mont street. a conditional use authorization also. indefinite continuance. i have no other items proposed for continuance.

so we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of the items proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance. again if you're in the chambers, you need to come forward. seeing no no one coming forward, public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you. commissioners vice president moore, move to continue items one through three to the date stated. so second, thank you commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i. commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commission president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 placing us under your consent calendar. 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. 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 at this or a future hearing item for case number 2019. hyphen 004110ca hyphen zero two for the property at 2675 gary boulevard. this is a request to rescind your previous action. commissioners for your benefit and benefit of members of the public. please note that on february 1st, 2020, for the planning commission held a public hearing on the certification of an eir for adoption of sequa findings and a request for a conditional use authorization to allow a new whole foods market grocery store at 2675 gary boulevard. unfortunately, a separate agenda item was inadvertently omitted on the february 1st hearing. agenda and therefore the commission did not take an action on the adoption of sequa

findings as a procedural requirement. the commission must adopt a sequel. findings for the eir case number 2019. hyphen 004110e and v. hyphen zero two. prior to the approval of the project. so we are asking that you rescind that action and then followed by items five, a and b for case numbers 2019 hyphen 004110e and v. hyphen zero two at 2675 gary boulevard for the adoption of those ceqa findings and case number 2019, hyphen 0004110c, a hyphen zero two at 2675 gary boulevard to properly, adopt or approve the conditional use authorization with those same conditions. the project has not changed. item six, case number 2023 hyphen 011780c 3233 22nd street. conditional use authorization with that, members of the public or commissioners or staff, this is your

opportunity to request that any of these items be pulled off of consent and heard today or another hearing again, if you're in the chambers, please come forward. seeing no request to speak public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. commissioners, vice president moore moved to approve as read into the record. second. thank you. commissioners on that motion to approve items on consent and rescind the one action. commissioner braun, i. commissioner. imperial i. commissioner koppell i. commissioner moore i commission. president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. thank you for that. placing us under commission. matter is item seven. land acknowledgment. commissioner imperial will read the acknowledgment today. thank you. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, 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 loss nor foregone their responsibilities as the caretaker of this place, as well as for all the 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 ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. item eight consideration of adoption draft minutes for february 22nd, 2020 for members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. seeing no request to speak. public comment on the minutes is closed and they are now before you. commissioners. commissioner

brandt moved to adopt the minutes. second. thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner braun, i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. item nine. commission comments and questions. seeing no request to speak from members of the commission, we can move on to department matters. item ten director's announcements. director's director hylis will be here in a moment, but on his behalf, no announcements. thanks. item 11 review of past events at the board of supervisors. the board of appeals and the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. good afternoon. commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs.

this week, the land use committee considered the duplicated version of the parcel delivery service ordinance sponsored by supervisor chan. the purpose of this duplicated ordinance is to add a retro active date to the original parcel delivery service ordinance. originally that date was march 9th. however, since the interim controls end on march 30th, supervisor peskin amended the retroactive date to march 30th. after that, the ordinance was forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation. next, the land use committee considered supervisor melgar's ordinance that would amend the conditional use requirements for the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit, or udu, specifically, the ordinance would create a new conditional use authorization exemption for single family homes, removing a udu if the udu has not been rented in the last ten years. additionally, the property owner must currently reside in the primary unit and confirm they intend to reside there for at least three years after the udu is removed. lastly, the property owner would need to enter into a regulatory

agreement subjecting the single family home to the price increase. limitations of the rent ordinance. the ordinance would also waive the conditional use requirement for proposed udu removals when the unauthorized dwelling unit does not currently meet the open space or dwelling unit. exposure requirements of the planning code, or the minimum floor to ceiling height requirements of the housing code. lastly, the proposed ordinance refines the udu removal findings to only consider the use tenant and eviction history from the past ten years. the planning commission heard this item on november 14th of last year, during which time you recommended approval with modifications. the modifications are to one. amend the open space and dwelling unit exposure conditional use exemptions so that projects are exempt if the only pathway to legalize is through a variance, and two amend the floor to ceiling height. conditional use exemption to only apply if the udu does not meet the minimum floor to ceiling height and the minimum unit size per the housing code. during the land use, hearing supervisor melgar

made a motion to add the planning commission's recommendations to the ordinance. this motion passed unanimously. supervisor peskin then asked to be added add on as sponsor. there are two people who spoke during public comment. both expressed concerns of the with the ordinance after public comment. the item was forwarded as amended to the full board with the positive recommendation. next, the committee considered the landmark designation for the sacred heart church, located at 546 fillmore street. this item was amended and continued last week. this week during public comment, there were several speakers who spoke about the need to include artwork by a well known italian artist painted on the church ceiling and walls in the designation report. in response, supervisor preston duplicated the ordinance after public comment to leave open the possibility of amending the designation report. the original item was then forwarded to the full board with the positive recommendation, and the duplicated ordinance was continued to the call of the chair. next, the committee considered the ordinance to amend the state adu controls in

the planning code. commissioners, you consider this item last week as a consent item and voted to recommend approval with the recommendation to one. clarify that a us built within article 10 or 11 individual landmarks, or in a historic or conservation district, trigger the notification requirements in article 1011 and not section 311, and then retain the existing 311. article ten and article 11 notification requirements for adus. during the hearing, planning staff read the proposed amendments into the record and requested that the board incorporate them into the ordinance. this action was done by the committee. the item was then continued for one week because the proposed amendments were deemed substantive. lastly, the committee considered the mayor's ordinance to use form based density in the city's ncr and two districts. this item has been continued several times this week. supervisor peskin proposed amendments that would prohibit the use of state density bonus with form based in-city in these districts, and require any bonus units to be

rent controlled, as these amendments were not considered by this commission, the atom had to be referred back to the planning commission, so you will have an opportunity to weigh on these amendments in the near future. then at the full board. excuse me. this week, the parcel delivery service ordinance, the original one sponsored by supervisor chan, passed its second read the landmark designation for the grand theater, sponsored by supervisor ronan, passed its second read the density controls in the three historic districts. zone c2, sponsored by supervisor peskin, passed its second read the fleet charging ordinance, sponsored by supervisor peskin, passed its second read the family housing opportunity special use district amendments, sponsored by melgar and engardio that would allow 65 foot height limits on corner lots, passed its first read the potrero yard special use district. the two items for that passed their first read. there was also an appeal for the tentative parcel map approval at 1365 york street. however, this appeal was

withdrawn and then finally supervisor chan's duplicated parcel delivery service ordinance passed its first read. and that's all i have for you. i'm happy to answer any questions. thanks seeing no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. high just two minutes. if you only want two minutes, i'll give you three. oh thanks so much. thank you very much, good afternoon, georgia. in the findings for the constraint reduction ordinance, number two, g, it says the housing element seeks to protect the priority equity geographies from, quote, zoning changes and planning processes, quote, close

quote that could have, quote, adverse racial and social equity impacts and, section 317 values defining demolition also have planning processes. and that goal is to prevent alterations from becoming demolitions. and when i thought about that, i thought about, this case that, happened before section 317 took place and that is turalyon, versus city and county of san francisco. and in that case, it was a court of appeal. the decision agreed with the city's determination that the project, this particular project was a de facto demolition. and this project was located, not in what's now the pegs, but it's very close to what is now the pegs. and i imagine at the time it was in the peg, what would be considered the pegs. so as i said, the case was prior to the

section 317 implementation, but the description of the project as a horizontal and vertical expansion with removal of the front facade is precisely the same scope of work. that is, the permitted process under the current threshold of the values of the demo calcs in section 317. so if i could just read a little something to you from the case, it said, after further analysis, the planning department staff reported there are concerns that this project is a demolition. the building department has made the determination that this project is an alteration, not a demolition. but the staff recommended the commission not take der and approve the projects proposed. but then it says the commission subsequently conducted a doctor review of the project, denied the building permit application. in october 2003 by a 4 to 1 vote based on the following. the project is not a major alteration, but a de facto demolition. the project would result in the de facto loss of affordable housing by improving and expanding the existing units that are

currently accessible to lower income tenants, and it was. it was a pair of flats, which is interesting. by the way, the proposal might result in displacement of an elderly man, and he was an elderly man. he was 76 years old. his last name was morales, and he identified himself as a low income senior. so i look at that and i look at what's in the pegs, what's what's to protect the pegs. and, this case and i just think that this is further proof or an illustration of why the calcs should be adjusted as the commission has the authority to do, and the facts of the case remain relevant today, as i just talked about during my general public comment and here's my 150 words for the minutes. and i think i sent you this case before, but i gave a copy to the city attorney. thank you very much. thank you. last call for general public comment. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. if you're a reasonable accommodations requester, you need to press

star three. seeing no request to speak. commissioners general public comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar for the lone item under your regular calendar. and number 12 case number 2023 hyphen 0079718 65 through 67. no. street conditional use authorization. good afternoon, commissioners to department staff, the item before you today at 65 through 67. no street is a request for conditional use authorization to remove an unauthorized dwelling unit at the ground floor of an existing four story, two unit building within the r2 district. central neighborhood's large residents, special use district and family housing opportunity special use district. the unauthorized unit is approximately 368ft!s and is situated at the rear at the of

the subject property's ground floor, behind storage space and a one car garage. the unauthorized unit is comprised of one bedroom, one bathroom, a living dining space, and a full kitchen. it maintains a floor to ceiling height of approximately seven feet. the project proposes to remove the cooking facilities and restore the space to its legal use, as accessory storage for the owner occupied unit on the upper two floors of the building. the space will return, will retain its bathroom, which was legally permitted in 1974. no work is proposed above the ground floor and there will be no change to the building's volume. the project was filed in response to planning enforcement case 2021 hyphen 011264, citing the unpermitted use of the ground floor as a dwelling unit. the space has no open visual connection to any other units on the property. he is independently accessible through a entrance at the property south

side, and has been used as a separate and distinct living space. the project before you would abate this enforcement action, there is no known evidence of any evictions or buyouts at the subject property indicated by records by the rent board, as per an unauthorized dwelling unit. screening conducted by staff and records provided by the project sponsor. the last date of occupancy is declared to be april 2017. since then, the unauthorized unit has been reportedly vacant. staff conducted a site visit in both december 2021 and february 2024, and found that the space was unoccupied and uninhabitable on both site visits. to date, the department has received one inquiry about the scope of work proposed in the project. the department finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the objectives

and policies of the general plan, and meets the conditional use findings of planet planning code section 303 c, as well as the criteria and planning code. section 317 g2 for loss of unit by merger, as well as removal of unauthorized dwelling units. although the project will results in a loss of a dwelling unit, the removal of the unauthorized unit is necessary to address deficiencies in functionality and habitability of the space that cannot be otherwise corrected without significant construction costs. the increased cost to legalize is due to significant seismic requirements and foundation upgrades that would be necessary to bring the property into compliance with the building code. the project is compatible with the structure and its surrounding neighborhood, and not detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. as a two existing two family building will remain unaltered at the exterior and

the ground floor will be restored to its legal use, ensuring a code compliant use and of the space and addressing life safety concerns. this concludes staff presentations and the project sponsor team will continue with a few words. thank you, thank you project sponsor. you have five minutes for your presentation. if you're here. or not i thought i saw the project sponsor, but okay, maybe they're in the hall, but why don't we open up public comment? if anybody wants to thank you, speak to the matter, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. seeing no request to speak. public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you commissioners. vice president

moore, i've very carefully looked at the plans, and i find the removal, acceptable, particularly based on the fact that 368ft!s is a very, very small space to be really a comfortable, supportable, livable unit. and, i would move to approve with conditions unless the sponsor is here and wants to shed additional light for the commission. second. okay, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner brown i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppel i commissioner moore i commission president diamond i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0 placing us under your discretionary review calendar for items 13 a and b case number

2023 hyphen 004909 drp and var for the property at 1336 shotwell street. you will consider the discretionary review and the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance. vice president moore for the record, in the in the staff report, a name is mentioned of an individual who was my yoga teacher in the past. this particular person is not. the doctor requester is apparently in adjoining neighbor, my knowing this person for many years, but have not practiced with her for several years due to covid, makes me completely unencumbered of any kind of preferences, etc. and i can hear this case without any reservations. thank you. very good. good afternoon, commissioners david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated

request for discretionary review of permit application bill number 2023 .0911. 6003 45. that proposes to legalize an accessory dwelling unit and construct a horizontal front addition and a vertical addition to a two story single family building. the existing building is a c, not a resource. built in 1991. a bit of background. the subject lot and construction of this existing building was created by variances for minimum lot area, front setback, rear yard and usable open space as well as minimum off street parking. in that variance included conditions of approval that were recorded as on the property as notice of special restrictions. requiring that the project come back for any expansion through a variance process. this project triggers a new variance for two separate reasons one, the proposal will increase the height of the existing building within the required rear yard by raising the existing sloped roof. i'm

sorry, existing sloped roof to a flat roof and two a condition of the original variance permit. as mentioned, the requester carlena hanson of 1342 shotwell street, the adjacent property to the south, is concerned that the project is out of scale with surrounding properties and will impact privacy and create loss of light and air to adjacent properties. her proposed alternative is to construct a stairway that accesses the rear yard in lieu of the roof deck for open space, as well as denying the variance for expanding the building. to date, the department has received four letters in opposition from neighboring residents, as well as 33 letters in support of the project from indeterminate individuals. location of individuals. the project seeks to legalize an accessory dwelling unit, expand the second floor bay window at the front by squaring it off and square off the existing roof. gable roof and provide a 200 square foot

roof deck as assessed by open stairs from the floor below it. the resulting height increase is modest and over the existing footprint of the building, and since the original notification, the project sponsor has reduced reduced the roof deck by setting it back five feet from the adjacent property to the south. dr. requester's property, the roof, deck and railing are also set back from adjacent buildings and the front and rear yard, so as not to be significantly visible from the street and the proposed building expansion and location of the deck does not seem to pose any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. from the lens of residential design guidelines. therefore, staff deems that the there are no exceptional, extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review, this concludes my presentation and i understand i'd like to corey would like to make a few comments as well. thank you, just on the front end, i wanted to just address kind of the context of this since it's a little bit unique. it's not

unique necessarily to have a variance. and a doctor heard at the same time as mr. winslow mentioned, it's a little bit different in the sense that it had a more restrictive condition of approval that even if what the project was proposing is completely code compliant, would require it to come back for another variance, as you know, we're reviewing these project under different criteria, but one of those findings that the that's required for variance is having to do with the potential impacts the project may have on the surroundings. and part of that is kind of residential design guideline consistency. so while obviously we're not required to land on the same decision, when we have projects that require variance, but also a discretionary review, i definitely look and am interested in the, the opinions of the commissioners on design, residential design guidelines, those types of impacts to help inform any decision that i would make, but i just wanted to kind of be clear about that up front and acknowledge kind of the two

considerations that are happening at the same time and the prior condition, which makes this one a little bit different than typical. thank you. thank you, dr. requester. you have five minutes, i want to thank the commissioners and the planning department staff for your time today, i have asked for a discretionary review because i have considerable concerns about the impact that the project sponsors request to vertically and horizontally expand their property and add a roof deck. would have on my home, the north side of my home, where my wife and i live and work touches andy and jess's home at 1336 shotwell. the proposal would, as was stated, require the creation of a new variant. sorry to interrupt you, sfcv. can we go to the computer, please? i'll pause your time. go ahead. the proposal was would as stated, create require the creation of a new variance. in

essence overturning the 1991 variance that prohibited expansion due to the substandard size of the lot, and would also require a new variance to the rear yard setback requirement. our objection is not based on a hypothetical we have had the experience of an unpermitted deck on this property before, and it was incredibly disruptive. we were able to hear everything on that deck as if it were in our homes. even a cellphone conversation leading to many sleepless nights. the prior variance created an extraordinary and exceptional circumstance by approving a home on a lot that is too small, and the issues that we have had with the prior deck demonstrate that any new vertical or horizontal additions and a deck would have substantial impact on neighbors. andy has shared that he was very well aware of the issues with the prior deck when he purchased the home, but is now proposing a deck that is more than three times that size and the same

distance from my home as the prior deck. in addition, the access stairway to the deck does not comply with the planning department's recommended five foot setback and is adjacent to my bedroom wall. i'm entirely supportive of andy and jess's desire to legalize their edu, which has been almost continuously rented since they moved in, but they have alternatives to create access to outdoor space without having such a detrimental impact on neighbors, namely a stair to the backyard from the exterior or interior, which they have not seriously considered 100% of neighbors on the direct property line oppose this project. that amounts to nine people in total, all of whom have submitted letters and several will be represented in public testimony today. good afternoon, commissioners. brian o'neill, on behalf of the dr. requesters, as you've heard, the sponsors and the requesters properties were once one code complying lot

split into 2 in 1991, which required minimum lot size, rear yard and open space variances. as the wsa recognized that the house at 1336 was too large for the lot and placed a condition that required a new variance for any expansion, and this proposal must be understood in the context of a home that already fails to meet the planning code requirements. this home would not be allowed if it were proposed today. that alone is an extraordinary and exceptional circumstance. the sponsors justification for the variance is to add housing and provide open space for the main unit. first, the ground floor has been continuously rented as an independent unit for years, and the project legalized as an unpermitted unit as an adu and reduces the unit from a two bedroom to a studio. we support legalization, but the project cannot be characterized as adding housing. second, the

sponsors say the expansion is necessary to create a flat roof, so a new roof deck can be built for open space. let's not forget a variance was already approved to reduce open space and now it's being used to justify relief from the variance conditions. the sponsors say the main unit does not have access to the rear yard, which is a situation that was created when the ground floor was illegally converted to an independent unit, cutting off access. we propose an external stair as a rear yard access option that the sponsors acknowledge or is viable. they just don't want to do it. they ironically argue it would require a variance when the whole project already requires a variance. this is not the only other option they could provide an internal staircase which, with some adjustments to their floor plan, but the sponsors do not want to adjust their plan. they would rather

force the neighbors to bear the brunt of the impacts for their variance. these impacts are exceptional when understood in the context of a non-compliant structure that is already too large for the lot, which justifies taking dr. and requiring the sponsors to provide alternative rear yard access. thank you. thank you. project sponsor. you have a five minute presentation. hi i've never been to one of these before. pardon my ignorance, but i've watched a bunch of them in preparation, my name is andy. this is jess. we own the house at 1336 shotwell street. we've lived there for five years. this is the first house we've owned together. we just got married. you speak a little bit more into the microphone. i've pulled up because you're quite tall. thank you. yes. this is the first

house we've ever owned. a lot of these rules are new to me, we love san francisco. we love our neighborhood. we live in this house. we learned since buying it what happened in 1991 that jimmy jen owned the property, split it into two, and then sold both of them. great we are not developers. this isn't an investment for us. this is our home, we just want to legalize our downstairs unit and have a yard, just like all of our neighbors have, we knew there were issues with the house when we bought it. we bought what we could afford, and we're trying to fix those issues now. the downstairs is, is legal space and has been rented as a room in a shared home, not as a separate unit. and we're just trying to, but it doesn't have a kitchen in it. so we're trying to put a kitchen in our downstairs. and once we do that, then the upstairs has no access to outdoor space. and so we're trying to just rearrange the

existing space that we have to add a yard without expanding the footprint of the house. mason's going to talk through the details, but thank you for your attention. i appreciate it. thanks. good afternoon, commissioners. mason kirby. the project before you seeks to provide new, usable, open space for a primary residence and materially elevates the nature of equity with regard to the new adu that can be created within the existing envelope. the single family home, just one moment of context, the our subject home was built well before 1990. it was the predecessor home on the parcel from which the lot was split. and the dr. requester's home was built in 1991. let me go to. the overhead, please. the key

features of the project on the ground floor, shown in yellow, is an adu. it is existing permitted space, it is approximately 530ft!s. the green yard shown in the plan, is approximately 232ft!s of space. the depth of that yard is shorter than the distance between myself and commissioner diamond. it is very, very small. the second floor, has an existing stair, a variety of rooms. no changes are proposed at the back of the building. i would highlight that there is a kitchen, a washroom and a bathroom. on the existing upper floor, the portion of the plan area that we are increasing the height is designated in blue. and the roof area under consideration that we are creating, is toned in green.

it's a 200 square foot roof deck, and the nature of the existing stair below informed where we could easily or reasonably put a stair ascending to this rooftop deck. we would also mention, that a portion of the motivation to increase the volume of the building to get a flat roof was to, move in the direction of accommodating information sheet ego two, which dropped last month, that talks about over roof access for rescue. for comparison's sake, i would share with you an aerial view of the inner block space. the subject property is shown in red and each of the arrows is an

existing structured above grade deck. so there is a mixed character, for the entire block space and it would not be irregular or exceptional to have outdoor structured open space. in regards to the question of an alternative stair location, we did in fact study it. the dr. requester's proposal is penned, boy, this is tough. being tall is penned with solid line. the dr. requester's proposed stair location would require a firewall on two property lines. we have looked at it. that is your time. okay, but the commissioners may have follow up questions. and you do have a two minute rebuttal. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. please come forward. you'll each have two minutes. yeah. good afternoon. i'm mike bouton i own 249 cedar which

speak into the microphone, sir. sorry. good afternoon. i'm. my name is mike bouton. i own the adjacent lot to the west, and i did not appeal the 91 variance that allowed a second dwelling to be built along my east property line at 249. proceeded because of the clear restrictions that were put in place to provide protection for privacy, light and noise for all adjacent properties. the project sponsor is seeking a variance on top of an existing variance in order to create a large roof deck, essentially an outdoor living room that expands the horizontal and vertical envelope and overturns the agreement i made with the city of san francisco back in 1991. there's a simple solution for addressing outdoor space build a stairway, internal or external, down to the back garden, if that space is insufficient. the city of san francisco offers a fantastic alternative to proceed a park. it's a block away. thank you.

again, if you're in the chambers and wish to speak, please come forward. you can line up on the screen side of the room to your right. good afternoon. my name is carrie mclaughlin. i also reside at 2494 cedar avenue. andy and jess purchased their home in november 2018, knowing it came with a small backyard space. it also came with a downstairs space with no interior stair access from the main living area. that space has been rented out almost continually since andy and jess bought their house, and not to a roommate, but to visiting nurses , and we have documentation for that. we don't have a quarrel with the undocumented dwelling below. what we are opposed to is using the conversion of their lower unit to an adu as a workaround to overturn the 1991 variance. their decision to rent their lower floor and forego their outdoors access for the past four plus years is simply that their choice. converting

that space to an adu does not require a variance which overturns a prior agreement. the city made with my husband back in 1991, according to sf building code, they can forego the 125 square foot outdoor space requirement when they legalize the adu. they can also place an interior stairway from their main floor down to the existing outdoor space and continue to use it, and exterior stairways. and another alternative, both would satisfy the objections of all near neighbors to the project and i might add, the 33 letters in support of the andy engesa's project. did not any of them come from near neighbors? many of them come from all over the all over the world. not not most of them do not come from near neighbors. perhaps 1 or 2 do, but it's disingenuous. today, 33 people are for this project, and we ask that the variance be denied. thank you. i'm going to ask people to respect others time under public comment and

not interrupt them. next speaker, please. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is karen kircher. i've lived at 1350 shotwell street since june of 1992. thank you. rent control. i live on the corner of priscilla and share fences with both parties seeking this. doctor karina hanson and michael boughton. michael and his family lived here when i moved in and one karina bought her house. she replaced a string of really repulsive renters. i met andy greenwood and jess nguyen about five years ago when they bought their home. they came by to introduce themselves and give me a bottle of wine, which i think they did with all of the neighbors. carla and ronnie and andy and jess are the kind of neighbors you appreciate. we look out for each other and what goes on on our block. i've enjoyed holiday dinners and other meals with both couples in

their homes, met their families and friends, and was a guest at both of their weddings. this roof deck project has been going on for three years, during which there have been many meetings between andy, karina and michael . andy has proposed solutions to their concerns and concessions to move forward, but then the goalpost moves and another issue comes up and another. now karina wants andy's outdoor space to be in the backyard. that's the same level as her master bedroom, separated by a fence. how will that be quieter or more private than if andy's space is three four floors up? michael's double lot and deck provide him with a huge amount of outdoor space. kalina's deck hot tub with shower and garden offer ground floor master bedroom. provide her with a nice social space where they entertain, including projecting movies on the side of andy's house. how do i know this

? we live in a city. we live on top of each other. i open my bedroom curtain and overlook or look into all of catalina's yard and most of michael's. when they have anyone over or just sit on their or on their phones, i know it. what do i do? i close the back door and windows, maybe turn the tv up that is, i live in a city and i expect it. ma'am, that is your time. i ask you that you deny this, doctor. thank you. hello. i'm maddie and i support this project. i've lived upstairs at 1336 shotwell street since 2021, when i relocated from boston on shotwell street was the first place i lived. it was my introduced my introduction to san francisco and bernal heights. i love the neighborhood. the house is great and the roommates are great, but it's a shame that we don't have our own space to go sit outside

on one of the few warm, sunny days we have here in san francisco, i want to grow herb. herb gardens and tomatoes and peppers and things that i did in my last dwelling, and i love being able to go to proceed to park and sit and read a book. but it's not the same as having the outdoor space that you have in your own home. i've never come to a meeting like this before, but i had to speak up in support of this project. it seems like such a small change, but it would have a big improvement on our house. and i encourage you to approve the variance and not take discretionary review. thank you. hi guys, i'm ella, thanks for taking time to hear us all today, i'm brand new resident at jess and andy's, but a longtime friend, and i think they're just. i mean, they're wonderful people, wonderful neighbors, like you've heard, but i think andy once told me that part of why they rent out their space or their rooms in their house is because he cares so much about

building community, and i think, like you can see you're going to hear from lots of present and past residents about like, how well he really does that. and i think that's so special for someone who can't get their own home and has to rent, in a city that it's not that easy to do it in, beyond that, i think that, i've spent the last two years working as a therapist in a homeless shelter, and it's really disheartening to know that, like, no matter what i do, we are not going to solve the housing crisis unless we start approving additional units and allowing for more housing for people like us who need to rent or, you know, just people who want to move to this city that is losing residents rapidly, i think there's so many reasons that you should not go through with a doctor. thank you. good afternoon. thank you so much for your time. so we're pablo brazil and elena vienna, and we're here to support this

project. we are not valley residents, and we frequently visit in bernal heights. andy and jess, we moved from madrid and back in 22, 2022. and we're part of the people from all over the world. but i think that brings a very fresh perspective of different cities towards this beautiful city of san francisco. this bernal heights was the first neighborhood we visited in san francisco, and if it wouldn't have been for andy and jess warm welcome, we'd probably have not ended up living in the city to begin with. they are hard working and caring neighbors. they focus on nurturing and inclusive and welcoming community, and a sole component of this is their home. this project would be. this project would be an investment for the city, providing them a providing them and future tenants with a housing experience with a high standards expected from a city like san francisco. so yeah, it's not easy to find quality house to accommodate all the people who want to live here. san francisco needs housing. we are lucky to have found a place with outdoor space, and for us, this is a

must. when we think in our future house. not to mention how important is a private open space for mental health. we are here to support this project and encourage you to approve the variance and not take discretionary review. thank you. thank you. hello, my name is mallory and i am a traveling health care worker. i am in support of this project because eddie and jess let me live in their downstairs unit. when i got sent here from san diego. i work in a very niche field. i specialize in pediatric traumatic blood transfusion compatibility testing. i'm a clinical immuno hematologist scientist, and i have to be sent to certain cities on travel contracts to work at the hospitals to help improve them, and i had never been to san francisco before, and annie and jess were my very first experience here, and they

treated me not only like a friend, but like family. and unfortunately, i had to move out of the downstairs unit very recently as of last week, because i did not have a kitchen and i work up to 20 hours a day sometimes, and i was not able to make meals for myself at like four in the morning or three in the morning. after saving a child's life. so i would never have moved out of the unit because they truly did become very good friends of mine. and i really loved the beautiful neighborhood, but it was just not. i don't have a kitchen, i don't have an outdoor space, i don't have anything. so i am. i support this project. thank you. good afternoon everybody, my name is gabriel lamari. this is my wife, talita sosa, kind of just like everybody else, our first time living in san francisco is with andy and jess. they kind of introduced us to the community. actually. they had gotten to know everybody

before then, and we all shared meaningful conversations and meals together, which i think is a strong foundation for a place that people want to live in a good community. andy has always kind of taken the time to, do his due diligence and be very accommodating to his neighbors. and in fact, i helped him install some acoustic treatment downstairs for this exact reason, because he's, you know, things that were within his control, i know that he would, do his due diligence and make sure that everybody was accommodated for, talita and i are married, and, we live in bay view now, but we go back to shotwell street all the time to hang out with andy and jess there, the house is special to us because it helped us find a community in san francisco. andy and jess are very community oriented, they're always feeding

us and anybody else that shows up. but the point is that we've lived in a few different spots in the house. the downstairs would be better if it had a kitchen, it's kind of crazy that it doesn't, the upstairs would be better if it had a yard, but the downstairs yard is too small to share. it's really small. putting a deck in the, putting a deck on the roof and kitchen in the ground floor space is the right thing to do. i think you should let them do it. it's good for the city and it's good for the house. that's exactly why we encourage you to approve the variance and not take doctor. my name is talita. i lived in shotwell from april 2020 to december 2021, and i, andy and jess have been extremely committed to the community, to the neighborhood. they're very considerate people and i support this project. they deserve to have more space. thank you. good

afternoon and thank you for your time. commissioners my name is suzette levine. this this is my partner, kurt ahnlund, and we both grew up in the bay area. we support this project because san francisco, first and foremost, needs more housing. also, we value our own outdoor space greatly and think it's an important part of city living. no matter how many parks there are, there is something very special about being in your own outdoor space. the project has both items. you'll get a new unit of housing in increase outdoor space in the city. it's the right thing for andy and jess home. it's the right thing for san francisco. so we encourage you to approve the variance and not take discretionary review. thank you.

hi. good afternoon. my name is emily and i'm a renter in the dolores heights area. i've lived in san francisco as a renter for ten years. i'm a frequent guest at 1336 shotwell, and i'm very familiar with their home and the neighborhood, and i'm in support of this project because i believe san francisco needs more housing, and the downstairs unit has always felt incomplete without a full kitchen. andy and jess have even tried over multiple years to convince me to move in, but the lack of a full kitchen downstairs has prevented me from doing so. a small change of adding a full kitchen would significantly improve the space and be more accommodating to a wider range of residents. additionally, i'm in support of the roof deck renovation, because i think access to outdoor space will increase the residents quality of life. the addition of this private outdoor space creatively transforms unused space to be utilized for recreation without altering surrounding buildings or affecting the neighborhood. justin andy care a lot about the neighborhood and the surrounding community, and i have good faith

that they are undertaking this project responsibly and considerately. i believe the request is reasonable, and i encourage you to approve the variance and not take daca. thanks for your time. good afternoon, i'm theresa lopez, born and raised, second generation san franciscan and a homeowner in mission bernal. i have lived in mission bernal for 45 years and neighbors with jess and andy multiple years. bernal mission has a very unique setting. the houses and lots all differ greatly. i support jess and andy's project because san francisco is always in need of housing and outdoor space. this project has both a new unit and outdoor space for jess and andy. we all deserve an outdoor area to enjoy enjoy at our own homes. i fully am support my neighbors

and jess and andy in their project. i encourage you all to approve this variance and not take a doctor. thank you. good afternoon. my name is alex garcia. i live on the north side of the project. i, i am an architect and a contractor. i visualize the project for this reason. i see the impact this volume will have, especially on the north side. i did a shadow study to confirm the reduction of sunlight. especially. are you their architect? i am, no, i'm not the sponsor. okay. i am an architect as well. okay i did a shadow study to confirm the reduction of sunlight, especially in the winter months. there are two needs here. outdoor space and housing. the outdoor access can be accomplished rebuilding the

original stairs that led the upper unit to their patio. the lower unit has been an active part of the housing market for many years, so we're not adding anything in this regard. this may set precedent, creating a loophole, circumventing basic guidelines that establish building envelope to lot ratio. this lot is too small for these full extensions. thank you. can i have the overhead, please? sf govtv. no. not that not the computer. the overhead, the thing. like in junior high school. yeah, thanks. okay, so this is the 311. it's a vertical and horizontal, addition from the 311. and my, my issue is i don't have an issue with any of either side. my concern is that,

this relates to the doctors assert project with certain scopes of work, and there were no demo counts for this project, and they were apparently deemed unnecessary. and i think that demo calc should be required on all alterations that include a horizontal and vertical expansion, as described on this cover sheet. the checklist at intake should include the 317 box to be filled in and project sponsor should be required to provide calcs when they have this type of scope. planning staff is doing concurrent review with dbi and is involved at the start of the application. when it's not a burden or constraint, it can be done via bluebeam or other applications used by professional, highly trained project sponsors, architects, public staff and the commission need this information to ensure that the project is code compliant. it's important baseline information during the construction of the project, and it's particularly necessary for the pegs which this project is

just adjacent to. if i can continue with the overhead. this is from kelly wong and chaska burgers. fabulous document that everybody should read who's not, who's doing a project and the, the removal of the roof is even though it's a vertical expansion, it's canted horizontally. so this is over, i think 30% degree. so that should be counted. and then as this handout, this page from the handout shows is that if you take off the roof, even if it's less than 50, it may meet it, but you still should complete the table to see what the vertical is. and this one does have, some changes on the facades. so that should be looked at. i don't think it's a demolition based on my amateur knowledge, but i think the demo calc should be there for every project. it they weren't there for a project on anza a few weeks ago, so that's my point. thank you. sorry last call for

public comment. final last call for public comment. seeing no request to speak. public comment is closed. oh, excuse me, dear requester, you have a two minute rebuttal. a few quick points, first, there was a notice of special restrictions in nov on this property when they purchased the property. so they understood the situation when they purchased the property. and i think we can all in this room agree that we all support housing and we all support legalizing the adu. that's not what this daca request is about. it's about the expansion and the impact on neighbors and the neighbors. also understand the necessity for access to open space, which is why we've

proposed alternatives to provide access to the existing rear yard, you heard from the project architect how compact it is back there. and you've also heard from the directly adjacent neighbors how impactful this expansion will be because of how compact it is. again due to that 1991 variance. so we have proposed some alternatives that the neighbors support. if i could get the screen real quick, one of those options is an external stair option, which there are lots of external stairs in the adjacent neighborhood. another option is. i guess, an internal staircase from the second floor down to the, rear rear yard. it would take a little bit of, reconfiguring the floor plans,

but that's another viable option that, again, would not impact neighbors. but if the planning commission is inclined to approve this project, we would ask that at least it complies with the code. so we would request that you remove the rear yard, the expansion that is within the rear yard. and we would also ask that you require for the roof deck to be completely set back five feet from the property line, including the access way, and also to minimize it to the minimum 125 square foot open space requirement. a project sponsor. you have a two minute rebuttal. thank you for your time again. i want to highlight a proposal that we received from a northerly neighbor, alex. that we actually presented to the requester. if i could have the overhead, please. we proposed

modifying the proposal to not square off the back of the renovation, because this is the view from alex's room. the requester did not rejected this out of hand. so i think the issue has to do with access to stairs and access and open space . i want to share with you, a quick diagram. that describes three potential locations and the amount of space that they would actually take up in this rear yard, it's material and significant in terms of an l-shaped stair that would in all cases require a fire property line wall, another stair option that we considered was a stair that would nest underneath the existing ascending stair down into the lower unit, this would take approximately 10% of the

open space away, 10% of the usable space in the adu down below. so we did study this. we tried to come up with options and we felt like this was the best way forward to add housing and increase access to more open space on a constrained lot. and i'm happy to answer your questions. if you have any follow up. great. thank you. with that, commissioners, this matter is now before you. thank you very much to the dr. requester, and to the project applicant for the detailed plans and to all of the people who showed up to testify. i really appreciate the input, i, i actually before i proceed, it looks like mr. teague wants to say something. sure. thank you. if you don't mind, just to clarify some aspects of the variance before we get into further deliberation, because i think it's just helpful to set that stage because, clearly,

when all the variances that were required to split this lot and create two substandard lots, the property was zoned rh two. so it was to further allow a second unit, but in a different layout, understood that it was creating substandard lots. and as was mentioned in the case report, one of the conditions was that each of these single family homes then could not add another unit. and the reason for that, and we've talked about this before, is that the code prohibits variances for density. and so if you take a standard lot and subdivide it into substandard lots, and they're both rh two, you kind of took that property and took it from two units to four units, etc. so, but as was mentioned in the case report, one thing that has changed since that time is state law around adus, so the addition of an adu pursuant to state law would be permitted. and regardless of that condition of approval, and clearly, because of the very tight context of this space, the zoning

administrator at the time approved it, but had very specific conditions of approval, to try to address that context. but at the same time, there is a provision there to allow future proposals, right? it doesn't say nothing is required. you couldn't do that legally, you know, so there is an opportunity to come forth and ask for something, beyond what was originally approved, i would say that in this case, you know, all things being equal, if you take the context of this away, the rear area is very tight, especially if you're going to have two units using that for open space. i mean, that's a legitimate issue, we clearly we allow roof decks in general, and especially whenever they're designed in a way to minimize impact. and i think obviously as we get more and more projects that in situations where we now allow more density, there's going to be more and more need

for balconies and roof decks and open space that's not just in the required rear yard and, and shared, so i the addition of a rear stair down would be a different variance. and i would have some concerns about that from that perspective. but i do think that there's a lot of things going on at once, and there's definitely a, you know, a possibility of granting a variance for something reasonable, i would tend to say, though, that the part of the proposal that's actually an expansion within the required rear yard, is harder to justify. just so that component, because that is essentially asking for more in the required rear yard than what was originally proposed, but for the components that are in the permitted buildable area, i think there's, you know, more conversation to be had on that. thank you. thank you. and i appreciate the context. and it reflects sort of my thinking about this project,

which i'm share. and then i'm interested in hearing how the other commissioners respond to this, which is we do live in a dense urban environment. we are trying to increase density, the rear yard is really small, and i could see supporting this project. i'm also in favor of roof decks, and we're going to see more of those proposals. what i'm having a really hard time with is, the part of the roof expansion that extends into the rear yard. it doesn't feel like it's necessary for the roof. it's where you're planning on putting solar panels. if i understand correctly. and so i don't really see the need for that, and i think i could see if , if there were four votes for it taking, i guess would we have to take doctor in order to approve the project but eliminate, the part that extends into the rear yard? that's

correct. okay, so that's my current thinking, but i'd be curious to hear where other commissioners are. vice president moore, this is probably this is probably one of the more complicated projects i've heard in a long, long time because i generally consider variances like a form of a civic contract, which creates a framework in which we all operate with, with each other under certain conditions that apply to all for everybody who showed up to support jess and andy, if i may use your first names, i do not know your second names. i think that is wonderful. i appreciate young urban dwellers who really understand community. you seem to have many people who you have facilitated coming to the city. this is all greatly appreciated. but guess what, unfortunately that does not weigh into the obligations that we have here to

establish an equal playing field for everybody. there are many, many situations similar to yours, and these become increasingly more difficult, projects to review, partially with the overlay of new rules from sacramento, it becomes almost impossible to hold up of what i refer to as a civic contract being a variance. and if i simply read through the staff report, there are six aspects of the previous variance which clearly set out limitations and rules that were accepted by everybody on the block and all of a sudden we are in a new framework. the rules of the game have the rules of the game have changed, and we also to objectively judge on that. coming to the point, i would like to see the owner and the applicant, to try to come up with a solution where there is

indeed a minimal impact on no additional variances that may imply by holding back the extension over the open space, or that may, add a internal stair that still gets people downstairs. i believe that, the open space by square footage i think would meet the code even in its current configuration. i'm not sure why i'm saying this, but i'm going to say it anyway, i live in a 12 unit building where we together as 12 unit occupants, has probably, 24 people share a roof deck that is not more than 120ft!s. and we take turns and we all enjoy it at different times. we all have different lifestyles. sometimes we are up there together, but,

it is hard not to say that an urban expansion necessarily requires adding more open space at the expense of others when there is already on, on, site, an open space. i i like the notion of sharing, and i think that even a small backyard is sufficiently enough for others to share. i'm trying to make a point that i would like the requester, together with the owner, asking for an expansion to find a way to accommodate a change to the property, without asking for a further variance. commissioner brown. this is indeed kind of complicated. and i really appreciate the comments that have been made so far, i do also agree with the general principle that we should be trying to limit the extent of the variance that would be required, especially for the additions, and that the addition

itself, in terms of, taking the entire peaked roof to a flat roof, it looks like it's necessary just to get that outdoor open space in the roof deck, which, i understand why that's the why that would be of interest, but it it doesn't feel like a really strong reason to, to do that, i do have a question for fire department staff. i'm curious about, so the roof deck that would be built is 200ft!s. what's the number that's trying to be solved for here in terms of the additional open space? i just for context, for me, sure. in this district, when all districts, we have minimum requirements for open space per unit, and the requirements are different if it's private open space or if it's commons, if you have more than one unit sharing the space. so for in rh two for private it has to be, 125ft. and the space needs to be at least

ten by ten in dimensions. so you don't have a long, narrow space that's not particularly useful. so that would be the bare minimum, is minimum dimension ten feet and 125ft!s total. so f this word just this is hypothetical, but let's say that the outdoor open space requirement was being satisfied through the current basic configuration of what's sort of planned here, if the roof deck were 125ft instead of 200ft, is that what would meet the requirement or right? that would be the minimum size necessary. again, with the minimum ten foot dimension, to not trigger a new open space variance. essentially and obviously that's the, the need for that is the addition of the state, adu at the bottom, which is preventing the access to the rear yard, even though that rear yard itself has some amount of compliant open space, but not enough. it's too it's too small to meet the full requirement now. right. and the variance we can you can grant a

variance. if you were so to choose. you can grant a variance for the open space. is that correct. well right now they're not proposing an open space variance because they're proposing a roof deck that more than meets what the planning code would require, that the only, part of the project that is kind of a traditional variance trigger is taking the rear portion of the sloped roof that's in the required rear yard and popping it up. so that's a vertical expansion within the required rear yard kind of regardless of the past conditions that would trigger a variance. so that's the only physical thing that's triggering the variance, other than the fact that the condition of approval for the original variance said any additions, whether they're co compliant or not, given the context of the original project, would require a new variance, i see. okay. thank you very much for clarifying that. so i, i might think a little bit more to actually make a motion, but, i agree with the principle that i would prefer not to see the

variance. i prefer not to see the expansion of the roof to the flat roof and the required rear yard area that would be triggering the variance, so i would certainly also agree with the idea of trying to find an alternative solution that would not require that that variance, if i understand correctly, if you take off the part that's in the rear yard, they have a code complying deck on the roof, the 200ft would meet it. so, i'm not sure if you're saying that they still need to get together to do something or if you're saying if they take off the part in the rear yard, you're okay with what they're proposing on the roof, which does meet the open space requirement. i think my compromise solution here would be that the deck is of the minimum required size, and the rear yard addition would not be included. okay, commissioner imperial. yeah. this is a very

complicated, project because the way that this back in 1991, the subdivision is really created in a way for, one single family home. i mean, and so we so now we with the new state law and also with the addition of the state adu, it complicates the, you know, the, the access to rear yard, therefore creating another roof deck, but i also, you know, of course, as part of the planning committee as being a member of the planning commission and the previous decisions have made by the planning itself, the number four condition that is no expansion. and the fact that that, you know, that this was part of novi, you know, there's a notice of special restriction when the owner bought this and something that had should have been taken in consideration as well. i

mean, that's where i'm kind of like looking into into this, case right now in terms of the but at the same time, you know, if, you know, i'm more leaning whether the project sponsor and the requester can come into some form of meeting in a way that because i also don't want to trigger another variance as well. however, if there's going to be another variance meeting on this decision, i would support a minimum size of the roof deck, which is 100 to 125ft!s, that would also where the staircase is not part of that 125ft!s, and it, it should be the staircase should be something that is outside and something smaller as well that would not impact the requester, so this is where i'm leaning at. it's either the, the requester

and the project sponsor coming to agree in terms of the access of the rear yard. and if there is going to be a variance, is the minimum requirement for the roof deck. thank you, commissioner braun, did you miss me? sorry, that was from before. okay vice president moore, mr. winslow, have you taken a pencil and try to sketch out of what we're asking for? or at least what i hear people are talking about holding the roof back from being extended over the portion of the rear yard, which would require the variance, reducing the roof deck to 125ft!s. and i would ask that we keep the roof deck further off the property line, with a small bridge connecting the stair to the where the roof deck starts. so

the roof deck would be more independent from the property. wall, in order to deal with light, noise or privacy impacts, i'm only sketching as i hear these things. so, yes, sketching, but one of the challenges with the obtaining a code compliant open space via that roof deck within these parameters is, you know, holding it five feet off the property line. great. ten foot square in each direction to get to 125ft!. i don't have a scale on me. i think it's achievable. but, we hear you. it's pretty clear the direction that seems to be heading seems to be pretty clear , i like to ask the architect for the, applicant, if he has sketched that up. and just quickly, i'm so pregnant with, like. oh, dear. oh, i'm not the requester. no, no, oh, no and no

. you asked the applicant. no, i asked for the applicant's architect, if i could tag team on that. just while you're explaining that because i know you're proposing the emergency escape. and so i didn't. and like you said, that's a fairly new thing. i really need an interpretation that acknowledged it in a way. so it's fairly new. but i do want to make sure that we understand if that is somehow required under the building code by what you're proposing. so if that even if there needs to be some acknowledgment or some work done to access that while still maintaining a sloped roof, that we're accounting for that. so if you can, in response to like, have you thought about the sloped roof maintaining in the rear and how would that impact the eero? yeah, and the general picture, a project that is not square off the last eight feet of the building, that doesn't do this. is something that we have studied and considered. sefcovic, can we go to the overhead, please? that doesn't

do this. we recognize that this is part of this is the one thing that triggers a sort of nested variance, the sort of necessary variance by right today. and that is something that our client and our team is willing to walk back and say, that's not a not an issue. we've put it in front of the requester. and they said, no, we don't know what's going to make a win for the requester, i think in this particular instance, making the deck smaller is also something that we are happy to accommodate. if there's a numerical value that we're trying to get to, it is just a rectangle in that respect. so i just wanted to communicate the conversations that we have had, in terms of a design professional and a client, we are open to those options, i will tell you that the dropping of the it's ego two or is it fso two? i'm going to get it right. is it ego two. thank you. yeah. the dropping of the ego two, it's for you. it's also new to

me. i wonder how many flat roofed homes there are going to be. i cannot speak affirmatively as to whether or not, building. it's very new to us in some respects. so in light of the fact that it was new to us, we saw that there was an opportunity to extend the flat roof from a structural efficiency perspective. but then when that ego two dropped, we said, hey, wait a second, we have a 9 to 12 roof pitch existing. it needs to be a 412 roof pitch to a get over roof rescue access. let's keep it square in some respects. and that is after we proposed to the requester that we not square it. and they told us no. so, so to answer your question directly, corey, it's early days for us to be honest with you. if you have to ask me right now, my money or my life, i'm going to tell you that there are two components to the ego two worksheet. one has to do with rescue and the other has to do with there's two components to it and an over roof. rescue does not satisfy the escape component of the way

that code is being applied. so back, back, back to my point. you're getting into minutia detail. that's ultimately the responsibility of the fire department. and d.b, unfortunately, we can only basically use that as the d.b. and fire will look at that later. we need to stick to our guns here in terms of what we can support relative to the doctor request that's in front of us. i appreciate what you are saying, but it gets me back to my point that i believe that there need to be alternative ways found between the doctor requester and the applicant, with the applicant and the doctor requester to find some internal stair or access to the garden that we currently have not seen. so that is where i stand in order to, deal with the difficulty of what is in front of us here. that a motion, yes. i would like some more input from the architect. can you come

back up for a second? if we were to approve, taking doctor, and saying eliminate the portion of the flat roof that's in the rear yard, and reduce the deck to the minimum size that's required, which is 125ft. can you come up with a solution that meets the. evo two requirements? yes. and it would be to not call that back room a bedroom. in essence, we have a qualifying rooms and other portions of the dwelling. it's literally the higher and best definition of a bedroom that would compel that trigger. and that is something that we've talked about with the client, and we're prepared to accommodate and is what it is. okay. thank you. i don't know if anybody seconded, commissioner moore's motion, but i would i wouldn't be in favor of what commissioner moore proposed, but i would be in favor of a motion

that i think commissioner braun was getting close to, which was to eliminate the portion that taghdir and eliminate the portion that's over the rear deck. i mean, that's in the rear yard and reduce the roof deck to the, minimum size that's required to meet the open space requirements. i'm not sure, commissioner braun, if that's the direction you were headed in, but that's what i would support. mr. teague. yeah. thank you. i wanted to touch on that point. exactly which is to me, after hearing everything and considering it, and there seems to be, you know, i think, consensus on a roof deck, but a reduced roof deck to minimize the impact as much as possible, because that takes care of the open space requirement. i see the introduction of a rear stair as a net negative because, again, it's going to reduce that area and it's going to create a very tight space where that ground floor adu that's the sum

of the only access it has. and so it creates real challenges that we've seen in other projects where you have open space accessible by multiple units, but it's directly right out the front window or back window of units and bedrooms, etc, so to me, the addition of the stair, obviously if there was an internal stair, it wouldn't trigger a variance if it was an external stair, it would. i don't think i would support the external stair, and i would be, i think i would be comfortable from a variance perspective with, a scenario that you just referenced as a potential motion. if i'm, if i may ask, i would be interested in considering that, but i have to see that in some form or another to see what i mentioned, because the impact on the doctor request is still not clear to me. it's going to be looking kind of awkward, and i would really like to know of what that physically looks like. i just have a difficult time envisioning it, particularly because it's only eight feet. i

would second, commissioner moore, motion on. you do it. i'm waiting to see if we're having drawings produced over here . this is .

mr. teague, do you want to enlighten us on what we're talking about? that was a little unusual, well, i don't want to speak for commissioner moore, but what i. what i thought i heard just now was that, again, with the with the roof deck redesign, the details matter and

it's. we can express the sentiment here, the principles. but your preference would be to have that mocked up more specifically, so that not only can the commissioners and i review the details of that and the specific dimensions and how far it is off the property line, etc, but also so that the doctor requester has an opportunity to review that, and so that you're kind of comfortable with that in principle. but on the final decision, you would want to see, you know, a mocked up set of plans that everyone can refer to specifically for us. as we said earlier, it's a learning experience because we never had this. the state is forcing us to look at this differently, which parses which creates challenges for all of us, for our zoning administrator, for our staff architect, and including ourselves as commissioners. and i think it's fair to give ourselves the reflective time supporting the project in many aspects, but see how a more mutually agreeable solution can

be developed based on challenges that this commission has posed, and that the architect, as well as the zoning administrator seem to be wanting to take forward. commissioner braun, i am in support of the general principle that, that the parties should come together and continue to work together to find a mutually agreeable solution, i would have been okay moving forward with just the deck, solution, but it sounds like that is still, in a way, potentially on the table. it's just there is a process that is going to have to go here. if this were to. i'm just trying to think procedurally, like, would this come back to us , if there was, if this continued and no solution was found and, there remains an alternative that has the deck, let's say, just like they

couldn't find another way. and i think that's the question before the commission right now, because you have the ability to take the plans that have been before. you take doctor and verbally, adopt conditions of approval that require them to make changes to that project. and you don't have plans that show those changes in front of you right now. right. but you can do that. that's a that's a choice that you have the process after that would be that they would have to submit revised plans that met those conditions of approval adopted by the planning commission, i think what commissioner moore is wanting is just the inverse of that, which is to have those plans drawn up before a final decision is made, because the details of those plans, the details around the deck, i think the deck is generally supportive in its by everyone in its smaller state, but the details are important enough that there's a preference to have that work kind of done and presented to the commission and to myself to review the details of that roof deck, so that then the final decision can be made

to either approve exactly what was revised or if there's additional tweaks that the commission decides to make, it can be based off those, revised set of plans on the front end instead of having it done after the fact. thank you for that. so, so as long as this is still something that, we're not precluding the some form of this project moving forward and that we have the opportunity to potentially review future plans, then i can support the motion. can i ask the project architect to come back up? how long do you think you would need, to satisfy , you know, the what the comments you've heard here and to come back with a set of revised drawings from a practical standpoint, we have a couple of versions already in the can that address what you're talking about. and it was a matter, frankly, if i'm being frank, of having a series of conversations with the doctor requester that was even including a roof deck in any respect, so that really short

circuited our ability to come up with different options. and in this particular instance, we said, okay, we're just going to go with the project that we have and we're armed and ready to be malleable with it. so we are welcome. and open to your question of time, it can be of the essence from my perspective. so i can imagine next, the next, you know, in a month, if you want, two weeks. sure. that's fine. thank you. two weeks. two weeks. as we have a thursday off. so it would be three weeks, two weeks to come back here. i mean, is this a continuance of this item? what is this. yeah, it would be a continuance, so that the project sponsor could submit revised plans that are consistent with the comments of the commission. the two week, if there is a hearing in two weeks, that would basically be asking the sponsor to submit those plans within a week. so that we could those plans have to be submitted by tomorrow for me to finish my case report by monday. nope thank you. i mean, well,

no, no, that would be a one week. that would be a one week continuance. yeah i mean to me. yeah. commissioners next, next week. unfortunately all items except for your informational item is being continued. so you have one item on your regular calendar next week. it seems as though if the project sponsor came next week with proposed changes that were agreeable to the requester, that would be sufficient as long as you saw them. i'm not sure seeing them that much in advance, and maybe they could be distributed a week in advance or or electronically. yeah. i also if not then then we should continue it two weeks. my honest comment involving the doctor requester is that they represent more than just one person, and so being able to establish a sense of decision support through a variety of folks can be complicated. so if you wanted a revision, i got six right. i can show you now, but if you want a revision that the

doctor requester is going to be happy with, i don't think we're asking you to come back. or at least i'm not asking you to come back with something that meets all of the doctor requesters, concerns. we gave you the parameters, and we'd like to see what it looks like. that's the direction that i think you heard a number of commissioners talk about. it would be lovely if you met with the doctor requester, but i don't think we're requiring you to meet all of the doctor requesters concerns. we're saying, you know, take off the rear part that's in the that you'd need a variance for. and get it down to 125ft. yes, yes. and try to deal with the stairway or at least that the access way, but i don't think we're saying you have to get sign off from off the doctor requester. that's fair. i guess my office is. our job is to decide whether or not we're satisfied with that. yeah. i mean, my office is 600ft from these neighbors, and so i want nothing more than at the end of this for them to be neighbors. so commissioner diamond, could we for one second also ask the doctor requester if they're

willing to get a running start on this interpretation, and we can work together with the doctor requester or go ahead, commissioner, representative, come to speak to that. we would like to resolve this. we believe there is a middle ground. thank you. and i appreciate that this is a pretty difficult case. so, the appreciate the extended consideration and thoughtful comments. and the input from mr. kirby, the, the project sponsor, i'm amenable to having additional conversations. i am, appreciate the will of the commission to consider the smaller deck, the pulling off the 45, i think there are two additional considerations i'm curious about. one is pulling the stairway off of my direct property line, which abuts my bedroom, and also, if there's a possibility to look at the exterior interior stair option more closely, i understand that that differs a little bit more from what we've been discussing

here. but, of course, that would be our preference. yeah. i will say for me, i don't believe this continuance is to work on the interior stairway, that the continuance i will support a continuance for a week, if that's what's being proposed. but i don't think you need to spend that time for me on the interior stairway. i think we gave you, direction about the other issues. so i'll just leave it at that. is there a motion that commissioner brand that you want to make? i mean, commissioner moore made a motion so. commissioner brown, would you like to try to make a motion based on everything we have done? you seem to be, agreeing with part of it, and i'll. i'll chime in. would you like to try to summarize and make a motion? sure. i think the new motion is a continuance. and so i would move to continue this. i, i am a little worried about trying to get this in in a week, so well, let's ask staff how much time

they think they need. yes really? just taking a page report. okay. no case report is required for this. you're just reviewing drawings that are being revised by the project sponsor and having them present it. so if they can do that within a week, and then and maybe submit it to us electronically so we can forward it on to you. so at least you get a day or two ahead of time to review it. okay, so i would move to continue the item for a week, and in that time we would ask the project sponsor, i would say the project sponsor to sketch out the scenario in which , it reflects the comments and the position of not having an expansion in the rear yard and also shrinking the deck and pulling it back from the property lines, but also looking at and maybe bringing forward the an alternative solution that has an interior stair. and this i think is satisfying a couple of different directions of the

requests. okay. is there a second for that. second second. yeah. i'm not going to support that because i don't think they should look at the interior stairs in this week. i think they should pursue the solution. we gave them direction on. and if they can find a satisfactory solution that meets us for, you know, our votes, that's fine. if they can't, then they should work on the interior stairs. but i don't think i for me, i wouldn't support your motion right now. i would support a motion that will limit that did everything you said, but without the interior stairs. but i don't know where everybody else is on this. let's take a let's call the motion and see what falls. commissioners, there's a motion that was seconded by, commissioner moore. but the motion to continue will supersede that will take up the motion to continue with direction at this time, to continue to march 14th. on that motion, commissioner braun, i commissioner imperial i commissioner. coppell i commissioner moore. all right. and commission president diamond no. so move commissioners that

motion passes 4 to 1 with commissioner diamond voting against zoning administrator. i will close the public hearing for the variance and also continue it for one week. very good. that concludes your hearing today, commissioner. thank you. more interesting. we are and i have to be

you are watching san francisco rising with chris manor. today's special guest is sarah phillips. >> hi, i'm chris manors and you are watching san francisco rising the show about restarting rebuilding and eare imagineing the city. the guest today is sarah phillips the executive director of economic workforce development. welcome to the show. >> thank you for having me. let's talk about the city economic plan and specifically the city's road map to san francisco future. can you give a brief overview and update on progress? >> absolute e. in february 2023 mayor breed released the roadmap comprised to 9 strategies to move the

city forward understanding there was structural and lang lasting changing by the covid impact. 134 were shorter term impacts how people using transit downtown and coming out and are using small businesses, some of them remember long-term structural impacts. the way we work. how often we are in an office and how much office space companies who had headquartered in san francisco need. some of those were structural impacts how we stop. there has been a long-term change as online shopping takes up a greater share how we performs and covid-19 took a shift that would probably take 10 to 15 years happen and collapse what happened ofern the timeframe to 2 years so saw structural impacts how people shop. we have seen a lot of progress rchlt we are 9 months in and significant things we have seen is efforts creating permitinant

services and homes for people experiencing homelessness is dramatic. we increased the number of shelter beds dramatically and take-up of the beds dramatically, and there is more work to do. on the safety side there are exciting things that happened. we increased our police pay among the highest in the bay area which is a important thing for recruitment. police recruitment across the country is down so recruiting the best we can means we need to give a high pay set. august the highsh return in graduates. we see 75 decrease in retail theft and 50 percent reduction in car break ins which is quality of life crime san francisco experienced so there is real progresses we are seeing on clean and safe sides. one thing important in the mayor roadmap we are not trying

to get back to 2020 vision. i think covid showed having a downtown with people sitting at offices isn't the best downtown it can be. i think it is a opportunity to bring 24 hour life use downtown. >> music and concerts is a great way to bring people to a specific location. golden gate park we had lots of events in plazas throughout the city. can you talk about those and if there is upcoming events too? >> i think you touched on something key to the mayor road map. for san francisco and particularly san francisco downtown to move forward and be successful as a great american city, it is about bringing people together because they want to be together not because they center to be together and music is a strong part that.

the planet concert sear ries coming up and happening throughout the city not just golden gate park but downtown locations are a great example. there are smaller examples as well. the landing at--is a new plaza we constructed in the mayor roadmap where two streets come together akwraisant to a couple restaurants closed to cars in daytime, chairs and seating and throughout the week they have lunch time and evening music to bring people together after work. they participate in that. something we are working on setting up for next year which is really exciting is our sf live program and that will bring a full 2024 concert series where we match local venues bringing their work and partnership to useian square, music center plaza and embark

cadero. we will be able to announce concert series through the sf- >> you mentioned vacant to vibrant, that program has a lot of attention lately. can you talk generally what exactly that program is? >> yeah. so, we opened a program where we put out a call for landlords willing to offer groundfloor space for free for 3 to 6 month jz small business or storefront operators who had a proposal what they would do for 3 to 6 months. it is pilot. we had a incredible amount of interest. we had--i'm forgetting the number of landlords, but more then we expected because we are in a place where commercial real estate understands they need to come to the table to help make our groundfloor

lively and resulting in a transition where the groundfloor is seen less as a money making operation, but more as a leader to lease upper floors. if you have a active ground floor yields better on the other 80 percent of the building you are trying to lease. that was great, a lot of cooperation scr over 700 small business or operators responded to that call. it is pop up. there is no intention this would result in forever small businesses, but there is certainly a hope and i think what we are hearing, i don't have the final data, but there are 17 activators in 9 different spaces, some are colocated, which is why the difference, and out of those 9 spaces that are being leased for free, now 7 of them are in discussions for long-term leases so the spaces continue. it is the program. we are hopeful to have a second and third traunch and hoping to pilot in other neighborhoods with other partners.

it is not an inexpensive program because there is a lot of capital that goes into popping up for short amount of time but what we are seen is they visit the businesses, the businesses are successful and san francisco want to support this activation so hopeful to expand it. >> that's great. can you talk a bit about why piloting programs and testing things is so important? >> absolutely. you know, i would say not only the important generally but important in san francisco specifically. the benefit of pilot programs in the reasons they are really important here is, it allows us to try something and say, there may be consequence but let's understand those in real time rather then waiting to start a strategy while we think about them on paper and if they are too great we can modify the program as we go. mta has absorbed the strategy

whether a bike lane or other to figure how best to use the street? is this working? is it working for bikes and cars and buses? maybe not, let's switch it around and pilots have been important to oewd to our office particularly because we tend to have the ability and the mayor's support through the budget process to pilot things through request for proposals or rfp process where we can put out a small amount of funding, try activation and small public plaza, see if it works and i think the benefit there is, if it doesn't work we tried it and had the benefit of seeing real time and when it does work, we are able to uplift that and move into a permanent strategy and that is where our agency turns over something we piloted to another agency because it is part of the city operating

procedure. pilots also give people hope. when we have the short-term whether it is physical public plaza or activation that shows change is possible and allows them to vote for what they like. >> lastly, in lith light of the current ai boom, do you think there is a way to leverage those new changes to take a bunch of san francisco's status as a tech hub? >> i do, i think they work together. san francisco right now has a strong vacancy problem in our office space. and there is a back-story to that. our zoning downtown has not prevented other uses, in terms of permitting uses of the multi-story building has been open including allowing residential but we put other barriers, cost and code barriers et cetera and what

happened also during the height of our preevious boom is that, the amount that tech companies were willing to pay for office space bid everything out so we-without intentionally zoning a single use downtown, we de facto became a single use downtown and thereat is the opportunity you are pointing out. now because downtown was so convertible from work from home, particularly as tech based downtown was and how much companies put at the market in the office spaces we are seeing high vacancy now, all most 30 percent so there is lot of square feet but that presents a lot of opportunity. we have the ability to absorb expansion of the tech industry we are so strong at. we have seen over 800 thousand square feet of ai space leased just in 2023 alone and there is still more demand out in the market, more ai companies looking for space so that is a

growth spot absorbing some of the vac ancy. the opportunity too is prices for downtown lease s have also dropped and that opens up a breath of opportunity to a breath of companies that were priced out in 2018, 2019, 2020. san francisco has always been great at starting companies and allowing them to grow here. when our prices are too high it prevents that growth so now we are a super fertile ground for more start ups and invasion on the smaller end of the sector because they can come and enter our market and we have the space to offer. to talk about san francisco's assets and the leveraging that, we sit at the epicenter of really great university and educational institutions. we are between uc berkeley and stanford. the graduates produced just from those institutions alone stay in the bay area and want to rise up and work here, provide a real opportunity for the start ups to build their companies and companies to grow

here so we confident we will absorb a certain amount of office space with ai tech. with that, we are interested in increasing our human capital growing graduates. downtown university is something the mayor is open to pursuing and we are in conversations with uc berkeley we love to have as a partner in our downtown and then residential conversions are a great partner to that. as we build back the office space, people will want to live downtown again and we have a number buildings that can be converted to residential. the costs are high. mayor breed and her partners on the board made significant changes to reduce the costs. we waived fees for change of uses in the downtown area. there are code changes that will make the conversions easier. there is a ballot measure on the march ballot that will attempt to reduce costs for those as well. it is ongoing process and none

of those changes we talked about absent ai growth downtown, but institutional growth downtown, arts growth downtown and residential conversions downtown are long-term changes so one thing i want to say recollect i do think there is a opportunity per your question, but we also need to be patient because what we are talking about is is a real shift to the make-up of the downtown since from the growth it has been starting at since the turn of the century so that isn't a 2 year change, that is a 10 year change and we center to watch as it goes. >> thank you so much. i really appreciate you spending the time here today and your creative vision and positivity, so thank you so much. >> thanks so much for having me and hope you all downtown and shop. >> that is it for this episode. for sfgovtv i'm chris manors, thanks to be. >> hi, i'm average i'm a

personal analyst that the human resources examining and recruitment unit and suffix i started my career as a san francisco state university and got my bachelors in psyched and orientational psyche if they had we have a great relationship that the san francisco unified school district i exploded for american people interim shopping mall and become eligible for a permeate job. >> okay. perfect. >> i love working for our human resources services because of the agriculture we're laid-back with a professional mindset although human resources is a challenge we're light a hearted started as a intern guided through the process eventually

one day a a deputy director or staying with the puc is where i love it - >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the charm to the unique characterization of each corridor has a distinction permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city. >> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the

kids will eat from some restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we need to be able allergies the people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one of the last little italian community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so

strong and the sense of partnership with businesses as well and i just love north beach community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the small ones and coffee shops are unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them. >> really notice the port this community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in

it is more economic for people to survive here. >> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think you get better things. >> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that that way. >> i think that is really great that san francisco seize the vails of small business and creates the shop & dine in the 49 to support businesses make people all the residents and visitors realize had cool things are made and produced in san te

>> a lot of housing advocates to speak out again poison pills that president peskin my name is jay the san francisco oregon director for mba action and from the action coalition owe a lot of housing advocates as well as some of our elected leaders joining us to push back against this i want to briefly just mention this is not unfortunately, the first thing by the had to get to the with president peskin this is not his first anti housing action a long list recently, i