough foot traffic. We need to keep moving. Union labor will be used to condition the site. Once finished there will be 200 jobs. We are a time when hesitation has a negative impact on quality of life in San Francisco. I urge you to please go forward with approval of this project. Thank you. You have 14 questions remaining. Caller i am meghan post. I am in favor of the whole foods. I am the mother of a young child. The Grocery Store would be a wonderful addition to the Shopping Center. I would like to see this space not vacant. I want to note i had a baby at kaiser a couple months ago. Having the whole foods with the coffee shop in walking distance would be a great benefit to patients and visitors and doctors as well. It would be great for the neighborhood. I hope it gets approved. You have 13 questions remaining. Caller i am in support of the project. Whole foods is the third level space with street exposure and 50,000 feet. Very few tenants in this market could it is here. It is a Perfect World you would want whole foods. It is great for the community and the neighborhood. They are doing a great job with their procurement and product and coffee shop and restaurant. I encourage you to approve this tonight. It is going to be a great store, and i appreciate your time. Thank you. You have 14 questions remai remaining. Caller i am chris shelton. I am with Booker T Washington Community Service center. We are full in favor of the whole foods project. On behalf of myself and executive director as the person said before it is an opportunity for our community to not only have our kids and our transitional age youth and seniors be part of the whole foods project but the other things we have collaborated with will bring prosperity to the neighborhood. We are right down the street and we look forward to having a Great Partnership with whole foods. Thank you. You have 16 questions remai remaining. I am frank. I am the president of the San Francisco chapter of the Labor Council for latin america advancement. I oppose this project. The labor is asking for living wages, healthcare and safety for San Francisco workers. There is nothing wrong with that. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, that is something the community and labor should support. No one opposes a Grocery Store at this location. We ask for agreement with the unions, not talk but agreements to be able that we can count on. Vote no, please, thanks commissioners who put this matter to continue. Please continue the matter again until amazon and whole foods comes to the table with an agreement. Thank you. You have 18 questions remai remaining. Caller good afternoon. This is mark wolf. I sent an email comment yesterday at 3 15 p. M. I see the email itself from Susan Anthony but not the 6 page letter pdf that disputed the qualifications for exception. I wanted to confirm you saw the letter. If you did not see the letter i would ask you continue until you have had a chance to review it. Thank you very much. You have 19 questions remaining. Caller i am tammy. I live in the neighborhood. I am in support of the whole foods and this project. I am a new mom and i need easy access to a Grocery Store with healthy food and parking. That is a necessity for me and all of my neighbors. This project already has target, starbucks and retail tenants. I think the issue people are taking with whole foods is a separate issue from the formula retail approval that needs to be addressed in a separate venue. I understand the perspective. Please listen to the people that live in the area and approve this project. You have 18 questions remaining. Caller i am tracey oneill. I own the wax Center Located in city center and resident. I live in Western Addition. As a Small Business owner i cant emphasize the positive impact of whole foods to drive traffic to lease the vacancies and drive more customers. There are a limited number of tenants that fit in the space. We cant afford to have that vacancy in that space forefeel more years to come. Covid19 has a devastating impact on the city. We need whole foods. As a resident in the neighborhood i am excited for the addition of whole foods and so are the neighbors. My employees are excited as well. Please vote in support of mole foods. Thank you for your time today. Up 18 questions remaining. Caller i am janice snow. I live one block from city center for 40 years. I am asking for conditional use permit for whole foods. I move with the valid points in support of whole foods. A Grocery Store in the central longs would be a Great Service not only to the neighborhood but the entire San Francisco community atlarge. A fully stocked Grocery Store would provide a Grocery Shopping option and be helpful if crisis like we are currently experiencing. As Planning Commissioners, planning for the future is necessary. Please dont let bias cloud your decision of what is best for the citizens of San Francisco. You have 17 questions remaining. Caller i am rebecca. I live in the neighborhood. I am strongly in favor of whole foods. I feel like especially after covid19, job creation is more important now than ever before. People are saying they fight for fare wages. Reality no one is getting any paid jobs unless the project goes through. The space is massive and i really cant think of many other businesses that would work there for the longterm. It is vacant for three years and i would love to see whole foods in there. It is a Sustainable Business that will work and support the community. Thank you. You have 15 questions remaining. Caller i strongly support the whole foods project in city center. It has parking and that space is empty for a long time. Almost everyone i know in my neighborhood supportings the project, and i urge you to approve it. Thank you. You have 15 questions remaining. Caller i am sharly, property manager at city center and whole foods shopper. This would add to the neighborhood with great transportation. It is within walking distance. The whole foods has a history of donations helping the local communities. With their 365 value price product line, it woulden age people enable people up in western edition for better quality food. This is winwin for the neighborhood and the center. I encourage you to approve this project. Thank you. You have 14 questions remai remaining. Caller i am kristan anderson, ceo. I am calling in support of whole foods. My company is a Third Generation general contractor. We have been building Grocery Stores in San Francisco for 75 years. We are proud members of the Northern California carpenters union. I will share our experience with whole food. We have partnered with whole foods for 30 years. They not only supported my company but the advocated for other trades. They have contributed millions to businesses and provided hundreds of Union Construction jobs in San Francisco. The geary project will do the same. We respect whole foods and they conferenced to our success. We are excited for the opportunity to work on this project as well. Thank you. Be safe. You have 14 questions remaining. Caller i am in support of the project. Not only a great addition to the neighborhood but the city. Whole foods provides products that the residents appreciate. It is the whole demand and now more than ever it would be an asset to the city. The long lines of people waiting outside of stores show the need for highquality Grocery Stores. This is a one stop shop. This has target and they need whole foods. I no longer need to make multiple trips throughout the city. Dont le let individuals contrie to the neighborhood as a whole. Thank you. You have 13 questions remaining. Caller i am a mother of two young kids. Whole foods would be great addition to the neighborhood. I lived her here for four years. The space was empty three years. Now as we enter recession if they dont filling that space that part of the center will be rundown. It is scary walking through there. When the economy is certain many well established Grocery Stores will strengthen the area. They contribute to the health of the neighborhood and attract other stores. They provide Job Opportunities that we need at this time. Thanks. You have 12 questions remaining. Caller this is laura bar, resident and retail real estate. I strongly support the project. We need help with vacant retail. Whole foods will boost further retail activity in the area andrew more traffic and buying power as you heard from the neighbors and shop owners. Precovid19 it was a large retail space. This has been vacant for years. There is not anything behind this one. It is great to have near so many healthcare workers, please vote for whole foods. You have 11 questions remaining. Caller i am a San Francisco resident and i live in the richmond area for years. I believe this will be a great location for a Grocery Store. I understand people for the project. However i oppose it because this Company Refused to work with labor union. We want to make sure workers are protected with fair wages and rights. No union, no safety, no whole foods. You have 11 questions remai remaining. Caller hello. Googood afternoon, commissioner, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am pam la. I am listening to the comments today. This is more of a union issue. I thought the process was meant to be more community oriented. I support whole foods for the following reasons. I feel this is a great, great shopping option for me living in the neighborhood because of parking. It also creates many needed jobs which an employer that hires diversely. It also is a recognizable name that will help bring customers and foot traffic to the merchants nearby. I want to say we dont need another vacancy in San Francisco. I think we are going to see an incredible amount of vacancy occur. I worry what message we are sending other retailers who might be in the formula retail category when we need those merchants now more than they need us. Thank you. I am in favor of this project. Puff 10 question you have 10 questions remaining. Caller i work in San Francisco. Voice in support of the project. Whole foods is my favorite establishment for groceries. It will meet the necessities of have. Thank you. You have nine questions remaining. Caller i am matt homes, 20 year resident of San Francisco. I think what we need to do is focus on what whole foods has brought to the Business Community in general. One of the first to emgrace all tentative energy, first to embrace nongmo projects and safe fishing, they are nonprofit, they have helped fund Kids Foundation which celebrated the first year throughout the united states. 900 School Garden grants. In 2012 whole foods was the first retailer to install 70 electric vehicle charging stations. It has been a Corporate Citizen in alliance with San Francisco values. Please support this project. You have eight questions remaining. I am cameron. I have been working in San Francisco for close to 15 years. I am . Favor of this project. Adding a grocery in a large space like this is a huge amenity to citizens and neighbors. I echo the other comments. I wonder why this is being opposed so helply. I understand there are labor and union issues. This is not a land use question and to the appropriate use of this space. I worry San Francisco is looking less business friendly and that we wont attract another tenant into this space. So much so cities had to institute vacancy taxes to try to find tenants. Be probusiness and proneighborhood and support whole foods. I am strongly in favor. You have seven questions remaining. Caller i am kimberly. I live in the neighborhood. I have been here 17years. I am calling in support of this project. Whole foods has questions about the labor, great hiring practices, great wages and benefits for workers. This is beneficial to the people who need work now. Highquality organic foods are something that we need and want in San Francisco. This location is perfect, central with ample parking and close to the kaiser hospital. I encourage the people of San Francisco to support this project as i do. Thank you. You have six questions remaining. Caller this is julie fisher. I live and work in San Francisco 40 years. Currently retired. I am able to continue living here because i had a union job. Whole foods and amazon are wellknown entity with a lot of favorable things, but if they are not willing to give workers a good stable job and some stability then why do we want them . If the company with their capacity cannot put workers first our message remains the same. No union, no safety, no whole foods. Thank you. You have five questions remaining. Caller i am david chang. I support the whole foods project. I urge the commission to vote for it and there is Community Support for it. I just want to urge the commission to say yes to the community, yes to whole foods and yes to jobs. You have four questions remaining. Caller i am julie taylor. I work in San Francisco and shop primarily at whole foods. Earlier i was a local 2 member for nine years and used to go to kaiser for medical services. I am in favor with this project. It is wrong to withhold groceries from the neighborhood. They are willing to block a retailer providing jobs. This is massive apwhole foods should open. We dont need a long term vacancy in San Francisco. Some want to support unions. There are more than a dozen safe ways and lucky in the city. Support whole foods who depend on the goods and services at the center. It is a greater for the project. You have three questions remaining. Caller this is jeff. I live in the community. Our family is in full support of whole foods. This is not a union issue. This is about strengthening our community and neighborhoods. Imagine hundreds of cars not driving across town to go to whole foods. Weep can walk to this location. This is a procommunity effort and need. Lets not blackmail the neighborhood. This is about building our community abbuilding jobs. Thank you. You have two questions rema remaining. Caller i am calling to support the whole food application. I have lived in the neighborhood for quite some time. I remember when we went through the same show when target was planned to being there and the mayor tried to hold it up talking about jobs. Target has done a wonderful job putting employment in the city. Whole foods will do the same. I am a long union member of the electrical union. A number of the jobs created with the build outs is phenomenal. Also the employment that comes with it. We need the jobs we can get. Look at geary. It looks like a death zone out of the third world. There are so many closed operations because Small Businesses cant survive. Whole foods can take over the space. You need the tax dollars and the sales tax dollars. Have a healthy San Francisco. You might have labor concerns about employees. That is our job. Thank you for listening to us. Please vote yes to support whole foods today. You have one question remaining. Caller this is courtney griffin. I work in San Francisco. I am in favor of whole foods in this location. Especially during this pandemic when the city is hurting. This will bring taxes, provide jobs and healthy food to the local community. I am in support. Thank you for hearing me. You have zero questions remaining. Very good, commissioners. That will conclude the Public Comment portion of the hearing. The matter is now before you. Commissioner imperial. Thank you. Thank you for the comments that came in today. I appreciate all of the perspectives from the Community Perspective and labor perspective. I am looking into this project in itself. Looking into the neighborhood. I do understand that what we are looking at the Planning Commission is the use and also how it is applicable to the surrounding areas. Many of the residents have expressed needs for whole foods and supported this. The surrounding area as well. There is a nearby hospital where the workers would benefit. For this can be use of amazon are the whole foods. For this reason i do support the project. I would like maybe later on i would like to hear other commissioners opinions about this. Commissioner johnson. Thank you. I really appreciate all of the comments from the public today weighing in on the different sides of the issue. I want to say that i look at projects from the land use and thinking about the impact of development on surrounding communities. Where appropriate we can take the impacts of that development. I think that this is the right project for the location. It was built for this type of use and as many folks in the neighborhood said there are very few retailers that could fit in this space. Additionally, i really want to commented the project sponsor for recognizing the context that it is in, recognizing that development has impact and looking to be responsive to the needs of the surrounding neighborhood. I think that the combination of those two things together make me feel good. I am in full support. Commissioner diamond. I have an initial question for staff. Attorney mark wolf wanted confirmation his letter received the commissioners. I received a copy on an email that i believe went to all commissioners. I am wondering if staff could address the claims that he raised in that letter. Thank you. We are in receipt of the letter. Are there specific topics to address first or second . No, he was requesting the use of the exemption and raised a number of specific claims. If you could go through those i would appreciate it. Certainly we appreciate the letter and particularly his concern about human health impacts. He brought up several issues, the first being related to loading if we had calculated freight loading demand for the site correctly. We went back through and looked at how to calculate demand, and even if we were to recalculate based on the retail scare footage of the overall store. There was going to be adequate space within the site. I can elaborate. He raised something in regard to quality impacts with truck idling. The bay area air Quality Management district has specific guidelines for uses that dont require additional see quareview. That is 500 truck trips per day. If we tripled the truck tricks from originally calculated we would not be near that threshold. Are there additional points . No, i appreciate your time going over those. That is sufficient. From my perspective this is a challenging physical design. It is multilevel, hard to get from one level to the other. It is hard to no what is on to know what is on one level. Not great on the street frontage. Multiple streets fronting it some of which are hard to see because of the location of the building relative to geary, and i do believe that this particular use which is a Grocery Store is probably exactly the right use for this space. Not only had it been fit the neighbors and they desire it. It will go the with other uses in the Shopping Center. If we ever approve formula retail this is exactly the right place to locate it. From a land use perspective, i think this is the right solution. I support the project. Commissioner moore. I want to echo the other commissioners support. Land use in context here, location are critical to supporting the project. The staggered arrangement of the Shopping Center which we spent a lot of time on reviewing gives me full confidence it could fit. It is a destination people dont know how to walk or drive through the entire center. The area has been word of a larger Grocery Store. This is the perfect location to have one. I am in support. I think overall i am glad to see this project will make use of the site vacant for some time. My sister would be positive. It is appropriate use for this location. I have questions for the sponsor. Some chair affection on record. Given Delivery Services that is private Grocery Store. I wanted to learn about the demand for deliver reservices. What impact this might have in terms of internal use of the space and Delivery Services. Also, if we anticipate doing pickup at this location. This is mark on behalf of whole foods. Can you hear me. Yes, thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Those are two great questions. I think i am going to be able to answer them. This will not be a Fulfillment Center. Anybody who i is coming in and shopping to deliver to somebodys home are shopping with those walking or driving home. This is not a Fulfillment Center. In fact, it is my understanding that a Fulfillment Center would require a separate conditional use process. The second question in terms of people coming in and just picking up items. I think that was your question. It is my understanding and i would defer to Planning Department staff any kind of hick cop, lockers or amazon lockers would similarly require a new and separate conditional use. That is not in front of you today. I think that includes your question. Regarding drivings picking up groceries to deliver to transportation question. How it would lehma would would e managed. There will be spaces dedicated to gig economy workers. I am not sure how many spaces. I would use as an opportunity to point out. This is probably the most over parked site in all of San Francisco. There is plenty of parking to go around. Whole foods is planning on having some spaces. I would assume they will be closer to the entrance that would be dedicated for gig parking. Commissioner johnson. I would make a motion. I have yet to hear a motion. I make a motion to approve. Second. Thank you, commissioners. There is a motion and second to approval with commissions. Commissioner chan. Aye. Diamond. Aye. Commissioner fung. Aye. Commissioner imperial. Aye. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. Aye. Commission president koppel. Yes. Commissioners that passes 61 with commissioner koppel voting against. That places under on the discretionary review calendar. 15a and b. 43264336 irving street. This is a discretionary review. The Zoning Administrator will consider a request for variance. On june 4, 2020 after hearing and closing Public Comment you tipped this to today by vote of 60. Commissioner johnson you were absent. You will have to review you have reviewed the previous hearing and materials. I have. I see staff online. Are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes, sir. Very good. Through the chair the project sponsor will be provided five minutes. Members of the public will be provided with one minute. Good afternoon, commissioners, david, Planning Department staff. The request for a discretionary review pursuant to 311 a at a 3t 4343264336 irving street. The project sponsor hasvey viced the fourth floor addition. No dwelling units are proposed. The existing building has 12 dwelling units propose at for five was approved in 2019 resulting in 17 approved dwelling unit on the property. It requires variance from planning code section 140 for intensifying two of the second floor dwelling units with respect to exposure. Revised sent by the sponsor today may or may not require a variance. We need more time to review or the Zoning Administrator can opine upon this during deliberations. The team reviewed the project in october of 2019 and requested a number of modifications to meet the guidelines. Specifically to ensure it was not out of scale with the neighborhood and not interfere with light and air. The revised plan fails with some requests. It reviewed the project in 2020 and reiterated the outstanding requests as follows. Set back vertical at least 15 feet from front believe wall. Very cal from the set back vertical from the rear such to align with the primary rear wall of existing building to the east. To continue working with staff on the details. The project sponsor failed to revise to meet these. In the staff report it summarizes the lack of adherence. However it meets the majority with exception that the front wall be set back 15 feet from the existing facade. The proposal today sets it back 10 feet from the facade. The 15 feet is required to be consistent with the standards for historic properties. To date the department received 50 letters of support including 118 letters of opposition from neighboring residents as well as the Action Committee and supervisor gordon mars office which opposes the addition in the entirety. The letters support letters focused on need for additional bedrooms and liability of the owners. The opposition letters oppose the fourth story in the entire hand privacy and access to Natural Light and air. Those in opposition expressed concern the interior alterations propose the addition of number of bedrooms. The number of letters state opposition to the owners failure to honor the agreement between himself and the neighbors. The focus of the review today is propose the vertical addition. Staff will welcome guidance on the alterations proposed. Per conversations with the rent board all 17years are rent control and certain to remain so if the proposed addition is approved. Department finds the project as proposed as well as revised proposal do not meet the guidelines or policies. There are 17 approved units in rh2 and does not propose any more dwellings. The existing building is over built with noncome myiant rear yard o so the project site that warrant variance or noncompliance. As such Department Recommends the commission take the dr and approve only with modifications by the advisory team. This concludes my presentation. I am available for any questions yoyou may have. Project sponsor. Thank you, david. President , commissioners, sincere thanks. I know supervisor mars last minute change of support is in. We have sufficient reason to find the overriding considerations to approve the project. The question is whether we have the will. I know it is going to take courage to do something good rather than nothing. The project is simple now. We are going to the greatest extent possible do we want to add four like new beds or not. Is not is important here. It is just as of an active choice. The dew nothing project. We believe doing something good is better than doing nothing. When we bought this vacant believe it was such a rare opportunity. 45 bedrooms in 17 units is 2. 6 bedrooms per unit. Not out of scale with the character of the neighborhood. It is doable. We will build this. No catastrophe. I want to address the variance. Imagine if we had to get a permit to do nothing. That permit to do nothing would require four variances. By doing the project we solved two of the existing problems. If we care about this ordinance and dont just want to obstruct admit the project is better. How is doing Nothing Better than fixing what the code purports to care about. Rent control. There is a logical fallacy we have to avoid. You can feel this is not rent controlled enough, affordable in low income subsidized housing. You cant conflate the market projects with rent ordinance and change the goal post two weeks before as proposed by supervisor mar. It has never been done for good reason. We are a tiny project. We have other projects that want to exceed height limits because they have 20 affordable. We have entirely affordable. It is unfair to say rent control is not affordable. You cant pretend it doesnt exist. This is insult to the people who rely on this ordinance to remain here. Providing the rent increases at less than inflation we save them being forced to leave. You cant pretend rent control doesnt matter. You cant pretend it is profitable. Only 180u out 65,000 permits on average for the past three years are approved. Not all of those are affordable. I understand other people wont we had seven a. D. U. S in another building that doesnt pencil. Are we better off doing nothing than adding more rent control beds . He supported this in december and every time since. In the few recent weeks he wavered because our opposition is lying about us. I am going to call it what it is. I would rather not address them. They said i am absentee landlord. Building a hotel baloney. That is hooey. Everything they say about deals is naked selfinterest to keep Affordable Housing off the block. The people have selfinterest to perpetuate systematic housing injustice. There is a lot of people urging you to approve this they are the Community Leaders, people from all across the city who benefit from this. You know what . Dont listen to the opposition or supervisor mar. Dont listen to me. Just listen to facts of the case. Listen to your heart, reason, you have my entire trust. Please do what you really think is right for the housing crisis, society, for the long run. Do we stand on the side of people who need housing buy building this or on the side of Property Owners who have it by y doing nothing. It is a simple choice. Thank you. That concludes the project sponsor presentation. We should take Public Comment. Your conference is in question and answer mode. Members of the public this is your opportunity to submit your Public Comment as stated previously because this is a second hearing, we will have one minute. You have 11 questions remai remaining. Caller i am a San Francisco resident for three years. I have a good paying job and i dont need Affordable Housing. There are people who need it more. I am here today talking with my son very seriously about if we thought this would be a good idea to save on rent. It is real. [ inaudible ] i support this project because we need more housing. I am not sure how to end this. Sorry. Next caller. You have 13 questions remai remaining. [please stand by] the project would affect our sunlight, but we were willing to modify our interest in the interest of an agreement and the developer, in our opinion, has not been straightforward about who they are, who their investors are, which raises a concern for us, but today you see an example of their boyfriend. Behavior. They brought a prop. You have 13 questions remaining. My name is barry girden. I was a representative of the gifted and talented program of ap [indiscernible] and robert lewis schools. I was also the volunteer Wellness Coordinator for the high school ptsa for three years. I am outraged you would even consider permitting a Property Developer to break their agreement to build anything on the fourth floor. [ poor audio ] this example of developers not abiding by their agreement with the city of San Francisco should not be tolerated. Besides not displaying an attempt of additional story would overshadow nearby homes, squeeze many people in a structured design for a limited time. Not to mention their visitors and add unnecessarily to air pollution. Thank you. Make a wise decision and reject this development. Thank you. You have 13 questions remaining. Hello. Im a neighbor, and i strongly oppose any fourth story addition of this project for all of the reasons that were raised previously at the june 4th Commission Hearing including overshadowing nearby homes. My understanding is that the project sponsor and the neighbors had worked out an agreement to prevent any fourth floor additions, but its unclear why the project sponsor is still pushing for the fourth floor addition which i oppose as do many other neighbors. Thank you. You have 13 questions remaining. Hi. I live behind the project. My name is barbara delanie, and i have been negotiating with brian over this since, you know, we first heard about it last august. He made an agreement with us not to build the fourth story if we would not oppose his second and third stories, which are really incredibly dense and could bring as many as 84 new people into that building. But he did not uphold his agreement, and he went ahead and said he wants to do a sports floor anyway and now he is saying oh, i think ill revise my plan, and i will build a modified fourth story, but we know that this guy does not keep any of his promises, and any revised plan he comes up with im sure would not be suitable. Thank you. You have 12 questions remaining. Can you here me . Yes, we can. Thank you. Hi. Im calling in to oppose the fourth story of the building. Careful review of the plan does show if there is no fourth story and the third story is like the second, there will be a total of 30 bedrooms in those two plus the 12, which is more than 100 increase in occupancy. So with a total of 42 bedrooms, it seems like it should be more than enough to appease the developer. With these additions there, already quite a lot of bedrooms without the fourth story. So please do not approve any fourth story. Thank you. You have 12 questions remaining. I live on 44th avenue near the propose the development. I am opposed to the variance from the fourth floor and refer you to a letter for exceptional circumstances, density of the lot, non conformance which would negatively impact it. Please know as i understand it, only the five units on the ground floor which are characterized as adus and include 12 bedrooms the remaining units will not be subject to rent control and 12 units on the second and third floors with 20 units or 20 bedrooms excuse me and variances granted for a fourth floor and 8 bedrooms. Extremely dense situations for this community and not meant for families. Thank you. You have 11 questions remaining. Im the president of speac. Its a 501c3 formed in 1969. They are in strong opposition to any fourth story vertical addition. They have a negotiated agreement to this effect. Therefore, i believe that the project sponsor to honor that agreement. Thank you. You have 10 questions remaining. Good afternoon much m. Im a San Francisco renter. I think were in a housing crisis. Everyone knows i think any rent controlled housing that can be added to the west side would be great. So i support it. I think if you support that, that would be awesome, too. Thanks. You have nine questions remaining. This ramon. I support the fourth floor for similar reasons that the owner, caller. I think that we have a sense of not in my backyard, but here for the last 30 years, we dont seem to be able to add any units. Anybody thats willing to build a little bit and add rent controlled units into the stock would be helpful right about now. You have 8 questions remaining. My name is chris. I rent and work in San Francisco, and im in full support of the addition of this fourth floor on irving street. This will add much needed additional housing in the city, and i am asking to you please support this project. Thank you. You have 7 questions remaining. Im calling as a long time resident of San Francisco and i live in a rent controlled apartment and have for a long time. Its brian said, hes not going to make any money. Are these truly going to be rent controlled apartments . Why would you build something if youre not making money . What we need is cheap housing, low income housing. A homeless shelter there. We need housing for the homeless. We dont need more housing for people that are making a lot of money. There is plenty of housing thats been built for people tech making money. A pose the project. Thank you. You have six questions remaining. Im from 1279. I am calling in a couple of things. First of all, you know, the housing is going from 20 to 40 units. So for people calling in saying that the neighbors dont support housing, thats simply not true. The building is going from 20 to 40 units. You have to understand that. We are fine with that. Many secondly, its really important that since the developers agreed with us in early april to not build any fourth floor, if we support them in the second and third floors, its really important that he holds to that. Society cant function large Property Developers are allow to walk away from their agreements. I would ask the San Francisco Planning Department to not support the fourth floor. Thank you very much. You have five questions remaining. My name is elizabeth, and i was born in San Francisco and work in San Francisco. I support the development for additional rent controlled housing. I support any additional housing at any level in San Francisco. Rent controlled or otherwise. We are at a housing shortage in california at large, San Francisco specifically. Ive heard a lot of callers comment about Family Housing in the area. Currently in San Francisco, we have families raising children living in closets and those are for medium income households. We need additional housing and the fourth floor additional housing, rent control will allow for that. Thank you. You have four questions remaining. Hi. My name is bob. Im a member of mb action and i strongly support the proposal to add a fourth floor. Theres a lot of things that have been said today that are ridiculous, but the biggest thing is that the fact that were even having this hearing for every little addition of housing of five to ten homes, bedrooms here and there. We have to build housing more quickly. Were in a 30plus year housing shortage and with what the sponsor said about making a choice doing nothing, that should be the choice that you will to embrace every time doing nothing. Please approve this. You have three questions remaining. Im cole. Im a resident of San Francisco. I work here as well. I approve this project. I think the attitude is toxic and perpetuates a housing crisis that needs to be solved. This developer is proposing housing thats much needed and affordable by its very nature. Support this. Please do not listen to the neighbors who are unbiased towards this project. Approve this housing. Thank you. You have four questions remaining. Hello. This is jonathan randolph. I listened to the hearing last time. Most of the complaints last time were about residential density. Theres no rp zone currently west of sunset boulevard. Theres lots of at any tim oppo. The number of units really is not an issue. The issue really is bulk. Looking forward, what does San Francisco need to do to alleviate the housing shortage . We need to build environments to change. We need more and larger Apartment Buildings. Its difficult because people arent used to the bulk. In this location, it was built in 1960. The neighbors are used to the first three floors. When you see a proposal down zoned after it was built, do we complain its overbuilt . Or should we see it as an opportunity to offer density without unreasonable bulk . Shopping does not improve the quality of life at all. It reduces it. Thanks. You have three questions remaining. Hi. My name is shawn. I work here in San Francisco, and i am fully in support of this fourth floor being added on. The young man working out here, i really think its important to have not only a lot of Affordable Housing for new people coming in for the city to prospers and thats the most important thing. I fully support and i hope you are, too. You have two questions remaining. Hello. Hi name is logan price. Im an sf resident and someone who lives here with housing in the area. Obviously were in a housing crisis and adding that in would be much needed for the area. Thank you. You have one question remaining. Hi. I just wanted to make a comment. This is not Affordable Housing. This is market rate housing as the developer stated himself last night on the kpix interview. He seems to have convinced everyone else building Affordable Housing and the neighbors are not allowing him to build more of it by adding a fourth floor. He has completely misrepresented what this project is. Please do not allow him to build a fourth story. Thank you. You have zero questions remaining. Very good commissioners. That will conclude the Public Comment portion of the hearing. The matter is now before you. Before we hear from the other commissioners, i wanted to take the lead on this one. This project is out in my neck of the woods in the sunset. Im supportive of staffs recommendations. It was an oddball thing. Theres not many 14unit buildings out in the sunset, but the truth is eventually at some point there will be more of these. There will be more density limits hopefully within some of the existing coderequired heights within this district. We will be seeing more density and units coming to the west side. This isnt something we dont hear again. Commissioner. Thank you president koppel. Actually, i have a question regarding pertaining im not going to comment. I have a question to the planning staff. Can you explain im reading on terms of the basis for recommendation and the terms of course has 17 dwelling units and this is in an rh2 zoning. So can you explain the overbuilt and how did this project i guess, explain the process of how this project got approved anyway there are 17 dwelling units in an rh2 district. Department staff, so basically david, im going to interrupt you. Theres some somebody needs to turn their microphone off, please. Go ahead, david. Thank you. So it was an existing it was originally spread over two lots merged a few years ago. But it was one building. Its been such since about 1960 when it was built. It was 12 existing units so that was legally not conforming. Those units were grandfathered in. If you were to build a project today, it would be two dwelling units as a maximum unless you got the addition of adus is permitted as long as the Zoning Administrator approves waivers of density as well as other sections upon review and if necessary regardless of the existing number of units on the lot. If there were two units on the lot, he still could have added adus. The numbers depends. The fact there were 12, he could have added adus. If there were 17, he could have added more. The adu law and the section 207c4 basically disregards the existing number and basically says that if the Zoning Administrator finds that the waivers are able to be granted, then the existing number of units can still be raised even if theyre already above the maximum. Okay. So whats before us right now is that lets say we take the dr if the Planning Commission seeks a dr and so there is really in terms of max of the number of units in this building already, are we also, the Planning Commission, are we saying in rh2 that, you know, this is okay . My thought is that this is rh2 zoning. There may be density that may help in the future. I think we also need to be in compliance in what we have right here right now. So my concern is that if we are taking the dr and then theres still 17 dwelling units but this is in rh2, are we also not being compliant. In terms of the rules of the zoning, those are my concerns. Commissioner, i just wanted to clarify, too, that whats before you is the vertical addition. So the 580 has been approved. But whats before you doesnt add any new units. It adds space to existing units, but it doesnt add new units. Its the fourth floor vertical addition. Thats whats before you as this discretionary review today. Thank you. Commissioner. I have a question for the Zoning Administrator or for staff in general. Its my understanding that it was not you who approved the adus. That was done outside the department in a Different Department because i would have to assume that you would have looked at that with a significant larger degree of sensitivity because what i currently see is that the adu approval is basically being used as a loophole to ask for the addition of luxury units on the top will defeat the idea of affordable by design, particularly because it has an impact on the quality of the units which are on the second and third floor and it seems to be not denying any kind of Community Agreement of supporting the second and third floor but promising not to do a fourth floor. Could you go back to the history of the particular step of avenue proving approving the adus except for adus in garages i have never seen them in other locations than on three or four garage spaces . Sure. Im happy to weigh in initially and then they may be able to add Additional Information. The adus were added under a separate permit. Those were approved by the Planning Department and the waivers were granted for density and open space and exposure to allow those adus to go in there. There was a subsequent permit that was an interior renovation permit that impacted kind of the interior layout of the units in the building, including the adus, that was not routed to planning that should have been routed to planning. It was an internal renovation permit that we would typically be required to review and sign off on and that permit has been suspended. The adus themselves were added legally under a separate permit and the Planning Department did review them and we did grant the appropriate waivers for those. It may be done in this representation i heard the applicant himself point out what also the public is saying that mr. Huey approved this not putting emphasis on the former director but on the fact that these units were approved at dbi directly. That permit in question was not the original permit to add the ad. Dus. It was to do interior changes to what was approved for the layouts of those adus and other units. The original permit to add was appropriately routed to planning and approved by the Planning Department. Thank you for setting the record straight on that because there is a misperception by the public that that step was only taken by dbi on their own. I wondered how that would be possible. That does not answer the question that the addition of the joining of third and fourth floor are indeed adding unit type which is not even remotely affordable by design but indeed are units with ocean and golden gate parkview at a completely different numerical situation into this equation of affordability. I have a hard time considering that to be a compatible mix or something that i personally find affordable. But im interested in hearing other commissioners comments. Thank you. Commissioner diamond. Its hard to get my arms around this project. In general, i have no problem with increased density in a project on the west side. Not only do i have no problem much its a good idea to have more Housing Units on the west side. I dont really have a problem with the reconfiguration of the units in order to have the smaller bedrooms, less common space because as i said at the last hearing, we have different Housing Needs for different groups, and this might satisfy a housing need for people who are otherwise living in closets, as mentioned by one of the public speakers. So i am not troubled by that at all. I think we need to be creative in our approach to how we solve the housing problem. We dont need a one size fits all. In general, this concept is fine by me. But i cant tell what were approving here. We got a letter yesterday i mean, what was submitted to us in the staff package that came out on friday is exactly what was submitted previously. There were no changes to it. We did get a letter from the project proponent yesterday saying he was making some changes to the project as recommended by the Planning Department but not all of them. I think i heard staff say they have received new drawings, but they dont fully satisfy what the Planning Department had recommended and, therefore, they still have additional theyre not supporting i think they said theyre not supporting the project as currently submitted, but we havent seen it. I dont know what were being asked to approve at this point in time. Can staff address that . In particular, i dont know if were being asked i dont know if theres the need for a variance or whether or not if there is, whether or not they are likely to grant that because if theyre not likely to grant the variance, i dont know if theres a project at all. I guess this is a combination of questions for both the za and staff. I would be happy to address that first. The revised project didnt receive a full set of plans, but i received the general, i guess, gist of the floor plan of proposing of the fourth story. If i may share my screen, thats what i was doing during the presentation. They did abide by two of the residential design advisory teams vents, but we comments but we had three comments. Hopefully this will be shared. So this is the third story right here that you should be seeing here. Then this is the fourth story. So you can see what the sponsor did show is the initial proposal being everything thats in yellow, blue, and red as well as the areas in purple. What they modified today is they decided to push back and so the areas in purple are no longer structures. Actually, that spiral stair might need to be modified. So there are two of the three massing questions that were basically solved here. We requested a 15foot set back from the west which is the top of your screen here. They have abided by that. Doesnt include the decks which are not vertical massing. They have also abided by pulling back the rear of the scope back to the adjacent rear wall of the neighbor to the east which is the bottom of your screen. What they havent satisfied is that they are not actually pulling back the front building facade 15 feet from this front building facade which is the left side of your screen. Theyre pulling it back 10 feet instead. But we requested 15 and basically that was the proposal we had at the beginning roughly. So were basically requesting were pretty packed in our requests from a department level. So this is basically the proposal hes putting forward today. We havent received a full set of plans. This is a general fourth floor plan of whats being proposed. Okay. Thank you. And could the Zoning Administrator come in for the amount of variances required . Sure. Im happy to speak to that. I dont know if my video is working. One second. Thank you. We need to review it a little bit more. Just to provide more information on the variance itself. I mean, the issue here is one unit exposure. The code has a few different requirements that it uses to kind of address quality of residential uses. One is useable open space and one of the others is exposure, which access to light and air for the units. So in this building, you have a floor plan layout where you essentially have a building that covers the entire lot with essential courtyard. The units that front get their exposure from irving street. So they are compliant. But the other units, they only get their light from that internal courtyard which is not sufficient for the requirements for exposure. So you have six units on the second and third floor existing right now that do not have cocompliant exposure. When you have a code requirement for a dwelling unit that is noncomplying, if you do an addition to that building such that you intensifying the noncompliant nature, you make it worse. If you take away units requiring open space or make the exposure worse, that triggers a variance. Thats what we have here because when you add this fourth floor, youre essentially creating even more of an enclosed upward situation thats limiting light and air down into that courtyard to provide access to light and air for those units. Thats the issue here. You know, on top of that, its kind of a challenge as well because this building kind of fronts or faces to the south. So the proposed area for wrapping around the courtyard is the east, west, and south which is where the sun is coming from. So thats really an issue for sunlight there. So there is, based on what what was shared on the screen, if they did remove kind of one side of the proposal that would theoretically remove the requirement for variance for exposure because they would be then providing the adequate distance at that fourth floor per the code. Functionally, theres still challenges to that, but relative to the code requirement, it would no longer violate the exposure requirements of the code. If i could just a second, i think its important to understand that i think issues being talked about in a vacuum. I think if you say, hey, we would like to add bedrooms and housing and its hard to argue with that. Thats totally understandable. But we do the code and just our policies, we do balle balana lot of different goals and policies, and we have to look at this in context. As has been discussed, this is a building that basically decided do 100 built out and none of the units have cocompliant open space or hardly any useable open space to use. The project sponsor mentioned that adding these bedrooms on the fourth floor will take a couple units that currently dont have adequate exposure and give them ex president youre. Thats true, but its at the detriment to four of the other units that are facing into that courtyard. So its not exactly an even tradeoff. Its Something Else we have to consider. When were considering the variance as well, not really looking at private agreements with the neighbors or if its Affordable Housing or market rate housing, were really looking at the property itself and the situation and context and thats the challenge because we are trying to look at that balance. This is a situation where the Property Owner has taken advantage of what is permitted in the code to add to increase the bedroom count internally, but what that leaves is a building that is maximizing bedrooms and theres very Little Common area within the units themselves. Theres no usable open space on the property for any of the people who live there as well except for the interior courtyard which is pretty limited. So those are all factors were looking at as well when were looking at the proposal and its not just kind of in a vacuum. Were adding some bedrooms and howsing, which obviously by itself is completely supportable. When were looking at the variance, were looking to see if there are any extraordinary circumstances to the property, and thats part of the challenge here is that the main argument for the exceptional circumstance is we need more housing in the city. While i agree we need more housing in the city, if that by itself qualifies for a variance, were obviously going to be issuing a lot of variances Going Forward. So i understand the desire to do that, but were also trying to balance the decision and the review on the context of the site. I am struggling a little to figure out sort of where the department currently stands given that you just got the plans. Do you have a recommendation still, or are you asking for more time to review the plans to see where you would come out . Commissioner diamond, i think the recommendation from the staff remains the same. I think just the difference between what the project sponsor has proposed and what the recommendation was was that in the front. It may be good corey, i dont know if you know this answer, but if the commission were to take either the staff recommendation or the proposal put forward by the project sponsor which i dont think affects the variance, do you know if that proposal still requires a variance . Does the recommendation from us, the staff recommendation, require a variance still . I believe well, the question is staff recommendation and what the project sponsor submitted today. Yeah, project sponsor submission talks about the front of the building which i dont think would affect the variance. I think the key element of what was submitted today and maybe we should ask the project sponsor to elaborate on that is the removal of one of the wings basically. Takes it from an u to an l. I think that is a difference in determining whether or not the variance is required. So can i ask the project sponsor one more question and then ill turn it over to the other commissioners . I know i have a lot of questions here. For the project sponsor, two questions, one is it would be great if you could answer the question just raised by the Zoning Administrator about the u versus l, but also my question to you is, it looked like, based on the record that was submitted by the neighbors and in conversation with staff, that you had originally indicated that you werent going to build a fourth floor and you changed your mind. I wonder if you could tell us why you changed your mind, what led you to that decision. Sure. This is brian speaking again. Thank you for the questions. With respect to the rdat, i guess if we could pull up the slide that i had up during my talk, it might shed a little bit of light on this. But i think i hope that what youll see when you look at this drawing is that weve tried to really do everything we could to respect the part of the rdat recommendations that really dealt with neighbors concerns. So one of the concerns was on the west side. Its too much bulk in their backyard. So we pulled back that area. And then the other comment was the 45 feet is not enough. You know, add more to that so that the end of our building combines with the end of our neighbors building to the east. We did that. And then what i hope you will see is, we absolutely wanted to get fully compliant with rdat, but if you look at this plan and you pull in another five feet from the south, all that space really becomes unusable. So what we really i mean, the project ask at this point is really specifically, these upper units and one bedroom below. So the upper units consist of the living room area in pink, a couple beds and bath in yellow, and one bed and bath in light blue. The areas that are purple shaded are the areas that we had originally wanted to build but are no longer considering. So that was our thought. I wish we could pull in five feet in the front, but i honestly think if you look at it, you look at the shadow studies and everything else, theres not a shadow. If you look at it from the front, you wont see it. We did prior studies that showed this. So i think the thought was the extra five feet, the last five feet kills so much and gains virtually nothing. That was our thought. I hope you agree. I respectfully appreciate rdats comments. The second question is, is the agreement i dont really want to get bogged down in the weeds, but we had intended to build the fourth floor and we set the notice period and went through the notice period and then after that, i thought, you know, im not a fighter. I dont want to tick my neighbors off. I live here. I dont want to fight. So i just really kind of lost heart. I thought, the planning staff was putting a lot of pressure on us to potentially pull out walls they had built below. I have investors and people in the community telling me they need homes. I thought, well, maybe we just punt and dont do this. But it was more in the nature of a settlement negotiation. If youve ever been involved in that, its a hypothetical. It never took away time from their chance to object. Now, i understand that they say they rely on it and im not going to argue with them about that. But i am going to say that we tried to completely mitigate the issue by reopening the notice period and extending it. Thats why this project is here in june instead of back in march. So i feel like i understood the issue. We clearly did not have an agreement because otherwise, why would david send me an email saying we have to make a decision . So when i thought about it, i slept on it. This is really not a profit center. This is not a luxury addition. This is really doing what i think is our minimum that we can do with buildings like this on the west side. Thats why i changed my mind. I called barbara the day that i talked to david about it, and i explained to her what was going on. I explained that she would have time to object. I told her i didnt want to upset her. I dont know what else i can do. Many i understand they thought there was an agreement. There wasnt, but in any case, even if they thought that was, theres no kind of opposition that theyve not availed themselves of. Commissioner diamond, youre on mute. Thank you very much. Commissioner imperial. I believe that its commissioner johnson is next. I guess youre correct. Commissioner johnson. Thank you commissioner imperial and president koppel. So here are my thoughts. You know, i really thank for opining a bit on the nature and context of what is before us. Were starting with a project that ordinarily is built in an unusual way, adding on top of it additional housing and then adding on top of it a fourth floor. I think taking in abstract, i totally agree with what commissioners have said. I want to identify i think its important we take opportunities where there isnt this placement and find ways to add the appropriate housing. Im supportive of integrating different types of housing uses in one building. And so i dont have a challenge with being more extensive than other units and having both those things go together. Taken as a whole, i think that all of the issues that were brought up, both at the last hearing and this one are valid, really thinking about the quality of life of the folks that are in the first three floors. I appreciate all of the questions that commissioner diamond brought up. They were the same ones i was having, making sure that weve reviewed what has been submitted, understanding the difference outlined and understanding the opinions of mr. Teague. I want to state for the record that private discussions or agreements are not something that i am taking into account or that can be taken into account as we opine on this particular property. But i think that the things that are still outstanding for me and i want to hear staff comment on one question, as i understand it, the difference between what the project sponsor has proposed on the facade and what rdat proposed, the difference of five feet. Thats arbitrary standard and thats not a standard thats specific to this project. Thats set by the department of interior standards. Is that correct . So thats partially correct. That is indeed basically the difference between rdats recommendations and requests and what the sponsor is submitting today. That said, that five feet kind of means a lot. So it is a Residential Design Team recommendation, and that was just due to, you know, implementing the rtgs. What you were talking about, the secretary of interior standards is also valid. That relates to the Environmental Review. So basically, thats something set by Environmental Review where in this context in and with this building which is a category b resource, if they were ton set to be set back 15 feet from the front facade, it would potentially be categorical exemption. At 10 feet, we would need to do an evaluation to determine if its a or c and then move forward accordingly. However, the 15 foot recommendation came from rdat and thats independent of the standard of preservation comments. A lot of time the residential rdg comments are such that if you well say to the sponsor, if you were to abide by these comments, you would also be taking yourself out of issue with the Environmental Review. That was kind of the case here. But those are technically kind of two separate things. The Residential Design Team didnt necessarily, from my understanding, need to, but they found 15 feet , if that makes sense, was appropriate. Thank you for that. I apologize, commissioner. This is the Planning Department staff and preservation planner. I would just like to further reiterate the setback requirement. This is a pretty standard requirement when creating a vertical addition to a historic property. This is in order to reduce the visibility from the public rightofway. This varies sometimes depending on the context. In this case, the adjacent properties are shorter in terms of height and therefore, making the vertical addition more visible. So the 15 foot set back is required to eliminate the need for Historic Resource evaluation to determine if it is historically significant. So really, in support of this project, in any way moving, the setback it would need to be the 15 feet . It cant really move forward without that . Is that fair . Without having the 15 foot set back, Historic Research would be required. The commission would take action today to approve the project as revised as of this morning. It would have to be continued to allow staff to conduct a historic evaluation. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner fong, you may be on mute. Yes. Sorry. I think, as everybody can tell from the comments, that the answers and final decision to this particular project is not necessarily one that is coming easily. If i look at the major issues that i see here in the project, there are two that i potentially could accept, and there are two that i potentially would not accept. But before i get into those, perhaps just an observation on recent projects that we see in the sunset, anything that goes beyond the small addition seems to have generated tremendous angst among the neighbors. Even though they have been located on more highly traveled streets, more commercially oriented streets, so that what people have expected from those that are have been in the neighborhood for quite a few years, you know, is the maintenance of the Single Family nature of the building, you know, the ability to park either in front or very near ones house, you know, and having a feature like that which is not replicated very many places in our city. So we have we have then is a project that one is going to fourth floor which is not it has occurred in the sunset. Its not necessarily everywhere. I potentially could accept that depending on the full analysis of the context. The second thing is the fact that it does go to smaller units. I potentially could accept that also, depending upon where one sees a greater need in terms of the number of units versus the size of the units. Two of the things that i find a little bit problematic, one is the fact that the density here has already exceeded tremendously what would have been allowed and what people are wanting to see happen in the west side in terms of greater density, this one already has a tremendous increase in terms of density. The two items that the department has brought forth in terms of not being able to conform to the rdat, in terms of either the exposure or the setback from the front, those havent been hard numbers or criteria. Weve seen variations of those that have been allowed through quite a different different projects. And if one wants to look at this building in terms of its historical status, i dont see this building as being historical except for the fact that its old. But the two things that one was the density and the second was, when people are mixing up between rent control and affordability, were looking at community benefit. Well, theres nothing that says that these units are affordable. Theyre not creating extra units. The number of units stays the same. The size of some of them are going to increase based upon the proposal. So, therefore, its not necessarily an affordability benefit that is being brought to this particular project. So like the other commissioners, i am sort of trying to get myself to a final position where i can make a decision. Commissioner moore. Carefully listening, i think we all share theres a lot of uncertainty, particularly given the fact that staff has made a very persuasive joint presentation on all aspects that are of concern to us. If i were to be asked to make a decision at this re very moment, i would support staffs recommendation and move with that, which would require for the project to do some researching of what it really means to drop the entire floor because the units will greatly dissipate and really focus more on 100 affordable building. So im making a motion that we approve staffs recommendations. Second. Commissioners, i think as David Weissglass and natalia pointed out, i think the commission should take a motion of intent to that the appropriate ceqa review can be conducted. There is just to clarify staff recommendation is 15 feet. You wouldnt need that. We dont need that. I am recommending that we move with staffs recommendation that the project can move forward. We do not want extra reviews and studies. We are ready to take a stand, support the project, but take steps thoughtful analysis on all levels and move with that. That is basically the best way for us to come to a conclusion here today. So although the historic analysis would not need to be undertaken, there has been no exemption determination for any kind of project at all here. We need to make sure that this project has complied with the notice requirements of chapter 31. I think david or natalia can probably give you more details, but there was no exemption determination made for this project. The agenda says simply that a disapproval doesnt require ceqa review, but there was no determination for any of the construction thats proposed. Commissioner, this is natalia. I can sort of provide clarification on that. The project, if we take action to approve the project, we need to continue for two weeks and this will return as a consent item so Environmental Review can be completed. Since staff has not received plans that comply with our recommendations and preservation comments, we werent able to include that in your packets today. You would have to make a motion of intent and this can return as a consent item in two weeks or something similar. I like to amend my motion and make it a motion of intent. Second. All right. Commissioners, theres a motion of intent to approve to take discretionary review, approve the project with staffs modifications and to continue this matter to july 9 to allow staff to complete the evaluation. [ roll call ] thank you. Commissioner imperial . Aye. Commissioner johnson . Aye. Commissioner moore . Aye. Commission president koppel . Aye. So moved. Motion passes 70. Zoning administrator. Public hearing on the variance, generally not supportive of the variance. I will take it under advicement to allow the continued process moving forward. Thank you. Commissioners, that will take us to item 16 for case number 2018013422drp. Good afternoon, David Winslow, staff architect. Its a discretionary review of 201808086813. To constructed a 166 square foot rear addition of the second floor of a two story residential building. The proposed addition will abut the north side Property Line for about 14. 5 feet and will be set back approximately 6 feet from the south Property Line. A portion of the addition will encroach one foot forward into the required rear yard and therefore a variance has been requested. The variance was heard administratively. This building is a category b, no Historic Resource present. The dr requester of 766 that address is wrong. The adjacent neighborhood is concerned that the addition was not properly noticed, requires a rear yard variance, and does not comply with the residential Design Guidelines to articulate buildings with regards to light, air, and privacy and height and depth be consistent with existing. His proposed alternative is provide a site set back and not extend into the rear yard. Theres no letters in opposition and one letter in support of the project. As far as staff has been aware, the project was noticed to comply with noticing requirements. The departments Residential Design Team reviewed this and found that the proposed addition does not create exceptional or extraordinary impacts to light and privacy to the adjacent property. Although 14. 5 feet abuts the Property Line, a setback that reciprocates is maintained for most of their common length. Rdat found that the mute all site setbacks in relation to the massing of the two buildings maintain the articulation of buildings to preserve light and privacy. The massing of the rear addition is compatible with the scale of the immediate neighboring buildings. Therefore, staff recommends not taking discretionary review. Thank you. Thank you, david. Is the dre requester prepared to make a presentation . Yes, im ready. Okay. You have five minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, president koppel and commissioners. Steve williams on behalf of myself and my important joe with whom i own the building to the north which is 1934 different different eyesder ow weve renoticed it. Our building is directly adjacent and north of the subject site. If i could have slide one, please, david. As shown in the slide, this area is directly to the north and the construction project is directly to the south. There is no set back offered. Ive been here 17 years since 2003. Its part of the neighborhood commercial zone. Lets go to slide two. This red box was drawn by the architect and it shows negative impacts in this case. They are obvious. Heres why. The addition is very tall. Its 14 feet 8 inches tall. It can actually qualify as a two story addition, two. Its right directly on the Property Line. I was confused by the statement to start the dr, but theres no reciprocal setbacks. Theres no mute all set back that he references. Thats what im asking for. The building has existing setbacks of the upper floor at the rear, and so were asking that be continued. Thats all were asking for, max the addition set back as required by the residential Design Guidelines to mitigate the blockage of the direct sunlight. Lets go to slide three. This is the view looking east down the breeze way towards the rear yard, and you can see the shadows really clearly that are cast by the outline of the building of the subject building. This is at the rear. Its easy to see that a new addition at 14 feet 8 inches will block all of the direct sunlight to four different widows on the south side of our building. Lets go to slide four. This is the view looking the other direction to the west back towards the street. Again, you can clearly see the shadow that is created by the building. Our building is on the right in the slide. Theres that square outline shadow is from their building currently. You add 14 more feet its going to tremendously increase it. Lets go to slide five. Thats the view from inside our building. This is the kitchen window looking directly where the addition is proposed on the Property Line and showing how the window will be blocked. Lets go to slide 6. Again, shows that same kitchen window with a clear view of where the proposed addition will go in and shows clearly the sun coming over from the south. Slide 7, please, david shows two widows in the middle of our building which will be blocked, and these are suffer the same fate as the one in the kitchen. Lets go to slide 8. That shows the fourth window. That is the bedroom at the rear of the building which will be blocked. Its directly adjacent to where this addition is proposed. In all, there are four widows which will have all the direct sunlight that they currently receive blocked because theres no set back and because of the height proposed for this addition. Lets go to slide 9. Slide nine is a sheet from the plans. Its page a5. 0. Its the south elevation looking north towards our building at 1934. It demonstrates how tall the proposed addition is at 13 feet 8 inches, such an addition will take the rear facade well over 30 feet. Please note this project needs a variance to invade the rear yard and it goes into it about a foot and a half. They have a very small lot. Its only 1600 square feet. Lets go to slide 10. This is another sheet plan sheet which shows the rear facade. It shows the setback that were asking be allowed to be matched, and then if you go to slide 11, youll see that ive slid the box over three feet to match the existing set back, and thats what were asking for. So, again, these mitigations are found in the residential Design Guidelines. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no direct questions to the dre requester at this time, project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation. Yes, i am. Okay. Your slides are up and you have five minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Did you david for your presentation. Im brian. On this first slide our subject property is on the left and the dr requesters property is on the right. Next slide, please. This mapping study diagram clearly indicates our mentions. Our new walls will stack directly under the existing walls underneath. Our proposed roof will be lower than the existing roof. Next slide, please. This slide, we just drew a parallel line that shows that some buildings are already past the 25 foot rear yard set back. We are not asking to go beyond all the properties south of ours our down are until the same zoning. Next slide, please. This is a picture of the existing office room that we are proposing to build on top of. Please note that this rear most is already past the setback. Next slide, please. On the right side is the same office room. Please note that the two properties on the left of the picture are also already past set back lines. This is the pink house on the farthest left and the adjacent house on the same color that actually is abutting our property. Next slide, please. On the left side of the screen is the same office room. You can see it in a gray color. The greenhouse is the dre requesters house. His house is about three feet longer than the subject house, though he does have a longer property. Next slide, please. On the left side of the screen is the same office room. This is a photo in between the two houses when we are trying to understand how the widows line up with our proposed addition. The greenhouse to the left is the dr requesters house. These note the window right next to it for the next slide. Next slide, please. This photo is looking the opposite way. They took this from the dining room window. This was taken in march around 3 00. Please note the shadow line that the existing house already casts on the dr requesters house. If you can imagine filling in the notch created by the shadow at the right of the screen, that would be the shadow cast by our proposed addition. But it would be lower because our lower proposed roof in our opinion, we are affecting at most two widows, maybe one and a half. The farthest window is somewhat past the proposed addition already. I want to emphasize a few points, some of which david already mentioned. Our proposed project complies with the current planning code and residential Design Guidelines. The proposed design matches the current architecture of the existing buildings. The goal is always to make the addition look like it was part of the original building. With respect to the homeowners budget, its easier and safer to build when new walls align with the existing walls below to support it. This is a project where it will actually cost more if we build less. The proposed addition does not have any windows facing the dr requesters property. Thank you for your time. Apologies. I got distracted. We should take Public Comments. Your conference is now in questioquestion and answer mode. To summon each question, press one and then zero. Again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to call in to the 8le00 number. Press one and zero to get into the queue. You have one question remaining. Hello, commissioners. Im mike chen. Im speaking in my individual capacity. Im a resident of district 2 in the vicinity of half a mile or a mile away from this project. Im calling in support of it and requesting that you deny the review from it doesnt seem to require anything extraordinary. Its been approved by planning staff. Deny the discretionary review. This is a modest addition that adds to a building thats very old. As weve heard, its three bedrooms, one bathroom. Thats a challenging layout to live in and having another bathroom would be amazing. So i think this is a great thing. Thank you very much. You have zero questions remaining. Very good commissioners. That will conclude the Public Comment portion of the hearing. The matter is before you. What about rebuttal. I apologize. Rebuttal. Discretionary review requester. Thank you. Steve williams again. Quickly, since it needs a variance, it does not comply with the code. Part of the problem with the judging the project was that the plans dont comply with the code. The widows are not shown in any of the elevations as is required by section 311. So what were asking for is a mitigation of the obvious negative impacts, blocking the sunlight to these widows. We met with David Winslow and the project sponsors at davids invitation down at the department. I asked to match the setbacks or i asked for a reduction in the height of the addition, and those were both recorrected. Mr. Winslow actually came up with a third suggestion was that the roof on the tall addition, 14 more than 14 and a half feet would be sloped from south to north, could come down to 10 feet at the Property Line, perhaps, to allow more sunlight over the top of the building. This is done re teen lee. Routinely. I offered to withdraw for a sloped roof or something. The dr requesters refused every compromise. Im asking that the height of the addition be reduced to 10 feet, which is a normal height. Match the existing set back. I mean, the rear of these buildings are generally tapered away from the street to allow light into the neighbors. So thats what were asking for. We hope we know its a small case, but it means a lot to our building. Thank you very much. Very good. Commissioners, project sponsor, you have two minute rebuttal. Yes, we did meet with them back in march, and it was just we looked at several different ways to kind of design this, and weve considered the designs that were proposed to us at that time at that meeting. Thats their consideration with our client with my clients. We decided to stay with what we have. We actually proposed lowering our addition one foot, but that was rejected by the requester. So we would like to keep the design that we have in front of you now. Thank you. Does that conclude the project sponsors rebuttal . Commissioners, that would conclude the Public Comment portion of the hearing and the matter is before you. Ill go with staff recommendation today. Commissioner imperial. Thank you. I actually dont see any significance wrong in terms of adding a rear addition on the second floor. I guess my question for the dr requester is that how i understand that it may impact the light in his in his residence. Can you clarify in terms of your dr requester how it impacts whether your residence or a different use. The building that served as a law office since 1970, and its still a law office. But it could easily, you know, future uses could make it into a residence. Im here all the time though. Im here every day. The project sponsors dont actually live if their building. We havent been here four or five months. So, you know, were just looking to get a little mitigation. This is exactly what the residential Design Guidelines are designed for, to help get light into widows when youre going to have a new addition. Thank you. Commissioner moore. Since the addition is very modest one, i do recall staff many times reminding us that a small amount of loss of light is part of urban living. Mr. Winslow, could you elaborate on that . You are originally the one confronted with this issue. I personally consider this addition not very impacting and would like to hear your thoughts on loss of light within measures that we have discussed on other projects. Sure. Thanks. Yeah. I think with any development, theres always a change that will be impacting some existing condition whether that be light or privacy or some visual impacts. The question that we ask ourselves is, is it too much . Is it in this case, its not too much. Its a modest addition. Theres still plenty of light thats accessing both the individual widows in question and the overall demonstration of the building, front, side, and rear. So negligible impact of this was determined to not be a factor that required staff requesting modification based on the implementation of guidelines. I appreciate your comment because i would have concluded that given this that is an exposure that has both sun and then unimpeded western exposure as the sun comes around, i think there will be sufficient light to not put them in the dark, but as shown, the lower part of the widows will be affected for a certain time, but then the sun moves and there was going to be sun again on those widows. I dont consider this to be impacting to the extent that i would insist on modifications to the building because indeed the addition is quite modest. Curious what other commissioners have to say, but im in support of the project as is. Commissioner fong. I believe your microphone is muted. I agree with staffs position and move that we do not take dr and approve as opposed. I second. Thank you commissioners. Seeing no further comment, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take dr and approve as proposed. [ roll call ] a motion passes. 70. That places us on your last item for the day. Item number 17 case number 2018001662drp at 2476 diamond street. This is a discretionary review. Good afternoon commissioners, president koppel. David winslow satisfy architect. The item before you is a public credit for discretionary review of 2018. 0123. 9273 to be in conformance with section 136 which allows up to three feet of additional height and grade above existing grade and retaining walls to be no more than 42 inches. The dr request erer is concerned that the retaining wall and grade change of the rear yard will, one, block access to mid block open space. It does not respect the existing topography. Lastly, impacts light and privacy by shading neighbors rear yards and providing a Vantage Point to neighboring yards. Their proposed alternatives is to reduce the height to historic elevations, reduce grades at the rear yard to historic elevations or level to the lowest original grade to limit privacy and further intrusion into the mid block open space and then step concrete walls to follow the grade with the contemporary fencing material. To date, the department has received two letters in support of the dr request and 8 letters in support of the project. The permit is to legalize the work to be code compliant so it doesnt exceed allowed heights and grades. The Planning Department does not review retaining walls and fence thats are below 6 feet in height and for walls and fences below 10 feet, the Planning Department usually reviews and permits over the counter. For fences higher than 10 feet, neighborhood notice is required and subject to other portions of the planning code. For example, if its outside of the buildable envelope, it may require a variance. It is worth noting that the residential Design Guidelines are mainly focused on buildings and mostly silent on landscape features, including retaining walls and fences. Neither the code nor guidelines specify acceptable materials for landscape features. Subsequent, the project sponsor proposed a design modification that reduces the height of the retaining wall, removes some additional grade and reducessed overall fence height and provides a wood fence that follows the slope and does not exceed 6 feet before the subject property. Therefore, staff recommends taking dr and approving with the modifications. This concludes my report. Thanks. Thank you, david. Is the dr requester prepared to make their presentation . Yes. Can you hear me . We can. You have five minutes, and your slides are up. Thank you. Great. Thank you. My name is sara van ness. Good afternoon commissioners or almost evening. Im calling from 2510 diamond street, and i am on behalf of the dr requesters for this property. Just a quick overview, david walked through, but we are requesting to review the impact created by massing and height of the new Property Line retaining wall and fence design as well as the increase of grade along the eastern perimeter. Assuming these considerations, we ask that you keep the following in mind. Does this design fit into our neighborhood open space and backyards . Does this design place burden on the neighbors and neighborhood . Do the materials and engineering of the structure qualify as fencing . We believe they dont. No planning normally does not review this material question. However, we are here today to convey this is not a normal lot. This is a key lot. This is a structure, not a normal landscaping feature which has been allowed to bypass the Design Planning process. Next slide, please. Were going to have to skip through. We thought we had more time. Can we skip through to slide 7 which has an image of the house on it. Sorry. Its not there. Okay. So we wanted to thats not the slide thats up. The overview of the project is that we went through a process that supported plans as shown on our slide number 7, which is a 4,000 square foot structure and the property will be sold after completion. The very much developer said this is a speck. They accepted a large number including the elimination of mid block open space for two properties due to the house. Substantial year around solar impact across multiple properties from the mass increase of the deck. The patios, the sight lines across properties including light and privacy. We ask you take a look at the elevations and best design in the permit set. The event time lines, the neighbors went through a process as described with david and the project sponsor and we arrived at this site design, signed off on it, intending to avoid consensus and dr. We did not file a dr and did not appeal the Building Permit application. However, subsequent to that agreement, the developer submitted an addendum at the end of august for Foundation Super structure. No opportunity to review this was presented to planning or the neighbors. After that, overthecounter permit was issued on 103. The structure and retaining wall were rushed and poured a week later. 1014 we contracted planning based on the surprise of the changes and a stop order was issued. I wanted to bring up this image. This is just drawing your attention to some detail and perspective from two impacted neighbors. This is the left bottom is a structure looking up the property or image looking up the property and the one on the right is along the eastern side wall. This is to highlight to you that this is a large we cant hear her. Can you hear me . Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Sorry. I was told that i couldnt. I hope i can get time restored. Just pointing out this is a structure 8 to 10 feet tall over the footing on the east side and it is not just a landscaping feature. It covers the entire property extending from the house to the base of the lot. It is poured concrete with rebar and engineering requirements. If you look at the picture on the right of the wall, you can see the red line denotes the original grade of the retaining wall, and our neighbor standing there, he is a signatory to the dr. He is 6 tall. You can see it towers over. Were going to skip this one and move on to slide number 11. This is just zooming out. You can see the rectangle is the project site and the xs show impacted properties, how many people are affected and cut off to our historic mid block open space which is visible in this picture. Next slide, please. To recap, the new proposal is exceptional and applies unnecessary element projects. A concrete retaining wall used as a fence. These two Design Elements intensified burdens on the neighbors. That will conclude your presentation. You do have a twominute rebuttal. Is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation . Do you want to do Public Comment first. Were going to do the sponsor and then Public Comment. Great. We are ready. Slides are up. Five minutes. Great. President koppel and commissioners. I represent the owner of 2476 diamond street. Ryan patterson is on the line. Thank you for hearing from us today. I would like to thank jeff horn and David Winslow for their efforts on this project. The site is a vacant lot with wh entitlements for Single Family home and walls. It slopes descending 22 feet and across slope of 7 feet. A retaining wall extends around the site, but this hearing is not about that wall. Since our preapplication meeting january 2018, weve been in contact with our adjacent neighbors. Weve met on site and at the Planning Department 8 times during review process and made concessions. Our rear wall volume was reduced. Decks and patios are smaller. Side widows removed. In march of 2019, no dr request was filed. We voluntarily reduced the height of our building an additional three feet. Weve always been clear of our intentions to terrace and landscape the rear yard. A site permit was issued in july last year. The structural plans were reviewed and approved in october including permit retaining walls. During construction, the walls were then adjusted for adjacent site conditions. This revision permit was issued with Planning Department review and approval in october of last year. Slide one, please. Okay. The contractor believed the grade increase was five feet. After additional consultation with planning, they confirmed an allowable three foot grade increase without a permit plus a guardrail. Despite this, planning staff requested the cross wall reduction and regrading be done with a permit for clarity sake. The subject walls are shown in yellow and the grade changes in green. The new building perimeter retaining walls and side fences are fully permitted and not subject to this dr. Slide two, please. A dr requester is objecting to the height and ence pa of the northsouth wall and fence on the east side of the property which were approved. This exhibit shows elevation points and demonstrates our compliance with assessed Building Code section 106a. 2 with work exempt interest permit. To address the neighbors concerns about this fence, weve extended several compromised offers. Slide three, please. We will reduce the cross wall heights as shown well below the requirements. Slide four shows how we proposed to lower the overall grade of the year yard above what would otherwise be allowed. Slide five. We mitigate the combination of cutting and filling which is also visible on slide six. Weve offered to install finish materials of their choosing. Please say page 57 of the staff packet. We understand nobody likes to look at a retaining wall, but this situation is hardly extraordinary. On slide 7, this shows four similar conditions within one block of our site. This is all over glen park and other hillside neighborhoods. The dr requesters are insisting on a sunken rear yard that would require 150 yards of additional excavation whereas our plan only requires 1. 5. Its 100 fold increase. We believe that would detable stabilize the hillside and be unusable for the residents. Slide 8, please. To date, we want to make additional offer for further reductions of the in the neighborhoods will grant us access. We propose to cut down the concrete wall to a minimum to regrade our site. This would result in about 6 to 8 feet of retaining despite a 33 foot grade change through our lots. This could be with redwood and then above that could be fence, lattice or glass to allow Natural Light to come through while maintaining privacy. In conclusion, the work under review is a very narrow reduction of grade and cross elevations at a few locations. This project has been reviewed by the Planning Department and is code compliant. The walls and fences facing the requesters are not part of this permit but weve offered to let them have a concession. Hopefully you approve our compromise. I wanted to clarify that while frank is engaging in this process, Building Permit is not required for this work. The perimeter walls are already permitted and sf Building Code sections specifically state that permit is not required for fences up to 6 feet. This is measured on top of the footing or retaining wall as they have confirmed in writing. There are no restrictions on the fence material either. Thank you. My name is frank, and i am the project sponsor. Time. You do have a twominute rebuttal where you will be able to make your testimony. Okay. Thank you. We should take Public Comment at this time. Your conference is now in question and answer mode. To summon each question press one and then zero. Members of the public, again, to remind you, if you wish to submit your testimony, please call the 800 number and press one and then 0 so enter the queue. You have four questions remaining. Im ronnie representing the Glen Park Association board. We are in support of the request for discretionary review of the files for 2476 diamond street. The board exams the dr request and concluded that it is in the interest of the Glen Park Association that the Planning Commission c includes the issu. It should be noted to the commissioners that an officer from the Glen Park Association was included with other neighbors in this discretionary review request. That also abstains from the vote on this action. Thank you. You have five questions remaining. High. This is Shelly Bradford bell, and i hope everyone is doing well. As a former Planning Commissioner, i am a little concerned about the process behind what has gone on here when this happened in preapplication in january of 2018, the neighbors came forth and did negotiate in good faith. There was an agreement set and immediately upon getting the permit, everything changed. The grade was cut, and im sorry. The excavation happened and then the permit was requested for the rear yard because planning jeff horn pulled it back saying it was outside the scope of the original project. Thats when they got an emergency permit because they needed to do some infilling. They now took that dirt and they infilled and backed it up against the wall and thats the new grade they want to say they want to build the retaining wall from. My desire would be that should you take dr not take dr and approve the project, that you include the neighbors conditions of approval as part of it so Going Forward its all in good faith. However, i would really suggest, its my feeling that at best, this project goes back to the original permit, that this is not rewarded for doing the work before you get the permission and that they take dr, do not approve the project, and return it to the landscaping and the design that was originally part of the agreement that they made with the neighbors which is why they did not file a dr. Thank you very much. Hope everyone is well. You have four questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Im with the neighborhood council. Commissioners, this fight is empty. Its an empty lot today, but it didnt used to be that way. There used to be a modest home on this light that was demolished as part of an emergency demolition order. I really urge you to find out what exactly was wrong with the original house. The reason that im bringing this to your attention is because the situation here is not extraordinary. Its the lot itself that presents an extraordinary situation. The grade is such that the lot is actually downhill from the homes that are to its the side of the lot. So it looks like the project sponsor just decided to level the lot and leveling the lot, of course, required this massive retaining wall that was built without the concession of the neighbors. So i dont know if that has actually come to light but then this was an extraordinary project because the planning was apparently doing Something Like a pilot to work with the neighbors to file this review and appeal in exchange for the developer to actually agree to the design that was agreeable to the neighbors. This hasnt happened. My criticism of this process is that if the Planning Department was inserting itself as part of a Pilot Project to supposedly reduce discretion reviews, which i dont agree with such pilots because that is the right of every San Francisco resident. But they should have just continued shepherding this project. What happened, you know . The building was approved, but the fencing is actually posing the problem . I mean, the lot and the grade of the lot is such that it does require the neighbors involvement in terms of what goes there and how the fencing is done. So i believe that the Planning Department should have inserted itself throughout the whole process and should have seen the neighbors would come to an agreement. Having a wall like this without the concession of 7 neighbors is extraordinary. I dont know, you know, why this could have possibly happened. There are no plans of whats being built there. I urge you commissioners to ask for the plan as to what is being built in this site. Also, i urge you to take dr and ask the developer to remove this massive wall. Thank you. Your time is up. You have four questions remaining. Hi, john. I live on diamond street. Im an architect, builder, and expert witness. Ive been in my home here on diamond street for 50 years. This project is an outrage. Its poor design or no design. The permit was obtained im very familiar with overthecounter permits. They just kind of pulled the blinds over the neighbors eyes and went down and got an overthecounter permit for this addenda. This is intruding into the mid block open space which is one of the key factors that the Planning Department has to adjudicate. It is a tremendous impact on the neighbors to this project. This is incredibly disturbing that this has gotten through the city. I know its just it was underhanded the way this permit was obtained for this retaining wall. I think this project needs to be abated. This concrete wall should go back to the original grade, a sixfoot high fence put on top of it. Thats fine. But lets not call the bandaid approach over this concrete wall, putting a fencing material on it. Thats just an architectural bandaid. Its nonsense. I strongly support my neighbors. This thing needs to be reviewed. Worse than that. I think the thing should be abated. I think this concrete should be removed. I think the grade should go back to the original grade along that hillside, and respect your neighbors even if this is a speck house. You still have to respect the people that live around you. Thats all. Bye. You have four questions remaining. This is suzanne crawford. Im a neighbor in the neighborhood and walk by quite often. I find that the old house is an eyesore and im in support of this project. I think the new house will be great. It will be beneficial to the neighborhood. Thank you. You have three questions remaining. Hi. Im pete, and ive lived in glen park for the last 30 years and in my Current Location close to the proposed project for the last 25 years. Ive got to say i just want to echo comments about the process here. It seems to me that the developer did a bait and switch with the neighbors in the sense that plans were submitted and the neighbors, after much discussion and good faith effort on their part, agreed to the plans so long as there was no significant modifications to them. Then the developer goes in and gets this overthecounter permit and the wall, which ive got to say, except for the barbed wire, resembles the berlin wall. Its causing Significant Impact. When you compare this house to what was in that lot beforehand, its just incredible how much difference there is. I think that the project should be undertaken in terms of this wall, there should be lowered to the original height. When you see the pictures and you see the red line where the original wall was and how high the wall is now, its just completely out of place. Its not even retaining earth for the most part the biggest part of it. I really urge the commissioners to back the dr and submit this for review. Thank you very much. You have two questions remaining. Good evening. Im mitch edwards. I live across the street from the open space area where the project is located. I support the request for dr. There is contrast between those who submitted their report for the dr and those who submitted their support for the project. The majority that support are the neighbors who would be affected by the project. These are the views that matter when considering this project. None of those who have submitted letters in support of the project would be affected by the project or even live in the same block. The supporters of the project are developers, realtors, or clients. The supporters have conflict of interest or views are irrelevant or both. Two of the letters focused on the prior building being an eyesore. That building is long gone, but this is a subject matter issue. Thank you for your time. You have one question remaining. Hello. I live in Diamond Heights for 41 years. I am in support of this building going up. I love a backyard. In my 41 years here, i have seen over 20 new homes being built within two blocks around this project, and i dont see why this one property should not be built. Okay. Thank you. Bye. You have zero questions remaining. Commissioners, that concludes the Public Comment portion. We should go to rebuttal. Is the dr requester prepared to submit their rebuttal . Is it. I am. Many can you hear me . We can. You have two minutes. Thank you. First, i just want to contest that there was constant contact. I think youve heard from other people once the site permit was approved, there was no contact regarding the development of the rear yard. So that is a false statement. I also want to just reiterate there was no dr because there was no opportunity to review any of these yard structures. It was never an issue, but thats what the project sponsor is focusing on. We have already focused mentioned we are focused on the perimeter walls here the and grade. That said, so i want you to just be clear on what we are here talking about versus what the project sponsors are talking about. We are talking about this huge structural concrete retaining wall that towers over us and blocks our mid block. A couple things i want to throw into your mind. Imagine neighborhoods across the city if everyone adopted these structures and fence designs. Think about what that would look like. The second thing is this is important i just want to leave you with a final thought. Why is it always the burden of the neighbors when they dont fit the neighborhood. This has been my experience. We are the ones living in the community, supporting the community, volunteering in the community, looking out for each other and helping when someone needs help with their garden or dog or asking how their daughters chemo is going. What happens here matters to us. The developers are in and out. This may or may not have a monetary impact on us. Non monetary damage is what we are focused on long after he has taken his profit back to his lot in pacifica. Thank you. Project sponsor, are you prepared to submit your rebuttal . Yes. Thank you. Okay. Your time is running. So just to respond to a few critiques and Public Comment. There was never a stop order issues. The neighbors called to explain to dbi, the inspector said we should adjust a few innings this. Thats why we got a revision permit. It was approved by the senior planner overthecounter. It had Planning Department review. There was never any Pilot Project that we were aware of. We never knew that we were part of this. If thats the case, maybe David Winslow could explain more. Also, the demolition was under the previous owner. Frank bought this as a vacant property. Ryan has a few things to add. Thank you. I just, again, want to clarify that this permit that is under dr today is for the cross lot retaining walls east to west. The neighbors are explaining about the northsouth retaining wall which is not part of this permit. Im happy to answer your questions about that. The perimeter wall is previously permitted, valid permit, and the fence that could be added to the top of that without a permit would be significantly taller than what were proposing today as a compromise. In fact, even if they were refused, northsouth retaining wall back to the original grade, the fence the solid fence that could be built on top of that without a permit would be essentially the same as what were proposing as this compromise to lower the concrete walls, have minimal solid and then open translucent material at the top to allow light through. The architect to clarify further details of that, but i think theres misunderstanding on the neighbors part on exactly what is part of this permit and the compromise were offering today. That concludes the Public Comment portion of the hearing commissioners. That matter is before you. Commissioner fong. Question for staff. Mr. Winslow, in terms i understand what youre saying in terms of the departments responsibility for reviewing certain elements of site work and fencing. Is there, however, a review by the department that a project conforms to the site permit . Well, yes, there is. However, many times in fact, usually the site permit really doesnt get down to the details of site grading and retaining walls at the rear yard. I dont think that this site permit included that. Thats why the addenda was filed for the cross retaining walls, the grade, and the permit for the perimeter wall as a subsequent permit to the actually, subsequent permits that were different permit numbers than the Building Permit. So that does not if it doesnt trigger if it doesnt go above 6 feet in height, it doesnt trigger our review. Not only would it if it did trigger review, we dont have the tools necessary to require modifications other than the metrics of height. We have guidelines that speak to fences or the materiality of those or anything else about qualitative standards. Understood. Let me go back then to where my question was leading. The documents that were provided to us in this package, brief package, has a series of drawings that are labeled correction. Those are not the site permit drawings, are they . David, i think youre in youre on mute. Sorry. Your turn to get me. No. I believe they are corrections to the original retaining wall permits that were found to be above the threshold of three feet above existing grade. That was the correction of the permit that is under that was a separate permit . Correct. As a correction. So the site permit package didnt have much information on the elevation of the walls of the perimeter in the landscape area . Let me pull that package up so i can be on the same page and answer that accurately. Okay. While youre doing that, when i looked at these correction drawings, the elevation this shows appears to be have lower walls than what the photo shows. Those drawings were not part of the original site permit to my knowledge. And proposed modifications by the project sponsor to the existing built conditions they obtained through a permit earlier in your package that its around page 47 that shows technical drawings for grade beams and issues as a special permit. I saw the structural drawings that i assumed were part of the addenda process and took a quick look at the elevations there as compared to these construction drawings and theyre a little bit different. Im just trying to see at what stage and and for the permit. Is should i direct these questions to the architect . You might. That would be more familiar with the versions that are locations and the drawings of the plans that are currently permitted in this i believe those are if i could share my screen, its on page 7 i think. The original. Thats all right. Were not entertaining a comment at this point. That is the addenda package that you are showing. Right. This is the this is the great beam. Let me direct my questions to mr. Schwab. Can you and the drawings that were looking at. We work with the neighborhood getting the site permit out. David is correct in saying that we really didnt contemplate what the rear yard was going to look at during the site permit process. Whats on the screen is the approved structural revision set that shows the cross walls and the parameter walls for lack of a better term. It shows the elevation and that would have been a new and additional building went out and said you know we think this is too much of a grade increase so file another correct permit. Which one was that . Thats the one filed in december and thats what has been dred. Is that your drawings which are the last i see april 2020. Thats right. Thats the most recent version permit application. Thats a correct permit. Do those match up with the structural. If i look at some of your sections there, they appeared to be not as high as what i saw in some of the photos from the dr requester. Right. So in the photo they showed the original grade line that was in red and then the wall extends two feet below that because we had to remove some grade to build the walls. So im looking at the over all height of those walls compared to your sections and they appeared to be greater. In actuality versus the drawings. They were engineered up to be 1. Is that the concern . No, thats different. The structural set the design based upon reinforcement. Im talking about your correction drawings and showing sections that dont appear to match with the conditions as reflected in the photographs. Right. That is when i was saying some of the adjacent neighbors land was flattened a bit to allow for our construction. Great, before i go to commissioner moore, i just had a question for the project sponsor. Was there a compromise . Yes, sean Residential Builders association. In my many conversations with the project sponsor, he has offered several good compromises and suggestions. My favorite one is to create an imaginary line seven feet above the original topography. That is only one foot higher than what he would have do without even getting a permit. One foot and that one foot is just to control the erosion or possible drainage. Anything above this new imaginary line we would make translucive to minimize the impact. Everything below that line we would have to make non translucive to hold back the dirt or create a gutter or threshold for the drainage. Any time you have a hilly topography, you are going to have a natural change in grade and theres a standard to put a five or six foot fence on top of the retaining wall. The project sponsor will cut this wall back. He will do whatever it takes to reduce the impact to his neighbors. That is the goal here and he will do it voluntarily. Thank you. Commissioner moore. I would like to ask a very simple question and the City Attorney is around they do not have the retaining walls and fence thats are high and all of the attributes that architect winslow mentioned. I am wondering how the commission is capable of rendering judgment on something where we do not have the tools or any idea of what is happening here. What i am mostly regret is that the whole description about the project has not brought an outline into the context of the building to which this year guard and the context of how the a joining buildings with their footprints and their rear yards in relation to the complaints being filed. Theyre out of the realm of peoples expertise that is footing, drawings, grade lines, and modifications to grades with dates of permits which are hardly readable because the cut off on the right side. I believe that this project is definitely 90 approve of what i typically heard and the many years ive been sitting on the commission and im asking the City Attorney to help us to get us really into the center of what theyre being asked to do here and as to whether or not the department admitting themselves not to have the tools how we could have tools, if i any . Commissioner, this is kate stacey in the City Attorneys office. Im going to let mr. Winslow approach this question in more dough tail than i k i can till there are aspects of about land use, neighborhood shoes, there are also always going to be issues that come up that are more structural geologic and technical in nature that those are shared with the department of building inspection. I will defer to David Winslow to talk in more detail about the sort of review questions that are in front of you as a Planning Commission. It was brilliant when i said. All i can do is reiterate and what i stated in the staff report. The planning code allows grade to be increased from existing levels up to three feet and compliant and if its in the buildable area, the same similar reasons for the retraining and code and with to be approved without planning review and under six feet in height. This permit is simply to recorrect cross beam and grading conditions that exceeded three feet in height. It exceeded a planning permitted to reduce that to conformity within the code and the parameter fence and wall condition are, by our standards, code compliant. And the issue before you is as dr requester its a high wall because there are questions of the grade and slopeing and the additional grade that the project sponsor is allowed to put on their rear yard and and it accumulation create a high wall who are also downhill from this project. We just dont have the code or the tools to look at it and the dr requesters have relied upon this process to decide this issue. My understanding is that i want to make one more time. Could you please take a drawings and show the commissioner that its basically the cross grade were looking at and not just the line between the properties. Sure, let me find that. Thats my exhibit 1. Ok. So, is that that i sent you this afternoon. Great, thank you. Can you see my screen . Yes. So the work in question, the permit in question and the work to protect that in question is in yellow, these crossgrade beams where this area was filled. This great beam was made and this area was filled and as the site slopes down, another terrace area was filled and this grade beam constructed to create presumably level yard surface area. This wall and this area of grade, this wall and this area of grade, all exceeded the code requirement of three feet. And its a half or two. And this wall desends downward slope and the rear of the lot and downward towards the bottom of the page as well and it happens to also be code compliant but as it does so, it presents a large retaining wall to the adjacent neighbors to the bottom o this parameter wall. Its code comply around and its huge and sometimes large walls and slope issues and to a arrive at a compromised and they offered something in their presentation that im not entirely clear about and i doubt that i am that you are as well and maybe thats a topic that we might also request in clarification on. Would that be to spend time in . Sure, im happy to, david, could you go to our last page that is page 8. This is a proposal to increase the grade by no more than three feet from the original condition. Excuse me, jeremy, theres part of the confusion is the and dash color coated lines and maybe as you describe it yes, of course. The existing grade within our property is shown in brown. And we would propose to raise that no more than three feet and that is beyond the green line. And then just above that we would limit the retaining wall to a foot or six inches above that and we would introduce some sort of fence or terrace or glass at a height no more than four feet. Just clarifying for reference and the existing grade depicted on the adjacent neighbors as this loin here and the black line. Yes. Thats a lot lower. It resolved in a wall of seven or eight feet. Is that it for now, commissioner moore . Let me call on commissioner. Please leave this photo up and could the architect please walk me through where the height of the existing concrete longitudinal retaining wall is that they showed us the pictures of . Chair m. Marquez the second step from the left where it says top of wall, 358 and the bottom of the wall. I cant read anything. Its too small. So use your arrow to show me where it is. He cant use his arrow, im in control of the slide. Ill try and you can show us where the troy to use the arrow to follow what he is showing to show us where the top of the existing concrete retaining wall is shown in the pictures. Will do. Its grid line 12. I believe you can see that. What is it . The top of the grade, is that what you are pointing to . The solid gray where it says 358. Ok. That is where the existing wall is. Ok, and then what is the last proposal on the table by the developer to do relative to that wall . It would involve more steps with reductions of two to three feet along the extent of the wall. Can you go to the prior photos and the previous one that shows ok. And from the top of the concrete wall that we just all understood where i understand where it is now, what are you proposing relative to that . On this photo . You are proposing coming down to this thro three feet in the gra . Thats correct. Yes. Yes. And you are proposing to clad what is remaining is that everywhere along length or just this one spot . The cladding would be everywhere justs the reduction but it would step with the topography. Ok, so and then your proposing clad tag in some kind of agreeable fencing. Yes. And then you are putting something clear on top of that or a wood fence on top of that . Theres a proposal that was made to put something clear on top and how high would that go . We would be seeking a height of four feet and the materials were open to that conversation. So if you take each of the dr requestors, how high is the concrete wall going to be for wood from the rear of their backyard. If you are standing in their backyard looking at the concrete wall which would be clad and wood, how tall from the bottom of the base of the wall to the top of the wall . Absent before feet of clear materials . Approximately seven to eight feet. And thats for each of the dr requestors . Thats right. Along the length of the wall. What are they looking at now . How tall is it now . 10 to 11 00. Can you go to the picture david of the concrete walls that they showed in their dr. Im going to ask someone to mute whatever the television or computer is going on in the background, please. Ok. So what were looking at was lowered by how many feet and clad and wood . I believe in that specific area that would be two feet. And you say those horizontal concrete lines, are those a foot apart . How tall are they . Yes. So, roughly. We heard before that the guide shown there is about six feet or a little taller than six feet. I thought it was seven to eight feet. So, two feet from the top of this wall would be this line right here. Yep. And it would if its continuously two feet and it would be this line here so six feet. At this point, probably closer to eight feet at this point and so its a range. Because, you know, the grade isnt continuously sloping in the same manner. Ok and then you want to put four feet on top of that of some clear materials . Is that correct . Yes, thats correct. The reason is needs to be this tall that you cant go any lower than this for the clear material or concrete is what. What happens if you go lower. Its additional excavation on the other side of the property and result in an unusable rear yard. Its now going to be 12 feet below the main living level. Ok. I will just put out there that its really hard to follow all the technical drawings and i appreciated commissioner fung trying to walk us through this. I recognize that this dr was over the cross beams as opposed to the longitudinal one but its within our discretionary review authority to do something about this wall and i am in fair of moving towards Something Like the project sponsor is proposi proposing. Diamond, your end summary was my thoughts ex liem and appreciating and commissioner moore both on just trying to get clarity around some of these drawings and also the commissi commissions purview. As i understand it, you think we are now is staffs recommendation in some ways incorporates the design modification of bringing down the certain heights and then in addition to that, i think i would want to incorporate what the project sponsor is suggestioning which is an appropriate mitigation and agree just that i do think it is within our purview and it makes for a better set of site conditions to incorporate what is being proposed by the project sponsor. For me, i also i dont get why this is in front of us in the Planning Commission. From what i from what is being asked, you know, what is being asked here is that correct the permit. If that is the case, the correct permit, does that mean its taking the project sponsor proposal does that mean its taking the dr . Im asking david or commissioner or secretary. The permit to correct is a permit that will need to be done regardless of the action you take today. It provided the opportunity for the dr requesters to object to other work that to the code conforming parameter wall that they find objectional but theyre willing to compromise with reduction this is height to mitigate some of those impacts to the adjacent neighbors. Taking dr would the question goes to the dr doesnt go to the permit of i mean, im trying to think of the enforcement action in fact because the permit is strictly to enforce non conforming non complying conditions which they will do and they have to do. The conditions of the dr will be a patched to the height of the wall and change the materials and and the proposal that it is still we the Planning Department in terms of the compliance, you know, so i just want to remind that for the other commissioners to i have no probable with the project sponsor propose a as long as its in the purview of the Planning Department. You guys are taking dr and recognizing that proposal that they have. To make modifications to the lot line wall which is not necessarily part of the permit but its part of the d. R. You can take dr and acknowledge those modifications that the project sponsor is willing to make. Thank you. Commissioner mar. Following up on what commissioner very well extracted as a best description of the existing proposed condition by going over the drawings, these are still hard to understand and the architects response are still rather vague and the grade say moving grade so if you talk about ranges of eight foot here and six foot there, what i would like to ask is literally every six inches to a quarter are squeezed out lowering the retaining walls. The other thing i would like to ask and the commission to consider is the facts that i do not believe that translucent materials at that height are the ideal way of creating a soft transition of how you express difference in grades between gardens. I believe that translucent walls could potentially be bird hazards and create bird strikes unintentional but you do have a lot of animals moving around in these backyards these days. Any kind of fence that softens any kind of landscaping of how diminish the actual architect you will and draping over this wall and becoming part of the vertical portion of the concrete wall as well. That is the way concrete walls ultimately diminish their effect. It can be done with living walls and introducing living wall as an intentional introduction into landscaping which could be done on the down slope on the dr requestors walls and it could be implemented by putting vines and other materials on the applicants side of the wall which then drape over the fence materials in its entire tease. Those are my recommendation and i would like the department to take a stand on good strikes and these extended long translucent wall elements. I believe that im going to ask the project sponsor to clarify. I believe when mr. Patterson described the translucent materials, he was probably being expediting what he was going to describe which was a wood and lattice more in the wood and lattice family of things, not a glassy material and i am hoping that that was my interpretation but mr. Patterson or mr. Schwab he threw in light coming through. Maybe the project sponsor can clarify because that was my understanding of the discussion prior to the hearing it was a a wood and natural material. That would help to explain, thank you. I can chime in and say were happy to do any material the Commission Finds acceptable. Commissioner fung. I guess either the issue here is what was permitted through the structure addenda documents which has some bearing in the sense it allowed a certain level of construction which didnt necessarily have the review of planning. The problem is when you are trying to create any portion of that sight in the rear yard and being flat, you are dealing with what they call the cross flow. So formally to deal with a cross flow, one would have made the opposing refeigning walls equal in terms of the distance theyre supposed to cover on the other side, the concrete retaining wall would have been exposed to the project sponsor side and then on the bottom side, the concrete wall would now be exposed to the neighbors of that side. And what theyre proposing is the only way one could have reduced it is one had not averaged between the two parameter walls in terms of the cross flow and the other ways to have done that is what theyre proposing now is theyre cutting the length of the flat area into smaller flat areas and therefore one could reduce, not only the elevation of the cross slope walls but also have some reduction into the parameter walls. Based upon those existing elevations i think its the project sponsor architect is probably correct in that you are only going to drop in the neighborhood of one foot plus something on the down side parameter wall. This is a small mitigation not a total mitigation. To that height. If i was the neighbors, i would probably want them to plant some vegetation that would proceed upward in a relatively quick manner to cover portions of that wall. Commissioner johnson. Thank you, i know theres been conversations with materials and i think the project sponsors recommendation was to chose materials that are desired by the neighbors and so i would want there to be a discussion between the project sponsor and the neighbors. I do recognize commissioner moores insightful comments that glass structure if that were at all considered, could be a bird hazard but i did see the lattice and i did see wood fence and would defer to the neighbors to chose what type of materials would best suite them since they will have to look at it. I would move to take the dr and approve with both staffs recommendations related to the offering of the project sponsor proposing dough sign modification to reduce the height of the parameter concrete walls and over all sense height and also to incorporate the offer of providing fencing materials that are at the discretion of the neighbors. Im hoping i covered that all but if someone wants to weigh in. I would second that but i would like to ask you commissioner johnson, as to whether or not you would be amenable to also encourage a mutually agreeable idea where the project sponsor provides the pro po at wall, green treatment and landscaping that commissioner fung alluded to . Yes, that was written in there in a set of ideas. I just would want to make sure the neighbors get a chance to weigh in ultimately and trust the neighbors and the project sponsor would Work Together to up with a agreeable material. I dont know that i want to dictate that. Particularly, retaining walls dont hold up well if you have the ivy and theyen extend the wall so it has to be provisions of a tell as structure in order for that material to grow properly without impeding the quality of the wall so we hope that would be part of the mutual discussion. I think by having this conversation here and both you and commissioner fung sharing your expertise on works best, that would inform the neighbors and their conversations with the project sponsor about the type of materials. We would let mr. Winslow pick that up to see that is properly executed. Yes. I want to make sure in your final motion you clarify you are accepting the latest proposal because the staff yes. Ok, thank you. Im seconds. Ok. I second the motion. And ask for the clarification already. Very good. Commissioners, theres a motion that has been seconded to take dr and approve this project with staff modifications with the most recent submitals of the project sponsor reducing the over all height of the retaining wall and fence allowing the fencing materials to be at discretion of the neighbors. I hope i captured that on that motion, commissioner can i its the fencing material and planting. And i think we should cover both anboth. I believe commissioner johnson left it out. No, she accepted that as an amendment of the motion which i suggested. I did. Very good, thank you. And we will include not just fencing material but landscaping at the discretion of the neighbors. On that motion, commissioner chan. Aye. [roll call] very good, commissioners, that motion passes 70 and concludes your hearing today. And i am so pleased after that exhaust ing fencing materials ad landscaping that next week, i will give you a break and let you have thursday, july 2th off. We appreciate that very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Good night