okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, january 18th, 2024. forh, each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. for those in attendance, please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right for the item you are interested in speaking to, and please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, i will ask that we all

silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. um, and just an fyi, sf govtv let us know that rec park uh is going long and so we won't be televised live, but we are being streamed live. uh, we should be televised at or around 1 p.m. or old start time. um, at this time, i'd like to take roll commission. president tanner here. commission vice president moore here, commissioner braun here. commissioner dimond here. commissioner. imperial here. commissioner. copple here. and commissioner ruiz here. thank you. commissioners first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one, case number 2023, hyphen 006990 drp at 1846 grove street. discretionary review is proposed for continuance to february 29th, 2024. item two. case number 2023. hyphen 004973 cour

at 1701 fillmore street. a conditional use authorization is proposed for continue to march 7th, 2024. item three, case number 2023 hyphen 005698 see you at 2450 san bruno avenue. conditional use authorization is proposed for an indefinite continuance, as is item for case number 2022. hyphen 001394 cour at 1526 powell street. a conditional use authorization. further, commissioners, i am pleased to inform you that under your discretionary review calendar item 16, case number 2022, hyphen. 009059 drp at 2955 sacramento street. the discretionary review has been withdrawn. john. with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar. only on the matter of continuance. again, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. seeing no request to speak public comment on your continuous calendar is closed

and now, before you then, the motions on the continuance calendar. commissioner braun, move, move to continue. items one through four is proposed. second, thank you. commissioners on that motion, commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz i commissioner diamond i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president. tanner i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us under commission matters for item five. the land acknowledgment. thank you. i want to finally do something that i said i was gonna do a year ago, which is make a schedule for the land acknowledgment to share the duty amongst those of us who want to do that. so it just has each commission hearing and then someone's names next to it. and then a slightly easier to read version of the land acknowledgment. and this folder will just be back there with our little snack and name tag cabinet. so, um, if you want to take a look at it later on, if

you're not interested, you can just cross yourself out. and the only order is just alphabetic, i think. and goes it goes basically me to everybody and then comes back around. so it's just repeating. so anyhow, there's that little housekeeping for the land acknowledgment and i'll happy to share it today. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone , who were the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded lost or forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests. we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and the relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. item six commission comments and questions. thank you, commissioner moore, i wanted to thank everybody, the department,

the developer and everybody who organized our site visit to the transamerica permit yesterday. a remarkable experience, high quality architecture, beautifully crafted spaces. and i think it's going to be a major improvement of what it was before. i am very thankful and i assume my colleagues who were with us will share my sentiment here. absolutely, definitely. second, that and very even with the construction fencing still around, i was very impressed and can't wait until it's completely done. so definitely, um, creating a lot of more connectivity in that area. and just again, great to see folks taking an investment in san francisco and continuing to believe in the present and the future of the city. so with that, i'll call on commissioner imperial. yeah, i noticed in we as we, um, have a conversation, last hearing about the remote hearing. it's not scheduled today. i thought this would be the day we would have discussion on that. or, uh. well, we could you could request to have this

discussion. i didn't hear anybody who voted to end remote comment saying that they would incline to change their vote. so it didn't seem that there would be a change. but if we want to discuss it again, this is the time to request future discussion items. but i don't know that there would be a different outcome. commissioner moore, i got the impression that at least 3 or 4 commissioners voiced support to at least discuss it. that did not state a preference or not. no preference, just the ability to revisit it one more time, particularly, i think also people were interested in the position that a historic preservation took that was really part of the reason. okay, well, if folks want to discuss it, we can discuss it. i just will say nobody who voted no said anything. so or voted to end public comment, said that they wanted to change their votes. but if folks are interested then we can discuss it. i guess another question on that. when is the decision for the historic preservation they made that decision yesterday, in

fact, and i can give you that update now. or i can give it to you. when we talk about the historic preservation commission, since we're on the topic. yeah since we're on topic , um, the historic preservation commission actually voted unanimously to cease their remote public comment. and, um, during their deliberations, i mentioned that the planning commission actually decided to afford peripheral staff or sort of advisory members of staff, technical experts to continue to come in or participate via webex or remotely. um, they chose actually to not afford that to staff and require that all staff present was be in person before them. so they completely ceased, uh, remote public comment. um, they felt it was some of their comments were related around the, um, importance of getting back to normal and social implications and the negative impacts of being remote not only for the workplace, but for just

people in general. so great. thanks for that update. i guess my question is to other commissioners who commented last week whether they're still interested for another discussion on this, and are there any more clarification questions that needs to happen or. great question, if we if we can discuss agendizing it and if you have additional information that you're seeking at that discussion, please let you know. particular secretary know. so if there's other boards or commissions you're trying to understand, other trends that that information could be provided again or sought if it was unknown at the time. okay i don't see any other comments or questions. commissioner brown. i would just say i'm i'm open to having the discussion again. last time we left it at, i think it was going to be discussed at the officers meeting. um, but if it's something that needs to be agendized, we could do that. um, although i guess the question does remain to some extent. does it will it matter? has anyone

actually who voted no, um, changed their position on it? and if not, maybe it's just not a good use of our time. so i guess i can speak, um, on my end if there is additional information or questions in terms of how the accommodate, um, the request for accommodation, if there are more further questions on that. um, in other, other circumstances that we see, you know, i think that will probably need to be, i guess, more discussed. but do you have questions? is that what you're saying or you're saying other people have questions? no. if other people have questions, if they want to address additional information, then yeah, okay. great do you have any further comments, commissioner brown? no, no, i don't think so. okay. great. so are we are we not scheduling? well, an agendized item for remote public comment. it didn't

sound like but i just want to be clear because at the last hearing, it sounds like commissioner imperial would like to discuss it. that's what i am hearing. but commissioner moore, uh, i like clarity. and since we left it somewhat ambiguous for the public, it would take five minutes for us to revisit the subject matter and make a clear statement one way or the other. so you would like to revote? i would like to schedule it again just for a brief revisit. uh, and also because is there consent from the rest of the commission here, the position of hpc? uh, that's what i would do. is there consent from the rest of the commissioners? i agree, okay, we've got a couple folks. i think it's fe.d to remind everyone that that people still have the ability to, um, approach the secretary prior to the hearing and gained this access. so the avenue for them to participate remotely still exists, as we are right now. very true. so why don't we just

discuss it one more time, put it to bed, and, uh, we'll be concluded with that item. very good. i will add it to next 's hearing. although, commissioner diamond, you're expected to be absent, so maybe the in two weeks. could you do it? two weeks? yeah commissioners. that will then. are we done with commission comments and questions i believe so very good with that. commissioners. item seven election of officers. um your rules and regulations specify that on or after the 15th day of january, you shall elect new. officers. so here we are. and i guess we should take public comment since this is an action item, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the election of officers as. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you. thank you. i want to recognize commissioner koppell so. so it is that time of year again. and i think we've, uh,

succeeded in getting through another year or two with a specific president in mind. i think one year is not enough, but two years is usually a good time, uh, to pass it, pass it around. so i want to take this opportunity to nominate, uh, commissioner sue diamond for president and commissioner or current vice president. more for repeating as vice president, i second, uh, the nomination of commissioner diamond for president. i cannot assume self nominate myself. i leave that to us. well, you didn't make the nomination. you just seconding it. second bows. and i'd like to second the nomination of commissioner moore as vice president. fantastic motion and second, fantastic commissioner moore, did you want to speak further? i'm going to say something after we have taken. okay, great. if there are no other nominations as commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded. um to nominate commissioner diamond as president and president. on that

motion, commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz, i commissioner diamond i commissioner. imperial i commissioner. coppell i commissioner. moore i and commission commissioner. tanner i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. congratulations to the both of you. thank you. as my last few acts, i'll call on commissioner moore and then commissioner diamond before handing the gavel over. would you like to say something first? i should not take that. okay. uh thank you. um, i i'll just. i'll just express my gratitude to the commissioners for allowing me to serve in this role for the last two years. it's really been a pleasure to be in the president's role. um, as former commissioner frank fung reminded me, the president still just gets one vote. so keep that in mind. um, but certainly has the pleasure of working in additional capacities with staff, um, attending events sometimes on behalf of the commission or just other opportunities. and so just really want to just give my gratitude that is able to participate in those and hopefully represent this commission. the department well in all of those activities. and i just really enjoy each and

every one of you. i was telling a commissioner yesterday that one of the things that's great about our commission in contrast to perhaps prior iterations of our body, is the cordial ness and the sincerity with which each of us approach our work and even if we disagree, we do so in a way that is civil, respectful. and i never have to question the reasons that you are voting differently than me, are reasons that you think this is really the best decision for the city. and so i think that's really the benefit of our diverse perspectives. and i hope everyone continues to bring them , um, fully to this commission. and just continues to treat each other with respect and kindness. and again, with that goal of improving the city and leaving it a better place than whenever we come and take these, these chairs. so just a yeah, gratitude to the commissioners and gratitude to staff. um, again, for working so well and so diligently and sometimes managing up and reminding me of things that i need to do. so i appreciate that as well. thank you, commissioner moore. uh, i

would first, uh, extend my congratulations to president diamond. i have to get used to saying that, uh, and i know it will be a good, uh, nomination■, that we will have fun. uh, i wanted to also thank, uh, president, ex president, commissioner. um tner for the lightness of being. you have made it easy and joyful to be here and i hand it to you. uh, you have been fair. you have been informed. you have been strong in leading and i very much appreciated to have been your vice president. thank you very much. thank you, commissioner diamond. first, i am deeply honored to be the president and look forward to leading this commission. i, um, admired the way that commissioner koppell and then commissioner tanner have led

this commission with civility, respect and an openness to hearing all opinions. and i will strive to continue that model going forward. um, 40 years ago, when i started to practice land use law in san francisco, a position came available on the planning commission, and there was like a call out for people who wanted to put their names forward. and i remember thinking at the time, oh, it would be really wonderful if one day in the future here, um, that people thought that i had enough experience to be on the commission and to not only be on the commission, but to be able to serve as president, really feels like, you know, a lifelong ambition, um, which is, uh, feels very deeply satisfying. um, so thank you again. um, particular to you, um, commissioner, former president tanner, you've done a marvelous job of leading us through some very difficult decision making. um, with joy. oh. thank you. you're welcome. thank you again.

i'm very excited to be passing the gavel to you. um, definitely admire your work ethic and your sharpness. so thank you for bringing that to this commission. and now to this role . commissioner brown. uh, yes. i simply just want to offer my congratulations to president diamond. and i really see how much it's meaning, how meaningful this this role is to you. and i'm very excited for your leadership going forward. um, and, commissioner tanner, thank you so much. you're the so far, the first and only person on this planning commission while i've been on it. um, and, and your leadership has been exceptional. your evenhandedness in running the meetings. and so, so i'm glad that we'll still be sitting up here together. but thank you so much for your service as president. and lastly , vice president moore, thank you for your long tenure on the planning commission. and i'm looking forward to your continuing leadership. the vice president role. wonderful. so i think what we'll do, my last act in this chair is to just call a short recess while we reshuffle

our seats. so folks can rearrange, and then we'll pick it up. and commissioner diamond will be presiding over okay. welcome back to the planning commission hearing for thursday, january 18th, 2024. we left off under department matters for item eight directors announcements. good afternoon, commissioners. congratulations. president diamond. and thank you former president tanner. um just one one announcement on on our work with hcd and the policies and practices review. i'll forward you a letter. we got from them this week that said we're in compliance. we've been going back and forth on some of the items that were due at the end of last year, but they've cleared everything and said, we've met the obligations that we had under the policy and practice review. so i'll send you that letter. so we're good. there are a couple items that are due to them at the end of this month, but we've actually completed them and told them that. so i think we're good for the for the next couple months.

but just giving you a heads up on that. thank you very good. item nine actually believe there's no report from the board of supervisors. it does appear we have a report from the zoning administrator on the board of appeals. and i'll have a brief report for the historic preservation commission. the board of appeals did meet last night, but they did not take up any items of interest to the commission. oh okay. um, with that, the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday. they had one item on the regular calendar after voting unanimously to cease remote public comment. um, they took up amendments to their mills act program, incorporating some criteria for priorities. if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the

commission for up to three minutes, and when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. good afternoon, commissioners. tom radulovich with livable city. and congratulations, president dimond, vice president moore and thank you, commissioner tanner. it was very a planning commission watcher and is a very gracious, very thoughtful leadership. and i know that's hard to do. so thank you. um, so i'm here to convince you that the planning department and the planning commission should plan on the city and county of san francisco. this shouldn't be a hard sell, but it surprisingly is like a lot of things in our city. i don't think there's anything wrong with san francisco values. i think the challenge for us right now is we just have a hard time living up to them. um, you know, we're not our best self, uh, these days and have not been for a while. and i think to step up to some of those challenges to really chart a course to the city that

we want to live in, that's just that's equitable, that's sustainable. um, we're going to need a plan and you all are going to need to do that. and i mean, i know you can't wave your magic wand. i know your powers, but i also would say that i can't think of a group of people that i trust more to convene those conversations about the future of san francisco and figure out what should be in those plans, and how to engage the citizenry and the other departments of the city to bring us together. so, um, let me say that we do not have a land use element in our general plan. we are, as far as i know, the only city and county in the entire state of california that has refused to have a required land use element. that's a terrible idea. for reasons i won't be able to go into today, but we'll bore you with another day. but let me just go into some of the excuses why you don't plan. because i've been around for a while doing this stuff, and i hear a lot of them. um, one is, well, you know, we're we're a planning department. we're not an implementing department. implementation is always done by other departments. we can't make the city do these things. you can do transportation plan, you

can do a streetscape plan. you can't do it. but i'd say that's not a unique problem to san francisco. most cities have a planning department and they have implementing departments. you know, we had a planning department, we had implementing departments. um, but, you know, they find a way to bridge that gap. so don't let that stop you. you can still make plans. they're still value in making those plans. even though you're not the implementing department. like treat plaza is something that came out of a city, a planning department plan. and then it happened because we had the opportunity and there was a plan, we were able to show it to the implementing departments and say, hey, you■l know, planning department brought the neighborhood together. we have this plan. please implement it. so there's value in doing it, even if there's not money or resources to do it at the time. but bringing the community together and saying, what's your vision for the future? what would you like to see happen in these public spaces? that's s of value. um, to all of these communities, board of supervisors, same thing. we can propose stuff, but they won't do it. but you can make the case, you know, you're thoughtful people if you make the case, we stand a better chance. i think of getting things through there. uh, so hopefully, um, this will

be a priority for you. i mean, as you mentioned, you know, a lot of stuff is going to be ministerially approved. hopefully there will be fewer hearings around those things, but but starting those big conversations about the future of the city again around sustainability, around equity. you've started, um, but really turning those into plans at the neighborhood scale, at the citywide scale, i think is a really, really important. so hopefully as you discuss your work program, those will be things you'll think about. thank you. okay. last call for general public comment. seeing no request to speak commissioners general public comment is closed. and we can move on to your regular calendar for item ten. case number 2023. hyphen 010060 pca density controls and community business districts. this is a planning code amendment. good afternoon, commissioners audrey maloney, planning department staff, before i give the department's presentation, nate hall from supervisor peskin's office is here to speak on their ordinance . good afternoon, commissioners.

um, i'm nate harrell, legislative aide to board president aaron peskin, to speak on this item in in july of the past year, the board of supervisors passed the commercial to residential adaptive reuse. and downtown economic revitalization ordinance, which is intended to facilitate the conversion of downtown office buildings experiencing high vacancy rates to housing in the adaptive reuse ordinance, removed numerical density limits for most c2 zoning, reverting to the form based density limits. we've come to discover that this land use change has created unintended consequences, which are contrary to the purpose of the adaptive reuse ordinance. take, for example, 1088 sansome. the project proposed by angus mccarthy and michael moritz. since this change has been made, the project proposes to demolish a commercial office building built in 1906, which is a category a historic resource and

a contributory building to the northeast waterfront historic district under article ten. this attractive building is occupied by commercial tenants. a clean energy company, the. it's clear that the land use change in c2 has incentivized the demolition of occupied historic buildings. um so we're here before you today to refocus the adaptive reuse ordinance on its intended purpose, which is the conversion of vacant commercial properties. um unfortunately, the case report before you doesn't analyze the effect of form based density on the application of the state density bonus program, which we've come to find creates an incentive more of an incentive to demolish, even, even thriving historic commercial properties. instead of reusing them. and this incentive also occurs outside of the historic district. um, all of that being said, we are happy to accept both of the recommendations. um in the case

report, with some caveats. it's on recommendation one. we appreciate the reinstate of numerical controls for the historic districts for the exact reasons that were identified in the case repor planning, reducing the incentive to demolish these historic buildings, we think that the same incentives exist outside of the districts, especially for large lots. and depending on the height district, because of the way the state density bonus program works. for this reason, and per conversation we had recently with the planning director, we are supportive of keeping form based, uh, density outside of the historic districts, but would like to explore limiting their application depending on lot size and height. the height district. um, we're also happy to accept that planning's recommendation number two, allowing projects to that are used utilizing the adaptive reuse program to use form based density. um, and we would be happy to expand that allowance of form based density to apply

to any true truly reuse program within c2. thanks. thank you nate. so the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to modify the density limits in the c2 districts, also known as community business districts east of columbus avenue and north of washington street. nate already went over a little bit of the background of how these these areas came to be rezoned to form based, and then now they're being proposed to revert back to numerical density. so i won't go back into that. but happy to discuss in more detail if you would like. um, but essentially the takeaway is that the ordinance made the c2 zoning districts in the majority of the city, i'm sorry, the office to residential conversion program ordinance made that the c2 zoning districts, the majority of the city form based, and then the proposed ordinance in front of you today would revert c2 districts in the downtown and

waterfront area to their previous numeric density limits. um as nate already said, the department is recommending two modifications. um, very important modifications. the first is to limit the reinstatement of numerical density controls to demo new construction projects within the northeast te and the jackson sqe historic district. and the second is to allow projects utilizing commercial to residential adaptive reuse program within the northeast waterfront historic district and jackson square historic district to utilize form based density controls. um, we're recommending limiting numeric density controls to demo new construction projects within those two historic districts, because it will greatly reduce the incentive to demolish not only historic buildings, but also non contributor buildings within the district. due to a lower set numeric limit on the maximum number of units, the incentive to retain even non contributor buildings within these districts will prevent the proliferation of demolitions and

replacement with new building styles that may affect the overall character of those historic districts. um and then for our second recommended modification products, projects utilize utilizing that commercial to residential adaptive reuse program to use form based density. because this program will support more residential uses downtown by facilitating the adaptive reuse of commercial buildings, the city should be doing everything we can to encourage the use of this program through the reduction of barriers and restricting these projects to numeric density limits will complicate and disincentivize utilization of the program. i know there have been questions about how this ordinance may interact with state requirements, and our housing elements. proposed rezoning program. um, the only area of potential conflict is with 23 parcels in the northern section of the ordinance's subject area around fisherman's wharf. these parcels are proposed for increased residential capacity in the department's rezoning scenario. c of the housing element, the department's

recommended modifications, however, would ensure form based density remains on those parcels and therefore the city would not need to make findings under the no net loss law. if the commission proposes today to not take staff's recommended modification number one and chooses instead to revert any of the 23 parcels back to density, these, uh, no net loss findings would be required. um, i'm happy to answer any additional questions, as i believe nate is as well. thank you. with that, commissioners, we should open up public comment . members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. good afternoon everybody. cory smith, on behalf of the housing action coalition, jake sends his regards from some beach in mexico. so he got to send me instead. um really, frankly excited to hear from from the staff at and the sponsor of the

legislation that they are taking, the planning commission's or the planning department's rather, amendments. the idea of maintaining form based zoning within the district is really significant. that is a majorúo■p needle mover in termsf housing production, especially given the current constraints with rising construction costs, interest rates, uh, lower rents, being honest s one of the challenges we have in san francisco is we need the rent to go back up to get housing to work, and that's both counter intuitive and sort of insane to actually have to say out loud. but it is the truth with things. um, we want to make sure that we are protecting truly historic resources that are determined. they are they are seen by broad experts as historic resources. um but if it's not that we do actively want to be trying to figure out a way to convert these spaces to housing. and i think the initial proposed legislation would have absolutely reduced the housing capacity. and i don't think there's any question about that. i'm personally not actually a believer that there is a 330 sb,

330 issue there. i just think it's bad, bad policy. so i think that the planning commission recommendations were certainly a really big step in the right direction. very curious to look at the map kind of previously described to see what the actual sites are that that we're going to be limiting some of the development capacity and ensuring that we are protecting these resources, while at the same time trying to do everything we can when we've got good opportunities to add more housing, not just in the northeast corner of the city, but obviously around the city more broadly. so looking forward to the discussion and thank you for taking the time. uh, good afternoon, commissioners. jane tolley here on behalf of san francisco, yimby. uh, corey said a lot of what i want to make the same points on. so i'll be somewhat brief here. uh, really encouraged by the work that staff has done on this to thread this needle, understand that there are certainly historic resources worth protecting in

the neighborhood. there there are also lots of mostly empty parking lots at times. and things like that that aren't worth protecting. uh, that we need to look forward to how we can adaptively reuse and actually plan for our future, not just protect our past. uh, you know, the other point i would make is, uh, i was heartened to see that we made it through the, uh, you know, the state acknowledged that, uh, our response to the policy and practices review was good. and encouraged by the work here to make sure we don't just jump right back into that and potentially run afoul of our housing element again. uh, you know, differing minds on whether or not sb 330 applies, but but, you know, trying to avoid that, obviously, let's not end up right back in that situation right after we got out of it. so thank you for your attention on this. looking forward to the conversation on.

good afternoon. commissioners. congratulate president diamond and vice president moore, jeremy paul speaking. um, i, i am, uh, enthusiastic to hear the, the, um, supervisors representatives speak to this issue. the adaptive reuse of these buildings is going to rely heavily upon application of the state historic building code. the state historic building code application, um, and qualification for use of that building code requires planning department authorization. i think it's very important that it be considered that the historic designation for preservation of the structure itself, not come into conflict with the historic preservation designation allowing use of the state historic building code.

it's a subtle difference, but we don't want to let, uh, put up a stumbling block by the very thing that is going to enable, uh, an adaptive reuse when it comes to the following departments that need to plan check this thing. so uh, the use of the state historic building code is going to be essential for getting through fire department and building department code issues. and we're going to rely on the planning department to authorize the use of that code. quite liberally. when it comes to the to the when the when the pedal hits the metal. thanks very much . okay. last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed in. this matter is now before you commissioners. thank you. um, i'll just start out by saying that i've been a big fan of form based density. um, and would like to see that continued. um,

i think that the compromise position that the staff has put forward makes a great deal of sense to me, but i'm very interested in hearing what you all have to say about that, because there are lots of issues on the table here. so i'd love to hear what you're thinking. okay commissioner tanner, thank you. um, i would second, uh, your comments and feel similarly and also grateful for just the way that the recommendations, i think, get to the heart of what president peskin is trying to achieve with the ordinance. and i know you made a couple comments related to the two recommendations. would you mind just summarizing those? again, i didn't know if we needed to alter anything that was in the recommendations, or i just want to make sure i understood. um your comments on the recommendation as accurately. sure, i could say those again, we are generally supportive of the recommendations. um, but

would like to discuss thus the tweaking. the first one. um i think given how, um, it's kind of difficult to understand how how the state density bonus program creates these incentives to demolish buildings according to, uh, the combination of factors under form based density , um, that that it's good good to keep numerical within the historic district in order to incentivize truly reuse projects . we like that and are interested in exploring if it needs to be applied to larger lots, depending on the height build outs in areas outside of the historic districts. basically, because of the incentives created to demolish the buildings outside, if that makes sense. got it? got it.

great. thank you. um was there anything else that you wanted to have us chat about, or is that the main? no. and then the second one is basically good. like, we just are interested in truly, truly reuse projects and the incentives created here. great. i do think this topic of just like generally the state density bonus is something that obviously we struggle with a lot here at the commission. we've grappled with. we've, you know, case law has happened. we've built our understanding staff has built understanding of it, and as we look at the rezoning conditions, the question of like, how does it overlay? because part of what we're trying to do is shape our city and just decide how we want it to look and feel, and then try to understand kind of the boundaries that the state density bonusind of expands. and then what's the interplay there? um, i think it sounds like something that could be good to continue that analysis as it goes forward to the board to have that better understanding of just like, what does that what does that really mean? it might be beyond the scope of our discussion today. besides just the general parameters of what we know. so, um, and how the state density

bonus operates, which also got updated, i think, as of january 1st. so we even have a new, you know, new and improved state density bonus. and so even our understanding needs to be refreshed again of what's allowable there. but i'd be happy to support the ordinance with the staff recommendations. commissioner braun. uh, yes. i've struggled with this one a little bit because, um, as president diamond mentioned at the top, um, you know, i too am not not generally a fan of maximum density controls in residential areas. uh, unless, you know, to me, the purpose of a maximum density control should be if there's inadequate infrastructure for amenities, transportation, then that prevents it. uh, that that would impact growth negatively. that would make it impossible to support growth in a location. but that's not what we're talking about. where um, you know, this would be applied. we're talking about a very urban area thatec has a lot of

supportive infrastructure and amenities and that kind of thing . um, and to me, if you're shaping and sculpting the building form, um, the impact on the street, the impact on the streetscape, the livability of the place, it you know, it remains the same whether there's five units in there or 20 units in there, as long as the units themselves are livable, which is dictated by building code and a bunch of other factors. um, but at the same time, you know, my head's i don't have my head in the sand here. i recognize that there are also a lot of different incentives that are created depending on your planning tools and what's in the code. and i recognize also that, thsome uncertainty at all times. sort of how things will play out with the state density bonus laws. um, and so you know, my, my take on this is that i am open to, to restoring those dense maximum density controls in the historic districts. again, because of this idea that we are trying to address, you know, an inadvertent impact that in a combination of the uncertyhe sts

legislation. um, but i so i am in favor of the staff recommendations, but i would not be in favor of expanding the this further as part of this legislation, looking at restoring maximum density controls and other parts of the c2 district. i did have one other question. um, miss maloney, could you repeat what you said about the, um, interplay with the need to have the no net loss? because i when i was first just reading the legislation, generally, i was my initial thought was, is this a down zoning and how is it not a down zoning. so if you could explain that, that would be helpful to me. sure so there's two issues at play. there's sb 330, um, and then we have our own, uh, zoning scenario proposals, rezoning scenario proposals. um, i will leave it to city attorney yang to explain why this is not running afoul of sb 330, but, um, i don't know if you would like to start the

conversation. uh, sure. uh, deputy city attorney austin yang , um, on the sb 330 question. um, generally, cities are prohibited from taking certain actions that would reduce the intensity of the land use. um, unless there's a concurrent up zoning. but there's a floor law that's associated with that action. and under the code, under the government code, um, the intensity of the land use is measured as of january 1st, 2018. so prior to january, the change that was effectuated in the adaptive reuse program, um, that ordinance happened just last year, 2023. and so the baseline that we're looking at isn't any different from the 2018 baseline. thank you for that. and then for it thank you. and then for our own rezoning proposal. um, and i actually do have a rudimental but a map all the same if you'd like to understand where these 23 parcels are, um, we have

rezoning scenario three. uh, see ? i'm sorry, could i get the overhead, please? uh, the overhead. thank you. so so this area up here where there is orange and pink, those are the 23 parcels. um that would be affected under this ordinance as written. and also our proposed for increased residential capacity under rezoning scenario c, which is at this moment our lead proposal to hcd. so as of right now, these are the parcels that we are actually hoping will stay form based or revert back to form based through our own rezoning proposal. um, because none of them fall in those two historic districts, our recommended modifications don't affect those parcels. they would if that proposal moves forward with our recommended modification, as these parcels would remain form based. so then

there's no problem, um, with our own pursuing our own rezoning proposal further. so we do not need to make no net loss findings. if the supervisor were to pursue that option, he would, you know, somebody else needs to make no net loss findings. or if this commission this option, thd revert those 23 parcels or any of those 23 parcels back to numeric density controls, we would be responsible for making no net loss findings. okay. thank you very much for that. um, those answers from both of you, um, helping to provide some clarity. i would just say again, i think the way that this is written and proposed currently with the amendments is very specific to specific goals, but i want to just remind us we're moving in a direction of trying to figure out how to have more housing capacity in our city. and so we want to be very use our scalpel, which i think the staff recommendations do to really focus versus kind of using a broad brush, um, to kind of do th thank you.

commissioner more in response to, um, commissioner, commissioner moore, i'm sorry, can you turn on your microphone in response to commissioner brown's, uh, question? perhaps he implied that the two changes would only apply. to east of broadway and north of washington. it is not generically a comment on c two, as that district expands further, perhaps you meant that, but i wanted to just make sure that we are saying that, um, uh, unfortunately, i do not know all buildings in the 35 parcels that are being addressed here. and ultimately in in any case, the devil is in the details. this is moving at so many scales that only when you really do block for block and see the building and the circumstances of the building can you really comfortably and broad brush that is, this should be done this way or that way. and and i am pleased to see the legislation

as a piece coming forward. there is a piece for me. it opens a lot of questions based on the interpretation that mr. uh, howell gave us. uh, i would like to defer that particular discussion as a detailed on the on that discussion to the department and the legislator. and i do not feel that i know enough about the subtlety of what's implied here to just broad brush say that that, uh, those modifications are what i support. uh i support those which the two parties have found consensus on. and then the other one, i would look for additional work in order to be comfortable to support it, because i personally on 35 pieces of property or other parts, i do not know enough. i know the area itself is being cohesive very strong in its architectural expression, very strong in its sense of place. however, as it goes parcel by parcel, i would be able to say i cannot do that

at the moment. so i am acknowledging, uh, the legislation overall. however, i would ask for further work between the legislator and the department commissioner brown. uh, first of all, yes, thank you for the clarification. both. um especially for people who are listening in. i did misspeak on the area covered. that's not the whole c two district. there's a map in the agenda packet. uh showing the extent of this. um, i think i have a follow up question. that's maybe, maybe more related to the discussion around sb 330. you know, if we do move away from numerical density limits in expanded areas , um, you know, i know, again, my perspective is that we should be doing that. and what it makes me wonder, though, is, you know, the solution is to start crafting the form based code. you know, if we find that there's an issue that's happening, um, i think if we are

moving towards a form based code, we need to address it in the form based code. um, and so i would just put out there that i hope in the future we can start looking at different ways to tweak the factors that influence, um, sort of the form based code aspects of this, rather than returning to numerical density limits. it sounds like with sb 330, you know, we there might be some challenges there, but still, i'm just putting it out there for future consideration, given that this is going to be an increasing issue. and i think in some ways, speaking to some of the similar issues as vice president moore, it's just i'm coming at it from a maybe a slightly different angle of adjusting the form based code. commissioner, more. i would like this goes beyond the discussion we are currently having, and that is the question that we are at this moment having a patchwork of areas where we want to use form, form based code versus continuing with the traditional way of, of density. uh, and i would like to see some experts like mr. duany and miss, uh, what's her name? uh, florida

. our florida folks who originally invented the form based codes. i would love to hear the department give a broader presentation about what it in a broader sense, form based code can and cannot mean for san francisco. so this is basically a collective envelope discussion. this is not just like picking a parcel and saying, i'm going to do form based code here, but two blocks over, it's just the old way. ultimately those things will clash, and i would like to really have a more educational discussion of how strong we should move forward and i'm picking a little bit up on mr. radulovich in looking into the future. is form based code is the answer for san francisco or is it not? and that is again, responding to the challenges of densification. but looking at and at it in a more comprehensive and wholesome way, that is a request for and certainly i think we're doing that, you know, over the past two decades, every rezoning

we've done has generally the baseline has been form based in removing density controls and i think we're we're it's why we're not seeing projects happen. like on geary in 19th is because we have we have density controls that limit what you can build within the form that's otherwise allowed by the code. so the eastern neighborhoods market, octavia, the c3, uh, you had legislation recently before you to remove density controls in nc districts. that was both both supervisor chavez and the mayor's legislation. so we've moved in that direction. i mean, over the last couple of decades to a form based code under this current rezoning that we're doing on the west side, i think it's the first one we're doing since it's, uh, more projects have been using state density bonus. so this intersection with form based and state density bonus, what results from that? and we're taking into account the state density bonus with form based as we rezone, which

we didn't necessarily do in those in those past plans because they predated the kind of more prevalent use of state density bonus. so i think we're doing that. and we will we'll continue to do that. and we can definitely present on that when we talk about the rezoning, which is which is reverting to form based, but also taking into account how projects use state density. bonus objective design standards, etc. so we will definitely present on that. i mean, future city planning looks at, uh, in a visionary way at a form based code versus a reactionary way of using form based goes to achieve different results. so i'd like to see the more visionary part about it. how does that benefit us in the future and how does it event prevent some of the things we're currently afraid of really facing? uh. commissioner koppell yeah. move to approve with, uh, staff's recommendations. second, would you mind, uh, also having comments forwarded to the

supervisor, as i always ask? thank you. very good. commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the proposed amendments with staff modifications, forwarding commissioner comments on that motion. commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz i commissioner tanner i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. item 11 case number 2023 hyphen 010847 pca conditional use authorization for removal of unauthorized unit planning code amendments. good afternoon. commissioners. u this item is the conditional use authorization for removal of unauthorized. dwelling units. or use this was sponsored by supervisor melgar. and we have mr. michael farah here to share a few words about the

legislation. and then i will follow up with the staff presentation. thank you. thank you. planning commissioners. mike ferrer from supervisor melgar's office this legislation came to us through some constituent concerns, um, that we tried to address and then heard from other supervisors offices that said they had similar concerns in their district. and so we crafted, um, some language that you're looking at now with the help of city attorney. i'm julia gulko, who was amazingly helpful. to us to get here today. um, um, we have received letters with suggestions from anastasia yannopoulos about adding language and georgia scottish, um, that made some suggestions to us. and will, uh, look at

those before we schedule it at our commission. we've also, um, have recommendations from staff on that. and i look forward to your deliberations on those today, and i'm available for questions if anybody has it. okay. so this ordinance would create a new conditional use authorization exemption for single family homes, removing audu if said udu has not been rented for consideration within the past ten years. additionally the property owner must currently reside in the property in the primary unit and confirmed they will reside in the resulting single family home for at least three years after the udu is removed, so they need to provide confirmation of this in order to be eligible for this new exemption. lastly the

property owner would also need to enter a regulatory agreement subjecting the resulting single family home to the price increase. limitations of the rents, stabilization and arbitration ordinance. so this is also known as rent control. the ordinance also would waive the la cour for proposed udu removals when the udu does not currently meet the open space or exposure requirements of the planning code, or the minimum floor to ceiling height requirements of the housing code, and so for these specific exemptions that would be eligible for multifamily buildings as well, not just single family homes like the um, first exemption, i had shared. lastly, the proposed ordinance also refines the udu removal findings to only consider the uda's tenant and eviction

history from the past ten years. um, as mr. ferrer had just shared, the department has received two public comments after the packets were published, i forwarded one of them to you earlier this week. that was from miss georgia scottish. she supported the overall intent of the legislation and the two suggestions were as follows. one is related to um. if the um seeking the ci exception has a kitchen, um, she's suggesting that the kitchen cannot be removed to provide flexibility to be able to separate the units at a later date. the planning code defines as a dwelling unit, as having one kitchen. so just the way that it is currently defined, we would not be able to have the second kitchen on site. um, also in in the recent or

recent ish zoning administrator interpretations issued in march 2021, the um earlier rooms down criterion really made it more flexible for having additional counter or sink space. um, fridge of various sizes. so you can have different facilities as long as it's not a full kitchen with an oven for example, you would still be able to have similar facilities within the. um udu or secondary area already . and then the. the second um, suggestion from miss scottish was requiring that the property owner, um, owns the property for at least one um, or maybe more years to better ensure there's no speculative development under this legislation. the ordinance again, is really intended to support families looking to accommodate their growing

households, whether it's for um, aging adults. um um, extended family, aging or grown adults. so that already captured within the ordinance. and we hope to be able to remove any additional all times or excessive procedural barriers to be able to really better support these families. um, also, as another example, if the property is vacant, it doesn't really make sense to have a, um, an owner or a new owner add that additional length of time for the ownership within the property. the other for public comments. um, the department received is from and forgive me for butchering the name um mister farrow already shared it. anastasia joannopoulos from the sf tenants union with the land use and planning watch committee. she asked that we add a requirement

for the property owner seeking the siu exemption for single family homes to complete a declaration under penalty of perjury, stating that the udu has not been occupied within the past ten years and that the department conduct a site visit prior to granting the waiver. staff recommends approval with modification of this ordinance because it supports single family owned homeowners looking to adjust their homes to accommodate their expanding um families, expanding households. this supports the housing elements goals of removing process and barriers, and it also subject the primary unit to rent control if it were ever to be rented out in the future. the two two recommend added modifications relate to the proposed clarifications in the legislation and the first of which is related to the open space and dwelling exposure um

co exemption. so the recommendation is to amend this exception so that projects are only exempted if the path to legalize is through a variance. as we see any times where the goal may be, the edu might be eligible to legalize the unit through the legalization program or the various adu programs we have. so we want to be able to retain the unit if they are eligible through those pathways. um, staff does support the coa exemption. if the only way to legalize the edu is through a variance. and just to add a little more background for this as well. um there a or often times the zoning administrator is able to grant a variance for open space or exposure requirements based on exceptional or extraordinary circumstances from the property.

however, if the property owner chooses not to legalize the edu, but they do have, um, the variance granted or the potential for the variance granted, it does create a scenario where the planning commission will be faced with a request to remove the edu, even though they could move forward with that variance. um, the variance request. so this recommended modification would also alleviate some of those conflicting or potentially conflicting scenarios as. and with respect to the second recommended modification in the recommendation is to amend the floor to ceiling height seaway exemption to only apply if the edu does not also meet the minimum area under the housing code. so again, we're looking to retain viable units and the

recommendation is that the edu only receives the coa exception if it does not meet both the minimum floor to ceiling height and minimum area. if it does meet both of these provisions, then the property owner would still need to go through the coa process. under this recommended modification, and then they would appear in front of you to be able to make their case of why they want to remove the undue. so this concludes the staff presentation. and i am available for any questions. thank you. thank you. we should open up public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission. if you're in the chambers please come forward. seeing no request to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. thank you. um, could i ask, uh, as a way to start,

if. commissioner mel excuse me. if supervisor melgar's office is in favor of the modifications that are proposed by staff. we have not had that conversation yet. i look forward to having that conversation with her. um so i have not discussed it with her. okay yep. um i'll start out by saying that i think that we need to find it, need to find ways to make it easier for families and multigenerational households to be able to stay in the city. um, and i believe that , uh, this ordinance is a very good attempt at, um, at, at doing that. so i am generally supportive. i will be interested to hear, um, what the commissioners think of staff's, uh, two proposed modifications. um, so i open the floor, i start

with commissioner imperial. thank you, president diamond. um yeah. um, i'm generally supportive of the legislation. and also i'm also supportive of the staff recommendation. um, it's especially on the recommended number one. it does make sense. um, in terms of there is still a pathway in terms of the coa. um you know, looking into the coa and also, um, looking into the, the programs that we have in the department. so i think we do already have this process. and to go through the variance seems reasonable to me. um, i and also the recommendation number two is also seems very reasonable to me as well. um i do have a question in terms of, of the because we've been hearing again from the general public in terms of the, you know, the on site visits, i think the, um, i think it's more on the implementation of how do we as a department

make sure to that. um, there are no tenants living in these, um, in these because sometimes i think there are a couple of cases where we found out through the commission hearing that there is actually a tenant. um, it was and it was an undo. so, um, so, yeah, is that going to be part of the process as well before that, we're doing the, you know, the, um, removal that there will be an on site visit on this. yeah thank you. commissioner imperials. um, so current be part of our procedure for reviewing 317 um, coa for demolitions. it does involve conducting site visits to really verify the plans. verify the existence of tenants, if any. um, for the specific request, um, submitted for this ordinance, it was related to the single family homes, but part of

that is there already. the applications already stating, yes, there is this undue. um, we're looking to use it for the family. um, a site visit may or may not reveal if it's 1 in 1 household. collectively um, and also just want to point out that for this legislation, a site visit wouldn't necessarily, um, reveal if there if it had been vacant or if there had been a tenant within the past ten years. so um, generally we do conduct the site visits, but for some pieces of the proposal icu exemption, we wouldn't be able to capture that through the conducting a site visit. so i'll share that at a very high level. and then i'll turn to miss waddy if she has anything else to add. sure. just add to that. um, as a sort of general matter, of course, i'm not opposed to site visits. if anything, i think site visits are really great and we should continue to do them where there's, i think, value

added question, particularly around projects that come to you guys. um what i don't want to sort of hamstring us into is committing to do site visits for every single scenario where they're not might not be a value add in us doing a site visit, site visits are very time intensive for staff time, particularly if you're going, you know, outer sunset, outer richmond from the office. it can it can be a three hour activity kind of getting there, doing the site visit and coming back. so i do also want to be judicious with staff time and make sure that there's, you know, it's really critical for us to do that to obtain information. and as miss flores noted, the way the legislation is being crafted, i'm not sure we'll be able to discern an answer necessarily from a site visit. and so that would be my only concern about mandating it. i mean, certainly you can take a site visit to identify is it occupied? is it not occupied in that moment in time? um, but, you know, if we see people's belongings in there, it's not necessarily obvious if those are belongings of people who live in the main house. as she noted, we

may not be able to identify. was it vacated a week ago or ten years ago? um, and since those are sort of the criteria at play ff fromm, i'm not sure it's sort of the staff side cost for the value of information. we're getting back. um, again, this is why for demolition, new construction projects, we definitely do a site visit because we understand there are a lot of different factors that we want to be able to validate that, um, before a project comes before you and verify, you know, existing site conditions. i'm just not sure we're actually going to get the answer we want from a site visit. okay. thank you. um i guess what would be the what would it mean for this? like what would trigger for a site visit if there. well, i mean, i think as we're talking about this, you know, perhaps i could offer we could certainly augment on the affidavit. we have no problem requiring affidavits. we do that for a lot of different submittals. um, we could require that photographs are provided of the space in question. um, again, like, that doesn't necessarily give us any different outcome than the site

visit, but it, it is at least tied to an affidavit and is a little bit date stamped of at least at this moment in time. no one was living there. you know, we could do things of that nature. i certainly do think we should still be continuing to do site visits, whether they come to you or not. for demolitions. i think it's important for us ge property if there's going to be that significant of a change. um, but i think as it relates to this, um, you legislation, i'm not sure if i see sort of a carte blanche value out of doing site visits. i guess it will be more case by case basis. absolutely and we, um, the other scenarios where we require site visits are any applicant who's on the dbe expanded compliance control list, regardless of the scope of their permit and a window permit to whether it's a bigger permit. we mandate site visits. there are a lot of other instances where, you know, management at any point in time can say we need to really take a site, visit. things are a little, um, conflated on the plans or confusing or, or if we're getting any kind of other information out there we use,

you know, we do use google. there's a lot of information out there. um, and we can choose to do that at any time. okay. thank you very much, commissioner tanner. thank you for your comments and questions. commissioner there were some that i had as well. i certainly can appreciate the challenge of doing site visits. i, i guess i remains a little just thinking about the folks who would try to, uh, submit false statements to, to the city. right. and how do we know what's actually happening? and to your point, we can't we can only know so much from looking at it. so whether it's photographs, whether it's like looking at the housing inventory, hey, as of last, whatever we know the housing inventory is just getting up and running, but, you know, hey, as of last, whatever it was rented. now you're suddenly saying that it's not. and you just you bought it five years ago. so, you know, just there are some things we can use to check what they're saying. and then that could say, well, we need to come out and see it. so i think just having a system that perhaps the supervisors staff can make further suggestions around what

is the system of checks and balances to make sure for those who would abuse the system that we can curb it, but also not make it hard for those who are being honest. right. and like find that balance between those things. so whether it is a site visit or to commissioner pearl's point, this the triggers of when it gets to that level being clear and being known, um, especially since we're moving from a q to administrative like it's a big, huge change to go from one to the other. the other oything i would say is for the second recommendation, to make sure it's a contiguous use minimum area. so for example, let's say there's a low beam and that excavation of that floor to ceiling height in that one area would be probably cost prohibitive since we're taking out financial hardship. in my reading of the cu findings, i think it's important to, if we're going to have a minimum area to make it contiguous use. i think the thing i would say, and i'm interested to hear other folks thoughts about the staff recommendation, is, is to really think about what is the purpose of this legislation and so that's, you know, the supervisor

is work to continue to kind of champion the purpose of the legislation, if it is to make it easier to remove unauthorized dwelling units that the property owner no longer wants to rent out or use as a separate dwelling unit, then does it matter whether it's a variance or an adu or whatever reason that they could continue the unit? now that is held in tension with our goal of adding density gently throughout the city. that said, if the person continues to retain the unit, we talk about this a lot. having that unit there, if ten years, 15 years, 50 years, the property is sold, there's still that second unit there that is legal and compliant with the building code. and safe to occupy. um, so , so i think maybe this strikes a balance. the staff recommendations of allowing easier removal while also, you know, holding intention or other goals. however, i would ask that the specific cases the supervisors thinking about be specifically looked at. if there are cases that supervisors, offices are saying, hey, we're trying to solve a problem and these staff recommendations, in

fact, do not solve the problem, then the legislation is failing to reach its goals. and so we need to not just look at it theoretically, but really look at the cases we're trying to help and see if we're helping or hindering them by requiring these different things. and again, we're moving financial hardship. i guess i want to understand then if someone says, i want to remove this undue, i could turn it into adu, but i can't afford to do that. where do they go? do they come here and we're just looking though at whether it's been occupied or not occupied as a commission by a tenant in the last ten years? i just want to understand how this new scheme would work when these cases are brought here. um, thank you, commissioner tanner. so with respect to the findings, it would no longer be required as part of the applicion to conduct it or provide the documentation of the cost to legalize and then also so, um, comparing it to the average cost of legalization, which also then looks at the burden of the applicant. so that's no longer required as part of the application, they would still have the opportunity to provide that information for

you. but at least this way it does. um safeguard some of that personal information. if they choose not to share it. um, again, many of these, that might be the very reason that they decide that they do not or cannot move forward. but we wanted to be able to just be, um, a little more sensitive to, to those, those data points. okay. thank you. and then just to confirm, we would be looking at maybe the three ah, or however the home was permitted to confirm it's a single family home. i'm just thinking of, for example, a home in my neighborhood that had three units in it and was sold as a single family home, but had three units, so that would still be falling under this even though it had multiple units like three. but it was a single family home, so that would be eligible for this program or would that fall into the multi unit category is that it's the legal land use okay. all right. great thank you. those are my questions and comments commissioner i, i appreciate

modification. i appreciate staff's modification. i'm fully support of it. uh the one issue that none of my fellow commissioners has addressed, but that is very, very big question is the issue of rent control. and i would like to ask the city attorney, uh, to perhaps give us some guidance of how to look at that relative to what's in front of us. all right. commissioner moore, could you just repeat the last part of that question? if you perhaps could guide us through the issues that pertain to rent control as they're proposed in this legislation? so generally, um, there are restrictions on the city's ability to apply rent control. um, however, there are certain exceptions that can apply. um, and, and, um, you know, in this instance, um, there are it's possible to construe the benefits being conferred upon,

um, a single family home owner, um, as you know, being significant and consistent with the exceptions and costa-hawkins. so so, um, that would be, that would be the, the means by which the city could, uh, ask a homeowner to execute a regulatory agreement as part of this, uh, project. uh in, in correspondence, we have received the were cautionary comments under which circumstances the city would be at risk. could you explain that? uh please to us generally, uh, commissioner moore, our office will issue cautionary advice to both, um, supervisors and the commission on and policy makers on the risks proposed by any, um, any proposed action or including legislation. however, it's not this commission's, um, it's not my ability. i don't have the authority to disclose that

attorney client confidential information. i just want to make sure that we are aware of it. we are also we are not the legislatures, but that that discussion is very carefully weighed as it moves forward. in addition, i would like to see the supervisor, uh, talk with planning about the modifications, which apparently as of this moment have not been discussed. that leaves us a little bit lopped sided to support because we can express our questions. however, since there are many issues that have not been discussed or properly vetted, it makes it very difficult to say i wholeheartedly support this because for us, there are pieces missing. so again, sorry, deputy city attorney austin yang just maybe in terms of process, it's helpful to know that, um, you know, the commission's role here is to provide an approval, uh, or recommendation on the legislation. it can include the staff recommendations if there are modifications or proposals and amendments made in land use

committee following the commission's consideration and those are, um, consider those amendments are material. um, it's possible that those could be re referred back to this commission to be heard again, and then you would be able to opine on those, uh, on those amendments. thanks for that clarification. i think that answers my questions. and uh, in indeed uh, expresses the relative support for this legislation and contingent on further discussions between appropriate parties. miss what's your name? that was earlier and commissioner imperial, i'll make modifications. on second. ifff there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion to approve with staff modifications on that motion. commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz, i commissioner tanner i commissioner imperial i. commissioner. koppell i commissioner moore and commissioner. president diamond

i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us on item 12. case number 2017. hyphen 011878 dva. hyphen zero two for the potrero power station mixed use project. this is a request for an adoption of a resolution to recommend an amendment. good afternoon, commissioners and president diamond, monica yamauchi planning department staff. the application before you today is a request for adoption of a resolution to recommend approval of an amendment to the development agreement and financing plan of the potrero power station. mixed use project to allow for the creation of an enhanced infrastructure financing district, or aifd. various approval actions related to the potrero power station mixed use project have been before you since january 30th, 2020, when this commission certified the project eir adopt findings under the california environmental quality act and recommended

approval of general plan amendments. planning code map amendments and the project development agreement, including the potrero power station design for development. the project sponsor has been diligent in developing the site since these approvals occurred, and staff included a list of the commission's actions and formal site design submittals that the department has approved related to the power station project since 2020. in your executive summaries for today, as well. um, in order for the project to proceed, the commission must approve a resolution recommending that the board of supervisors approve the proposed legislation that was introduced by district ten supervisor shamann walton, which would authorize an amendment to the potrero power station development agreement and its financing plan as we said, an amendment is required in this case because implementation of an ifd was not anticipated when the da was originally approved in 2020. also so just so everyone is aware, supervisor walton's staff were unable to join us, but that the supervisor wanted to express his full support of the amendment before you to. um, ifds are a tool

for municipal cities to allocate anticipated new tax revenue towards certain development activities based on tax increment financing or tif. in this case, the proposed modification will allow the implementation of an ifd at the power station to permit incremental property tax allocations to finance public infrastructure, affordable housing and other facilities of community wide significance such as parks and open space that were previously approved as part of the development agreement. we're joined by lee lewinski from the mayor's office of economic and workforce development today, and she will continue with staff's presentation in just a moment. here um, with a much more detailed explanation of the ifdm definitely leaving it at that. um, today, the sponsor has conducted robust community engagement efforts, particular with neighbors and residents of dogpatch and potrero hill. these have included numerous in-person community meetings prior to adoption of the da, as well as additional community meetings about the proposed design and land uses of block seven a,

seven, b, eight, 11, 12, and 15, and proposed open spaces at power station park. the louisiana paseo, and the point. the department has not received any correspondence in support of or in opposition to the da amendment before you today, the department finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives and policies of the city's general plan, and meets the intent of the power station development agreement. the power station sud and the planning code. therefore we are recommending approval of the resolution before you today. this concludes my remarks. as i said, i'll turn it over to lee to continue with staff's presentation. um, enrique landa from the project sponsor team will follow with a brief presentation as well. and finally, we're also joined by anna vandina, who is the public finance director at the comptroller's office. should you have any questions about that? thank you so much. good afternoon. commission president diamond. uh, as monica said, i'm lee lewinski with the office of

economic and workforce development. we are here before you today to seek your positive recommendation to amend the power station development agreement, specifically to amend the finance plan exhibit to include an infrastructure financing district as a new public financing tool for the project. this effort is born out of mayor breed's housing for all plan, with the acknowledgment that the city can accelerate pipeline projects and the vast amounts of housing and benefits that they will create by investing funds to pay for the public infrastructure that must be built first before those units can come out of the ground . the tax increment tool that we are utilizing is a state authorized program called the enhanced infrastructure financing district. eafd which pledges incremental property taxes within a specific geography to fund public capital

improvements. the capital planning committee updated the citywide ifd guidelines early last year to incorporate the ifd program and impose additional fiscal guardrails that will allow the city to roll out ifd across multiple eligible large projects while maintaining fiscal responsibility for the city. ifd law requires a dedicated legislative body to manage and implement aphids. san francisco public finance authority was created on june 6th of last year and consists of three members of the board of supervisors and two public members. the pfa is currently chaired by supervisor walton and has conducted three meetings to date regarding the formation of this power station. ifd. the power station project has advanced significant

infrastructure since its approval in 2020, but is challenged by the high cost of these facilities and the difficult economic conditions. as ifd reduces the project's cost of public infrastructure, much of which will be dedicated to the city and provides a predictable source of funding to spur future phases of the project. as part of the city's extensive due diligence to form this, ifd, we have conducted a fiscal impact analysis to verify that the project will continue to generate a net fiscal benefit to the city's general fund on an ongoing, annual and cumulative basis. this. the power station ifd is anticipated to fund a host of eligible uses in the power station project, including parks and open spaces, streets, utilities, site work and affordable housing. the ifd is a reimbursement funding mechanism, so the project will still be

developed in accordance with all of the terms and conditions that are outlinedt. the formation prs for ifd is a rigorous one, and we have conducted a host of hearings at both the public finance authority and at the board of supervisors to date, following this planning commission item, we anticipate to advance the final pieces of legislation that are required to officially form the district. thank you for allowing me to provide that brief overview. i and my colleague anna vandina from the controller's office are available for any questions, but at this time i will turn it over to enrique landa from the sponsor team. to make this full screen. all right. perfect commissioners. good afternoon.

uh, president dimond. vice president moore, thank you for having us. it's been four years since, uh, we were here at the commission for the approval and, uh, i will say that since then, everything has gone exactly to plan. there's been no problems. uh, it's been super straightforward and predictable to develop, but, um, uh, just as a reminder, power station is a very ambitious project that envisioned 2600 homes, 30% of which is affordable, as well as space for lab and life science and potentially office a hotel in about seven acres of open space. this was the project, as you saw it last, where you come to our site today, you would see a project with significant amount of infrastructure well underway. we wasted no time after your approval and getting into the ground. uh, and this is the site's a little wetter today than it was there, but other than that, you can start to see how streets and infrastructure are coming in. and i'm very proud that we started with the stabilization and preservation of station a, which was

something that was very important to this commission and that was completed in 2021. we followed up by creating a seawall, which is not common, that we build them in the city, but we have completed some 600 linear feet of seawall that has both protected the site for resiliency perspective, but also is going to allow that this portion of the waterfront be opened up to the residents of san francisco for the first time in 150 years. finally we're working on some very exciting new things, and this is taking apart unit three, the power plant that is on the waterfront. we are almost done taking the boiler out. and when it's done, we have this incredible opportunity to create a really dynamic, both preservation and open space opportunity. but what i'm most proud of is that not only have we continued on with infrastructure, but we're actually continuing with housing. and in october for, uh, many of you may know, we broke ground on our first building, which was a 100% workforce housing building. uh, the building is privately financed using recycled, affordable housing bonds, which had never been used in the state of

california. i'm very proud that san francisco is leading with that and with our friends in labor, we are going to get to the arduous task of getting this building built and out of the ground. and in the summer of 2025, people will begin to live at power station. so we're incredibly thrilled for that. uh, this program kept us going from groundbreaking to groundbreaking. and this is an incredible tool that the mayor's office and supervisor walton's office have advanced, and we're showing its promise to keeping large projects like this moving at a time. that development is not straightforward. so we thank you very much for your support and your trust and our new years resolution is to be back before you sometime later this year with an exciting project and some additional progress. so thank you for your support and we're here for your questions. great. if that concludes sponsor presentation, we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. i'm if you wish to speak, please come forward. seeing no requests, commissioners, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. thank you. i am a

very big fan of this project. it has so many elements of everything we're looking for big project, affordable housing, workforce housing, seawall development, historic preservation on uh, the list goes on and on. um, and, and i believe that the request for tax increment financing has been is being has been thoroughly vetted by the city, as was explained by staff. and i am extremely supportive of this request. um, but would like to hear from the rest of you before we vote on it . commissioner braun. yes. uh, i you know, i've said this before about some of these enhanced infrastructure financing districts, but, you know, this really is, um, the city putting skin in the game, putting some money behind this project, trying to make sure that we are actually getting, um, this housing built and this project moving forward. it's a very transformative project. and i'm, i, i really like seeing it. it's also exciting, you know, in san

francisco as a consolidated city and county, ouran■r leverage a lot more tax increment revenue compared to what just cities can do. um, so it's you know, helpful that we can provide that at the same time, we'll have the long terme benefits to our general fund tax revenues in the future with the growth that happens in this area. simon i am in full support. i'm um, i actually am going to make are are many of us seconding the motion. it's an exemplary project. and not only that, it has been moving along in the time and many things completely. one silent as as covid and everything. the after effects effects of it. uh, uh, a brilliant idea to indeed expand this type of financing to the to this project. and i am in full support. thank you. commissioner koppell. uh, couldn't be more supportive of this project.

still so thankful you're even taking this on. this is a massive undertaking on the city's coastline, so a lot of really important, uh, aspect to this job. and again, thank you. thank you, enrique, uh, for just having the ambition to take something like this on. um, i cannot speak more highly of this project. um, we're building everything on site. we are utilizing san francisco located contractors, san francisco based tool and supply warehouse for the materials we are utilizing city build, which has a direct tie with our city's disadvantaged communities, giving people careers and access to jobs and paychecks that will enable them to take care of their families. um, and employing san francisco residents, people like me that are still here. uh, so don't don't take us for granted. we are still here. uh, and more importantly, all the businesses nearby, the coffee shops, the

bars, the restaurants for how many years this project is going to go on and how many hundreds and hundreds of construction workers are going to show up here every day to continue to build san francisco. so thank you for revitalizing our town. uh, please use our collective enthusiasm as a commission to keep going. i think we're ready to vote. i have another oh, i'm sorry, commissioner, i wanted to comment and thank commissioner koppell for adding that detail as he so quickly move over the things which span many, many years of effort for many, many people. i do think it requires us to remind ourselves of that particular level of detail. thank you commissioner couple. very good commissioners. with that, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a resolution to recommend approval of the amendment on that motion. commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz i commissioner tanner i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore and commissioner. president. diamond

i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. item 13 case number 2022 hyphen 001045 cour at 2515 folsom street. conditional use authorization. okay, perfect. all right. uh, good afternoon, commissioners. uh, claire feeney, planning department staff, uh, the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 209.1, 303 and 317 to allow for the demolition of an existing dwelling unit. uh, the public notice also mentioned a cour for residential density to construct four dwelling units within the rh three zoning district. however, as of monday that coa

is no longer required under the new constraints reduction, so that has been removed from the staff report and the entitlements. um the project proposes to demolish an existing 1774 square foot, two story, single family home and to construct a new uh 8581 square foot, four story residential building with four dwelling units. there will be three three bedroom units, each with private open space and one two bedroom unit with access to the shared rear yard and a garage with four parking spaces and stackers. the project is fully code compliant. to date, the department has received 27 letters in support of the project and one letter of opposition for of the letters of support are from the current tenants, and mentioned that they look forward to being employed and working on the construction of the project. two of the letters are from sf yimby and yimby law, and mentioned the housing crisis, the value of lower density developments in existing residential neighborhoods, and various state laws like the housing accountability act that require

approval of code compliant projects such as this. the other 22, that's my math, is correct. their letters of support are from individuals, including residents of the mission district in san francisco, uh, at san francisco at large and mentioned the dilapidated condition of the existing residence, neighborhood, walkability and transit accessibility, the ongoing housing crisis, the value of family friendly housing, and the quality of architectural design. the letter of opposition was submitted on behalf of seven neighbors who live immediately north of the project site. they requested three design changes in an effort to reduce shadow impacts on their property. all of which have been raised to and declined by the project applicant. but, uh, the project sponsor hosted a pre-application meeting in august 2021 and another meeting with neighbors in december 2022. multiple neighbors attended both meetings and expressed concerns about building, massing and shadow impacts, architectural style, privacy impacts and quality of

the plan sets. as mentioned in the staff report, the building has been occupied by four employees of the project. applicants company since 2021. the tenants are above low income and are not a protected class like seniors or persons with disabilities. all of the tenants support the project and have expressed that they will voluntarily leave before demolition and construction starts, the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the mission area plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project will demolish a single family home and replace it with four family sized dwelling units. uh. the project has a high as a high quality and appropriately scaled design, and the project site is in an area with abundant community facilities and excellent public transit access, and is near both the bustling mission and valencia street commercial corridors. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff's

presentation. the project sponsor is here and has prepared a presentation, and we are ready to answer any questions you may have. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. great. thank you so much. uh, good afternoon, president diamond and fellow commissioners. my name is laura strazza. i'm an attorney for with patterson o'neill and represent the project sponsor. i wanted to thank miss feeney for her great overview of the project and all her help in getting us here today. uh, this has been in process for the last two years, so we're grateful to be in front of you. um, the architect for the project is on his way. he's running a little bit behind, but he'll be available to answer any design questions that you have that i may not be able to answer. um, just as an overview, this project is a really modest and multifamily building with family size units that san francisco desperately needs. it's fully code compliant and replaces this dilapidated single family home that in the past has had drug problems and really been a bad situation for the neighborhood.

um the project was submitted under state housing law and has strong community support. uh, as miss feeney mentioned, and lots of support letters. i believe there's people here who will also be speaking in support of the project. i also wanted to thank president diamond for her idea to add electric bike charger to the bike parking. uh, we're looking into that and we think that's a great idea. so hopefully we can incorporate that into the project as well. um, we're aware that there's one group of neighbors that have some design modifications that they've requested. i wanted to give a little bit more background on what's been happening with the neighbors over time, to give you some context. um, i think that one of the primary things to think about is this project could be masked, larger than it is. um, there's been changes to the rear yard. it could be a state density bonus project. so it was carefully designed to really take that into account. the neighbors concerns. um, there have also been changes to the

project that we've made over time in meeting with the neighbors. for example, um, the pop out in the back could be two stories, but we decided to limit it to one. we also set it back from the neighbors property line four feet. um, that was done to limit any impact that it had on the property. we also agreed to make the building a lighter color, um, because that was something the neighbors wanted. and we also offered to remove a large tree in the rear yard to bring in more light that direction. but that wasn't something that they were interested in. so, um, but that might still be an option if there's a concern about light. um, in terms of the design items that they brought before, uh, unfortunately, we're not able to accommodate those. i like to kind of go through. why, uh, the first thing they asked was to eliminate the rear deck on the pop out. um, as i mentioned, we've already tried to accommodate, uh, their concerns by setting it back from the property line. um, also the pop

out is going to be at the same level, uh, as their rear yard fence. so there won't be any light or shadow impacts to their property from the deck. um, this is a family, neighborhood or family development, so it doesn't really make sense to limit the open space to the minimum requirements of the planning code. we want to have more open space so that families can use that, because that's kind of what this type of project is for. uh, so we don't think there's any need to eliminate the pop out deck. and we ask that you don't impose that design restraint. uh in terms of the northern stair penthouse house, they had concerns about the shadow effects on their building and requested that it be removed. and, uh, unfortunately, we're not able to do that because of the fire code. the fire code requires penthouses because it's a common area stairway. and so that's not something we're able to do. but when this was first brought to our attention, we did take efforts to reduce the mass

of the penthouse. uh, it's sloping so it matches the stairs . and that reduced it by about 40ft!s. uh, we also did our own shadow study, and the penthouse doesn't have any shadow impacts on their property. so for those reasons, we don't think that we can do anything else to the penthouse. um, and we don't think it has any shadow impacts on their property. we similarly, they've asked to remove the parapet, uh, for similar reasons. it doesn't have any shadow impacts. uh, the shadow study shows and also so it's a safety concern. um, there's a solar array on the northern end of the property. and and, you know, there's going to be maintenance to that. it's also a family development. so we don't want to have the roofline be open so that children potentially could climb over. so that's something another reason why we didn't we weren't able to accommodate that. um open for any questions that you may have okay. that concludes your

presentation. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. in the chambers. please come forward. good afternoon. commissioners sean kiernan. uh, rba, i'm here to support the project and, um, typically when projects, uh, go through the process, it's a series of nips and tucks and nip and tuck here and a nip and tuck there. and at every step of the project, by the time it gets to you guys, there's another nip and tuck and then it gets approved. and that's a lot of the reason why we have this avalanche of projects sitting for sale. the big joke is it gets approved on a thursday and it's up for sale on monday. i'm hoping this project is different this is this is unique circumstances for an extended family that's going to be all in there together. so

i really believe that this will get built. um the project sponsor has made concessions as mentioned, they removed the story from the 12 foot pop out that created the five foot setback off the property line, and they reshaped the penthouse stairs. and it is important to note that the project before you is not the universe of what can get built. the universe of what can get built is much different. there would be no front setback. the back of the building would be extended 20ft back. that would go. you'd go from a 70 foot building to a 92 foot building, and that would get you to the 70% lot coverage. so when you're looking at concessions, when you're looking at the big picture, it's important not to just look at what you have today. it's what could be built. how much square footage is being left. just those two descriptions that i mentioned add up to about 2400ft!s of

something. anyway i support the project. um, i, i, you know, obviously we need housing. i'm not going to bore you with that detail, but i'm here to support the project. thank you. okay. last call for public comment. hello can i have the overhead, please. good afternoon, president tanner. vice president moore and commissioners, deborah holly, on behalf of christina pavel and their family of 29, 80 1/21 street, adjacent to the project site, as shown on this slide, their small four unit, 3200 square foot building at 2980

1/21 street, is just north of the proposed four unit, 8500 square foot project at. i agree with with. i agree with much of what miss feeney and the developers representatives have said about the proposed project. my client support, additional housing, everyone knows that it's crucial for the city, which is why we're not asking for any changes to the number of units project square footage builds height or questioning the cloudy eviction history to be honest, i didn't think we'd be here today. we thought that our asks were so minimal that either the developer would voluntarily agree to them, or the planning department would include them in the conditions of approval. unfortunately this is not the case, which is why we're appealing to you to require these modest modifications to preserve as much light as possible people in our building and small yard. are asks include

the following to eliminate or reduce the width of the second floor. rear deck. eliminate the second floor rooftop stair penthouse and replace it with a hatch or sliding skylight and eliminate the four foot parapet and replace it with a six inch curb. none of these require costs. impose a significant burden on the developer, but each help maintain light to our property. i understand that we are in a new landscape given the constraint reductions ordinance and pressure from the state. however, i have to ask this commission if for a non state density project such as this, where conditional use authorization and the associated findings are required, and if the planning department and commission have any discretion

to require changes in order to conform to the general plan, rdg and other relevant policies such as the housing element, which still recognizes uses that quote, we need to ensure that new development in existing neighborhoods adds support, livability and access to light and outdoor space. if this is not the case, and that all projects would add one or more housing units will be approved without any modifications, then this should be broadcast to the public so they will not waste your time or their time at hearings such as this. i if i respectfully ask that you pass a motion for a requested modifications and add to the conditional conditions of approval, that is your thank you . good afternoon commissioners. my name is tim dougherty. i live

at 2983 21st street. i'm a long time resident of san francisco, having moved here in 2001 and have lived in the mission since for the last 18 years. i will note that the composition of the building at 29, 81, 29, 83 is a nurse, a teacher, a city employee, and a multi-generational family. we've met with the architect a number of times over the last couple of years, um, and have made very reasonable and minor modifications to the overall building. i definitely support housing. i acknowledge the hard work, the planning department has done on the housing element. update i do think these modifications are pretty minor and pretty reasonable, and i will walk through them here. they were shared in the letter that was also transmitted and they include eliminating or reducing the width of the second floor rear facing deck, also eliminating the second rooftop stair penthouse and replacing it with a hatch or sliding skylight, which i think was included in a planning department plan check letter, which was sent to the applicant, and also eliminating the four foot parapet and replacing it with a six inch curb. we think

these are very reasonable. we think this still allows the project to go forward, to add to the housing and add to the vibrancy of the neighborhood, and we hope you will, um, consider these requests. thank you. okay. final last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak. commissioners public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. thank you. um this is the kind of general density increase that i think we're all looking for. i do have one question of staff before i open up to the other commissioners. um, is there a requirement for two? uh stair penthouses on the roof. uh, it's my understanding that that is a requirement under the fire code. yes okay. thank you. um, let's see, commissioner koppel. yeah. hi. um, i'm in support of the project today. what struck me the most was mr. keegan's comments that this this

project could be so much more. even a couple thousand square feet. additionally so i'm supportive of the proposed item. commissioner tanner, thank you. um, i just want to add, you know, thanks to the neighbors for reaching out and also for the information you sent. i think, you know, i think the question that was raised kind of like, how is the commission going to use its discretion? and i think part of our hope and my hope is that we continue to have standards that limit the need for us to deploy our discretion. often. i found the design personally very thoughtful and not only is it less than what it could be, um, it is meeting some of our other goals. again that we have to hold in tension, which is having open space for family units. and so having that deck, i think is really important. we do often shaped or sculpt decks, but i think that rear deck when it's in the rear, but two is providing that open space for that unit. and so as we're building more units that are on a property providing more open space, there's some ground floor, um, and different open spaces for folks to enjoy. i think that's important to keep even though i can understand the

impacts that it might be having to some of the neighbors, but hopefully overall there can be a balance that is found. so i'm very supportive of this project. vice president moore uh, i am supportive of the project. i just have a couple of questions and they may, uh, relate more more to how we have looked at adding roof decks, uh, to the residential infill projects over the last 15 years. and i think this project is a great project. it's a very sensitive, dense application in context. i think with the project misses a little bit, at least in my book is what it does with the roof, decks and while i believe that families should have more square footage per family than the 100ft!s that are used per unit in our our rh three, i believe that this project pushes the boundaries a little bit too much relative to a particular aspect of the

project, and perhaps i would like the architect, if he's around. um, if you don't mind. um uh, the question i am asking is there is a difference between a pair pit and a curb. three feet on impact on shadow in a very dense neighborhood are quite a bit a curb can be six inches. and my question to you would be looking at your site plan your solo way if you would switch it to the opposite side of the building would allow you to relocate the deck for unit d, i read that correctly to the opposite side with. currently the um solar array as and that would allow you to have at the rear end of the building a curb rather than a parapet that requires a certain amount of, uh, fire protection. relative to how you build it. but as we all know, uh, the pair is not

required if you have a solar array because your solar solar panel people know how to work on roofs, and it's not really by code required to bring the entire parapet around the entire roof. so my question is, would we be able to exchange that we still would have the 2 to 2 stair penthouses. we would still have the size of the roof decks. although i questioned that a little bit because we are way over 600ft!s for two units, and even unit number. uh d with the roof deck on the second floor is six large um. thank you. for you . thank you, commissioner moore. um, we, you know, we actually have the solar panels on, uh, the east side to begin with. um, the, the project sponsor just felt strongly that the views are better on the east side. that's why one of the decks is on the

east side. uh, the parapets, uh, can be lowered with fire protection on the roof. um, you know, typically we like the parapets. at least, uh, a foot above the roof. typically they're four feet up. that's what's allowed. and we need that for slope and drainage for the roof decks. i mean, for the roof itself. that's why the slope area takes up about six inches to as much as 8 to 9in, in some cases of slopes, your deck areas have a whale around them. anyway, a code compliant whale where children do not fall through the through the through the enclosure of the deck. uh, i am still, uh, i still would advocate for switching the decks , the d deck to the front solar to the rear, and working with a curb, or work with a curb with the deck where it is. i still would like to have the commission comment on if in the past we recommended about a third of the roof top to be, uh,

occupied by deck. and i know we need two penthouses here, given the occupancy and height of the building. uh, i still feel that overall, this is quite impacting , and i do i do think about the adjoining neighbors. we live in a densely built up, uh, environment. um uh, to the side of the front. you have a low building, a commercial building on the, on adjoining and on the key lots, which would not be impacted. so i'm trying to figure out if we could make a modification in really, uh, it's so minor, but nobody would notice. okay. yeah, i think it's possible. i think, uh, i would like to work with planning staff if, um, to make that happen and just go over it with my clients as well. um, we could replace the solar panels on the east side and replace the deck at the front. i think the neighbors were okay with reducing maybe the parapet on the east side

only and keeping the parapet at the front, if that's, uh, you know, a matter. understand that to be part of an architectural expression on the street side. but however, on the, on the rear, i don't think that is necessary. okay. yeah. if i can work with planning staff on this and make those modifications. okay. i would like for, for my fellow commissioners to think about that and support that move because i do think it would create a relief for the adjoining neighbors, which gets me to a second question. it's slightly more difficult to answer. do you by any chance have drawing, um, a 1.5 in front of you? uh, i don't, but tell me what it is and i'll know what it is. hopefully since the, uh, the unit, uh, the roof deck on the second floor on the pop out is rather long. i would like to cut that deck back by, um, about

three feet. and that would kind of the way you're showing your finish on there is indeed a return wall. return, uh, on your on on, on on your floor. there i would like to cut that back a little bit in order to prevent or give a little bit more air, uh, to, to the adjoining property. uh. i'm sorry, what exactly are you talking about? the deck or the penthouse? uh, i'm talking about the deck on the deck on the east side. well, the deck will be on the. that would be the deck on the on the top of the pop out. top of the pop out, the second floor, the second floor, the second floor. deck sorry, can i understand? i just want to follow you. commissioner moore. are you talking about moving it? just basically the width or the amount it extends. just cutting it back a little bit in order to. there was a comment that that particular deck is rather long. it is. uh, i can't quite read the number. it's 20, 25ft

long or something like that will be cut back to about 22. uh, and that's a huge deck. uh, i'm not questioning its size. i'm questioning its impact on the adjoining neighbors. and it's really about context. uh, i love the building. it does all the right things. but i think we need to leave ourselves a little bit. the ability to hear the impact on other people. so uh, let me just give you the context on the site currently. uh, right now we have, uh, the neighbors have a four foot concrete block wall above the existing grade that existing grade comes down. to six feet down to almost sidewalk level. would you put that on on the on on the overheads that perhaps the fellow commissioner can follow? because we don't all have the drawings open? i think i'm the only one who has a drawing set open. we're talking about the deck at the rear, which is ten foot high. uh, pop out a ten

foot high pop out the property line on, uh, there's a fence, which is concrete block fence that sits on top of a concrete retaining wall for the neighbors. the neighbor's grade at the rear yard is about 30in below the sidewalk level. so when we reduce our grade by six feet and there's an existing four foot concrete block wall above existing grade, we're down to about ten feet of wall right there. so the height of the neighbor's wall is ten feet. and the height of our pop up is ten feet also. so we're really not impacting the neighbors whatsoever with regards to that pop out. if i was to reduce it, it's going to impact the floor plan and reduce some of the livable area on the interior. i was not trying to reduce the livable area on the interior. i was only talking about pulling the deck, the railing of the deck back. not not, not nothing

else. yeah, not the building itself. i see we talked about with the neighbors about pulling the railing back maybe to five feet from property line right now. i think it's about four feet. okay um, so that's something that can occur. we're just trying to maintain some level of privacy. i know the neighbors wanted more transparency, but again, that transparency in the shadow study that that kind of light going through that railing will hit the wall before it hits the neighbor's yard. or there or their building. if you would make a concession for that one foot. you're mentioning, i would be perfectly fine. i'm trying to find the middle ground of really fully supporting your project, yet being cognizant that there are impacts. and while it's an urban environment, uh uh, i would appreciate it. i would appreciate your sensitivity to my questions. thank you. i'd be happy to work with staff on that as well. thank you. okay. staff is prepared to do so if the commission is in support of it.

thank you. and commissioner, if i may finish, uh, responding to that question. thank you. ryan patterson, on behalf of the project sponsor, i just want to clarify. i was just speaking with the project sponsor during this during this exchange, uh, he had already looked at the possibility of reconfiguring the solar array and reducing the parapets and determine that that was not possible. that was not something that he was able to add, in addition to the other concessions already made. so i just wanted to clarify that, uh, that that would not be something that we're able to do at this point. um, and the question of the railing and the size of that rear deck on top of the pop out. again, this is reduced from a two story, uh, area to a one story with a deck on top. uh, he was was not willing to further shrink the deck at this point because there is no shadow impact on the neighbors from that. they're they're at equal height. they're approximately equal height, mr. patterson,

over carefully threaded the discussion by saying that this commission, for reasons of equity and for reasons of context for the last ten, 15 years, has always tried to help people in context to design new buildings, but also acknowledge that there is a certain accommodation from one to the other. uh, i do like to restate that you'd are excessively large and there are not only one deck which we normally have on a multifamily building, but there are as a total two two decks. not questioning the penthouses, and i think within the discretion within the consistency that this commission has the right to continue to look at context and city densification. i believe that my comments are very much appropriate to this particular, uh, to this particular building. and again, i am not questioning anything about housing accountability. i'm not questioning about anything about the unit design, their size,

etc. i'm only talking about what where the rubber hits the road is the roof deck meeting the rest of the city environment and that's all. and i certainly appreciate that perspective from our perspective, this comes in the context of some very painful reductions that have already been made. uh, relative to what this project could have been much, much larger. uh much more sensitive in this configuration to the neighbors and their concerns. so thank you very much . uh, commissioner koppell, i'm going to move to approve as proposed. second, uh, commissioner braun. just going back to the conversation that was just being had. um you know, i, i agree with the idea that on the pop out, the deck does have very minimal shadow impacts on the neighboring property. i mean , i know conditions can have changed, but even looking at old

real estate listings for both properties, there is a very substantial fence between them and the, uh, between them on that north side of this property. my bigger question is i'm still trying to understand why. to me, it seems like the biggest shadow impact of all would be the parapet wall. and, um, could could someone elaborate a little bit more on why the parapet wall can't be reduced? it it's more expensive. we looked at that shadow study last night, actually, when we looked at the parapet shadow impact, it was very minimal. it was like less than a foot of additional shadow that gets cast onto the building and not every part of the building, just a portion of the building. so we felt that that shadow study was significant, that it didn't really impact the adjacent property that much. um, i guess i'm just trying to understand, uh, just physically or in terms

of building code or, you know, what are the issues that prevent the wall from being reduced and a more transparent railing being put in place, or a change along those lines just on the east side of the building, on the rear side of the building. i think our client is just concerned about safety. and, uh, uh, you know, i guess the, the buildability of that, that condition, just to have a strong perimeter and, and i think he elected to have the parapet wall as opposed to an open, uh, sort of roof condition, just in case there's any kind of safety issues with children or anything like that. he was concerned about that just in terms of a liability matter. um, that's more his concern than anything else. i believe. okay. i can't say it's an entirely satisfactory answer, but it's not a satisfied answer. i agree with you, but, you know, it's a matter of preference, i think. uh, yet at the same time, um,

uh, the impact is more at the rear than anything else. if we're going to reduce the parapet at the rear, that's something that that will add some, some loss of mass visually for the neighbor. and something that maybe the neighbors felt that they could live with. the rear condition more so than the entire perimeter of the roof. ultimately um, despite my reservations about the response and but thank you for responding. i appreciate it. um, i think on balance, this this project is, uh, you know, it's a good example of gentle density infill. i do wish that this, that the, you know, there had been an alternative solution to try to bring down the height just a little bit more in the rear with the parapet wall. um, but on the whole, i am i am supportive of the project. commissioner ruiz. i just want to say i'm generally supportive

of the project. i mean, we're increasing density, but i do think reasonable accommodations could be made to honor the neighbor request. so i'm going to be supportive, but i would just strongly encourage the project sponsor to maybe consider for the comments that were made at the commission. so we don't see potential delay, um, for this project being built. so those are my comment. thank you. uh, before i call on commissioner moore, could someone explain to me the safety issue? does the roof deck have its own wall around it? separate and apart from the parapet? or is the parapet serving as the wall? that's protection. okay, thank you for that question. uh, laura, again, um, there is the decks do have a railing, but i think the concern is the railings are pretty easy to jump over. and so from my

perspective, having young kids, i would be concerned having my kids be on that deck without the parapet, um, because they could easily jump over that and then walk right off the building. um how high is the railing? 42in. it's 42in. and it's it just a railing or is it a glass wall with a railing on top? i think it's wire. it's a wire. wire guard, wire guardrail. multiple. so wire from the ground up or just a string across this from the ground up, i see. so this is like a double sense of safety. you have a yeah i mean it lowers the liability risk. i think the main issue is too that it doesn't. reducing the parapet is not going to give them more light to their property. so i understand, you know, trying to find a compromise. but this aspect, it won't really give them anything. um, and it sort of triggers these other concerns . so i think that's sort of why we are where we are. yeah. so let me ask the opposition, why do you want the parapet reduced.

hello. very nice to meet you. um originally we actually suggested to make the, the parapet wiring and that solves everything, right? it addresses the safety issue that i think still is kind of questionable. if you have two and then it provides the transparency. uh, and i think originally it was mentioned that there is no impact on lighting. and then we heard that there is actually impact on lighting. so clearly there there is impact. and if you think about it as the orientation of the sun and the house, this new development is in the middle. right? so of course it casts a shadow like how is it possible that it doesn't cast a shadow? i mean, even here, you see, like how the trees are there now are casting a shadow. so like, how is it possible that there is no shadow ? and that can be resolved by having a wired parapet. everyone is going to be happy. you will

be safe and we will have the light and that's it. and i if i could add, if they could make the wire railing around the roof deck parapets, uh, higher than you could could solve the problem without impacting the neighbors. by that, you're saying i'm trying to understand eliminate the exterior parapet and make the railing higher. um, so there's only one level of protection on, right? right around the roof decks. make that make that a little higher. um unless that's not permitted. i mean, if to me, if someone really wants to jump off the roof, they're going to be able to jump over. i'm not worried about that. we're worried about. we're worried about children. um, not about someone wanting to jump off the roof. um okay. do

you want to respond? you've heard a whole bunch of suggestions, so i think we're going to wrap this up and vote in a moment. but you want one last opportunity just with regards to the shadow study, we looked at the shadow study with the existing building and how a cast shadows onto the current building. we looked at the new building and the impact is very minimal. with the new building, the client really wants that safety net. you know, just around the perimeter. um, if he can create that and i can work with staff to create that and see what we could do about the back end of the building. okay. i'd be happy with that. thank you. so i'm going to align myself with commissioner ruiz here, which is i'm going to vote to approve the project as proposed, and that i would request that you continue to work with your client and staff to see if you can make this, you know, a little less of an impact to the adjacent neighbors. just as an additional gesture of neighborliness in the context of the block. thank you very much, commissioner moore. did you want

to add something? uh, mr. keenan spoke, commissioner. mr. keegan spoke very eloquently about the critical role that rba will be playing in designing and delivering these buildings and i you hear us fully supporting the building. i urge you personally, i know you for many, many years and we have worked on quite a few projects together over time to help sensitize that interface between taller buildings that require two penthouses now, which is impacting and small lot sizes and just help sensitize of what requires a little bit more negotiations between both parties. uh, we cannot do what do what the adjoining neighbors ask. we cannot put a fence directly onto the roof edge. that does not work particularly, we are supposed to hold the decks back from its edges, which

we are doing here. we are building a code compliant railing fence all around each deck. that itself has a height that is requires specific spacing. that is the tennis ball rule that no kid could stick its head through there and i have a deck on the roof. i live, i live in a seven story apartment building. there is a deck in the middle of the middle of the roof doing what it's supposed to do. it's smaller, but that's not the discussion. no nobody can jump over the height of that railing because that comes easily to the middle of here. that is 42in. so we can live with that. and then i would ask that we're possible and i know it's a little bit more expensive to see if portion of that particular parapet can become a curb. i think commissioner diamond phrased it very well. and said if that would be open in in your support and your colleagues support for this project, i would like to

see that new sensitivity built into our discussions, because ultimately we are together responsible to moving the city toward higher density. so that's what i'm asking from you. you have a great influence on this. and so i'm looking towards you, not stuart. mr. patterson, uh, who perhaps has particular directions, but i'm looking towards you to help deliver that . thank you. if there's nothing further commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the project with conditions as proposed on that motion. commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz, i commissioner tanner i. commissioner. imperial i. commissioner coppell i commissioner. moore uh. commissioner. coppell does your motion include the sensitized that uh, president diamond asked for, uh, continue to work with staff? um, that would be fine with me. okay uh, then my support is. yes commission

president diamond. i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. placing us on item 14 for case number 2023. hyphen 0065464 koa at 767 bush street. conditional use authorization. okay. all right. uh, good afternoon again, planning commissioners. uh still, claire feeney with still planning department staff. um, the, uh, the next this item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections. 202.12, 209.3 and 303 to remove an existing laundromat use and establish a new restaurant use on the ground floor and basement

level of an existing commercial building within the rc for residential rc for residential commercial high density zoning district. uh, the project will remove an approximately. 84,131 square foot laundromat use remove the mezzanine level, and establish a restaurant. use on the ground floor and basement level of a two story commercial building. the previous laundromat use was city service cleaners, a dry cleaning business that also provided tailoring and off site laundry services. it closed in 2016 and the building has been vacant since then. um, there are no records of a coin op style laundromat ever existing at the project site. the proposed restaurant is fully code compliant. uh, there are specific requirements for removing a laundromat. use a planning code text amendment that will it will sunset november 2024 was added for a conditional use authorization requirement for a change of use or demolition of laundromats. uh, without this legislation, the project would have been

principally permitted and subject to streamlined review. under uh prop h. uh, there are four specific findings for laundromat removal. ceos. are there comparable laundromat service uses and services in the immediate vicinity? in the previous three years? was the rate of laundromat closures in the vicinity exceeded the rate of laundromat closures in the vicinity exceed the citywide rate? uh will the new use serve the essential needs of low income residents? and does the project site census tract have a household poverty rate over 17? the legislation did not define immediate vicinity, so the planning department uses its best practice standard of 600ft. there is one dry cleaner and one commercial laundry facility in the immediate vicinity. within a mile of the project site, there are 17 laundromat outs and 15 dry cleaning and commercial laundry facilities. in the prior three years, there were eight planning applications that noted the removal of a laundromat, uh, five of which were close to remove a laundromat. per planning code section 202.12 laundromat are principally permitted in many zoning

districts across the city, so the planning department does not have data on new business openings. uh, the legislation for laundromat removal, coas, was passed in november 2021, so there was not a data tracking closures before that date. therefore it cannot be determined if the rate of closures or laundromats in the immediate vicinity exceeds the citywide rate. the proposed restaurant will create employment opportunities for people living within the neighborhood, offered numerous low cost menu items priced at $10 or less, and will contribute to public safety by activating the street at night. it will therefore meet the essential needs of lower income residents. the project site is located on census tract in census tract one, 21, which according to 2020 us census data, had a household poverty rate of 10.4% and is therefore compliant. to date, the department has received no letters of support and one letter of opposition. the opposition cited nearby laundromat closures, which includes the commenters own application to remove a laundromat nearby. uh, it was 779 bush street, which was granted in july. uh, it also

cited inadequate community engagement and the general importance of laundromats to the community. the department finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project proposes to activate a commercial space that has been vacant for years. the proposed restaurant use will complement the existing commercial landscape of the area. there are many bars and restaurants, as well as numerous theaters and concert theaters, and concert venues nearby. the project site is within the union square community benefits district, a critical commercial engine for san francisco, which is still recovering from the covid 19 pandemic. opening a new business, a new business. excuse me, in this area is directly in sync with the roadmap to downtown recovery plan, the conditional use approval to remove a vacant laundromat, use and establish a new restaurant, use will better serve the greater community. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes staff presentation on the project.

sponsor is here for questions but does not have a presentation , and we are ready to answer any questions you may have. thank you, thank you. if there are no presentations from the sponsor, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on. you need to come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. commissioners. thank you staff, for the very clear and succinct presentation. um, it seems like a very sensible proposal to me. commissioners, your thoughts? let's see, commissioner moore, or was that left from before? no one. okay commissioner braun, i just want to make a motion to approve second. commissioner tanner, my only comment is congrats to the project sponsor for opening a restaurant in san francisco. and i wish that they didn't have to go through this process to do it, but they're making it through so very, very

excited for them indeed. there's nothing further. commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun, i commissioner ruiz, i commissioner tanner i commissioner imperial i commissioner. coppell i commissioner moore i and commission president. diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us under your discretion . review calendar for item 15. case number 2023. hyphen 001805 drp. hyphen zero two for the property at 3750 1/21 street, a discretion tree review and for the benefit of the public. if anyone's here for the sacramento street daca, it was withdrawn on. i need to make a disclosure before we start this item. um, one of the dr. requesters, deborah nelson, is someone who i was on a nonprofit board with for a number of years. uh, that relationship on the board ended over ten years ago. i was at their house, um, but i don't believe that that relationship

will have any impact on my ability to review this project. um neutrally. the requester. you have five minutes. would i like to make a presentation? i apologize, mr. winslow. i'm just. if i don't need to, i can go home. thank you. put the name down. good good afternoon, president diamond and commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. uh, the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2022 at 1216 8564, which revises a previously approved building permit to add a second and third story and construct an adu to one storey over basement single family home. this permit seeks to extend the front of the third floor. the previously issued permit also proposed to lower

the height of the rear portion and create a sloped roof. however, that construction work was never done. this permit leaves the non-complying portion of the rear building as it exists today. the existing building is a category c, not a historic resource. built in 1910, uh, the daca. requesters adam belsky and deborah nelson of 3753 21st street residents of the adjacent house to the west, are concerned that the proposed project is tantamount to demolition and therefore is new construction and is inconsistent in size and location with other properties in the neighborhood, and that the plan expands into the required rear yard and proposed excavation poses an unreasonable hazard. their proposed alternatives are to eliminate the rear extension to meet the current planning code, and to modify the third floor extension to what had been previously agreed upon and to lastly minimize the excavation taken to date, the department has received no letter

supporting and one letter or one email opposing the project. the staff's recommendation is to supportive as it complies with both the planning code and the residential design guidelines. uh, it's worth mentioning there were two requesters, but the neighbor to the east, at 37, 49, 21st street has withdrawn his request based on a reduction to the front addition at the upper floor under the previously approved permit. and this permit application in the rear of the upper floor addition aligns with the rear of the dr. requesters house and does not extend into the required rear yard. the existing first floor is not being expanded or intensified, but does extend into the current required rear yard. it is considered a legal non-complying structure based on its appearance in a 1938 aerial photograph, which are our oldest , uh, aerial photographs, um, illegal non-complying structure is allowed to remain as is if it

is not taken down, uh. therefore, this is also not considered a demolition per section 317, we have the demo calcs to um, ascertain that the front of the upper floor has been set back to extend four feet behind the upper front wall of 37, 53, 21st street. this is about 13ft nine inches from the main front building wall, and as such complies with the residential design guideline related to scale at the street. therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review. thank you. now, discretionary review requester. you have five minutes. thank you. jonas good afternoon, president diamond. your first year as president, i hope you i hope you spend a

little time doing dr. cases like this. um, i'd like to go to the over, uh, to the computer, please. um, this is the rear yard projection at the adjacent property to adam and deborah. this is what it's about. about there's a fiction being proposed that this building can be built while retaining this form. um, in its current shape. a previous permit was built. was was issued to the previous owner. one soulless development company, um, which is a very interesting group to negotiate with, calling them soulless. it was with, uh, ruben and junius. we worked out a solution preventing a roof deck from going on this rear projection. a permit was issued

that established a sloped roof and a small balcony that that is an act of permit. this permit seeks to change that. the section 311 notification that was sent out for the permit. it. that's before you today. treat did that previous permit as already acted upon treated it as if the existing conditions were a four story over basement building? we are not opposing a four storey over basement building. we're not opposing any of the other design aspects on this structure. we're only concerned. learned that no deck be able to be installed at this site. let me see if i can scroll down. here is the aerial that shows you're going to hear from

the dolores heights special use district. uh, dick, uh, in support of section 241 of the planning code, which without exception, bars a new development in the rear yard without a variance. this does not permit. they do not permit the 12 foot extension that is a permitted in other zoning districts. this 45% rear yard is sacrosanct. we don't want to see a deck go in here. this same developer used, uh, deborah and, um, adam are in the center here. and the same developer is essentially demolishing the structure on either side of us. this house will stand like a tower with two excavation pits and ostensibly, a wall remains on 2751 and add a portion of this rear yard, um, structure

that we've seen here. i i can't imagine how they're going to keep this up. and i think that it's a fallacy for us to support such endeavors. if they want to keep this house, they should be able to keep it. we will not oppose it. if there is no possibility of a roof deck going on it. that's why we agreed with the previous owner that they could do whatever they wanted with that rear extension, without our opposition, provided they sloped the roof to prevent anyone going out and treating it like it's their deck. there are no decks over these rear yards. that's what one of the core goals of section 241, the special use district was for and we're asking, uh, that this commission treat this permit as it was noticed, treat this building as it's already been built according to the previously issued permit. and

that this rear addition has a sloped roof and that this, uh, rear addition has a sloped roof now and should be required to retain it. this is, uh, from the 2019 permit that is currently active. the rear addition showing a roof sloped with a small balcony. deborah and, um, adam have lived in this house for 20 years. they've raised their boys there and intend to stay there for the next 20. i think that they've negotiated reasonably with the neighbors. the current owners have told them again and again that they will not put a deck there. it's not them that we're concerned about. we would like hard measures to be implemented that preventing a deck from going up over these rear yards. thank you. thank you. uh, project

sponsor, you have five minutes. can i have the overhead, please? uh, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is lucas eastwood. um i'm a long time san francisco builder and developer here today as the project sponsor for 3750 1/21 street at the current owners. my clients purchased this property in september 21st with a fully approved site permit that includes a vertical addition, full remodel, new on car garage at street level and roof decks at second and third floors. as in december 22nd, we submitted a site permit revision to add an adu at the garage level, extend the third floor front facade as well as some interior floor plan revisions and exterior building facade modifications. um

previous to submitting the site permit revision in 2022, we were in close communication with the requesters, um, and we volunteered. to eliminate a four foot by six foot notch on the third floor, which you can see on the slide. um, and that's again at the front facade. and um, during the same period, uh, the request those doctor requesters also asked for a binding agreement, visa v, a recorded nsr to restrict the use of the flat roof section above the first floor from grade at the rear of the property. although a deck is allowable by code and was previously approved, we have voluntarily eliminated the deck. we do not plan to use the area as a deck now at any point in the future. future and see no reason for offering the doctor requesters any further assurance than that. further more, we've offered to

raise the sill height of the second floor windows to further alleviate their concern. uh as was previously previously mentioned in november of 2023, with the help of david winslow, we were able to satisfactorily address the concern of the eastern neighbor and they in turn agreed to withdraw their doctor in exchange for reducing our third floor front facade by an additional four feet. um, unfortunately, we've been less successful with the doctor requesters that are here today. uh, frankly, they've continued to move the goalposts and have not demonstrated an earnest desire to resolve this. we significantly reduced the front setback. we agreed to cooperate and compensate for a structural peer review. we offered to raise the sill height of the rear windows, and we eliminated the approved rear roof deck. uh, i do not believe that this doctor rises to the level of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. the house will be

the same height as the adjacent neighbors and set back four feet further at the top floor includes an adu, and furthermore does not impose on the rear yard privacy. we ask the condition the commission to approve this project as modified, so that we can put this behind us and start construction. we have been thoughtful and engaging for the last 18 months and will continue to act in good faith throughout the duration of the project. we look forward to renovating an existing, deteriorating home and adding a much needed second unit. uh, i'm available for questions. thank you for your time. okay, any member of the public who wishes to speak to this matter may do so at this time. we each have two minutes. awesome. um. good day. uh, my name is rick carroll, and i'm speaking for the dick, which is the dolores heights improvement club. our organization is concerned about proper application of the planning code, specifically regarding building height and rear

setbacks in the dolores heights special use district. the subject property has an existing non compliant structure which extends into the required rear setback, governed by section 241 of the code. the building was constructed in 1910. the existing non compliant structure does not appear in the 1919 sanborn map, and is not part of the original building. the addition was built without a permit. the department's document zoning controls on the removal of dwelling units, page seven says, quote elements constructed post 1906 without permits are illegal, and for the purposes of section 317 are assumed not to exist. since no permit history exists, the dc position is. this is an illegal existing non compliant compliant structure. our understanding is the only way to extensively remodel an illegal existing non compliant structure is to obtain a variance as our

representatives have requested a variance application and a hearing before the zoning administrator in order to approve this project. much like the current chevron deference case currently in front of the supreme court, the planning department has responded that it is their prerogative to interpret what is illegal or illegal between section 317 and section 241. if the department chooses to avoid a variance hearing on technical grounds, the deq position is that plans for the non compliant structure revert to the previous owners. march 23rd, 2021 approved permit, which includes a sloped roof. thank you. last call for public comment. seeing none, dr. requester, you have a two minute rebuttal if you want it. are you the requester? apologies. sorry.

hello i'm deborah nelson and i am the owner of 3753 21st street. the house adjacent to 3751. uh, my husband and i have lived there for 20 years, and we intend to live there for at least 20 more. so i'm here for one reason, and it's i want to protect the privacy of my backyard. i don't want a deck over hovering over my backyard, looking directly at me in my backyard. this privacy issue predates the current owners of 3751. their house had a previous owner, and we successfully negotiated with them to have a sloped roof on this non-conforming structure. those owners realized that a rear deck was intrusive, and they removed it from their plans. when miss mae and mr. chew bought the building, they knew about this agreement because it was disclosed and it was on the

architectural plans. so now mr. chew and miss mae redesigned and greatly expanded their project, and the sloped roof disappeared. and now there's a flat roof with bedrooms with very large picture frame windows looking over this flat roof that are clearly framed to one day be fringed doors. mr. eastwood can say that his clients don't intend to put a roof deck on that structure. it certainly looks ready for a roof deck and his clients won't sign an agreement with us memorializing that there can never be a deck on that structure. why because when they sell it, they want to preserve the right for that future owner to put a deck on that structure. in conclusion, i want everyone to follow the dolores heights special use district rules and i want the rules enforced. i want a sloped roof on their non-conforming structure, and i

want a prohibition of a deck. uh enforced with the best thing that we have in nsx-r. thank you very much. project sponsor. now you have a two minute rebuttal. thank you. president diamond and commissioners ryan patterson for the project sponsor. uh, briefly, i want to respond to a few things that were just said, uh, first, and i think most importantly, the neighbors are asking that there be no roof deck. there is no roof deck in this proposal. there is no roof deck. and they're asking for there to be no roof deck. if there ever were a proposal for roof deck in the future, they

could get a block book. notice they can bring that to the commission on a doctor. they could go through appeals. they can do all of that. if that were to ever happen, if there were ever in the future, a proposal for a deck, uh, six and they mentioned a 311 notice treating the approved plans as the existing condition. it was actually re noticed using the existing as built, uh, as well, just to be extra safe about that. so that's not an issue. and uh, i want to address the claim that was made that the rear pop out is, is unpermitted. uh, i was just brought on to this case a few days ago, took a quick trip to dubai and found, lo and behold, if i could have the computer, please. 1935 permit. thank you. uh, this is for the property. it says yadda yadda yadda. build a bathroom and cabinets and kitchen and two rooms in back of building. and

my understanding is the rear pop out includes two bedrooms. i don't know what else this could refer to. i understand there's, uh, planning department has documentation of that as well. um, and lastly, uh, there's a concern raised that maybe in doing the work, they will demolish that rear structure. i think that's an enforcement issue. if somebody did the wrong thing. i'm sure they would be quick to report it. um, and i want to show on the overhead, please, on this question of the deck, these are the 2019 approved plans. they included a deck. today's proposal removes the deck entirely. thank you. that is your time. thank you very much. concludes. uh the hearing portion now is before you. okay. i want to start with a couple comments and then questions for staff. um our standard is clear. it's

exceptional and extraordinary circumstance. and i didn't hear anything mentioned that was exceptional or extraordinaire. three i hear an anticipatory fear about a future roof deck. and so if staff would mind, um, just elaborating on the process that would need to be followed if some either the current owner or some future owner wanted to build a roof deck, sure. um, as it turns out, even though this is an existing non-compliant structure, there is an interpretation in section one. in the interpretation section of the code under 188 that allows roof decks to be request cited as a use on top of a non existent non-compliant structure that would require a ten day notification to neighbors. so they would be provided ample time to be aware of and respond to that request for that permit. okay i'll just say i'm really reluctant to litigate a potential future air deck that hasn't been put into existence yet. um, i understand the

concern about a future roof deck, but i don't feel like this is the forum. um, a doctor request that requires is a very high bar of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. um, i don't feel like this is the right forum to litigate something that we don't even have a design for in front of us. so i, i at the moment can't see how i could support a request for doctor. see commissioner tanner. thank you. i generally support that. but out of curiosity, i wonder from the project sponsor there was apparently a sloped roof. why was that change? and if there were any discussions around other mitigation measures like non operable windows over the roof? just curious why change it to a flat roof? uh, hi. yeah just i mean, basically two reasons. one is we wanted to put like floor to ceiling windows in the second floor. um, and the way to slope that up, you would sort of have to you probably

lose two. and a half to three feet of what could be potential, um, glazing. um, and the second thing is just some architectural, sophisticated version. it really doesn't fit with the design line. and then third, um, we're actually going to use it as a, as a planting surface, a green roof. so the appearance from the two bedrooms, you have something, you know, green outside those windows just to warm it up and tie it into the rear yard for that roof. is there any access that's required to maintain the greenness of the roof? yeah yeah, but it'll be periodic access that the landscaper can do with a ladder. so there's not going to be in-house access to the roof. okay. great. thank you . uh, vice president moore, uh, mr. winslow, um, following up on the roof question, a green roof is still an unoccupied roof, and it would be described as such. i think it's very important that

the roof itself as an unoccupied roof, uh, is not a roof on which you can immediately put a chair or a deck that just doesn't work. you would have to go through the full process of changing the roof to become an occupiable roof. together with the permits and restructuring it structurally, putting it on sleepers, etc. uh, so i believe that the anticipatory fear of a deck at this moment is not warranted, particularly if the drawing in its submission here are labeled a green roof or unoccupied green roof. that is, that is the type of wording we need in order to hold out that there will be no roof deck in the, uh, for the lifetime of the project as it is being approved today. is that a correct interpretation? mr. winslow? um perhaps i'm not an expert on that, but i would say it's an by definition, it's an unoccupied roof. if it doesn't have fall

protection in the form of a guardrail and as you mentioned, adequate structural, um, you know, members to support a live loads, i would imagine the building code, the building department would, uh, recognize it as such with or without the specific nomen curvature of saying it's an unoccupied roof, but we can certainly ask the project sponsor to include that on the on the drawings. okay. is there a motion i'll move to? uh, not take dr. and approve. second. second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to not take the unapproved as proposed. commissioner braun i commissioner ruiz i commissioner tanner i commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and concludes your hearing today . thank you

[music] san francisco developing programs specific low to increase the amount of affordable housing throughout

the city. >> the affordable housing bonus program provides developers to include more housing for i have low, low, moderate and middle income households. this program does not rely on public subsidies but private developers who include it part of their project. under california density bonus law. housing prejudices that include affordable on site may be request a density bonus. it is an increase in the number of housing units allowed under zoning laws and based on affordable units being provided. >> however, the state law does not address all of san francisco needs does not incentivize middle income housing. associating the city is proposing an affordable housing

bonus program for higher levels of development including middle income u firsts providing a stream lined application review and approval process. >> how does the program work in it applies to mixed use corridors in san francisco. and offers incentives to developers who provide 30% of affordable in projects. to reach 30%, 12% of the units must be affordable to low income household and 18% per minute nap to middle income households. >> in exchange developers will will build more and up to additional 2 stories beyond current zoning regulations. >> 1 huh human % affordable will be offered up to 3 additional stories beyond current regulations. each building will be required conform to guidelines ensuring meets with the character of the

area and commercial corridors. this program is an opportunity to double the amount of affordable housing and directly address the goals established by twenty 14 hosing element and prospect k paddled by voters last year. pacificly, prop circumstance established a goal that 33% of all new housing permanent to low and moderate incomes this program will be the first to prosecute void permanent affordable projects that include middle income households. to learn more about the program visit >> # >> >> >> >> you are watching san francisco rising.

>> hi, you are watching san francisco rising. reimagining our city. he's with us to talk about how our library's economic recover. mr. lambert, welcome to the show. >> thank you. i'm glad to be here. >> i know it's been difficult to have books going virtual. have we recovered? >> yes, we are on our way. our staff stepped up big time during the pandemic to respond to the health emergency. since last may, we have been able to steadily increase in person access to library facilities. currently we are at 95% of our precovid hours of operation. in the coming weeks we are going to fully restore all of our

hours. we have four branches that we are going to bring back to seven day service. they are currently operating at 5 days a week and we are going to go to every tag line and i know all the foot traffic has not returned to san francisco, but our library is seeing a resurgence coming back. >> can we talk about programs after covid? >> absolutely, that is part and parcel of our mission. we were doing that work precovid and certainly the library stepped up during the pandemic. we doubled our level of programming for personal finance, small business help, jobs and careers. we have a dedicated small business center here at the library. there is a wide suite of programs that our librarian led.

we have a financial planning day coming up in october and we have financial coaches that members of the community can come to the main library and take advantage of their expertise. >> i understand the mission is in the middle of a renovation. how is that going and are there other construction projects in the horizon? >> yes, we have major projects in the pipeline. the historic mission branch library, carnegie library over 100 years old and we are investing $25 million to restore that facility. we are going to restore the original entrance on 24th street, the staircase from the lower level up to the grand reading room. we are going to push out on the orange alley side of the library and expand space for teens and children, we are going to create a robust community room, a multipurpose space. we are also investing $30

million in the chinatown branch, we are going to upgrade the mechanical systems to the highest level of filtration as we increasingly respond as cooling centers and air respite centers and open access to the roof. it has some unique views of chinatown to create the inspiring space it is. >> i believe you have programs for families that have free and low cost entries for museum and zoos, is that correct? >> yes. it's a fabulous resource. go to our website. with your library cart, patrons, our residents can go to the public library and get passes to the museums, all of the incredible cultural institutions that we have in san francisco

all for free with your library card. >> how are these great free services paid for? how is the library system funded? >> we are so fortunate in san francisco. we are funded for by the library fund and those that taxed themselves just for library services. we also get a dedicated portion of the general fund. that together allows us to be one of the most well supported libraries in the nation. we have the third most library outlets per square mile of any municipality. all of our branch libraries have professionally trained librarians on-site. service that we are able to provide, the collection, we are a leading library in our country.

>> that lead know ask about your biggest annual event in the city. how does the event work and what's happening this year? >> we are excited for this year's one city one book. this is our signature annual literature event. we have everybody in the community reading the same book. this year's title is "this is your hustle" named after the pulitzer prize nominated and pod taste. this is about the population. one nice thing about this selection is that they are both local. we are going to have several weeks of programming, kicking off next month. it will culminate here in the auditorium november 3rd. so our library patrons will get to meet the authors, hear from

them directly, and one other important aspect about this year's selection, we have our own jail and reentry services department. recently the foundation awarded the san francisco public library $2 million to work with the american library association to shine a light on our best practices here in san francisco, and really help our peers in the industry learn how they can replicate the service model that we are doing here in san francisco. >> that's great. well, thank you so much. i really appreciate you coming on the show, mr. lambert. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, chris. that's it for this episode, we will be back shortly. you are watching san francisco rising. thanks for watching.