Everyone needs team to see what happened on the 25th of august against the dra that was provided yesterday. I ask that the Planning Commission differ action on this and put it on the calendar for next week. Thank you very much. [gavel] okay. Last call for Public Comment on the minutes. Seeing no additional request to speak, Public Comment on the minutes is closed and they are before you commissioner commissioner field. Yes, in terms of the draft minutes for the 45 bernard and there is the language on action number two that is it seems like because we had a lot of deliberation in terms of the rent control or deed and the future for the for the future tenant and in effective order evictions and what we would like the project sponsor, i know that you know, of course, were not in the purview of the rent board but the something settled and the Commission Recognizes the rent indiscernible and because theres a lot of deliberation, i think the expectations need to be spelled out even though it does recognize the rights of the rent board, so that its clear also for the project sponsor. There were some discussion that after three years when the owner after the owner moves out that they will do a Due Diligence to reaching out to tenants and also are we also had a discussion that in when the tenants are being offered to come back that their rent will be based on the same rent that they left. That may be something, i feel something that we need to look on in the wording and i look at the City Attorney how to word that more effectively instead of recognizing the rights of the tenant. And thats why perhaps it may need more time with more spelled out language. Thank you, commissioner imperial. I would like to add this case is important to us, not only as 45 bernard as exemplary for other similar situations and since the applicant developer is from out of town, theres a degree of potential room for misunderstanding that should be addressed in just residing what the rules are. This particular in response because there were many other technical issues where i felt that the developer applicant and the person in construction didnt know much about dbi and the subtleties of how its interpreted in our city so its helpful for us to have it spelled out. Theres nothing lost and nothing inappropriate about it. In addition to that, i feel the request made about removing the spiral stay on the roof deck doesnt explain what we were asking for the replacement of the open space in form of a porch which by minimum needs to be one hundred square feet and a little bit more which requires setting back of the front wall, the south facing wall by nine feet roughly speaking, so thats easy to do. Nothing lost and were not making the conditions harder and were interpreting them but we want it spelled out. Its in your departments interest when it comes to follow up and avoiding misunderstands. Anybody else on the commissioners . I do not see her on the commissioner ruiz, is there anything you want to add . There she is. I didnt see your name. Thats okay. I think, commissioner imperial and yourself, commissioner moore really explained what my concerns were in regard to number two in the accent and wanting to add what commissioner imperial said. It was more than just recognizing rent control laws in San Francisco but really trying to encourage the project sponsor to law because we as a city, we dont have much account ability and measure in place and follow through to ensure that happens so i wanted to reiterate the protections for the current tenant and the expectation if the owner were to move out, what were expecting as a city in regard to following the rent control ordinance and the rent board in terms of offering the unit to the previous tenants that were interested at the rent they were paying when evicted so really spelling that out because i dont see that in the actions as is, so i would be supportive of deefr f of deferring this for a for a week and coming back. Its a time when we deliberated on the subject matter and i think that has not been clearly delineated in what has been written, thank you. Certainly commission, as we can review the video with what was stated and the motion that was made and then forward you all an updated version. Action memo that might include a better, uh, better capture of what your motion was. Commissioner, do we need a motion to continue the meeting minutes. I think we should continue these minutes, yes. It will be continued to next week or if you need more time . Well, we can certainly continue it until next week and if its not ready at that time, we can continue it yet again. Okay. Okay. Move to continue the adoption of the minutes of august 25th, oh, not august 25th. Yeah. Was it august 25th . Yeah. September 15th. September it says here, august 25th for some reason on my paper but they are the august 25th minutes. Your motion is continue them to september 15th. Yeah. To september 15th, yeah. Move to adopt, move to continue the adoption of minutes to september 15th. Second. Thank you, commissioners on that motion then to continue adoption of the minutes for august 25th to september 15th. Commissioner ruiz . Aye. Commissioner diamond . No. Commissioner imperial . Aye. Commissioner koppel . Aye. Commissioner moore . Aye. So moved commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 1 with commissioner diamond voting against. It will mace you under commission comments and questions. Commissioner imperial . You go ahead first if you want. Okay. Yeah, i just want to bring up in terms of and it looks like our items for the rest of the year are letting less and less. I kind of want to have a better picture of what the rest of the year is going to look like for us and i understand there are some continuances that, you know, im worried that we are beyond the ten cancellation sessions and whether you know, how whether is this because of the less items were having, the continuances so i know some of the members of the public have contacted me about what is going on and so, i would like to bring this up in terms of how is the rest of the year, our calendar looks like . And how were in terms of the continuances, what are the reasons for those continuances . Uhhuh. Well, theres a variety of reasons for continuances. And the advanced calendar provides you an indication of what we know so far about our future calendars. Im not sure i mean, just to jump in, commissioner, youre right. Theres less weve got less fewer cases in front of the commission. I mean, you know, our volume is down and thats now translating to less, fewer items before you here at the commission, so yes. That could lead i think, jonas works with the chair to figure out how to be most efficient in scheduling these meetings and if we have backtoback meeting was few items, perhaps we talked about consolidating them but its up to the Commission Chair to cancel meetings if there arent enough items or we want to consolidate items. I guess im trying to see if were expecting more cancellations for the rest of the year. Were seeing less activity, so again, you can meet and hear one item at dr if you want to or we can work with the Commission President to try and consolidate meetings if thats more efficient so ultimately its up to you. Okay. Yeah. Thats good to know. It would make sense for all of us to think about it and calendar as a discussion item because we cannot go back and forth on opine on what each individual feels about it at the moment. They are definitely from my perspective, a number of bigticket items. They are from my perspective a number of bigticket items that people ask repeatedly to hear more about. One of them being the Housing Element. Why is it scheduled on a regular schedule. Having regular discussions would be helpful because were getting challenges from sacramento left and right and not to get into the particular balances you have been involved but for us to be up to speed and prepared to take a consequential step next spring, it would make sense to spread interim working meetings so to say into the calendar. Sure. And again, if we would calendar a discussion for everybody to weigh in, think about it, hear what the public says, each of us has a different exposure, i think it would help. Okay. Also may i speak. In materials of the, as what commissioner moore or vicepresident commissioner moore mentioned, like, i know that we are or the city or the Planning Department is in discussion with the hcd in terms of they are looking into or investigating about entitlement process, perhaps thats something we can have informational session about those discussions as well or update as the Planning Department having those kind of conversation and i think for the commission, we need to be updated as well in those conversations. Yeah. And we just, so you know, weve got that calendar for the 29th of this month. We dont have the answers to hcd yet but we wanted to talk about you about what they are asking for and what their comments were to our Housing Element and get your feedback and comments back, so you know, it will be more an update on where hcd is going in the process, legs or response to hcd because were in the mist of formulating that but we wanted your initial feedback on that. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah. Schedule them and the meeting was helpful because many questions were continual Historic Preservation which is making important decisions on cultural district statements and et cetera would be helpful and even meetings and new commissioners and yeah. Commissioners, if im hearing you correctly, we should add the advanced calendar as i topic for next weeks agenda . Please very good. Just, we may want to wait until we have a full complement of commissioners back because they may have continues as well. That doesnt mean we couldnt kickoff a light discussion just to toss out ideas and you get to think about it. Id like to make another commissioner comment. Im sure you read it, but since im now in my second meeting leading the the land acknowledgement, it struck me as very moving that oakland plans to allow Indigenous Group to use five acres of city land. The first one in california. The city will grant an easement for sequoia point as the leshan nation which is the east bay oholone tribe. This is a legal arrange. That allows the city to transfer the right of use for the land for cultural purposes including ceremonial traditions and native Habitat Restoration and education activities. If there is nothing further commissioners, we can move on to department matters. Item 2, directors report. Commissioners, i just wanted to point out, you got an email from dan cider earlier today, its an initial take on ab2011. This passed a week ago so its not yet signed by the governor but we anticipate it will be signed by the governor and take effect next year. So we had discussed out of the state housing bills that were working its way, that working their way through the legislature. This is the one that could have the biggest impact on our work in processes and what it does is allow for ministerial approval so no dr, no cu, no ceqa work on code compliant project that are in certain Zoning Districts and meet certain criteria. So, i mean, just high level, it has to be five units or more. It has got to meet a minimum of affordability threshold which are inclusionary does but those would be onsite. As they have to be in Zoning Districts that allow for housing and commercial use, so it cant be an rh district or pdh district thats exclusively residential or commercial but nc districts, the mixeduse Zoning District in eastern neighborhoods would apply and it to be on a roadway greater than 70 feet from Property Line to Property Line. So, were mapping that and well get you a map of where that is but its generally, you know, if you have two kind of typical traffic lanes and 2 parking lanes, it wouldnt apply to a 24 street for instance in the mission but it would apply to wider streets like tara vallard and van necessary and south of market arterials. You cant demo housing on the site so if theres existing housing, that site wouldnt apply. There are some height in density increases but they cap out at 65 feet and most height district are over 65 feet on the eastern side of the city. You can couple this with state density bonus and you must meet certain labor standards but its primarily prevailing wage, so again, well provide more information as we further analyze the indiscernible and provide maps to you but we wanted to get you an initial kind of take on it so you have that but happy to answer questions or calendar this as an item when weve fully digested it as well. Thank you, director luis. As the department is preparing for this, i would i guess my question and perhaps when there is some sort of informational session about this because San Francisco has its own inclusionary housing requirements. There are very much three types and so if a development doesnt have onsite but have offsite fees or land dedication, will that be part of the ministerial approval as well . Theyve got to be onsite or at least at the level the minimum level thats required under 2011 which i think is 13 but those have to be onsite. So you couldnt totally see out and have a project, that subject ab2011. Yeah. I would like if other commissioners, but i would like to have informational session about this as well. Sure. Thank you. If youre getting calls from planning directors in other jurisdictions who may potentially be moving affected given that streets in those locations are far wider than San Francisco anyway. Yeah, we havent yet. That, you know, our staff is generally great at interpreting these laws and tends to be in front of others but we havent received any inquiries from other agencies. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Item 8, review of pavt events to the board of supervisors and board of appeals and Historic Preservation commission. Good afternoon, commissioners, veronica filling in for aaron, the manager at legislative affairs and the land use and Transportation Committee hearing was cancelled in honor of the Labor Day Holiday and the full board did return from the summer recess. There were four ordinances which passed under first read. So, these included the mayors ordinance on electric vehicle, changing locations, supervisor melgar on conditional use appeals and the landmark dedz nation at mothers building in San Francisco sponsored by supervisor melgar and lastly the landmark designation on 200 road island trade and sponsored by supervisor dorsey so all ordinances passed on the first read. This concludes of brief board report and i want to wish those who celebrate a mid autumn holiday, thank you. Okay. I did not receive a report from the Zoning Administrators Office related to the board of appeals so i do not have a report from them. But the Historic Preservation commission did meet yesterday and they considered preservation alternatives for the property at 3251 20th avenue known as the stones town galleria. They also heard some of the internship projects and those presentations that were moef they were mostly rehated to Historic Preservation. We can move on to general Public Comment. Members of public may address the commission on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission accept agenda items. With respect to the agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when your item is reached in the meeting and each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. When the number of speakers exceed 15 minute limit, the general Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Good afternoon commissioners, theres handouts for those who are here. Gorgia. I sent an email on the 29th. And i thought you were going to meet the first but you had the hiatus. It has the two emails previously from october 2018 and i hope you can watch the sfgov general Public Comment on october 4th and october 11, 2018, and just to set up that timeframe and i forgot my notes, that was between the rat getting killed, recapped as i like to say unfortunately and i think we should have a debate on that and the possess scan legislation introduced but a year after october 2018, that was withdrawn and you had joint meetings with dbi so i think if you watch that, you kind of have a sense of what was happening then and october 34, there was an irrelevant choiry from president hillis to staff to ms. Watty about the demo cal and thats an important statement and its 26 minutes on the october 4th. And, also at that hearing, commissioner richards asked me, he said what is enforcement. My point of the list is not to get people in trouble but to raise the issue of why the demo indiscernible need to be justed and why you should use your legislative authority to adjust the demo cat that has been there in 2019, section 217b23 and thats the point of the list and so, as i said in my current emails on the 29th, i updated the list and its there. I think those should be considered. Certainly, the more recent ones that i have on the third page of the, excuse me, the third page of the attachment, certainly warrant a look, see. And these are extreme alterations and some were mergers and some were this and that but the definition of extreme alteration that i had is we have horizontal vertical expansion, the facade basically removed, and exculpation. They need your legislative tool to adjust the demo cats and i put that cartoon there. When i saw that in january 1st morning at breakfast, i said, wow, this is is what its all about, i hope you dont think thats disrespectful but to me itten capsulates the whole problem with the demo calts not being adjusted and i want to add since now enforcement in the da are rolled into current planning, thats a perfect time to work with just the demo calt and do it on the front end when its not too late. If i may indulge for a minute. Can you send me these to the people who i addressed on here in your packet, do me a favor. Sure. Also, heres the 150 rest of the minutes and i know 150 words thats your time. Have a nice day, thank you. See you later good afternoon commissioners. Bruce from deloris heights and the San Francisco land coalition. Earlier this year, ms. Chutes had a regarding regarding ab916 and a baler that was under the guys of being a lengthy ab bill. We were concerned because of the bill contained a short section regarding bedroom additions with language that was vague and poorly drafted we felt, so the bill could be used to override local controls on might limits and setbacks and unit mergers. We were assured by many that none of this was the authors intent. Nevertheless we worked with Committee Analyst and staff and members and others on the language. The bill was indiscernible seven times this year and in the final form, all ad language was stripped away and it was a bill that passed and it has been enrolled as awaiting the governors signature. Fortunately we believe the language of the bill is much clearer, more precise and less dangerous. The bill streamlines the the, provide the bill e the bill spraem lines approval up to two bedrooms to be added through quote reconfiguring existing space to increase the bedroom count within an existing dwelling unit. This language is greatly improved but still could be exploited we fear. For example reconfiguring is a poorly define word in this context. Also working with supervisor mandelman office and jacob, the language may not be sufficient to resolve the challenge San Franciscos demolition and unit merger controls which are triggered based on the amount of space thats demolished without respect and the overall expansion of the unit. The city and state legislative committee authorized the citys lobbyist to make simple changes but the changes were not adopted in the final bill. So we can take some comfort that a risk was averted but we only to be careful that the new law isnt used to skirt local laws especially for unit mergers, some vigilance and attention will be needed to ensure the plain language of the law adhered to, that bedrooms can be added only by using existing space to increase the bedroom count within an existing dwelling unit. Thank you and i made a copy of the simple bill ready, available to you. Thank you very much. Hi. My name is michael patrela and i come to the castro to deliver a few messages to you. First of all, im holding up a sign that reads save the seats. And it refers to the orchestra res in the castro theater that another planet of entertainment wants to remove and then flatten the sloped orchestra section of this historic theater and many of us are opposed to that plan. And im here because in a months time youll have the castro theater proposals from another planet on your agenda and im here to tell you a few things. Number one, greg perloft, the ceo of eighth have not acknowledged the tremendous pain, the Community Pain in the castro starting with the assassination of harvey milk, continuing with the december make of gay men in the castro from aids and on and on, all of the attacks we have endured everyday from religious and social and political leaders. That pain has not been acknowledged. Ape came in late january as if they were the savor of the castro, which absolutely no roots, no connection to either of the castro theater or the castro neighborhood. They really need to acknowledge the trauma of the Gay Community in the castro because it explains in part why there is such strong opposition to greg perlofs plan. Now, we have waited seven months for them to hold a town hall meeting. At the town hall meeting at the theater, i had to fight to make sure everyone got two minutes of Public Comment because they wanted us to Text Messages to . Program called slidel and that isnt acceptable. We had an open mic. Last month the Small Business commission tried to limit us people to only 60 seconds. Im asking you to give us three minutes, every speaker who will be here in a month deserves three minutes and im asking you to plan to be here for a long time because we want you to hear us. And why we are opposed to the another planet plan. Now, the other reason why im here is because this saturday at the castro theater, its pasalena day and its its a gay film maker and they will show four if i ams and i hope to see you at the castro this saturday. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other member of the public who wishes to submit general Public Comment, now is the time to do this. If calling in remotely, press star three. Seeing no request to speak, commissioners, general Public Comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar for item 9. Case number 201922830ahb. 3055 clement street. This is a home sf project authorization. Good afternoon, commissioners. Chris may of Planning Department staff. You have before you an authorization request for the demolition of a onestory commercial building at the southeast corner of cleement street and 32nd avenue. And the construction of a new 6 Story Building containing nine dwelling units above 632 square feet of ground floor commercial space within the nc one district and height district and the project includes dwelling use mix consisting of four one bedroom units and two bedrooms one three bedroom. The project provide 30 or three of the nine total proposed units as permanently affordable in exchange for Development Bonuses in the form of increased Building Height and density. The project is a tier three homeless f project which permits up to two additional stories or 20 feet. The project proposes a Building Height of 62 feet which includes an extra two feet of Building Height in order to provide a minimum floor to ceiling height of 16 feet of retail use. The planning code permits one dwelling unit per eight hundred square feet Zoning District this would equal three units. The homeless f Program Allows for unlimited density and the project proposes nine dwelling units and the projects include the total of 1295 square feet of qualifying useable open space on a roof deck and ground level in the rear yard. The project include a total of ten class i and four class ii bicycle Parking Spaces and will remove an existing 8 foot curb cut on 32nd avenue. In addition to the height and density bonuses, the project is entitled to receive a zoning modification allowing for a rear yard of 20 feet atgrade and above, equivalent to 20 of lot depth. In order to qualify for the homeless f program, projects must include replacement ground floor action tifg uses at the same Square Footage as any neighborhood commercial uses unless the Planning Commission granting exception. This occupies the footprint of the Building Measures 20032 square feet. And the project is seeking an exception to replace it with approximately 632 square feet of commercial space. The requested exception to its for one one replacement provides for a code complying rear yard with common useable open space atgrade and bicycle and storage and garbage room and lobby inside the building. In advance of this hearing, the department received two letters in support of the project and one petition from the Housing Action coalition signed by 373 individuals who also expressed support. The department has received 19 letters in opposition to the project which primarily concerns the proposed buildings height and massing. Lack of offstreet parking and dwelling unit density. While taller than this surrounding the project and Design Principles that guide building massing and articulation for bonus Housing Project and the uppermost floor is less prominent than the floors below and it will be a lighter facade material and not feature projections beyond the main facade and the Department Finds the project is on balance and consistent with the general plan and it will provide nine new dwelling units and three onsite on affordable units in a mixeduse area for development where planned infrastructure can support residential growth. Five of the units will being family sized and include familyfriendly amenities such as ground floor storage and useable open space on a roof deck and atgrade within the rear yard. Ill turn it over to the project sponsor who would like to provide more information about the project and i will be available afterwards for further questions. Thank you. Project sponsor, you have five minutes. [indistinct chatter] good afternoon Planning Commission. Sure, sfgov, can we go to the computer, please . So, what were showing is a sixStory Building in the southeast corner of 32nd and y and urie. So, project data on the project includes nine units of which three will be below market. The below market rate and were going to have three market rate, one bedroom rentable units. Were going to have 63 it square feet of ground commercial space on the ground floor and we will provide bicycle parking for the entire residential unit. So, some of the Key Highlights for this project and ill show you them straight to you, like, whats the area looks like as far as Building Height. So, looking at the buildings of clement street, theres a lot of two to threestory singlefamily homes depicted on page three. On page four, there is a sixStory Building on the corner of gary and 32nd. The big Brown Building thats circled on the sheet. And also depicted on page five of the pictures. So, we are within a half a mile, sorry, quarter mile of the sf mta, line 18 one x, 30x, 30r and within half a mile, again, line 183131ax and several others, there are zip car sharers within a quarter mile and car share within half a mile and an enterprise car share. So, on the first floor, we have roughly 632 square feet of commercial space with 1180 square feet of common space. On the second floor, we have two units that are singlefamily, one bedroom, roughly 736 square feet and 823 square feet which are rentable market rate units. On the third floor, were looking at another 735 square feet of one bedroom and one bath and below market rate which is a two bedroom one bath and 832 square feet. On fourth level, we have 236 we have another bmr, one bedroom, one bath, 680 square feet. On the fifth level, we have a two bedroom, one bath, 736 square feet. Two bedroom, one bath and bmr, 55 of square feet, one bed, one bath. And sixth floor is the larger unit which is a three bedroom, three bath. So, we show a rendering as far as what the building will look like and what were looking at is using a lot of sustainability materials such as epay siding along the front facade on both sides. And using natural stone on the store level on the ground floor. So, what you see here is basically a view from the corner of, looking in from clement street. And this is the view from the backside looking up from east from clement street and 1 looking at 32nd street. So, again, project highlights, you know, were doing three affordable bmr units, three market rates thank you sir. Thats your time. The commissioners may have questions for you later. Thank you. Members of the public, that is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. If youre in the room, you need to come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. If youre calling in remotely, you need to press star three. Just press the power button there. Sorry. The power button. Oh okay. Hi, im agnostic on this project and im out there quite a bit. Thank you. I was at the end yesterday and my only comment is on objective, an objective comment and if you saw this a few weeks ago or last week, this little article, the picture the overhead, please, sfgov, so yeah. See that. Thats what the guy was talking about. Thats what people are interested in building and thats what this project is trying to do. That looks like the hl bowman highrises in Pacific Heights but anyway, my point is this, is the illustration and i wish if youre going to go up, you could do buildings with smaller windows because i think that suits San Francisco and this is nearby out there. And heres another one. And all these taller buildings on the corner all have the smaller more traditional window and thats my only comment. I dont know how you can do it if you can do it because of construction methods or whatever but it seems to me that those are nor attractive and certainly, the article by the fellow from berkeley, he made that point too in his charming little drawings so ill leave it at that, thank you and i gave you back a minute and a half, so i make up for before, so thank you very much. Seeing no additional members of the public in the chambers well go to the remote callers and again, when you hear your line is unmuted, thats your indication to begin speaking. Hello, commissioners. My name is mark macy. Im a nearly 30 year resident in the Richmond District and i think this kind of project is exactly what the commission should be approving. The city should be approving and one hundred percent compliant and its the rear home sf projects of this modest size with a high level of affordability, 30 , so i hope the Commission Approves the project and i think the windows are great too. I mean, its a contemporary building and not a building from the 20s and i think its nice to have . Nice floor to ceiling windows in the project, so i dont think that design should be micro managed in that way so i one hundred percent support the project, thank you. What was that . [laughter] go ahead, caller. Can you hear me . Hopefully that was a lot of muting and unmuting. My name is jane matolli calling in as an organizer for indiscernible richmond in support of more homes and better transportation in the Richmond District and calling to say i think this is the kind of project, echoing the last caller, this is great. And that is adding nine homes across the street from the Grocery Store and convenient to a lot of transit and its sf area. We havent added much more homes in our city. This is the perfect way we can do that. Its you know, not too big, but it fits right in. I live in a 20unit building myself that has been here for one hundred years and i think theres a lot of opportunities like this and this is a great one. I love seeing the bike parking, i love seeing the fact that it has family size units and i love it will be affordable so i hope youll move expeditiously and approve this project, thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Jake price on behalf of the Housing Action coalition speaking in support of 3055 clement. Our committee reviewed this in march and as the previous speakers indicated, it was especially um pressed with the implementation impressed with impressed. We havent seen this in the recent and we commended the project time for replacing an underutilized commercial space with housing in such a high resource neighborhood. Again, we were really impressed with the high level of affordability onsite as well as the implementation of family sized units, the Housing Options are needed in San Francisco as we know and we are beyond impressed that the project came and it was able to provide this essential benefit for our city on such a small site. Additionally, we feel like the project team has responded to a lot of request from the community in the form of design changes, which i think demonstrates their commitment the Community Process and they have undergone design and increased affordable level and were confident the project have undergone High Community engagement and responsive. Earlier this morning, i shared a list of our petitioners which included 30 or 300 San Francisco residents who are supportive of the project. I hope you take their voices into account. Thank you for your consideration. We ask the Planning Department approves this excellent and innovative project. My name is carl. Im a neighbor of this project. Im actually in opposition to the project due to its bulk, the fact that theres no offstreet parking and the lack of notice to the neighbors that this hearing is happening today. In terms of the height listed at 60 feet but when you review this structure from the north with all the, theres all the the additional structure, it actually comes to 70 feet. So the site the side of the building actually is visually about two to three times that of its neighboring residential buildings. I find it a little unfair to compare it to the structure at 32nd and gary since that Apartment Building is on gary. That is appropriate for that location but this location, the buildings are much smaller. The other thing is no additional parking provided. That means all the residential have to park on the street and fight with the neighbors to get that spot. Thats the same as stealing a public resource. Its disingenuous to suggest that someone pays two and a half or one and a half to 2 million to a condo and wont drive vehicles and they have to park on the street. Its antichildren. The next thing is no notice was given to the neighborhood. If you look on the well, actually, this hearing for this building have been postponed at least eight times since last year. Its almost impossible to figure out when this hearing is happening. So, youll notice there arent mainly people opposing the building in this meeting. Thats because no one knew it was happening today. The latest notice on the lot itself announces a meeting of june 23rd and nothing since then. I only found this meeting today because i randomly checked the calendar today and saw it was happening and the lack of notice essentially stifled any opposition and theres nobody here aside from me. I like to end that end by saying that i really have no objection to increasing housing but its just this project is so huge in scale and the lack of parking is just inappropriate and im only requesting that the project get scaled back in bulk and parking can be added, thank you. Hi, my name is martin, im calling in support of this project. First i want to say, im so proud of San Francisco for indiscernible parking minimum. Its so important to affordability and i think it might be a reason why this home sf project was able to qualify for this program that allows for more affordability in buildings like this. I think its perfectly designed for the neighborhood. Its beautiful and indiscernible construction that fits well with the character of our city. Unfortunately for, you know, reasons that include redlining and Development Patterns of the 50s, a lot of the richmond was developed at only two stories but to support this kind of beautiful density that allows for more families to live in our neighborhood, near our parks and more importantly, allow for more affordability onsite. So for those reasons im in favor of this project. And id like to say that, you know, its important for us to understand that 30 of households in San Francisco dont have cars and if you extrapolate the numbers, up to half of san franciscans dont drive live this so its realistic with bike parking and we have a great opportunity to move people from different forms of transportation to more sustainable forms and you know, as you know, adding parking reducing the demand and make it harder for those who do drive so im proud of this project for not including parking and i hope you support it, thank you. Hi, my name is indiscernible and i live around the corner. Im in support and i wish we had more density in the neighborhood and love to see it here. We dont need to see the retail and ground floor. Theres a project on 29th and clement three blocks away where they are converting the ground floor to residential units and i love to see it. More housing in the city please, thank you. Hi, my name is danielle and a richmond resident and calling in support. It is a project we dont get to see in San Francisco. I think you know, as someone who bikes and walk and takes transit and is a car owner, i pay for private storage of my vehicle indiscernible our public streets and my neighbor previously spoke about the building, stealing of public resource so i would encourage them to acknowledge the fact that not Everyone Needs to park their car and those who have them can pay for public offstreet parking. I think our neighborhoods would be better served by so many people doing that rather than putting their private vehicles on the street and accusing others who are new to the neighborhood of stealing something from them. I also want to reiterate my support for the design thats being proposed. We need to stop designing buildings that look like Old Buildings and let our architecture move forward like other developments in design. Thank you. Okay. Last call for Public Comment. If youre in the chambers, come forward and if calling in remotely, press star three. No request to speak, commissioners, Public Comment is closed and this matter is before you. Commissioner imperial . Yes. I also find this project approval. And doing the home sf, you know, in terms of getting into the sf process and this is the corner lot and i think this is code complying development that also looks into the what is appeals in this neighborhood as well, so i dont have any problems with this project. Im delighted to see a home sf project come forward. We should see more of them. I think this project delivers far more than some of the state programs allow us to realize. With that said, i have a question regarding the south facing wall of the building. I called planner mr. May and i saw a rendering which made this wall look very plain and i was wondering if we could perhaps with additional work with the department, add some more definition to the south wall because thats a scoring or application of color and im not asking for a mural which i dont think is appropriate for that neighborhood anyway, but theres something to breakdown the scale. Its a small unless i have read it incorrectly, that were adding a little bit more texture to that wall. My second question, again, mr. May, if you wouldnt mind coming up to the microphone there, i asked about setbacks of the roof deck from the building edges and i know we have to meet a certain number of square feet of open space. Typically, we do set roof decks back by five feet from all edges and i was wondering why that was not done here . Great. Thanks commissioner. I believe the project sponsor has revised roof plan which is that right . Yeah. I saw this a couple of hours ago and i believe that the project sponsor was able to scale the roof deck railings back to four and a half feet which i think is the maximum that they can do in order to still maintain the minimum 15 by 15 horizontal spatial requirement to be counted as useable open space on the rooftop so is that correct . Yes. Its actually in the if that can be achieved, i think this project is delivering quite a bit and as were getting very close to what we typically do with the roof deck, here, we do not have any other options to get the required Square Footage. I personally would be fine with that. If the department would work a little bit more with the definition scaling texture on the south wall, i would be in support of this project. Commissioner diamond . Commissioner commissioner diamond . Theres a drawing depicted on the screen, so we show five feet from the clement street side, so were able to get roughly about fourfoot nine on the south side, fourfootthree on the 3 at the street side, so 32nd street. We cant get the five feet but we tried to push it back as much as we can to get the railing off this Property Line. Thats fine, thank you very much. Commissioner diamond . Thank you. I too am in support of the project, particularly because its at a corner and i think i can support the extra height of the corner. I just have one minor question. Let see. In the motion in section 12a, it refers to a number of amenities thats in lot e like stroller parking and it refers to recreational space and in the last set of floor plans i saw, i didnt see anything labeled as recreational space. This is a question for the project sponsor. On the handout on the first page and ill show it on the screen. Thank you. What we did is we took the corridor away from the back part and we made a 203 square feet recreational space next to the utility room, so roughly where the, when you enter in where the back stairs is towards the back of the building so we added that recreational space to be able to address that issue. Great. So that is in the most current set of drawings. It wasnt in the staff packet. Yes, we revised it last night, so we were doing alterations to address all your comments. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Obviously, you know, its not a code requirement to have the recreational space but i think it makes the building more attractive for families so im very appreciative, thank you. So youre welcome. Commissioner koppel . Motion to approve. Second. Second. Very good, commissioner. If theres no further deliberation, theres a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. On that motion, commissioner ruiz . Aye much commissioner diamond . Aye. Commissioner imperial . Aye. Commissioner koppel . Aye. Commissioner chair moore . This includes the changes that were presented today and the challenges that the department will do as follow up, correct . We saw a plan, was the roof deck pulled back . The plans modified. Okay. And submitted to the record. Thank you. Yes. Very good then. That motion passes unanimously, 5 to 2. This is your discretionary review calendar, case number 10, 2021000659drp at 485day street and this is a discretionary review. Good afternoon, president moore and commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. Can you hear me . No. This is a public initialed request for Building Permit application 2020. 1117. 9094 to construct a third story vertical addition and horizontal addition and add an accessory dwelling unit to twostory singlefamily dwelling unit. The existing building is a category c and no Historic Resource present built in 1924. Im here and happy to report that the dr request and project sponsor r5e67ed an agreement which they would like to have memorialized through the commission taking the discretionary review and approving as modified. I will let the project sponsor and the dr requesters outline the conditions of this agreement thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much commissioners and secretary aona and coordinator, ms. Winslow. Ryan on behalf of the dr requester. As mr. Winslow stated, im very happy to report that through a lot of hard work, we reached an agreement to resolve this case. I want to thank all the people who contributed to that, mr. Winslow, project council tom donee, architects mike and bill and a number of neighbors and neighborhood organizations, thank you very much for your support. On the overhead, we have sheet 8. 203 and a copy of these revised plans being distributed to the commission and sent in advance to the dr coordinator as well. And i will quickly go through what these modifications are. The project sponsor will be modifying the roof deck to increase the setback by including planter boxes along the west and south sides. These planter boxes will be 30 inches tall measured from the finished deck surface with 12 inches of planting above that plus or minus two inches to increase privacy. The juliet balcony on the third floor, so you can see this here, this balcony has been converted from a one foot depth balcony to juliet with a glass wall flushed. That will avoid people turning and looking into the neighbors windows. Additionally, window privacy measures include an obscured frosted glass hopper window and third floor guest bathroom in the west wall as well as the clear story window minimum 7 foot seal height in the primarily building west wall as measured from the finished floor surface. The project sponsor will also be providing a skylight for the dr requester to increase the amount of light coming in and as agreed to paint the west wall facing her building a color of her choosing to try and increase the amount of light coming in. I understand project council, mr. Donee is joining by telephone and im happy to answer any questions, and thank you again for your help and your time. Mr. Tunny is available to answer any questions by telephone. I see a member of the public with their hand raised. This may be mr. Tunny, ill unmute them. Mr. Tunny. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, mr. Secretary, commissioners. Just wanted to confirm the project sponsors agreement to the terms and mr. Tunny, are you still with us . Mr. Tunny, youre no longer audible. [silent] it sounded like the sponsor is agreeable to these terms. We should take Public Comment. Members of the public, if you wish to address the commission on this matter, please come forward or press star three. Hi, its gorgia shoot again. I wrote an email which i sent this morning and it relates to they greg in the adu and egress and its an unresolved question. I have been asking dbi and egress from bedrooms because the state fire marshal got rid of the one you had in 2013 and i still havent gotten an answer about it or and ive heard, actually heard two things. I heard you really cant go in a bedroom, i cant egress from a bedroom into a light well but i dont know what the answer is and my only point is to try and define it better so that when this project goes to dbi that you dont have to get rid of the bedrooms in the adu. Thats my point. I mean, if you look at the same sheets a2. 02, you see the ladder goes on to the roof up from the adu on the roof of the new second floor, the big room in the second floor and it goes on the roof and theres a planter and then you get on to the deck and i just think you he, you know, my criteria you know, is that a place you put your mother or motherinlaw. God forbid theres a fire would you want them in there and i wouldnt want my mother and i saw the ladder on the new drawings that were handed out and its quite steep, so i dont know if thats right, no one has given me an answer and i dont know if ogo2 has been accepted. Its something the commission needs to look at because im happy everyone settled and and a tribute that to mr. Winslow, thank you. Last call for Public Comment. Seeing no additional request to speak. Is there any rebuttal . Thank you, ryan paterson, no rebuttal. I would say procedurally the request is take dr and approve the project on the basis of the amended plans, which are before you today. Thank you, commissioners. Okay. Mr. Tunny, if you want to raise your hand, you can speak as well. Okay. Mr. Tunny, is this you . Yes, it is. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Just to reiterate the project sponsor agreed to the terms with the intention that they allow the project to move forward as proposed and limit the appeals Going Forward and so we would hope that the commission would honor the agreement both parties have. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Commissioners with that, the public hearing portion of this item is closed. And its now before you. Commissioner koppel . Move to take dr and approve with the agreements made today. Second. Second. Thank you, commissioners on that motion to take dr and approve with modifications as submitted. Commissioner ruiz . Aye. Commissioner diamond . [no response] commissioner diamond, you seem to be muted. Let me try unmuting you from here. Does that work . Can you hear me now . We sure can. Aye. Thank you. Commissioner imperial . Aye commissioner koppel . Aye. Chair moore . Aye. That pass 5 to 0. If you could take time to briefly address ms. Chutes issues and inquiry and comment. We did receive your email and the answer is, according to the project sponsors architect, they did screen this with dbi, this is a permit that precedes eg02, the revision to the emergency and egress rescue openings, so apparently in this case, dbi has reviewed it, vetted it and tentatively indicated the indication to approve so i want to make sure the loop was closed with respect to your inquiry, thank you. Commissioners, that will place us on item no. 11, 1 castenad avenue. This is a discretionary review. Good afternoon, commissioners, david wishes low. Staff architect. This is a public initiated request for discretionary review of Building Permit application 202100731drp to construct a new threestory residence with accessory dwelling unit on a steep down sloping vacant lot. The dr requester jay jones of 7 castenada, the neighbor on the south, they are concerned its a hazard and damage property because of drill and modification to the hillside. The applicable policies and Design Guidelines do not address Hillside Development in risk to the foundation. Additionally, storm drains thats essential for rain water runoff owe its not clear how it will be functional or relocated. And in addition the design of the front destruction is a departure of the character of the neighborhood. His proposed alternatives are to reduce the size of the structure significantly to minimize damage to the hillside in the amount of demolition to the hillside. As well as providing detailed plans on how to secure the hillside before the demolition as the material amount of hillside will be removed in the proposed exculpation. Additionally the depth and height of the building should be reduced significantly, so its not to block light and views for adjacent properties such as 7 castenada and no driveway should be constructed to avoid the removal of a storm drain at the front of the property and it would block the block of rainwater from castenada that could cause flooding and the design of the front of the structure to be revised ask consistent with the neighborhood and consistent of the neighborhood and the location of the windows that face 7 castenada should be offset to ensure privacy of the occupants of 7 castenada. The public or there have been no letters in support or in opposition to this proposal. Departments review supports and confirms this proposal as it conforms to the residential Design Guidelines as well as planning code. The proposal maximizes the allowable density but proposing accessory dwelling unit and the Planning Department is aware of the steep slope and the geotechnical risks and issues of the project but the expertise and purview to review and regulate falls outside the Planning Departments jurisdiction. Slopes ability related to adequate design and thats addressed at the subsequent when details are submitted to building and inspection. The siting and scale and articulation of this new house responds appropriately to the scale siding and massing of other surrounding buildings. As does the materiality of the exterior, cement plaster compatible with the prevailing exterior Building Material and the surrounding buildings. Therefore staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discussionary review, thank you. Okay. Dr requester, you have five minutes. Is the dr requester present . Okay. Um, dr requester is not present. We should go to the project sponsor, is the project sponsor present . Good afternoon commissioners, jake, the owner and the architect for the project. Lets be clear, this dr request is about an individual to prevent a planning code compliant home to maintain a side view. The lot was available on the open market and mr. Jones could purchased the lot but theres an an attempted abuse of the discretionary review process and Department Staff have confirmed this application proposes nothing that rises to the exceptional or extraordinary condition requirement that was established when dr was reformed. We have made numerous changes in the design to accommodate mr. Jones, what he sees we have made none, the footprint of the home, the primarily living levels was reduced and smaller than 7 castenada and despite being on lots thats 50 larger. The proposed home is redesigned closer to the street at street code to open up the rear yard. It accommodates side windows and we have proposed two on castenada. The outdoor space is setback from the side of the home to increase indiscernible exterior materials and they were modified with the planner to increase compatible with the district and the westside of our city must create new housing and done the tide of decades of this is a Sustainable Way to create new housing and i implore you not to take discretionary review and approve this project. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the public, if you would like to address the commission on this matter and in the chambers, please come forward or if calling in remotely, please press star three. Seeing no request to speak, ill give the dr requester an opportunity to raise their hand or come forward to provide their presentation, if not, the sponsor has a rebuttal for two minutes if you want it. In that case, commissioners, the public hearing portion of this meeting is closed and its now before you. Commissioner imperial . Well, [chuckle] yes, i also didnt have any issues with the planning staff recommendation unless and also the fact that the dr requester is not here to provide more reason, so i do, not to take the dr. Second. Commissioner diamond . I was going to do the same thing, so i will second, i think, commissioner imperial made a motion to not take dr and ill second. I would like to ask architect winslow to take us through the lower level drawing from what i read as not an adu but basically a singlefamily home since the adu is not really properly completely separated from the main unit. The drawings we use are cited differently here. Normally we use the indiscernible for where you start going up or down. In this case, the drawings are hard to understand but it got reversed but i would like mr. Winslow to address the issue of the adu not being sufficiently an independent unit as both requires. Ill try my best and im not designer and ill turn it over to the project sponsor if you allow me. My understanding from the drawing, rhd provides minimum setback along the sidewalk lines which enables this down sloping lot, the prevision for an exterior stair to independently access the adu from the side. That does so at a point that is half a level above the floor level of the proposed adu. If im not mistaken, half level above and then once in the adu on page, sheet 101, you enter a door, descend down a half a flight of stairs and youre into a hallway that leads to various rooms within the adu. Adjoining that to the right of that stair, as you were walking down from the entry, is another door, a partition with a sliding door that accesses a common, what looks like a common utility room, mep room as well as not elevator and a stair that ascends up to the main unit. In my discussions with the architect inquiring about this, it was his intent to enable the flexibility of this accessory dwelling unit to both operate independently as a separate unit or as a unit that indeed was used by an extended family visiting inlaws, et cetera, et cetera, and i think thats something thats an adu isnt required in this district, its an accessory so i think thats within the prerogative of the project sponsors development, but with that, thats the limit of my understanding of this. If you want to go into more specifics of the functionality of why the door is in such a way of a slider rather than just to add, i mean, because this is a fairly steep hillside to get to the adu, the intended purpose of this, were going to live in the home and anticipating it will become a multigenerational home with my parents and my wifes parents joining us so we want to give the flexibility to access the elevator and get to the street level and not walk up the staircases but as their winslow mentioned, its completely separable so future owners can lock that off and rent the unit if they choose to. It will be under a separate electrical meter and separate water meter and adu isnt required. We could have done a larger house and it would be well within the zoning limits for this property. I appreciate the explanation, mr. indiscernible , particularly. I would prefer for the clarity of why adus are part and used as something. It isnt read as adu because it isnt. And as some just to share with you, you are not normally a singlefamily home owner and many people use the adu to convince this commission of the noble thing. This is a larger home and approve it as such, so home functions perfectly fine. Theres only one question i have for you but sticking first with my final thought, lets change the word adu. Thats for the sake of being clear of what you normally expect from adus and somebody could help me with that. In this case, its problematic since the definition of a dwelling unit goes to the prevision of a kitchen, so in other words, if you had a singlefamily home with two kitchens and you tried to call it a singlefamily home, we at the Planning Department would say, sorry, thats two units, you cant do it, so yeah. Let me reiterate, we would be an unauthorized dwelling unit. It could become, if its built as designed, if we dont call it an adu, we would call it a udu, right. It would be an unauthorizing dwelling unit. It gets complicated to not call it an adu especially as mr. Winslow said, if it has a kitchen. Lets hear what City Attorney has to say. Thank you, commissioner moore, deputy City Attorney, austin yang. I just wanted to point out as proposed, this is a project with two units, which is the threshold for certain state law requirements and the commission and the citys discretion are limited where this Housing Development projects with two or more units so a reduction would require certain findings by the preponderance of the evidence as it relates to health and safety. Well leave it without its not required in the district. Its formally spelled out, not following the standard rules by we we look at other adus in other districts and im fine that to. Back to one additional question. You having a room on the floor level one, which is, oops, i cant read it. Can you read this word . Family room. Underneath. [laughter] its sheet 1. 101 and says curiosity. Lower level one. Theres a family room and theres a small word underneath. It says, i think not enclosed. Oh, i think thats for some reason it wasnt abounded. Im sorry. I apologize. Thank you. I appreciate it. Im in support of the project given what has been explained, thank you. Commissioner diamond, do you hear us . Can you hear me . Yes. Oh, yes, thank you. I thought there was a motion and a second, so i was just waiting for the vote. I had not heard a motion or a second. I did the motion and i mentioned i motioned not to take dr. Very good. And i seconded it. My apologies. I did not catch that. So theres a motion that has been seconded to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. Commissioner ruiz . Aye. Commissioner diamond . Aye. Commissioner imperial . Aye. Commissioner koppel . Aye. Commissioner chair moore. Aye. That motions passes 5 to 0. Sorry to have wasted your time, project sponsor. Commissioners, that concludes our hearing today. [adjourned]