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. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. um, finally

, i'll ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. and at this time i will take roll commission. president diamond here for commission. vice president moore here. commissioner braun here. commissioner imperial here. and commissioner coppell here. we expect commissioner ruiz to be out sick today. commissioners uh, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance. and still to this moment, there are no items proposed for continuance. placing us under your consent calendar for all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. one moment, commissioner moore, i would like to take, uh, 1546. uh 1564 off consent, please. very good. let me read those into the record and then i will announce those will be removed from consent. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff. so requests in which event the

matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item item at this or future hearing item one case number 2022. hyphen 010415. see you at 2130 leavenworth street. unit six conditional use authorization item two, case number 2022 hyphen 007099 see way 725 pine street. unit 205 conditional use authorization item three, case number 2012 00877d and hyphen zero three at 1546 through 1564 market street downtown. project authorization item for case number 2023. hyphen 005943. see you at 1401 1499 illinois and. 725th streets commission only use authorization. if i heard correctly, commissioner moore, you are requesting that item three for market street be removed from consent. that's correct. was there another was item four as well, or is it just market? just market street, just market street please. very good.

then uh, market street will be taken off of consent and heard at the end or the beginning of the calendar at the beginning of the regular calendar. very good members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of the other other items on consent be removed and heard under the regular calendar. are there any other members wishing to remove items one, 2 or 4 off of consent to be heard today? seeing none, public comment is closed and items one, two and four on your consent calendar are now before you. commissioners commissioner braun, move to approve items one, two and four. second. thank you commissioners, on that motion to approve items one, two and four on consent. commissioner braun i, commissioner imperial i. commissioner koppel i commissioner moore, i and commissioner. president. diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to

0, placing us under commission matters. item five land acknowledgment. commissioner braun will read the land acknowledgment today. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush alone. who are 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 nor forgotten their responsibility 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 pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. item six consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 8th, 2020 for members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on they're minutes.

you need to press. excuse me. you need to come forward seeing none. public comment on your minutes is closed. they are now before you commissioners. commissioner imperial move to adopt the minutes. second. thank you. commissioners, on that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner braun, i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppel i commissioner more i commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0. item seven commission comments and questions. seeing none. department matters. item eight directors announcements. good afternoon, commissioners ritsuka department staff. um, the only announcement, and i'll probably steal a little bit of jonas's thunder here is to announce that the historic preservation commission yesterday adopted the african american historic context statement. so this is our first kind of background

document recognizing the important contributions of african american people to the city and county of san francisco . um, so this was an 11 year long effort. um, and so the hpc unanimously adopted this document. and that concludes our report. thank you. item nine. uh, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission. there is no report from the board of supervisors. all right. good afternoon, president. diamond commissioners cory teague, zoning administrator, the board of appeals did meet last night, and they considered several items, but only one that would be of interest to the planning commission on, uh, last year, you saw a discretionary review case in march, uh, for a building permit at six, eight, 1/12 avenue. it's a little bit unusual. the proposal was to build a separate, detached, one story structure behind the primary structure, but still within the buildable area for a ceramic studio for the homeowner. um but just a one

story structure. uh, the planning commission heard that doctor, but voted six zero to not take dr. and approve as proposed. it was appealed and the planning department didn't notice that the final permit had changed the material of the roof from a solid material to a glass roof. um, and so the planning department did recommend the board of appeals to grant the appeal. only to acquire the roof to be changed back to solid materials for issues related to reflection and privacy and other issues. and so, uh, the board, uh, took the planning department's recommended mission, and they voted 4 to 0 to grant the appeal, but still approved the project and require the roof be reverted back to a solid material. thank you. if there are no questions, the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and it's just like mr. secret to steal my thunder. but they did. um adopt the african american citywide historic context statement. they

also considered several legacy business registry applications and adopted a recommendation for approval for all of them. um, specific san francisco camerawork at the fort mason building, um, greens restaurant, also at the fort mason building, everlasting tattoo on divisadero street, jewelry collection on sutter street at, uh, liguria bakery on stockton street. on the bridge on webster street. progress cleaners on fillmore street and g lounge on kearny street. uh, and that was all the legacy business registry applications that were considered yesterday. and finally, they heard the expanding housing choice informational presentation that was made earlier today with a focus on on preservation. i believe commissioner moore would like to participate. yeah. i would like to ask mr. teague, please. um i am curious in the ceramic studio, was the glass

roof discovered after it was being built? after it has been built, or how did that become to people's knowledge? um, the project was not under construction because the permit was still in the permit process. um, it was issued in an appealed . um, i believe that it was a revision that happened during the permitting process that had not been noticed, um, after the fact. and it was discovered through the appeal process, um, and then corrected by the board of appeals. but no construction had started because the building permit technically, um, was under appeal. i'm glad to hear that somebody is watching the store. uh, and that this was not, uh, discovered after it was built. thank you so much. sure if there's nothing further, 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. accept agenda items with respect to agenda items. your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when

the item is reached in the meeting. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. hi. good afternoon. i'll wait till mr. owen just the time . great thank you. um, just to georgia. good afternoon. just to amplify my february 21st letter to the commission, i had sent previous letters in february 2017 about flats and also in february 2015. so suggesting greater scrutiny when project applications are filed regarding the demographics. obviously, the commission approved the residential flat policy in october 2017, and with the rezoning hopefully will codify the policy to preserve flats in their original configuration and location in but greater scrutiny is possible now that planning and not dbe is doing the intake and also due to the fact that apparently the addenda can be

submitted simply only. so there should be no need for staff to have to request the demo calcs in any plan check letter after the plans are initially submitted, it should be made very clear that this is a required information on on the plans at the very beginning. for all projects that have a scope involving the exterior of a structure other than just adding a deck 14 years after section 317 code implementation document was approved by the commission on march 26th, 2009, this shouldn't be a problem. at the approval, mr. nikitas, the author of section 317 wrote said the following. we intend to return in a couple of months with a report on the first year of operation of section three, 17, and may make recommendations for adjustment of some of the thresholds that the code empowers you, meaning the commission to make, particularly about the thresholds for alteration projects that are

tantamount to demolition. so anyway, the demo count should be adjusted because they're not stringent enough. as we've all seen in the last decade, with all the spec development and the commodification of housing. so as i wrote at the close of my february 21st letter, what could be more objective than using math to define and determine when an alteration becomes a demolition? thank you. here's my 150 words for the minutes. thanks a lot. good afternoon. thank you for allowing me to speak. my name is christopher seaver and i'm a field representative for the north cal carpenter's union at local 22 here in san francisco today. i would like to touch base on our labor standards language in construct in a few of our core values are local

hiring, apprenticeship opportunities and health care. all three of these are very important parts of construction worker and their families lives. did you know that 50% of california's construction workers rely on some form of public assistance so they can provide health care to their families? statistics show that 20% 26% of construction workers in california lack health insurance. that's two and a half times the rate for all california workers. the lack of health care has become the main factor keeping workers away from the construction industry, which is causing labor shortages. as i've experienced working for companies that don't offer health coverage and after multiple trips to the e.r, become very expensive and take up numerous hours of sitting and waiting to be seen, i, as a husband and father of three, there is no better feeling than knowing if one of my loved ones is having a medical issue. we're covered. since i joined the carpenters union ten years ago, that has been a weight lifted

off my back. apprenticeships apprenticeships are such an amazing opportunity. where else can you work while learning and being trained for a lifelong career without acquiring any student debt? i'm an apprenticeship graduate who went into the trades knowing the bare minimum and was able to go to a job site and use the skills i learned from the apprenticeship, which allowed me to earn good wages and give my family health care. there an escalator into the middle class, tens of thousands of californians are being trained every year at no cost to taxpayers, as apprenticeships develop a pool of skilled labor, local hire is also important as i'm very familiar with commuting a minimum of two hours a day for work, not only would it reduce carbon emissions, it gives the construction workers an opportunity to be a part of their community and be more present with their families. thank you for the time. i hope the language i've spoken about today resonates with you all,

and we're able to implement it into the future. construction projects and work with developers to make this a standard in the construction industry. thank you. good afternoon, madam president and commissioners, i first want to thank you all for allowing me to speak on behalf of the northern california carpenters union today. my name is brandon phillips and i'm an organizer at local 22 here in san francisco. so i have been a proud member of the carpenters union for eight years now. today i want to speak also on labor standards. i'm here to ask that we use these labor standards to guide developers to implement our core values. a few of our core values are local hiring, apprenticeship, and health care. these core values are very important parts of construction and should be given the utmost priority. having a local hiring policy will ensure that we create jobs for members of this community. this will lead to helping members and their families financially, local hire

helps to ensure that money is generated by new development stays in our community. unfortunately, across the board there are projects that are often and out of town workforce. instead of training, hiring and building local construction workforce, having local hiring will ensure that the men and women who build this city are able to spend more time with their families and not have to experience driving countless hours to their job site, let alone watching their families make memories. without them are watching their kids grow up through a screen of a phone. um apprenticeships are such a great opportunity for anyone that may be interested, and some people prefer college on myself. new college wasn't for me. if you love to work with your hands and have pride in your work, or are interested in starting a new career without any student debt, then the apprenticeship will give an individual the knowledge and skills needed to earn what good wages and benefits construct. an apprenticeship can be a better option for many young people. rather than just a traditional undergraduate program. i was fortunate enough to have gone through the apprenticeship and has changed my life for the better, and allowed me to live the life i

live now. i'm able to give my children a better life and that, you know, obviously, than i had growing up. and that means the absolute world to me. uh, everyone deserves to have medical coverage. the lack of having stable health care is a main factor that keeps workers away from this industry. we then that leads to labor shortages. i personally believe that no one should have to stress over medical benefits or having endless medical bills that puts them in a financial bind or not even qualifying for medical coverage. construction workers, particularly those not represented by a union, are more likely to lack health care and solely rely more on government assisted programs. having provided health care ensures a healthier life and allows each of our family members to continue to get the medical attention they need. with that being said, all these core values are very important that will change the lives of many people and keep this community strong. i want to thank each and every one of you for allowing me to speak today. thank you. okay, last call for general public comment for items not on today's

agenda. seeing none. public comment. general public comment is closed. placing us under your regular calendar. commissioners. item three was pulled off of consent and will be taken up now. case number 2012 .08 77x. hyphen zero three 1546 through 1564 market street downtown. project authorization. good afternoon, commissioners rebecca salgado, planning staff. i'm sorry to interrupt, commissioner moore. i'd like to be. i'd like to briefly state why i pulled this project or asked this project to be pulled off consent . uh, this project was completed in 2016. i served on the commission. it was a very well designed project. that was a lot of challenges from this commission, made a lot of concessions to its setting, and turned out to be something which we were all very proud of. it was indeed kind of setting the first step into the realization of the hub setting a standard

and what has happened since has been much written about in the paper. but most people don't relate. the two to each other and since what's in front of us today is actually under normal circumstance is quite standard, that that a market rate approved project can, with the proper adjustment, be converted to a rental housing. this particular project leaves many, many unanswered questions to myself and to the rest of the public. it has been mentioned in the paper as most recently that even the inspector to this particular project was indicted. so because inspections weren't done, so there is a whole other thing, and i'm not here to dish out dish. uh, but you can all read, read it in the paper. and i'm asking that the planning department gives this commission a clear background. and as to whether many of the outstanding questions that were also eloquently raised, apparently, by the public in a letter of

yesterday or the before yesterday being answered in some form or another. thanks. uh, good afternoon, commissioners rebecca salgado, planning staff, uh, before you is a request for a downtown project authorization to change the tenure of the dwelling units from ownership to rental units within the existing 12 story building, which contains 109 dwelling units, including 13 affordable units. the existing building was previously approved under planning planning commission motions number 1939 7 to 1 9399 on june 25th, 2015, under planning department case number 2012 .08 77x, any proposed change from an ownership project to a rental project requires planning commission approval to amend the conditions of approval pursuant to planning code section 415 point 5g3, no other changes to the newly constructed building, excuse me, are sought under the proposed project. the project site is located on two

lots with frontages on market street and oak street, between van ness avenue and franklin street, and is located within the c, three g zoning district and the vanessa market residential special use district . the project site is developed with a 12 story building constructed in 2022, with a building area of approximately 133,000ft!s. to date, the department has received one request for additional information from a member of the public in regard to the requested modification of motion number 19398. as was mentioned in the hearing packet for this pocket project, the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the proposed change of the dwelling unit tenure from ownership to rental will allow the project to continue to comply with the inclusionary affordable housing requirements of planning code section 415 via different means. the project will maintain the previously approved number of on site affordable units, but those units will become more affordable because the army requirement for the rental units will be 55% ami versus the 90%

ami that had been required for ownership units. the project will help facilitate occupancy of this high quality residential building, which has been sitting vacant since construction was completed in 2022. based on the findings contained within the case report, the department recommends approval of the project with conditions this concludes my presentation. unless there are any questions. the project team also has a brief presentation of the project and a representative from the mayor's office of housing and community development is available remotely to answer any relevant questions. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. good afternoon, commissioners. this project, it should be underscored, is being operated under new ownership. um, to charitably put it, the previous ownership was dysfunctional. um, i believe that this is a wonderful opportunity to bring

109 units online to the san francisco rental community. these projects were originally developed as for sale units, and so in terms of the finishes, they're high grade, um, happy to take any questions that the commission may have. uh, perhaps we can take public comment and then the commissioners may have questions for you. thank you. very good. at this time, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. hi. i had a picture that i forgot to bring. i left it in the chair, but it showed the site in 2015 and i remember it very vividly. a one typewriter. you know what's a typewriter? but some of us know what a typewriter is. but that was gone by then. and what was there was this rather ironic, given that this has turned into a rental building? was sf barf predecessor to sf yimby. so i

think that's just just a little irony. maybe it's a gratuitous statement, but i think it just struck me as ironic and interesting. i wish that there were more rental units in here than are, and certainly more at the ami. the lower amis. the other thing i'll ask is, and i don't know, the article that commissioner moore referred to that family who paid the down payment for the condo. so what happens to them? that's the people that that the commission wants to have housing for, you know, a family. he works in the in the symphony or the ballet. i forget he's a musician. what happens to that to them? and i, you know, i don't know if there were any other people that paid had a down payment, but certainly that's, you know, homeownership opportunity. so it's a hard balance. rental you know, 50, 60% ami homeownership 80. ami i don't know. but it just it's just really unfortunate the whole thing, you know, and those stores have been

empty. never mind the building for years. so and then of course, what's down the street from it. but that's another story. thank you very much. last call for public comment. seeing none public comment is closed in this matter is now before you commissioners. commission moore. um, i have two questions. one is for staff and one is for the new owner. i'm glad they're a new owner. has been found for staff. could you please take us through , uh, the amount of required ami at that time under, uh, for ownership versus rental projects. i'm surprised to hear that it's the same requirement. is there also the ability to fee out? i think since many of us here, uh, do not know the project very well, i think it becomes a very important question. rebecca salgado, planning department. um, so, so because of when the application

and the initial application for this project was submitted, um, the ami the um, there are no tiered amis in the amount of inclusionary units required is the same, whether it's rental or ownership. the only change is that the, um ami um requires rates go from 90% to 55. uh thank you for explaining it. unfortunately, it is what it is. but let me ask you about the question. this project actually against, uh, with pushback from the commission, provided parking , correct? yes uh, for a rental building that is obviously either a rental benefit or an additional rent burden. and i would be curious, uh, of how that is being handled. if you are if you are creating conditions for that or if that's automatically, uh, part of when a building turns from ownership to rental. so, commissioner, keep in mind, um, and i'll happily chime in that parking

for properties and housing need to be unbundled from the dwelling unit so they are not allowed to have the parking be associated with a specific unit and make it open to anyone that's within the building. so that means what you're saying is there would be for rent first come, first serve. correct uh, however, in most cases, as, uh, as we see throughout the city, uh, parking is not as much desired anymore that that allows a new owner then to have open public, uh, rental, uh, of those garage spaces. it does not. so the parking would be considered accessory to the residential unit. so if they wanted to open it up to a public, they would probably require a conditional use authorization from the planning commission. okay. i just want to basically cross all i's and t's before we just turn this over. um i have a thank you so much, mr. salgado, i have a question for the new owner. i

hope i'm not making it too hard for you. we are obviously delighted that this project is become a reasonable project again. we have seen graffiti and it being really very much affected over the last year or two, and we all regretted that because we thought this was a new beginning in that particular block. having said that, um, i would be curious to hear for, um, what if you can, what happened with those people who had already made down payments? there were particular, very detailed questions, stories about particular individuals who had hung their heart on living here. um, has that been legally resolved? yes ma'am. so due to the dysfunction of the previous ownership and the high interest rates, the vast majority of the folks voluntarily at requested their deposits back. so the new ownership took ownership without anyone's deposits or any other ownership claims on any of the units. and for those three, uh, afforded units which were

supposed to be for sale, have those, uh, been reassessed and or do those people still have a second dibs at becoming renters in this building? i'm just curious how that's being administered. that's a good question. so it's my understanding that now we'll go through with the mayor's department and figure out how to repopulate those units. as it stands right now, anyone that had a deposit on that unit is voluntarily requested. those back. and so those are all vacant. and now we're trying to figure out a way to populate them with a new rental community . okay um, i'm sorry, rebecca salgado, planning staff i can actually add a little bit more to that because i've been in contact with the mayor's office of housing and community development. uh on what the prior conditions were, and i determined with with them that six units had been in contract. six of the bmr units had been in contract. of those six contracts, three of the applicants, uh, have secured new ownership unit, bmr units

elsewhere. one applicant, uh, received assistance through the down payment assistance program through most uh one other applicant is currently in the lottery for the down payment assistance program after having, uh, not proceeded with another, uh, bmr unit ownership application. and then one applicant, uh, received their deposit back. but has not proceeded with any other um, most cd program. um, so just to clarify, i'm glad to hear that. and i'm also glad that you have answered this really in the interest of the public and for all of us to know what is in front of us and how we're supporting it and in support, we all are, because we do like those types of buildings to be taken over by others, and that the stewardship of what we have basically made to happen is continued by realized the occupancy of this building. i have one additional question for you. uh, this commission is normally not permit hunters or anything like that. we're not sitting there trying to figure out what has been resolved. we

received a letter which you have probably seen, where there are a lot of gray areas of this permit hasn't been realized, and that permit is open end and end end, including the mention of a particular inspector, uh, who apparently is not qualified anymore to do inspections. are you aware of that? and have you been able to work that out? i'm not aware of any issues in terms of the inspection process currently. we, uh, we received a letter. perhaps that letter should be shared with you so that you can take a look at what was what was implied here. this is not the body to go over that, but i would basically feel that if somebody spends the time from the public to go into that depth, that you're being made aware of that and at least know that there may be some areas that at least currently are not answered. so i'm not going to bother you with that any further . thank you. i personally i am comfortable with all of the answers i've received and perhaps other commissioners want to weigh in. commissioners, i apologize, but i overlooked our reasonable accommodation request

or raising their hand. uh, should we take that public comment or now? yes. miss hester, this is this is sue hester. i paid attention to this case when it was originally at the commission. and commissioner moore is correct. it had a lot of attention. so the questions that were raised by mr. dratler in an email yesterday, as well as commissioner moore, deserve to be answered in writing. i asked that you continue this case until the staff has enough time to give honest answers in writing to all the commissioners . it's a very, uh, weird to have a bunch used on the fly. they have nothing in writing for from the developer and the planning department. please continue this item. it's the right thing to do. commissioner manners. thank you. by commission imperial.

yeah um, thank you for the explanation for from the project sponsor and the planning department. i, um, i do find the , you know, the transfer from owner to rental. um, my first concern was about the bmr units, actually, and i think the explanation provided right now was sufficient. and i don't have a problem with that in terms of the inspections, i would just emphasize as what vice president, commissioner moore, that that that need to be, um, for the projects sponsor to be aware of that and also the planning department aware of that, because i think that was kind of like in the public as well. but i'm okay with voting yes. and um, move to approve. a second. there's nothing further. commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with the conditions on

that motion. commissioner brown, i commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 and we'll place us on item ten for case number 2023. hyphen 011077 pca for citywide expansion of allowable commercial restaurant and retail uses. planning code amendments. good afternoon, commissioners veronica flores, planning department staff. the next item is the citywide expansion of allowable commercial, restaurant and retail uses, which was introduced by the mayor. this is a follow up legislation to an item you previously heard last september. we do have director tang from the office of small business to introduce the item and i believe mister hall from supervisor peskin's office will also be joining us to share a few amendments. so i believe

he's on the way or just joined. so i will pass this to director tang, then mister hall, and then come back for the staff presentation. thank you. thank you, veronica, and good afternoon, commissioners. katie tang from the office of small business here on behalf of the sponsor, mayor breed. so, um, let me go to the screen here. can we go to the computer? all right, so back in september of last year, this commission, uh, heard a piece of legislation that would reduce the number of barriers that small businesses experience when trying to open a new storefront or expand into a new space and also allow more businesses to open without going through the month long conditional use process by principally permitting more uses throughout the city and also reducing the ability for appeals to cause even longer delays and allow more business use. types to open on the ground floor to provide more options in filling vacant commercial ground floor spaces. uh, that legislation was

, uh, adopted by the board of supervisors and took effect in mid january of this year. we've been really excited about those changes and have had businesses that we've been waiting for. that legislation to take effect. um, so thank you again for your support on that. so the legislation before you today is a duplicated version of that ordinance. uh, it was duplicated by the land use committee. and so most of the amendments in there are actually reflective of what the land use committee members had wanted to see in this. so i know veronica will go over this in greater detail, but just in a high level summary. um, with regards to limited commercial uses and limited corner commercial uses, there are some changes, um, to red and toe districts where the hours of operation can be extended to 12 a.m. with a conditional use authorization, but would prohibit formula retail or i'm sorry, formula retail would

require a icu in red and toe districts, but they would not be permitted in rh and mm districts with regard to outdoor activity areas in rh and mm districts, they would only be permitted at the front for lcus and lcu s. next, with regards to the north beach and cdd as proposed by land use committee chair supervisor peskin, retail professional services would require a conditional use authorization on the ground floor, with additional controls within the north beach financial service limits and financial service and business or professional service. subdistrict and also thank thanks to a recommendation from the lower polk community benefit district, um, the polk street and cdd. we are proposing amendments to allow night time entertainment as principally permitted on the ground floor, conditionally permitted on the second floor, and not permitted on the third floor and above.

uh. furthermore, on polk street, ncd health services and non retail professional services would be prohibited on the ground floor of properties with frontages on california street, polk street and then the newly added hyde street. lastly, i wanted to touch base about section 406, which has to do with impact fees. we originally came before you back in september and actually several times, uh, to discuss waiving, um, a temporarily for five years impact fees as associated with change of use projects. that portion is no longer part of this duplicated file. we will pursue that change still in a separate ordinance, so that it is much more clear which fees are being waived. so that's a summary of the amendments being made. and what you'll see in your staff. report is an exhibit c, um, the highlighted portions in yellow are what would be presented in land use committee. um, hopefully soon. and are what i just went over. so with that i thank you for your time. happy

to answer any questions. but first i'll i'll turn it back to veronica. hi, commissioners. good afternoon i'm nate harrell i'm a legislative aide. i'm here on behalf of president peskin. and i'm here to generally express our support for this legislation and thank the office of small business for considering our our suggestions. um, and i just wanted to raise a few other amendments that were considering so that we can get your input. um, hear what you think about them. they're are pretty small. uh, we appreciate the changes that were already included prohibiting formula retail, requiring conditional use authorization for the rear of the buildings, and, uh, other fine aspects of this. um, the ones that i want to suggest first are in section 231, uh,

which relates to, uh, permitted uses. we want to keep the struck language. 231 c um, which, uh, says that the permitted uses correspond to the nearest, uh, neighborhood commercial district or special use district. um, because those ncds have slight differences and those differences are based on community input. um and so that is one of them. the next one is 231 d, which relates to use size. and it's the same thing. we want to try to keep the language that was struck there. the um, which says that the use size should correspond to the ncd. it um, but we're okay with, um, keeping the cap of the 1200 square feet. that's in in the

rest of that section. 231 d um, which kind of merges our, our goals there. um i will point out that those that language was, um , it was changed both of those were changed by prop h, but that that time of prop h has elapsed the three years. so they can be changed by the board of supervisors. um and then in section 311, uh, we are interested in change of use notification, uh, because we've received some community input about this. 311 change of use notifications were removed from the planning code in december in the in the constraints reduction ordinance, but we've heard from, um, and just to remind you what we're talking about here is, um, they that notification requirement, it didn't apply to

changes to principally permitted uses. it was only require for this narrow list of uses including um adult business bar cannabis. uh etc. and that was removed. but uh, we have heard from community members. it is true also that these are subject to conditional use. a lot of them. but we've heard from community members that those conditional use approvals often appear quietly on the consent calendar and are not generally subject to hearings. um, and we've heard concern that people are not getting notice for this narrow list of uh, uses that previously required a change of use notification. so we just wanted to get your input about that and consider reinstating three 311 change of use notifications as, you know, as,

as they were previously so that they can be applied to these limited commercial uses and corner uses. and i think it's really just kind of a policy choice that's balancing community engagement. uh, when adding that narrow list and not the principally permitted list, which has been expanded here. um, balancing that with the other kinds of streamlining for small business that we're doing here. so there's one more extremely small thing, which i'll mention, which is that we do want to add a code reference to 186 within the zoning table. that is very minor. and but i just wanted to mention it, um, to the formula retail. so uh, thank you. all right. thank you, director tang. mr. harrell to go over, um, the ordinance and the proposed modifications. director

tang actually gave, i think a detailed overview of what the what changes are included in this legislation, but just at a high level, the ordinance in front of you, um, goes into the controls for llcs and llcs use and amends it so that it's more restrictive within the rh and sme districts. so then the more intense uses are located within the respective two, and red districts, so that is all supportable examples of that is not allowing the formula retail while not allowing the la cour to request to extend the hours of operation until midnight, and not also not allowing outdoor activity areas at the rear or side of the properties within our age and our mm districts. the staff does support the ordinance as proposed. again, it's building on the past efforts. uh, prop h small business recovery act. so i do

want to just spend some time just to provide some, um, um, i guess initial feedback for the proposed opposed modifications. mr. harrell went over. so the first was related to basing the uses for lcas based off of the nearest ncd or sud. um, this does under do what prop h had passed, making it more flexible for the businesses by by basing the use controls off of nc one. so while this is not a not ideal to, um, go in the opposite direction of prop h, if it is truly limited to the llcs use, um, we may be amenable to this. so we look forward to your discussions on that piece. the second proposed modification i heard was related to the use sizes. again, for the lcas under code section 231, the described

modification would base the use size off of the nearest ncd or sub, provided that is no greater than 1200 square feet. the ordinance in front of you does have the cap of 1200ft!s for the lcas within rh, r1, r2, two, and r2 districts. so as described, i don't know what the um, what the change in practice will be knowing that that the ncds all have a size limit of greater than 1200ft!s. so the result would still be, um, a lcu no greater than 1200 square feet. so i just from the description, that is what i'm understand that

there would be no net change. there um, it will complicate it in in my opinion. um, moving on to the 311, just discussing 311 as a whole. there there are some proposed modifications to adding a change of use. notice back again, um, as mentioned, this was eliminated and through the housing constraints reduction ordinance and that was a very recent change in effect just last month i think last month. so again, the intent of this ordinance and the prior ordinance and past efforts is really to, um, make things more flexible for our businesses, our small businesses remove these, these bureaucratic hurdles. so this would be, um, a major departure from all of this recent work that we have done. and we would not be in support

of the potential amendments to re-add or introduce 311 back to the legislation and the last item, i believe it was just a cleanup or technical correction to reference, um, to include a reference to another code section so that, um, that is, uh, makes sense. i will end here. um, i know there's a lot of new information on the table, but happy to return to answer any specific questions. oh, i will invite mr. starr to comment further. thank you. i just wanted to provide some clarity about the 311 changes proposed. um, we're a little concerned about that. so prop h took out 311 for principally permitted uses in our nc districts. it's been very successful. it's helped a lot of small businesses open without having to go through a multi-month process to send out notice for a use that is principally permitted. um,

the constraints reduction ordinance took out the language, but that was more of a cleanup. so it didn't actually materially change what we notify. um, so just to clarify that we are concerned about a proposed to add 311 notification back for principally permitted uses in our nc districts. we feel like this will be a step backward, um, for small businesses in san francisco. so and um, so we just want to highlight that and kind of put a pin in that for you all. so happy to answer any questions that you have. with that, commissioners, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again, you need to come forward and seeing none public comment is closed. and this code amendment is now before you. commissioners, i wonder if we could start by having director

tang come back up to the mic and give us her input on the proposed changes we heard today for the first time from supervisor peskin office. thank you so much, commissioner. um, so i can't emphasize enough. i think what you heard from staff earlier as well, that really behind the sponsors intent for the original legislation as well as the duplicated file here, is really to make it so much easier for businesses to open in san francisco or to expand, uh, it has done wonders for entrepreneurs, and we see it every day at the permit center, where we have two small business permit specialists helping people through the journey. so i can tell you with assurance that all of these past efforts have made a huge difference. um, the sponsor also has concerns for anything. any amendments that would undo what voters have supported and spoken up loud and clear about that. we don't want any extra steps, any extra layers, um, for any businesses trying to establish themselves here and then lastly, i'll say

that with regards to the 311 notice for a change of use, um, to an lcu or lcu and rh or rm district that was proposed as an additional amendment. um, you know, projects that have to go through a change of use process already have to do a whole lot extra under the building code, um, including submitting building permit, um, with architectural drawings. so there's already a lot involved, aside from planning and so we appreciate any opportunity we can here to eliminate any barriers through the planning code. so uh, hope that's clear in terms of the sponsors, um, uh, desire to keep the legislation as is today. thank you very much. so i want to before i open up to the other commissioners, i see commissioner koppell wants to make some comments. i want to start by giving sort of my general overview on this, which is, um, we're still in a world of hurt with small businesses and, and while i can support the ordinance as it was presented,

it presented to us today. i don't want to add more barriers, uh, to small businesses. i believe that i don't want to backtrack on prop h at this point in time, and i definitely want to make things easier to fill the vacant spaces that still exist all around the city. so, um, with that, i will turn to commissioner koppell. yeah, i think we can all agree we have a definite a large amount of, uh, unfilled storefronts. more than we'd like to see. and i've been saying the same thing for years. we need to give our business owners the tools they need to succeed, whether it's, uh, staying in business or opening the business. um, and so now i think as this as good as time as ever to, uh, you know, keep keep the integrity of prop h and move forward with our mayor's ordinance today. and i would, uh , um, thank you very much for the clear explanations. mr. flores and tang, um, a lot a lot of moving parts going on here. but i still do think that the

mayor's got the best idea going here. so, um, i actually want to make a motion to approve, um, with, um, the exhibit c yellow remarks included without the supervisors recommendations. second, uh, commissioner braun. uh this is a complicated piece of legislation. there's a lot of moving parts to it. i spent a lot of time reviewing it and also trying to think about this in the context of prop c. um, it's certainly true that, you know, now, prop c, after the three years of lapsed, is something that is open for modification. but at this time, i have to agree with the prior comments. you mean prop eight? i'm sorry, prop h, prop h, um, getting all mixed up, but i have to agree with the prior comments. um and uh, you know, i what prop h did do was was apply enc1 controls, as i understand

it. right. yes. in to these lcus and lcus. and so i spent some time reviewing, you know, what those controls are in the nc one district. and making sure that i was comfortable with maintaining this current status quo. um, and , and to me, it, you know, i'm very comfortable with what's in there. and also, uh, you know, i think that i'm broadly in the position of doing what we can to add clarity and consistency across the city and the requirements for uses in a similar context. and those those nc one controls are very much targeted to residential areas. um, and so, you know, i just see , um, the legislation as proposed in the motion as being a way to further support entrepreneurs in san francisco. um, so i am in support of the motion. commissioner imperial. yeah. thank you. um, director tang and i, um, when i first

read this, um, legislation, i'm generally supportive of this legislation in terms of the, um, additions or amendments by supervisor peskin. i think, um, you know, his proposals for 231 c and also so the, um, in terms of, i mean, the section 231 c and d are reasonable to me as well. but at the same time, i believe, um, mr. miss veronica, um, explained about the use size of lcas usually do not exceed 1200 square feet, but, um, but i guess that's my, um, i know if someone from peskin's office trying to explain what would you know? what is the reason in terms of emphasizing it? it's already written in the language. um, in terms of the 301, this is

something that i'm, you know, also so, um, embattled with because there has been a legislation, the constraints reduction, the prop h, um, has already been passed as well. um, in and but in terms of past gains amendment for section 311, i would like to see more consistency in legislation. um, and but although personally i would be more supportive of peskin. um section 311b um or and 311. um, yeah. b in terms of adding that, but i can see where, um, you know, where he's coming from. and i think the legislation itself, the constraints production, it's a very, you know, highly debated legislation itself in its process. um, but at the same time, it has been passed. so that's where i'm also trying to see as how we're going forward with legislation is the

consistency, how we're moving forward. um, i'm generally supportive of peskin's legislation, um, amendments as well. um but yeah, that's where i stand. thank you. commissioner, more, uh, i'd like to say that i'm delighted to see that people have found common ground in on in on a very broad, uh, basis. uh, and i'm delighted to see what's in front of us. uh, i'm a little bit taken aback to be pushed in a position to make a decision, which i'm not really fully went through within five minutes of sitting here. so so to, uh, intel gently respond to the amendments coming from supervisor peskin's office, i would say they should have first been discussed among all of those who are presenting today. that did not happen, or we should have been informed with the ability to properly weed through it. i have always said, sitting here, that ultimately

legislators are the ones who are making amendments or write legislation, and i will defer to all of you to continue to work this out, because all we can do express support or nonsupport for particular items with what's what is suggested in front of us today. there are several aspects i feel comfortable supporting. uh uh, particularly, i believe that the history of our neighborhood commercial corridors in. san francisco is diverse enough to allow, uh, that it is not one size fits all for it, particularly in certain parts of the city. uh certain commercial neighborhood corridors have survived the pandemic and are doing quite well with not a lot of vacancies . and those vacancies that have existed are already filled anyway. so this additional legislation to streamline it all across the city does not necessarily sit well with me. uh, there is a certain amount of self determination, a certain

amount of energy in these different corridors, and if that is expressed in the way that they were previously controlled, i would not completely eliminate that in hope that things could be better. uh, having said that, uh, i am in full support of what is in front of me. i will forward my, uh, i, i will ask the department to forward my spoken comments to the supervisor's office as i support whatever he needs to work out with the rest of you. uh, and i will leave it for that. if there's nothing further commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the, uh, code amendments as proposed on that motion. commissioner braun, i, commissioner imperial i, commissioner coppell, i commissioner moore i and commissioner president daimon i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. secretary. owen and i would still like that those comments that were made as follow up are

communicated to uh, i'm sure staff heard that loud and clear and will communicate those comments. thank you. for you commissioners that will place us on item 11 for case number 2019. hyphen 015384c at 731 treat avenue for conditional use authorization. good afternoon, president diamond and members of the planning commission alex westhoff, department staff. the item before you is a request for a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and three, 79 to demolish an existing one story over garage fire damaged building contain one legal residential unit and one unauthorized dwelling unit, and the construction of a new 5600 square foot, four story building containing three residential units and one accessory dwelling unit. pursuant to the state adu

program, um, with no automobile parking and for class one bicycle parking spaces. the site is located at 731 treat avenue within the rh three zoning district and 40 x height and bulk district. in addition, in addition to comments summarized in the case report, the planning department has received a few other written comments on the project, including from the northerly adjacent property at 725 treat avenue. the original comments were specific to third floor light and privacy impacts, which were considered through the design review process. uh, more recently, however, the property owner has expressed concerns on light impacts to their sun deck, which is sited. near the rear of their building. an additional email from residents on harrison street to the rear of the property expressed concerns on their view being blocked, as well as impacts from construction noise

and debris. another comment letter expressed concerns due to lack of parking. the department has also received three letters of support for the project, acknowledging the need to replace the derelict and fire damaged building with new housing. the project is compliant with residential design guidelines and the planning code. overall the department finds the project to be necessary and desirable for the neighborhood and supports the addition of two net new housing units. the department also finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the mission area plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. the department recommends approval with conditions, and the project sponsor will now make a presentation. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes.

thank you. good afternoon, chris irschick lose my voice today of all days. um so, uh, supposed to be on the screen? yeah, there it is. there it is. all right. um, so, yeah, this is the current condition of the property, as it's been since about 2019, when there was a fire that burned the front steps of the house. uh, so you know, we were called in to discuss and consult with the owner about how to deal with the fire damage and also so there was the edu that was discovered on the lower level. uh, so we also were consulting on how to possibly legalize the lower level unit. it did seem that it wasn't typical for a legalization process. we do a lot of legalizations in san francisco, in the bay area. um, generally they're pretty straightforward. i i'm going to interrupt you for one second.

can you speak more directly into the mic? sorry. yeah um, so we suggest that we don't legalize the unit, but we demolish the building and replace it. uh primarily there were extensive structural upgrades that would have to happen to legalize the unit. the ceiling is too low. uh, the existing slab is. just not going to hold up. there's no waterproofing underneath of it. it's just old, um, and, you know, we would also have to reframe the floor, relocate the kitchen and bathroom, add new windows to the exterior, and considering that the property, the existing structures right up to the property lines, that's not feasible. uh, generally speaking, after getting appraisals, the cost of legal sizing the unit is about three and a half times the value of what it would add to the property. the property is valued at, uh, 1,150,000 currently, and

if we legalize the unit, it would only add $150,000. so we're talking $550,000 worth of construction to legalize the unit. for $150,000 value. um so, so our proposal is to add to knock it down, have a new three unit building with an adu. um, currently we, you know, we have an eyesore on the on the block. uh, neighbors have supported it getting rid of that, repairing that, uh, situation, um, doubles the amount of housing on the property. um, yeah. and that's kind of the, you know, to increase the appeal of the neighborhood. i'd. um, as alex mentioned, uh, we're we're within all of the, the, uh, building envelope that we're allowed to design in. um, you

know, we've spoken at the 311 with the rear neighbors. we understand their concern. we have made concessions. um, some of the biggest concessions we made. well, first, our rear yard is the largest rear yard of the three of the three adjacent property. his um, you know, we didn't seek an additional height. various use. um, the neighbor for the project to the right is, um, taller that they did get the variance. um, and we added, uh, you know, for the property on the left side, which is a house we added, uh, you know, we have the five foot setback, which we're not required to have. um, and we had two window, two floor projections over the breezeway. um, and we removed one of those after, you know, to address their concerns about light. um, and then on the right side, that project was approved while we were in, in process. so we had to go back and we made another

design change so that we could have a light. well, that would respect their light. well, um, yeah, that's i think those are our general design. um changes and considerations. um, you know, the owner, pam, has been a resident of san francisco for 32 years. um you know, we just kind of want to, you know, we have letters of support. you know, it's been sitting vacant for four years now, and, you know, just like to move forward with getting some housing out there. thank you. okay with that. that concludes sponsor presentation. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. um. i have two concerns. i live

on the block exactly across the street. so i have seen the eyesore for the last three years. i'm very concerned that there's no parking coming with the building, because we fight now to find parking, and people are parking in each other's driveway, constantly getting tickets. the parking is a huge concern. i think that the lower unit, the adu, is unnecessary and it should become for parking. also i'm concerned that the area is considered a california historic mission district and the house is classified in that um. in that survey map as a colonial revival and. that picture up there is not a colonial revival. so i would ask the design to include something that looks more like the neighborhood. i'm not opposed to getting more houses, but i would like it to look like our neighborhood and have parking. thank you for your time

. last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. um seems like a very sensible proposal to me and does exactly what we've been requesting, which is a gentle increase in density. vice president moore, i think it's a great example of an infill project, which does exactly meet the objectives of finding density of where it is not impacting on others. i think the design is actually in context. it does not have to look the same, but it has to meet the general feeling that it fits, which i believe it does. so i. would move to approve. second. commissioner brown yes, i just wanted to share. i, in looking this project, i, i think it's a remarkably well scaled, well designed project for its context. i appreciate that the increase in. density, adding the housing units in the site. i

know there were some neighbor concerns about construction impact, but, you know, of course our standard requirements conditions will be applied as far as construction, dust, hours of operation, noise, etc. and so i'm i'm pleased with this project and in full support of it. i like to share one more observation. this project in a very subtle way, does the type of social integration that i'm ultimately interested in from having a very reasonably sized adu, which addresses a certain income to a small 800 something square foot apartment to a medium sized family apartment and a large family unit. it really encapsulates everything. that we would like to have in one building, in one neighborhood, and that prevents social segregation. and i think it's a very well integrated project on that score. another one to mention to my fellow commissioners and to planning.

this is indeed the type of package which addresses all the questions that we normally need to understand, particularly. very well executed 3d drawings, which puts the building into context. so i appreciate that the preparer of these documents for its thorough submittal. and thank you, mr. westhoff. if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun i, commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 placing us on item 12 for case number 2023. hyphen 000022 icu at 790 lombard street.

good afternoon. commissioners dakota spicer, department staff, the item before you today is a request for a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303, seven, 22 and seven 80.3 to legalize a new restaurant, fiddle fig cafe, where the immediate prior commercial use was a legacy business. cafe sapori. the subject site, 790 lombard street, is a corner lot developed with a mixed use building with 800ft!s of commercial space, located on the ground floor. excuse me and is located within close proximity to the columbus avenue commercial corridor. the project does not propose interior or exterior improvements, nor does the project request a change of use as the prior legacy business was also a restaurant. use in 2019, the property owner exercised a right of early lease termination and provided a 90 day written notice to cafe sapori, which had operated as a conditionally approved restaurant. use. since 1998. in

december of 2019, the historic preservation commission recommended approval of legacy. business status and subsequently the small business commission adopted the sign uh adopted the cafe spa into the legacy business registry. cafe support then vacated the project site at the end of 2019. in 2020 and 2021, the department mistakenly informed the project sponsor that conditional use authorization was not required to establish a new restaurant. at two planning enforcement cases were opened later that year. no violations were found because the tenant space was vacant and there was insufficient evidence that a new use had opened. in 2022, the current tenant, fatal fig cafe, began operating, at which point a new planning enforcement case was opened in june of 2023, the project sponsor hosted a pre-application meeting. according to the sponsors notes, there was neither opposition to uh uh, excuse me, sorry, uh,

support for or opposition to the project. the department has received 70 letters in support, which was included in your case packet and since the packet was published, the department has received an additional 150 letters in support of the project. in addition, the project sponsor began a petition which at the date of this hearing has collected 334 signatures, was in support of the proposal. the department has not received any letters in opposition to the project. the department finds that the project is on balance and consistent with the zoning, district and objectives and policies of the general plan. the prior legacy business has not operated within the tenant space since vacating the project. site approximately four years ago. the new tenant will provide similar services to the north beach neighborhood and continue the historic use of the project site as a restaurant. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions and

i believe the project sponsor is here to give a presentation. just to clarify, um, the motion that's in front of us is the one you circulated a couple days ago , correct? yeah. so the, uh, standard validity condition was accidentally removed, um, during the initial publishing of the packet and has been reintroduced . project sponsor. you have five minutes. okay uh, we would like to use the projector for sure. thank you. okay good afternoon, president diamond. vice president moore, commissioners. imperial braun and coppell. my name is jay eng. my siblings, ray and susanna are the project sponsors seeking approval for the conditional use authorization of fiddleford cafe. we are operating at the ground floor tenant space of 790

lombard street, where the former tenant received legacy business status two weeks before the end of their tenancy. we acknowledge and respect the significant significance of legacy businesses and our intent is not to disrupt, but rather seamlessly integrate fiddleford cafe into the fabric of north beach. this is our first time opening a business in san francisco, and we would like to thank the planning department staff for their help throughout the process, we have been in communication with the planning department since 2021. during that time, we received, uh, approval with the inspection process through planning fire department and dph, and were surprised to receive a notice of complaint the following year. since then, we've been working diligently with planning staff and our north beach community for our conditional use authorization. we had a pre-application meeting on which one neighbor arrived and expressed their support and well

wishes. since then, we have received over 250 letters of support and a signed petition with 334 signatures from our community supporting approved all of our cour. the story of fiddleford cafe is rooted in the experiences of our fathers generation, who owned a bakery style cafe in chinatown for dufay, cafe pays homage to those traditions, a condition and continuation of value passed down through the generations. we are also first gen san francisco born and raised in north beach. when not at our fathers bakery, we were playing at washington square park, joe dimaggio playground, and reading books at north beach library. we have deep roots in north beach, and our goals have been to serve the community and to become a multi-generational business community committed to preserving the legacy of family owned businesses that make san

francisco so special. fiddleford cafe is uniquely a plant filled cafe serving bay area sourced ingredi ents for our coffee, pastries, sandwiches and local goods. we have created seven jobs for san francisco resident. it's our customers, our blend of north beach and san francisco locals as well as tourists that are visiting san francisco. walking over from fisherman's wharf or crooked street. we recognize that our location activates the taylor lombard block for tourists coming down the hill from crooked street and the continuation and continue the beautification of the area with lush greenery inside and outs. we are lucky to have neighbors that come in every day to use our space to work from home in a short time, we've that we've been open, we've become a well-loved establishment, ingrained in the daily lives of our patrons. one of our proudest aspects of fiddleford cafe is

our connection to the community. we are active in the community service supporting volunteering through city teams. the city eats and participate in neighborhood sweeps to keep the neighborhood clean. we are part of the north beach business association and north beach neighbors. north beach neighbors also host their monthly meetings at our cafe. we also support local artists and makers who use our space to sell handmade wares and we strive to be more than just a business, but a platform for community and unity. it's vital that we receive our conditional use authorization so that we can continue to serve our community for generations to come. we seek your support to approve this matter with no additional conditions. thank you for your time and consideration and thank you, commissioners, for the great work that you do for the city. okay, that concludes project sponsors presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity

to address the commission on this matter. hello so hi commissioners. my name is sunny angulo. i'm actually representing the district three office, which has been, um, instrumental in helping to pass the two 2017 updates to the legacy fee or to the north beach ncd, which mimicked what was proven successful in other ncds around the city, including caleb and cuatro, where they updated the language specifically to protect legacy businesses that were at risk of being evicted. pushed out and displaced. um, there is there are bullet points in your in the staff report. certainly i think there's also a lot of things that are not included in your staff report. and i just wanted to clarify, for the record, just because, um, we have a long history with this space and with the family

that was previously in this space, who, uh, was going to show up today and at the end just could not bring themselves to be put through the misery that they have been experiencing over the last several years. and if you wouldn't, if you would indulge me, i'd like to just read a statement from the father of the family that used to run the business. the legacy business below. uh, hi, sonny, here's a statement you can present. i am not in any condition to come there. they ruined my life. um, but please read this. i am the sole possessor of the conditional use permit for 790 lombard street to function as a cafe on december 31st, 2019. i was unfairly evicted from 790 lombard street after 22 years in business as cafe sapori, which was recognized as a legacy business by the city of san francisco. so fiddle fig cafe is operated by my former landlords children. the city allowed this business

to open without proper permits or following the correct procedure of good business people. the infrastructure and furnishings of the cafe were stolen from me with no compensation. recognition or respect for the hard work i put into envision, open and create a business that operated in good standing and serve the communities of north beach, russian hill, and our neighborhood's many visitors. for over two decades, the owners of 79 790 lombard and their family were well aware that they did not have the permit for operating a cafe. when they opened a copy of my business, the planning commission should be aware of this implication they have on the character of the owners and operators of the fiddle fig cafe, and question what it means for this body to support the operation of a cafe that has knowingly stole in a business and proceeded to operate it outside the bounds of the city's policies and procedures? um this is a statement from elias bqe, who is an immigrant, uh, business owner who's wife actually used to work

at jaqua elementary school. so it was a very beloved institution. his children would work there, um, on their summer breaks when they would come home from school. um, and, and actually, you know, literally two weeks before, um, they, uh, became a legacy business, um, there was a huge protest which our state senator attended, uh, our, uh, city attorney, uh, or at the time, i think, was he 2019 city attorney. oh, okay. so it was so our assemblyman, david chiu, for former or current city attorney, david chiu, uh, obviously supervisor peskin, north beach neighbors turned out and mass and many of the people that, uh, you know, are are now now a part of the north beach neighborhood meetings there held up signs, you know, stop the

unfair eviction, you know, save cafe support. this is this is completely antithetical to what we stand for as as a community. um, in the staff report, it was noted that, you know, they did not have to make any changes because everything was already there. and that is because mr. he had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars going through the proper processes to open up a restaurant and cafe and a catering business, which served the surrounding neighborhoods, so that that's actually why there is no need for any tenant improvements or any kind of change of use as the planning department was also aware of all of this. i mean, this is something that, you know, i, i love all my planners and the, the folks that i have worked with for, for 13, over 13 years now at city hall. and i just want to be on the record to say that, you know what is done is done. and we can't undo this, you know? but i do really want

to apologize to mr. bqe on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, because admittedly, the city messed up. we did not do right by these people. and you know what? again, no one wants to see an empty space. and certainly, you know, the family that is there now is, um, is proceeding and has been proceeding for years since. uh, you know, they officially opened up their business without a conditional use approval. and that is on the city. we pass these laws, we have all of our elected leaders, our state senator, our, you know, our state assemblymen come and stand and join hands and say we will protect legacy businesses. we will do everything that we can to save these families. um, you know, from what was really just a life transformational. i mean, it impacted their lives irreparably. um, and we can't

undo that. but i think that we at least owe them that apology to say, hey, you know what? we didn't we didn't do right by you guys, and we passed these laws and everybody is in support of them. and then when push comes to shove, we don't enforce them. so i just wanted to be on the record with that. and thank you for your consideration and hope that that is helpful to augment today's staff report. thanks. good afternoon. my name is gloria rogan. i'm a resident of russian hill for 50 years and i was a long terme customer at cafe sapori. you may have a lot of signatures right now in support of the current use and the current people who are running their operation, which they, in my opinion, stole from

mr. beccari. but maybe the you you need to understand that there were hundreds of people that came here in, including myself, over and over again in support of mr. beccari. they're not here today because maybe they're just a little bit worn down and a little bit fed up. and a little bit upset. like i obviously am, that this was allowed to happen with no compensation to the individual who created the business. that was essentially ripped off. and yes, they have art. so did mr. beccari. i myself exhibited art there. i mean, there was yes, they have a community. he had toys on the floor for the children from yiwu. he had computers there. this was my second office that i used because i didn't i didn't have a way to, uh, work at home. i would never go into fiddle fig cafe because why would i support indecent behavior and

irreligious type of use of a property that really, it's not fair to somebody who built a business with his love and his heart and that he would add beautiful murals up that were done by famous artists. why would why would i support that? i drive by it every day. i walk by it every day. i go by there with my dogs. people from all over the country, all over the world, and the neighbors in the in the area would come to cafe support because we felt the warmth of the people who lived there. i came to meetings in this city hall time and again to hear that the new owners only wanted to open a bakery, a chinese bakery in in commemoration of their family legacy. boom what happened immediately? fiddle fig? there was never like even an attempt at a chinese bakery. it was immediately fiddle fig. after

the brown paper came down off the windows. i don't know how the city can change anything, but i appreciate you listening to me today. thank you. hi, my name is marcella vega and i, um, formerly lived in one of the apartments above fiddle fig cafe. having moved, um, during the pandemic, the intersection of lombard and taylor street felt grim and quiet. the preschoolers taking their daily walks nicknamed that part of the sidewalk trash alley. when the cafe opened, i welcomed the bustle of activity around the corner and the happy faces of satisfied customers. the interior decor, full of vibrant plants, cultivates feelings of

safety and homeliness, even when it seems busy. ample table space and friendly staff attracts a consistent patronage of young professionals escaping roommates and needing a hub for their collaborations and conference calls. it is clear to me that the space provided by fiddle fig cafe eases the feelings of loneliness. associate with working remotely and allows for those serendipitous interactions we have been missing out on. i support the conditional use permit for fiddle fig cafe, as they are an indispensable addition to our community. thank you. good afternoon. my name is tiffany campbell. i am here today to vote in support of the approval for conditional use authorization for fiddle fig cafe. this place holds a lot of

value for me personally, but also for the city. the energy and ambiance in this space is unmatched by others in the area. walk in the space feels fresh, open, safe and inspired. thing surrounded by plants and flooded with natural light. the staff really seems to make efforts to know your name and connect to its neighbors and visitors. there's a family feel when you interact with the team that i've grown to really appreciate it serves as a place of community and belonging for me, and a bright spot in my day. much like the owners of fiddle fig cafe, i was born and raised in san francisco and as a fellow queer small business owner, i believe it's important to frequent and support other small, minority queer owned businesses who have whose owners have also lived here their entire lives. i think it's important to rally behind people who have given to this city for their entire lives. the

people who truly make san francisco the diverse, colorful, safe space place that it is for people like me. i feel at home in this space that they've created, and that is invaluable to me and others in the community who feel similarly free. spaces like these are unique and needed in our city. so again, i ask for the approval for conditional use authorization for fiddle fig cafe. thank you for your consideration and for allowing me to speak on this matter. i want to thank, uh, miss angulo for speaking my boys went to jaqua and i lived in noe valley, so they took the bus. i didn't frequent the cafe that much, but all the women who were the mothers of my both my boys pee years went there and they loved the place. they always talked about it. they were always there. so i just want to acknowledge that it was a real place for people in the community. and this is a very

distressing story to say the least. thank you very much. hi there. i'm one of, um, the small business owners that i went to, uh, put our stuff in our products on, um, one of the shelves off of a cafe, and i'd like to say that, um, cafe gave us. sorry. i'm nervous. the opportunity to put our products on their shelves. um, so, uh, all those the people who go down to lombard street would, um, would see our or give us. they have given us the opportunity for those people to come down lombard street and look at our products and sorry, i'm nervous again. and, um. yeah. so we can sell our stuff. um, i, i, i like

to, um, to get you guys to give us the opportunity to still sell us, sell our products in the in philosophy cafe. thank you. hello. um i'm reading this letter on behalf of a neighbor, uh, mary lamb, who couldn't be here today. um, and i also want to say that i, myself and am in support of supporting fiddle, fiddle, fig cafe. they are an amazing company business, extremely safe, welcoming space, and i have enjoyed every moment that i've spent there. um, anyway, the letter from mary states, dear planning commission , i have lived and worked in the north beach neighborhood for over 60 years. i retired after working 30 years in the city and county of san francisco as a social worker, i am writing to

express my whole hearted support for the conditional use approval of fiddle fig cafe. i have personally experienced the positive impact fiddle fig has had on our community a few months ago, over 400 elementary school students, faculty, parents and alumni gathered to celebrate the school's 40th birthday. located one block away from the elementary school, fiddle fig cafe donated tea, coffee and throughout the day provided sandwiches for over 20 of our volunteers who helped organize the event. fiddle fig cafe has created a warm and inviting place for our neighborhood, providing a hub for social connection and community. the owners of the cafe have demonstrated their commitment and quality, um for good service to forming the cafe into a gathering place that enhances the overall character of our neighborhood. again, that is from a neighbor, mary, thank you so much. okay last call for

public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioner's public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. thank you to all those who testified. um, i have a question for staff first so i can understand. and, um, the conditional use permit history. uh, and how and what transpired. so the original restaurant had a conditional use permit. if i'm reading the staff report correctly, had a conditional use permit. in theory, in the absence of other legislation that would have run with the land. um, but but there was intervening legislation to say if you're replacing a legacy business, you need a new icu is that correct? uh, yeah. thank you for that question, dakota. be sure department staff. um, yeah. so essentially, in 1998, um, the legacy business received or the prior tenant received um, conditional use authorization to

operate as a small, small self-service restaurant which is currently defined as as restaurant and, uh, typically these will run with the land um planning code section uh seven 80.3 is sort of where this falls into place, um, which states that a new non commercial or uh, excuse me, non residential use requires a conditional use authorization. if the prior use was a legacy business. okay so how did we end up in a situation where the current, uh, restaurant was told by staff twice that it didn't need a ce? you um, so the project sponsor had reached out at, um, twice. i believe they came to our planning information counter as well as reached out for email. um, and we had provided them with that information. thank you. i'm happy to step in

because i was personally involved. um, so just to add a little bit additional, um, good afternoon again, corey teague, zoning administrator. um you know, legacy businesses were created as an actual thing per initiative in 2015. and 2017 was the first time, first in the city and then in the north beach should the city adopted a land use controls that in some way were responsive to legacy businesses, and that was a little bit of a new thing, because obviously the planning department and the planning code is much more related to land uses and not kind of tenant changing laws. um and as was referenced, the difference here is it doesn't trigger a icu if the legacy businesses is lease is ended, it's just on the next use if it comes forward, whatever that may be, whether it's an immediate transition to a new use or years later, some

provisions in our code have a gap in there where the no icu is required. if the last use was a legacy business. so this was a fairly new kind of provision. and the language in the planning code is actually a bit complex x um, so this issue came up where for the property owner or their representatives reached out to the planning department in 2020, kind of at the height of our lockdown during covid. um, and, and it was kind of asked in a way that was devoid of the context of the history, and that worked its way up directly to me at the time. and i read the language of the code and determined that it didn't apply as was intended, relayed that back, and they moved forward. and this came up again later on, um, in a way that was like, okay, well, we need to dig into this further and look at it in more context. and once we looked at it, more content just went

back and looked at the hearings and like, really understood the context of the legislative change. originally understood that the intention was different than the advice we had given originally to the property owner. um, and that's why i kind of retroactively we determined actually, yes, the conditional use was required to add a new, um, a new business post legacy business. although the original determination had been incorrect . so thank you. i'm sorry to put you on the spot. that's that's why i'm here to. yeah. to be completely up front about it. yeah. the history is helpful. and understanding how we got to where we are. so i appreciate your input with that. i'll call on commissioner imperial. thank you. thank you, mr. teague, for the explanation. and it's really unfortunate that. but let's admit it, the mistakes or let's perhaps confusion happen and, um, that now now we're coming into this situation again. um, i'd like to, um, looking into

the historic preservation mission, you know, adoption for legacy business. there are physical features. and i'm wondering, as you know, in terms of the legacy business, um, there are physical features or traditions that define the business. and this one particularly is the, you know, we're talking about the cafe sapporo. um which is mediterranean influence, squeezing excellent coffee, tea, beer and wine catering services, murals by susan brennan and sam flores, and regional original hardware, hardwood floors. so as a legacy business. and now that there is a new business in here, are those physical features protected? i guess i'm going to ask what one of the planner or mr. teague, if that. yeah so the planning code does call out specific, um, criteria for

review in the conditional use in this in this case, um, we can pull that up. i don't believe those specific physical criteria, physical features individually themselves are called out as features that are required to be maintained and kind of a preservation perspective. um we can go into the specific findings that are proposed. um for your consideration to a, um, authorize a new use after the legacy business use. but it's not i don't believe that they are required to, um, maintain those physical features. so murals will not be protected. but it seems like people were commenting that the original hardwood floors were kept. um, so i guess this is something in terms of what does legacy business entail or protect? um, you know, as looking into the timeline itself. the eviction happens or, you know, you can sit down, mr. teague. the

eviction happens around 2019. and. yeah, around 2019, the start of it and then the issuance of the legacy business started in or issued in december 2019. and i'm assuming being the legacy business was instated in response to what's happening. um so what does the legacy business mean if there is a process of eviction? is what can the what can the city protect for legacy? legacy business? sure. so the legacy business program initially was just a recognition in program. um, and then additionally, over time, the city added, i think some grant programs to help legacy businesses, etc. and then these provisions in the planning code, that was kind of making this point. we can't prevent a property owner from legally, you know, not renewing or ending a

lease with a commercial tenant. this is kind of an after the fact catch to help just address that to the extent we can, with the powers of the planning department and the planning commission has, um, we don't i'm not aware of any legacy business provisions in any of the, um, in any city code that would necessarily protect them from an otherwise lawful lease. um, ending or being, um, evict if it's permitted under their lease . and legacy business does not provide any kind of provision when it comes to compensation. that's that's not necessarily not that i'm aware of. no okay. thank you. um, it's really sad what happened. um. and you know, i do not want business to being pit against one another. um, and , and at from my own perspective, from my point of view, um, there is the city, the legacy business should be more,

i think, should be more strengthened. and, um, for planning department, i think us in the commission, we need to think about what this legacy business mean in terms of preservation. often, um, you know, whether or hardwood floors, murals are those something that perhaps we should be discussing and perhaps, um, the supervisors or the legislature should also think about in terms of strengthening the legacy business, what does what are we trying to protect? what are we trying to preserve? um, the fact that the, um, you know, the thing is that the planning department, let's admit it, we made a mistake. i mean, and it's like given after the fact. and we are reading this back again. um, whether it's a confusion, but it's a mistake. and i'm sorry that this is happening right now. and we have , you know, every week we're getting reports of what the legacy business are being added, and we need more protections for

that. um for the feudal fig cafe . i'm sorry that they're also going through this. i'm. i hope, um, you have more conversation with your landlord. um, but i think for, um, you know, i don't want to put as well the fetal fig cafe in a position where we're not approving it. and also displacing them at the same time . but i think the legislation itself needs to be, um, strengthened more. and for us in the commission need to think about the preservation aspect of legacy business as. commissioner braun, i really appreciate the comments that commissioner pearl just made. and i was thinking along the same lines. you know, the whole situation that led to the displacement of the prior business, it really speaks to the challenges of retaining legacy businesses. when there's a landlord who's determined to terminate the lease and i'd at this stage, you know, even now

we don't have a means of really addressing that as a legacy business program has been built out. but, you know, now we do have the grant programs that were referenced. we do have more clarity around sort of what's what's on offer for these businesses. you know, a lot of the time it seems like probably the real world practical solution for trying to address this just is going to involve getting the city involved in negotiations or discussions between landlords and businesses . it is helpful to see on the city's. i was just perusing the legacy business website and seeing that now it's very clear where conditional use authorized signs are required when there's a successor to a legacy business . um, so i'm glad that that has been clarified and is very public now. um so it's a very frustrating situation all around. but with that being said, i also don't see the solution being trying to shut down a business that took it took the place of the prior one.

i don't see having a vacant space as the solution, and it's a business that clearly, despite the circumstances for opening, has a lot of community support and has been a good actor since it has opened. and so i, i am going to make a motion to approve the conditional use authorization on second. vice president moore, uh, appreciate appreciate. it. my fellow commissioners comments and thoughtfulness, including mr. bigelow and mr. really laying out their emotional reaction. what happened here distressing story is a mild way of describing it. it is really in its own right resembles very essential eviction. uh, here is an immigrant coming from somewhere in the world trying to make a living. and after 20 years of trying succeed to actually being given the gold medal of historic of a legacy business and all of a sudden

literally within a 60 day notice, that is two months. uh, it basically all evaporates, uh, and, and i would agree with all of your comments that indeed additional protections need to be created for legacy businesses. but i would also extend that to small businesses as small businesses are an endangered kind in san francisco. given what our new housing regulations require with all new buildings replacing, uh, older residential buildings where you had ground floor retail, small businesses do not like to move into those spaces. so i would suggest that we really very quickly and very carefully find additional ways to protect legacy businesses, including small businesses. and again, a 60 day notice is totally free and 100% inefficient and impossible. the question i would like to ask is, is a legacy business affordable

recognition? can that be established in a similar space and still be a legacy business? that would be a question i would ask mr. teague. um, do you mind clarifying the question? uh the recognition as a legacy business is that a portable recognition? so if you get evicted, can you take that someplace else and continue to be a legacy business ? yeah. i mean, the legacy business designation is a business designation. it's not a land use authorization. so it doesn't necessarily run with the land. um, so i'm not an expert on legacy business. i'm the mr. gray may know more than i do, but but when you are established as a legacy business, it is for that business itself, not necessarily for that property. i don't want to try to push the envelope of what we're supposed to discuss here. we're not supposed to discuss things we can and encourage a discussion, but perhaps there has to be some compensation when a legacy business does get displaced. and

i'm not touching on what may have been an unresolved issue between these two parties. relative to furniture that was taken away, etc. etc. but if indeed a legacy business that means something to the community and apparently it meant a lot given the number of people who attended when the owner was, when the occupant, when the operator was evicted. uh, there should be a way of helping people immediately to find a similar place to continue operating their legacy business within reasonable proximity and within reasonable size of where they originally were evicted from. uh i'm leaving that hanging out there. but to get something like this in front of the planning commission is more than distressing. and i personally having an emotional reaction feel almost incapable of being above active and fair about my taking a position on this. thank you. mr. sucré. did

you want to add something? i saw you sure. i was just going to confirm that the legacy business designation does travel with the business, and one of the biggest aspects of our legacy business program is that it gives the business the opportunity to access the grant funds that the board has basically allocated towards the program. so that's actually a huge benefit that our legacy business program has, of which we were the first in the nation, um, that no other city does. and actually, it's a model that a lot of the other cities are trying to emulate. mind you, they're not as good about giving the money that san francisco has towards these businesses. mr. zuko, as you were just mentioning that i think it's an extremely important aspect. you were at the department at the time when this happened, correct . uh, are you do you by any chance know as to whether or not the displaced operator is aware of that program? was it offered to him? can it be offered to him? i believe that somewhere proactive, uh, reaching out to

him would be very helpful. yeah, i'm not sure the exact mechanics, the grant part of the program is administered by the office of small business. um, and obviously the monies can kind of go towards a variety of things like brick and mortar repairs, payroll, rent subsidies , things like that is what they have access to. and i do know that the board and the office of small business has been looking towards updating some of those terms. um, but i do know that when you're designated on the legacy business program, um, um, richard, from the office of small business is very good about reaching out to them and providing, um, a kind of overview of what what that designation entails. so so i agree with my fellow commissioners that this is a very tough story. um, and, and, uh, very painful story to hear. um, as residents of san francisco, we feel very connected, uh, to the businesses in our neighborhoods that have been there a long time that we

frequent. um, and the loss of each of them is very painful to the people who live in the neighborhood. and if we look at the cumulative total, it's painful to all of us in the city. um, i am going to support commissioner bronze, uh, motion because not granting the. see you i don't believe solves that problem. um, i do second, the concern issues that were raised by the others about how we proceed thinking about legacy businesses, um, in a land use context going forward, that it feels like more clarification is necessary. i, um, understand the planning department itself has now know, um, that this case helped provide clarity as to what our role is going forward. but i do hope that we find ways going forward. and i second the concern you've raised, commissioner moore. i've raised it in the context of the housing element, discussions about what happens to the neighborhood, commercial businesses. um as we replace them with four story or

six story or eight story housing units with retail space at the ground floor. so i'll leave it at that. could i add a comment, please? i want to call on, um, zoning administrator teague. uh, i wanted to commend you for, for disclosing to us that you made a mistake. i do appreciate that mostly those kinds of things are not spoken to you. and i would like to ask you, not as a penalty, but as a suggestion that you and mr. fauci perhaps talk with with miss angulo about what possible tools may be available for this owner who still owed us, wrote a letter that miss angulo said to us today, what can be done to help him get back to his legacy business? i would appreciate that. thank you. thank you. and i just to comment, we we've already had some of those conversations leading up to this because that's obviously been a like the issue hasn't changed

for the last, you know, year plus it's been kind of understood the challenges from the previous tenant and what are the opportunities for them either through this process or other processes as going forward. but we were definitely happy to continue to have those, um, conversations. thank you so much. sure there's nothing further. commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner braun, i commissioner imperial i, commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commission president diamond i so move commissioners a motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 and we'll place this on item 13 for case number 2022. hyphen 009383c 4,021st street conditional use authorization. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners michelle taylor, department staff, the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization for the property

at 4,021st street. for 4,021st street is a one story over garage, wood frame, single family home located within the rh two zoning district and a 40 x height and bulk district. the project includes the construction of a one story vertical addition to the existing single family residence. the addition will expand the existing 2579 square foot dwelling uh by approximately 1128ft!s, resultig in a unit with a gross floor area of 3707ft!s. the proposed project also includes a full rehabilitation of the building, including conversion of the ground floor, storage into living space, new decks and. retention of existing off street parking. the project requires a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections two, four, 9.92 and 303

to allow a dwelling unit with a gross floor area in excess of 3000ft!s within the central neighborhoods, large residents special use district parked in the time since the publication of your commission packets, the department has received three letters in opposition to the project regarding the overall size of the third floor addition , overall design of the rehabilitated building, and whether the proposed project is generally appropriate. the department has also received four letters in support of the proposed project, stating general support for the proposed design, along with appropriateness of the massing and relationship to the neighboring properties, the department finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the size of the project and single family dwelling is in keeping with other residential properties in the neighborhood. the property is compliant with the planning code and the residential design guidelines.

as the entirety of the new building is within its buildable area and will not require any variances or modifications for. furthermore, the new third story addition will match the existing lightwell of the adjacent property, thereby providing relief to the neighboring property. the project is necessary and desirable because it will expand the existing single family dwelling unit in a manner that is generally consistent with the prevailing pattern of development. therefore, the department supports the proposed project and recommends approval with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. i will now turn it over to the project sponsor team. thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. i have some additional supplemental packets for the commissioners. i'll leave right here. can i get the projector,

please? yes. can we go to the overhead? all right. thank you. um, i'm ryan nock. i'm the project sponsor and project architect for the project. um, the proposal being presented for your consideration is a vertical addition to the existing single family, two story residence. um, again, the increase in square footage is from. 2579 to 3707ft!s. um, the existing residence is two stories, and the um existing ground floor is currently devoted to storage and to parking and the existing um, living space is all on the upper floor. uh, it occupies two bedrooms and some small living spaces and dining spaces. um, the proposal is to create a new bedrooms, an exterior deck, spaces on the vertical addition, and to convert some of the ground level storage space to a new family room. the new bedroom total count will be three. um,

you can see here in the proposed site plan. um, it's in a vertical addition and it has most of the massing set towards the front at the corner. and it sets back as it moves towards the rear of the property. um, it's set back a full eight feet from the rear, existing building wall. uh, there's a large, um, or somewhat large private deck in the middle of the spaces. and on this top floor is going to be devoted to new bedroom spaces. and this deck. um the main reason for the, the q, a is to create a proper family room on the ground floor. um, the only access to the private garden is through this ground floor. um, there's a new there's a separate permit that has been pulled to develop the rear yard, uh, which was done in

order to kind of, um, make this development more readily available for the owner. knowing you know, how long these entitlement processes take. um, so there's a new family room on the ground floor with a new bathroom. and then on the second floor is primarily living spaces and one more bedroom. here's the context of the existing property . you can see it's on the corner, but it's rather minuscule in its in its stature, uh, its white stucco. it has a flat roof. um, there's a small garage door and an entrance with steps up to it. and you can see on the side it's primarily stucco. uh, it has a flat roof with some fenestration. now, the properties next to this, um, the property uphill looks like the top image you have. it's a very

contemporary tree house. uh, lots of fenestration in some stucco, some siding. if you look at the property downhill, uh, this is a mid-century property. um, lots of fenestration at deck. uh, very linear, white, very modern. this is the proposed design. uh, as you can see, it reinforces the corner as the design guidelines call for, uh, it has a lot of solid and some glass. the glass being used to have some views to the garden and to the street and to bring in light to the interior spaces. and you can see here the front facade. uh, it doesn't overpower the neighbors. um, it just creates a larger statement on the corner. and here's the rear facade. um, there is some

glazing to look back to the private garden. as you can see here, um, downhill, the existing garden size stays the same way. it primarily faces a blank wall of the adjacent neighbor downhill, and looks over their roof and there is an adjacent the adjacent building uphill, um, has a 30 foot light. well, we have respected as we can, and it has a few lot line windows on it. um one of those windows is being blocked. the other ones are all being kept on on unblocked. now just like to bring this map to your attention. uh, just so you don't think we're setting some sort of precedent in terms of the square footage? um, all of the parcels that have purple on them, um, exceed what is being proposed at this, this property in terms of gross square footage, according to the planning code. and if you look at the red properties,

those all actually exceed 4000ft!s. um, we've worked with the planning department and with the neighbors as much as possible to come with to this solution. um, it's, you know, uh, it's a great site and i appreciate your time. thanks thank you. with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. hello. my name is steve bain. i'm the co-owner of the property. immediately adjacent to 4,021st street. and i'm here to voice my strong opposition to the approval of this conditional use authorization. and here's why. we believe that the project will have very detrimental impact to our tenants and our building construction will be within inches of our tenants bedroom windows. construction dust and debris will create an environmental hazard and likely seep into the tenants bedrooms.

um, and potentially create potential health issues. long terme this project will impact quality of life for anyone living in our building. um, it will make the building much less desirable to buy, significantly reducing the light that's coming into the building. he showed a revised light well, that they're trying to do. it's not going to be enough light to get into our building to prevent the building from being darkened. my husband, aj, is going to talk a little bit more about that in a few minutes. lastly, the project will require significant excavation right up to our building, which we believe could undermine the structural integrity of our building. um, the sponsor and the owner are going to tell you that they're taking special care to make sure all our concerns are addressed, but their sincerity is very much in question. they said they've worked with the neighbors as much as possible to, uh, look at the design of this. that's incorrect. they have demonstrated bad faith in the community outreach and intentionally excluded us from. and the other adjacent property owner from the pre-application notification process. the

mailing list had incorrect addresses for both of the adjacent properties on it, and we found out after the meeting, um, that the meeting had occurred. we specifically requested from them in writing and verbally that they provide the information of the pre-application notice meeting. they refused to do it. they had ten months to provide us information and work with us before they filed the business application. the building application, and there wasn't a single outreach from them in that entire time. in addition, i want to talk about the coercive nature of the owner of the property. uh, he's taken some coercive actions to keep us from opposing the project. when he became aware of our potential opposition, he engaged in a pattern of lying, attempted intimidation, and borderline extortion to discourage us from raising objections is one prime example is he brought up concerns about our building foundation and the impact it might have on his project, and threatened to take litigation to sue us, and said we had liability if our foundation

failed during their project, despite the fact that the foundation issues that we might be having have to do with degradation of his retaining wall, that's become an issue for our foundation. i've put other examples in a letter that i sent to the commission, um, in conclusion, i'd like to say that section 303 condition uses indicates that the things that you should consider before you approve a conditional use authorization, including that it's not detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the area and not injurious to our property. thank you sir. that is your time. okay. thank you. uh, hello. my name is aj gard. i'm the husband of steve bain, and i'm the co-owner of fourth 006 21st street, a two story, three unit building, and our property is directly adjacent. as steve mentioned to the west of this proposed project. i completely oppose the approval of this

variance for several important reasons, and believe this does not meet the standard of conditional use variance. first and foremost is the removal of access to light as steve mentioned, this variance would have significant impact to light for our tenants apartment one and apartment two. each tenant occupied. we have one bedroom with one window facing east, which enjoys direct sunlight throughout much of the day. below a third story next door, of which a wall would be built inches from these windows, would block 100% of all lights to these windows, basically turning these windows into solid walls. additionally, the construction of this third floor and the amount of light coming in, sorry. additionally with the construction of the third floor, the amount of light coming into the kitchen and the windows and kitchen doors via the light will will substantially be decreased. we have eight windows and two glass doors on the second floor, which are not necessarily reflected in the in the plans submitted to the city. these windows represent approximately

50% of the total windows in each unit, and the significant reduction in light will turn both of these apartments into dark caverns. the elimination of direct sunlight into each of these apartments and bedrooms in cutting off all the light and eliminating the light in some of these windows will significantly impact our tenants enjoyment of the apartment, especially the tenant who has enjoyed the property for the last 20 years. secondly outside of removing access of light to the apartments, building size in comparison to other properties in the neighborhood and in the plans in the applications submitted to the city, the owner and sponsor stated that we live in a three story building. when in fact we do not live in a three story building. we live in a two story building. we have two apartments above a garage. as designed, this building will be the only three story building on the north side of our street, between the between diamond and collingwood and will be the only three story building that sits directly along the sidewalk.

there are several. there are a couple three story buildings in the neighborhood. as they pointed out, but these buildings are set back away from the streets and the sidewalk, and they blend in very well with the neighborhood, and they don't stick out the way. this will do. given the slope of this property. and based on the fact this is a corner lot, the backside of this property will be will appear as a four story building. will negatively dwarf other nearby properties. we do have safety concerns that the project will have on the neighborhood. i won't go into that. we do have a lack of transparency and a lack of, uh, good intentions, which steve illustrated, which is in a letter given to you. i want to thank you for listening. considering our input. and we hope that you will not approve this conditional use variance, as we don't feel this meets the need of the conditional use variance. thank you for your time. appreciate it. thank you. appreciate.

thank you very much for your indulgence. i want to thank miss taylor for corresponding with me. i want the commission to please look at page 21. i think it is in your packet that is sheet. um, i think it's whatever is it shows the vertical uh, the vertical area to be removed. and that's my problem. that's my question. often throughout this thing there's five of i put them out there, five different sets of plans. some of them are similar, but some aren't. um, the biggest thing that stays the same is the horizontal at 55. that's constant throughout this whole iterative process. and i understand it's an iterative process, but what's changed is the vertical. and in the most recent one, which is before you,

it's 44% removed. however back in september last year, 2023, it was 54. how did that happen? well i think what happened is that and you can see it in the extra little, um, uh uh, sheet. the north demo elevation, if i can have the overhead, please. okay so see the pink? that's what's being removed. however here back in september, there the whole thing was being removed. so what happened. between six months, seven months ago and i mean, it's just a little bit strange. look in your packet at the renderings. and i did make copies of them where i put them. oh, here they are. what mr. nock just showed. and here is the proposed north

elevation. i don't understand why is that being kept? this part here, when in here it's all gone on in september. and here it stays. the green stays so? so i don't understand. and that's my question. and that's why i keep harping on the demo calcs. because this just goes right up to the edge. and at one point it was tantamount to demolition. and that's why there needs to be some adjustment in the calcs to prevent things like this. how do you treat this? you've got this. chua with the large residence that you've got to deal with. but is this a demolition? what's going to happen when the thing's under construction and the neighbors see that? you know, it's what i raised in my letter today. so so, um, i'll calm down and say thank you.

good afternoon, commissioners jeremy paul, um, a week ago, i was here advocating for a similarly over sized mediocre, um, addition to a home. um, but there was a significant difference between the two between this that you're seeing here today and what we saw here last week. and that's democracy. there is a code here that was created by this community to prevent projects like this. very specifically when i was here on last week, was code complying fully. what we're seeing here today is something that exceeds a community created guideline. i've known, um, supervisor mandelman since he sat on the

board of appeals and then through his years on the planning commission, and he understands land use and he works grassroots community. he interest. i've been a district eight resident for half my life, and i seen how he works. the neighborhood. he's had meetings all over the place to create this limitation on oversize homes. i don't necessarily support his political perspective, generally speaking, but i do support his process, and i do support the democratic process that brought this code section in. i'm going to go back to the overhead nsf.gov, please. um, this was provided by the project sponsor, um, and shows you that this is the project site and those are other oversight sized homes and this is specifically why this legislation was created not to allow more of that. and if we're

going to disregard this legislation and, and make a finding that this additional 5 or 700ft!s is necessary and desirable. um, what does it mean to the community that's created this law? what does it mean to any limitations that are imposed? i mean, you've heard from other neighbors that and you've seen documentation before you that the condition is for finding that this is necessary and desirable. clearly can't be met. the property improvements in the vicinity will be negatively impacted by this. i would encourage you to send this project back to the drawing board. there is no reason a modification to this home can't be made. well respecting the 3000 square foot guideline that is required by the conditional use process. thank you very much

. last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. uh, just a question of clarification from staff, especially in light of mr. paul's recent comments. this is a planning code compliant project, correct? yes it is. okay. and the prohibition on on houses above a certain size does not come into effect until january first of 2025. is that. that's correct. okay. thank you. yes. um commissioner moore. the suggestion of legislation about considering limiting mega mansions has been around for a long, long time. and i believe, uh, mr. paul summarized my sentiments very well. i do believe it is up to this commission to start very

carefully considering what these expansion means. uh, in this particular case, we have an rh two that makes it even more complicated to support an enlargement of a unit. uh of this size. so even if the legislation that is being referred to is not yet in effect, something is in effect that prohibits, uh, projects to be, uh, oversize or being over 3000ft!s. uh, and i will rely on that being my guide. i also believe that, uh, if this project would suggest that in its excessive enlargement. for 743% increase to add an adu or something like that, i would consider it. uh, the current proposal is for me. uh, nothing. i can support, and i will vote against it. and i make a motion to deny this application. second.

um, i will not be supporting the motion to deny. um, if that motion fails and somebody wants to offer another motion that involves either approval of the project or modification to the, uh, proposed project, i would be very interested in hearing that, uh, commissioner braun. yes, i, i, i actually, i echo the sentiment shared by commissioner moore that, you know, with the project of this size, at minimum, it would be helpful to see a second unit on the site and i think we all recognize that those second units are not necessarily rental out by the immediate property owner. there's no rule about that. but at the same time, if we can get that unit in place, it will help us to expand our housing supply and can also help this project to, uh, to still be enlarged in

the way that the project sponsor wants. um, i, i think that that is a fair trade off for what is being asked in terms of the large size of the project and scaling up this project. it makes a lot of sense. it meets a lot of our policy direction and goals as a body. and also we do have the, uh, the queue for the enlargement of the project in the first place. and that's so that we can have the second look at, at the project. um, so, so if the motion to deny were to fail, i would suggest instead a motion to continue the item with the sponsor looking at, uh, uh, adding a second unit or revising the project. but let's we'll get there. um commissioner, more generally speaking, when we don't have a motion prepared for us, we, uh, take a motion of intent to disapprove, to allow staff to draft motion a motion. although you did articulate

enough and maybe the city attorney feels that what was articulated is enough to generate findings from. uh deputy city attorney austin yang . uh. that's correct. the uh, the secretary is correct that in general, we would make a motion of intent pursuant to the commission's expressed desire. um i believe that there's been a significant public conversation about some of the, um, what's necessary or desirable. desirable or what constitutes a necessary or desirable project. um it would be helpful for this commission or staff to maybe elaborate on that as it applies to this project. um, otherwise, i a motion to intent would be a preferred course of action. we can go with a motion and intent. we are denying this project

because of its excessive size in rh to the instructions that we are getting from sacramento are very clear. we are to looking here in a very kind of gentle way, increasing density in an orange to and for that reason, uh, i think the project as proposed is, is, uh, not meeting , not being necessary and desirable given the strong directions that we're getting from sacramento. let me ask one additional question. procedurally if the motion of intent to deny um passes, is there a time period in which the project sponsor can come back with a configuration that shows an adu? we would specify, uh, generally we would take a motion of intent to disapprove accompanied by a motion to continue to march for a couple of weeks to, in other words, to

allow staff to draft the motion and distribute it, uh, in your packet a week in advance. so a two week continuance would generally be right. i get that, but, um, let's say it passes in two weeks. the, you know, um, is there a time period in which the project sponsor is prohibited from coming back with a new version of the project showing an adu? so there is not a prohibition on on. well, if you deny the application, then the application is closed. they can then subsequently reapply after a year so they would be precluded from coming back, uh, for one year with the modified project as described by commissioner braun and mentioned by commissioner vice president. well, they would be prohibited from reapplying for the same project within a year. but if it is a substantive, different project, i believe a second unit would be a substantively different unit. they could come in the next day. that's what i'm asking. correct. okay. i took my clues from the applicant

presentation, who very clearly in an opening statement described the ground floor. and the ground floor would be the location of an adu. he was explaining that the entrance to the unit xyz was basically set aside for a particular room, and the use that seems to, at least in brief conversation to foreclose for that being immediately reconsidered. so i believe that denying the project as it is, is for today. the correct answer. how ever any revision? no. thank you. uh, any revisions to the project or a new project can happen at its own, uh, timing. anytime so that is the reason why i phrase it the way i did. see, there was never any intention to, uh, conceal ever even being asked to add an u. and that should give a message to us commissioner braun . so let me make sure i'm understanding. so if we do have the motion of intent to deny, um

, and so then that would be drafted for subsequent vote. um, is there a let's say that that motion fails and so that then we, um, could potentially have a continuance or am i hearing that with the continuance, there's still no option. there's still no path forward for this project to come back to us. um, as sort of a modification to the existing project to include to include an adu or they certainly could. so if the commission basic if during the time frame that staff is preparing the motion of intent to deny, and if the sponsor chose to um, revise their project and amend it and then bring that forward for the commission, we would then update our findings accordingly. um, knowing that we would probably put forward again the original denial motion that the commission requested as well as probably a approval motion, or if the motion to the of intent to disapprove fails, then you could have a subsequent motion to continue with direction to the sponsor. shall i call the

question on the motion of intent to approve and continue to march 7th? no i denied the project. that was the first motion you would just like to. so you're not it's not a motion of intent. then you would just like to make a motion to deny it's a motion of intent to deny because we don't we do not have a motion in front of us. that is what city attorney instructs me to write. but we would need to continue it to a specific date in order to consider the motion. it can't be next week. uh, it's basically we would need to be denied. and we're hearing it next week to be denied. i mean, that really doesn't i mean, the packets go out tomorrow essentially, for next week. that's why we do generally do a two week if you want to just do a motion of denial, then i feel like there has been enough conversation where the staff could draft findings. um deputy city attorney austin. so that's correct. commissioner moore, that the motion of intent would be to deny, to allow staff time

to prepare a packet, a revised packet with findings just ifying the denial. um as the secretary mentions, one week is very tight. to put that together, because staff would be rushed to get the packet done today. um, but two weeks, i think could be possible, but you might i would defer to staff on that. i'm just trying to make it easy for the applicant to come back with a revised project and basically ask for a reasonable designed project, not excessive in size, to, uh, allow him a passage for having another project approved that is the only reason why i'm saying a week. but i don't care, commissioner. just as a note, just because of the particular quirks of this district, they do add an adu, a conditional use authorization is no longer required. so that's the kind of, um, what we get in this in this

case. so it might be helpful to basically have us work with the sponsor a little bit and try and see what their path is that they want to take. so i might recommend that the commission just adopt a continuance. um and then let us kind of work things out with a sponsor and see if they have additional direction. and then when we come back before them, if they keep the project as proposed, we would then prepare a motion of denial along with the motion of approval as those a new adu rules that that adu code would be ministry duly approved because i think it is definitely in the interest of the commission to see its intent to densify the city, not just a closet size adu, but one that indeed is commensurate with the already large size of this building. so if indeed it is correct that this commission cannot hear the revised project with adu or continuance, we would be advisable because we would still have the ability to comment on the quality and size

of the adu. is that a correct interpretation on my part? that sounds correct, but i'm going to defer to miss taylor to just clarify, once is not enough. so for the central neighborhoods, large residents sud a uh, conditional use authorization is required when a unit exceeds 3000ft!s. so typically what we see on these size of projects on these lots is if, um, if there's a second unit, neither unit would then exceed the 3000 square foot threshold, which then negates the need for a conditional use authorization. so technically, a conditional use authorization and approval by the commission would not be required for the addition of a second unit. i have to believe that the owner is indeed trying to enlarge his own unit. and since he is already at 2579 square square feet, he would basically have like a 400 plus

square foot to enlarge or stay under 3000. in order for that to happen is that is that correct? and i don't think that that is intended. is could we have the project sponsor come forward and sort of give us some input here? yes. thank you. was that a question directly for me? yes. you could um could you repeat the question, please? i said i'm sure you were intending to enlarge your home by a substantial amount and that is fine as long as you are meeting some expectation that indeed there would be an adu or second unit, which still kicks you over 3000ft!s. are you prepared to consider that? well, i think there's a question here. the owner has agreed to, you know, consider adding the adu. so i do think if this is continued, there would definitely be an adu element to that. there's a question of when the adu is added. is the resultant square footage of the main residence over 3000ft!s? i think. i think is the question is that is that the question that's kind of what

i'm driving at. i'm not exactly sure. i do think it's going to be about 500ft!s of what what te what the ground floor unit would be, um, i don't recall off the top of my head, but i think it's i think it's around 500ft!s. is that right? um, this is just the owner just to check. um. hello there. i'm radu roma, and i'm the owner. i can't hear you. i'm roger roman, i'm the owner. um, so, uh, the square footage is the gross area, and there's a lot of area for the garage. i just want to point that to you. uh, my home as of now has 14 60ft!s. that's it. um, we proposed adding a jd-u at the bottom. that was one of the revisions we want it to be 100% code compliant at this. the planning staff has been amazing in driving this conversation with us over more than a year, and they've been suggesting us to come with this proposal. i am more than willing to add an adu

or a jd-u at the bottom. as we proposed at the beginning, the net result would mean one unit with two bedrooms on top. with the excellent design and whatnot, and one bedroom or an office at the middle floor with with a unit underneath that was our proposal initially. now i want to call out something else. this is more personal. the tech industry is going through very rough times. i will not be able to build two very large units. if i have to add an adu, we will have to add actually dig underneath and then do something to for a work from home, office or a family room in the main residence. i do not have the funds for that. uh, so what i want to do is just make sure that i have three bedrooms for hopefully my future kids and for my nephews. i have three nephews that came into and visited me

for two weeks in 1460. square feet, and we lived on floors because we didn't want to be in an airbnb. so so that's the situation i the rendering renders it. renderings are fantastic, but if you go on site and you look at the size of the project, it is really not an outsized project. and we're fixing this fantastic design in front to build the masses. either way, long story short, you probably heard enough at this point, but we position we really propose an adu. okay, that's useful. so a motion to continue supersedes the motion for denial. correct. and if we continue and they work on a design, it's possible it would come back to us if you if one of the units exceeds 3000ft!s. is that correct. and it's possible it might not come back to us depending upon how they, um, end up resolving. you know, the jdu, the adu and what the price is

that an accurate statement? would someone like to make a motion to continue? commissioner braun? i'll make a motion to continue myself after having heard the explanation. in addition to the fact there seem to be already adu plans available that were considered earlier. so to basically not take very long to reappear here for reconsideration. right we just need to recognize it may or may not come back here depending upon what the final configuration is. so i would second the motion to continue okay. here we go. how long of a continuous do you feel you need to redesign or reconsider. would one month be sufficient? one week is enough. so then we would keep it to march 7th. i believe i probably would argue more than a week because our staff would also need to do some work. yeah, so probably at least 2 or 3 weeks on our end. how about go ahead? mr. about march 14th and if need be, we continue it out further. okay the following week we're off right? i'm sorry. the

following week in march, we are off. from what i remember, the 24th, i think we are off. uh we are march 28th is canceled. okay, okay. so on the motion, since there is a motion that has been seconded to continue, it would supersede the motion of intent to disapprove on that motion to continue to march 14th. commissioner braun, a commissioner imperial, a commissioner. coppell a commissioner moore and commissioner president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0, and we're going to take a break before we hear the item. ten minutes.

and limit any increase in height to preserve the character defining features and minimize impacts to adjacent properties. to date, the department has received 25 letters, possibly even more since i've been in this chamber in opposition, mostly related to the preservation of the earthquake shacks and no letters in support of the project staff's staff supports the proposed project as it both meets the residential design guidelines as well as preservation criteria for this is not a demolition per planning code section 317, because we do not have a permit record of the existing portion of the building south of column line three in your existing plans, which is kind of mostly the building that is to the south of the earthquake shacks. um, and, and

we disregard that for the purposes of calculating the tantamount to demolition on, um, the 1919 sanborn map indicates the building footprint of two earthquake shacks with an infill where the bathroom currently exists in your plans, and the existing, um, but sometime between 1919 and 1938, where we have satellite imagery or aerial photographs, the rear addition was added without a permit, as we have no permit history on that. permits were required during that period. so therefore we have no basis to deem it other than an illegal construction. uh, regarding the assertion that there is a third earthquake shack by the doctor requested for myself and preservation architect staff conducted a site visit february 14th last week to investigate this claim. we found no evidence of a third earthquake shack, although it is a shack. um, the plan dimensions the plate heights and the material of the

exterior cladding were were contrary to the standards that are outlined in our earthquake shack document, um, such that we couldn't find any evidence that that was an earthquake shack. this project seeks to raise the level and move the existing two story, sorry, one story, single family house, 12.5ft towards the street and add a two story rear addition. the resulting building will be about seven feet taller than its current elevation. due to this raising, as well as moving it up in elevation upslope to the lot, um, therefore, for it is a vertical addition. as i mentioned. furthermore, the existing non-complying um rear portion of the building, with respect to the rear yard will be removed. um preservation staff has identified the residence as being comprised of two earthquake shacks. the relocation and razing of which has been extensively reviewed by preservation staff for compliance with preservation criteria and although preservation staff does not

typically regulate the means and methods of preservation in the relocation of structures, a relocation plan has also been prepared to assure that the relocation will be done in a manner that preserves the integrity of the shacks during the relocation and construction, the proposed project brings the building into closer compliance with the required rear yard. in the rear, addition is massed against the taller and deeper neighbor neighboring building to the west, and provides side setbacks to mediate the transition of the building scale to the downhill and shallower neighbor neighboring building to the east, thereby preserving uh access to mid-block open space. the roof, deck and railing are set back so far as to be deemed significantly invisible from the street, and therefore staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, and recommends not taking discretionary review. thank you. thank you, mr. winslow. my apologies now, mr. uh, dr. requester, you have five

minutes. thank you. my name is, uh, mark norton. i live at, uh, 29th street, directly to the south of 369 valley street. this all began in 2014, when the project sponsor bought the valley street property and proposed a completely demolish the earthquake shack. the earthquake cottage, and to build a monster house in its place. uh, fortunately, the planning staff disabused him of the notion that demolishing the cottage, the existence of the earthquake cottage, and the need to preserve it is what makes this matter exceptional and extraordinary. right from the beginning. excuse me. right from the beginning. preservation planners justin green and tina tam told the project sponsor that the secretary of the interior standard prohibited the cottage from being raised more than two feet and, i quote, raised the cottage and entire story is not in conformance with

the secretary standards, as it will drastically alter the existing buildings relationship to the street and the lot. justin grebien also wrote that instead of trying to move the cottage forward on the lot and again, i quote the location of any addition is best situated within the existing envelope of the rear addition. an unfortunately, the planning staff did not stick to its own recommendations, gradually giving in to the project sponsors pleas for reasons that seem more the result of politics than good planning. if the planning staff had stuck to its original position, we wouldn't be here. the plan before you today would try to move the cottage, as mr. winslow said, forward about 13ft on the lot, raise it up seven feet, put it on top of a whole new living level with a roof deck immediately behind it, which will be visible from certainly across the street. um, and it. has anybody here ever seen an

earthquake cottage? a two story earthquake cottage with a roof deck? i really don't think so. it would be unrecognizable as an earthquake cottage. it is notable that the project sponsor has never provided a full on frontal view of what the new structure will look like. instead, they try to mask the lower living level with an ill conceived concrete wall that they want to build on the street . i met with the project sponsor in 2023, early earlier last year, we discussed an alternative building plan essentially leaving the cottage where it is now on the lot, raising it up about four feet with a new living level underneath, but mostly below grade. the project sponsor himself drew up plans based on this concept, giving them a house of approximately the same size, the same square footage as the proposal before you today, the project sponsor told us then, and has confirmed since that at that time they would have been satisfied with the

compromise proposal and would have proceeded that way. but unfortunately, the planning staff said no to the alternative plan. we've heard today various things about the planning staff anyway, um, stating their explanation is that it was unacceptable and unacceptable because the backyard would only be 15ft. this was and is hard to understand, given that the current backyard is only 11ft and nobody has been complaining about that, and that there is considerable open space in the front of the cottage, and that none of the neighbors have objected to the alternative plan. in fact, everybody supports the alternative plan. as i understand it in fact, the alternative plan would minimize the adjacent neighbors issues regarding light, air and privacy . as they have pointed out in the emails, they have sent to you, sid and diva and adrian would be here today, but they are out of town on business or attending to child care duties. andrew and tiffany, who lived to the east, are here and i'm

pretty sure they're going to speak again. if the planning staff had not objected to the alternative building plan, we probably wouldn't be here today. the alternative building plan is what we're asking for. it has gained widespread, widespread support from the preservation community, from neighbors and many others. it minimizes the risks involved in trying to move the cottage forward on the lot. done with care, the cottage would still be recognizable as an earthquake cottage. the setting on the lot would not be disrupted, especially if the unnecessary roof deck and concrete wall in the front disappeared. there is an additional issue as to whether or not the demolition calculations were done properly. done. i'm running out of time, so i'll have to save some of this. um, but i'm going to leave you with a third packet of letters and emails in support of the alternative building plan. a copy of the email i sent this morning regarding the cat x, which has some problems. the third version of the cat x, and our response to the project sponsors variance application. again the existence of the earthquake cottage and the need

to preserve it is what makes this matter exceptional. extraordinary preservation architect michael garavaglia, if i have any time left, will say something now, but i guess i don't. so he'll speak during the rebuttal. thank you. very good project sponsor. you have five minutes. and the. good afternoon. members of the commission, fabian lenoir from

nova designs builds for the project sponsor. um, mr. norton makes a lot of claims about the proposed project that it will most likely result into the loss of two historical earthquake cottages. mr. norton proposed an alternate plan, which he thinks will help preserving the historical resource. mr. norton does not really oppose the overall scope of the project. he just opposed moving the cottages towards the street and raising them slightly. mr. norton's alternate design even supports a larger project two storey over basement, roughly 3500 square foot versus 2633. as currently proposed. mr. norton wants to keep the cottages in their current location, raising them about a foot and a half. that would require an additional 350yd!t of excavation as well as underpinning the adjacent neighbors foundation. the

current proposal only requires 80 cubic yard of excavation and won't require any underpinning of the adjacent neighbors. most of the excavation would be done in front of the cottages under our proposed project, which would allow the foundation to be prepared prior to relocating the cottages. if you look at the drawings here, you can see you can see the proposed design from mr. norton, which requires 430yd!t of excavation in keeping the cottages in their location. our proposed, uh, only requires 80yd!t of excavation in and, uh, slightly moves the cottages forward. um mr. norton's design would be further from planning code compliance, requiring a variance to allow the rear yard of 15 foot instead of the proposed 25 foot. um mr. norton

makes many claim mainly that the proposed project would render the earth valley street earthquake cottages unrecognizable as earthquake cottages if it survives at all, which is completely false. that it moving the cottages will most likely lead to their destruction is simply irrational. it's alternate design also requires shoring and excavating below the cottages, and it makes it actually even more difficult to do. and there's makes it much more difficult and risky project. these earthquake cottages were moved on wagons throughout the city over 100 years ago. some even were moved recently to the zoo or to the presidio for people to see. we strongly believe that the proposed project is far a far better solution than it will result in less excavation and risk, and will be a better and more visible historical resource for people to be seen from the street and enjoyed by more.

while having a minimal impact. we have our historical consultant here, mr. brad brewster, present. if you have any questions about historical issues, um, we hope that the planning commission will support this project and not take dr. thank you. if that concludes sponsors presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. you'll each have two minutes. just two minutes. just two minutes okay i'm georgia could i have the overhead please. so that's what i sent in. that's, you know what that is? that's that's the willis polk house. that's what it was before. and there it is now. the coyote was on that couch, actually. but look at that. that's what's going to happen on valley street. if this is approved as proposed. look at that big

cement wall, big underground glass like glass on the roof deck. this is the original. this project didn't have a plan of preservation plan. mr. norton and mr. garavaglia have proposed a preservation plan that you should consider. the whole thing about the rear. is it in the 38 aerials? is it not? it's a he said. he said if it is there and it's being demolished and the staff's intention generally is to recognize that as, as, as determinant that it's legal even if there's no permit. what does that mean for this project that changes the demographics? totally. could that rear be preserved and added to and the expansion without even moving the thing, moving the cottages? i don't know, it's just, uh, it just seems that that this is, uh , out of bounds with everything that should happen. this is an important historical resource. and it shouldn't be lost to

another spec development like the willis polk house is on russian hill and the fundamental point of this doctor is to preserve the integrity of the historic earthquake cottages. here's my 150 words for my two minutes. thank you very much. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm catherine petrin speaking on behalf of san francisco architectural heritage in support of the doctor. we as san franciscans all know. 1906 earthquake shacks are rare, significant, fragile. we treasure them. they really are something that is so significant and unique to our city and tied to a very, you know, the most important, uh, event in our in our history, um, these earthquake shacks should be given the highest regard in any proposed project, especially only when, as is the case at 369

valley, they retain high physical integrity and prominence in the public sphere. this building is called out as a representative property in the earthquake shake shack's theme document, prepared by the planning department. as such, it is really considered a prime example of its type. initial assessment by planning staff prior trittyes the cottages positioned in visibility and current elevation, and i believe that's the approach we should follow here. we hope the current proposal can be modified to retain the distinctive shack form, elevating the cottages would destroy their visual integrity and identity as a 1906 earthquake cottage. that is the fear we support. the alternate alternative plan leaving the cottages essentially in their current footprint with minimal extra elevation and adding the living space that is sought by the owner. we think there's a good compromise here. thank you very much.

hello, commissioners. uh, my name is megan smith. i'm here representing the victorian alliance of san francisco. we're a preservation organization that usually focuses on victorians, but we also have a very soft spot for earthquake cottages and in fact, helped with the ones at the zoo. we helped fund that. um, so i'm going to read a letter from joe mallet, who is the president of the victorian alliance of san francisco. dear mr. winslow, the victorian alliance, san francisco supports the discretionary review review filed for the proposed project at 369 valley street and scheduled hearing by the planning commission and zoning administrator on administrator on february 22nd. the 1906 relief cottages are rare and should be given a high regard in the proposed project. thank you for your time and ask that you

please share this letter with the planning commission and zoning administrator. and now more personally from me, just as a as a citizen of san francisco, i'm a longtime member of the victorian alliance and a 35 year resident of noe valley. i'm writing to ask you to support the requests made in the discretionary review for the earthquake cottage at 369 valley street. um, let's see. cottages from the 1906 earthquake and fire are a rare survivors of the city's history. we have only two recognized earthquake cottages in noe valley and this one too, combined into one, and the one at 300 cumberland by dolores park. the valley suite earthquake cottage should be preserved as it is now intact and at the front of the property, and not put on top of some other structure. i've been following this since 2016. i appreciate everybody's time and i support the discretionary review. thank you very much.

good afternoon. our names are andrew and tiffany kearney. our home is located at 365 valley street, where the neighbor to the immediate east of 369 valley. we've owned the home since 1989 and have brought up three children here. we support the discretionary review filed by mr. norton and have a strong preference for the alternative plans prepared by mr. garavaglia, as detailed in the doctor versus mr. lenoir online version. we would also like to state our objection to the variance being requested for the rear addition of mr. lenoir's plan. the noise the lenoir plan raises the rear addition roofline by approximately nine feet from the existing rear structure to an elevation of 234ft, and the garavaglia plan raises it approximately 229.5ft. the 4.5ft lower roofline will make a huge difference to the light to our second floor windows, our main living area. furthermore categoryvilliers plan leaves the shacks in their current location rather than

moving them 13ft north, which will hugely impact the light to the middle of our home through our dining room window, which is, um, see it in the diagram. it's in your package currently given the location of the shacks and the rear addition roofline, how our dining room window gets good unobstructed light from the south to the front. northerly two rooms of our home, especially in the afternoons. this window is currently adjacent to the north end of the shacks. should the lenoir plans be implemented. the new proposed second floor overhang at the property line will begin four feet away from this window at the same elevation and has as a result, the window will get little light at the first floor window below. it will get practically no light if the new plan is implemented due to the higher roofline and extension of the rear addition into the yard, the windows at the rear of our home will receive less light on the first and second floor, particularly in the afternoons. furthermore the easterly facing windows on the new rear addition at 369 valley will have views

back into our homes. first and second floor windows, compromising our privacy from 20ft away. i'm going to pick up where my husband left off and take my two minutes as well. um, so my name is tiffany kearney and i am, um, um, uh, property owner at 365 valley. and we were thrilled to see that in mr. norton and mr. lenoir's mediation agreement that mr. lenoir agreed to proceed with the garavelli plan if it was approved by the planning department. however, we were told that the building or the planning department objects to the garavelli plan because of its 15 foot yard, rather than a 25 foot yard. from our perspective of as the immediate neighbor with a garden extending, um or sorry with a garden of approx 50ft deep. the difference of ten feet is small if followed. if allowed, the

lenoir extension of almost 25ft beyond the rear of our home at a height of 30ft, blows away the purpose of section 134 that speaks of light and the adjacent yard space. we would strongly prefer the garavelli plan with a 4.5ft lower roof line and a three foot setback from the property line, even though it extends ten feet further into the adjacent yard, preserving light to our home is much more valued than having an addition. an additional ten feet of adjacent green space midway down our yard for. furthermore, the garavelli plan for the rear 369 valley with windows and small nested decks on both first and second floors looking into the east and south over our gardens would offer the new home very attractive views and light a win win. um, i can't finish, but i

just want to say that we are very grateful for mark norton's untiring advocacy to save the shacks at three, six, nine valley and for the planning department's work to support that goal. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. um, my name is bradley wiedmeier. i'm an architectural historian, retired, and i believe that this, uh, earthquake cottage could easily have been landmark 171, which is our landmarked earthquake cottage, and the proposed parcel. uh, we need the discretionary review on this because this is the proposal, uh, that's going forward. if not, is essentially a double whammy on the earthquake shack. not only is it being raised

seven feet, making it a second story structure, but the setting is being removed or severely degraded. so i mean, to do both of these actions on this structure, we're strongly degrades it as an earthquake shack. and uh, you know, these are very humble buildings and, and, uh, need to be taken seriously, especially given our current situation. san francisco is the can the city that that knows how, uh, we've sort of lost our can do, uh, sense of ourselves, of meeting needs in crises, whether economic or tectonic and this, these earthquake cottages represent a caring community that is, that can try to make an effort to accommodate all. and it doesn't make sense to degrade this. the, the, the cottage in the way

that's being proposed. something has to give. uh, so i urge that you have the discretionary review and the some of the proposals, um, because the shack will be unrecognizable as one and, um, and it is certainly as it has stood all these many years, uh, one of the leading earthquake cottages in the city. last call for public comment. okay. seeing none, dr. requests we have a two minute rebuttal. is that two minutes? two minutes. okay. uh good afternoon. my name is mike garavaglia. i'm a preservation architect here in san francisco. i want to clarify the alternate plan, which we, um, looked at as an alternative to the to the original proposal, trying to find some mediation. so i don't want to call it the garavaglia

plan. it's really the project, an alternate project plan. uh, the one you saw that was presented, the three story version with all the excavation. that's not the plan. the plan was actually looked at. we as a the developer provided a two story version, which is in your packet. we would support that and understand that that level of excavation for the project was not intended because because it's a two story plan now, not a three story plan. um, the third shack, there was concern about a possibility of a because these are an assembly of structures that there might have been one. we only called for deep research on that. this is a structure that might, um, provide more information as part of its existence. and when those, those the rear structure gets demolished, all that information is going to be gone. so um, as as you've heard, this is a very unique and fragile historic resource. there are challenges to the historical integrity and compliance with the standards.

uh, the two story structure at the front does not. it's a it's a false sense of historical development. there were two story shacks, but very few. but this is this was not one. so to make it a two story shack is really not appropriate. um, the, uh, moving the building as it stated by others, uh, reducing historical integrity of setting, feeling and location in uh, adding non non compatible contemporary features like the roof deck and the concrete wall at the front of the property is, is, is not compliant with the standards. and the comment about the report is just short on specifics about the technical issues of this fragile structure as a preservation architect, i know how easily, uh, these kinds of buildings can be damaged during construction. so just a little bit better plan involved with that. thank you. project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal.

um i'm listening to the neighbors and what they're saying, and i completely fail to understand what they're saying. they're saying that we're completely losing the integrity of the cottages that, you know, i mean, they're saying all sorts of things, but nothing makes sense to me. i think we are preserving the cottages. the cottages, as as you can see. i mean, all you see here is the cottage and a front fence and, and, you know, i think that makes for a very attractive, uh, project where all you see is the , the cottages and, you know, saying that we're destroying and , you know, i just completely fail to understand what they're saying, and, and keeping it in

the back, you know, i just nothing makes sense in the arguments that they're making. and i think we've proposed a really very reasonable and sensible project act, and i hope you will support it. thank you. very good commissioners. with that, this matter is now before you. commissioner braun? uh, yes. you know, this is a project that i've been scrutinizing really closely because i share, uh, a love and affinity for the importance and historical nature of the earthquake shacks in the city, uh, and their history. and how few of them are left at this point in the city. um, i do have a couple of questions. ones, uh, to staff first, about a couple of things that were raised. so

one is, is, um, you know, there was a discussion on that's out there about the alternative plan and how it was vetted and, um, and the reasons why staff don't support it. i'm just curious to hear directly, you know, from your your perspective, what were the reasons that that alternate plan was is not meeting the requirements and standards that you were applying to it? sure. i'll take first stab at that. um the alternative plan, whenever we have an existing condition where a plan in hand that's improving the code compliance, such as in this case, the rear yard, uh, even though that still requires a variance, it was improving the condition with respect to that requirement. the alternative plan wasn't doing that. so we have to adhere to kind of common sense rules of are you improving or uh, not that code compliance as well as residential design guidelines, which are integrated with that

concept of building in the rear of the lots? um, i think simply that was it. and that was not a plan that was in front of us officially, a plan that's in front of us officially is the one that's proposed by the project sponsor. so we have to respond to that. first and foremost. yes. yeah and i recognize that that's what we're here to scrutinize primarily. um, so thank you for the response. my other question is i do agree with statements that have been made that, you know, it's hard to understand and what the facade of the revised project would look like across the entire sort of vertical front of it, from the plans. it's not particularly clear. um, so i guess my first question is, you know what would what is the department's take on sort of the, uh, preservation of the historical features of the of the cottages in terms of sort of the lower portion of the building? um, that would be built out below the cottage. sure. i'm happy to take that. i

think one of the things that we looked at in particular with this project is acknowledging the fact that it is a shack. and when we look at the shacks across the city, oh, yeah, sorry. i'm like, um, one of the things that we were looking at is the fact that it is a shack and when we commonly look at where the shacks are and what has happened to them, they are often subsumed into other buildings, and they are basically, um, in incorporated into larger elements and kind of found in different pieces and parts. this one obviously has a pretty solid form. and what we were looking for particularly was whether or not that form is still readable from the original proposal to the new proposal. so sorry, from what's currently there and then to what is, um, there proposing, which is why we came down on the determination that we did with regard to the check. um, we are lucky that we do have have a new guideline document, um, acknowledging the

shacks and that was a pretty heavy basis. and ultimately we found that the integrity of the shack was still being maintained at the end of the day, even though there's new elements being incorporated into the building, including by raising it and so we recognize that we'll probably still have to work with the architect more to make sure that there's a good differential nation between the old and the new. and also, um, recognize that, like, we want the shack to be the first thing that you read, particularly from the street? yes thank you for that. and that that's where, you know, i don't know what the best practices are in terms of how you differentiate the historic structure from what would be built underneath it. i don't know if, you know, to me, it sounds like the appropriate response is not blending everything into a single large structure. um, but i also don't know what that differentiate looks like. so i appreciate that staff will continue to work on ensuring that the historic sort of form and visibility and readability, legibility of the of the earthquake checks would still be maintained. um, you

know, i in looking at this, i've been paying very close attention. like i said, and ultimately, when every time i go back to the plans, as proposed, they strike me as being a very reasonable response. um, the buildings are being brought forward on the lot. they are being elevated, but the actual elevation changes are much more limited at the street because they are being moved sort of uphill. so i can see, um, at and uh, the form of them remains intact. uh, the visibility from the street is very clear. i'm on this block pretty frequently. um, and i can see how now they will remain visible, um, as a historic resource from from the street, from the sidewalk. and so ultimately, you know, i'm curious to hear if commissioners have any other comments or thoughts on this, but if not, i would move to not take dr. and to approve the project. second. if there's nothing further

commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take the on approve the project as proposed on that motion. commissioner braun, i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore and commissioner president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. zoning administrator would say i'm going to close the public hearing for the variance and just acknowledge that the proposal, you know, brings the site in much more into compliance with the rear yard and residential design guidelines and is designed in a way to be, you know, very contextual with the surrounding buildings in the new proposal compared to what's existing. so intend to grant the variance with standard conditions. very good. commissioners that concludes your hearing today.

i'm chanel joyce i'm a firefighter for the san francisco fire department. i currently am the station 4. in the mission bay districtism lived in san francisco in noe valley. grew up with my mom and i went to high school in san ma te'o. after high school i went to mississippi where i played

volleyball in university of southern mississippi. what got me going after college was i was applying to place related to fire and police i loved my experience but my family is home. i grew up here and could not be far from my family anymore i came back. >> i have been a firefighter for 4 years the transition to the fire department has been seam tells is the same. team work and coming together. transitioning to the job med me comfortable that i made the right decision to come become and work for a fire department that is big in diversity and equality and becoming a fell. i got to be a member at a few different fire stations. each station has their own culture. i worked in places that are xroem and with a young crew and

had the most seniority have 3 or 2 years in whatever it may be. learning stuff when people have been in the job for 20 plus years and learning from people got in it grew me to adopt and work with everybody. >> a lot of people will come up to mow and say, thank you for your service noise to see a woman in the fire department. you are doing it. it is nice to see kids waiving look a woman firefighter. they get excited i love that part of the job seeing the excitement that people see. you are a woman you can do this job. every person has a good experience with the fire department. no one ever spokous they say, they are here. they're do this work and everybody loves them. not everybody gets that in their job. i don't do it for the

recognition but niez nice to see people that respect had you do and know you did a lot to get here and you still do to work and you set your life on the line for other people. it is cool..

>> (music). >> the ferry building one of

san francisco most famous that as many of 15 thousand commuters pass through that each gay. >> one of the things that one has to keep in mind regarding san francisco is how young the city we are. and nothing is really happening here before the gold rush. there was a small spanish in the presiding and were couriers and fisherman that will come in to rest and repair their ships but at any given time three hundred people in san francisco. and then the gold rush happened. by 182948

individuals we are here to start a new life. >> by 1850 roughly 16 thousand ships in the bay and left town in search of gold leaving their ships behind so they scraped and had the ships in the bay and corinne woods. with sand the way that san francisco was and when you look at a map of san francisco have a unique street grid and one of the thing is those streets started off in extremely long piers. but by 1875 they know they needed more so the ferry building was built and it was a long affair and the first cars turned around at the

ferry building and picking up people and goods and then last night the street light cars the trams came to that area also. but by the late 1880s we needed something better than the ferry building. a bond issue was passed for $600,000. to build a new ferry building i would say 800 thousand for a studio apartment in san francisco they thought that was a grand ferry building had a competition to hire an architecture and choose a young aspiring architect and in the long paris and san francisco had grand plans for this transit station. so he proposed the beautiful new building i wanted it wider, there is none tonight. than that actually is but the

price of concrete quitclaim two how and was not completed and killed. but it opened a greater claim and became fully operational before 1898 and first carriages and horses for the primary mode of transportation but market street was built up for serve tram lines and streetcars could go up to the door to embarcadero to hospitals and mission street up to nob hill and the fisherman's area. and then the earthquake hit in 190 six the ferry building collapsed the only thing had to be corrected once the facade of the tower. and 80

percent of the city would not survive the buildings collapsed the streets budges and the trams were running and buildings had to highland during the fire after the actuate tried to stop the mask fire in the city so think of a dennis herrera devastation of a cable car they were a mess the streets were torn up and really, really wanted to have a popular sense they were on top of that but two weeks after the earthquake kind of rigged a way getting a streetcar to run not on the cable track ran electrical wires to get the streetcars to run and 2 was pretty controversial tram system wanted electrical cars

but the earthquake gave them to chance to show how electrical cars and we're going to get on top this. >> take 10 years for the city to rebuild. side ferry use was increasing for a international exhibition in 1950 and people didn't realize how much of a community center the ferry building was. it was the center for celebration. the upper level of ferry building was a gathering place. also whenever there was a war like the filipino war or world war two had a parade on market street and the ferry building would have banners and to give you an

idea how central to the citywide that is what page brown wanted to to be a gathering place in that ferry building hay day the busiest translation place in the world how people got around transit and the city is dependent on that in 1915 of an important year that was the year of our international exposition 18 million living in san francisco and that was supposedly to celebrate the open of panama differential but back in business after the earthquake and 22 different ferry boats to alamed and one had the and 80 trips a day a way of life and in 1918 san francisco was hit hard by the flu pandemic and city had

mask mandates and anyone caught without a doubt a mask had a risk ever being arrested and san francisco was hit hard by the pandemic like other places and rules about masks wearing and what we're supposed to be more than two people without our masks on i read was that on the ferry those guys wanted to smoke their pipes and taking off their masks and getting from trouble so two would be hauled away. >> the way the ferry building was originally built the lower level with the natural light was used for take it off lunge storage. the second floor was where passengers offloaded and all those people would spill out

and central stairway of the building that is interesting point to talk about because such a large building one major stairway and we're talking about over 40 thousand people one of the cost measures was not building a pedestrian bridge with the ferry building and the embarcadero on market street was actually added in and in 1918 but within 20 years to have san francisco bay the later shipbuilding port in the world and the pacific we need the iron that. as the ferry system was at the peak two bridges to reach san francisco. and automobiles were a popular item that people wanted to drive themselves

around instead of the ferry as a result marin and other roots varnished. the dramatic draw in ferry usage was staggering who was using the ferry that was a novelty rather than a transportation but the ferry line stopped one by one because everyone was getting cars and wanted to drive and cars were a big deal. take the care ferry and to san francisco and spend the day or for a saturday drive but really, really changed having the car ferry. >> when the bay bridge was built had a train that went along the lower level so that was a major stay and end up where our sales force transit center is now another way of

getting into the city little by little the ferry stopped having a purpose. >> what happened in the 40 and 50's because of this downturn we were trying to find a purpose a number of proposals for a world trade center and wanted to build it own the philly in a terrible idea objective never gotten down including one that had too tall towers a trade center in new york but a tower in between that was a part of ferry building and completely impractical. after the cars the tower administration wanted to keep