Transcripts For SFGTV SF Planning Commission 20210313

agenda. public can speak by calling 1-415-655-0001, and entering access code 1870756218. later today when we reach item 10 i will provide additional instructions to accommodate a request for translation services. when we reach the item you are interested in, please press star then 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when the allotted time is up, i'll take the next person queue to speak. call from a quiet location, clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your television or computer. i would like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> thank you, commissioners. first on the agenda, consideration of items proposed for continuance, item 1, 450 through 474 o'farrell street and 532 jones street, to april 1st, and item 2, powell street, for undefinite continuance. those are all the matters i have proposed for continuance, so open up public comment. members of the public, your opportunity to speak to the items proposed for continuance. you will have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am speaking in support of continuing o'farrell street and jones, and in addition to that, i ask since it's a priority in san francisco to have permanent housing that you request a hearing on what, how group housing differs from residential units in terms of code and everything. i can't find group housing listed in the housing inventory. and i suspect it's in the administrative code. we need permanent housing, so, thank you. >> ok. members of the public, last call for public comment on the items proposed for continuance. seeing no additional request to speak, public comment is closed and the matters are now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> commissioner imperial: move to continue items. >> second. >> the motion to continue items as proposed. [roll call vote taken] so moved, commissioners. passes unanimously 7-0. placing us under your consent calendar. all matters listed here constitute the consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the public asks for request, it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered at a separate item this or the hearing. item 3, 3741 buchanan street, conditional use authorization, and items 4a and b, your consent matter is the discretionary review, and the zoning administrator. those are the two matters on consent, we should take public comment. members of the public, your opportunity to request that either of these two items be pulled off consent, and considered at a later time today or a future hearing. seeing no request to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. >> commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: move to approve items 3 and 4a. >> second. >> on the motion to approve, both items on consent. [roll call vote taken] >> zoning administrator would say -->> item 4b, for 4822 19th street approved with the standard conditions. >> place us under consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 25, 2021. members of the public this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star then three to be entered into the queue. no request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed, and the minutes are now before you. >> move to approve the minutes. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on the motion to adopt the minutes for february 25th. commissioner tanner. [roll call vote taken] >> passes unanimously 7-0. item 6, comments and questions. >> commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. just want to make a comment and question to director hillis, you know, we are slowly reopening things and i know it will be a while before we have any sense of immunity or how vaccines and variants are going, but i do look forward, at the planning commission meeting in person. but i also think for many of us there is no going back to the way things are, the genie is out of the bottle, we can do things remotely, and even if people are not engaged physically, i hope we are able to take some of the good we have learned in terms of public engagement and remote meetings or remote engagement beyond just email that members of the public can send in. i wonder if you have a sense of timeline. i know the city has a lot to worry about besides getting back to chamber meetings. maybe it's way in the future, your best guess if you want to hazard one and any conversations that staff or others have been having about how to keep the good that we have gained from doing things remotely. >> great question, and we are all starting to think and plan for that time when, and hopefully sooner rather than later when we can reoccupy the offices and have commission meetings in-person. so on the department level, we have formed a working group to really look at how our policies about remote work should and will change and so with we'll have to stop what we'll be changing our policies how staff can work remotely and when it's appropriate and when it may not be. and the bigger question, you know, similar question about commissions in public meetings, you know, we are going to have to work with the city administrators office and the mayor's office to figure that out on a city-wide level and you may want to chime in also, but probably we'll take more of a lead from the board of supervisors, but i think we'll be at the table in those discussions, too, as a department, that has obviously robust public meetings every week. >> yeah. >> no details yet. >> that's fine. yeah, i'll only add i requested the conversation to begin with the commission secretary's group, but it will be likely that we'll be taking the board of supervisors lead on how they continue to proceed when they resume hearings in their chambers. >> thank you so much, appreciate that. >> thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: i wanted to suggest that when times allowed, perhaps commissioners could get a tour of the new office building. we saw it under construction but finished now is very different from when we saw it. and as you are considering potentially coming back to city hall, obviously supervisor's chamber is far more spacious than what we have in the planning commission because we sit in a u, not allowing us any social distancing other than keeping our elbows from knocking into each other. considerations when we use oat rooms and give us the ability to meet, even meeting, where there is plenty of room for the public to interact with us. thank you. >> thanks. >> if there are no further comments from commissioners, we can move on to department matters. announcements. >> good afternoon. one item i wanted to mention today, as you know the department is working on major updates to the city's general plan, include the updates to the housing element, transportation element, safety and resilience element in incorporating environmental justice policy into the general plan, and these are ongoing and there's public engagement processes related to each of those. so, we do have over the course of the next two weeks i wanted to update you and the general public about some outreach activities that we have starting march 15 and going through the next two weeks. it's a series of virtual events and you can find details on our website at sfplanning.org that are open to anyone who lives, works and spends time in san francisco. so we'll have kind of broader topics on what the general plan does and then get into details and have specific sections on those various elements as well as on youth engagement and the racial and social equity action plan, recovery plans as well, so a series of events over the next two weeks. i encourage you all to take a look at it, too, and where you would like to -- so again, information on our website at sfplanning.org. thanks. >> thank you, director. if there are no questions, item 8, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> manager of legislative affairs, the land use committee considered the legislative amendments on howard street, also known as parcel f. includes construction of a new 61-story mixed use building, including 165 dwelling units, hotel, office space and retail space. and will construct a pedestrian bridge. you heard this originally and approved it on january 9, 2020. however, due to a change in affordable housing delivery from off site, the project required partial reen titlement. this project was heard at lapped use on february 22nd, and work continued. focus on the public benefits. some comments against the project were aimed at the missed opportunity to maintain the street as a car free public right-of-way. supervisor peskin had the same issues with the last hearing, the shadow allowances and the park. and he questioned the sponsor if they secure a bank guarantee instead of a letter of credit to safeguard funds for affordable housing in the event of unforeseen circumstances to impact overall project delivery and the ability to pay the affordable housing fee. he questioned the timing of affordable housing fee payments in the development agreement, and supervisor peskin to guarantee the payment of the affordable housing fee. in the end, 3-0 to send the item to the whole board without recommendation. heard at the full board on march 16. at the full board this week, 118-134 kissling street the first read, resolution urging departments to create a permanent shared spaces program, sponsored by supervisor haney was adopted and the landmark initiation for 19th avenue, known as the clubhouse, was adopted. that's all i have for you today. >> thank you, mr. star. just for clarity, historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. commissioners, if there are no questions we can move on to your regular calendar. for item 9 -- apologize, we are on general public comment. members of the public, your opportunity to comment on matters that are not on today's agenda by pressing star, then three. general public comment. there we go. you have two minutes. >> hi, it's georgia chuteish. d.r.a. o 528 shows the good intentions of the planning commission at 1647 sanchez, and to try to protect the light, air and privacy of the neighbor to the north to try to achieve what the commission called unit equity. an existing separation along the north property line that should have been preserved, filled in by the mega project. the commission was thwarted in doing more because of the demolition calculations. if the numerical values had been adjusted even one time since section 317 was approved in 2008, this would have been a different project. unlike the many projects that use it to avoid the c.u.a., it should have been a demolition. it was dilapidated and no structural integrity worthy of preserving. instead, the project sponsors were able to create a very large single-family home which they said they needed for their family, but was quickly sold after the c.f.c. was issued for $9.1 million and was never occupied by their family. directly asked by the commission at the may 18, 2018 hearing, why not knock it down, architect replied the family wanted to avoid a c.u. so they could create a single-family home for themselves on sanchez street and rent the much smaller day street unit. commission debated eliminating the fourth floor, a large master bedroom but they did not do it, you didn't do it. sorry, different commission. given the massiveness of the project, renderings flatten the structure making it appear much more squat than it turned out. the fourth floor should have been eliminated and the whole project moved completely off the north property line. beyond the massive design, the mass effect this property has been unoccupied since the sale in july 2020. the project sponsors never occupied the project contrary to their statements at the hearing and is now owned and unoccupied by an l.l.c. also at the hearing, the commission discussed approving it as an alteration would keep two rent control units. it's a monster home, anomaly. took advantage of the loophole that should have been torn down -- i have one more thing to say, you said three minutes. >> i said two minutes. >> you are not doing three minutes anymore, for general public comment? oh, that's too bad. oh well, maybe after covid is over, back to three minutes. take care, bye. >> commissioners, in may 2017 several people and i testified in front of the planning commission regarding the 1647 sanchez bay street project, two dwellings on one parcel. asked the commission not to allow for the fourth floor for the sanchez street. the property was purchased by a husband and wife, the wife and their architect told the commissioners the family planned to move into the home at 1647 sanchez and rent 290 day street after it was built. her husband was the contractor. it's doubtful it was ever intended to be their new family home. they never moved into the building, and 290 day has never been rented. one of the commissioners during the hearing said this house should have been in pacific heights not where it was, noting the size of the project. one of the commissioners noted the commission just wrote the husband and wife a $7 million check on the 5,615 square foot property. in july 2020, sold off market for $9.1 million. it was never advertised. to date, no one has moved into either place. my concerns are how this property was characterized as remodel rather than a demolition, and how this can be avoided in the future, and in my email to the commissioner attached before and after pictures. two, how the commission can avoid the approval of multi-million dollar homes grossly disproportionate to the neighboring homes, and three, given the concerns over the lack of housing in san francisco, how the commission can avoid approving plans in the future based on the assurances the owner plans to move into the property and rent out the other units, when that's not the intention. the city now has the 5,615 square foot building comprised of two homes, unoccupied since it was purchased in july of 2020. i offer this as a cautionary tale, this is happening all over the city. the commission approved the massive multi-million dollar homes which are used as investment property and not occupied. in addition, the way the commission determines whether a property is a remodel or a demolition should be changed. thank you. >> that is your time. >> members of the public, last call for general public comment. you need to press star then three to be entered into the queue. you have two minutes. >> go ahead, caller. >> oh, i'm sorry. so, i'm not sure if i'm supposed to speak on this now, this is regarding 1271 46th avenue, you called 2020-005251cua. >> right. that is on today's agenda, and so we'll be taking up that matter shortly. >> ok. >> i will be asking for you to press star then three again to submit your comment on that matter later this afternoon. last call, members of the public. general public comment for items not on today's agenda. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar. item 9, 2021-001805crv, amendments to the t.d.m. program standards. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. could i please be -- share presentation. >> you may catch -- >> great, thank you. one moment. >> slides are up. >> ok, great. thank you. >> so, good afternoon, president, commissioners, planning department staff. item before you is a resolution to adopt substantive amendments to the transportation management or t.d.m. program standards. begin with an overview of the program and current statistics. and then describe the proposed amendments in more detail. the t.d.m. program became effective almost four years ago in march 2017, adopted with the express purpose of shifting people's travel behavior away from single occupancy vehicles in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled or v.m.t. third prong of the city's transportation sustainability program, collectively worked together to improve and expand on san francisco's system to accommodate new growth. in addition to the shift component, the t.d.m. program, the other two components were invest, transportation sustainability fee, and align which changed how the city analyzes development, moving from a level of service analysis to b.m.t. design of the t.d.m. is the triggering requirements for the program in the planning code. however, detailed rules for how the program operates, the program's point-based framework, and which measures projects may select for the target. these rules reside in the t.d.m. program standards document and the structure is very purposeful. we knew such a new program would need to be adjusted as it matured and more projects implemented the t.d.m. plan. i allows to be nimble and efforted and specific implementation challenge. and it provides both certainty to the project, certainty based on clear calculation of point targets and understanding meeting the target, and flexibility based on the facts the project may select anycombination of measures to meet the point target, selecting the measures that work best for their particular project situations. standards were last amended by the commission in june 2018. and if today's amendments are passed, create the third version of the t.d.m. program standards. it's important to note that unlike most other planning code requirements, t.d.m. program allows to remain subject to the version of the standards in effect when the project filed its application. projects can voluntary use issues to use the most recent version of the standards, but these amendments would otherwise apply to projects submitting development applications after today's date. at the last t.d.m. hearing in 2018, it was noted that most of the earliest projects subject to the t.d.m. project were subject to a phase-in, only 50% or 75% of the target based on the filing date. for most projects, they were then able to meet their point target through t.d.m. measures also otherwise code requirement. today we are still working through some of these projects, particularly as many are now under construction. but we have a total of applications filed for projects, more than half to bring in the required t.d.m. target. the t.d.m. dashboard, and the format of the dashboard is currently thrown on this slide, recently updated in the fall of last year to include additional program data. the dashboard provides summary information about the number of t.d.m. cases and the files, and we see about half the overall number of cases are under review by the planning department, meaning the project has not had the entitlement hearing or not yet gone out to the neighborhood. we see a quarter of projects have had the documents finalized. dashboard is able to provide a quick snapshot of where the t.d.m. files have been filed in the city, and more detailed project of t.d.m. location is also available on the program website. the dashboard also provides information about the break down of t.d.m. cases by the program land use category, noting the mixed use project may have t.d.m. projects for multiple land use categories. and more subject to 100% of the point target requirement and additional measures beyond just baseline code requirements, we are excited to see which measures are most selected by projects. here we see that for the projects to date, most frequent measures the code required items, like bike parking, affordable housing, car share parking, and for the noncode requirement measure, way finding signage and other things. and the effectiveness of the t.d.m. measures, the primary objective of the t.d.m. program. lastly, in terms of growth and change for the t.d.m. program, justin cran, you met last week, hired about a year ago to help with t.d.m. program implementation, particularly now that we are seeing projects complete construction, we move into the occupancy and ongoing monitoring and reporting phases of the t.d.m. program. shifting gears now to the proposed amendments, as outlined in staff report, both substantive and nonsubstantive being proposed. differentiate between the two types of amendments, substantive like addition or subtraction of t.d.m. measures in whole or part. large scale changes to the point structure or significant changes to a property owner's obligation with respect to a specific t.d.m. measure. substantive amendments require approval by the planning commission. minor amendments may be approved by the planning director. as is the case last time substantive amendments were brought to the commission, minor amendments are presented in staff report, draft resolution in order to inform fully. minor amendments are generally items to clarify or correct text in the t.d.m. program standards or individual. now focus quickly only on the proposed substantive amendments. regarding how the t.d.m. applies to lower density residential project. any project with ten or more group housing units or rooms triggers the planning code itself. the department believes certain low density projects should be subject to a limited t.d.m. plan. specifically some projects where the project in total is proposing more than ten units and therefore subject to the program. however, these units are proposed as single-family or duplex buildings to operate as separate structures and individual parking garages. never intended to address this type of development and the measures are designed to operate and be effective when there are common facilities, like parking garages and lobbies. so within this project, it's very common for individual units to have their own dedicated parking and very frequently no common area that would be shared by residents. likelihood to have dedicated parking for the units, as well as the lack of common facilities presents two issues with the t.d.m. first, it's not clear how t.d.m. measures should be implemented. for example, thinking about some of the informational measures like way finding signage, and common areas to locate it or realtime transit display. secondly, because in this context, many units will have dedicated parking available, it's likely any t.d.m. measures that could be shoe horned into the project -- staff conducted -- only measures that make sense are bicycle parking and transportation information packet. those two measures formed the basis of the t.d.m. plan would require projects with bicycle parking at a slightly higher amount, and welcome packets informing them of the sustainable transportation facility in the vicinity. next, there are two substantive apartments for nonresidential. the unbundled parking measure be removed as available measure for nonresidential projects. while this measure could work for some projects in categories, frequent implementation and efficacy challenges to make it more difficult to include as a potential measure for all projects in the land use categories. and worth noting section 167 requires unbundled parking in the residential context only, where it can clearly be separated from the purchase or cost of the unit. the second change being proposed related to nonresidential parking, this measure specify a nonresidential garage cannot offer a parking pass or rate beyond a single day. in other words, the project's accessory garage could not offer a monthly or yearly parking pass. the intention beyond that measure to have travelers coming to the development, consider the cost of parking each day. through implementation, however, there was concern this measure does not set any minimum price for those daily or hourly rates. and if the hourly or daily parking rate was set extremely low, the user would be less likely to consider that cost to park, reducing the overall effectiveness of the measure. and so the proposed amendment would therefore set a new minimum price floor for the proposed garage hourly and daily rates, pegged to the hourly and daily rates of garages and lots in the vicinity of the project. this should allow the new garages to be comparable to other garages in the vicinity and a higher or hourly daily rate, help ensure some minimum costs so that users do take the cost into consideration whether considering whether to drive to a site or not. and briefly on the other three amendments, one provide a formal clarification how the program should apply to the development projects constructed in multiple phases. this clarification ensures that the t.d.m. program will operate like other code requirements, and will ensure that minimum code requirements are being met at each phase of the project, in addition to compliance at the final full build-out of the project. and this way, if a later phase is delayed or never realized, we can still ensure the project is meeting the minimum t.d.m. requirements for what is built on the site. second, there is an amendment to the way finding signage measure to provide more specific language and contents of the way finding signage. the areas in the project where the signage should be provided, along with minimum standards and expectations around the frequency such information is updated, transportation options and the vicinity change over time. and then the last substantive amendment pertains to the bike parking measure. in short, an unintended misalignment in the measure, where a larger residential project may be required to provide fewer spaces than a project that selected the same t.d.m. measure. so provide a consistent scaling up of the bike spaces to the code requirement in option a, up to two spaces per dwelling unit in the highest point option d, provides the largest number of points. the amendment also provides clarity around bike parking requirements for group housing and student housing requirements, and provides additional flexibility for projects that may not be able to install the full number of class 2 bicycle parking. so i will not go into detail about the proposed nonsubstantive amendments except to note quickly because of the removal of the unbundled parking measure from the t.d.m. menu for nonresidential projects, the base point target for land use category d, includes office, hotel, hospital and post second area educational uses, among others, reduced from 13 points to a new baseline target of 12 points. the proposed amendments have been reviewed extensively by staff, both at the planning department and the partner agencies and the county transportation authority, the regular interagency working group meeting and as such, we ask the commission approve it today. the t.d.m. tool to calculate the point total and formulate the plan can be found in the following web pages and the link at the staff report and that includes staff presentation but we are available about any of the questions you have for the proposed amendments, substantive or non. >> thank you. thank you, mr. parry. members of the public, your opportunity to submit public comment by pressing three and then added to the queue. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners, cory smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. i've been following t.d.m. since the creation in san francisco and love the fact that we are continuing to evolve the program and i think making it better. two points to make, number one, this really does seem to be emphasizing flexibility, especially in residential projects, given the economic challenges right now that is incredibly important, so just continue to stress finding different ways for projects to fulfill these requirements and fulfill the things that the city wants is fantastic. and the second piece is honestly a bit challenging where we are in the middle of significant changes in terms of how the cities are planned as it relates to covid, and so keeping in mind just because things are trends today does not necessarily mean they are going to be trends a year from now is important, and that ought to count on, this is something we are going to continue to revisit and tweak in order to improve. so thank you much for staff. >> thank you. >> sorry, last call for public comment on this matter. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> thank you, mr. parry. great job. clearly explaining some complicated topics in support today and will be in favor of adoption. commissioner moore. >> admire the program, magnificently done and appreciate how you are learning from experience. one question i have is the following. with approval prior to 2017, somebody abandoned projects, sell the project or the project is in half construction, once the project is being resumed, does the project have to return to negotiate t.d.m. >> commissioner moore, that's an excellent question. i believe we would look at that as on the basis of whether the project submittal itself would need a new project application and environmental analysis. rely on the environmental analysis, we would use that grandfather date but if it was considered a new project, they would be subject to the full t.d.m. program standards. >> it would be interesting to see how it plays itself out in the next year. it looks as if several people are renegotiating or selling the projects which you have a new project, so we'll see how you approach it when we get there. thank you so much. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. thank staff for a great report, for such a great ground breaking program, really, really important. ask one question, the low density project, i think it's appropriate for low density ten units or fewer to not be subject to the same standards. how that design type and scale are before the commission or proposed? >> sure. i don't have an exact number, but relatively infrequent. i believe there is one on your agenda later today, however, in the totality of the program, i think it has been fewer than five. >> thank you very much. i think that just shows that having some exceptions will still keep our t.d.m. program overall, moving the direction, and part of the program design is to be flexible, but allow people to meet our expectations and i think that amendment does that. i also want to say as the commission has probably noted in my few short meetings, i am a big fan of bike parking, i think interesting the opportunity to have it be a carrot for folks to choose more bike parking is awesome. perhaps as we continue in the future it may be a code standard we want to amend. as more people have the biking space inside the unit. and not just amenity, but other modes of transportation is essential to supporting that. i don't want to move in that direction just yet, i want to see how things go as more are 100% of the t.d.m. ordinance ance what folks are choosing. are they choosing for more, i'm supportive of the project and the amendment. thank you. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you. just like with other, what other commissioners have echoed, i'm generally supportive of the amendment to the t.d.m. and applaud as well in terms of the number one substantive amendment in terms of bicycle parking and the transportation info packet, and adding bicycle parking as an option or requirement, rather, for group housing or student housing. i do have one question in terms of the unbundled parking for nonpresidential uses. can you give me an example or potential loopholes that property owners have done and what are the challenges? i'm trying to get the bigger picture when it comes to the unbundled parking. >> sure. and so i think, you know, one example of this, you know, was not working was if a single tenant office building being constructed with parking, it's very hard to separate that parking out from the rest of the building and that single office tenant's use of the office space. when they are constructing that project, the parking is, you know, essentially part of the project. there's not real -- not a real good way to separate those parking costs from the lease of the office space itself. >> and if i could jump in on that as well and elaborate, you know, we require unbundled parking in residential projects with ten or more parking spaces and the intent is to impact the decisions of individuals and how they make their transportation decisions, and so if you are buying or renting a dwelling unit and you have to consider the parking cost as a separate cost, it's going to have an impact on you travelling to or from the space or the building. when you start to scale that up to a company or a tenant leasing chunks of parking space or as the example mr. perry stated where a single tenant, you know, nonresidential building, those decisions are not made or offered to the individual employee. it's really being made at a higher level and so it's not really going to have the impact on the individuals who are making the trip choices each day. so, it's -- it's just effectively not a really good fit for implementation or even just, know, meeting the minimum efficacy of the program. >> and i would assume it would increase the cost of the lease because it's part of the -- thank you very much, those are my -- that's just my own question. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> vice-president moore: which can comment in support of what commissioner tanner said. up tick in electrical bicycles, typically do not fall under act by classical use, demand group for bicycle parking in all types of residential buildings so the increase and number is very well targeted, together with observing how that -- how this will pan itself out after covid is done. thank you. >> thank you for the support and and behind the measures to make sure it's backed by robust evidence and so forth, and am supportive of the amendments before us. i have a general question about the program, so that given that the goal of the program is the miles traveled, i was curious of the t.d.m. programs in place. are we somehow tracking or quantifying the vehicle miles traveled or diverted greenhouse gas emissions mitigated as a result of the plans? >> i'll jump in to answer that quickly. short answer is not yet but we will. we -- when we develop this program, we were taking a very long view because we new it takes, it's going to take years for projects to go through the program to be constructed, occupied, and then to actually kind of make use of the measures over time. but we set aside at the very beginning a certain amount of the application fee goes directly towards research so as more projects come online we can start to do some of the primary research ourselves to determine based on the projects in the city that have implemented their plans, kind of which measures are being selected and how effective they may or may not be, so the short answer is not yet, but that's definitely part of the program plan long-term and once we get that primary research and data we would be able to adjust accordingly. if we find some measures are more effective than we imagine, we can increase the point totals for those, and vice versa, not as effective, we can reduce those values. >> yeah, i think i would love to see that type of analysis, figure out where we can maximize the measures, and even have a total number at the end of the day, and the overall impact of the t.d.m. project, overall -- thank you. >> commissioner. >> i had indicated i wanted to speak before commissioner moore raised her points about e bikes, i wanted the same issue and expand on it a little bit. as e bikes become increasingly popular as a way for larger segments of the population to navigate around the city using bikes, wants to make sure we are thinking about the requirements for bike parking spaces for e bikes. they are significantly heavier than regular bikes, vertical parking is not even at all a possibility. they also require outlets, and inquire whether or not we are thinking about the differences between e bikes and bikes and thinking about how many bikes, parking spaces are required, where they are located and which additional requirements are involved in e-bike parking spaces. >> great. yes, thank you commissioner. and just briefly, there is a bulletin on our website, number 9, extensive standards and guidelines with respect to you, bicycle parking design layout, access, i think the point about charging for e bikes, i'm not sure that is in there, so that's an interesting point and something we will take into consideration. so the point about vertical spaces, we do already have limitations that, you know, the number for your required bicycle parking only up to one-third of the spaces may be vertically-oriented spaces. there are -- there is also a requirement in the t.d.m. measure for bike parking that if you are doing bicycle parking spaces beyond just the code required amount, a certain percentage of those have to be set aside for larger bicycles, cargo bicycles, e-bikes, tend to be a little larger, we can certainly revisit that as well. >> i want to thank you for a clear presentation and indicate my support for the amendments. move to approve. >> second. zoning administrator, did you have more? >> i wanted to take this opportunity just to say thank you to the commissioners for their kind words about the program. we are really proud of this program. it was really an entire city effort when it was developed and it still is a great model for interagency coordination. that's still ongoing today, as andrew mentioned, you know, we were able to hire additional staff last year and justin cran as the numbers and the program started to increase and we had budgeted that in years prior, we knew that was going to happen, and then you may recall some commissioners in 2018 came before you, audrey harris with the staff person working with us on this program, and unfortunately, left us for open d.a.t., greener pastures over there, we were happy mr. perry helped us implement this program, so say thank you to both of them for their hard work and thank you to the commissioners. >> commissioner moore. when it comes to electrical bicycle storage, there is a new discussion on safety because they have lithium batteries, may be in short supply or special other provisions relative to where their group was in a parking garage. that's all. >> ok. if that concludes commissioner deliberation, a motion has been seconded to adopt the proposed amendments on that motion. commissioner tanner. [roll call vote taken] >> so moved, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 7-0. >> hear from commissioner diamond really quickly. >> let me call the item to the record and then commissioner diamond you can make your disclosure. >> thank you. >> commissioners, place us on items 10a and b, 2018-016721cua, 0 guttenberg street, zoning administrator will consider a request for variance. commissioner diamond. >> yes. it appears from the record that brett gladstone is the attorney for this project and i indicated on another matter a couple weeks ago, he is an attorney at a law firm for which i have retained the services of, personally for a different lawyer at that firm. i do not believe my relationship with that firm would at all impact my ability to be neutral and impartial on deliberations on this project and the work for which i have retained the other attorney has absolutely nothing to do with this project. >> thank you, commissioner diamond. commissioners, and members of the public, we will attempt to embark into new remote hearing territory for this next item. your patience is requested in advance. we received a request to translate the hearing and provide translation services in four different languages for this item. we have arranged to have members of the public listen to the proceedings in their preferred language by creating four separate microsoft teams meeting rooms to join through their browser, for their phone. spanish speakers, you can call 906-4619, and conference i.d.758274061, and press pound. to stream that audio and this hearing, you can use the url of bitly planning 311 spanish. for mandarin speakers, please call 415-906-4659, i.d. number 365888463 pound. if you have internet access, bitly url, planning 311 mandarin. cantonese, enter conference 216806548 pound. to stream again, bitly url planning 0311, cantonese. filipino speakers, 415-906-4659, conference i.d. number 549824011 pound. bitly url planning 0311 filipino. this should be being shared on your screen. furthermore, sfgov-tv will scrolling the numbers and the url at the bottom of the broadcast screen for the duration of the item as soon as the interpreters translate the same direction. for the benefit -- >> just one moment, please. >> for the benefit of the interpreters, i request we all speak slowly and clearly to allow them the opportunity to translate in realtime. >> i will now request that each interpreter translate these directions. interpreters, are you with us? you should be able to unmute. [speaking alternate language] [speaking alternate language] [speaking alternate language] >> thank you to our spanish interpreters. i think for the remaining interpreters, you probably only need to translate the phone number and conference i.d. for the language you'll be translating in. thank you. [speaking mandarin] >> i'm sorry, mandarin interpreter, there's a little bit more towards the end. >> interpreter: sorry. you mean the members of the public wish to submit a comment card? >> yes. [speaking mandarin] [speaking alternate language] [speaking alternate language] [speaking alternate language] [speaking filipino] >> at this time if the translators can migrate to your respective interpretation rooms at ms teams and begin translating this hearing. staff, are you prepared to make your presentations? >> yes, i am. thank you to all the translators. good afternoon president and commissioners. the case before you is a request for a conditional use authorization for a planned development pursuant to planning sections 209.1, 303, and 304 for the construction of 15 residential buildings (four duplexes and 11 townhomes) with a total of 19 dwelling units, 29 off-street parking spaces, and 19 class 1 bibling parking spaces on an approximately 36,406 square foot lot located in the rh-1 district and 40-x district. the dwelling units will range in size from 1,041 to 1,689 square feet and contain two to three bedrooms. the dwelling units will be accessed via a driveway and pedestrian walkway from guttenberg street this lot is located on the west side of guttenberg street. pursuanting to the plan it is supposed to be 23 units and not more. the project will seek modifications from planning code section 134 per yard and section 140. the project is also seeking a variance from the landscaping pursuant to planning code section 132. the department reviewed the potential impacts and determined it to be exempt. in particular, potential impacts regarding, but not limited to geology and soil, natural habitat, traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality were reviewed. the project was reviewed by the san francisco fire department as indicated in a letter provided to us march 8, 2021. the project has developed over the course of the review in conversations with the neighborhood and neighborhood organizations. we have met with the neighborhood and neighborhood organizations throughout the live of the project. a number of modifications have been made to this project, including changes to the density, building height, and development consideration. additionally they have agreed to establish a homeownerers association. there have been two opposition to the project. the parties in opposition have concerns with parking and disruption to traffic and environmental. members of the public in support of the project want to develop this underdeveloped lot. in conclusion, the department recommends approval with conditions and believes this is necessary for the following reasons. this is on balance with the objectives of the plan and meets all requirements of the planning code. this will be a new lot [indiscernible] -- the project will provide 19 additional family-sized units to the neighborhood. the project will be compatible with the rh-1 zoning district and [indiscernible] this includes buses and i'm available for any questions. through the chair, the project sponsor will have six minutes and the organized opposition will follow his presentation with six minutes and then members of the public will receive one minute. mr. gladstone, let me find your phone number. mr. gladstone, i don't see your phone number and your name as entered doesn't allow me to unmute you. is there another phone number you have? mr. guerillaedstone, you can maybe shoot me an e-mail with the phone number you're logged in with municipal the number shown is not on the attendee list. the number provided to my team is 267-930-400. i'm guessing that might be your office line so it sends out in a different number. i don't see it and unfortunately your log inwith your name doesn't allow me to unmute you. while you provide me that information, i'm going to go to the organized opposition and let them make their presentation for six minutes. >> jonas, i think it is difficult to understand opposition when the project hasn't been presented. we can't understand what they are in opposition to if we don't know we don't know what the project is. >> i appreciate that. unfortunately, i don't have an option to unmute mr. gladstone. mr. gladstone, if you could press star 3 to enter the queue. try that and i will unmute those members of the public in the queue. would this be mr. gladstone? mr. gladstone, is this you? is this you? okay, mr. gladstone? >> can you hear me now? >> the number that you provided is not the number that shows up on my end. >> can you hear me now? >> we can. >> thank you very much. go ahead, mr. patell. >> good afternoon. [indiscernible] project sponsor. i purchased this property in 2017 and was aware that previous attempts of developing this property did not succeed. however, i felt that since the housing prices have increased over the years with better design and outreach, i could successfully develop the property. i would like to introduce my land user. >> greg gladstone. first, thanks to the environmental staff for their three years of work. first, all the individuals you're going to see are in my previous in the exhibit. the proposal to build four duplexes, four two-storey units build above a ground floor unit and 11 side by side, two-storey townhomes for a total of 19 dwellings. next visual. the dwellings will be more oriented towards middle-income buyers for three reasons. they will not have the common areas often luxurious of new residential buildings. despite most being three bedrooms, they will be between 1,000 and 1,600 square feet. third, the property values in this neighborhood have not accelerated in recent years as the rest of the city. this unusual project of 20 units coming before you because the property owner needs to provide brand new infrastructure so the costs are unusual. a few of non-onsite housing is being paid to the city's fund and loans and grants can use that to build four or five offsite units. what allows the configuration of homes around this street allows the p.u.d. that has a half ablinger or more. the code requires all homes be parallel to guttenberg and that can't be done. next visual, please. this layout is typical of this part of the city. if you look to the left you'll see our project and to the right are two mid-block streets called byron and midland. speaking of density, my client originally presented a project of 23 units, all of which had three storeys. most neighbors thought that to be too much height and density. as a result, the project was reduced by five units, two of the buildings reduced to two storeys. one kept the partial third but the height of it is reduced because we are executing at the rear into the ground. during the course of seven meetings with the neighborhood which is shown in exhibit f of my brief, we made changes -- other changes were required by neighbors and we made them of buildings widths of between 20 to 25 feet. there was a building average of 25 feet. we're very pleased that most of the neighbors after three years of changes no longer opposed the project. immediate neighbors were concerned about fire on the property and ask that my client obtain truck approval. the hammerhead truck design approved by fire shown here. in the lower right corner of this visual you'll see a stamp of approval from the fire department. how will this benefit the neighborhood? i can talk a little bit about that later. it is a reduction of fire risk from a dry field and reduction of strangers coming on to the property. this is a list of seven c.c.r.s and we'll have it reviewed by the attorney. this maintains the new area and doesn't create a problem for the neighborhood which is appropriately one of their concerns. i won't have time to talk about this but will later. there is opposition from a neighbor angelina lee. she attaches a sign-in sheet of 80 people at the first meeting. that is a sign-in sheet and we don't think it's an indication of opposition. we hope you will look at that and see that that sign-in shot is from 2018. after most of our reductions, most of the people on that sign-in list, as we met with many, are no longer opposed to our project. thank you very much. >> great, thank you. we will now hear from organized opposition. ms. lee. >> hi, can you hear me okay? >> we can hear you just fine. you have six minutes for three speakers. >> thank you, speakers. we received instructions regarding the three speakers and change in time. in opening statement we sent the letter on [indiscernible] that i'll be reading. the second point before i proceed, mr. gladstone's last comment regarding opposition, the number of opposition neighbors has not change, that's not confirmed. we would like to see where that number came from. the use of this [indiscernible] -- variants request can be evaluated with the approvaling authority for the health, safety, or convenience or general welfare of those residing in the city. there is a claim that these requirements would be a hardship. an inability to comply with this code would indicate this is not suited for this. this is undeveloped for a number of reasons. a bad decision by an unknowing investor should not be a problem. the developer hardship is more about the financial than the physical constraints of the site. a redesigned smaller project may meet code. some aligned with the city journalist plan would not be a sufficient reason to justify neighbors. beyond size, the project as proposed as unmitigated risks. the project application description states that a driveway sideway tile of 30 feet has been proposed where only 29 feet is available. at the time the fire department had only asked for a minimum of 20-foot wide roadway. a developer has worked with other agency cities in an attempt to secure a publication, but failed. a private street [indiscernible] unsupervised parking -- >> ms. lee, i'm sorry to interrupt. i have paused your time for a moment. you're speaking a little fast for the interpreters. >> well, we only have a certain amount of time. we have this in written form that's been written. >> i understand. but they're having a tough time keeping up with you. >> a similar development at another location has such results that should be avoided. an overload of street capacity would create safety issues for the neighborhood. erroneous or incomplete application information plagues this project. approval of c.u.a. must be based on complete and accurate information which indicates the commitment of the developer to follow through on the commitment made to residents over the past years. the project application saying that three stories could be consistent to the surrounding homes, where the surrounding homes are only two storeys. the estimated construction duration as n.a. is recorded by n.a. the noise and vibration would be conditions. an approval action from the commission at this time releasing the project from any cequ consideration would be highly immature. the soil excavation scope requires [indiscernible] -- without this, there would likely be results affecting the neighborhood property. this needs to be recharged by land escape and permeable surfaces. guttenberg street has evidence of sinkhole activity involving periodic maintain. there is a need to excavate the soil and use [indiscernible] all five contain moistures. a warning was included in the report for groundoir rainfall. building moving can be anticipated. what is not known is the proposed project to the neighboring home's foundation. further study and identification of mitigating measures must be a measure for any approval. we would expect as a group of concerned neighbors -- >> ms. lee, i have paused your time again. you were instructed you need three speakers and you only have 30 seconds left. >> we would consider this to be thorough and fair. [indiscernible] as well as identification of any omissions. our concerns over safety expressed here is not new as we have clearly voiced them over the years. >> we thank the city for the commitment to improve the quality of sooif of san franciscanslife of san franciscans. >> that's your time. you just got it in. we're now going to open public comment. for those members of the public who are now in the translation rooms, you'll need migrate over the webex platform by calling the number indicated. interpreters, i request that you do the same and join us in the webex platform and interpret their testimony. my understanding is we had zero members of the public in the mandarin room, zero members of the public in the filipino room, zero members of the public in the spanish room, but eight members of the must be in the cantonese room. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your queue to start speaking. >> [indiscernible] -- at this time. thank you. >> thank you, sir. that is your time. >> caller, are you prepared to submit your public comment? we'll take the next caller. >> i just want to say that this would be better suited instead of a community space, a garden, if you think about the construction and the influx of residents, it will cause a lot more problems than we have. we have a lot of residents in the neighborhood. i believe that increasing the residency in the neighborhood is going to have a major [indiscernible] -- >> there is a socio-economic impact to the people. these are mostly blue-collared families that live there. there is quite a bit to consider before the commissioners respectfully consider passing this project or approving this project. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am sara and i live in district 9. i'm excited about this project. i hope you will move it forward today. i, for one, would be interested in finding a home here. i know many are looking for homes here, and those impacted by fire, et cetera. we need to make more room for neighbors. i'm excited about the inclusionary housing and the tremendous benefits and environmental. >> i have previously shared a petition that we cohosted that included 32 petition signers in support of the project, 14 of them indicated they live in the 94112 zip code, which is the zip code the project is in. this is along a major, major transit corridor in the city [indiscernible] -- really appreciate your time. please move the project forward. thank you. >> i am salim. i think it's great that the developers found a way. there is a housing crisis and the reason the costs are so high is we don't have enough homes. this is a great way to add housing to our housing stock. there are also these impact fees that help fund affordable housing. i'm very excited about this project. i hope you move it forward as quickly as possible without delay. >> i live about 1.3 miles from the site and i like past it regularly. the developer is looking for a project that fits the neighborhood and i think they succeeded. the environmental impact of this site is not the best, but no environmental impact is not an option. san francisco has a dire housing shortage and just last week a study was released showing that yet again the shortage of housing is putting pressure on more impacts elsewhere in san francisco. this is good for affordability and to have here. >> my name is charlie and i'm calling in support of the guttenberg project. the housing shortage is well documented. a project like this [indiscernible] new opportunities for our neighbors. they showed the creative thinking we need to be encouraging across the city. the developer has [indiscernible] benefits. while there's more than one parking spot per unit, -- [indiscernible] -- you shouldn't assume that this will impact the concerns. i'm calling in favor of this project. please approve it. >> hello. i live in san francisco. i was born here and i'm strongly in support of the guttenberg project. i would like to echo another caller that said if you look at the environmental impact of this site which is located [indiscernible] recognize the real downfalls on this site and good for the neighborhood [indiscernible] both employed. we've been looking for housing in the city for a while. i was born here and love it here. it's hard to find anything affordable. this is a cool thing that this developer has done and honors the diversity and working class of the neighbor by moving forward into the future and making san francisco more equitable for everyone. >> we disagree with the planning department's finding. there is opposition to the projects. we heard the fire department approved the project, but that's not true. the plans to proceed need to be re-reviewed. we disagree that there are positive community benefits coming out of this project. we don't see any of that happening. adding traffic to the area is a real concern that you're missing. this is just not true. people living in this area do not agree with what we've heard. the concerns we've expressed are still not addressed [indiscernible] -- >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a 28-year resident in the outer mission. i live only a few blocks away from this project. i was also past president of the outer mission residents' association. in my time, the project of byron court [indiscernible] -- which was a landlocked unit that i worked with anita harris on which got approved. i approve of this site and this project. i think that in our neighborhood we can accommodate multi-residential housing. we haven't seen this in a long time. i welcome it. i support this project and i thank you for listening to me. >> hi, i live in this area and i o posed this project. the entry way of the project is on a one-way street that is very narrow. i've seen garbage trucks get stuck coming out of other private roads such as this on wider two-way street. i don't believe whatever research they did in practice will work. they could get stuck and god forbid it is a fire truck coming in and out of there. >> hi, i'm really concerned about the fire risk on this project. the high concentration of people is too high and the parking spaces is an issue. most families have two cars -- a lot of families have two cars. i hope this project is not going to move ahead. >> this commission has asked for family-appropriate housing. now you have that before you. please don't decline this state in a housing crisis and a climate crisis. >> the last caller dropped off so i lost my place in line. >> is it my turn? >> it is, sir. >> my name is albert and i lived in this neighborhood for so many years. i am generally supporting this project [indiscernible] for the [indiscernible] -- understanding this project will create a private street. the parking in the private street is very difficult to enforce since in a brojt all the parking spaces are en -- in a garage. i encourage them to have visitor parking so when there's a visitor coming in, they have a place to park so they can park in the garage -- is very important at the entrance of the project [indiscernible] -- >> thank you, sir. that's your time. >> i live in an adjacent lot to the lot. i found a lot of what the people are saying to be false. it seems none of them live close to the lot. when i canvassed my neighbors, no one is for the project. they oppose it. i feel like there's false information being given on this project. that's all. >> hi, i rise against this myself. there would need to be a small truck available at all times and we consider that too dangerous. recently there was a medical emergency on the block and the ambulance could not get through because of double parking. that would be made greater. i see no reason for the mode to be changed for the profit motive of the developer. we all want backyards and proper soil and location where we live. i see no reason to turn what are single-family homes with yards into basically a condo development. i am definitely against this. i have no idea who these people are who support this because they were not at any of the meetings. i appreciate your help and please reconsider. >> caller, this is the second time i'm unmuting your line. if you would like to submit your comment, this is your opportunity to do so. i would like to remind the members of the public in our cantonese room, if you would like to submit your kont knees testimony join us by calling 415-655-6001 and enter access code 1870756218 and then press star and then 3. now i'll put you in the queue so you can submit your public testimony. all other members of the public with us, last call for public comment. commissioners, i will surely notify you -- here we go, one more caller. you have one minute. >> this is a concerned neighbor speaking [indiscernible] -- during the construction and post construction because of the limited space we have. i'm not sure if this is of concern anymore, but the building height could also be of concern. that's all i would say. thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. again, members of the public -- oh. members of the public, last call for members of the public, press staff 3 to be added to the queue. >> i live in this neighborhood. this is a high concentration of people and property mixed. it's very difficult in case of a fire event. parking spaces are a major issue. we live in a very crowded area with elementary schools close by and all of that. most families have more than one car and this is a lot of pressure on this already. i disagree with this project. i hope it's not going to move forward. >> we all know of people that have asked to approve this project are people that do not live in this neighborhood. we are the ones that are very concerned about site parking, et cetera. this neighborhood has a lot of cars with cloud neighbors, angry neighbors. we have three to four families living in one house. now we're talking about 19 units to this neighbor. can you imagine the impact? the developer doesn't care about the community or the neighborhood. the people who care are us living in this neighborhood. after this project is done, this developer will cash in and leave. we are the ones to have to deal with this. the only people trying to get this project moved forward, people out of town. >> thank you, sir. that's your time. >> i live directly next to this project. i will second the point about the people that are approving it. they don't live here and don't deal with the traffic we have to deal with, especially on guttenberg. the amount of safety issues -- i think the main thing is there needs to be more due diligence done by the city to ensure traffic safety in all areas. i don't feel like it's a due diligence. it is a signing off because of the pressure from the city to have more housing. at what point do people do the job they are supposed to do and protect the other citizens in this situation. thank you. >> go ahead, caller. go ahead, caller, would you like to submit your public comment? i'll take the next caller and maybe some back to you. >> am i on? >> you are. >> i live two blocks away from the project area. i am against this project. it seems like the people who are for this project don't live in the neighborhood and they seem like they're reading from a script. this street is a one-sway street with a single lane. traffic concerns are a major thing [indiscernible] cause a lot of issues. [indiscernible] -- thank you. >> thank you. caller, i'm inmuting you for a second time. would you like to submit your public testimony? hello, caller, you're number 415-218. you're on. commissioners, i'm not hearing anything from this person. members of the public, last call for public comment, especially those indeed the translation rooms. please migrate over and press star 3. commissioners, seeing no additional requests to speak from the members of the public, public comment is closed, but i'll certainly let you know if anyone raised their hand late. >> thanks to everyone involved in making this item happen as pretty smoothly as we have a great job. there is a project similar to this six or eight months ago, a similar key lot. we've also had a lot of the same concerns that we've brought up today. we were skeptical and we continued the item. a lot of our answers were addressed to the degree they could be and the project moved forward. i'm seeing this as a similar project. all of the angles have been looked at. >> would you make an introduction, president, about a [indiscernible] similar with smaller amounts of units. this project for me personally leaves a lot of questions unanswered. the first and foremost of why this project, given the size requires an exposure variant, the rear yard exception, and an exception towards the standard landscape procedures to exception to permeability. this project is a private project. i understand that the developer will make a substantial contribution to the affordable housing fund. the project still suggests the housing type which is one of the least expensive houses to build, townhouses and duplexes, to which there should be some ability to look at the overall quality of what's suggested. it's challenging, but the site can be developed. i am wondering why there is really no room for a little bit more variety in the overall building expression, the collective building expression. i am surprised there is not a landscape plan that more fully commits to shared space, green space, and overall landscaping improvements. there is a suggestion that there would be a plan. there is none at the moment. i am wondering why in this particular neighborhood there isn't more formality of how the buildings are brought to the land. the buildings all look the same. it reminds me of a suburban development. it reminds me of a time there were savings that i do not believe is appropriate. i would like to see this project make a more concerted effort to improve its overall quality before i approve it. i would like to restate i consider the site buildable. i consider a project on the site approvable, but this project is not quite at a level of quality where i feel comfortable supporting it today. >> before you begin, if we could take the public commenter who has raised their hand late, would that be all right. >> yes. >> could our cantonese interpreter advise the caller i'm going to unmute to begin their testimony, please. is the cantonese interpreter with us? >> yes, but i cannot hear him. >> he can hear us, but if you can announce that his line is unmuted. [speaking cantonese] . >> interpreter: she is the neighbor and she has a lot of concern about it. so we -- i'm sorry. i live in this area. i definitely understand the situation. for those who agree to approve this project, they do not live here, so they do not understand the feeling that we have, the burden that we have of this area. this would create a big burden on the residents because right now there is limited parking spaces for the residents because a lot of people do double parking and this already [indiscernible] -- she's concerned about 19 units is too many. also she's concerned that it's not [indiscernible] -- so i do -- she doesn't support this parking. >> okay -- >> [speaking cantonese] -- >> clerk: that's your time. if the interpreter could just share that last portion. >> interpreter: she's concerned when doing the excavation it might be impacting the nearby buildings. she's also concerned about the drainage. >> clerk: okay. thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. again, you need to press star 3 to enter the queue. if our cantonese interpreter could make that announcement, please. >> hi there, i'm guessing it's my turn to speak now. >> clerk: go ahead, ma'am. >> thank you so much. i've lived in this neighborhood my entire life and i've only seen parking get worse and worse over the years. you typically see three or four cars double parked on the street at any one time. having four duplexes and 11 more units astronomically higher than the others, i don't know how you're going to have in you have parking spaces. this is a fire and health hazard. we've seen people not be able to get to the ambulance because there were cars double parked and the ambulance couldn't get to them. i think the number of units should be limited. >> clerk: public comment is closed. i'll advise if anyone requests late. thank you for indulging members of the public. >> commissioner, you're up. >> i want to thank everyone who came out today or logged in from where you are to participate. i want to thank staff and the secretary and the interpretation staff to have as much inclusivity and participation as possible. i think it went smoothly. thank you for that and your participation. i do have a number of questions and comments i want to ask. they are out of order. i hope the project sponsor is on the line and can be unmuted and answer. one of the questions i had was concerns raised about vibration due to construction that could affect the neighboring properties. can the project sponsor speak to what -- if this project were to go forward and more detailed documents produced, what you might find about the need for any monitoring of the vibrations from this project to neighboring properties. >> i'm going to try to answer that and then i'm going to have the engineer and the architects on the line talk because i'm not one. when buildings are built adjacent to each other in the city, builders put in monitoring -- that is, they put in little pieces in the foundation and they do before and after pictures of where those pieces lie in the foundation to see if those pieces move. there is monitoring done and the building department is involved. here we have in at least most cases 40 feet between the new buildings and their foundations and other buildings. so we don't think there will be a problem affecting anyone else's foundation. what people are concerned about, and quite appropriately, is that we are doing a little bit of excavation at the rear of the yards where there are fences. i'm iphoning to let the engineer talk about what we're doing there. in many cases the rear yards are in poor condition. when we put in a retaining wall, we will make sure the doors don't fall into their lots. i'm going to ask the architects to talk because i'm not an expert. can you address what you're doing for the foundations or more likely the fencing of neighbors remains steady and the rear yards. go ahead. >> [indiscernible] as brett explained, we are far from any adjacent neighbors. the only excavation we are doing is any major excavation. this is to construct. we are almost at grade. we are building this in the backyard for those seven buildings or seven units. this will result in a retaining wall at the rear property line. there is already a retaining wall at that location, a wooden retaining wall which is very old. that is going to be replaced and we're going to put a concrete retaining wall with latest provisions of the code placed in and allow the drainage and everything. so it's going to most definitely make the back yard of the neighbors a lot more stable in the rest of the buildings -- >> i don't want to cut you off. i'm understanding one area of building a would have excavation close to property lines replacing the retaining wall with concrete ones. would you be prepared for the monitoring? is that something you would desire at a later stage. there are some homes that are closer [indiscernible]. >> yes, absolutely. we are -- the monitoring -- if the neighbors request it, we will do that for them and we will be working with them during construction to make sure the construction is as smooth as possible. >> great, thank you very much. can you talk a little bit about the fire department approval. can you as project sponsor explain what you feel the fire department should approve? >> we met with him before the project was designed a couple of years ago. we have a letter for them which is an exhibit in my brief which indicates what they wanted to design and takes on proper design of what they ask us to, they will approve. that was the thing attached to my brief. we got a call from planning that we would like something more specific and definitive from fire, more on the approval of the hammer head, please give us something more definitive. the other [indiscernible] -- staff can discuss it it does it does not in this brief which is a more thorough approval. we have one letter, one bravoed drawing and the more definitive letter that staff has and staff can tell you what it contains better than i. >> i'll turn to staff. can you speak to the letter from the fire department and does it provide approval for the proposed roadway? >> yes, in terms of the review of the fire department, there was [indiscernible] -- stipulates comments that they would have. the formal approval from the fire department comes from the billing process. given this is a main concern from the neighborhood, we asked for a formal letter from the fire department. a lot will take things like the turnaround is appropriate even at the pinch point which a lot of the neighbors have referred to, a pinch point where they project to the property line. and then to mitigate that, that it's read. and that there is a no towing zone. the [indiscernible] fire truck does need to pass by, you can scale that pedestrian walkway. >> that curb on the north side? >> yeah. >> one question i have for -- maybe staff can take to the department. there can't be any parking on the main street that accesses guttenberg. is that a correct understanding? there is a place at the beginning labelled as red. furthermore, as you go into the development, it is aligned red. they are providing the pedestrian walkway so they don't have to cross on one side just to cross. >> that makes sense to me. there was also concern about just the width of guttenberg street. do you know the width of guttenberg, is that an abnormally narrow street or a 20-foot width itself for fire access or would you happen to know? that's a big question. >> i don't currently, but i can get back to you. >> it looks like parking is allowed on both sides of guttenberg at some point. what that lane of travel is when parking is there. i don't know if environmental staff are available. i did ask a question about the guttenberg creek which is referenced in the letter. my understanding is that flows 50 feet from the site. >> the planner can answer your question. >> can you talk about the creek and where it flows and if there were any reviews conducted? >> there was a review and also an environmental site assessment performed. this involves looking at the historical map. the location of the historical is approximately 120 to 150 feet east of the project site and it runs north-south. i think you also asked me if i knew of any other locations. there is no -- the geotechnical report, there were no findings of this. >> for the creek, are you aware if it's culverted? has it been undergrounded? are you aware of this creek? >> i'm not aware of -- i didn't come across anything in terms of our technical report, so i'm not aware of that. perhaps the developer has more information that they have been discussing with the neighbor. >> good idea. project sponsor, anything you would like to say about this? >> there is an engineer who provided the thorough report. i would like him to speak. you will see on one of the slides. one of the things that i'm going to ask gabriel to put on the overahead, there is a picture geographically of where the creek is. would you please put that on the overhead and speak to what your findings were when you did your report. [please stand by] ... last long, and i'm personally concerned that the h.o.a., in ten years, you know, would not have enough funds to replace the entire row. >> commissioner tanner: yeah. what about for the sidewalk -- >> they're open to it. >> commissioner tanner: what about for the sidewalks? they're not being driven on, so would those be more amenable for permeability? >> yeah. i would rather our -- scott, our civil engineer, who'd done all the stormwater management, would address that. >> yeah, brett? >> yeah, it's related to permeability and the drainage underneath, so scott, address that. thank you. >> yeah. so the project will comply with the city's stormwater management requirement. as brett mentioned, the backyards will be green space, and we're maximizing the use of pavers everywhere we can, and then, we're maximizing the use of pavers to the units. they're not necessarily ruled out for the main entranceway, but there will still be infiltration in the area because the soils do favor infiltration. we're still working out exactly how. >> if it's the wishes of the commission, we can certainly, you know, do the -- do the permeable pavers -- i'm happy to put in, as a condition of approval, that we'll have a maintenance that will accommodate periodic approval of replacements. i personally think our landscaper can work with staff to try and put in as many permeable pavers in the driveway as we can. i'm confident that -- >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i think -- thank you all for answering the question, and i do have one last question, which is i do see a concern about the number of parking provided. some units have two parking spaces, and some have one. could you, for the benefit of the commissions how many units have two parking spaces in their garage and how many have one? >> yes. i will talk to that. looking at an exhibit to my brief where it's stated, all units except one will have two parking spaces. that's on a chart in my plans in my exhibit. one unit, which is unit a-3, will only have one parking space. i can ask the architects. i'm not sure why. otherwise, all of them have -- have -- have -- have two. >> commissioner tanner: they're within a household, so hopefully, they could -- >> yeah, they're a tandem. >> commissioner tanner: thank you for your time. i know i took up a lot of times. i'll just close with a few comments. we don't want to prioritize space for vehicles over space for people, but i think we need to get around the city, so i think the project does a good job of that by providing two spaces for all but one resident. i would yield to commissioner moore on the design element. architecture is not my forte, although i would like to see some more differentiation between the units, and the landscaping plan, perhaps another commissioner would go more into that. i do want to make sure that we have some of these items certain about the permeability, about the green space, about the pavers, for me, probably a sidewalk would be more of a priority than a road because i don't want to burden future owners, but perhaps a sidewalk could increase the permeability, and perhaps a condition for the cc&rs, that there be a tow space employed to be on the look outof double parking. so -- lookout for double parking. so those are my comments. >> clerk: commissioners, sorry to interrupt again, but we do have a late request for public comment. to the chair, i'll take that now. you have one minute. go ahead, caller. >> yes, can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> okay. i want to comment, the man said that the -- the construction or evacuation of the land, he did not mention the driveway, and all the way from the street, which there are two adjoining houses, and it will go all the way back past the total property of each of these homes, which i feel like is a misstatement on his part because these are at least 100 feet of excavation that's going to go on. also, the guttenberg street, from what i understand, is right directly underneath guttenberg street, and i still think there has to be between the fire departments and other departments, there has to be some on-site inspections because there have been issues with measurements and other parts of the investors' information. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial, you're up? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. and thank you, commissioner tanner, for your questions. i would like to emphasize that, on the traffic impact study that you are being used, that's my concern with other public -- the residents around the area. since this is not a major street but a minor street, however, it does lead to the mission, and based on my experience around this street, this streets are very frequently used. so for us in the planning department, in how we create and look at the traffic impact, especially in residential areas, it should be determined not by the number of bedrooms but by the hours. and also because of more of the -- many of the cars, from what i've experienced, are more leading to the minor streets than going to the major streets, so i don't know if mr. teague would like to answer something in the future, but i would like to see a more accurate methodology in studying the traffic impact in residential areas and especially in minor streets. another thing, there seems to be a disconnect between the residents understanding on the parking spaces from perhaps from the 2019 to now, and i'm wondering if the project sponsor has actually presented this because we're hearing a lot of comments around there is no parking spaces, but there is this current parking space that you're presenting to us in front of us. i'm wondering where is that disconnect, and why -- and that's my major thing, so -- and i agree, as well, on commissioner tanner's comments on permeability. i would -- i would support her statement on the sidewalks, and also to commissioner moore's concerns on landscaping. i think the developer should have -- i think the developer should have more landscaping plan and present to us a more creative and also an environmental friendly. i think those are my main thing in terms of this -- of this project. my other thing to all is the pedestrian on the front of the guttenberg, and what i'm saying in the rendition, there is no pedestrian walkway on the beginning, and so i'm wondering when there are people walking on the sidewalks, whether the cars entering this property will be [inaudible] yeah because i've seen that around in soma where there are the small streets, and there is no pedestrian that can be a cause for an injury. so those are my -- those are my comments, and yeah, and thank you. >> president koppel: anyone want to step in and answer or should i move to the next question? >> happy to answer. i'm going to have risa, who attended six or seven neighborhood meetings, to discuss the parking and the neighborhood concerns. risa, would you go ahead, please? >> as far as the parking, you know, what we did was there was all tandem parking originally proposed, and when we looked at these buildings, we thought how do we make the buildings laid out the same as the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood, and we widened the buildings to almost the 25-foot mark, which allowed us to have two cars. we are doing our best -- the neighborhood asked us for more parking, and we are doing our best to accommodate that. >> we can only do 1.5 to one parking because the code doesn't allow us to do more, commissioner. and that's what we've done. we've started out with one-to-one parking, but the neighbors wanted more. go ahead, risa. >> president koppel: do you guys have anymore? go ahead. >> yeah, i have nothing else to -- yeah, okay. >> president koppel: okay. are you good, commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yes, i'm good. thank you. >> president koppel: okay. commissioner fung, you're next. >> clerk: i don't know if you want to take it now, but there's another late commenter. i don't know if you want to take it, commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: okay. >> president koppel: okay. let's let commissioner fung go head, and then we'll take the comment. >> commissioner fung: okay. i have several questions. first question for the development team is, this is a private driveway. and is it intended to be gated? >> no, it's a private driveway, and it will not be gated. if you'd want me to discuss why, i'd be happy to. >> commissioner fung: no, i'm just -- you've answered the question. thank you. my second question is yes, i would have supported permeability across the entire driveway, and as it's already been raised by other commissioners. the third question is how is lighting to be handled on the driveway? is there is one comment in your document, but it doesn't etail that? >> i'll have risa address that again. >> hi. risa, design team. the lighting, we have electrical engineer hired, and he's looking at lighting for the public areas, driveways, and sidewalks. we don't have any detail plans at this point. >> commissioner fung: all right. let me state any way, i would -- what i would support is low level lighting that does not create an impact on the adjacent homes. and to go back to [inaudible] the question of the permeability of the driveway, i forgot to mention there was another reason i'd support permeability through turf block or something similar, and that is the sound reduction to the homes that it passes. last question regarding the landscape plan. on the fences that face adjacent properties, you have basically what is a bush, and it's relatively small. has the design team considered it would be more advantageous to the neighbors to have that would act more as the screen -- visual screen? >> i'm going to allow brad tyrell to talk more about that, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. can you hear me? >> yes. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. good afternoon. brad tyrell. can you hear me? >> commissioner fung: yes. >> good afternoon. can you hear me now? >> yes. >> to the question of landscape screening, yes. we presented to the neighborhood in one of the presentations. with that said, the prospect of different types of planting, some of which was more columnar, taller, screening, the relationships between the rear yards, but in terms of, i believe, what bruce chan was specified, it's an evergreen bruce typical to the screening elements at those raised planters there. >> commissioner fung: except that what they've called out is five gallon pitisporum, which is a bush. it doesn't necessarily become a columnar-type tree. >> i'll defer to the landscaper, but in those cases, where we have tens of buildings butting adjacent property lines, that's what we've proposed is a suggestion of what his recommendations are. so i can't speak to the density or to the size of what he's suggest, but that was part of what we qualified his input by in terms of what we would like to see is something that provides [inaudible]. >> commissioner fung: yeah, okay. my comment to staff is i would be recommending that we go to something that was more columnar and provides a softer screen at the property lines. those are my comments. >> president koppel: why don't we grab that extra speaker, jonas. >> clerk: okay. member of the public, you have one minute? all right, caller. caller with 415-254, you have one minute. caller, would you like -- well, they hung up. sorry for the interruption. >> president koppel: commissioner moore, you're up. >> vice president moore: thank you for all the thoughtful comments and commissioners weighing in. i would pick up on the comments made by commissioner fung regarding landscaping. i believe that edgescaping on all edges of the property has to be further studied and further documents because it tends to create a solid wall, so to speak between what is currently an informal open space. the intention how that is maintained and the impact of it is extremely important. the impact of this particular project is basically a suburban subdivision with the type of fences where one doesn't see anything. i'd like to remind ourselves that the grove street project, for example, which was a key lot in hayes valley that we approved a few months ago did not have any parking. in this particular case, is the introduction of on-site parking, which we did not have on grove street, and the project provided hardly any open space at all. however, from the outside of the project looking in and from the inside looking out, there has to be, in commissioner fung's words, an element of softness, of soft transition, which makes this a fully compatible project in its setting. i'd like to ask that -- this is just a comment to mr. gladstone, cc&rs apply -- i'm assuming this is an owner occupied project, so this area would become common area landscaped investments that for which you do not have to raise particular dues, but all monthly assessments have a component of contribution to the reserve study which basically takes care of the type of improvements that need to be upgraded and continually maintained over time. i would also ask that while the idea of individual landscape initiatives in each residential gardens are a great idea, you cannot expect that everybody has a green thumb. that means that there has to be a certain green infrastructure within each garden, be there garden landscape schemes or basic standard landscaping and then the project is green throughout. there may be people that will never tend to a garden. so subject a green space with no landscaping, we need to provide some landscaping for this project to become viable in its current setting. i would move that this project be reviewed with all the questions that the commissioners have asked, that there can be another hearing in the coming weeks that they can present all the information raised in the questions today. >> clerk: commissioners, i apologize, but there are yet two more raised hands for public comment. shall we take them now? >> president koppel: yeah. >> clerk: one minute. >> hi. thank you so much. my name's scott. i live in the excelsior just a little bit north of this project, and i just wanted to say how excited i am to see increased development in our neighborhood and just kind of bring this part of the city a little bit more alive. i really appreciate everybody being patient in moving this project along, and i hope we see more in the future. thank you so much. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. 415-385, submit your public comment. okay. we'll take the next caller. >> it's my turn? >> clerk: yes, it is. >> i want to make a pub -- i want to make a comment on the -- on the -- on the imprint of this private road. so what the new road elevation going to be at least -- at least 16 inches from a tipping grade right now? the neighbor foundation going to be exposed if excavate any depth over 6 inches. the reason is that the pg&e recently did some work on the meter and the gas improvement project. it exposed the foundation of neighbors, so the foundation's pretty shallow, so just want to make a comment if any excavation at the entrance of the private road, it's going to be exposed neighbor's foundation, i would like commission to consider that, how they make sure that the foundation's safe, the house is safe, any protective measure in place. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i'm going to give this caller one last chance. 415-385, one minute. okay, commissioners. apologize for the interruption yet again. >> president koppel: thank you. zoning administrator teague, did you want to weigh-in. >> sure. just want to speak to the variance. as you know, this project is a p.u.c. because it's a really large parcel, half an acre, in a residential district. so the planning code allows the planning commission to grant exceptions to just about all physical controls of the code and actually allows the commission to grant exceptions to certain things that the zoning administrator can't great a variance for, but there is a provision in a code where p.u.d.s cannot grant an exception to the landscaping and permeability requirements, and so that provision is what requires the variants in this case, that specific provision. just to that, that requirement only really requires to 50% of the first front set back, which is the first 15 feet of the lot. the area of permeability that's required is less than 1% of the total lot size. it's fairly minor in terms of the scale of the proposed variance, and obviously, the location of the required permeability and landscaping is challenging, given providing access to the interior of the lot here. just wanted to say that, and a couple of interesting pieces about the proposal overall. first, to respond to commissioner tanner's question, the guttenberg right-of-way is a 60-foot right-of-way. it's fairly wide, but it is one way. there's only permitted parking on the west side, east side. the drive by is fairly wide on this area of guttenberg. you look around the other blocks in the area that are also developed for residential development, they have a street or an alley, either public or private that cuts through the center either all the way or halfway through to get into the center of these blocks because they are very large blocks. if you look at a block map, because there is no such street that cuts through the center of this block, some of these lots have depths that are more than 200 feet deep, which is more than double the particular lot of a city, so it's kind of a unique context that the center portion of this lot was never plotted out to be developed in the center, but it also creates a context where i just did some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, if this is approved for all the 19 units on the site, you're still developing this entire block at the rate of about one unit per 3,000 square feet, which is extremely low density, given that information. i just wanted to provide that information and be clear about the small variance component about this in case there was any confusion between the relationship with that and the p.u.d. in front of the planning commission. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: thank you. thank you to my other commissioners for the great questions they asked of the project sponsor. i am in support of this project. my questions have been addressed. the one concern i have is the narrow size of the backyards, 15 feet for some of them, which makes the landscape even more important, so i would be prepared to approve the project with a condition that require staff review of the landscaping and permeability, and if that is not what the other commissioners want to do, then i would suggest that we bring it back within a very short period of time with the staff and the project sponsor having developed more fully the landscaping and permeability plans to bring to our attention, but short of those two agencies, i am prepared to approve this project in either of those two ways. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i think commissioner diamond's suggestion is a reasonable one. i think the landscape plan is crucial from the inside out and from the outside in, as i said earlier, and for that reason, i think there should be a tentative approval of the project with the caveat that it has to come back for a full review of the landscape plan. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'll note that the conditions -- excuse me, the draft of the motion requires the project sponsor to bring back to staff not only the landscape plan but the lighting plan and other things, so if staff is clear to the conditions that the commissioner brought forth, then i would move to allow staff to implement those recommendations. >> vice president moore: commissioner fung, are you not asking for the commission to see it one more time? i think this is a large enough project, a precedent setting project for us to see it one more time. i think this is an extremely important issue, and i think we just want to make sure that we have crossed all is and ts to do so. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i don't know if commissioner fung wanted to respond to commissioner diamond's question -- or commissioner moore's question, but if not, or in the interim time, i do think given the public interest in this project and the size of it, it may be prudent to have this return, as commissioner diamond said, in a very short period of time. i'm not sure if our agenda would allow it to be in the next two to three weeks, but i would support it coming back on the scope of work that would include the landscaping and the permeability and the outside of it. >> commissioner fung: commissioner tanner, can we accept that as just an informational item, to be brought back versus -- and having the project approved at this point? >> commissioner tanner: i see the record come on the screen, so i don't know -- >> director hillis: i just wanted to clarify that. i think given what you're asking for, it certainly could come back as an informational item, but i just wanted to make sure you all clarify whether you want to approve it today and bring those design items back as an informational item and show them to the public with comment or bring it back again. >> clerk: if i could suggest, commissioners, potentially, you could approve that matter today and give that clear direction to staff and then have the staff submitted as a memo in two weeks as a packet for your review, and then, if any of the commissioners decided they were not satisfied with the landscaping or permeability solutions, that we then bring it back as an informational item to the planning commission only given the -- the amount of technical background and effort in creating this hearing. >> commissioner tanner: that would be amenable to me, and i don't know, president koppel, if you had anything to add. i just wanted to go over the landscaping effort to make sure that staff grasps the discussion and to make sure that we're on the same page. it's to increase the permanentability where feasible, to explore the sidewalks and even the roadway, to -- permeability where feasible, to explore the sidewalks and even the roadway and also to think -- what i heard commissioner moore talking about was making sure that there's an ability to have those be watered or sprinkled so that the maintenance is not up to the individual owner of that property; that there would be discussion with the lighting plan on the property, that the lighting should not shine into the homes that are there, but certainly not into the adjacent properties. and just overall, a more detailed landscaping plan for what type of landscaping and where and dockscaping plans. it needs some further review and revision, and that's what i captured, commissioners. . >> president koppel: commissioner moore, did i hear you say lighting plan? >> commissioner tanner: yes. >> vice president moore: okay. i wanted a little bit more on each garden plan, but perhaps the way you summarized it, it will bring that forward, any way. i think it should suggest the type of landscaping and general standard of what the gardener would recommend for that part of town so it's a minimal provision that will be included. >> commissioner tanner: i fully agree with that. is it possible that i can now make what i just said into a motion to approve this project with these revisions brought back as an informational item, mr. secretary? >> clerk: i was suggesting that it be brought back in the form of a memo, and that if any one of the seven commissioners, for example, was not satisfied with the solution that it then be brought back as an informational presentation. >> commissioner tanner: that i definitely what i said. [inaudible] >> vice president moore: could we then please make sure that the documentation is to scale and readable as far as drawings is concerned and have enough details so that we do not have to ask the questions that we asked today. >> commissioner tanner: yes, and the detail plans and the landscaping plans -- >> clerk: i'm thinking the project sponsor is hearing that loud and clear. >> commissioner tanner: never assume anything, as they say. >> commissioner diamond: i second it. >> commissioner tanner: thank you, commissioner diamond. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, i did hear a motion that has been seconded to approve this project as proposed and to have a memo returned to planning commission within two weeks with detailed plans with specific direction to the project sponsor to have more detailed landscaping, increased permeability, and a lighting plan. did i hear that correctly? on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. zoning administrator, what say you? >> i will close the public hearing on the variance and intend to grant with the standard conditions. >> clerk: thank you, everyone, for your patience on that matter. commissioners, that will place us on item 11 for case number 2020-008651-cua at 801 38 avenue for conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> clerk: go ahead, gigi. >> good afternoon, commissioners. greta gunther, planning department star. the item before you is a proposal for a change of use from a residential care facility to a single-family dwelling. this is located in district one, outer richmond's residential neighborhood. the building is currently owner occupied with no residential care activity. the residential care facility use was originally established at this address in 1976 as a residential area facility for no more than six residents. in 2000, a conditional use authorization was granted to allow up to 12 residents at the facility. a residential care facility operated at the project site until some point after april 2019. california department of social services record show that the last site visit to the facility was on april 17, 2019. the building was subsequently vacated by the residential care facility at some point after april in 2019. 801 38 avenue was sold to the current property owners on april 18, 2020, and was vacant at the time of sale. the building is proposed to retain one off street parking space and add one class one bicycle parking space. no additional habitable space will be added, and there will be no change to the building footprint. to date, the department has received three correspondence about this project from the public. the first pertained to the concept of on street parking ability. the second was an advocate of housing in the bay area. the last was from supervisor connie chan's office. the project will not cause any residents or patients to be displaced. it includes tenant and building improvements, including energy efficiency and tenant improvements. on balance, the department finds the project to be compatible with the general plan and necessary and desirable for the community and recommends approval with condition. the department recommends the condition of adding a second dwelling unit to maximize density within an rh-2 zoning district. prior to its conversion to a residential care facility in 1976, the location held two housing units. this concludes my presentation, and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: [inaudible] i think that's coming from your end, but you should turn down the volume on your computer or your television if that's how you're following us to submit your -- or to make your presentation. >> okay. can you hear me? >> clerk: i can, but we're still getting an [inaudible] okay. i'm going to try one more time, mr. english. okay. you have five minutes. >> yes. thank you, commissioners. thank you, gretel. i'm here with tucker lewis, one of my clients. tucker and michael have long roots in the richmond and other parts of san francisco, and they're looking for a new place to live, and at the end of 2019, were looking for a new home to improve and saw the property at 801 38 avenue come on the market in mid-february, right before the pandemic. disclosure documents show it being owned by piedmont management company. the three-hour report lists it as a single-family home, and it was a vacant property staged as the property normally would be. we submitted a drawing on what was required on-line on may 29. the project was finally logged into the system 8-13-2020, and we started talking with planning in september and started with heidi cline, who had comments mostly about there was an illegal storage unit built in the back, etc., and then, discussions with gretel came up and the c.u.a. at that point. so generally, i think the house was designed as a single-family home. it's news to me that there was any evidence that it was two units. the upstairs is planned to be remodelled pretty much as is now with the removal and upgrade of some bathrooms and interior walls. there would be a living room, dining room, and kitchen maintained in place, an office for tucker in the back, and then, a primary bedroom and bathroom. and then, down below, the plan is to have a second office for mickey, and a guest quarters and a place where, long-term, help could live to maintain our clients so that they can age in place. there are several reasons we're not interested, if possible, in an a.d.u. first of all, we don't have the flexibility of having friends and family stay there if, in fact, it has to be rented out and is then controlled by a future tenancy tax. the length of process is another issue. we've already been in the process since may, and the working through the a.d.u. process is not moving quickly, and frankly, the cost of a kitchen that would be required for an a.d.u. is not a cost that my clients would like to entertain at the moment based on their needs for the home. tucker, did you want to say anything? i think that's what we have at the moment, and we're certainly here to answer any questions you might have. >> clerk: thank you. if that's it for sponsor presentation, we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to present public comment by pressing star, three. with no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: i'm in support of staff's recommendation, so i would entertain a motion. commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: thank you, president koppel. i just wanted to share my thoughts with the project sponsor and the public. given that we've lost so many of these facilities in the past, i think the city has a general policy interest in making sure that residential care facilities remain a piece in the overall equity system and providing housing services to our vulnerable population. so for me, as i kind of weigh the pros and cons of this, my understanding is that supervisor mandelman is thinking about extending the interim zoning controls to require the u.a. for changing use of a residential care facility for six months in addition to the interim controls already in place just so that people can have more time to study the situation and track the loss of the residential care facilities and to really find some solutions to addressing the business model. so given that this process is still on going, i am hesitant to approve something that would preemptively move a residential care facility definition from this property. i think this is especially the cases where weighing the loss of this crucial service against the benefit of gaining kind of one additional dwelling unit, which, for me, doesn't really impact the city's housing stack. so that's my thoughts, and i'm interesting in hearing what my fellow commissioners have to say. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: while i share very much commissioner chan's concern about the loss of residential care facilities, i'm not sure that this kind of facility is economically viable without significant city support. we had a similar project that started out in front of us and is placed on [inaudible] basically showed that these kinds of small facilities, while desirable, are not financially feasible, and so while i would like to see more of them, i don't want to hold up people's plans to move forward when they do not seem to be economically feasible. so i would be supportive of this project going forward. i am confused about the two-unit recommendation. i can say why we would encourage homeowners to want to add a second unit, but i'm not aware that we've adopted a commission policy or an ordinance that requires people to have two units in an rh-2 zone. of course we'd love to see it, but i do not like the i.d. that we're imposing that condition on a one-off basis when we're not imposing that condition more broadly. i would like staff to comment on that. i know that supervisor -- i believe it's supervisor mandelman is working on legislation in some districts [inaudible] but i don't think it would apply to this district. i'm not talking about a residential care facility, i'm talking about whether or not we're requiring multiple units in certain buildings that -- you know, requiring people to build out to the maximum density, how does that project sit within that scape? >> director hillis: commissioner diamond, i don't think the plan would have been submitted where he would unzone in some areas on lots that are currently on rh-1, 2, or 3, and i don't believe in talking with him, that there's going to be a requirement that you build to the maximum zoning, but that's yet to be kind of determined. so i think you're hitting on some good points that at the staff level, we try to encourage project sponsors to maximize the density. this is a bit of a unique situation where they're here to remove the residential care facility. the history of the home was two units. it's different with new home construction, and we can encourage, probably better condition to encourage project sponsors to build to the density or add a.d.u.s, but you're correct in that there's no formal policy, but certainly, you know, at times, it's been the commission's intent to tell staff where possible, where appropriate, to maximize the density. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i'd just like to second director hillis' comments. if you are in an rh-2, and there's changes to an rh-1 building, finding ways that we can densefy in areas where there's already mostly rh-2 any way. i have a question, and that pertains as to how the project is described. could somebody please describe the supervisor's file? i was unable to find details about what it exactly said in that particular file. >> hi. hi, commissioner moore. gretel gunther, planning staff. >> vice president moore: hi. >> give me just a second, and i can read the relevant portions of it. [inaudible] by supervisor mandelman, and it requires a change of use from a residential care facility -- a conditional use for a change of use for any residential care facility to any other use. let me go ahead and pull that up. it's for a period of 18 months, so the interim legislation actually expires on april 11 of this year. the proposed resolution imposed controlling legislation for 18 months and specifies changes for changing from a residential care home to a residential use. >> 2600 and some change in living space. >> vice president moore: that is the entire project for us. >> that is correct. >> vice president moore: thank you. i am going to wait until i hear the other commissioners in making their points. i am uncertain on what to do. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. it looks like the total square footage of this project is 3,271 square feet, and in general, what we have right now, since the legislation has expired in april 11 -- or april 2021, the interim zoning controls, i do support the planning department's recommendation in adding another dwelling unit in the rh-2. and even with the size of this residential for a single-family home, i think that's the question there. so although, you know -- and at the same time, i also share the sentiment of commissioner chan, commissioner moore, and commissioner diamond, that the loss of our facilities, residential facilities, and i think it's been reducing over the years, and i'm wondering whether -- as we are trying to wait for the legislation, whether it will be expanded for residential care. i'm wondering whether us in the planning department is trying to think creatively in a way that would, you know, perhaps identifying residential care homes that have been lost and part of it to transform it into something better, whether it would be part of the acquisition or this can be something, some kind of -- i believe there will still be analysis of how many care homes have been lost and how many are still in existing, and i'm -- and there may be more discussion on that, but i hope that the planning department, we can all think of how we can think of the residential care homes to be preserved, and i think there will be more question about the funding on that, as well, in the future, but it's -- as we are going through this housing crisis, there are shelters that do provide care, so as of now, what we do have in front of me, i do support the planning department's recommendation. those are my comments. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i think it is a really tough issue. i think it's evidenced by the fact that a lot of us have mixed comments, and so i'm going to add my own mixed comments to the mix. as i think about it, you know, the purpose of the interim legislation, i think has been pretty effective. miss gunther, i think we corresponded about this, that there have not been any residential care facilities that have been removed during this interim period, is that accurate? >> that is correct. this is the first time of this entitlement that the commission is currently hearing. there is one pending, at 628 shotwell. >> commissioner tanner: so we might see the legislation as having the intended effect. part of, i think, the idea of legislation would have been instead of this facility closing and being sold to someone who would have wanted to make it into a home, it would have been sold to another residential home builder, which leads me to commissioner diamond's comment about operations of this size are usually not financially feasible, so where does this leave me? initially thinking yes, the additional unit is a good tradeoff to returning this to a residential use and the residential care unit has already ceased. in order for it to come into being again, the property owner would need to lease it or sell it to a residential care facility operator, which i understand is not the intention of the property owner. so then, we come back to whether the owner is interested in or can afford adding the additional unit, and they clearly have no interest in it. i don't believe their home is overly large. it's not one of the very, very large homes that we've been seeing, and we see here at this commission. and as i've explained, has space for family, has space from working from home, which is obviously increased in importance right now. so i would ask the project sponsor and maybe even ask staff, there is a space in the home which i believe is labelled at studio right now. just curious the dimensions of that, and perhaps that could be a location for a modest junior accessory dwelling unit with a partial kitchen facility, and the owners would not need to lease it out as long as they maintained it as a separate and distinct living unit. just asking project sponsor or staff if they have any interest in that. >> commissioner tanner: i will defer to the applicant for the design of studio space. it appears open at the ground floor, but it does have a separate entrance to the street and does not have any type of connection to the upper floor, as well. it's visually cutoff. >> commissioner tanner: i think you can go up the ramp and to the stairs there. am i looking at that right? >> go ahead, mark. >> [inaudible] 1400 square feet, and it's not at all useful for these homeowners. >> commissioner tanner: yeah, i understand that. i just want to understand the connection to the studio. you go up the ramp and then to the foyer to go up the stairs, is that correct? [inaudible]. >> commissioner tanner: okay. commissioners, at this point, while i am generally supportive of the preservation of the residential care facilities, i [inaudible] according to the recommendation of staff at this time, i don't see that it would come to fruition. i'm sympathetic to the homeowner in this instance, so i would support the conditional use to remove the use of the residential care but not to require the additional unit. that's my thoughts at this time. i'm open to be persuaded by any of my fellow commissioners. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'm supportive of staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i'm still supportive of the -- of -- of the planning department's recommendation. the way i see it, the first floor can be each separate units or dwelling units. the -- if we are trying to look at this -- this is -- this is a five-bedroom single-family unit, so as i try to be consistent with our zoning rules, as well, maybe perhaps the first unit can be a separate dwelling unit and the second floor can be a separate dwelling units so that it meets the requirements for rh-2. that's my comments. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: so let try this and see if we can get to an agreement. i would move we approve the conditional use authorization to approve this unit without the need for an a.d.u. >> clerk: seeing no additional requests to speak from a commissioner, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project as proposed with no requirement for a second unit. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4-3, withition commissioners, chan -- with commissioners chan, imperial, and more voting against. commissioners, that will place us on item 12, 2020-005252-cua, as 1271 46 avenue. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. gabriella pantoja, planning department staff [inaudible] the residential building will be approximately 2,500 square feet in area, contain two class 1 bicycle parking spaces, two off street parking spaces, and 767 square feet of private useable open space. the project will alter an existing detached one story unit at the rear of the property. the property is a 3,000 square foot property on 46 street between irving street and lincoln way. the immediate neighborhood contains one to three stories and [inaudible] single-family dwellings. the article before you is required by planning code section 303 and 317 [inaudible] the project sponsors have conducted two additional neighborhood meetings on february 17, 2021 and february 22, 2021. members of the neighborhood expressing opposition [inaudible] to date, the department has received four correspondence in support of the project, three of which were provided after publication of the project's packet. the statements of support [inaudible] the department recommends approval of conditions and listing the revised motion circulating on march [inaudible] 2021 and believes that the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. [inaudible] will demolish an existing two story single-family residency and construct a new [inaudible] within close proximity to public transportation, commercial core do remembers, and jobs. [inaudible] with the development pattern, size, density, and height of the neighborhood. this conclude's staff's presentation, and i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you, gabby, miss knight, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am, thank you. >> clerk: okay. you have five minutes. >> great. good afternoon, planning, commission. thanks to gabriella for her work on this project and providing the summary. i'm here today remotely with the architect, who you'll hear from in a minute. the owner, i wasn't able to conference her in, but she is standing by for any questions. when patricia found this house in 2019, it was suffering serious deterioration from years of neglect. she moved forward to purchase the property and moved forward with the current project. she's reached out to neighbors, many of whom have expressed support for replacing the dilapidated home with a newly constructed home [inaudible] i just wanted to emphasize that the proposed house is a modest 2,487 square feet. it's very contextual in terms of the scale of the building. it's far from a monster home. it provides the unit in a way that provides a liveable rear home in addition to the rear unit. it provides green space and breathing room for the neighbors, and i know time is short, so i'm going to pass this over to stanley for presentation. stanley, you can go ahead. stanley, do we have you? all right. well, i'm not sure what's going on with my audio. so running through the slides, the first slide, you can see -- [inaudible]. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this says i'm talking. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> can you hear? >> yes. >> okay. this says the mixed [inaudible] which is a kind of [inaudible] architectural style. next. next slide. hello? can we get the next slide? >> yep. so we're on the rendering. >> can you change to the next one? is i'm not -- i'm somehow not seeing it. what slide are we on now? >> six. >> no, go to three. are we on three? >> we're on three. >> okay. this is a view looking north to the park with the house on the left, and four, with the house on the right. five, this shows the house with its contiguous neighbors. six, and our immediate connection to the features. so now, we should be on six. the sloped roof, the horizontal window line, the matching roof line. six -- >> i'm sorry chair, is someone [inaudible] with the presentation. it's not advancing. >> gabriella, are you able to advance the slides? >> no. >> do you see my screen? >> yeah. >> let's get to number seven. >> let me try to stop these and reshare. >> clerk: yeah, it looks like we're paused. and when the architect wasn't joining us right away, i paused your time, and i've paused it again now. >> thank you. >> clerk: mr. [inaudible] just so you know, if you're watching on a television, on sfgovtv, there is a delay in the broadcast. >> somehow, mine's not changing at all right now. all right. so the pervasive material of the neighborhood is siding, and the scale of the detail is on the right. number eight? >> clerk: gabby, for some reason [inaudible]. >> sorry, one second. we're having issues with the slides here. we'll let you know when we're on eight. >> let me know when you're on number eight. >> clerk: gabby, we're going to go to the [inaudible] plan, and my staff is going to share their screens. >> all right. are you on eight? >> yes. >> this shows a glimpse of the garden on the ground level, and what you discover once you enter. nine? so you can see how the elevation takes the lines from the neighboring buildings. ten -- >> sorry, stanley. >> ten? are we on ten? >> i think the slides are still not advancing. >> okay. let me know when we're on ten. >> sorry. hold on one sec. hold up, please. >> all right. what i'm seeing now is eight. >> all right. we're on ten. >> all right. this is the cottage in the rear which is being retained and remodelled in the interior to be a 660 square foot studio residence. 11 [inaudible] of the new residence at the front, a 2400 square foot three bedroom home. the blue indicates open voids which allow light and air for the neighboring house to the north. 12. the rear elevation shows this openness. 13. the blue in the plans indicate the openness. the ground, the floor is a continuous open garden, parking sheltered for the parking. now we should be on number -- yeah, so we're on 13. level two has two bedrooms and a bridge to a roof deck on the existing cottage. 14. >> clerk: i'm sorry. i don't hear the architect. is it just me? is -- >> now we should be on 16. this section shows the continuous garden at the ground level, and the open spaces that make this compact house slice [inaudible]. that's it. thank you. >> great. so sorry that ended up being a little fractured. we can answer any questions about the design and bring up the slides and discuss. i know it's a little bit of a unique design in terms of the openness, but it was really important to patricia and the project team to provide that sort of openness and provide breathing room for the adjacent building, and we're here for any questions. >> clerk: thank you, jodi. if that concludes your presentation, we should go to public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to get into the queue by pressing star and three to enter testimony on this item. you will have two minutes. >> eileen bogan with speak [inaudible] a 501-c-3, and we are in opposition to the project. the opposition is related to the cottage at the front of the lot and its proposed replacement. not the detached dwelling unit at the rear of the lot. there are inconsistent statements regarding the soundness of the existing cottage. in the staff's report for the residential demolition findings, section b states, buildings have been maintained in decent, safe, and sanitary conditions. in addition, research indicates there are no notices of violation. the last one was issued in 2000. there are no planning department complaints, d.b.i. complaints, or board of appeals actions. the 2000 notice of violation was for wall repair, ceiling repair, and floor covering repair, totaling $4,000. however, the project sponsor's letter describes the cottage as in very poor condition, dilapidated, parts of the property are not safe to access, property is not habitable with vermin infestations. the contradictory statements regarding affordable housing, dwelling unit increase, height issues, and open space. the project replaces a single-family residence with a larger single-family residence. thank you. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> my name is kimberly olson. i live on irving street at 46 avenue. i've lived here for 20 years. there's been a president dense -- precedent set by 3601 46 avenue. as the person noted earlier, the neighborhood has between one and three-story buildings. we do not have four-story buildings. i have a big issue with building shade already, and i do not need more building shade in my backyard. this is going to affect the views of residents on the east side of the street with the ocean views affecting many residents from the one person that wants a large single-family home. so not only is it the height, it's too high, the four stories, i don't know how it's measures up to the other three-story house because it's two stories on one side and three stories on the other, and four stories is not okay. also, the siding, our primary siding is stucco, and this is not fitting architecturally in with the neighborhood? it is very modern? it has some peculiar siding on the building, and does not fit in with the neighborhood which was mostly built in the 1930s and 1940s. i moved to the neighborhood because of the ocean views, the quiet life, and the natural light. i'm also concerned of the wind tunnelling effect because it's very windy in the outer sunset, as well. thank you for your consideration of your neighbors. >> good afternoon. my name is taylor adams, and i live across the street from the subject property. my address is 1276 46 avenue, apartment number 4. i love the ocean, i love looking at the ocean, but unfortunately, this project will block a significant portion of my view of the ocean, the waves, and the horizon beyond. when i first saw the construction barrier go up across the street, i was excited to see the new owner remodel and paint this cute house. fast forward to when i got the planning notice to see the existing house was going to be razed, and a four-story single-family home was going to be put in its place. i was very upset and very concerned. i did not receive any communications directly from the owner to me or my building. now that i've seen the plans, it's obvious why. three years ago, i moved here because of the views of the if a civic ocean. the views are amazing, so it's no wonder that this person wants to have it for all to themselves. this is the first thing that i see when i wake up, and i enjoy it throughout the day. nobody wants their view blocked, and i'm quite sure if somebody were to purchase property on 47 avenue in front of this home, i'm sure the owner would object. this apartment will be my home for the next 40 years or so, i urge the commission to scale back this project so it does not take away the quality and enjoyment of life to its neighbors to the east. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item? seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is now closed and the matter is before you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. just a couple questions, perhaps, for staff. commenting regarding the depth of the building, the height of the building. it seemed to me to be a little bit higher than the neighboring building. i'm looking at the plans to see how much higher it is than the neighboring three story building and i'm wondering how the residential design guidelines apply to this project in terms of the height and depth of the project. >> yes. so [inaudible] with department staff. we have david winslow who can speak more to how the project was and how we got to this point. >> yeah. it is a bit higher than the surrounding buildings, but it's in scale given everything else that's going on on that street. as far as the depth goes, we could maybe navigate to a plan view so we could look at it and talk about it at the same time, who has control of the site plan or a drawing set, we could get to the site. >> clerk: what do we need? >> could we maybe go to a site plan which shows the context proposed to the adjacent? >> clerk: do you have a slide number? >> i don't know the slide number offhand. let's see... >> you know, i think there's an existing cottage in the back and then a building to the left, the three-story building to the left of the proposed is deeper than the proposed addition. the building to the right, we asked for, and they provided some reasonable open space in the diagram that i think the architect shared. both vertically, there's these open space blocks of massing that are reductive and, to our point of view, provided adequate light and air to adjacent properties all things considered, it is a bit higher than the adjacent buildings. [inaudible]. >> commissioner tanner: okay. maybe the project sponsor could speak to the height difference of how much higher the building is because it doesn't look like it's [inaudible] from what i was observing, but it's -- it is a bit higher [inaudible]. >> absolutely. stanley, do you [inaudible] that? and explain the levels of the building? stanley, are you available in not sure what's going on with the audio. i apologize. >> commissioner tanner: it's okay. i think it's unfortunate. >> oh, here we go. here, here. >> yeah, if we could get to slide number 16. i mean, what you'll see on slide 16 is -- can -- can -- [inaudible]. >> jodi, can you hear me on the phone? >> yeah. if you're watching sfgovtv, why don't you turn it off because there's a delay and just listen on the phone? >> okay. so what you'll see, the existing cottage at the rear is almost half a level down from the sidewall. >> okay. okay. so-so if you look, there's a big drop. >> commissioner tanner: and then, the [inaudible] is that right? it's higher than the [inaudible]-story buildings? [inaudible] 4 feet over the neighboring building on the left. >> commissioner fung: commissioner tanner, can i answer that question for you? >> commissioner tanner: yes, please. that would be great. >> commissioner fung: the top of this project is at 30 feet above grade. where the new building occurs, where it starts to slope, that line is at 30 feet. it then slopes up to approximately 40 feet to the roof point. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you, commissioner fung. and then, miss knight, i don't know if you can speak, if the owner is on the line, of their intention to lease out the building? >> yeah. the intent is to make that a rentable unit. she, in fact, has had a conversation. one of the neighbors who came by the neighborhood meeting was interested -- you know, had a friend who was interested in -- they had a -- there was a -- they had a conversation about that, and it's independently accessible from the street, so it is the intention to maintain that it's a rear rental unit. >> commissioner tanner: all right. well, thank you for that. [inaudible] with other commissioners. >> president koppel: i also am in support and backing staff's recommendation. >> commissioner tanner: if i may, then, i would make a motion to approve the project as proposed. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: oh, thank you for that, commissioner tanner. on that motion to approve as proposed with conditions -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. motion passes unanimously, 7-0. that was a tough one. that would place us on items 13-a and b for case numbers 2017-013728-crv and drp-02 at 1021 valencia street. there was a concession incentive and waiver from development standards and review. staff, are you prepared to make your presentations? >> i am, jonas. >> clerk: i will pass you the ball. >> good evening, commissioners. michael christiansen, department staff. the item before you is a review of two requests for discretionary review. a building permit application number 2020-0825260 # the, which proposes to demolish an existing 20-foot tall auto motive repair building located at 1021 valencia street and to construct a new six story, 65 foot tall, 75 foot to the penthouse mixed use structure, which contains 3,00 square feet of mixed space and retail ground floor level and 24 units. the project requires adoption of findings for the state density bonus under planning code section 206.6 under the draft resolution that was included in your packets. the department is requesting concurrence on the findings for the state density bonus. the project requires waivers from height limits -- when the written notice -- while under notice and processing this discretionary review request, the project proposed a total of two below market rate dwelling units which afforded the project a 20% bonus of residential growth floor area. the project war as actively actively -- the -- the -- to the north and expands the matching light well. the modification increases the cost of constructing the project by increasing the number of corners, and to make the modification work, the project sponsor requested a slight increase in the floor area to 26,651 square feet. fortunately, the sponsor had already agreed with neighborhood groups to provide one additional unit at below market rate, which increases the density bonus for the project to 29%. to obtain the bonus, the unit was changed from a voluntary unit not associated with any code requirements into a required below market rate unit provided as part of the state density bonus request in order to obtain a 29% bonus. the department reviewed the proposed change, and although the required massing shows further into the rear yard, the surrounding context provides no madam speaker rear access, and the change is supported by the department. the updated project design is in your packets and provides a total of 3,003 square feet of retail service use and 26,651 square feet of space on floors one through six. staff would like to note for the record some changes to the draft resolution which will be incorporated prior to the resolution finalization. on page 2, staff will remove tech citing of the commercial space. on page 4, staff l collect the square footages to correct it to reflect the updated project square footages of 26,651 square feet of residential use and 3,003 square feet of retail and service use, and on page 8, staff will clarify that the project proposes three on-site below market rate units and remove a prior reference to a voluntary unit that is no longer relevant since the unit is no longer voluntary but is required to obtain the requested density bonus. staff also received a request for some clarification of the open space waiver. the project provides code compliant private open space for four units, located at the rear of the building on levels one and two. the remaining 20 units are afforded a common open space area at the roof level totaling approximately 640 square feet, where a total of 2,000 square feet is required to meet the squared 100 square feet per unit ratio. the project is continuing to actively discuss the roof deck with the san francisco fire department roof checkers and has indicated they will increase the size to 750 square feet, which is a limit imposed by fire department requirements, and they will seek a waiver from the fire department to reduce the size further. nine units on the side will be afforded balconies that are not large enough to be considered as outdoor living space, but at 9 feet by 3 feet, they will afford some >> clerk: thank you, michael. commissioners, this is both a conditional use authorization and a d.r., so we should go to the d.r. presentations. each d.r. requester will receive two minutes with a rebuttal, and the project sponsor will receive five minutes with a two-minute rebuttal. >> jonas, i believe both of the discretionary review requesters are represented by ryan patterson. >> clerk: okay. just trying to find his number in the attendee list. >> -- is fire rated, and in this case, the northern deck will be on top of a reinforced concrete roof as shown in the plan, so our request is this: if a fire rated parapet is not required, we would like the northern deck to use an open meadow or wire handrail so that light and air can pass through to my client's properties. if a require rated parapet is required and cannot be avoided, we ask that the solid portion be kept as low as possible and use an open handrail other than that. i don't believe there's anything we need to get into, but i want to thank the department and staff for this. thank you very much and for hearing this request about the open handrail. >> clerk: thank you. mr. gladstone, are you with us? >> yes. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. thanks for switching up your phone. >> sure. let me turn down my audio. >> clerk: you have five minutes. >> rick gladstone, project sponsor's land use attorney. on the screen now, you will see the plan page that's changed. staff has this, and the d.r. requesters have it. i have on the line with me architect john ennis of g.d.e., and i will let him add any comments. john has made sure that this lines up with d.r. requester's wall. the other changes, on the northside, [inaudible] and we've also widened the light well and deepened it at the request of d.r. requester's buildings. [inaudible] and i will not list them again, however, mr. patterson admitted listing one item, which is a statement now that we have made these changes, that his clients will agree not to appeal the commission's decision were the commission to agree to modify, and i would ask mr. patterson to agree to that assurance. john adams will speak to that but mostly about the challenge of creating more open space. john, go ahead. >> clerk: mr. gladstone, your team is not audible right now. >> well, i'll speak for him. what he said was the deck, which is graded on the northside of our property between the two d.r. requester's buildings will have a railing that is as open as we can provide under the building code, and we believe that because the deck is concrete, we will be able to open that rail. we were asked about open space. we have agreed to increase the rooftop open space from 600 -- perhaps 680 to 750. we would like to increase it more, but at 750, mr. ennis was going to explain we pledge to work with the fire department to create more open space on the roof. it's better than creating balconies because on the roof, we can express less wind because we have the opportunity to put up wind screens than on individual decks. thank you. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star then three to be entered into the queue. commissioners -- oh, we have one. okay. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. i'm obviously happy to hear that all sides have come together in an agreement and we can move this forward. i did want to call out we worked with the team and helped facilitate agreement, so there's shown agreement across the board. >> hi. i wanted to speak in support of the project. i live on san carlo street, and i think we need more housing in the neighborhood. we definitely need more housing in the neighborhood and [inaudible]. >> clerk: okay. commissioners. last call -- or not commissioners, last call for comments on this matter. okay. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public mr. patterson, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you care to use it. >> thank you, mr. ionin. i don't think there's anything really rebut, just this hand open on the open deck to be an open handrail. [inaudible] to be as low as possible and then use an open handrail above that in order to create light and air flow to my client's property. thank you again. >> clerk: mr. gladstone, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you care to use it. >> one moment, please. we would like to read into the record a statement, please. one moment while i pull it up. okay. so what -- what i'd like to simply state of record is that project sponsor has agreed to increase the size of the roof deck from the current 629 square feet to approximately 750. in addition, we'll make a good faith attempt to allow the fire department to expand it even further. we will provide a standard metal guardrail which allows light and area to pass through along the property line that we have with the d.r. requesters. thank you very much. >> clerk: great. thank you. commissioners, that concludes the public hearing portion of this item. it is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> i have a question for mr. christiansen. on page 2, under design review, you had a replacement of a higher quality window, which i think is a reasonable request. in your february summary, you called it the -- there has been no concession that's been made yet. it's not an objective standard, not a code requirement, but highly recommended. where do we stand with that? >> the department generally does request that sponsors use a higher quality window, typically, aluminum clad wood or wood or another quality material. we did receive some push back from the sponsor in this case. the department's basis for that is a residential design guideline which calls for high quality materials. that guideline is not subjective. it doesn't provide a defined requirement for projects, so our ability to rely on that to require a design consideration that increases the cost of construction is somewhat limited. the sponsor had responded by actually requesting it as a concession or incentive. the concessions or concession concession -- incentives are from state density bonus law, so in this case, it is just something that we made lack the ability to require. >> vice president moore: except as a commission, we can support uniform application of residential design standards, and i think we would be greatly amiss if, just for the sake of state density bonus, where we are making other concessions already that we would not uphold that as general element of quality of unit design, so i'd like to encourage the commission to consider that needs to become a condition of our approval. i am generally in support, but i

Related Keywords

California ,United States ,Georgia ,Philippines ,Togo ,Hayes Valley ,Spain ,San Francisco ,Spanish ,Filipino ,Greg Gladstone ,Michael Christiansen ,Taylor Adams ,Moore Gretel Gunther ,Angelina Lee ,John Ennis ,Audrey Harris ,David Winslow ,Brad Tyrell ,Rick Gladstone ,Kimberly Olson ,Corey Smith ,Heidi Cline ,Bruce Chan ,Eileen Bogan ,Cory Smith ,Anita Harris ,Tucker Lewis ,John Adams ,Greta Gunther ,Gabriella Pantoja ,