Ever had. Were a 247365 business, but its enjoyable. We take care of pets, dog boarding, and we have a retail store, and we make a difference in this community for our clients. When covid hit San Francisco, we had a couple of long conversations with the City Attorney, and we were deemed an essential Service Prior to essential workers in San Francisco. We have even repurposed, during covid, some of our space to support rescue dogs clerk hi, caller. This item is meant to be for the proposed continuance of the item, not the item itself. So i should return when after this is continued . Clerk correct. So while basically the time to talk about the project itself would be if the commission continues it to december 3. I see. Okay. I apologize. Clerk no worries. Chan, well take the next caller. I dont see any other callers. Clerk great. Commissioners, i just received word that the liberty street discretionary review, site 13, 2020007450drp02, at 428 liberty street, is proposed for continuance. [inaudible]. President koppel motion, anyone . Commissioner imperial . Commissioner imperial move to continue the items as noted. Second. President koppel thank you. Roll call vote . Clerk we have a motion to continue the items as proposed. On that motion [roll call] clerk so approved, 70. We will move onto the next item on your calendar, item b, for commission matters. So we will take commission comments and questions. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore i wanted to strongly encourage everybody to participate in mondays invitation for [inaudible] presentation by the director [inaudible] director of the city of oakland. Hell speak on a matter that i personally found fascinating here on this presentation in september. [inaudible]. Clerk we will move onto item c, department matters, directors announcements. I have nothing. [inaudible]. Clerk in order to require additional review of Historic Resources and has this materials impacts. The department reopened the analysis, and in june 2019 issued a mitigated declaration including a mitigated declaration measure that included ongoing monitoring as per the d. B. I. S review. The [inaudible] was before you and upheld earlier this year. The final m. N. D. Was appealed to the board. [inaudible] raised the same issues that were raised in previous appeals. Those issues included one, instruct structural impacts to the adjacent foundation at 2124 [inaudible] street, two, indirect historic release [inaudible] staff emphasized compliance with the Building Code and additional oversight with the mitigation measures. [inaudible] City Attorneys are currently working with the board to determine ceqa findings that determine the additional analysis required. The board also considered two other ceqa appeals, both statutory exemptions called together. One was for the m. T. A. Muni bus service adjustments, and one for the sfmta muni rail adjustments and associated street and parking changes. These projects were not heard by the Planning Commission. Both projects were determined to be statutorily exempt by the Planning Department under the emergen [inaudible] in august of this year. The primary concerns raised by the appellants included that the projects do not fit the definition of an emergency project or a mass transit project and that there are massive cumulative impacts caused by the projects. [inaudible] the project also qualify as mass transit projects because they increase ridership capacity on existing transit lines. Public comment in support of the appeal reflected the primary concerns raised by the appellants. There were some concerns by supervisors, but they mainly had to do with the ceqa process and not any concerns. In the end, the aweppeal was denied by the board. [inaudible] commissioners, this is similar to an ordinance you reviewed last november section 191. The reference in 190 should have been included last year but was not included in the changes. Since this is a minor correction, staff is not planning on bringing this item to you for review and recommendation unless you direct me otherwise, and that is all we have for a review of items at the board of supervisors. And now that secretary ionin has joined us, i will see if we have any updates on the board of appeals or the Historic Preservation commission. Clerk i dont know what happened. I was joining in, and everything just clicked out on me. There is no report from the board of appeals. Given the holiday, they did not meet, and the Historic Preservation commission did not meet yesterday. Lets make sure that doesnt happen again. So commissioners, i apologize, but it appears that we can take Public Comment commission. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. When the number of speakers exceed the 15minute limit, general Public Comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. I will remind you that you can call in for Public Comment by dialing 4156550001 and entering meeting i. D. 1462277331, press pound, and pound again. To request to speak, please press star, three to be entered into the queue. Oh, hi. This is georgia sciutish. [inaudible] they often have invasive roof decks that are not necessary to meet the open space requirements of the planning code. The windows changed, particularly on the rear facade, with walls of glass having an impact on the rear yard midblock open space, which i showed with the five photos, six projects in tuesdays email. Also, these have spaces with carbon capturing yards and tree canopy. This translates into the interior date with an inefficient use of space with kitchens overwhelming the main level. There are no hallways, there are no light wells, there are no discreet rooms per level. This is housing that does not comply with section 317 relative to housing and affordable and is contrary to the citys housing policies and the questionable in the age of covid as discussed in the wall street journal article that i sent to you this morning. So underlying all of this, of course, is the fact the democalcs have never been adjusted since it was implemented in 2008. Thank you, everybody. Be well, be safe. Byebye. Good afternoon, commissioners. Ozzie reaume with San Francisco Housing Alliance and housing coalition. Im urging you to follow up on questions that the public and some of you raised last week when the planning was introducing, was presenting the new proposed a. D. U. Ordinance that the mayor has put forward. We still have a lot of issues with this, and i am imploring you to actually follow up on this and dont let another bad a. D. U. Law to become the law and law of the land in San Francisco. I understand that the City Attorney is claiming that it is a state law, and that we have to implement that, and i am questioning that. Do you know of any municipality, another community, another county, another city that has actually implemented this state law, the a. B. 68 state law that Assembly Member phil ting passed last year . We want to know if theres other cities that implemented it, how they implemented it because the ability to actually convert every inch of your lot to structures, and with no regards for your surrounding environment, no regards to rent control ordinances, its pretty much not okay. Further, the city of San Francisco is unique in its makeup in having 64 tenant and not 64 homeowners. Thats why we have an ordinance, and thats why i believe the contract that landlords enter with their tenants are a legally binding contract, and theyre not going to be able to come and tear that contract to shreds just because some new a. D. U. Law is going to be able to do that. So once again, i urge you to follow up on this. I dont believe that the City Attorney has got the answers has got all the answers, and i do believe that our local ordinance and our local laws should be there to protect our city. Further, i believe there could be better interpretation of the state law to our tenants could be better heard as well as our homeowners. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. This is bruce bowen from delores heights. Id like to refer back to last weeks hearing [inaudible] you may not be aware that planning has already implemented the programs that you already talked about. It isnt surprising, perhaps, that planning has proceeded in this way with implementation of the state laws, but the questions that you and the public raised last week need follow up and answers and more work, and ask that you actually follow through on answers for the sweeping changes and, yes, upzoning that have happened. Heres some of the areas that i think are needed for work, monitoring, and scrutiny. Im sure there are others. One, rent control. The city has determined only a. D. U. S can be subject to rent control, and already existing a. D. U. S may lose their rent control status. Tenant protections. It sounds like the new laws in ministerial approve will limit the rights of tenants to know what is happening against them and can assert their rights when they lose certain amenities, as everything is approved over the counter without review of the specific circumstances of the ground, and obviously, the city to provide adequate protection of tenants without a rental register may be very weak. Three, affordability and accessibility. Any programs to provide incentives or actuals to ensure a. D. U. S are more available to people of all income levels. Four, open space. Okay. If were alarmed about the impact of streamlined detached a. D. U. S in open space, the horse may be out of the barn. Assembly member ting has apparently forgotten that our lots are smaller than those of other jurisdictions, and if he wouldnt help us, we need to find someone who will. We decided that we should ask you to propose a Data Collection regimen as part of the other needs such as a rental register and housing inventory. In what ways are these new laws a burden on the city and contradictory to the general plan . Do we really know . Thank you. Clerk thank you. I just want to make sure okay. Ms. Reaume, is this you . This is me, but ive already given my Public Comment. Clerk i know. I just wanted to make sure i didnt overlook anyone. Thank you. Okay, commissioners, and actually, members of the public. Last chance to provide Public Comment. Commissioners, to enter the queue im sorry. One person, please. My name is john goldsmith, and im a 29 year San Francisco resident, and i live in the castro, and i am concerned about the Historic Preservation status of the castro metro muni station. It is at a stage in its life where it is borderline historical status, but i believe, and many others do, as well, that it is a culturally important lgbtq site with many other assets, such as Carbon Sequestration and tree canopy. Ive brought this to the Historic Preservation before. Im concerned about senator wieners intent to demolish the southern entrance of our transit hub. It needs to be polished, not demolished. Thank you very much. Clerk okay. Members of the public, last call for general Public Comment. Seeing no other requests to speak, commissioners, we can move onto your regular calendar for item 8, case 2017014833prj for the property at 469 stevenson street. This is an informational presentation. Staff, are you ready to make your presentation . Jonas, i thought that staff battery was up first. Clerk well, youre up first. Will we be pulling an item out of order . President koppel jonas, i wasnt aware of it, but it doesnt matter. Clerk okay. Why dont we just go ahead and do this one. Okay. Hello, commissioners. This item is an informational presentation on a project that would demolish the existing surface parking lot and construct a new 27story mixeduse building that is approximately 274 feet tall with an additional 10 feet for roof top mechanical equipment. The proposed project would total approximately 535 a,000 gross square feet and include 495 dwelling units, approximately 4,000 square feet of commercial retail use on the ground floor. Id like to now turn it over to lou vasquez for his presentation. Are you here . Clerk claudine, do you know what his phone number is . I dont see his name on the attendee list. I do. I sent that to chan. One moment, please. Clerk sure. Ill actually try to find it right now. My technical difficulty didnt get me as prepared as i wanted it to be. For his number here, i was given 7481855. I dont see that number on the attendee list or his name. He did receive an invite, i know that. Clerk well, my staff says that he was on earlier but maybe he dropped off. Maybe the person who just texted me could advise lou to try to call back in. Oh, that was you. Yes, it was. Im reaching out to him. I wonder if he may be having some issues with the webex, as well. Clerk he may have, given the issues that ive been experiencing, as well. Should we give him a few minutes and then maybe move onto battery. Ive got a text that hes trying to call back in. Clerk if he has trouble, he can call the public line and well allow him five minutes for presentation. Through the chair, maybe we should just go to Public Comment. President koppel sure thing. Clerk okay. Vice president moore the Public Comment is a little more difficult to understand when we have not seen the presentation. Particularly, we have commissioners that are new to the project. Clerk actually, he is on the line. I see him now. I see him now. There you go. Project sponsor, your presentation slides are up and youve been unmuted. Thank you for your patience, as i will remind you. These remote hearings require a lot of it. Project sponsor, are you ready . Yes. Clerk okay. You have five minutes. Okay. Am i on now . Clerk you are. Okay. Claudine, are you at the helm here . I am. I am. Im on your slide one. You just let me know, and i will page through. Okay. Can i have one minute . I need to dial in the architect. Absolutely. Okay. Im not seeing it on the screen, though. Im hearing Something Else on the screen. Let me turn that off. Hang on a second. Sorry. Jonas, are you seeing the presentation . Clerk i see your presentation screen, yes, claudine. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Hang on one second; im dialing the architect right now. Claudine, can you hear me . I can. I can. All right. My names lou vasquez. Were going to move quickly through this. I thought i had ten minutes, not five. Lou, lets just ask jonas, jonas, are you okay with us getting the normal ten minutes, please . Clerk its not up to me, its up to the chair. President koppel . President koppel thats fine. Clerk okay. Thats fine. Im going to move through this because we have a love to move through in ten minutes. This is the 469 stevenson project. Its about three years in the making at this point. The project is located at between mission and market, fifth street and sixth street. Next slide, please, claudine. Claudine, can i get the next, next screen . Director hillis the slides arent advancing. Claudine . Theyre not advancing . Director hillis no, they are. You dont see it on the screen, but they have been advanced. Oh, okay. All right. Well, this is commissioner tanner it seems like youre watching on t. V. Theres a delay, and so youre not going to see the advancing as simultaneously as its occurring. Right now, were on 53 that says at a glance at the stop. The project is in a 3g zone. Were using a state density bonus to get 495 homes there. Were proposing a 19 onsite affordable which has a state component to it. To date, weve had 70plus meetings with the community. That is ongoing. Our outreach is ongoing, where we will also propose about 30 affordable units as part of 30 Additional Units as part of this project. I just moved to the next slide, lou. I cant see the slides, so i cant its midmarket development projects. The surrounding projects the surrounding midmarket projects, they include the 656, which is [inaudible] where the new ikea is going, the 5m project, which is directly to the south of us, and several residential projects. Move onto the next one. Claudine, whats the next slide . Clerk youre on vicinity photos. Okay. Vicinity photos, the street wall at Market Street, and the interesting thing about this project is its in a super block, essentially, with fifth and six, market and mission, it doesnt face on any of them, so youre set back from Market Street, youre set back from mission street. The walls of those streets make it so that you dont see this project from the street level. You dont see it you only see it when youre up close to it or far away from it. It tends to be obscured by the buildings in between. Next slide then. The immediate building is adjacent to the stream plant. There is steam plant. Theres alleys on both side. Jesse and stevenson, theres parking lots, and theres no street trees or any sort of vegetation there currently. Next slide. Claudine, can you tell me what the next slide is . [inaudible]. Okay. Jonas, were on the site aerial view. Yes. Im trying to call keiko. Im trying to get him in. Okay. So the site, as you mentioned in an mc surface parking lot. Its [inaudible] we studied the ba li baseline density to make sure we could meet the requirements of the project, and we studied the baseline of the project. Next slide. [inaudible]. Were hearing him, and now, were on shaped by the wind. Okay. The project has been [inaudible] and that formed the height of the building and also by the wind, and we did numerous runs through the [inaudible] to find a form that would be compliant with the ordinance. Next slide. And next slide. It should be a form of the street wall. We worked with the cannon star to make sure that the building provided a street wall. It is pushed back towards jesse street to make sure it minimizes the wind. The next slide on the ground floor plan, you can see we have residential lobbies on both stephenson and jesse street. Weve minimized as much as possible the m. E. P. And backofhouse spaces and provide amenities in lobbies in order to activate the street front frontages. There are some larger five bedroom units [inaudible] create the street wall and also provide family units. And if you go to the next slide, can see there are some deep reveals into the form of the building, and youll see the allocations. On level 27, the next slide, we set back the [inaudible] at the top of the building. Next slide, thats where we draw our inspirations. You can see the changes in elevation and changes in scale from the pedestrian realm. It enlarged into a more vertical multistory living [inaudible] we selected warm materials that relates to the adjacent Historic Brick structures and also related to some of the [inaudible] also in San Francisco to [inaudible] art museum, and you can see that we also [inaudible] and then, the next page shows the building elevation. Again, these two matters and in the middle create a more [inaudible] proportion. The next slide showed the landscape at the street level [inaudible] on the next slide, you can see the plant pallette, where were using native species as much as possible. [inaudible] the next is further back from the freeway. The next is a pedestrian view from stevenson street, and then, the next is from jesse street showing the transparency to the ground floor. From here, the project has or project density should be close to transit. In the public realm, the adjacent power plant is an opportunity to draw power from there. Next slide. The close to transit, high density, fostering inclusion. 94 units on the site, on the 495. Family oriented units, we have a mix of 30 two and larger units, and ill just end there and let the commissions ask questions as they will. Clerk great, thank you. Appreciate that. Members of the public, now is your opportunity to submit your public testimony on this matter. This is an informational item only, and the commission will not be taking any action today. Through the chair, each member of the public would be afforded two minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. Corey smith on behalf of the San Francisco Housing Action coalition. Our project review committee is scheduled to see this in a couple of weeks, so we have not reviewed the details, but overall, i must say that were excited at the prospects of adding this number of homes, considering the location. I think lou said it best, its building homes where home should be, and with a top notch operation like build, we think that theres something really special that can come out of this. So we are also looking to looking forward to diving in to more details, and excited to continue the process Going Forward. Thank you. Hi. My name is tory fallen, and im speaking on speaking of the housing coalition. This is a perfect example of the kind of housing that we need to be building in our city centers. It not only replaces a parking lot, but it helps reduce our need to rely on cars to meet our transportation goals. Of the 495 residential units, 95 of those will be available at below market rate. With the current methodology for the sixth [inaudible] side is adopted, San Francisco will need a plan to build six times the housing that was approved this cycle and that includes any houses that are currently being constructed during this rhna cycle. So thank you for yo we do hope youll consider this when the time is right, so thank you for your time and consideration. John [inaudible] with the yerba buena housing consortium. So we have two questions, and an important ask. The first question is, the developer did not explain how they are calculating how they will comply with inclusionary housing for this project. It should be more than 19 . We would appreciate if the staff would clearly state the Environmental Review process that would apply to this project since we very well hope to appeal it in the future. Second, in determining the socio equity impact and racial impact of projects like this, in sensitive locations like this, its imperative that the developer or city prepare an analysis of the anticipated future resident population of this building, including their race, their income, household composition, how many children, and the other Critical Issues as that. Those market analyses can be done, and if no one can do it, we would hope to do it themselves, but i to do it ourselves, but i would hope that the developer would take this on. Thank you. Clerk go ahead, caller. Yeah, sorry. This is lou vasquez. Im just opening clerk oh, yeah. Hi. My name is paul lofgreft. Were the energy company, District Energy company right next door to 469 stevenson, and weve lived in this neighborhood for many decades. Our plant has been here for over 100 years. Its been a tough community that would gain stability from better housing with a diversity of residents. Our steam plant next door offers unique energy and Water Conservation opportunities to 469 stevenson. We have attended the Community Meetings over the years. I think we add synergies needed for offering space, water heating and cooling. There are many opportunities to recycle water on this project. We reclaim barts subway water and use it to make our steam. Were focused on water reuse and water reduction. Wed love to partner with build on this project. We think its a showcase model for District Energy, not just in San Francisco but nationally and internationally. Were right next door, on the same block, and were very excited about it. Weve been hoping to see this for years, and thats it. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is alex lansberg, speaking here on behalf of the organizing mechanical and light safety crafts in San Francisco. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. This is its exciting to see this making progress. I do want to comment and sort of piggyback on mr. Eberlings comment on the specific racial and social equity. I think the question is, whos going to be building this project . I think were all aware that the covid crisis has created disruption in the local Construction Industry both union as well as local workers, and its absolutely imperative to make sure that the men and women that build this thing come as close as possible from the city of San Francisco. Ensuring that happens is a clear would be a clear win for racial and social equities because when you take a look at the workforce that our organizations represent, its overwhelmingly not white both in terms of what theyre bringing in as well as the people who are on the [inaudible] every day. Even more important is the our our workers have parity in gender parity in terms of income, in terms of the wages they receive, and really, its critical for racial and social equity. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is sarah ogilby. I am a resident of San Francisco. I would like to express my interest and strong enthusiasm for this project. I think its a wonderful project. I love how, you know, it was able to concede to concessions on height, yet it increased the density. The state Density Bonus Program has shown that it continues to be in compliance with what it can produce at the site. In terms of future, you know, we already have climate refugees in california, and we can expect those numbers to get worse as we mitigate our climate change, but we dont solve with in the nearest future that we would all like, so i think its really important to offer californians opportunity to move to transit oriented sites, to move to places where they can stimulate the economy through workforce and also consumers for the local businesses and employers. I think its just wonderful, and i think the urgency of the housing shortage determines that we try to get a project like this up to speed, and three years in, i think thats just its really challenging, and i would like to see this project move expeditiously with as few hiccups and, you know, conflicts as possible. Thank you. Hi. My name is sam deutsche. Im a San Francisco resident, and im just calling because after hearing the presentation and doing research on this project, it really seems like a winwin in the sense that youre replacing fossil fuel infrastructure, a parking lot, which is the least productive use of this highly valuable land right next to b. A. R. T. , with 500 homes, almost 100 of which are affordable. It really sounds like a nobrainer, and given the current housing crisis in San Francisco, i was disappointed to hear somebody else comment, preparing to file an Environmental Review or complaint or whatever because the further we make projects like this jump through silly hoops and be delayed, the longer it takes for housing to be built, and every day, housing goes up delayed meaning that somebody who could be living there isnt, and i think we need to look at housing through that paradigm and think about the fact that housing delayed truly is housing denied, and given the fact that shelter is a human right that should be available for us, the last thing that our government should be doing is making it harder to gain that shelter, especially when its replacing fossil fuel in an extremely transit oriented way. So again, i support the project. I hope its really built without delay [inaudible]. Hi. Im [inaudible] peterson. Im a San Francisco resident, and i live on Market Street not too far from this, actually. One of the things that i want to mention is the inclusion of this many Parking Spaces, i know its already actually the same number of Parking Spaces, but it just seems a place with a density bonus, near a transit hub, why would you implement that in an area that has the highest percentage of car owning individuals . I welcome the diversity. I would love to have it more Affordable Housing, but i think the number of Parking Spaces, youre going to the ultrawealthly. I just i dont know. Otherwise, its great. Please reconsider the amount of Parking Spaces. Stop allowing parking in the city. We can fit more people, plenty more people if we dont have cars, and thank you. Hi, this is steve marza, a resident of San Francisco. Im just calling in support of the project. Its an excellent infill development, right next to transit, additionally, right ni next to the 5m project thats going to be right there. One thing i do love about the best cities in the world is theyre very walkable. People can live right next to where they work, and they have more walkable infrastructure. You know, my only hope is that it can be taller. I guess 284 feet is, you know, pretty good, but, you know, given that area, you could definitely increase the height, but i understand you had to make compromises, and i hope that that helps with, you know, the speed of the approval in this project, so please support this project. I think it would be an excellent addition to our city skyline. Thank you. Clerk okay. Members of the public, last call for Public Comment. If you would like to speak to this matter, please press star, three to enter the queue. Commissioners, i see no further questions requests to speak from members of the public. Commissioners, theres no further Public Comment, so Public Comment is closed im sorry. Theres always one more. Im sorry, commissioner koppel. Theres one more Public Commenter. David wu with soma filipinas. This is within the soma filipina cultural district. I would like to bring up the concerns by John Elberling with toddco. We just went through the hub plan, and there was a clear need shown for real serious racial and social Equity Analysis analysis to be done, especially as the Planning Department goes through that process and the Planning Commission passes strong legislation around that, and really need to be looking at who were building for and whose benefiting the most for such a huge project, especially given the low amount of Affordable Housing in this project. And as we continue to go through the covid19 pandemic, where lowincome working class communities and communities of color are disproportionately impacted. So really need to see more information on those pieces, and especially around gentrification impacts. Thank you. President koppel commissioner tanner. Clerk sorry, Commission President koppel. There is a second person thats requesting to speak. President koppel okay. Go ahead. Hi, can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Okay. My name is [inaudible] and im a ph. D. Candidate at u. C. San francisco. Im about to be awarded my ph. D. In a couple of months. This project will really affect my ability to move downtown [inaudible] and i think that the amount of housing that is near Public Transit, either b. A. R. T. Or muni lines, is severely lacking. This doesnt only affect people like me but lots of people [inaudible] in the city of San Francisco. So i think that having more housing near transit hubs is very important and well have truly Environmental Impacts on reducing our need for private vehicles, its increasing our access to public transportation, especially for me that make a very lowincome salary, which is about 40,000 a year [inaudible] pave the way for a greener San Francisco. Thank you. Clerk okay. Now, one last time, members of the public, this is your last opportunity to enter the queue by pressing star and three. Okay. I see no members of the public requesting to speak. Public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you, commissioners. President koppel commissioner tanner . Commissioner tanner thank you, president koppel. I was going to have, if mr. Vasquez is still available, to talk more about the inclusionary housing component of the program. I understand its, like, 18 , and just like, 19 . I just want to ensure that its 19 of the overall units, and the a. M. I. Levels, and if you could talk more about how thats derived, i would appreciate that. Hi. Am i unmuted . Commissioner tanner yes. Clerk we can hear you. Thanks for the question, yes. Its 19 like i said, theres a wrinkle here. The state density bonus project, the base project calculation is about 337 units. 19 of that would yield 64 affordable units. San francisco has a fee on the additional bonus units. Weve had a lot of support or suggestion that the neighborhood would prefer onsite affordable to the inlieu fee; however, that is not currently allowed. We have talked to both the neighborhoods and the Supervisors Office about supporting legislation that would allow us to replace that with Affordable Housing, so that would push us to 19 . We do understand this is an ongoing negotiation, so but thats our basic proposal at the moment, and it would be split in the way you described it f it. Commissioner tanner so i just want to make sure that 19 is 19 of the base project, and there would be housing onsite. The basic project would have 64 affordable units. The project were proposing has 94 affordable units. Commissioner tanner got it. Okay. And that would be the permission being sought to have that difference, is that correct . And just to confirm, this would be a rental project . Yes, it would be. Commissioner tanner great. Thank you very much. Thats all my questions for now. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore the housing is an extremely important issue, and all of us without exception, are in support of it. Id like to reach away to a couple of my questions that are already broader in the context of the e. I. R. Most and foremost, i would echo mr. Elberlings and others concerns about the Racial Equity and investigation for this project. It is particularly sad, in light of the fact that we are part of the filipino cultural district, we are part of the soma family, and we are part of the Mission Conservation district, and the original westin soma [inaudible]. All of these, in their own particular configurations have an impact on who lives adjoining to the site, and i would like the social equity take a look at that. [please stand by]. If you could speak to that. Do you want to speak to that or should i . I couldnt hear you. Starting with the last issue first. First of all, in general the parking, that number of Parking Spaces is what is contained in our e. I. R. That is the maximum number of Parking Spaces we would provide. That number is dependent on our subsurface explorations going on now in the next few weeks to determine what deep the foundations are. We can envision a site with substantially less parking so that is kind of a mixture of functional and issue and a what is site bears out. In terms of you know, strange traffic situation. Both alleys are one way in the same direction. Traffic study indicated that we dont have a severe impact. I dont know specifically about how Market Street being closed to traffic has an effect on that. Remind me the second question. How do you get there from Market Street with Market Street closed in that particular segment of Market Street. I am unclear what effect that would have. We can get back to you with that. In terms of social equity we are sensitive to the fact we are in the historic disstrict there, the social texture in that area. We want to enhance it. Not diminish it. We have done one study and we can expand that to look at the other cultural issues if those are not included there. Once again. We can distribute that to the board if they are interested in seeing it to see what the impacts are and if we need to met gate those in some way or the other. The Community Benefits the project will bring are benefits that the neighborhood stands for. In terms of the shadow. We originally proposed 35 Story Building, 350 feet. We lowered that building by eight stories. We have done 27 stories. Specifically to remove the shadow impact on the park and the parks across in the tenderloin across Market Street. There is some impact on the plaza no doubt. Our analysis is that we would in order to kind of all or none. It is a very odd situation. We would have to remove 1 10 stories to mitigate that. That takes us back to the base project, which is 330 unit project, 64 affordable units and less Community Benefits along with it. I believe we looked at the impact on the new public space and they were very limited if any. Once again, i can go further if we need to on that. That would be really great because mary street is the heart. Obviously, the proof a ahead of you. Not just to create an open space but capture the essence of the children in that area. Your project with my questions to you. The open space in your project is of a quality i dont fully understand because your building in a very pragmatic way comes to the particular alley. It doesnt really give anything at the bottom for mitigating the impact of the very large building relatively speaking on our small alleys. That said, my concerns about mary street are high on my list of priorities together with asking you as to whether or not you could find a way to soften your building in the street and ally to actually help with moving people through east and westwestwest allies to providet and sunlight for people to move in other ways than just being on Market Street. Yeah, we understand your concerns and we will move to address those. I look forward to doing so. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner imperial. Thank you, commissioner in terms of the housing. I do share many sentiments in terms of the shadow impact. I am curious in terms of the pdm for this. Like commissioner moore and you mentioned it is a oneway street and the fact the Market Street is closed. I am interested to see how you are going in this kind of massive or project to be able to handle that. As from my experience and i am very familiar in that area that many of these cars have been using the alleyways as a alternative to Market Street. Also, i am very interested as well in and i would like to see as we are going through the e. I. R. Of this again the Market Analysis in terms of the racial and social equity as this is very close or perpendicular to sixth street where there are many sros and low income population living nearby and how they will be affected as well. There are Small Businesses as well on the sixth street. Another thing, too, and this is within the Cultural Heritage district. I think it will be great for the project sponsor to address how will this also be the process . How will this be connected with the heritage district . One thing in this time that we are in this covid19 and there are many Office Vacancies and housing vacancies, that part of the Market Analysis i would like to see how is the project development in a way when there are many vacancy rates. We dont we have captured the Office Vacant spaces in terms of housing since we dont have data how is this project going to impact in a way that how the vacant units because there are those issues coming up in San Francisco. Also in the racial social equity again. We always reiterate how the element is going to be in compliance or reaching our housing elements . You know, i am looking forward to seeing this in terms of the e. I. R. , again the issues and shadows and the wind impact because this is going to be in an alleyway and the population of seniors and the area, that is something that is also will be affected for the people nearby. I hope to see that in the future when we look into the e. I. R. Thank you. I have questions. The first question is given the number of on site units. Do we know the current unit mix of the units at this point . Yes, we do. It is in one of those slides. It is 31 of the units are two bedroom or larger, including some three bedroom and five bedroom units. The balance of the other 70 are i believe about 40 or 50 ones and the balance studios. That is the mix that we are contemplating. That is encouraging given the heidi mapped for affordable family housing. It is great a larger number of the units could be set for family housing. I also wanted to learn about the shadow impacts on the park. I heard the building has been scaled back for shadow impacts. I want to go back to slide 11. I want to confirm the impact of the new shadow on the park. I dont believe there is any additional shadow on the park. I can speak to that. There would be no shadow. I can speak to that as well, commissioner. Yes, there is no impact. My understanding the only problem they seem to have with shadow. [ inaudible ] i think that helps answer my question. I would be interested in a stronger racial social Equity Analysis of the project. Not just future residents who this is for but understanding the impact on the residents who already live in this area. I think this analysis should be helping the commission and the public and the department to answer what is the Public Benefit of the project and how this benefit or development directly benefits or impacted by the market developments in the past. Thank you. Commissioner diamond. I am wondering if staff could remind us where we are in the process. I knew a draft e. I. R. Was published in the spring. It would be helpful to know the timing every response to comments and the project approval. Sure, i believe that we are looking at sometime in the First Quarter of next year of coming back, finishing up to the commission. Is that correct . Thats right. Any seequa issues not addressed in the draft e. I. R. . It is funny you mentioned that. I want to make sure we were. I think the purpose of bringing the project back here today is mostly just to talk about the project so that they can hear outside of the world of sequa about the project itself. It is my understanding that jenny is the planner handling it. They are working on the analysis of all of the impacts that were raised at the time of the draft e. I. R. This is not an extension of the comments. This hearing was not to extend the Comment Period . Absolutely not. This is completely separate. I just want to clarify what was previously raised because the Comment Period is closed is my understanding. Thank you. Absolutely. Commissioner fung. I had a question of commissioner diamond. Also, with a further caveat that i would like to see a draft of the staffs report sooner rather than later. I think there is a fairly complex issue here. Even if it is in draft form, i would appreciate perhaps reviewing that and raising any questions i may have. Often in the downtown area we often do two weeks in advance, a report in advance of the hearing. Would that be a sufficient amount of time for your review . It would be for my review. I am not sure resolution of any questions may take longer than that. However, if you folks have the draft in draft form and are prepared to giv give give us a i would appreciate it. We can definitely do that. Commissionecommissioner moor. Given the difficulty of reviewing documents online. I support commissioner fongs request forgetting it earlier. The documents and remembering it is far more difficult than having something in writing in paper in front of us. I wanted to venture out to an area which we normally dont do. Making comments not on Environmental Impact. They are to the experience of the draft e. I. R. I would like to speak about building expression in response to mr. Vaskesgiving the report today. What i am concerned about is the building is not particularly accessible. It is a uniformly treated for variation not residential. They are generic variations we see in many other buildings that could be office or anything el else. It does not distinguish itself among similar buildings in that area. I very much appreciate the building has different notches and height elements. I still would like to see a slightly more residential looking building if we can. This is a time to tweak the building. We have months and months ahead of time before we see it. In conjunction with my comment about open space, there is room to explore more elaboration as far as the building is concerned. That is in a positive and encouraging spirit, not criticism. Thank you. Commissioner tanner. Thank you you. One item i hope we might hear more about on this project and perhaps some information today is about the equity component of the Jobs Associated with construction of this building. I know we had Public Commentator who commented about local hiring. This would be curious if there are plans right now the project sponsor can speak to ensure a diverse and equitable work force to provide jobs to low and moderate incomes or something to speak to at a later time . We are certainly going to have local hiring and first source hiring on this project as well as currently working with neighborhoods all over San Francisco especially out in the basin at the moment. Internship and apprenticeship programs that bring local youth into career track programs. That is part of our dna. That is what we do. We are very committed to bringing those jobs into the city where they should be and we will continue to do that. I am glad to hear that and look forward to learning more. The issue of the parking. You are doing exploratory work to learn more what is up the surface there. Can you walk me through the parking that you are providing on site . What goes into that . Is that what you have seen in other buildings as to what is needed or desired . What is the driving force behind the parking that you are planning to provide . One thing i would like to say it is a surface parking lot filled and emptied twice a day. In the morning and evening. 161 spaces. A lot of traffic there. I think if we provided the same amount of Parking Spaces on the building it would be less parking. Those cars dont go out every day. A great majority get used on weekends. The real component, dermer of what we are doing is how many stories down we would go. Under ground parking is very expensive. We dont think in this area it is a transit rich walking friendly neighborhood. We think we can minimize the amount of parking. Really it is if we have to dig a 30foot hole, put three levels of parking in. If we have to dig 10foot hole one level of parking in. It is just having the space and what you do with it. Obviously there are other things to do with below grade space, but that is one of the factors determining. We dont think that parking. Right now the site would allow. 75 parking. We propose Something Like. 36 or 37. I just suspect when we get to the actual project we will be closer to. 2 or. 3. That is where we are headed. A fairly modest rate if it does have to be all three level of parking. I certainly for one and i am sure many would join in this prefer to have housing in the homes over Parking Spaces. I know those underground spaces are expensive. Whatever can be channeled into the housing unit i would much prefer that. I also wanted to echo commissioner moores comments how the building is meeting the street. I think those two alleys kind of are becoming more traverse than before because of the Market Street segment. How those can be enhanced as places to walk and whether it is to do planting and greening through interesting things in the facade. I know it can be a little bit of an area of the city that i really love. Ii think as we bring nature and greenery into the experience of People Living in the city that is a great opportunity to think beyond the industries. What does it look like where the street meetings the building . That is not specific. That is something i look to see how we are enhancing the diversity through greenery. That is important for aesthetic purposes and also for carbon and improving environment and air quality. Thank you. Okay. That concludes your deliberation on this matter. We can move on. Item 9 much. 20142036e. Had 447 battery street. We will have a Court Reporter. So i do recommend that everyone speak slowly and clearly and find a nice quiet place so they can report your statements. I see staff is prepared to present. Rachel, the floor is yours. Thank you. We are willing to share the screen, please. Good afternoon, Environmental Coordinator for the 447 battery street. Joining me are my colleagues. The item before you. Excuse me one moment. There is an echo in the background. I can barely hear you. Is there anything turned on in your room that creates this echo . No. Let me attempt to use my let me turnoff my camera. Thank you so much. Thanks for letting me know. Is that better . Yes, it is a little better. Unfortunately web ex did not allow me to use my headphones. I hope this is better. I will go ahead. The item before you is reon the 447 battery Street Project draft e. I. R. The purpose of this here hearing is to seek Public Comment on the completeness of the draft e. I. R. Pursuant to the californiaen vinementtal quality act and the procedures. No approval action is requested at this time. The draft e. I. R. Was published october 21, 2020. The public review period began on october 22, 2020. It will continue until 5 00 p. M. On december 7, 2020. I will now provide a brief overview of the proposed project as analyzed in the draft e. I. R. I want to mention that the design of the proposed project was modified from the original proposal. Under the Planning Department staff using the controls that were later included in the department res guidelines. [please stand by] the second measure requires the development of an Interpretive Program concerning the history and architectural programs of the existing 447 battery street building. The third measure requires video documentation of the subject building. While these mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project impact on the Historic Resource at 447 battery street, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. To address the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project on the resource, the e. I. R. Analyzed three possibilities here. The preservation alternatives were developed in consultation with the Historic Preservation commission or h. P. C. Who provided feedback at the october 22, 2019 hearing. At that hearing, the h. P. C. Proposed that the [inaudible] be redesigned to be compatible with the existing individual resource at 447 battery street and also to draw from the design language of the nearby historic buildings. Suggestions for improving this capability including incorporating a traditional [inaudible] organization in which the retaining walls of the existing buildings would serve as the base of the taller building that also included a shaft and cornicetype finish to the building. More specifically, the new project alternatives would keep the existing building as a commercial building and would not construct any addition. While the noproject alternative would have no impacts, it would also not meet any project objectives. Under the full preservation alternatives, the majority of the characterdefining features of the building would be maintained and rehabilitated, and a portion of the interior structures would also be maintained. A twostory addition and a penthouse would also be constructed on top of the existing building and would be set back 15 feet from the visibility south and east facades, as you can see here. Historically appropriate windows would be installed in existing openings. This would minimize impacts to existing Historic Resources, and no variances would be required. The partial preservation alternative would construction a new 12 story addition behind and above the facades. It would not avoid the Significant Impact of demolition to 447 battery street, and this project would partially meet the objectives. The next slide just provides a summary of the alternatives that ive described in comparison against the proposed project. So [inaudible] was held on november 4, 2020. The Commission Secretary has provided you a copy of the h. P. C. S letter, which i will sum vise now. At the hearing, the h. P. C. Found the e. I. R. Was adequate and accurate, and they concurred with the analyze included in the e. I. R. The sin they noted that the partial preservation alternative that we analyzed in the e. I. R. Successfully incorporated the h. P. C. S earlier comment. Ultimately, the h. P. C. Agreed that the draft e. I. R. Analyzed an appropriate range of alternatives to minimize historic impacts and outlined in the h. P. C. Resolution 1406 and ceqa environments. Now although it may not affect the outcome of this particular process, they proposed that the e. I. R. Wibe studied on the who and [inaudible] today, the Planning Department is seeking comments on the adequacy and accuracy contained in the Draft Environmental Impact report, and i will note, as Commission Second noted, that comments at this hearing are being transcribed. For members of the public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record. Please also speak slowly and clearly so that the Court Reporter can make an accurate transcript of todays proceedings. Staff are not here to answer questions today. Staff will reply to all comments received during the Public Comment period and will be included as revisions to the draft e. I. R. As appropriate. Those who are interested in commenting on the drachlt e. I. R. By write draft e. I. R. By writing may submit them by 5 00 p. M. On december 7, 2020. Thank you. This concludes my presentation. As i mentioned, city staff and members of the project team are able to answer any clarifying questions that you have, otherwise, i would suggest that the public hearing on this item be opened. Thank you. Clerk very good, commissioners. Unless there are specific questions at this time, we should open up Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to enter the queue by pressing star and three. We do have two members of the public requesting to speak. Through the chair, youll have two minutes. Good afternoon. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Thank you, and im sure that must be the question you get every single time someone calls in because of the slight time delay. So my name is cynthia gomez. I am the representative for local 2, the Hotel Workers union, and i wanted to raise a couple of comments raised in our briefing comments last year. To our clarification about the process, one is shadow impacts. The notice of preparation had noted that the project may cast a shadow on Maritime Plaza. The deir has two pieces of information that i cant reconcile. There is a mention on page 38 that there will be no study impact, but then, on page 42, a study from park and rec will be necessary to show the impact on the Maritime Plaza. Second, i dont see the list from the h. P. C. As a separate aful pro, and im wondering if that can be addressed why that isnt necessary at this particular time or if all those approvals have been granted. I also want to raise a global issue that commissioners will hear whenever [inaudible] is being raised, which is it has been past practice of Planning Department staff to flip entitlements that were granted, for example, a 92room hostel into a 200room hotel without any further review, so my question is in clarification. While commissioners may think theyre reading a report of a specific impact and its specific size, but its a new project of the same size. I also want to note that chapter 6 of the deir talks about proposed employees for the project, and id mention that the 200foot height building will have 50 employees, which is the same number of employees in the 75foot high building. These are numbers that would raise eyebrows and it is a shocking low number of employees for such a large hotel. Clerk that is your time. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Hi, commissioners. This is alex lansberg again. I wanted to, a, echo cynthias comments that you just heard, and i wanted to actually focus in on a particular land use issue. This is something that the Building Trades more broadly brought up with 1125 Market Street, and i think its entirely politicable here. What were applicable here. What were looking at is a Hospitality Industry thats literally on its back, and most importantly, no one knows exactly when its going to come back. As you are aware, San Francisco has approved a number of hotels and projects in recent years that are clogging up the pipeline, and honestly, we dont know that theres going to be demand that would facilitate the production. These are projects made by demands of stakeholders all across the project, and i think it would be problematic if we continue to clog up the pipeline. Besides that, we are skeptical of the approving more hotel in San Francisco. We believe as this process unfolds, wed really ask you to take a hard look and maybe [inaudible] thank you very much. Good afternoon, commissioners. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can. Thank you. My name is catherine [inaudible] i wish to highlight the findings of the Historic Resource evaluation issued by the Planning Department in 2018 which noted that the jones [inaudible] coffee building of 1907 is a category a property. I strongly agree with this determination that the building is individually eligible for the national register. The citys evaluation makes many salient points about the historical significance of this building, noting its status as one of the most prominent of a small number of buildings from the post 1906 era that survived the massive changes of the 1950s in the district. The building is one of the last connections to the areas early 1900 history. The building has been recognized as a resource for over 50 years when it was originally picked up by the citys original historic efforts of 1968, and it was rampged in the Heritage Survey of downtown buildings. Mike bueller, president and c. E. O. Of heritage, noted in comments submitted to this commission that the proposed project [inaudible] of facadism, which is consistent with secretary standards in the Planning Department because the property involves demolition of a category a property, this commission should consider the consequences and impact of this project. The commission should not allow this project that would allow demolition of yet another building to make way for a hotel. The building deserves protection, not demolition. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Members of the public, last call for Public Comment on this matter. You need to end the queue by pressing star and three. Commissioners, i have no remains members of the public requesting to speak at this time, so Public Comment is closed, and the matter is now before you. President koppel commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond yes, i want to talk about shadows, and before i guess into the specifics of my concerns, i want to state that i realize in projects like this, where weve got ceqa section 295 and project entitlements, that its often confusing and challenging to figure out which comments belong in which of those pots, so im just going to put forth all of my comments on shadows and allow staff to determine which ones really are ceqa related and which ones they believe should be better addressed in the subsequent 295 joint hearing between the park and Rec Commission and Planning Commission, where we will address, if im understanding correctly, the need to raise the shadow limit for this project and the public good that we would receive in return, and the project entitlement. So let me just layout all my concerns with that as a preface. When i read the draft e. I. R. , i was sufficiently concerned that there were going to be shadows for several hours in the midto Late Afternoon during the summer months, which is a time of use of parks, that i wanted to see the shadow studies for myself, and it was hard to find them. So my first comment is really just a procedural technical one. When shadow is determined to be insignificant and is in the initial study, then, the shadow studies are attached as appendices to the e. I. R. , and these were a little difficult to find. If you go to the planning website, and under the environmental section, you cant find the studies, so it took me several hours and several phone calls to track them down. Ceqa is, first and foremost, to be a disclosure stat uute, ande need to make it easy for the public to find the concerns raised in the draft e. I. R. Just as a concern to staff, i think it would be important to think through how we enable the public and the commissioners to easily access public studies when i dive deeper. Once i located the shadow studies, i was struck by the fact that Maritime Plaza park is listed as a park that roughly has 70 of it covered by shadow, mostly because of its own building, and yet, it is also a park that has a limit attached to it in connection with 295 that says if youre above 20 shadow, you cant add minimum shadow. I dont understand, and i feel like we need more information on how that 20 was attached to this park, when im assuming from the very moment that this park was building, that it was already covered with 70 shadow, given that most of it came from the building right next to it, Maritime Plaza, the building itself. So it would be helpful what the rationale was for the 20 on this park, given the fact that way more than 20 is already shadowed. On a more substantive level, the e. I. R. The initial Study Concludes that even though there are three to four hours of shadow in the afternoons, the park is not heavily utilized or people weho were sitting in sunny areas could move to other areas or people walking dogs in the area wouldnt focusing on werent focusing on certain areas. Even if we think that this is a type of park that we would no longer design, i dont like the fact that were degrading an existing 295 park in this kind of way. This park represents a style of park that was built in the late 60searly 70s, which is connected greenways above the street. And while in retrospect, we might not do that again because it removes vitality from the street it efl self, it is a pa that provides refuge to the residents and Office Workers in that area, and it is a park that is part of our system, and that we shouldnt be looking at it as current use of the park, but that it is space that could be redeveloped in ways that are more reflective of current thoughts for parks. So im struck by salesforce plaza, which is above grade park and extraordinarily successful. And thats a grade that this one doesnt come close to, but that doesnt mean that we shouldnt think about it in the future so that it can be redeveloped and used in different ways. I think our role as commissioners is not to look at it as just the current use of the park, but as a space we can recreate. We ought to take the space we have and better use it Going Forward. So as i think about this park and the additional shadowing thats going to be caused by a hotel, i guess i would want to understand what the demand is for the hotel. I understand if youre going to build a hotel, it needs to be of a certain size. And maybe its 200 rooms, maybe its less, but i also would like to see it worked on in what would it take to shape the hotel, not to necessarily eliminate all of the shadow, but to reduce the impact of some of the shadow. And so, hopefully, we can address those concerns either in the final e. I. R. , in the 295 hearing, or in the projects final entitlement hearing. Thank you. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore thank you, commissioner diamond. Youre raising very important questions. Ill be happy to share with you the background of prop k, which designated Maritime Plaza and many other parks downtown how line of shadow and others were designated at that time, but that is not what were discussing today. Id like to ask a very basic question. How will this deir change, given the fact that supervisor peskin filed for landmark designation or landmark initiati initiation for 447 battery street. Its a question, but i think it will change the thrust of the deir that is in front of us. Beyond that, i am concerned, as miss bromus is, about shadow impacts. Im concerned about globlocal issues, workers in hotels that are not specifically defined. I would join mr. Lansberg in his concerns about land use, hotels literally three blocks away, the marriott that just recently rebranded itself as the four seasons. [inaudible] i believe that the Hotel Feasibility study may need to shed some more light on it, and im concerned that hotel saturation in this area is already quite significant; however, our densefication of the city is shifting into city soma and other areas where hotels would be better located. I very much share the architectural historians concern, [inaudible] 447 battery that Historic Preservation had [inaudible] to better the history of the Public Market that was in place for [inaudible] all, i think, issues that greatly contribute to highlight importance of what is in front of us. I would also support the questions raised by mr. Bueller regarding the response of a building on this particular site and the issues that were supplied to us today. I find all of them quite questionable, other than the [inaudible] alternative, and that is not to say that something could happen on the site, but it would take would probably have to take a completely different approach than what is in front of us today. Thank you. President koppel commissioner tanner . Commissioner tanner thank you. I want to second Vice President moores question regarding the shadows and also to raise the issue about the landmark status, you know, how that will affect this process, and if staff are able to address that this afternoon, that would be great, just procedurally, that landmark status, if that were to be able to become a landmark building, how that would impact the draft e. I. R. That were reviewing right now. I was also concerned about the number of workers. 50 workers seems quite low for a hotel of this size, and so i was wondering if that was a number provided by the project sponsor or if theres any information that staff can provide regarding how that number was derived. And also, this would be more than a 200room hotel because of the number of rooms that could fit into this envelope would be more than 200. But i do believe because of this downturn that were facing i do believe that traveling will come back, and the Hotel Industry will be an industry that will rebound for futu future work and travel. However, i always think housing, housing, housing [inaudible] longterm homes and some being the hotels that are rented and daily and weekly rates, and so i would be curious about how the e. I. R. Would change if that change would occur or if the project sponsor needed to change from a hotel to a residential use. But i just wanted to underscore that and hopefully learn more about that, if it wouldnt come back to us either under a housing scenario or different rooms. But those are my questions and comments, and i second the questions from commissioner moore and commissioner diamond, and we need to make sure that were valuing our open spaces, even though they may be different, as commissioner diamond said, and we need to study the impacts of shadow on the park from the plaza. Thank you. President koppel director hillis . Director hillis i know that commissioner tanner wanted a [inaudible]. Commissioner tanner if staff could respond to that, that would be great. Director hillis yeah. You want to take that . Yeah. What happens when board initiated landmark is received, it first goes to the mayor to be signed off on, and from that point in time when its initiated, we have theres a 180daytime frame where any project on the site that hasnt already submitted a permit needs to go before h. P. C. For review . So that would that would, in this case, happen need to happen since they do not have a Building Permit on file with the city. In terms of how the process goes from that point, we would then take that resolution to the h. P. C. , and staff would work with h. P. C. In terms of whether or not they recommend approval or denial of the landmark status. Whatever happens at that point, that goes back to land use, and from there, it would go to the full board. In terms of how that would affect the e. I. R. , i would leave that to rachel. [inaudible] hi. Rachel schuett, urban planning staff. I would turn that over to [inaudible], whos also on the line. Hi. Regarding the e. I. R. Or draft e. I. R. , it would not affect the e. I. R. It would be include indd in a l Comment Section that would be included in the e. I. R. However, if that project came back for approvals, at that time, if it were a landmark, it would have to go before the h. P. C. For a certificate of appropriateness. Commissioner tanner okay. Thank you very much. And i dont know if miss schuett could speak to the number of employees, if that was provided by the sponsor or if theres another way we come up with the number of employees that were mentioned. Hi, commissioner tanner. What i will do is make note of your comment and take it back to our team, and well get back to you [inaudible] is that okay . Commissioner tanner wonderful. Thank you. President koppel commissioner chan . Commissioner chan so i have four points comments on the e. I. R. So i thought the e. I. R. Could have expanded more on the project objectives and were the project is necessary, but its saying that one project would provide a well designed building in an underused parcel, but the document didnt explain the need for expanding a hotel in the middle of a pandemic recession or the need of another hotel in an area thats already saturated with hotels. [inaudible] possibly 530 sansome, which is proposed to be a condo and gym, and i would like to see more discussion around the cumulative impacts of all pending construction in this area, not just on this site [inaudible] would be needed as a result. The third point is i was unclear if the traffic analysis provided the full analysis of all the traffic in the site or in the area, and how traffic would be affected in that its a high intensity traffic area. And my fourth comment is related to a line on page e24. [inaudible] on housing and employees, and the creation or demand of newhousi housing else [inaudible] and i would have liked to see more about the explanation for this statement. In particular, i echo the comments about wanting to see the feasibility of the number of Hotel Employees proposed, and the wages that they would be earning, and if those wages would actually allow them to live at a reasonable distance to the hotel to the work site or if we would be adding additional muni trips to the area. Thank you. Did you need to chime in more, claudine . Nope, i did not. Okay. Great. Clerk okay, commissioners. If that concludes your deliberation, that will conclude the hearing on the draft e. I. R. , and we can move onto item 10 for case 2019on 017837cua for 1812 to 1816 green street. There is a conditional use this is a conditional use authorization. Are you ready for your presentation . Yes, and i have a presentation to share. Good afternoon, commissioners. Katie wilborn, Planning Commission staff, presenting on 18121816 green street, which is to legalize the merger of two residential units into a singlefamily dwelling located within an rh 2 Zoning District and 40x highlight and bulk district. The applicants received a fally 3r result in april 2002, by faulty 3r result in april 2002, which incorrectly defined it as a singlefamily resident. The applicants purchased the property in may 2002, and shortly after, the tenant who had resided at the property for 23 years was issued a [inaudible] and within four days was issued an ellis act eviction notice. The first of many overthecounter Building Permit applications was submitted in september 2002, with an addendum in january 2003. While this application initially stated [inaudible] therefore, the Zoning Administrator at the time issued a suspension request on the permits until Commission Hearing was held. The applicants appealed this suspension, and the following board of appeals hearing upheld the Zoning Administrators suspension and gave direction for the applicant to file for a dwelling unit merger conditional use authorization. 17 years later, after many appeals and continuances, the project is now before you for that authorization. The proposed project to legalize the unpermitted work and residential merger would result in the net loss of two residential units subject to rent control protection and does not support the preservation of existing Affordable Housing. This is a direct contrast to the following sections of San Franciscos general plan. The housing elements objectives one, two, three, four, five, nine, and 11, as well as the earth and Design Elements objective number one. The faulty 3r report issued in 2002 have since been corrected in reports from 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2020. For these reasons, and as further evidenced by the facts outlined in the Commission Packet exhibit, staff recommends disapproval of the proposed project. This concludes my presentation, and the enforcement planner and i are here to answer any questions that you may have. The applicant is also present to speak on behalf of their own project. Thank you. Clerk project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes, sir. Clerk okay. You have five minutes. Can you see me . I dont see myself on the video feed. Clerk we wont be able to see you. Youre just well be able to hear you, and does he have a presentation . He does; im pulling it up. Clerk okay. So as soon as miss wilborn has your slides up, ill let you know, and youll direct her to advance to the next slide. Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners and president koppel. We are the owners of 18121816 green street. Thank you very much for hearing us today. We are asking for a continuance of the c. U. A. With a recommendation to the staff that they move to presumably deny our c. U. A. Thats before you. In the summer 2018, i was getting conflicting guidance from the department of building inspection and planning about how to resolve this long running case. I organized a meeting of d. B. I. Staff and planning staff, where we collectively determined, and i was directed, following this meeting, to file this unit count verification permit to establish once and for all what the original encouraged authorized use of this house is. I made that filing in november 2018. This was a vehicle presumably for the agency d. B. I. And planning to decide whether they agreed with us, that this was a singlefamily house or disagree with us, in which case we would take it to the Planning Commission for a decision once and for all. They directed me independently to file a c. U. A. Application, which we did in october 2019. Why is it important to establish the original authorized use before deciding the c. U. A. Thats before you . The original authorized use has a big impact on the c. U. A. Process and determination, but its not technically before the Planning Commission because the c. U. A. Starts off from the point of view that the home is a twounit home, and that my familys occupancy of it as a singlefamily home is illegal and its seeking to normalize or legalize that continuing use. But we believe the authorized use is as a singlefamily, and that the roccupancy is lawful, and that by moving the c. U. A. Forward ahead of action on the prior permit, which we requested numerous times to be acted on, it takes it out of order and denies us the right to be heard once and for all on this question of what was the original current authorized use of the home, whether it be through the staff or at the board of appeals. Why does this matter . It matters because 17 years ago, when we took out this unit, it was legal to do so. It was permitted to do so. We did not require a merger for an unauthorized unit 17 years ago. The policy is different today. We all understand that, but 17 years ago, it would be allowed to be done. If it were permitted at the board of appeals, we would be before you on a c. U. A. , and we would be making different arguments before you because the status of the house would have been decided by the board of appeals in that case. So why do we think its a singlefamily home . Well, we have a certificate that the Planning Department thinks its erroneously issue, but theres no explanation why thats believed to be an error. In fact, contemporaneously and a year later, the analysis and Information Systems showed our house to be originally and currently a singlefamily dwelling. So we dont believe that two independent city records, that d. B. I. And Planning Departments independent analysis systems are wrong. We produced residential directories showing that c. A. Marshall, the original occupant of the home and builder of the home, occupied the whole home. We produced government voting records for mr. Marshall that showed he occupied the whole home and not portions of the home as required to do so in those records. Most importantly, we produced the Water Department records, and these are before you. Katie, can i have the next slide . This is the last slide in my group. They showed that the home started out with one address, not two. The fifth entry down reads from left to right, november 3, 1884, the c. A. Marshall in the middle column, and then, on the right hand column, the secondtolast column, it has the address 1808, written out, then crossed out, with 181216 written above it. And the notation in the far right column says february 7, 1953. Katie, could i have the next slide, please . This slide just shows you a blow up of the columns here, with my pencil as a reference point. You can see it says november 3, 84, c. A. Marshall, and then, it has a cross out, and 18121816. Clerk sir, im sorry to interrupt you. With the permission of the chair, might i continue . I dont need the full ten minutes that the other officers got, but i would like to make a few more minutes with the indulgence of the chair. You have one minute. Okay. The walls creating the bedrooms were particle board nailed to finished floors. The stove was supplied by an uninsulated pipe, the refrigerator was inside a walkin closet with an extension cord powering it. We would just like to resolve this. This isnt a theoretical exercise for us. It is our home. We pay a higher Mortgage Rate because of this problem. We sit down to thanksgiving dinner and wonder if itll be the last time this with our children. It is a stressful situation. We would like to resolve it. We felt like we were on the goal line when we filed for the permit, and pushing the c. U. A. In front of that fros frustrate frustrates our ability to complete that process. Thank you, president koppel and commissioners. Clerk thank you. Commissioners, unless there are immediate questions for the project sponsor, we should open up for Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to get into the queue to submit your testimony by pressing star and three. Commissioners, i see no members of the public requesting to speak at this time. I will certainly let you know if members of the public do chime in. Public comment is now closed, and the matter is now before you. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore i have a question for miss wilborn. Could you please take us through the unit plans that take us through that was apparently built as a traditional San Francisco flat at that time . Sure. In fact, i can pull up the exhibits real quick so that maybe well have visuals. Vice president moore i think that would be very helpful, because obviously, we heard the presentation on the water usage in the building. However, i think an image understanding of the building would help in our total understanding. So the reason weve got multiple maps here i apologize. The first being the earliest map from 1893, which, as the applicant stated, the original address was actually 1808, but from this map, the sanborn map here from 1893, it still appears that 18086, and its this 2d here, which some of the same road maps arent too consistent with their labels. Sometimes two indicates the number of units, sometimes that indicates the number of floors, but i think the address here really indicates that there were two units there. As the applicant stated there, Christopher Marshall was a tenant there, and we also found robert zale who was an occupant in 1906. So even though mr. Marshall was an occupant in 1908, mr. Vale was an occupant in 1906. 1950, it also is listed at 2f, with twobedroom indicated. Additionally, the photos of the property prior to the renovation clearly shows two distinct residential flats. We have very few Building Permit applications that show extensive renovation prior to 2002. There may have been work done that is not recorded in those documents prior to 2002, but since theres not evidence that this unit had been added, its fair to say this twounit flat separated two dwelling units was present for at least a significant amount of time, dating back to 1893, as the map showed. Also, the water tap records that the applicants mentioned indicates different information. It says two families listed on that 1894 document, which ill try to find. 1884 document, which ill try to find. Its up to interpretation whether this was a twofamily or whether this was a singlefamily. However, all that aside, having two units present at a parcel still warrants a conditional use authorization, even if that one unit was unauthorized. So regardless, there was unpermitted work done at the property. You cannot merge, even in 2002, you could not merge two units without going to Planning Commission, so regardless as to whether that unit we have evidence that unit was legal, but if it wasnt, the due process would have been to go to commission instead of illegally making the renovations. Vice president moore if i may, we are in an rh3 district where they are all mostly multiunit buildings, is that correct . Yes, that is correct. The majority of the properties are the majority of the properties are flats, duplexes. Weve got several condominiums here. On the screen, you can see sort of the land use in the vicinity. Taking the 3r reports and the assessors records and mapping that out. We have properties ranging from threefamily homes to sixfamily homes, but predominantly, theyre twotofourfamily units. Vice president moore and i see in the photo the two door frames, so i have to assume originally the building was built as a twoflat building. I believe so. We dont have the original plans, but we believe there has been two flats there for a long time. Whether it was intentionally built like that or not, we cannot say, but since 1893, when this map was created, there has been two units. Vice president moore thank you. You explain it extremely well, including the documentation. Thank you so much. President koppel commissioner imperial . Commissioner imperial thank you. Thank you, miss wilborn, in explaining all of the documents going back to 1893. I do find the Planning Department amendatirecommendat adequate especially when were looking through the general plan. The fact that there are alterations that have been made without the permit, and that this has been and operating or not operating, but being as a singlefamily in, you know, for an rh2 district and the loss of rent controlled units, i do find its something that is, for me, compelling, in terms of this kind of our project, and also in terms of the project, the cost analysis, there has been or there is no explanation from the sponsor, as well, of the adding [inaudible] acesoory dwelling unit at the same time. So i do find the Planning Departments explanation adequate, and i do thank the staff for doing adequate research, as well, especially on the history of eviction on this particular address. Thank you, commissioner imperial. I just wanted to quickly state that staff did provide some cost analysis for adding an a. D. U. And adding a unit. They just stated that it was financially infeasible and that was included in the packets, i believe. Okay. Thank you. President koppel commissioner tanner . Commissioner tanner thank you. Thank you for the excellent presentation, miss wilborn. Building on commissioner moores questions, has anyone been inside to get a sense of the layout of the building currently . We do have permits that are on filed that were filed with the department but were never issued or suspended when unpermitted work was continuing without authorization. So we have a pretty good understanding that there were two separate front entrances, i think, from the historic photographs, two separate stairs. One going up to the secondfloor unit, and just, the first floor was also unit with access to the garage, which was the shared space. We i conducted a site visit, in late 2019, and then, also, there were site visits conducted by enforcement planners throughout the years. I believe this was one done in 2008, but the enforcement planner here may be able to answer that question more accurately if that does not suffice. Commissioner tanner no, that answers my question. Weve been inside the building. You can see what its use was before the unpermitted work and understood how it must function as a twounit building, which makes sense. You talk a little bit about the a. D. U. And the pricing, and i just want to say what i understood and make sure that im not putting words in anyones mouth. At two points, when they got estimates twice for the units. One was less expensive, and the more recent was at least 500,000. Could you just walk me through what those were, and thank you for your understanding. In february 2020, they submitted the cost analysis for adding an a. D. U. At the ground floor behind the existing garage. So there is currently some living space thats being used by the singlefamily home as just additional sort of i think ones a bedroom, and theres a full bath and some some living space. But they propose to add an a. D. U. There, which did total the 500,000. They also, back in 2006, they provided a quote for adding a regular unit. Not an a. D. U. , but a regular unit, totaling 72,000, and again, that was in the same location behind the garage in the basement level, which is the original configuration that we know of based on current representations tann representations. Commissioner tanner and then, was it the intention of the enforcement at that time and the staff to say well allow an a. D. U. And the merger which has already taken place. The units have already merged some 20 years ago at that point, so that was the attempt to rectify by adding an additional unit through the a. D. U. Process . The intention was to add back a unit so that they would be in compliance with their legal two units, but the applicant provided documentation, saying it was 72,000, and that that was financially infeasible at that time, so a similar situation then as it is now, that adding a unit is financially infeasible for the applicant. And i believe in 2006, we did not have our financial feasible charts, which we now have today, so its hard to go back to 2006 and really [inaudibl [inaudible]. Commissioner tanner do we have charts that we can look at and see whats feasible for the for the 500,000 or how do we find that statement . Theres two statements. Inform financial and feasibility, you have to justify that the cost to add the unit would exceed the cost in valuable that would be added back to the unit or be added back to the property as a whole. Since we havent it or the applicant has not provided an appraisal of the property currently with the additional unit, its hard to tell if the 500,000 unit would exceed the value of add that go to the property. Commissioner tanner so we would need some more information from the Property Owner to understand if that is feasible, infeasible for that part of the equation. That is correct. Commissioner tanner and then last question for you, would the unit condition verification process. What would happen lets say that none of the past happened, and they bought this house and they had these conflicting reports, and they said well, lets get d. B. I. And planning on the same page. Can you explain how that would work and in the background, what would staff be doing . How does that play out . Yes, absolutely. So staff is not involved in the conversation. We rely on reports, but we do not were not actually involved in the creation of that report. So in terms of the unit count verification permit, typically, that is a permit that would just be filed with the department of building infection. D. B. I. Would would would, you know, issue it, would doublecheck the occupancy, and that would be handled with them. Typically, theyre not involved at all. We only became involved when the addendum came that showed a merger, which requires, by land use, a conditional use authorization. Commissioner tanner okay. Great. And i do have one question for the project sponsor, if he is available. I am. Commissioner tanner thank you, sir. Just wondering about the infeasibility of the a. D. U. Sounds like you guys looked into that twice at this point. Can you talk about why thats infeasible for a family or if youre able to provide the Additional Information . I think miss wilborn would say it would be, i think, a current appraisal of the property, is that right, miss wilborn, to understand more about the feasibility . Yes. So we its essentially assessing, would the cost of the accessory dwelling unit exceed the Property Value that would be gained from adding a unit. Commissioner tanner okay. So can you talk to us about that, sir . Yes, id be happy to. The issue with this location is this house is on a hill, so at grade level, you enter the house. There is a half floor basically that opens into a garden, and that is the place that we its behind the garage, and that is the place that we explored putting in an a. D. U. That was the first proposal that we worked out with the enforcement planner, and we were well prepared in that 75,000 range, we were prepared and was feasible financially. But the issue was that space down there does not have the full 66 clearance, and there was no waiver of that possible. And so then it became an excavation project, which would require the whole building being seismically retrophotoed. So at that point, it was clear that 75 was no longer a good number. And then, you said the number and that is what we came up with. It would be hard to [inaudible] could recoup the additional value. Youd have to get something on the order of 1500 per square foot on a security guarden unit. Commissioner tanner thank you for that, and thank you, miss wilborn, for the report. I would offer to my fellow commissioners. I do have a lot of sympathy for the homeowner in terms of purchasing something under one set of expectations. However, i think any way you slice it, it was two units, and even if there was a bill of sale that said yeah, it might be two units, but it was supposed to be one, i can understand purchasing the home with the 3r report thats false, and not knowing it, and then going ahead with these plans. Even still, even at that time, the removal of that unit required a conditional use or permission from the Planning Commission, which was not sought and which was not granted. So i am sympathetic to and open to continuing this matter to let the unit count verification process occur. Even with the board of appeals agreeing that it had been built as a singlefamily unit, when this family purchase it had and merged the two units, it would require a conditional use authorization, which was not here, and it would come back here, and id support the staffs recommendations, so thats where im at on this project. Thank you. President koppel thank you, commissioner tanner. Commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond thank you, commissioner tanner, and miss wilborn, for that exchange. Extremely helpful. Im somewhat sympathetic to the project applicants request for a continuance because we need to understand the role of 3r reports and the reliance on them. Even though staff is describing it as erroneous, im not sure that the expectation should be that all purchasers should assume that 3r reports are erroneous, even in the face of information, when they walk into the house, it looks different than the 3r report. And i think that we are undermining the complete utility of a 3r report by saying that you cant have any reliance on it. I also am sympathetic to the fact that the second unit was perhaps added illegally, given the description of the physical state of the property, with particle board and how they had the cab in the closet and how the piping was done. It feels to me that understanding the [inaudible] count might affect appropriate solutions, so i think i would favor a continuance im not sure well end up in a different place, as commissioner tanner pointed out, but it feels like to do justice to this, that and give the applicant due process, that it would be appropriate to go through the unit verification count first. President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner fung i had a question for the appellant. Why did it take all these years to get to this point . I wish i had a great answer for you, but ill tell you the answer that i do have for you. We went to the board of appeals by the way, i did this work under this permit. I dont like it being said that it was unpermitted work. But nevertheless, we went to the board of appeals. They said, youre premature. You can go apply for a dwelling merger, so we applied for that process. When we were probably 75 of the way through that process, there was a moratorium on that process. The city ultimately, your predecessors, i believe, they didnt adopt new criteria, but they added interpretation to the four existing criteria, and we went from matching three out of the four to three out of the seven. So mary woods who had been representing us, said you dont qualify for a merger. So then, you should go get Historical Records from the library fifth Floor Library center and go research this. So we did that, and we prepared an application for reconsideration by the Zoning Administrator. We got that all ready, and then planning told us no. So much information predates the planning code, you need d. B. I. To talk to us about what the original ownership of this was, original construction of this was, and they referred us to bill powers over at d. B. I. , and we went over there and tried to go through the unit count process. So if its important to you, i can show you reams of email. Sometimes an applicant is delaying because it benefits them. I want this resolved, and i have tons of paperwork showing that i tried to resolve this at every turn. Commissioner fung thank you. I think that gives me an idea of what occurred. But back to my fellow commissioners comments, i would also be supportive of a continuance but for a different reason. I think we should if we allow a continuance to occur here, we should give specific direction as to what potentially will occur based upon the following vein the Building Department will issue a unit count verification, but their standard process for that is predicated upon the last certificate of final completion that was received. In this particular case, it may be the previous owners who had a couple of different permits that were completed. He went from two to four, so how they come back may not give the answer he may want, but if they do, then we need to act upon it accordingly. If the Building Department does not give him the answer that he wants, then hes faced with a with an unusual situation. If he cant merge, then enforcement is going to gradually put pressure on him to convert back. However, he ellised one of the units. If y if he converted it back, unless he reversed the ellis decision, he wouldnt be able to reverse he wouldnt be able to rent the unit out. So i think a compromised solution would be, should it come back and the Building Department determines that it is one unit, then he may have to bite the bullet and expend the more expensive solution of adding an a. D. U. And creating a habitab habitable space adjacent to the basement. Commissioner fung, i just wanted to say that that was over ten years ago, so it may be rented. Is that true . Yes, that is. President koppel commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond i am intrigued id like to know what the appellant faced. But between now and what the building comes back with, i would be in favor of potentially giving the Building Owner the option of either converting it to two flats or allowing him to keep a singlefamily unit but, you know, building the expensive a. D. U. In the back. Theres enough mess here that i feel like, you know, we should be trying to find a solution that allows the family to stay in the house and but still creates two units, you know, and allow that Property Owner to have that choice. I dont know that were faced with that today, but im intrigued by that possibility mentioned by, you know, at least that i dont know if commissioner fung thought it was an option, but he was at least putting it out there as a possibility. Commissioner, are you asking me, the applicant commissioner diamond i really am asking the other commissioners about it. Okay. Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure. Commissioner fung i would consider that to be an option, commissioner diamond. Commissioner tanner likewise, i would agree. I do think, to commissioner fung and diamonds point, to provide some kind of guidance, not just a continuance, but to where were going. I think if the a. D. U. Can be constructed, to me, that doesnt remedy the entire situation. The eviction happened, i think, 18 years ago at this point, and thats regrettable that that occurred, but that has happened, and so what is the resolution that we could seek and, that way, the applicant could have some chance to consider that and understand what they can and cant do at that location. The way they do it, i dont point to modify the dwelling space that might keep the ground level a. D. U. From being feasible. President koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore commissioner tanner, im not quite sure if im following you on the logic here. I heard that the ground floor behind the garage is not tall enough. Correct . Correct. Vice president moore it requires excavation to make it the proper height. That is something that most everybody cannot afford, unless you enlarge a house in which you live in for your own use. That said, a. D. U. S require a separate entrance, and its hard to achieve because the garage would remove, and i think the unit sets on the Property Line on either side, and theres no merchant space of 3. 5 feet to come in on the side. I am not as much in favor of the a. D. U. As a possible solution. In terms of the unit, theres still a possibility for a family to live in one house with two entrances, and to me, that is the only fallback provision because this building seems to me to be built for the typical San Francisco class, and thats what in front of me. Theres no r3 report, that d. B. I. Has already taken that back to us to decide, rather than us kicking it back to them, so i am comfortable to basically follow the departments recommendation for disapproval of a merger; however, that does not take away for the family to occupy the house in two units on their own. That would be my position on this particular case. President koppel thank you, commissioner moore. Im leaning in that direction, as well, of staffs recommendation. I would like to hear from commissioner kplee Commission Commissioner imperial. Commissioner imperial thank you, president koppel. What the project sponsor has mentioned in terms of the challenges of adding an a. D. U. In terms of the design and separate entrances of a. D. U. I. I also do not see the benefit of continuing it and then coming back again to the Planning Commission if there arent that many changes of the facts. And also, the logic, as well, for the project sponsor, whether its financial feasible of a. D. U. , i think theyre already struggling with that. So as what is in front of me, as well, is that this is a dwelling this is a dwelling unit merger, and we are and this is in this area of where a majority are two flats, as well. So im looking, again, to the general compliance. General compliance, when i look into this kinds of situations, as well, and although i would like to sympathize, as well, with the project sponsor, it will again, it will not prevent him from having you know, to be able to occupy this for his family, as well. So i also still go with a project with the Planning Departments recommendation in disapproval. Vice president moore that a motion . Commissioner imperial yes. Commissioner chan may i request to speak . President koppel commissioner chan . Commissioner chan thank you, commissioners, for this really interesting discussion. The purpose of our city is to make it the purpose of the use, not the user, and i am also in agreement with the staff recommendation. I think staff has clearly stated that the legalization will remove two rent controlled units from San Francisco housing stock. Our housing policy pretty clearly states our intent that we have an intent to preserve our housing stock. I think approval a merger would not be consistent with the general plan, so with that, id like to second commissioner imperials motion. President koppel commissioner diamond, did you have something more . Commissioner diamond i would like to now ask the project sponsor about where he is on the a. D. U. Now that we have had this additional discussion. So a couple of things with all the comments. There is another street access, theres a passage way, so an a. D. U. Could meet those requirements. It would require an excavation in order to meet the height requirements. Its possible. The reality is if i have to put the two flats back the way they were, i cant. I appreciate commissioner moores perspective, but i cant have a door separating me from my 12yearold. So in that scenario, we would have to leave. In an a. D. U. Scenario, it would have to be done. I have never been able to be heard on the original use, and my council said the c. U. A. Was not required to take on the merger in 2002. If the Planning Department agrees with the staff, i will be back here, and you can deny the traditional use. But that was the plan with planning and department of building inspection, and it was only when the c. U. Was put forth that i was denied my due process on that, so im pleading for my opportunity to be heard on this issue. Commissioner diamond thank you. Clerk commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded, but i see commissioner moore requesting to speak. President koppel go ahead, commissioner. Vice president moore i have never had a case before us where the department is asking us asking sponsor is asking us to take due process [inaudible] when somebody is in front of us with this question. It seems to me as the question that youre presenting it really has to do with whether or not the board of appeals decision would have any impact on the Planning Commissions decision. If theres something that would impact the Planning Commissions determination of a planning code issue, then it could be useful to continue and allow that process to go forward. If that process wouldnt have an impact, however, on the commissions consideration of this, then you could also determine that it doesnt that its not necessary to continue, so its really up to the commission to decide which way to go. Vice president moore we are here just to thank you f tha giving me that explanation. We are here just to guide us through the process, which the Planning Department has given us. I have to default on what my role is. I am not the referee between a d. B. I. Right to hear this or the Planning Commission right. I need to put myself back in that role with miss wilborn doing everything she can to shine light on the status of this project and the history. Thank you. Commissioner diamon. President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner fung kristin, i believe its for the Building Department to first make a determination of unit count, and if he doesnt get the answer that he wants, then he would take it to the board of appeals. Yes, thats a fair sort of correction or better articulation of the issue that i was addressing before. Commissioner fung you know, commissioners, it would be my intent to move for a continuance in this case to allow the Building Department to make a determination. Clerk commissioner fung, is that a motion . Commissioner fung yes. Commissioner tanner ill second. Commissioner diamond second. Commissioner tanner is it a substitute motion to the motion on the floor . Clerk no. There was a motion that was seconded to disapprove that requested authorization for conditional use. However, a motion to continue supersedes that as a procedural matter, and so well be taking up the motion to continue first, and if that fails, then well take up the second sort of the additional motion to disapprove. Commissioner tanner thank you. Clerk yes, i did see commissioner diamond wanting or requesting to speak. Commissioner diamond if they decide if it was one units or two units, and if it goes to the board of appeals to decide whether it was one unit, i think a conditional use permit would have been required for the merger in 2002, and the Planning Department said there was, there was a requirement, and the applicant is saying his attorney, if i heard him correctly, is saying that its not. Is this an answer that you can clearly give a City Attorney or would it benefit by more briefing on this . I would certainly need to go back and look at what the law is at that time and consider what the law is at this time now. Generally, we apply what the law is at this time its being considered. The question is whether or not the 3r is correct, but i think the point is whether it was a legal second unit or an illegal second unit. The Planning Department staffs position is there were, in fact, two units at the time, and so im not sure its relevant whether the Building Department determines that the status was two legal units or not. In 2002, if you had two units that were prepared to be merged, they required discretionary review by commissioners, and since the legality of that is questioned it didnt go to hearing at that time, but today, in 2020, there is a required conditional use authorization for two units, regardless if theyre authorized or not. But in 202, if you had an illegal unit 2002, you had permission for a merger for two units. [please stand by] given the holidays, there is too much holiday time. Is the maker of the motion amenable to february 11th. Yes. Three month continuance. Yes. The secondder . Yes. On that motion to continue to february 11, 2021, commissioner tanner. Yes. Commissioner chan. No. Commissioner diamond. Yes. Commissioner fong. Yes. Commissioner imperial . No. Commissioner moore. No. Commissioner president koppel. No. That motion fails 34 with commissioners chan, imperial, moore and koppel against. There is a original motion to disapprove on the floor. On that motion the disapprove, commissioner tanner. No. Commissioner chan. Aye. Commissioner diamond. No. Commissioner fung. No. Commissioner imperial. Aye. Commissioner moore. Aye. Commissioner president koppel. Aye. So moved. That motions passes 43 with commissioners tanner, diamond and fong voting against. Commissioners that will take us on item 11 for case 2019017867 c. U. A. 15661568 haight street. Is staff prepared to make the presentation . Yes, i am. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. The subject before you is request for conditional use authorization at 1566 to 1568 haight street. The merger of two ground floor commercial spaces of restaurant and bar. Michael cop lynns irish bar and restaurant of approximately 3650 square feet of floor area, modify the conditions of approval from prior conditional use authorization, equalize the sod and interior mo modificatio. If desired by current ad feature tenants to existing restaurant and bar. It will also planning forcement case 10211. There will be no existing envelope or storefront modificationed the current project. Fire damage to the building to construct a new fire safety egress corridor in the location where the ray cant retail space was to meet the current believe and fire code requirements and the Building Permit application no. 200810234956 and 2009. 09307969. That has stopped the Planning Department for use modification prior conditional use authorization. 2500 square feet of floor area. They are requesting the Planning Commission consider the project to help the business drive in Good Standing for the present time and features of the existing restaurant and bar in the project bar for approximately four years. The project sponsors are requesting the current proposal modify the conditions of approval under the prior conditional use authorization under motion 11663 under case 89. 135c and motion number 11899 under case number 89. 135cc. For the five conditions, one is to legalize the existing size of the bar to 3650 square feet of floor area. Condition number two under the motion number 11663. Then for the modification under motion 11899 are to modify the condition limits restaurant capacity and increase up to 81 in Condition One the other is condition number two to remove the condition that there would be no entertainment on the premises. The other one is condition number three to amend the hours of operation to 8a to 10 00 p. M. For the restaurant and 8am to 2a for the bar and remove the condition requiring Valet Parking condition number four. As far as Public Comment to date. The Planning Department has received support of the project and correspondence from one person and opposition to the project pertaining to the entertainment use. Also the project sponsors have conducted Community Outreach to the neighborhood and they will describe more in their presentation. As far as the recommendation approval with condition and also i want to note that there are two corrections on the draft motion. That is on page number 13 and 15. The first page policy no. 9. Regulate uses to traffic impact parking problems are minimized. Correction will be made where the project will not adversely affect Public Transit and ad versely you know children in the wording children in th chang. Under 101 policies f the city achieve the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury and loss of life in the earthquake just to have it read the project will comply with all applicable earthquake standards and to delete and built to the current standards of the california Building Code. This concludes my presentation. I will be available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes, i am. You have five minutes. Is there a slide . There are no slides. Very good. You have five minutes. Thank you so much. Good afternoon president koppel and distinguished commissioners and staff members. I am trisha ray project sponsor and trustee for my father the Building Owner. The project is 15661568 haight street between ashbury and clayton in the haight Street Commercial district. To provide a little bit background the building was built by my grandfather 1908 and has been in our family every since. A source of pride for our family. I have taken steps to take over the management of the building due to my fathers health. The building has operated as a bar and restaurant for well over 40 years and has changed ownership, i think three times during that time. In september of 2008 there was a fire that caused extensive damage to the building started in a small basement crawlspace under the building. It was very difficult to control so during the building process it was recommended by the San Francisco Fire Department as well as the architect and engineer who were involved at that time to excavate and install a large basement area with a fire Sprinkler System and provide greater access bit. To meet the current Building Codes it was necessary to create emergency fire exit for the building and secondary ingress and egress out of the basement. To accommodate that new safety exit corridor the logical solution was to merge the ad adjacent 380 square foot retail space next door with the 3270 square foot Restaurant Bar space. The small space had been ray cant several years. It didnt impact the neighborhood. The resulting structure now is i believe one that is improved safety wise. The Structural Integrity of the building is better, and these modifications were done at considerable expense with the benefit of the permit through the Building Department. All of the construction was completed in 2009 and there is no new construction that we are requesting at this time. The proposed project seeks to formalize the merger of those twostory fronts as it stands today. In addition we amended our original application to include a request for a secondary usage of entertainment for the building. This is something our current tenant had tried to do in the past was unsuccessful because of the open Planning Department issue. We felt appropriate to modify our application and include it now. By adding this type of land use for the building it is creating a foundation for the current tenants as well as future tenants to have the opportunity if they so choose to try to apply for a place of Entertainment Permit through the Entertainment Commission. I did reach out to kaetlyn with the Entertainment Commission. She confirmed there is currently only one place of Entertainment Permit in our district so there would be no clustering or over saturation of this type of use. With restaurants and bars struggling right now we feel this is an opportunity to allow them to offer what i would call combined dining Entertainment Experience to enhance the experience for the pay trots, patrons. Provide Employment Opportunities for the area. I could draw more foot traffic to the area as well to benefit all of the local businesses that are struggling right now. It is also, i believe, in keeping with the hate ashbury core store as far as the vitality and music and entertainment typical and expected in that area. This is keeping with the culture, providing Economic Vitality and helping the business succeed and preventing vacancies. In my research i did reach out to local community groups, the neighborhood council. I did speak with kristin evans, president. We had a positive conversation. She expressed positive influence that it would bring to the area and seemed to be in support of this. I did also reach out to local neighbors who had generated some concerns and i did speak to them directly via email to address their concerns to validate their concerns and let them know our intent is to i am running out of time. I think you get the gist of the report and i hope you will give approval for conditional use. I thank you for your time. Very good. Commissioners, if there are no immediate questions for the project sponsor we will open up comment. Members of the public submit your testimony regarding this matter press star three. To the chair you have two minutes. One person has requested to speak. Hello this is the neighborhood council. To this particular application i would like to add to the entertainment uses that there be a limit of 10 00 p. M. Weeknights and 12 00 p. M. On weekends. Haight street has many residence and businesses. Thank you. I live on clayton street. My bedroom is about 15 feet away from the rear of the building. The previous owner of the bar and restaurant under the name of martin max created nothing but problems for us. We had to call the police like three or four times a week just to keep the noise down. Since it was a watering hole for the police, we were not very successful. If Live Entertainment is authorized, then i would like to be very, very strict. I dont have time limits. I dont want to hear it where i live, especially not in my bedroom. If that is possible to not allow any ambient noise, entertainment noise to come where i live, i appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thanthank you, members of the public, last call for Public Comment. Press star three. Seeing no additional request to speak the Public Comment is closed and the matter is now before you. I will support this case. We need to do whatever we can to help these ground floor businesses succeed, especially important corridors such as haight street. Commissioner fong. Question for the project sponsor. Any idea what type of entertainment is being contemplated . Not specifically, no, and from what my Research Shows from what i saw in the prior attempt of the tenant, it was Something Like irish folk music, you know, something maybe one or two people playing a guitar. It was not intended to be Something Like a nightclub type thing as much as something to provide entertainment while one was dining or socializing with friends. It is also my understanding that when a tenant applies for the permit with the Entertainment Commission that at that time they will need to specify, i think, more specifically their desire of what type of entertainment as well as the hours and that should be part of the permit they apply for with the Entertainment Commission. If i was to suggest that there would be a time limitation on uses after 12 00 a. M. No amplified music, would that disturbing you . I dont think so. I think, you know, the other thing i felt was offering food continually as well. So that it doesnt turn into a situation where someone is drinking at the bar and listening to music allowing the restaurant to continue as well would maybe help to provide that dining restaurant combination complimentary of each other. Thank you. Commissioner moore. I am in support of the project. I would like what you said and what commissioner fong said. I felt the request was like 10 00 p. M. During the week. We have cases in the past where at that time commissioner richards has for protection of windows and doors for sound evading equipment. I remember that specific date. Perhaps we should get slightly more update when this is being done so the appropriate sound measures are taken to protect the neighbors. Otherwise, i am in support. Please go ahead. Thank you. I totally support commissioner r moore. The project sponsor we heard claims. Have there been any sound measures when the building was prepared after the fire or currently in place with the Bar Restaurant to prevent the sound from escaping the building . I did notice that in my research that the conditional use, original conditional use application by the tenant at that time that they indicated there have been some sort of sound something to prevent the sound from, you know, acceding beyond the building. I dont have any specific receipts or any specifically that i can say, yes, that was or was not done. Okay. I am not opposed to expecting the tenant if they want to and choose to offer this that they do follow some kind of what would be considered reasonable conditions as far as maintaining, keeping doors and windows closed and putting in something to help to mus to mufe sound. That is reasonable to me. I am fine to 2 00 a. M. On the weekends. You know amplified music be limited to those hours. 10 00 p. M. Weekdays and 2 00 a. M. On the weekends. The food i am open to that. I am not concerned about the food service continuing throughout this time. If there are measures that are use full to prescribe would be open to supporting this as well. Thank you. Is that a motion . I dont have any other suggestions. We would want to impose at this juncture or suggest . We could leave it general and that condition states to include soundproofing measures to allow staff to work with the project sponsor. I would move we approve the project with limitations on amplified music 10 00 p. M. On weekdays up to 2 00 a. M. On friday and saturday. That there would be measures in place at the direction of staff. Do i hear a second . Second. If there is no further delliberations there is a motion seconded. Commissioner tanner with the modifications and amendments submitted by staff as well. On that motion to approve this matter as amended by staff amplified Music Limited to 10 0d 2 00 a. M. On saturday morning and sunday morning. For the sponsor to work with staff on soundproofing measures. [please stand by]. The rear deck is set by 5 feet from between the adjacent neighbors sidewall so as to not impose any discernible impacts to privacy. Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review. This concludes the departments presentation. I am joined by clare [inaudible]. Thank you. Clerk thank you, mr. Winslow. Through the chair, d. R. Sponsor will be provided with thre minutes d. R. Requester will be provided with three minutes, project sponsor will be provided with three minutes, and Public Commenters will be allowed one minute. Okay. D. R. Sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes. Clerk okay. Please proceed. Okay. Sorry. I am [inaudible] sorry. I am getting a little feedback, so i need to mute something for a second. Okay. Next slide, please. So our main objections are that making 695 a threestory house goes against neighborhood character and is an abrupt change. No dimensions are given for the height of the rear [inaudible] and as we all know, theres a 30foot limit, and we believe the project is a demolition, and we have a question that, if the Building Department agrees, about the Planning Department [inaudibl [inaudible]. Next slide, please. So here, we show 695 rhode island and use north and south, and planning agrees that theyre looking at a site between predominantly twostory and threeStory Buildings. By plannings logic, when 695 is a threeStory Building, then 699 could be, and so on and so on, until eventually all of the buildings to the south on rhode island could be threeStory Buildings. In addition, planning code calls 697 an anomaly. It is one story, and to say it arbitrarily doesnt exist, it does exist. To have threeStory Buildings next [inaudible]. We are arguing that 697 must be taken into account in determining where the pattern is and that not doing so will abruptly change the pattern that exists now. Ill go through these quickly. Next slide, please. According to the plans, the red line here shows the 30foot limit, but the 30foot limit isnt actually anywhere in their drawings because they dont give [inaudible] and if you continue to the next slide, please. [inaudible]. Clerk sir, im going to tell you, that is my three minutes. Okay. Okay. Well, i had feedback issues clerk i did pause your times. Well, you know, youve given other people extra time. Clerk president koppel . Clo president koppel well e you 30 seconds, but you do understand you get a rebuttal . Yes. Clerk great, thank you. Project sponsor, would you like to make your presentation . Yes. Clerk okay. He ha you have three minutes, and josey, if you could bring up the sponsor slides, ill let you know when theyre up. Josey, do we have project sponsor slides . Great. Okay. Your slides are up, and you have three minutes. Hi. My name is mark, and i designed a home for the homeowners, owners here for the past nine years. As part of the design process, we have met with the neighbors that are within the radius map requirements before the shelter in place orders and we have communicated via email to knees neighbors who reach these neighbors who reached out to us since then. We want to point out that the current adjacent neighbor uphill at 697 is an anomaly to the pattern but the pattern continues with the next uphill house at 699 rhode island. The existing house is shown in the bottom lefthand of the photo labelled photo one. It is the house in the middle. It is a onestory resident with a flat over a basement level. We understand this easement protecting the views of 699 is the main reason that the anomaly home is very different from the pattern of homes on this block. During the meeting on april 25, 2019, the owner of 699 fouwent around to all the homeowners to gain signature support of his project. [inaudible] we feel that we have designed a home that both fulfills the needs of the owners and fits well into the neighborhood. The existing front of the home has not been changed. The project remains two units and will add a new door and garage to satisfy the needs of the owners and alleviates two car Parking Spaces on the street. The proposed height is well below the 40foot allowable height in this zone, and this follows the citys residential design guidelines. The proposed addition follows a pattern of the uphill house stepping as the hill rises. We made changes from several concerns of the downhill neighbor, which is the home to the right. In summary, the Property Owners are long time San Francisco residences and have attended the Public Schools in the city. We feel that the project is thoughtfully designed and with the neighbors input, and we request the project to be approved. Clerk the d. R. Requester received an additional 30 seconds, would you like another 30 seconds . Were good. I feel like we covered the most of it. Clerk great. And as the chair stated, you will have a twominute rebuttal. Commissioners, at this time, we should go to Public Comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to get into the queue by pressing star and then three. We do have a number of commenters on the line. Go ahead, caller. Caller, are you prepared to submit your public testimony . Okay. Im going to go to the next caller. Hello . Clerk yes, go ahead, sir. You have one minute. Hi. My name is warren chang. Im a resident of potrero hill. Frequently pass by this property as i go to and from places like whole foods. There are a number of neglected properties on this section of rhode island, and im happy that the owner purchased and decided to renovate. The proposal is two stories with a set back, and seems to be completely in line with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. I ask that you grant the permit and deny the discretionary review. Hello. My name is james, and i live across the street, and i join all of my neighbors in opposing the project. It disrupts the current character of the street. The oneStory Building just adjacent to the south is not an anomaly. It exists, and it will never be higher because of existing height restrictions. It will always be one story. The plans to build up will destruct our neighborhood even further. There are at least 12plus signatures on our petition, and all of them are directly adjacent to this proposed house project. Mr. Winslow, you said you only received two letters, but there have been at least five emails sent to you because all of our neighbors, we all know who sent letters in to you, so i just want to clerk thank you, sir. That is your time. Hi. My name is ivy qu, and i have lived in potrero hill for ten years. This proposed project is consistent with many other projects in the neighborhood. Its well within the size and scale of nearby buildings. It would be disappointing to see a project that is consistent with design guideline be held up in discretionary review. I ask that you approve this project as proposed. Thank you. Hi. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is leonard chu, and my wife and i live right next door to the project. The proposed project is not in height and depth with the existing building scale at the street, and second, the project would cast a significant shadow on our entire property, blocking out the natural light. We made attempts to have diplomatic conversations with the developer. Unfortunately, this only resulted in us getting brushed off. It seems our concerns are not acted on. We ask the commission to dismiss the staff recommendation and ask for a discretionary review since this plan would destroy the rest of potrero hill. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Okay. Caller, you were the first one. Im going to give you another chance at submitting your testimony hi. My name is leslie, and i live right across the street from the project on rhode island, and i join my neighbors in opposing the Current Development of 695 rhode island. Our concern is reflected by having many of us here, taking time out of our busy workdays, to oppose this plan. Specifically, i oppose the plan height addition, which will disrupt the character of the street. Note that in all the rendering that youre seeing here today of the front of the building, they are showing you a view from down so it makes the addition of the floor look very diminished. In addition, no other homes on the street has patio space facing the street. I oppose this plan for 695 rhode island and ask that you direct modifications during your review. The neighbors have met numerous times with the developer, and our concerns have been ignored. Thank you for your consideration. Clerk thank you. Okay. Members of the public, this is last call for Public Comment. If you wish to submit your testimony, you need to press star and three. Go ahead, caller. Can i confirm with mr. Winslow that he has received more than two emails clerk im sorry, sir. This is not a questionandanswer period. Okay. That was last call, and i see no additional requests to speak. D. R. Requester, you have a twominute rebuttal. Being on. Can you hear me . Clerk yes. Okay. First, the project the project sponsor did meet with you but did not address any of our concerns. Theres no real clear dimensions on the rear, which have a 30foot limit, and we ask the Planning Commission that if they do determine that, will you come back and make sure theres a ceqa analysis done. My family built this house and have lived here for 30 or 40 years, and every other project thats been done, weve met with the project sponsors, and we did come together. This project sponsor met with us only to check a box perfunctory and did not address any of our concerns. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Project sponsor, are you ready . Yes. Could you bring up slide nine . We reduced the second floor rear deck size from its original during the meeting process. On the third floor, we the rear deck was also reduced and also offset 5 feet on both sides of the property as requested by 675. If you can go to slide four, there are several photos of the houses across the street which show several and theyre marked which have decks on their homes. If you go to slide five, this is a view showing from one of the speakers that called in from their deck and what the view and their house and our addition on the third floor, and it also shows that they have several decks on their property facing on rhode island, as well as slide one, which shows the home on our side of the street that also has a balcony on the rhode island street side. As far as the demolition counts, thats included in the Planning Department packet, and i also believe that we do have one letter of support that was submitted to the Planning Department, as well. Clerk sorry about that. You have 30 seconds. I believe i have covered all of the concerns, but i can expand more if theres any questions. Clerk very good, commissioners. That will conclude the public hearing. The matter is now before you. President koppel im learning towards staffs recommendations today, but im willing to hear from other commissioners. Commissioner tanner i agree, president koppel, and i recommend we approve staffs recommendation. Is that a motion . Commissioner tanner yes. Second. Clerk you need to make sure youre sending your chat to everyone so we examican see. In any case, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take d. R. And approve the project. On that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 70. Commissioners, that will now put us on items 14 a and b as item 13 was withdrawn. Case numbers 2016012745drp04 and v. A. R. At 311 28 street. You will consider the discretionary reviews filed while the Zoning Administrator will consider the request for variance. Staff, mr. Winslow . Yes, i am ready. Clerk go ahead. Good afternoon, good evening, commissioners. David winslow, staff engineer. This is a request for discretionary review of Building Permit complication 20160906. 6865 to construct a new threestory over garage singlefamily resident clerk mr. Winslow, youve cut out. We cant hear you. All right. It looks like mr. Winslow can you hear me now . Clerk now, i can hear you, yes, and now i cannot. What point did i cut out . Clerk darn near the beginning. Now can you hear me . Clerk we can hear you, but youre cutting in and out. Good afternoon again, president koppel, members of the commission. The item before you is a public [inaudible] with the initiated request the Building Permit application review 201609066865 to construction a new will hestory over garage singlefamily resident at the front of the property at 311 28 street. T [inaudible] to renovate and expand the habitable space by removing the twocar garage at the ground level. The existing building is categorized as a, an individual Historic Resource. There are four d. R. Requesters. First, mark collins of 313 28 street, resident of the adjacent property to the west of the proposed project, eric share of 330 28 street, resident across the street to the north of the proposed project, douglas and James Robertson [inaudible] of 313 a 28 street. To date, the department has received 22 letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. The departments recommendation is, although not code compliant, the project proposal has general support for the [inaudible] the departments design and preservation staff worked extensively with the project sponsor over multiple iterations for threeplus years to guide an appropriate project that responds to the interrelated Historic Resources. The two main objectives were to preserve the view of 313 28, the neighboring building to the west, and the function of its side windows, and to provide a view of the rear cottage [inaudible]. Vice president moore we cannot hear from mr. Winslow. Clerk you appear to be cutting in and out, but i think we heard the majority of your presentation. I am going to go to the first d. C. Requester. Mr. Collins, are you prepared to give your presentation . For all d. R. Requesters, project sponsors, and members of the public, d. R. Requesters will be provided with three minutes each. The project sponsor will receive six minutes as there are multiple d. R. Requesters, and then members of the public will have one minute. Then each of the d. R. Requesters and project sponsor will receive a twominute rebuttal. Mr. Collins, are you prepared to submit or make your presentation . Yes. Can you hear me . Clerk we can, but youve got a strong echo, so youve got to silence or mute your television or your computer, and your slides are up, so you have three minutes. Yes. Can you hear me now . Clerk yes. Good afternoon, commissioners. I live at 305 28 street, directly adjacent from the project. One of the conconclusions reached conclusions reached by planning staff was that the vacant land and driveway in front of the Carriage House was not determine to be significant as designed landscape. Sad to say, this is true. As you can see by the photos to the right, there were three very large trees in the side guards when the developers purchased the property. It is my belief that these trees were removed as fast as possible in order to avoid any opposition. Needs. Next slide, please. In february 2012, developers started an ellis act procedure at their current address in order to [inaudible] when the ellis act evicted him. Soon after the eviction, they merged the two units into a singlefamily home. At that time, the project sponsor stated that the merging of the units would allow the current owner to expand their unit to become family size housing for their growing family. This is the same argument theyre using for this project. They also referred to the need to add to the citys housing stock. This is curious as they had no problem taking housing off the market. They also let potential housing lay fallow with no considerati consideration. From a privacy perspective, the front door of the building enters from the side versus the street like most other front doors on the block. This entrance will face the bedroom and bathroom windows of my home, as most homes on the block. In conconclusilusion, i would some solutions. Rhenvate the Carriage House only, [inaudible] and include a light well for the dormer at 309 28 street and remove the fourth story. Thank you for your time and consideration. Clerk great. Thank you. Well go to mr. Sherr. Are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes, i am. Can you pull up slide one, please. I hope everybody can hear me. Clerk we can hear you, and ill let you know when your slides are up. Thank you. While youre pulling that up, first, thank you for taking the time to hear our neighborhood concerns, and second, my advance apologies for probably these are not my slides. Can we go to my slides. This is d. R. 3 slides. So im not an architect nor developer, but i am a concerned neighborhood and nearly 25 year noe valley neighborhood. Im just going to keep talking while you pull that up. Clerk actually, mr. Sherr, im going to ask you to just pause. I paused your time until we find your slides so that you get your presentation up at the same time. Thank you, jonas, i appreciate it. Clerk youre welcome. Secretary ionin, im sorry. Clerk thats fine. As long as you dont call me Something Else, thats fine. Josey, are we going to be able to get his slides up . Jonas, it looks like weve never received the slides from david. Can we confirm you sent it . We received it from three people, and at least one replied. I uploaded it to the presentations packet earlier this morning, under eric sherr. Im trying to see if i can get it and see if i sent it. Commissioner tanner we dont have it. Clerk you know, actually, i do. It was forwarded to me, so let me see if i cant share my screen. Okay. Can everybody see this, and mr. Sherr, is this your presentation . Yes, this is it. Thank you very much, secretary. Clerk okay. You can see from my first slide, there are a lot of people concerned with this project as currently designed. For reference here, the blue boxes are individual households or lots that have submitted letters. The four green boxes are the four d. R. S, and the red box is the subject property. These are all the ones on the immediate block, but i believe there are a total of 26 letters opposing the project sent this year. I think that there are a number of issues with the project as currently designed. I think mark just talked through a couple of them. Im only going to hit on a couple and let the d. R. Requesters hit theirs. So first, i guess you might ask why theres such opposition up and down the block. The first is beyond with the legally required minimal [inaudible] which for context were set in 2015, followed by a neighborhood meeting in march 2016, theres not been any outreach by sponsors to people in the neighborhood between march 2016 and a few weeks ago. Again, i know its not legally required, but were about to enter 2021. Thats almost five years of no outreach. I apologize. My slides have disappeared from your screen, but by the same token, i think this would be a much more meaningful discussion if there were outreach and conversation going on. We might end in the same place, but i think at least people would have felt heard. This is especially surprising, given that the owners are moving their entire family here, so i think thats one of the reasons. I think the second reason can be seen if you return to slide two. There, you can see hour view that the project does not fit patterns present in the neighborhood. Here, you see a map of the two adjacent blocks and most relevant ones. There are no singlefamily homes with four levels here, period. There are 90something buildings. 97 of them have three stories or fewer, including garage levels. Four levels doesnt fit the height or massing patterns. If we go to slide three, two are multidwelling housing, including a former school converted to condominiums. You can see this block is relatively steep. It comprises a number of onethroughthreelevel homes, maintaining the topography. This does not. Even if the fourth level werent there, it would be massive in scale. I hear the beeper going, so while i know the other d. R. Speakers will speak on other topics, its ultimately up to the commission to proceed. Thank you for your time, and thank you for listening. Clerk thank you. Okay. Mr. Melton. Yes. Clerk josey, does mr. Melton have slides . Okay. Mr. Melton, give it a second. Youve got an echo, mr. Melton. Yes. Im not sure how to resolve it. [inaudible]. Clerk thank you, and just for your rebuttal, you might want to check your other nearby devices and mute them, those that youre not using. Miss ayugi, are you prepared to make your presentation . Yes, i am. Can you hear me . Clerk yes, we can hear you. Your slides are up, and you have three minutes. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is jane ayugi, and i own the home immediately adjacent to the development. The Carriage House has fallen into disrepair. The massive four story is out of scale, blocks light and air, and creates shadows. Theres an egregious loss of privacy from the Side Entrance, and it does not meet the secretary of states standards for preservation of a historic site. Mature trees have been in the green space for decades. Ownership shows reoccupants sie 1879. Mature trees were abruptly removed shortly after purchase without regard for the historic significance of the site. Slide two, please. The character defining features of a site and the adjacent Historic Homes will be obliterated. The Carriage House is one of the last remaining in noe valley. [inaudible] required a substantive view. Theres no substantive view in the picture. This is what the property looked like before the trees were cut down. Allowing a Historic Resource to fall into disrepair is egregious. Clapdati dilapidation must not be allowed to continue. Historic relationship of adjacent homes should be considered when looking at the residential design guidelines. Slide six, please. When you look at this view, look from the decks. Its a direct view into the backyard, inviewsive on our privacy. Slide 7, please. Loss of air and light from the fourStory Building, completely blocks light and air. The entrance is undefined, will cause noise and egregious loss of privacy. Houses on the block have entry from the front of the building. It would significantly impact the privacy of our homes and those on tadjacent to the soute of the property. Clerk if we give you 30 seconds, we have to give everyone 30 seconds. Ill just remind you that you have a twominute rebuttal. Commission secretary, may i please have 30 seconds to wrap up my Public Comment . Clerk its really up to the chair. Slide seven. President koppel if i give extra time to you, i have to give extra time to everybody. Okay. Clerk very good. Commissioners, we should go to the project sponsor at this time. Mr. Robinson, are you prepared to make your presentation . I am. Okay. Once your slides are up, well let you know, and you have six minutes because there are multiple d. R. Requesters. Are these the slides, josey . Operator these are my slides. Clerk okay. Thank you. Good evening. My name is [inaudible] our initial proposal was a three story living space over basement that did not require any variances. [inaudible] should be considered as a single site [inaudible] for the purposes of ceqa analysis which introduces exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. Next slide, please. Next slide. Oh, im sorry. Youre on the right slide. Between 2017 and 2019, the project was completely redesigned to include the following an 8 foot side set back [inaudible] neighbors windows, returning to the planning, recommended fivefoot set backs 38 feet from the front Property Line. This provides visibility to the rear property and [inaudible] an additional front corner step [inaudible] leaving the top floor 23 feet from the facade and 30 feet from the actual Property Line. Remaining the bay windows would [inaudible] next slide, please as you can see, the scale, height, width, and arc connehie has been changed significantly between these two versions. [inaudible] that apply only to the site and does not generally apply to other properties in the same class [inaudible] the bedroom level is for the owners and their two children. The upper bedrooms accommodate future children and would be an office in the interim [inaudible] the owners parents and siblings will live in the rear house for familial support and aging in place over the years [inaudible] next slide, please. The Planning Department has recommended taking the d. R. And proving wi proving approving with modifications. Modification one [inaudible] to the rear building. Although the owners continue to be concerned about the [inaudible] of the rear yard, we agree with this modification. Next slide, please. Modification two is to set the [inaudible] this can be seen here with an overlay of the new building in blue and the existing building in green. [inaudibl [inaudible]. Clerk great, thank you. Commissioners, due to mr. Winslows bad connectivity issues, miss cisneros is actually going to complete his presentation with staff modifications so that it can be entered into the record. Stephanie, are you prepared . I am, yes. Clerk great. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Stephanie cisneros, department staff. I will just pick up where mr. Winslow left off and move right into staff recommendations for todays discretionary review. The staff recommends taking discretionary review with the following recommended designed modifications to comply with the intended residential design guidelines. To reduce the height of the exterior entry gate to no more than 86, to set the rear deck 3 feet from the rear Property Line, so remove or reduce the size of the east Property Line windows at the first floor, to provide a 3 foot set back at the east, starting at the required rear yard line of the second floor, and reduce the depth of the rear by 4 feet. Reduce the width of the rear door centered on the bedroom, remove the third floor deck and reduce the size of the third floor so that it does not encroach into the backyard. Im joined today by [inaudible], and he and i are both available for [inaudible] should you have any [inaudible] thank you. Clerk thank you, stephanie. Commissioners, we should now take Public Comment, and i would remind members of the public that you will have one minute. Go ahead, caller. Can you hear me . Clerk we can. Hello. Im alexander, living immediately adjacent to the property. I join my neighbors in strong opposition to the project proposed. The planned four Story Building and id include a garage as a story is completely out of proportion and is providing set back and Property Line guidelines in multiple ways. I ask you, what do we have rules for if we dont apply them to every project . I thank you for your time. [please stand by]. Oh, hi, good evening. Its georgia sciutish, and i support the four d. R. S. I submitted some documents, page 224 to 228 of the d. R. Packet. It shows the importance of the hearthstone that links the four properties. Look at the properties on pages 227 and 228. The three trees that were unfortunately cut down in 2015 and could have provided fiveplus years in Carbon Capture and illustrate the impact that the proposed 311 footprint will have on light, air, and privacy. To illustrate the shading impacts on 309 and 313. These trees were not as tall or bulky or massive as mitigation, and this fourth four should be eliminated at this historic noe vall valley. It is not conforming, and it has been heard before. This is ozzie reaume. Just calling to echo the same opposition to this project a, d this is a type a Historic Resource. The primary facade shall not be blocked. I understand that the owners have made a concession for 8 feet, but 8 feet from 25 to 30 feet width building is miniscule. Plus, the scale of this project is out of completely out of question for this neighborhood, for this street. It will totally shadow everybody, and furthermore, at a time when were having issues with people leaving the city, why do we need to build another monster singlefamily home . I urge you, commissioners, to ask this question. If you looked up how many homes are for sale in noe valley, and theyre still languishing on the m. L. S. . So please, reject this project. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Im nora roberts, and im a resident of noe valley on the same block of this street, and im calling in opposition of this project. As you heard from many others, this project is out of compliance with the rest of the homes on this street. The multiple revisions mentioned have very [inaudible] through the narrow 5 foot set back [inaudible] that will be completely towered over by this inappropriately large property. In consensus with my neighbors, i ask that you reject and do not approve this project and the many revisions that have been proposed. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Hi, thank you. I hope the commissioners can hear you. Thank you so very much. My name is wendy walsh. I live at 315, and on our street since 1992. I attended a meeting with close to 30 neighbors, and after hearing our concerns regarding privacy, space, air, light, loss of neighborhood quality, we were told as a group, i dont care, and i dont need to care legally. These do not sound like the words of someone who actually is going to end up as a neighbor, but these sound like the words of a developer who will not need to deal with the impact on neighbors. I would like you to consider refusing these variances. I dont know if these people are really going to be in our neighborhood, but instead make a profit off of selling this building. Thank you very much. Hi. This is amy degrande, and im calling from 317 28 street. Weve been a resident of this street over ten years, and we are strongly opposing this project at 311. It will impact our ability to access local history. The historic Carriage House and adjacent properties allow us to reflect on the past eras of the city. This example should remain for future generations. This proposed project adds a multistory house in front of an already existing house and will conceal its historic structure from the public rightofway. This project is out of scale with the adjacent neighborhoods and completely disregards the historical status of the property. We feel this should be respected and project should be rejected. Thank you. Clerk great, thank you. Memo members of the public, last call for Public Comment. You need to press star, three to be entered into the queue oh, theres always one. Caller, you need to mute your television or computer. Caller, you need to mute your television if you want to submit your testimony. Okay, caller, are you going to submit your Public Comment . Caller, are you prepared to submit your Public Comment . Yes, i agree with everything thats been said by the people that have submitted the d. R. S. I dont think that the fourth story of this building is appropriate, and also, i think that a variance should not be approved. Thank you. Clerk all right. Members of the public, last call for Public Comment. Okay. Seeing no requests to speak, we should go to rebuttal. Mr. Collins, are you prepared to submit your twominute rebuttal . Yes. Can you hear me . Clerk i can. You have two minutes. Yes. You know, i begin, i question the intention of building a family home. You know, had they been able to do what they originally intended to do, they i assume they would have offered their current resident back, hutton, the individual they ellis acted, and they may still be within the ten years of allowing their property back on the market. As far as the variance goes, this is not going to allow for any midblock open space. There will be very, very little space between the historic cottage and the new building, so i think the variance should definitely be denied. Now as far as the history goes of this property, i mean, c. C. W. Hahn has an arch stone contractor. He did many sidewalks in the neighborhood. Youll find him on lombard street just after the crooked part of the street. Some of the stamps will say 413 28 street, before the addresses on the box were changed. So when you think about this structure, you do not see the house at all. You only see the staircase. You do not see the house at all, so the junior league, when they put together the book today, they would have hoped someone could see by this site and see this whole historic site, and this was one lot. In 1971, the lot was split in will between the two sisters that remained after their father passed away, and theres no support for this project whatsoever. You havent heard one caller call in in support. Thank you for your time. Clerk mr. Sherr, are you prepared to submit your rebuttal . Yes, i am, secretary. I think i would just like to echo what you obviously heard here. All callers are in opposition to this project, all the letters that are in opposition to this project. This project would result in a 3100 square foot fourlevel home on a lot with a 1200squarefoot twolevel home, which is the historic Carriage House. I have a family of four in a 1500 square foot victorian across the street. You dont need that much space for that big of an extended family, so i, again, emphasize, and i dont think the fourth level or the top level fits with the character and topography and the massing of the neighborhood. I dont think thats required, and you can still have a very large house that can house a singlefamily and do so while providing more than a sliver of a view of the Carriage House stairs by widening that alleyway. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Mr. Collins, are you prepared for your rebuttal . I think you wanted to go to milton . Clerk oh, i youre absolutely right. Thank you. Mr. Milton, youve still got a terrible echo. I am so sorry, and i dont know how to fix it. [inaudible] i will say the fourth floor and the [inaudible] are the most problematic aspects of the design, and i will limit my comments to that given the technical problems. Clerk thank you very much. Miss ayugi, are you prepared for your twominute rebuttal . Yes, i am. First of all, i wanted to mention that i heard something from the sponsor about accommodation. I dont know where that came from since they did not communicate with any of the neighbors. I do want to say that the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitating the building has not been met, so shouldnt there about an Environmental Impact report conducted . I would think so. There are exceptional extraordinary circumstances. Mine and my neighbors concerns are adequate and founded. [inaudible] disregards the d historical status of property with little regard for outreach and the material value of impact on adjacent properties. The single best use of this is to restore the Carriage House. We have pieces of the roof falling into our backyard. I dont know if theres asbestos in that. As the rainy season approaches, its going to further deteriorate. Please, allow the rehabilitation of that back property. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Mr. Robinson, you have a twominute rebuttal. Thank you. Starting with our initial outreach to neighbors and continuing throughout the [inaudible] it is very clear that the [inaudible] no building built on the site [inaudible] the roof deck, the adjacent neighbors are asking for no [inaudible] which will not be affected. The owners [inaudible] we suggest it would be more appropriate to discuss appropriate compensation [inaudible] to a buildable area of the home. The top floor, due to the grade and design [inaudible] there are four Story Buildings in the vicinity without [inaudible] set backs, but this is, [inaudible]. Lastly, we appreciate the thoughtful recommendations from the Planning Department in the d. R. Analysis, incorporated them in the slight modification as shown in the presentation [inaudible]. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Commissioners, that will conclude the public hearing portion of this item, and the matter is now before you. President koppel ill be going with staffs recommendation on this one, and i would entertain a motion. Commissioner moore . Vice president moore i believe that the project requires additional work. Kinni listening very carefully to the public and agreeing with many of the observations that have been made, i think that the building is too tall. I believe that the building overall is too imposing relative to older buildings around it, and i think that there is no real respect distinguishing between the new building and its adjoining context. The roof deck, the fourth floor, are overaggressive, the rear facade is too glassy with too many windows, and the overall submittal was extremely difficult to follow because it was going back and forth between 2016, 2019, and the current structure without any real feeling between how it was proposed and the feedback from the community, how it modified the building. In the end i i think a better illustrated or modified building that was proposed would better serve us. At the moment, i do not believe that staffs madfications wholly address the concerns of the neighbors. President koppel commissioner imperial . Commissioner imperial thank you, president koppel. After hearing all of the Community Comments and also looking into the Planning Departments proposal, as well, and whats the what sticks out to me the most is the fourth floor, which i find it quite imposing, and and what we recommended or what the planning recommended is removing of the third floor roof deck, which i think is still not suitable for that kind of when you look around when you look around into the other houses in the community, as well. On top of that, im im looking, as well, into this third under recommendations by the planning in terms of the on the east side, and kind of want to get i wish i could get more visual clarification from mr. Winslow when it comes to when it comes to the east side and also the west side of the property, as well. Commissioner, the project sponsor had prepared plans that demonstrate the recommendations in the design, and maybe we could revisit that, if you wish. They could bring that up. Commissioner imperial yeah, i would like to see that. Mr. Robinson, are you available . Clerk go ahead, mr. Robinson. Yes, i am available. [inaudible] the project was set up for 311 notifications versus the including the changes that planning recommended in this in this d. R. Package. And i can talk you through them if youd like me clerk what sheet shows those . The d. R. Requester is, i believe [inaudible] someone who lives on the west side property, and it doesnt look like theres some sort of adjustment, and it looks theres more on the east side than the west side. Thats correct. Theres an 8 foot site set back and then winnowing back to 5 feet to the rear on the west and was deemed adequate for massing and scale and retention of light and view to their Historic Resource. Where we were primarily concerned was the neighbor to the east and the impacts of the massing adjacent to that shorter building and downhill neighbor to the east. Therefore, most of the recommendations were with respect to the massing to the east. Commissioner imperial and how about that affect them in terms of the light well . Theres no light well on the west, theres a dormer that was cited on the east in the d. R. , but thats essentially a Property Line condition that we do not protect. Commissioner imperial okay. And theres a lot of comments about the fourth floor and what is being recommended is just a removal of the third floor roof deck. As you look at the entirety of the neighborhood, how would you compare the scale of the fourth floor to the entirety of the neighborhood [inaudible]. Sorry. Just to be clear, were calling that the third floor. Its three stories above a garage, which is probably considered a basement. But the upper level, the third floor, were recommending pulling it back to the required rear yard line, which i believe was probably a reduction of four or 5 feet in the rear, removal of the roof deck at that level and remember, its 23 feet back from the front of the building. The top most floor is 23 feet back from the top, so with relation to the scale of the street, in relation to the existing buildings on the street, 23 feet set back is considered quite a lot to make it fairly invisible. We usually ask, when the situation calls for it, we usually ask for a 15foot set back, so we were comfortable with that 23foot set back from the street being compatible with the street. But the recommendation was to reduce the upper floor so that it does not encroach into the required rear yard and removing the roof decks associated with it. Commissioner imperial okay. Those are my questions, then. Sure. Commissioner imperial yeah, thank you. President koppel commissioner tanner . Commissioner tanner thank you. I want to echo some of the comments weve already heard. I think [inaudible] with mr. Winslow. Can you help me understand, that there was discussion originally, there was a code compliant project that was proposed, and then due to the historic nature of the Carriage House, there were recommendations that were made. Im not sure if you or miss cisneros have been with it through its duration, but first, there was a project, and then, there was a project that required variance. Im going to ask miss cisneros to answer that. Hi, commissioners. [inaudible] with a full proposal. I was not involved at that point, but its my understanding, and i believe justin, one of my colleagues on the call, can speak to that preservation on the call. We formalized and really bolstered the historic status of the property and worked with the project sponsor to come up with a proposal that would respect, you know, the historic nature of the Carriage House at the rear by ultimately providing the side set back to allow some view of the Carriage House from the rightofway which we felt met the secretary standards. Commissioner tanner i just want to start by saying the two things i take issue with are the third floor, the upper most floor. It does seem to stick out. I understand its set back quite significantly from the street, so perhaps its view and impact will be minimized, but im trying to recognize the [inaudible] thank you respond to that, if you understand that . Yes. Im actually going to defer to justin, but yes, thats what ultimately happened, going through the planning review process, working with the preservation process, allowing the visibility, but taking that ty massi type of massing and shifting it towards the rear of the cottage is what it went through. Commissioner tanner okay. Mr. [inaudible] do you have anything you want to add . [inaudible] i believe the project was a full lot width, and as a result of that Historic Preservation review, we asked them to allow the set back for the side [inaudible]. Commissioner tanner i understand that. I i welcome to hear what the other commissioners think, but im disappointed that there wasnt a willingness on the sponsor side to work with their neighbor regarding their dormer. I know thats a Property Line window, and theres no requirement to respect that, but it seems like another way to respect that home, which is a Historic Resource, and to respect the nature and design of that home. Those are my comments. President koppel Zoning Administrator tate, did you want to comment on anything . Yes. I think there are clearly exceptional and extraordinary circumstances with this property with the nature of the rear Carriage House and the fact that its a category a structure, and the way that the project has been modified to respond to that, i think that is appropriate. There are the circumstances there to consider as part of the variance. I think, you know, from the front, generally stated, as mr. Winslow opined, [inaudible] to me, im a little bit more concerned about the juxtaposition between the rear of the proposed building and the Carriage House because those will be two existing dwelling units that are going to be very tight quarters kbba there. So if i was raeeviewing this, e variance with no d. R. , the kind of amendments that i would consider, one, you know, there are a lot of concerns about the verticality. I did note that all four of the floor heights for all of the levels is essentially 10 feet. I think theres an option to explore even if you reduce each of those floors down to 9 feet, you could reduce the structure height 4 feet, which is not pretty significant. In the lower two floors are kind of common living paspace, you know, the large dining and family room areas, also a mud room on the lowest level. Another option kind of in the rear to increase that space and improve that relationship would be maybe to take the rear 4 feet and pull it in 4 feet. That would provide a little more space in the rear and combine that with the removal of the rear decks and finestration, i think that could be a nice compromise to reducing the impacts of the height of the building overall. President koppel commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond so i understand why were dealing with a squished building is were going to have a 5 foot set back on the side in order to have a glimpse of the rear Carriage House. I understand we need to push and pull in different directions, and i think that mr. Winslows suggestions make it better, but i was going to make some of the comments that mr. Teague just referenced. There was a very massive structure occupying this property with very little open space. I would be curious. Whats the total Square Footage of the Carriage House and the Main Building . Perhaps the architect can answer that. I can answer that, but i will need a moment just to doublecheck. Commissioner diamond okay. Ill wait. I know that the rear building is 1200 square feet. Commissioner diamond just checking on something. All right. So we have a total building without the garage at 3,154 square feet. That was prior to taking the recommendations that the staff had made and reducing the rear or 3,164 square feet, and with the garage, its 3,447 square feet. Commissioner diamond okay. So when you add them together, theres no requirement that they be separate, its approximately 4,000 square feet, is that correct . With or without the garage . Commissioner diamond without the garage. Yeah, without the garage, 4300 square feet. Commissioner diamond so i really like the direction that mr. Teague is going in because i would like to see more space between the two buildings, and i dont know if thats part of d. R. , part of the variance, so i this is really a question for you, mr. Winslow. You know, if we decide to take d. R. And do your conditions, and then, we also like some of the suggestions mr. Teague just referenced, are those d. R. Conditions or are those done through the variance . Those would be doneif they are the direction of the commission, they would be done through the d. R. Process. Commissioner diamond okay. So id like to hear from my fellow anythi fellow commissioners, but i think the idea of pulling each floor back 4 feet and the other restrictions, i would be amenable to those restrictions. President koppe president koppel commissioner moore . Vice president moore i really like what im hearing from the commission. Everything that mr. Teague proposed i would support, starting with the reduction of the ceiling from 10 feet to 9 feet on all floors, pulling the bottom two floors back 4 feet to give some room between the structure and Carriage House. That is 1200 feet that will be occupied by somebody else. The reduction of rear elevation [inaudible] the reduction in finestration from what mr. Teague says, and i would like to ask whether or not we should consider a front entrance to the building rather than a building that has a side set back. I believe it would leave the space between all the buildings quiet and respectful. I would ask that we consider that, and mr. Teague, am i leaving something out . I dont believe so. And just to be clear, on my recommendations, it would be to take the bottom two floors and reduce that in depth by 4 feet. Vice president moore yes, i said that. Yes, equal to where it steps back at the floor above that, and then, remove the rear decks. And then, on the finestration, it would be helpful to provide some sort of quantitative guidance how many we think they should be reduced or given a maximum finestration Square Footage of each level just so theres some guidance Going Forward to staff and the architect. Vice president moore Carriage House looks back towards main house, main house, with its big windows, looks back into the windows of the Carriage House. I think to create the privacy to appropriate rooms, which i think is what should govern those windows, overall, im pleased to see certain pattern in neighborhoods where contemporary buildings dont look more li lo look it wont stick out like a sore thumb. The Carriage House does really seriously impact the feeling of midblock open space, as commissioner diamond opened. That will remain even if were not having a variance. That will remain a tight spot, and the more we can minimize the crowding of those two, the better off we are. That could be some landscaping, some green that would soften the massing between the two, but also allows the neighbors to look into green rather than two such buildings that crowd into each other. Again, i would like the commission to consider moving the entrance of the building to the front of the building rather than the side in order to allow the east facing neighbor to have more privacy. Those would be my comments. I would ask the commission to take d. R. With the recommendations made by mr. Winslow with the addition of the building entrances. Clerk is that a motion . Vice president moore thats a motion. President koppel commissioner fung . Commissioner tanner thats a second. President koppel commissioner fung, you may be muted. Commissioner fung yeah, i just unmuted. I think the fourth floor did create a little bit of discomfort given the fairly consistent nature of structures in this neighborhood that were said, regarding the height of each floor and the reduction of the rear of the bottom two floors. Im not interested in dealing with the finestration or the location of the front door. Vice president moore and commissioner fung, you are still in support of the fourth floor i heard you Say Something that you didnt want to carry it forward, the fourth floor. Commissioner fung no, but carrying forward the recommendations of the z. A. It m mitigates it a little bit. Vice president moore it still leaves the question to the other commissioners, do you want to reduce the floor height but also eliminate the fourth floor. President koppel lets see what commissioner tanner thinks. Commissioner tanner thank you, president koppel. Let me ask you, commissioner moore. Was your proposal to move everything back, including the rear deck . Vice president moore no. I was just asking to remove the rear decks. Commissioner tanner okay. I think i do agree with that. I do agree i agree with everything that commissioner moore has motioned. Im not as concerned with the windows or the Side Entrance. On the windows, i kind of hear what youre saying. On the other hand, in terms of privacy, theres no more rear deck. Obviously, people can look out of the windows, but there wont be people outside, looking into the Carriage House the way that they would be with the decks present, but if thats something that the other commissioners are supportive of, im fine with that. I would be interested if any staff had any notes about the entrance being on the side, if, like, why that was the case, and if theres something about its importance about the location or a front entrance. I dont know if thats mr. Winslow or miss scisneros, the location of the entrance . President koppel mr. Winslow, do you want to address that . Yeah. Im thinking of who might have had the last touch on that. I think the idea of putting the entrance where it was was simply mitting the pr fitting the pragmatics of the project into the envelope and gaining as much size space as possible. I think it was simply kind of prescribed by getting as much side yard as possible by getting as much property as available to the west as well as getting the glimpse of the cottage back. If you put it on the street, it would include the eightfoot side set back as the footprint is currently drawn. So question for preservation, i think, is whether or not that would be acceptable. I suggest we ask mr. Grieving. Commissioner tanner mr. Grieving, could you address the location of the address . Yes. [inaudible] grieving, Planning Department staff. I think that will be one of the considerations in trying to provide some Additional Space between the proposed project and neighboring building but i dont think its critical to the design, and i think wed be open to allowing for a front entrance so to keep it more in line with the neighborhood. Commissioner tanner im curious, the project sponsor, what your thoughts are on these proposed changes . Well, i think ill start with the front entry. As you can imagine, i am trying to work the circulation of the building, especially vertical circulation of the building now to include a front entry, in that it makes it problematic in terms of how the building will work. In terms of the others, personally, im not wild about an eightfoot ceiling height commissioner tanner it would be 9 feet. Well, i think its tenfoot floor to floor. It reduces to 9 feet, which would be 8 feet after the framing. If the commission feels that the site of the building is too tall, thats one way to reduce that and bring the entire scale of the building down. The in terms of the rear i just want to reiterate that although this may not be the ultimate use of the house a generation from now, the intention is to have family members living in the rear cottage, so while there was an issue of privacy in the two spaces, the concern at least for these owners is not as critical. [inaudible] commissioner tanner, you were very perceptive in understanding that the reason the building [inaudible] the width of the building was reduced and so [inaudible] and really what were what i think is most paramount to the owners is to be able to have three bedrooms on a floor. We can still get there with the reductions [inaudible] i think we can work towards it, but it does get more difficult in terms of providing reasonably sized bedrooms all on the same floor [inaudible]. Commissioner tanner okay. Thank you very much for your comments. Mr. Winslow, do you have something you would like to add . I saw you come on camera. I was [inaudible] just to give the project sponsor some flexibility. They are only ninefoot floortoceiling height, tenfoot floortofloor, but we might give the project sponsor some flexibility in that. Commissioner tanner i do support the motion, but i would wonder if, Vice President moore, are you open to adjusting the height, and the Side Entrance you say that its not necessary, given that they have created that side walk away in response to Historic Preservation. The number has a number of Property Line windows facing their house directly, so if theyre concerned about privacy, you know, it kind of goes both way, so it would seem that a Side Entrance would be acceptable to me. Vice president moore im prepared to modify the motion and drop the request for the front entrance with the caveat that the Side Entrance does not build an additional canopy. This is a tricky thing, but if we allow that, then, were basically creating an obstruction to view the cottage, which is the reason for the side set back. So it has to be clearly delinated what were allowing and what were not. Its clear to people coming to this address, Federal Express or whoever it might be, to need to know where the entrance is. Other than that, i believe that the family wants to use the rear yard cottage, theyre going to receive disappointment for me because the permit that were allowing here is large for a singlefamily home, and since were living in a time of real shortage of living units, i would hope that somebody else would actually be able to live in the rear yard. Should, however, over time, ownership change, i would want to have the consideration for privacy between the two buildings remain in the motion that we are supporting today. President koppel commissioner diamond . Commissioner diamond i think that commissioner moore s is not insisting on the front door because i think that would take away from the flow of the home the way it is. I had assumed that the tenfoot was floortoceiling, not floortofloor, and i agree if its floortoceiling, and you reduce it i agree that 8 feet may be kind of short, so i like the suggestion of just saying to the architect, the overall height needs to be reduced by a certain amount of feet and let them figure out which floors they want to do it on. Given the fact that it is 9 feet floor to ceiling, not 10 feet floor to ceiling, i think that might be more appropriate. The other thing that i want to point out to this commissioners, its something i raised at the last weeks meeting, about tthis is exactl its going to look like, and that really, really causes me anxiety. I know weve got it here with the Carriage House, but this is, you know, the case in point of the issue that i was worried about. President koppel mr. Teague, do you have anything else . Yeah, thank you. Yeah, i was going to make the same point that commissioner diamond did. It would give the sponsor more flexibility. I was going to ask the project sponsor, the garage level actually goes down a bit, so obviously, the feeling hit matters there for just being able to make the grade, but thats less important if were given flexibility. I was going to ask 2. 5 feet, which is a decent reduction and still gives that flexibility to the architect. I did want to make a correction. I said the two floors to be pulled back, so my proposal was to reduce the lowest floor in bth depth depth by 2. 5 feet. Clerk commissioners, there are multiple motions with amendments. Commissioner moore, are you open to the motion made by the Zoning Administrator . Vice president moore im a little bit confused because in todays construction, floor to floor height in regular residential, its 86, which can be achieved by less than a foot of floor height, and im not sure mr. Winslow, what youre saying, by lowering the building by 2. 5 feet, i think thats not going to make that 86. I would like to lower the building by 3 feet, not 4 feet. And mr. Teague, are you hearing me . Would you mind pointing to the drawing that is on the screen exactly of where you want to building to pull the Building Back because wear, throughout the presentation, waffling back between four floors and three floors. The building is four floors. The lowest floor, the garage floor, is partially partially a basement, so youre talking about pulling the lowest floor visible in the picture back by 4 feet, correct . Yeah, correct. Jonas, would it be possible, if you want to send the presentation to me, i could show the plans and point specifically to where im referring to. Clerk you can share your screen . Yes, i have the plans. Clerk okay. Vice president moore showing it in the isometrical section drawing would be very helpful to everybody. Sure. All right. Let me can you all see my screen . Vice president moore yes, but i would like to see it in the isometrical. Okay. This 4 feet here is the fourfoot portion im referring to to set that back just on this floor, and that effectively removes that, which is here. Vice president moore can you put your blue overlay on that . Commissioner fung corey, if you go to sheet a3. 1, itll show that very clearly. Vice president moore yes. Sure, we can do the sections. If you pull this in that 4 feet, that eliminates the deck above that portion. Vice president moore correct. And if you also eliminate the other decks, that is losing a losing this family room does not affect the size of the bedrooms. It seems to be a minor concession on the entirety of the lot. [inaudible] [please stand by]. Vice president moore if you wouldnt mind going back to the section drawing, theres only one thing i would like the commission to consider. While we have kind of pulled back on finestration and modifying finestration, except for that floor that we pulled back, i would like to ask that the windows on that particular floor are more modest because they are directly across from the Carriage House. The building risers look over the Carriage House, so i would ask that only the windows on that particular floor, the floor one above grade would be slightly less total windows. So commissioner moore, what youre asking for is the second floor windows. Were talking about this level here, if you can all see that. Clerk commissioner moore, are we talking about 25 , 50 . Vice president moore let them have the required height, whatever that is, 3 feet plus six. Mr. Winslow, you know the code better than i do. Well, i dont know that theres a required shell height but theres a maximum for fire. 36 inches. Vice president moore yeah, 36 ircnches, that sounds corre. Clerk im sorry. 36 inches Vice President moore from bottom up. Clerk reducing 36 inches . Vice president moore yes. That would be reducing the height of the railing. Clerk okay. Is the seconder of the motion amenable to these modifications . Commissioner tanner yes. Clerk should i call the question . Vice president moore please do. Clerk okay. Let me see if i got all this. If i forgot something, please correct me. Theres a motion to take d. R. And approve the project with modifications, conditioning that the overall height of the building be reduced 3 feet; that the lowest level be reduced 4 feet, there by eliminating the upper deck above it; that the finestration of the second level be reduced by eliminating the bottom 36 inches, and that the side set back remain unobstructed and to increase privacy landscaping, but the front door can remain at the side. I think thats everything. On that motion plus staff recommendations. Clerk plus staff recommendations, yes. On that motion im sorry, jonas. Just to be clear, my understanding of the motion was also to remove all of the rear decks, not just the deck that was lost from the fourfoot reduction of the yerear Vice President moore thats correct. Clerk then were getting rid of all rear decks. Vice president moore yes. Clerk on that motion [roll call] clerk so moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, 70. Thank you, everyone, for your patience today. It was most certainly obscured by technical difficulties. Zoning administrator, what say you . Sure. I would move to close the public hearing on the variance. I intend to adopt the variance with the same conditions approved by the Planning Commission. Clerk commissioners, that will conclude your agenda today. President yee of the 26 neighborhoods we have in west portal, its probably the most unique in terms of a small little town. You can walk around here, and it feels different from the rest of San Francisco. People know each other. They shop here, they drink wine here. What makes it different is not only the people that live here, but the businesses, and without all these establishments, you wouldnt know one neighborhood from the other. El toreador is a unique restaurant. Its my favorite restaurant in San Francisco, but when you look around, theres nowhere else that youll see decorations like this, and it makes you feel like youre in a different world, which is very symbolic of west portal itself. Well, the restaurant has been here since 1957, so were going on 63 years in the neighborhood. My family came into it in 1987, with me coming in in 1988. My husband was a designer, and he knew a lot about art, and he loved color, so thats what inspired him to do the decorati decorations. The few times we went to mexico, we tried to get as many things as we can, and wed bring it in. Even though we dont have no space, we try to make more space for everything else. President yee juan of the reasons we came up with the legacy business concept, man eel businesses were closing down for a variety of reasons. It was a reaction to trying to keep our older businesses continuing in the city, and i think weve had some success, and i think this restaurant itself is probably proof that it works. Having the legacy business experience has helped us a lot, too because it makes it good for us because we have been in business so long and stayed here so long. We get to know people by name, and they bring their children, so we get to know them, also. Its a great experience to get to know them. Supervisor yee comes to eat at the restaurant, so hes a wonderful customer, and hes very loyal to us. President yee my favorite dish is the chile rellenos. I almost never from the same things. My owners son comes out, you want the same thing again . Well, we are known for our mole, and we do three different types of mole. In the beginning, i wasnt too familiar with the whole legacy program, but San Francisco, being committed to preserve a lot of the oldtime businesses, its important to preserve a lot of the old time flavor of these neighborhoods, and in that capacity, it was great to be recognized by the city and county of San Francisco. Ive been here 40 years, and i hope it will be another 40 year as a society weve basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people dont have any of those im mr. Cookie cant speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. Open the door and walk through that