Transcripts For SFGTV Planning Commission 20240712

Okay. Welcome to San Francisco Planning Commission remote hearing for thursday, july 9, 2020. Before we begin, as i have in the past, i would like to enter the following into the record. On february 25, 2020, the mayor declared a local state of emergency related to covid19. Further more the mayor and governor have issued emergency orders suspending select laws amicable to boards and commissions. On april 3, 2020, the Planning Commission received authorization from the Mayors Office to reconvene through the end of the shelterinplace remotely. This is the 15th remote hearing. I am requesting everyones patience in advance. The platforms are not perfect and at times may even be clumsy. If youre not speaking, mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. Do not hit any controls that may affect other participants. To enable public participation, sfgovtv is streaming this live. Sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the toll free phonein number across the bottom of the screen. Opportunities to speak are available via phone by calling 888 2733658, entering code, 3107452. Pressing pound and pound again. When you are connected, enter 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue to speak. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. When you have 30 seconds remaining, youll hear a chime. When the time is reached, i will announce that your time is up. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. Id like to take roll. President koppel . President koppel here. Commissioner moore here. Commissioner chan here. Commissioner diamond here. Commissioner fung here. Commissioner imperial here. And commissioner johnson here. Great, thank you, everyone. Welcome back from the short break for the fourth of july holiday. First on the agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, items 1a and b, 2018 0308397, and variance are proposed for continuance to july 23, 2020. Item 2, case number 20201294cua at 2441 mission street, conditional use authorization. At the time of issuance, it was proposed for continuance to july 27, 2020, it is now proposed for continuance to july 23, 2020. Neighborhood concerns and issues apparently have been resolved. Item 3, case number 2019114214drp, 457 mayor poststreet, discretionary review is proposed for continuance to august 27, 20. Further commissioners, under your consent calendar, item 6, case number 201015984, 590 Second Avenue needs to be continued to july 16, 2020. Further, under the regular calendar, item 12, 2007, 0604x, a large project authorization that you have already heard continued to today, weve received a request from the supervisors august to continue for one month to august 27, 2020. Further still, commissioners, under the discretionary review, 14, 2017, 350352 san jose avenue. We had late filings and will need be to continued to september 24, 2020. Finally, commissioners, item 15, for case number 2019507, 3537 23rd street, discretionary review has been withdrawn. I have no other items or continuance and we should take Public Comment. To summon each question, press 1, then 0. Jonas i would remind members of the public, in order to get into the queue, you must press 1, and then 0 after calling the 800number. You have three questions remaining. Hello, this is herbert, the attorney for the property own at 2005 17th street, which matter has been set for continuance to july 23rd. And there is an accompanying matter for the approval of and legalization of a fire wall and rear deck. The applicants position, or the Property Owners position is that they will allow the continuance to the 23rd if we can get some kind of assurance that well actually be able to move forward. There has been repeated continuances. As to the deck, we would ask that the matter be approved so that the Property Owner can move forward with it. I dont believe there is any objection to that by the Planning Commission and everything should be in order on that one. Did you hear me . Jonas we did. Thank you. Okay, thank you, sorry. You have three questions remaining. Hello, this is ann. Im speaking in support of the continuance for item number 14 as 350352 san jose avenue. As a member of San Francisco Tenants Union im speaking on behalf of the filer, these people are busy at antidisplacement coalition meeting. The San Francisco Tenants Union does not take kindly to longtime senior residents being displaced from their rent controlled units to make way for luxury developments in the community. The union was shocked to hear of the situation when it came on their radar and they filed the d. R. And look forward to there d. R. Hearing. Thank you for scheduling it for september 24th. To that, Planning Commission and everything should be in order on that one. You have two questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Knowe neighborhood council. I am calling to support the continuance of 350352 san jose, like the previous caller mentioned, this is an atrocity against the tenants who were in this these four rent controlled units that were basically displaced. One of these tenants actually died, passed away in these units because of the stress placed on her, the displacement, buyout, ellis act, what not. This project needs special attention and we urge you to follow this project and also it was mentioned there are only two new d. R. S filed. I believe there are three, including one filed by the Tenants Union. We just want you to be sensitive to the pain and suffering that was caused by tenants. Further more, were asking you to Pay Attention to what the Community Wants to get out of this. It is not fair for developers and speculators to come and buy these places and empty them with all kinds of maturations, only to come back and expand the link and make more profits on the back of the tenants. This is not fair and this act encourages other speculators to come forward. We now have another situation, even though were in the middle of the pandemic, a lot of these tenantoccupied properties are going on sale and going for a song. Im now aware of one case in the triangle, that we just found out about it. There is an elderly tenant living there since 1970. Where is this woman going to go . In the case of 350352, it is a necessity for us to continue the project. I support this. I want you to, please, commissioners, Pay Attention to the special case where four tenants were actually displaced and the developer is building 12 units on the back of the miseries that was caused to these tenants. Further more, this project should be considered a demolition. [bell ringing] hold for material removal, its far lower than a regular property. This is tantamount to demolition and as such it should be receiving a conditional use authorization. Truth be told, nobody should have filed a d. R. Thank you. You have two questions remaining. I am here to make a Public Comment on the 853 jamestown project. Jonas maam, this is not the time to discuss the jamestown project. Were now taking Public Comment on the matters proposed for continuance. You should enter 1 and 0 when we get to the calendar. Okay. I should enter 1 . Jonas the same way you got into this queue by pressing 1 and then 0, youll need to do again when we get to that later on todays agenda. Okay. Thank you so much. You have one question remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. Steve williams. Im also speaking in favor of the continuance of agenda item 14, 350352 san jose avenue. There were three new d. R. S filed this week. One by the Tenants Union as you heard. And one by adjacent neighbors to the north and to the south. There are a number of issues that have to be further looked at with this particular project, including the issues of tenants displacement, demolition and the sheer size and bulk of the thing, just under 10,000 square feet of an addition to a class a historic building. So were hopeful the commission will support the continuance to september 24th. Thank you very much. Announcer you have zero questions remaining. Jonas commissioners, that will conclude the Public Comment portion of the items proposed for continuance. The matters are now before you. Commissioner johnson . Commissioner johnson move to continue all items proposed today specified. Second. Jonas thank you. There is a motion that has been seconded to continue items as proposed. On that motion, chan aye. Diamond aye. Frontrunnering aye. Imperial aye. Johnson aye. Moore aye. Koppel aye. So moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 70. I will continue item 1b to july 23rd to go along with the conditional use authorization. Jonas thank you. Commissioners, that will place this under your consent calendar. All matters listed here under consent calendar are considered to be are you teen by the Planning Commission and may be acted on a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of the item. Unless a member of the commission, public or staff requests. In which event, the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar. Item 4, case number 2019, 16969, 42364336 irving street. On june 4, after hearing and closing Public Comment, you continued the matter to june 25, 2020 by a vote of 60. Commissioner johnson, you were absent. On june 25, 2020, the Commission Adopted a motion of intent to approve with staff modifications and continued to todays date by a vote of 70 to allow staff to conclude the ceqa analysis. Item 5, case number, 2019, 727cua, 339 taraval street, conditional use authorization. Item 6 was continued. I have no other items under your consent calendar. We should take Public Comment to see if anyone would like to remove items 4 or 5 off of the consent calendar . Announcer your conference is now in question and answer mode. So summon each question, press 1, then 0. Jonas members of the public, this is your opportunity to call into the 800number, enter 1 and th 0 to get into the queue. You need to indicate if you would like to remove item 4 or 5 off the consent calendar to be considered under the regular calendar later today. No calls. Jonas very good, commissioners. The matters are now before you. Commissioner moore move to approve items 4 and 5. Second. Jonas very good, commissioners, on that motion then to approve items under your consent calendar, 4 and 5, chan aye. Diamond aye. Fung aye. Imperial aye. Johnson aye. Moore aye. President koppel aye. So moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, 70. And places us under commission matters, for item 7, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for the june 18 regular hearing, june 25, closed session and the june 25 regular hearing. We should take Public Comment. Announcer your conference is now in questionandanswer mode. To summon each question, press 1, then 0. Jonas again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to call into the 800number, enter 1 and then 0 to enter the queue. No calls. Jonas thank you. Commissioners, that will conclude the Public Comment portion of this item. The matter is now before you. We have draft Meeting Minutes. Did we forget draft Meeting Minutes . Jonas thats the item were on right now, commissioner moore. Commissioner moore im sorry. The minutes for june 18 and june 25. Commissioner diamond move to approve all three sets of minutes. Second. Jonas thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt the minutes for june 18 and june 25, both closed and regular sessions on that motion, commissioner chan aye. Diamond aye. Fung aye. Imperial aye. Johnson aye. Moore aye. Koppel aye. So moved. That motion passes unanimously 70 placing us on item 8, commission comments and questions. I wanted to just take a minute and recognize a recently passed away former member of the commission, former president , ron mcgill. Not only did he serve tirelessly on the commission, but also was very accessible and often gave input at the hearings even after he left the commission representing dog patch and potrero hill areas. Commissioner moore . Commissioner moore i want to remember him fondly. I served with him five years. He is untiring and he will be greatly missed. His activism during and after his serving on the commission was remarkable and i actually still talked to him when he frequented us at Public Comments at our commission hearings. In early march i talked to him when he was in Perfect Health and he was telling me about all his plans and was just as active as he always was. Beyond my acknowledgment of commissioner as commissioner, i would like to actually acknowledge staff for their remarkable work in making these virtual hearings possible. There is christine, ginger and obviously, the one we see, jonas, himself, but behind the scenes there is a tremendous amount of work and im awed when this comes together as smoothly as it does. Thank you to everybody. President koppel commissioner johnson. Commissioner johnson thank you. I want to echo both my fellow commissioners and just wanting to take a moment to honor former commissioner mcgill. I got to collaborate with him on an event in february entitled revisiting the Planning Commission. In that meeting and every other time ive ever had the opportunity to interact with him, i was always struck by his real passion for our city, for our communities and for changes that need to be made. And for volunteering his time as a Community Activist to deal with issues of policies. I actually wanted to honor him by saying that the perspective he shared recommendations for this body and how it could be structured and work Going Forward as a way to improve on it. Its very rare that people have the perspective of being on the other side of tand i thought it astute. I wanted to share it with the same spirit he shared his perspective on issues. He talked about how it started to out to recommend to the mayors of the supervisors department. And it was a general plan, issues of land use, current planning, transportation and so on and so forth. An issue that many of those that evening and even in Public Comment have come up frequently from people just on what happens in the system of planning when change is said to be initiated. Because we are this body that fits between the board of supervisors, the departments, the mayor, commissions, it often comes that there is a question of who initiates change. And the Planning Commission is such that our case load has increased to a level at which its incredibly hard to be proactive on the issues of policy and initiating that change. And its charged to us from place of being reactive to departments, to being proactive in authoring and creating new legislation and change. Also ideas for maybe how even our terms could be changed. He thought that there are seven commissioners and the city might be able to divide it into seven planning districts. He was supportive and actually said twice during the presentation, there should be term limits. He felt really strongly that we should consider subcommittees. Committees for discretionary review, legislature review and committees for code changes. So that we could do both well. We could adjudicate d. R. S and make legislative changes and code changes. And, of course, he talked about the challenge of enforcement given the way that we are configured right now. He talked a lot about feeling like the Planning Commission gets cases too late and that concerns being engaged earlier on in the process from the begin, early on projects, would be helpful in helping us to be proactive. In his honor and in that spirit, i just wanted to echo some ideas that we can all keep in mind and even consider what it would be like to implement some of those things in his honor. Thank you for letting me share that perspective. Commissioner moore thank you, commissioner johnson for bringing him back, right into the discussion, remarkable discussion. Thank you very much. May i ask that we close tonights meeting in his honor . President koppel absolutely. Commissioner johnson i would like that, thank you. Jonas if there are no other commission comments, i would like to express my condolences to his family and simply express that i was always in awe of how articulate he was. And how grounded his comments were. Commissioners, we can move on to department matters, item 9. Directors announcements. President koppel thank you, jonas, thank you, commissioners, i just wanted to do the same and recognize former commissioner mcgill and pass on the departments condolences to his wife and family. I got to know him over the last couple of decades working with him as he sat on the commission here. I often presented as a city staff person before him. But also sought out his advice in guidance. I think from commissioner johnsons description, he always had great advice that was direct and concise and was to the point it was implementible and i sought that out often, even after i sat on the commission, he set out his advice how to be a good commissioner. He was tremendously respected by city staff and staff within the Planning Department. He helped shape the octavia land, the Transit Center district when he was there. He had a keen understanding of San Francisco in our neighborhoods and will be sorely missed. Thank you, all, for your comments. That concludes my report. Jonas very good, commissioners. That places us on item 10, review of past events at the board of supervisors. I have no report from the board of appeals and the Historic Preservation commission did not meet yesterday. Good afternoon, commissioners, aaron star Planning Department staff. I hope you all had a safe and restful fourth of july weekend. While you did not meet, the board did. This will cover this and last week. Last week, there were no Planning Department items, but the Small Business commission considered supervisor peskins ordinance that would codify the cd p3 program, for applications and provide a refund for applicants if the item was not heard within 90 days. We have heard from supervisor peskins office to present to the commission. Overall, the commission was supportive of the ordinance but was sympathetic to the Planning Commission recommendation that first, the commission questioned about the need to codify an already Successful Program and on the limitations from codifying the program. He asserted that the Planning Commission actually endorsed the idea of codifying the program by recommending approval with modifications. I did correct the record and reiterate that the recommendation was in lieu of codifying the program. As further justification for the ordinance, he cited two examples that took a long amount of time. Its not clear if they would have been eligible for the program but the examples did persuade the Small Business commission. They turned to motive. After i attempted to defend the motive of Department Staff and the work we do, you countered by the service from the Planning Commission counter to the d. M. V. Commissioner adam agreed and gave his own less than flattering story about processing a c. U. With the Planning Department. They decided to recommend approval of the ordinance with the modifications that the 60day extension period be removed to provide Business Owners with more certainty. At the full board, the board considered the c. U. Appeal for the 1420 taraval street. The decision was to uphold or overturn the decision for the demolition of 2100square foot, threestory singlefamily home and construction of new fourstory mixed use building with three dwelling units on the ground floor. The Planning Commission heard the item on january 30th and voted to approve the conditional use authorization that the building had to be reduced from 45 feet to 42. 5. Under the departments purview, in their written appeal, the first was that the proposed project is not consistent with the objectives or the planning code section 101. 1. The second issue was that the proposed project decreases Affordable Housing in the parkside district. The third issue was that it destroys a resource and negatively impacts the character of the district. And finally, it would block the window. Staff responded to each of these points in its presentation to the board did the project sponsor and representative. Although the comment was related to supporting the appeal which they claimed was historic and the changing character of the parkside district. There are approximately four speakers in favor of the project, felt this was a great addition to the neighborhood. And added housing in a thoughtful way. There are only a few questions from the board. Notably, supervisor mar asked preservation staff how the standards account for historic neighborhoods like the parkside as a matter of economy . In the end, supervisor mar made a motion to uphold the c. U. And deny the appeal because it helped the housing crisis in San Francisco. Further, the benefits of creating three new familysized units at the loss of one singlefamily home. The motion passed 101, with supervisor peskin voting against it. There were no remarks to indicate why he voted no. They heard supervisor peskins ordinance. The commission waived the opportunity to hear the item because it was limited in scope. It passed out of the committee with unanimous vote. There were no planning items at this weeks board hearing. Finally, last week, supervisor peskin introduced a new ordinance that would fix an error caused by an ordinance that passed last year. It prohibited nonretail professional services in the Chinatown Community Business District where before the reorganization it was permitted. This ordinance will allow the use on the second and third floors. The Commission Recommendation when it passed that ordinance was to allow modifications that would maintain existing controls, determined that this ordinance does not need to come before this commission for a public hearing unless we hear otherwise from you today. We would be happy to notice the item and bring it to you for review and consideration. That concludes my report. Im available for questions. If there are no questions, commissioners, 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 are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may dress the commission for up to three minutes. When the number of speakers exceed the 15minutele limit, general Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. We should open this up for Public Comment. Announcer your conference is now in questionandanswer mode. So summon each question, press 1 and then 0. Jonas again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to get into the queue by pressing 1 and then 0. Announcer you have two questions remaining. Good afternoon. Am i speaking on jamestown . Jonas not yet, maam. Youre one item away. This is general Public Comment. Thank you, sir. Jonas thank you. Announcer you have one question remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is georgia. I hope youre doing okay. Back in february of 2014, six years ago, when i first started commenting on the projects, mostly in noe valley that looked like demos, my concerns beyond the loss of relatively Affordable Housing were also the fees that the city wasnt getting. Just recently a project had a 311 notification that expired which had a major expansion, vertical, horizontal and adding a small second unit with demo calks that were close to the threshold that separated that the stated that the cost of the project was 50,000, which is ridiculous, insane. That seems like fee money the city should have now given the please financial situation due to the virus, but maybe the cost on the permit application was so low because d. B. I. Closely scrutinizes projects with vertical expansions costing over 350,000 to make sure theyre not demos. With specific regard to the demo calculations generally, back on january 23rd this year, president koppel directly asked former director rand about the demo calks and he said, is there someone who can take a look at it . But staff has already answered that question when they initiated back in august of 2016. Continuing to when the legislation was withdrawn in 2019 and with all those hearings in between. Staff answered earlier than 2016 when they looked at a sample of projects and determined that 40 of them should have been demolitions under the existing calks. All that gives the commission to adjust the demo right now. I sent the commission an email this morning for the record. Its sort of a case study on the demo calcs. I hope you can read it when you have a chance. That the commission can just adjust the calcs. That is your power and right and it would be codecompliant to do that. Thank you very much, take care. Announcer you have two questions remaining. Good afternoon, again, commissioners. Noe neighborhood council. I have a question for the commission and also for director hillis. There were a number of projects that were notified during the period where the city went immediately under shutdown. And in fact, we are talking about a period where even the Planning Commission wasnt meeting. If i may recall, mr. Ionin reminds us it was mayor breeds order on april 3rd that allowed the commission to continue its work. So my question to you is, what could the neighbors that have objections to projects that were being approved could have done during the period between march 3rd and april 3rd . The reason that im bringing this up to is because we have one such project in noe valley that the neighbors are outraged because they didnt have an opportunity to bring this up to possibly discretionary review, but also took advantage of this time of chaos and got his entitlement and guess what . The property has been put on sale for 600,000 more than what the developer paid. So im bringing this to your attention. I hope the commission would follow up with the staff and i hope director hillis has an answer for this. But all of these projects that were notified, where they received the 311 notification during the period where the city was under shutdown, including the Planning Commission, where was the recourse for the public to raise their concerns to the Planning Commission . Thank you very much. Announcer you have one question remaining. Hello, my name is jonathan randolph. I feel compelled to express a contrary opinion to the comment asking the department to require more conditional use hearings. Demolition does not add affordability, it adds constraints to projects that are trying to add expansions to help affordability. It makes it harder to expand the Housing Stock to promote affordability. And there are many renovations that you can do to a house, the interior of the building, that dont trigger the tantamount demolitions calculations. And you make the building not affordable anymore. It is not very well targeted. Its focus is on the exterior of the building, so it basically exists to try to promote neighborhood character in that respect, rather than you know, rather than trying to promote affordability. And instead of tantamount to demolition, i think the Planning Department should propose an alternative to repeal tantamount to demolition and instead make code 317 protect the existing tenants and promote on instruction of more bedrooms and more units because thats what actually promotes more affordability. Adjusting the calculations to require more conditional use hearings, including a. D. U. Expansions, is not going to help. Thank you. Announcer you have zero questions remaining. Jonas very good, commissioners. That will conclude the general Public Comment portion of the hearing and we can move on to the regular calendar. Item 11, case number 2019002743, 853 jamestown avenue. This is a request for concession and waiver from Development Standards. Staff, are you prepared to present . Yes. Jonas very good. The floor is yours. Good afternoon, commissioners, Planning Department staff, the item before you is a request for approving findings related to the requested concessions and incentives and waiver from Development Standards for the rear yard. State density bonus law and informing and adopting findings under the California Environmental quality act. A memo with the documents was sent to the commissioners today to provide clarification to the materials submitted to the commission on july 2, 2020. Including updates for commission to affirm and adopt findings on the ceqa. The project proposed new construction of 122 residential units in 20 buildings on 6. 9 acre parcel at 853 jamestown avenue. The unit size is 1100 to 1550 square feet and each will contain two or three bedrooms. Each will be detached condominiums. In total, the project will include 169,000 square feet of residential use with 153 private vehicle Parking Spaces, 17 guest Parking Spaces and 122 class one and 8 class 2 Parking Spaces. Given the relatively steep slope on portions of the project site, approximately only half of the project site is suitable for Development According to the project sponsor. The permits up to two residential units per lot. The proposed Development Site could be subdivided into 50 cocompliant lots. Therefore, the maximum number of units allowed is 100. The amount of density bonus is based on the affordability. Because the project providing 12 of the units at below market rate to lowincome households, the project is entitled up to a 23 density bonus or additional 23 residential units. The project is only seeking density bonus of 22 for 122 residential units. Also, 22 of the base projects, or 22 units, will be affordable. 12 of the units, or 12 , will be affordable to lowincome households. 5 to moderate income households ant remaining to medium income households. The project is requesting waiver for rear yard. Section 134 requires the project to provide a rear yard equal to 45 of the total lot. The proposed buildings, which includes 53 units and essential trash enclosure, will encroach into the acquired rear yard. Without a waiver, the project will be physically precluded from constructing the project at the allowable density. Also, concession is available fort project as it proposes 12 of the units to lowincome households. Section 144 requires that for every dwelling unit, onethird of the width can be devoted to garage entrances. Also, if two or more separate garage entrances are provided, there shall be a minimum separation of six feet. In order to provide a cocompliant project, a subterranean parking will be required to reduce the amount of ground floor devoted. The project sponsor has sufficiently demonstrated that the requested concession will reduce the overall cost of the project. In terms of environmental review, regarding the hazardous material, the project that is not located in the area subject to the maher ordinance, it is not located within 300 feet of an area subject to the maher ordinance. The project site is not on within 300 feet of a site that is on the lease. The Environmental Assessment was conducted and they concluded there are no recognized environmental conditions on the project site. Regarding air quality, all construction activities are required to comply with the ordinance. Source of naturally occurring if excavation and removal is necessary, this activity will be required to comply with airborne toxic control measures. Required compliance would address the release of Hazardous Materials during construction. Public outreach and comment, to date, we have received two in support, one from the bayview Hunters Point and association. And residents expressing the concerns of a lack of Parking Spaces. According to the project sponsor, they have hosted multiple meets with the community. In meetings with the Neighborhood Association, cac, Community Town hall, developers, as well as the mandatory preapplication meeting. In summary, the Department Finds that the project is on balance and consistent with the area plan, the Bayview Hunter point plan and objectives of the general plan. The project will provide 122 residential units helping alleviate San Franciscos severe housing crisis. 22 residential units will be dedicated to low to middle income households. The department is supportive of the project and recommends approval of the findings related to the request for incentives and waivers on the Density Program and adopt findings under ceqa. The sponsor is here and has a presentation. This concludes staff presentation. Jonas is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation . Yes. Can you hear me . Jonas we can just barely hear you. If you could maybe speak more directly into the phone. Your presentation is up and you will have five minutes. Okay. Is that better . Jonas still barely audienbl sir. We can hear you, but its not great. Line 2 of the presentation. Jonas, i cant hear well. Jonas neither can i. Sir, youre going to need to speak directly into your microphone or phone, because how is that . Jonas yes, thats better. How about now . Jonas yes, thats great, sir. Okay. Switching phones. Ill start over. This is jessie, Investment Group, thank you for letting us present today. Im on slide 2 of our presentation that we provided to staff. So ill start from there. Just to reemphasize use summaries, this site is approximately 6. 8 acres, but as noted, there is only about net 3. 5 acres of buildable area. This is a former parking lot and we have acquired this site from the San Francisco 49ers back in 2018. Slide 3. Just a little background, as you may know, this property was actually part of the bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Area under ocii and under that plan, it was 85foot height limit, changes to the candlestick project, the project site was taken out of the planned area and reverted to the 40foot height limit under zoning. We purchased the property shortly after that process occurred and we actually felt like the 40foot height limit was something we could work with. There was some discussions about going back and looking back at rezoning, but we felt the 40foot height limit was appropriate for the content of the neighborhood. If youve been out there, jamestown, the character of the street is very much in keeping with two and threestory development, singlefamily homes and attached town homes. So we felt very good about the height limit. As a result, what were proposing are a series of clusters of small buildings, 20 in total throughout the site, with total of 122 forsale units. Larger units, which i want to talk about in a minute, solely 2 and 3bedroom units. As staff mentioned, we are proposing a combination of onsite affordable plus the density bonus requirements, a portion of the Affordable Housing will be satisfied on an inlieu basis. We went through the process of community outreach, before we submitted our p. P. A. , we had several meetings with the bayview association, the cac and got a lot of feedback even before we submitted. If we go to slide 4, youll see that from the time line. We had a multitude of meetings. And a lot of the feedback that we got was, number one, we love that youre going to be consistent with the 40foot height limit. Two, get as much as parking on there as possible because the neighborhood is impacted by parking. Three, there was as much desire to do on site affordable as possible. And four, they really liked our design, our proposed initial design and especially our landscape plan, which ill talk about in a minute. This is just a summary of kind of where we landed after Extensive Community outreach. I did want to say one thing about the character of the development. In the prior plan, the 85foot plan, you know that would have contemplated a large podium type project. What is nice about the zoning that weve reverted to is it allows us to do, as i mentioned, a cluster of smaller buildings and break up the site in a way that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. There is also Good Opportunity because of that to do interesting landscaping designs and opportunities. Slide 6 gives you a little visual of a moment on the project. And on the below portion of the slide, you can see the site plan and how those buildings lay out in small attached town home clusters. Each unit receiving its own garage. Threestory walkup character. You know, as i mentioned, one of the feedback items from the community is the dearth of Family Housing in the neighborhood. So the average unit size in the project is almost 1400 square feet. Were really excited about that. And the opportunity to bring families to this area. More families. And one of the things were doing as part of this is an Innovative Partnership with developers and Bayview Senior Services to potentially recruit, hopefully recruit, holders of certificates of preference, folks that were prior displaced from redevelopment action in the 60s and 70s that have the ability to utilize those certificates to potentially purchase these units. And were really excited about that opportunity. Its something that came [bell ringing] directly from the community in our conversations and were working with m. O. H. C. D. On that effort. Slide 7, another visual of the project. You know, obviously, the site, we made a real strong effort to put as many doors and windows and activation as possible. We got a lot of positive feedback from planning staff that it was important to put as many stoops and active uses on jamestown as possible and made a number of modifications in response to staff feedback. Jonas im sorry to interrupt, but your time is up. The commissioners may have additional questions for you after Public Comment. Sounds good. Jonas lets go to Public Comment. Announcer your conference is now in questionandanswer mode. To summon each question, press 1, then 0. Jonas again, members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter the queue by calling into the 800number and pressing 1 and then 0. Announcer you have five questions remaining. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is patten. Im the chair of the bayview cac as well as a bayview native and current resident. I wanted to say first that the cac met last night and after an extensive questionandanswer period and discussion we unanimously approved this project. Id like to add that it is refreshing to see a project come that has the type of Square Footage per unit that we need for Family Housing. In addition, after discussion, it is our understanding around the affordable unit that theyre going to be at such a rate that we would be able to see families move from renting to ownership in the area. Also, the areas that are affordable, the market rate units, are also going to be affordable for others that are currently renting and would have the ability for homeownership. This is a great project. It provides parking which is much needed on that street. And its also very good for the neighborhood in terms of not having to work worry about people finding additional parking in other areas, or parking in driveways. This is a great project. We wholeheartedly support it. I as a bayview resident and legacy resident fully support this project and look forward to seeing it come to fruition. Thank you. Announcer you have four questions remaining. Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners and director hillis. My name is linda richardson. Longtime Bayview Hunter point resident and also former San Francisco Planning Commission. I want to take the opportunity here, congratulations to the San Francisco Planning Commission staff for your recent resolution on equitable practices to guide your decisions. The project, 853 jamestown, by all measures before you today has not only conformed, has not only met, but has already exceeded the criteria that you all should take consideration. For instance, the topography, it is essential that your decisions, especially a project in bayview, that you continue the character of the neighborhood. This project is also adding value by enhancing the already open spaces in this area. This is a plus for this project. Lets also talk about certificate. [please stand by] [please stand by] we have been in with jesse and his team and we want to move folks here in bayview Hunters Point and from rentership it Home Ownership and a resident and live around the corner from the project. I also think in terms of the neighborhood as you heard from commissioner richardson its well needed here in the community. Its been well received and really looking forward to work with them around workforce and the potential housing for folks. I urge you to push this forward. Thank you. Caller im with the shipyard and an Investment Group made a presentation for the shipyard. Our housing sub committed to build affordable units on site. To their credit the developer listened to us and agreed to do the majority of the affordable units on site. This is a great project. 122units for familyoriented housing, two and three bedrooms working in partnership with the services and ypd to provide opportunities to purchase Affordable Housing while providing credit, repair, finance, counselling, home buyer assistance for sert cal holders to help them buy homes and work on down payment assistance for people needing that kind of support. This Housing Available will help migration of African American families and its a new model for other Developers Interested in serving those most in need. And his provided linear rates that connects many in the area. It will be a pocket park for community. And the other piece about this project is modern. It the within the height limits and has plenty of parking. This is a great proposal. Its a winwin for the community and the citizens and county of San Francisco. Please support this project. Thank you very much. Do we have any callers remaining . Caller hi, im shirley moore. The Vice President of the bay view zone Neighborhood Association and i agree with the previous speakers on approving this project. I am a Community Resident and i live across the street from the project. With the consent in the project creates a valueadded highend project for this community. The group has outdone itself in the planning of the project and involving the community and their input to make sure theyre with the community and not against the community. And the 45 height of the building is a winwin for the community because its in character with the community and as i stated this is an excellent proje project. I thank the strada group for bringing this to the community and working with the community to get the best project possible for that space. Thank you so very much much and commissioners, i too recommend you approve the project. Thank you. Very good, commissioners. That will conclude the Public Comment portion for this item. The matter is now before you. Commissioner moore. Im delighted to support this project. Not only has the full neighborhood support but theres tremendous amount of detail that is hardly discernible from the way we read in our packages. Its the financing and a Ground Community based project that couldnt be more fitting. I want to commend them for not taking advantage of the 80foot height limits but create groundrelated townhouse project that is far more appropriate given the hillside and how the project nationally transitions into the. Space beyond it. Theres variants for me is not a unit and how they transition in the land and to the open space in the north. Im delighted the solution to the project is a very creative solution given the relative difficult shape of the site to build on and its you can often drop something on top but here we have the sensitivity that goes far beyond what we typically see. Im delighted to support it and hope my fellow commissioners will join me. Commissioner johnson. Commissioner i appreciate the projects thoughtfulness and takes in design and the programming. I appreciate the Community Engagement that has been done with respect to topography. The only added idea of reaching out to certificate of preference holders and for those who work in the Nonprofit Sector we know theres a disconnect between Units Available and all the things that people have to do to be able to get into those units. Hearing therell be added support from Community Organizations and from the city to make sure the units goes to families is really exciting. I really appreciate the project sponsor for providing their own explanation related to the concessions of the neighbors in their submission of the drawings. I think it just helps us have a mature public dialogue and conversation. And i know the project sponsor wasnt able to comment on the programming of the site but i appreciated the submittal plans help us understand the programming. We think about outdoor space, access to community facilities, how people will move through the environment and how it will tie together to feel cohesive, welcoming and supportive of community. Its important especially now with open space as a premium, i appreciate that being here. I think the icing on the cake here is hearing the bayview cac chair and hear what happens when theres outreach and the process and not an afterthought but early on so for all those reasons im in support of this project as well. Commissioner imperial. Commissioner when i think about committed planning it looks like this development exhibits that. One thing that i also am looking forward and seeing just with other commissioners have said, in term of the i know that the area of bayview is always isolated and theres plans in terms of Public Transportation and how its situated. Its perfect and the feedback from the community to have more Parking Spaces though i thought was innovative in terms of searching for solutions. I am hoping to not have a problem with the rear yard. I think overall this project is really good. And i would like to thank the project sponsor for working with the community on this. Commissioner diamond. Commissioner i too am going to jump on the bandwagon. Compliments for the sponsor for the progress and substance. We saw today the benefits of early reach out to the neighborhood before Developers Get too set in their ways and i think the project is beautiful from the land and i appreciate the amount of Family Housing and Affordable Housing and the reach out to the gop holders and thought it was wonderful to hear all the expressions of support we saw today. I look forward to voting for this project. Commissioner funk. Commissioner a question for the developer. Yep. Commissioner can you summarize the landscape plan and what is being done with the trees . Thank you, commissioner. I didnt get to that. I lot longwinded there. We have a world class Landscape Architect in the plans and she can speak to the site. Theres two different scales maybe three to the landscape plan. One is that were next to one of the most spectacular pieces of native landscape left in San Francisco and we really thought about that in terms of our palette and in an urban scale theres awesome new parks coming online but this a missing link in terms of a sidewalk experience. We have a particularly great setback on the east half of the project. So making the experience of walking from the existing neighborhood past the project and a planted experience taking you to larger park spaces was also part of our thinking. Its really about the project itself where i think all of us have become more aware of house appreciation toss have a small piece of open space of your own to come out of your apartment and sit on a terrace and theres outdoor space for the unit and a series of common areas for people to come together and build community which we know helps build resiliency and a larger pocket park you can see from jamestown where theres activations we think will bring people together and make this feel really public in some ways though its part of the private development. So were really excited about all of those parts. Thank you. Commissioner i find the concession incentive in terms of treat fundage and rear yard variance to be acceptable and vote we approve this and approve the waive. Second. Do you have more comments . Commissioner we are always concerned theres too much parking with covid will probably see further strain on insufficient transportation extended into the community and i think the amount of parking being envisioned is perfectly appropriate and want to make a comment because were continually hoping for less parking and fully support it. Do you want to add something . Commissioner i want to clarify for the maker of the motion is adopting the revised motion emailed along with commissioners earlier today. Thank you, commissioner fung. Theres a motion seconded to adapt findings as amended by staff. On that notion, commissioners. [roll call] so moved, commissioners it passes unanimously 70. Item 12 has been continued to august 27 and it was continued and withdrawn leaving us remarkably at your final item on todays agenda for item numbers 13a and b case numbers 2007. 0604x and 2019000013cua and well remind participants to mute your mics if you are not speaking. Staff are you prepared to make a presentation . Yes, i am. Great. Good afternoon, commissioners. Kathle kathleen campbell. They seek approval pursuant to conditional use authorize pursuant to the code to allow the legislation of a question unit removal adwelling unit removal of a twobedroom, one bath dwelling unit. Number 554 with the 2,242 square foot, two bedrooms, two and a half bangs number 3553. Im not hearing anything . Can you hear . We can hear you. The project sponsor is looking to result in the creation of one 10,054 square foot, fivebedroom, three and a half bath dwelling unit. And reallocation of one dwelling unit with two bedrooms an one bath to the ground floor behind the garage. A variance is, sought planning code section 134 to legalize Building Construction on the third floor with construction in the required year yard without permit. The relocked unit no longer has access to the rear yard common space and did not face the minimum area. A variance is being sought from the planning Code Commission and exposure retirement section 140 and the Zoning Administrator will consider the variance request following the Planning Commissions consideration of the request for conditional use authorization. The department has not received any correspondence since the packet was published. The department supports the denial of the proposed project. The department does not find the project on balance or consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. The project was merged that would result in the relocation it no longer is code compliant and the unit unaffordable to a large percentage of the population. The merger is not necessary to create Family Housing. Although the project seeks to legalize the residential flat the unit is substandard and requires variances from both the open space and exposure requirement its outside of ceqa general rule exclusion. This concludes my presentation. Im available for questions. Thank you. Project sponsor . Can you hear me . Project sponsor ill advise you when your slides are up. Please understand there is a delay even if you are streaming so just present your slides and direct to go to the next slide. Youre slides are now up you have five minutes. Thank you. My understanding from the agenda is we have 10 minutes. Im not sure where you got that understanding but you have five and your time is running. This is page 10 of the agenda but ill go ahead and start. Good afternoon, commissioners im an attorney. Were here for a unit reconfiguration completed in 2006 to install a disabilityrelated elevator for a retired San Francisco firefighter seriously injured in the line of duty. It was in zoned with permits and the certificate of final completion issued more than a decade ago. We maintain its already legal and the cfc has the final word but we file the application in the spirit of compromise to refigure it under section 313 and for exposure variances and rear yard. We know staff had concerns so today we have a new proposal. Work to reconfigure the structure would be prohibitive to we propose this. Grand the applications on a condition a notice of special restrictions be noted on title requiring when he or his children sell the property access to the rear yard must be created and a rear spiral staircase would be removed. In the meantime he would agree not to rerent the current unit when the current tenants leave and this would allow him to keep his americans with disabilities act elevator and avoid displacing tenants with a major excavation to create rear yard access. This compromise the units exposure and it would not be rerented until the work is done. That leaves the rear yard variance for a corner not visible. The downstair units can lose their unit entirely or be more expensive and i have the tenants letter and ill turn it over to explain how we got here. Good afternoon, president koppel and members of the Planning Commission. I was born and raised in for instance. Son of immigrant parents who rented their entire lives. Went to neighborhood schools only living in two locations my entire life, 21st San Francisco and hill street, San Francisco. My attorney has given me three questions for me to answer. One, why did we reconfigure the hill Street Property and after the death of my wifes parents, my wife and a wanted to live out the remainder of our lives on hill street. Nancy knew no other home and was raised upstairs and we spent the entire marriage raising our children in the lower front. Nancy wanted to occupy the upper flat but i had a problem. The single flight of stairs at the front stoop and the interior a total of 36 stairs. We could put in an elevator it would be acceptable considering my disability. We consulted with an architect and envisioned an elevator connecting the three floors thinking that would be appropriate because hill street during our life times has been completely occupied by family. We were advised that was impossible and the elevator could only go to the ground floor unless reconfigure and we schmidt submitted plans and approved and no mention was made of the egress to the garden. 27 months and 16 approved permits later the construction was completed and the certificate of completion and occupancy was issued. For the first time we offered one of units to the public. We did everything the city requested. Any changes the inspector requested we completed with efficiency and the property rented for 13 years. Afterno afternoon after nancy decide the home was too big so i put it on the market. The realtor advised in order to facilitate the sale the rental ought to be vacant. I spoke with the tenant and she just lost her roommate was unsure whether she would seek another i offered her an incentive. She was very thankful and accepted. We didnt sell and took it off the market deciding to live in my family home. [bell ringing] and we moved and put it on the market. It was greed to be sold but the violation appeared and of course i had to tell the buyer the property was not for sale. I thank very much. Thank you, mr. Roddick. Youre time is up and did slightly exceed your time. For the benefit of m mr. Patterson, page 10 of the agenda it shows public sponsors will be granted up to 10 minutes but clearly states not to exceed. That option is left to the chair. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public its your punt to get into the queue by dialing to the 800 number and dial into the queue. Caller good afternoon, commissioners. Im the project architect for the home on hill street. Ive known bob roddick and his family over 30 years. Youre part of the project team and your opportunity to speak was under the project sponsors presentation time. Lets go to the next caller. If i may add we precleared that issue. Hes not associate with the project. Thank you, mr. Patterson. Caller good afternoon, commissioners. Im with the neighborhood council. Im calling to support the staffs decision and i would like to echo what ms. Capital ms. Campbell stated. This property was made of two flats and irresponsible to merge the two flats into a singlefamily homes have been a c contentious issue in San Francisco and its an opportunity to get the property back to two flats. Im sim pa pathetic sympathetic to mr. Roddick and his circumstances but whats baffling is why in the mcdona mcdonald middle of violations why would he rent to the tenant when there were so many violations issued recently . That just doesnt stand well. The Public Policy the flat preservation policy that came out years ago, i believe the department follows that very consistently. In fact, i will have to remind you some of the commissioners werent there but some were when there was a filing of gr against this project where they were getting rid of the flat because of this property and they were putting that unit in the back of the garage. This commissioner actually voted for the requesters, and forced the project sponsor reinstate the flat and keep the two flats of the two levels where they have been all along. I want to once again support the departments decisions. Support ms. Campbells call on this reinstate the two units and this is a very large property. I dont believe variance is appropriate [bell ringing] and have what is behind the garage declared as an a. D. U. Please dont approve the merger of the two units and let us have three units. Thank you. Caller hi. Im calling in to support the home owner. It seems hes done everything he should have done in converting his home and converting it now into a large usable space seems perfectly reasonable to me. Thank you. Commissioners, that will conclude the Public Comment portion of the item. The matter is now before you. Bury start calling commissioners i wanted to see if the project sponsor had a small amount to finish on his presentation. I didnt want to give him more time than anybody else but would like to give him the opportunity to finish. Thank you, president kop he will. This is ryan patterson. I appreciate that. I would direct the commissioner to slide 6, the certificate of final completion issued for the project for two units which have always been there and continue to remain a second unit. Then at the end, slide number 10, which Senior Inspector paul ortiz came out to the project two years ago to look at and found this wiring in the down stairs kitchen date stamped march 11, 2005. We know the unit reconfiguration was done and part of the cfc. Our compromise proposal preserves the tenants ability to remain in place until the time they decide to leave and preserves mr. Roddicks ability to have an ada elevator and live out the rest his days on his property with his family. Thank you for your time and im happy answer any questions. Commissioner moore. Looking at the project and the commission has taken on similar cases the owner indeed had intended to sell the building. I believe the building should be constructed to its original twounit configuration with the possible addition of the adu and the removal of rear stairs extensions. Thank you for the analysis. I support staffs position and move to disapprove. Commissioner johnson. I will second that and also add comments. Im sympathetic to mr. Roddicks position of being in a situation in which he wanted to sell and down size but i also want to be clear that this is not a reconfiguration. Its a merger. Theres not a cottage without access to a rear yard. So when approved was for an elevator not for changing the staircases. Not for removing the kitchen. I am aware we have People Living in an unauthorized substandard unit and thats not the same as a second unit on the property. I hear the idea of comprise to be put back so in some ways youre moving to recommend what we would suggest which is to abate the violation. As far as the tenants that are there im sensitive to this as a veteran myself. I saw the letter from the tenant, those living in a substandard unit saying it would be hard if they were displaced as a way to say the violation shunt be shouldnt be abated is inappropriate. I think the thing is given they are in a cottage unit without even access to the backyard and only access to the street the mitigation of those violations should not preclude them from being able to live there. Those are my comments. I absolutely am in full support of staffs recommendation and second commissioner moores comments. Commissioner diamond. Commissioner i have questions for the project sponsor and project sponsors attorney. Im trying to get my head around what the rules were in the early 2000s and not what the rules are now. Im trying to understand how you approach the rules that existed in the early 2000s when your client was undergoing the renovations. The staff amend the staff report to refer to a policy in place or adopted by the Planning Commission and resolution requiring mandatory discretionary review for the removal of the unit. So can you please address that and discuss why or why not you think that would have applied or wouldnt have applied to this project way back when would reference to 317 which didnt exist at the time . Absolutely. Thats a good question. Thank you, commissioner. This is ryan patterson. The mandatory dr policy applied ome at that time to the removal of the unit for complete merger with another unit. At that time as you state, section 317 did not exist and section 317, 25 size differential threshold did not exist. So since the unit reconfiguration in 2003 to twelve changed the sizes of the units but did not actually remove a unit, that policy did not apply. Commissioner okay. And staff also provided an nsr to what the bottom floor could and could not be used for. Could you address that, please . Of course. The nsr on the property from the time they were trying to prevent the creation of Additional Units and that nsr thought to prevent the creation of a third unit on the ground floor. Thats not what was done. This is relocated the second unit to the ground floor or shrinking the second unit or only the ground floor. It was not creating an additional unit which would have been prohibited and about its own terms that nsr expired and became nul and void if the planning code became less restrictive with regard to units in the direct which happened since the nsr was recorded. Even if it allied, it no longer applied at the time. And references to the building for which no permits were issues. Can you provide why that was done . Yes. The plan sheet a2. 2 show in the back rear corner a very small area as a second floor and on the next sheet the same small area on the third floor filled in as part of that project. Mr. Roddick believed all the permits had been obtained. We dont know why theres not a permit covering that area. Its unrelated to the units merger complaint but because the planners noted the difference in the review of the project, we agreed to add that into the application to try to rectify all the issues with the property. Theres also a protective decorative banister added for the solar panels at the top. Weve agreed to remove that as well. And the spiral staircase at the rear which goes up to the solar panels of the roof. We also agreed to remove that though mr. Roddick, given his health condition, cannot use a ladder and would prefer to leave that until hes no longer living there. I would say i find this to be an extremely frustrating case. Clearly whats been done would not be permitted under any circumstance clearly since the adoption of 317. Its hard to go back to the early 2000s and say what would have been done at the time. Especially in light of the potential ambiguity with the language and could be justified going the opposite direction. I guess i am a little intrigued by your compromise and solution and the record is a bit of a mess how we got to this point in time. Even if i were open to a compromise that would allow mr. Roddick to stay there until he sells, i would first want to know from staff if weve done anything like that before and what are the legal requirement allow us to adapt a condition that is personal opposed to a different condition and moreover i would not be comfortable if we went that far with the compromise that says when he sells it youll do the work to create access to the backyard. Id like to see it returned to the way it was originally to what it would have been before any of the work was done with the potential of perhaps changing the bottom floor into an adu. I want to put out to my fellow commissioners i have some conflict around this and really interested in hearing where all the commissioners stand on this. Thank you. Before i go further, if the staff could respond to the legality that allows for it to remain in place for the tenure of a person and when they sell it or pass away then would be the trigger for returning it the way it was beforehand. Commissioner diamond, this is cory teague. We may want to defer to the City Attorney on that issue. We know theres been some older cases where similar types of provisions were included. I cant think of that happening very often in more modern times. I would refer to the City Attorney to make comments about the legality of a potential decision. This is the City Attorneys office. I have two concerns about a condition like that. One is the idea that the condition is personal as to the user opposed to about the property generally. I think the second wern concern is a practicality in being able to track if and when this condition gets triggered. Maybe staff can address that practical nature. One issue that comes to mind in the past when there have been merger of units for a particular family, the commission has not wanted the merger to be permanent. So theres been conditions if the merged unit has not continued to be needed or used by a family that it be returned to its original designation as two units. I dont know if staff tracked enforcing that condition but it really was based more on the commissions concern that a merger was just to help a family have a family unit and not the second unit be lost permanently. Its a condition very much based on the use concern about not losing the second unit permanently but trying to accommodate the need of the particular applicant before the commission. I hope thats helpful. I wanted to bring up because there was a case when i was on the commission a kovend condominium on russian hill and we grappled with it and it went back to the City Attorney and we allowed the units to be i think two at the time, to be used as one but upon sale it had to be returned. In north beach we left the kitchen in both units with the ability for temporary use the units to be connected but the occupants agreed to ultimately restore the separation of the units because we didnt allow kitchen removal. And i think director hillis, this is the scenario where were talking about where the commission tries not to leave the second unit permanently. Most of those case to that point tend to be more about connection than reconfiguration of the interior of the buildings where that be a common doorway or adding an internal stairway to allow the connection of the units which is a similar different circumstance. Its easy to close off a shared doorway or stair to reconfiguring the interior of a building. Thank you. Commissioner fung. The document rather than the oral presentation of what was done previously [indiscernible] and it appears the document that were provided with that previous permit doesnt reflect the changes of building. What we are faced with is if this was something proposed versus accomplished or implemented, then it raise the following questions, new flats in the area are not likely to be affordable. If thats the case and were looking to expand the number of potentially affordable units then in some cases its likely theyll be smaller units. There have to be the same size as the previous i dont accept that. I find conditional use to be acceptable but with the two conditions the project sponsor has brought forth for a future time but i would have needed to be as part of the current times. That is the access to the rear yard of that lower unit has to be done as part of the prophylof approval of initial use and the removal of the [indiscernible] of the year yard from the setback line needs to be reduced. Im done. Commissioner i wanted to make a few points to help provide additional context here. There are challenges here because were dealing with work that occurred some time ago and in record however, the project sponsor is making the case if they take away the permits and the 2003 permits approved to add the elevator was approved and the elevator would be able to stay no matter what decision the commission makes today. We have to address the fact theres a significant amount of work that was beyond what was approved. And with the addition of the stair and deck in the rear as well as the removal of a kitchen and adding a kitchen on the ground floor and reconfiguring the playout the project sponsor pllayout and the project sponsor showed what was on the plans. Whats not clear is when they decided to go beyond that and if there was a clear intent to do that internal reconfiguration why wasnt it shown on the 2003 plans . For us theres no plans proposed let alone issued that propose this type of internal reconfiguration. At that time the project sproerns sponsor is correct we did provide the merger of dwelling units but didnt have the current definition we have now thats codified. However, doing that internal investigation in 2003 would have still required all the variances it requires today and while we cant speculate on whether or not the variance would have been approved, generally speaking, when we have a proposal to make one dwelling unit significantly substandard primarily for the purpose of i mproving or expanding another unit thats going to be a challenging variance to grant we cant speak to who knew what about the plans that were issued and proposed and the true scope of work that but we know planning did not sign off on any of those which is partially why were here today. We have finding and more clarification on the development. I think commissioner johnson said it well the project sponsor says its reconfiguration but looks to be a merger. In that case i support the staff findings. Commissioner moore. You are muted. Thank you. I want to thank you for the thorough explanation. And for the presentation by the attorney and the applicant however, the reality of what we know and what we need to rely on is not substantiated and i stand by my original motion and do not support the project. Thank you for breaking down the reason for my recommendation and i second commissioner moore. Commissioners, if there are no further comments, or deliberation i have a question. Theres a motion seconded to disapprove the project on that motion, commissioner chan. Aye. Commissioner diamond. No. Commissioner fung. No. Commissioner imperial. Aye. Commissioner johnson. Aye. Commissioner moore. And Commission President koppel. Aye. It passes 43 with diamond, fung and koppel against. Ill close the hearing for the variance and intend to deny the variance for open space and exposure and the variance for rear yard under advisement. Very good commissioners. That will conclude your hearing today and i will make a friendly reminder that were adjourning in the honor and eternal memory of former Commission President juan miguel. Clerk the meeting will come to order. I am hillary ronen, chair of the committee. With me on the committee is rules Committee Vice chair kathrin stefani, and rules Committee Member gordon an mar. Our clerk is victor young, and id like to thank sfgov for staffing this meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any