okay. good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, february. february april 4th, 2024. when we reached the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings, and at this time, i'd like to take roll

commission. president diamond here. commission vice president moore here. commissioner braun here. commissioner imperiale here. commissioner koppell here. and commissioner williams here. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. items one, a and b for case numbers 2022. hyphen 00979 for drp and var for the property at 1153 guerrero street. discretionary review and variance are proposed for continuance to may 2nd, 2024. item two, case number 2023 hyphen 007496 drp at 638 rhode island street. a discretionary review is proposed for continuance to may 9th, 2024, and item three, case number 2022. hyphen 006831dm at 619 marina boulevard, a staff initiated discretionary review has been withdrawn. i have no other items proposed to be continued, so we should take

public comment only on the matter of continuance, members of the public, this is your opportunity to, speak to any of these continuances. please come forward. seeing no request to speak public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you. commissioners commissioner. imperial move to continue. all items as proposed. second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue items as proposed. commissioner williams i commissioner braun i. commissioner imperial i. commissioner koppell i. commissioner moore i and commission president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us on your consent calendar. all matters listed will need to need to also tag the variance along. sorry. item one b the variance will continue. that also to may 2nd. thank you. thank you mr. zoning

administrator, now we are on your consent calendar. commissioners. 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 2023. hyphen 001109c82 54 jules avenue a conditional use authorization item five, case number 2023 hyphen 011365ca at 680 folsom street. conditional use authorization and item six, case number 2022 hyphen 008992 coa at 410 jessie street. unit number 402, a conditional use authorization. members of the public. this is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be removed and heard today. you

need to come forward seeing none . public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. commissioners commissioner imperial move. move to approve all items. second. thank you, commissioners, on that motion to approve items on consent. commissioner williams i. commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i. commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commission president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 placing us under commission matters for item seven. the land acknowledgment. commissioner williams will be reading the land acknowledgment today. the roman colony acknowledgment. the commission acknowledges that we are on unseen and ancestral homeland of the ramaytush colony. 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 colony have never ceded loss nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional land homeland, and we wish to pay our respects and 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 march 21st, 2020 for

members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. again you need to come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you commissioners. commissioner braun moved to approve the minutes. second. thank you. commissioners, on that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner williams, i commissioner braun, i commissioner imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0. item nine commission comments and questions. so i'd like to start out by directing a question to director hylis. as we all know, we all received a letter from the mayor yesterday relating to the rezoning. and i would like to understand further how the planning department, reacts to the letter and sort of

the pathway, as you see it going forward. i know we all just received a memo from you on this, but i haven't had a chance to read it because it just came. so maybe you could talk us through the memo. sure. so yeah, you should have in your email from lisa chen, a memo from us, basically trying to outline the steps of how we get from where we are today to a revised recommendation to you all on the on the rezoning. and as you know, we're under a timeline by hcd to get there by the end of next year. so we have time. but we don't have a lot of time given the legislative process and, you know, the amount of area we're looking at and the complications with it. so that memo kind of lays out some of the topics and steps. and first i just wanted to appreciate our team, lisa chen who's been leading this rachel tanner who was on the commission, josh sawicki. and there are others for their professionalism and thoughtfulness throughout this, this whole process. because, as

you know, it's not an easy task. and the mayor laid that out. you know, she's heard you. you've heard from folks who both say, this is going too far or this isn't going far enough, but you should know, we will continue to kind of put forward recommendations that we think are good planning policy, good public policy, and really use data and analysis to get there. so i think the mayor's letter reinforced that she gets fairly specific on some of her recommendation, but not into the to the level of detail. we can just change the map from looking at underutilized sites. and some of those have come up in our, in our discussions with community lake laguna honda, add additional opportunities for six and eight story buildings in the city and also consider removing density limits. but keeping our controls like height and rear yard in places to allow for more units in a in a kind of an allowable box. and even prior to

the mayor's memo, we were working on a revision to our proposal based on comments we received from you and from others. throughout this process, we're not going to have this map tomorrow. you know, this this it's fairly complicated. and there are complicated topics that you have brought up and others have brought up, and we're included in the mayor's letter. some of those state density bonus and how our local program works with state density bonus, the feasibility analysis. and the mayor talked on this like, what's feasible, where are we going to get housing and what type of project is actually feasible. our modeling, how we get to the numbers that we're required to get through under rina. there was an article in the paper today about kind of our modeling. we'll show you our modeling and be transparent about it. affordable housing sites and strategies, objective design standards which you have all pushed us on density decontrol how that would work as a tool. historic preservation, protecting small businesses. and just do we have the level of infrastructure and transit or

how do we get there to accommodate that housing? so we want to be thoughtful and deliberate on this. we want to bring you those topics. they may be bunched together in a couple hearings or some of them that are more complicated may stand alone as their own hearing, because those are kind of the ingredients that will go into ultimately providing a revised map and rezoning to you all. so that's our plan. we're happy to get your input on that approach. topics you want to add or subtract from that list. as i said, we don't have a ton of time, but we do have time to be thoughtful and deliberate on this, and we will be. so thank you, commissioner moore, thank you. director hills, for giving us a quick response. this is coming very unexpected. i do want to commend the mayor to leading the charge to wanting to take a step back and really saying, let's do it. correct. that is, i think the issue i do hear a strong resonance with, topics being brought up by other

commissions, the board of supervisors regarding more neighborhood focused planning. that's still leaves the objectives of priority neighborhoods, etc. all, on the table. however, doing it with more neighborhood focused input. i think, is where the success of san francisco planning has been and where i think we continue to need to have it be focused. the one thing i would like to say, and i am not looking at anybody in this room, what i do strongly object to is that this morning the paper was full of very incendiary comments. basically throwing the planning department under the bus and that is where my patience stops. we're sitting here as volunteers. there's nothing in this position by which we have a horse in the race. we're doing as best as we can as professionals with different backgrounds to help keep the voice open of where the community is telling us stop,

listen to us, etc. however, to politicize this to the extent that the planning department is being thrown under the bus, that is where the buck stops. for me. i'm a professional planner, i am an architect, and i am a professional urban designer. and i do believe that the planning department is doing everything possible, humanly possible to rise to the incredible challenges that are coming out of sacramento. they're almost impossible to tackle by anybody on its own, because our professional education has not prepared us for that type of i want to be diplomatic here. challenge to what? be professionally do. however, for some other voices in the community to tell me that the planning department has known all along what they are doing that is, i think, unacceptable. so i want to leave it with that. and i would caution that you please help the department, that you help us to do it correctly this time around, rather than all of a sudden coming out of

the woodwork and taking credit for many of the people who are writing, we don't have any idea or any background to participate or have a voice. thank you. just on the memo we sent to has a list of kind of the community meetings we've held, and most of those are in neighborhoods with, with, groups that represent, you know, residents in that neighborhood will continue to do that through this process. we've done that. we've reached out not just to residents, but beyond, you know, because there are more than just the residents that have an interest in where we're where we're going on this. so we will continue to do that. but i appreciate those comments. i will add to commissioner moore's comments that i believe that we have engaged in an incredibly thoughtful process so far. this is very challenging topic to figure out how to add 82,000 units within a short period of time that actually have a strong likelihood of being built, so that it's not a paper exercise.

and i have been impressed by the work of the planning department and the thoughtfulness in its approach, and by the community input that we have received, because we're all trying to do what's in the best interests of the city. there are different visions for how we get there, although at the end of the day, you know, we are all trying to accomplish the goal that was set by sacramento in a way that we feel preserves us, what we all value most and love about our city. but still makes room for our children, our teachers, our firefighters, you know, people of all income levels to be able to live here, stay here, and enjoy everything that our incredible city offers to us. so, i thought and continue to think that the work of the department to date has been fantastic, i support the notion of having these additional hearings on these, you know, subject matter, the, the list of subject matters that you raised

because i think we all need more understanding, as to how those specific subjects, affect what the ultimate map will be. you've heard from all of us before that we really want to understand how infrastructure is keeping pace with the addition of housing. you've heard from all of us that we need to understand how what we're doing intersects with, not only existing state density bonus legislation, but what might arise in the future so that we don't inadvertently end up with rules that take us in a direction that we hadn't anticipated. and given the overall complexity of this process. so my view is keep going, i think that the work that's been done to date has been terrific. and that taking the time to do an in-depth dive on the subject matters that you raised is absolutely appropriate. and you will get continue to get feedback from all of the interested groups leading to the next, you know,

version of the map that reflects the work that's done to date, in addition to what we learned from these additional hearings. so thank you. actually on behalf of the commission, for all the work that's been done by staff, in getting us to this point in time , commissioner imperial. yeah, first, i also, you know, thank the mayor, in, directing the planning commission and department to revisit the housing, the rezoning that is going to happen, and also, i guess for me, this is my question in terms of our timeline, since there's going to be additional hearings, is this going to be pushed back in terms of other informational hearings that we're about to hear? i thought that we're going to hear this, you know, kind of like updates this month, april or spring. is that going to be, moved, moved in and you've you've got the memo. that goal

is these topics feed into the ultimate map in rezoning. take preservation for instance. i mean, we've had a lot of discussion, at hpc in internally on preservation. but i think we have to have a hearing on preservation. and because of changes in state law that kind of are coupled with the potential rezoning, how we preserve, those assets, buildings and cultural assets that we want to preserve. and we want to lay out a plan for you all and have community weigh in and have that baked into our rezoning proposal. so so i think these are all ingredients that will ultimately go into a kind of a future, a map. but again, we've got to do it relatively quickly because in that kind of planning world timeline, you know, you all i mean, some of you have been here where it's taken eight years to get to kind of a plan adoption. we don't have that time. right. we've got to do this by the end of next

year. and that's baking in the legislative process. so i don't set out specific dates, but that memo kind of shows the topics and we'll try to get to them quickly. but but but i think we need to have those hearings. you need to understand those and give us input before we present you with kind of a new map. but i think conceptually, we'll all know kind of where it's going based on those discussions. and we'll we've got copies of that memo to you have it in your email. we'll post it on our website. but there's hard copies too. but again, it's more topic based, not necessarily a specific timeline. yeah i just want to also clarify in terms of because i know that there are still ongoing outreach that is happening still, and whether, you know, and from last hearing to we kind of had an informal discussion about the outreach and the, you know, the types of that people hasn't heard about this, how when we mean quickly, what did the what do we mean by that? does that mean like mailers? because that's something that we were brought

up from last week. conversation. yeah. and i mean, we can again, that could be part of our discussion to in an early one like how we're going to because we're you'll see the outreach we're doing. we kind of lay it out in some of the additional outreach. but i think as far as like if we were going to send a mailer based on here's the proposal that we're looking at to rezone, we'd want a proposal to send out. so there'd be kind of issues as to when the best time to send that out. but we can talk about that as we talk about the timeline as well. vice president, more, director ross, i have a couple of very conductors. i have a couple of very practical questions, can we use the upcoming slightly slower days thursdays, where we may actually want to cancel, to use it to have constructive questions and answers focused on our various areas of expertise to help put some new stakes in the ground and broaden the

discussion of how we do this. sure. one of my questions is, are we going to use arcgis to basically model the city throughout in visualizing increased density, not just by a little street here or there, but we have the tools to do it differently. we have the database to do it. i mean, my recommendation would be we'd be more topic based so experts could come and advocates and people who are interested in those topics. but if you have additional questions, concerns or topics you want us to touch on, by all means send them to us and we'll figure out kind of when to put them. i would like to actually, as a people hear us speak about it, for example. no, no, that's what i mean by we would add them onto a calendar as a topic so we can present to you what we're doing and you can respond, i would like to do this as quickly as possible to help you to kind of not interrupt the flow of your work, but feed and a lively discussion in the upcoming weeks to basically help you broaden the approach of how you look at this and move forward with new input and create probably different perspectives of how to solve certain problems which haven't been addressed before. another

another issue would be for me to look really in a very small scale and i think mayor breed sensitively touches on that finance ability of immediate actions. construction types, lower buildings allow us x, y, and z, but if we go over x numbers of stories, there is another issue here that we create practical guides, not just on the esthetic and height etc. limit, but also on the implementation limit, and then take it from there wherever it goes. but i would like to immediately get all of us actively involved in furthering the discussion. yeah, absolutely . commissioner williams. thank thank you, director hylis, for all your work, around the housing element. i know it's tremendous, feat, and so i just want to, you know, give you guys , your, your proper due, you guys have been working hard, one

thing that i haven't heard, though, is the equity provisions, in the housing element. and i'm concerned that that that has been kind of feels to me like skipped over. and so, and i'm talking about, the provisions. 4.1. 3 to 8 point, let's see here. 8.1.9. all those are are equity provisions that are inside the housing element. and i just was curious on how we're going to, like, intertwine that into the final, rezoning. yeah, a couple of things. i mean, just the effort we're doing comes comes out of the housing element, which, you

know, the, the foundational principle of that was equity, like where we're looking to rezone is based on, on areas that haven't seen equitable development or that they are well resourced neighborhoods. so there's things baked in. but i get you, you know, we can we can highlight and we're doing an overall equity analysis of the rezoning to show that there are issues around tenant displacement that are factored in. and we've got zoning proposals or proposals that are baked into that. so it's hard to just remove that topic from everything we're doing and saying, this is an independent topic because it's embedded in in all of these topics, in what we're looking at, issues around preservation, we're not just looking at buildings that we think, but cultural assets that that are important to communities. so we can we can have a separate hearing to or part of a hearing to talk about kind of how that that weaves in. but i would anticipate to that's a topic in every one of these

hearings that we're talking about. yeah, just reminding that that this whole housing element is supposed to be centered on, on equity, and so i just want to just, you know, remind us, like, you know, to keep that front and center and, so it sounds like you're going to be willing to, to further that conversation. and with some real, implementation, acts or around, around in baked into the housing element. absolutely. and each of these that, you know, it should not be a stand alone topic. it should be a topic that's incorporated into each of these, topics. because again, the effort that we're doing where we're rezoning, why we're rezoning in specific neighborhoods is based on the state's mandate for us to affirmatively further fair housing, but also our housing element, which, as you point out, was centered in equity. but again, we're happy to talk into,

you know, have a topic on that as well to show kind of how that's weaved into everything. and the analysis we're doing. so yeah, i think i think, yes. and to or both. and we can do that as part of each of these hearings and also have kind of a separate discussion on it as well. okay. thank you. commissioner braun, so i just want to add my thanks for the quick turnaround on the memo that describes kind of where we're at with the, expanding housing choice and housing element zoning program and the thoughtful approach that's been taken here to, you know, having a series of more deliberative, topic specific future hearings. i i, i've been mostly just listening intently to what my fellow commissioners had to say. and maybe there's some tweaks to the topics. but for the most part, i feel like the topics that have been suggested here

are, at least capturing a lot of elements of what have been raised today. you know, when we talk about the proposed local program and its relationship to the state density bonus, that has implications as far as both the built outcomes for the city as well as affordable housing outcomes, for the units that are built as inclusionary units with affordable housing sites and strategy, you know, that is our affordable housing, a piece of our affordable housing, approach and strategy. so there's a lot of equity implications there. infrastructure and small business support captures a lot of elements of, you know, our local neighborhoods and their character and preserving a lot of what makes san francisco special, the objective design standards, this plays out in terms of, you know, ultimately what the zoning is and what the design looks like and how that interacts with density maximums, as well as the financial feasibility analysis, which also factors into the kinds of buildings will actually get, how tall they'll be, how likely they are to get built. and then, of

course, there's the historic preservation which was raised as an issue that impacts where we direct growth in the future. so, you know, for the most part, i, i'm glad to see that this a lot of the commissioner comments have even been anticipated and kind of captured in this list. so i'm looking forward to a lot of really robust conversations over the next couple of months. i'm glad we have extra time to address this. thanks and thank you, jonas, for giving us a long leash on talking about a non agendized topic. i was waiting for it. are we done? very good. in that case, let's move on to department matters. item ten directors announcements. if you have any more. yes no. thank you. item 11 review of past events at the board of supervisors. board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. i'm sorry. good

afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. i hope you enjoyed your week off. that does mean i have two weeks to cover today, so we'll get into it. last week at the land use committee hearing, the committee again considered the mayor's ordinance, titled city citywide expansions of allowable commercial, restaurant and retail uses. this was a duplicated file of the original file and was heard and amended the previous week. during the hearing, supervisor peskin circulated a revised version of the refined language related to the elk use, use sizes, and cleaned up some language related to outdoor activity areas, as suggested by planning supervisor . melgar asked some clarifying questions about the amendments, which staff answered. there were no public comments after public comment, the ordinance was amended as stated and then sent to the board with a positive recommendation. next, the committee considered supervisor preston's ordinance, titled tobacco paraphernalia establishments in the north of market special use district. this ordinance was amended the

previous week and continued since. the amended amendments were substantive at this hearing, there was no public comment and no comments from the committee members. the item was forwarded to the full board with the positive recommendation. next, the committee considered the planning commission sponsored ordinance to rezone 68 nantucket avenue from p to rh one. commissioners you heard this item on november 2nd of last year and voted to recommend approval. during the committee hearing, supervisor melgar had questions why this wasn't being zoned to something that allowed for more housing. but in the end, she was fine with moving forward with the ordinance as proposed. there was no public comment and the item was forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation at the full board. last week, you probably heard that the board overturned the mayor's veto of the density controls in three historic districts sponsored by supervisor peskin. the 900 kearny special use district, sponsored by president peskin, passed its second read. exceptions and extensions for existing uses sponsored by this commission passed its second

read the tobacco paraphernalia establishments in the north of market special use district passed its first read, and the board also adopted a resolution calling for a full service grocery store in the tenderloin that was sponsored by supervisor preston. this week, there was no land use committee hearing at the full board. the tobacco paraphernalia establishments in the north market sud, passed its second read the duplicated file for the citywide expansion of allowable commercial, restaurant and retail uses sponsored by the mayor, passed its first read 68 nantucket, sponsored sponsored by this commission. passed its first read as well. lastly, the board considered these special or sorry the conditional use appeal for 2351 mission street, otherwise known as casements bar. this item was heard by the planning commission in january of this year. the siu was appealed by the applicant, casements. if you recall, the applicant proposed operating hours extending until 11 p.m. on weeknights and midnight on weekends. the planning department recommended a 10 p.m. closure to mitigate potential

noise disturbances for nearby residents. after careful consideration and public input, the commission adopted the department's recommendation, approving the project with the 10 p.m. restrictions on the outdoor activity area. casements appealed your decision because of the imposed 10 p.m. restrictions on the outdoor activity area and their appeal, they raised four main issues. first was a misunderstood meaning of the noise issues by the public and the commission. second, procedural irregularities during the hearing. third, a lack of consideration and impacts to small businesses and for past precedent, the most salient issue of the appeal, and the one that seemed to sway the board the most, was the impact that the 10 p.m. closure would have on this community centered small business. the appellant asserted that reducing the hours of operation for the outdoor activity area would significantly cut into the revenue. for casements, this would result in staff layoffs and reduced hours for existing staff. margins are tight in the food industry, and these extra hours allow them to make things work. about 40 people came out to speak in support of the

appeal for casements itself. the public speakers included many well known names such as bevan dufty, juanita moore, tom temprano, ben bleiman, honey mahogany and steven torres. many spoke about the establishments, community centered focus as a refuge for families with children, the queer community, and irish immigrants. in fact, several irish immigrants spoke about how the bar reminded them of home and was the most accurate representation of an irish pub. there were also about eight speakers against the appeal. they were mostly neighbors of the subject bar who were concerned about noise generated by casements prior to public comments, supervisor ronan asked casement, sound engineer, about what he recommended be done to reduce noise impacts on adjacent neighbors. he listed about three main improvements, including increasing the height of the fence, adding sound dampening materials or removing reflective materials inside the patio and adjusting the speaker placement. after public comment, supervisor ronan gave some thoughtful remarks regarding the issues at hand and then proceeded to make a motion to accept the appeal

and amend the conditions of approval. the amendments would require the sound attenuation adjustments as conditions of approval, and included deadlines for their implementation. she also extended the hours of operation for the outdoor activity area to 11 p.m. on weeknights, and midnight on weekends. after making the motion supervisor, mandelman seconded the motion and the vote passed unanimously. and that concludes my report. i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. all right. good afternoon, president diamond commissioners corey teague, zoning administrator much briefer board of appeals did meet last night. they did not take any final actions on any cases of interest to the planning commission. but did hear an initial appeal of or multiple appeals of a permit that came before you as a discretionary review for 45 bernard street. that hearing happened last night, but was continued out until may 29th to allow the project sponsor to

supply some additional plans to review alternatives. but so there'll be a fuller report on the outcome of that appeal, after the board takes a final decision on that one. thank you. the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and took up a few matters that might be of interest to the planning commission. the palace hotel is trying to renovate its neon sign on, but they're trying to modify it from neon to led and so the historic preservation commission had some concerns about it. and after hearing it twice, continued it to may 1st for additional information and to hear it one more time. they also adopted the downtown conservation district historic design standards and then approved a case and continued another. if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on to general public

comment at this time, members of the public that the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes, and when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda for three minutes. please thank you. thanks for the memo and thanks for the discussion, which was democracy in action. i think i sent two emails, one on march 26th and then another one on april 1st, and they contain attached other emails were attached to them from the past, and i thought it was kind of like russian dolls, like you keep opening them up and there's more emails. and it was going back to 2015, 2018, 2021, and they all detailed a public comment with the background and the history of the issue of the

democrats since 2015 and what's happened since that time. the rate did not advance the peskin legislation did not advance, and the democrats had never been adjusted. on march 26th, email, i sent a thing showing a 1363 sanchez, which i said illustrated the cashing out, which is a concern expressed by the staff in their 2021 analysis of sb nine. in the neighborhoods that are now in the pegs and that house, a 30 year tenant was evicted due to the sale in 2017, it sold for 1.7 million, followed by the extreme alteration mission, which sold for 4.3 million. in 2023. and i think that should be concerning to, the well-resourced neighborhoods as well, because not all homeowners in those neighborhoods are rich. they may be house rich, but while being cash poor, i think like the one

on sanchez, i just talked about since 2009, with the democrats never being adjusted per the planning code section 317 b2d, it's a problem. in the past and the present in the future. and i'll just read something i wrote back in 2015. it's in one of those emails i sent, although this may seem like a modest problem and perhaps no valley in the mission and even bernal heights are lost out as neighborhoods of affordable or relatively affordable housing forever. there is still the existing housing and the excelsior, portola and the bayview, as well as the sunset and even the richmond that needs protection from this insidious type of remodeling. remodeling and alteration should be to allow a new kitchen or bath or another bedroom for a growing family, it should not be what the houses i've mentioned and not in 2015 and last week have become. so thank you very much.

two minutes, three minutes. okay . good afternoon commissioners. my name is catherine petran. i'm an architectural historian and active with neighborhoods united san francisco, a grassroots citizen advocacy group. i came to talk to you today about the up zoning plan, thinking i'd be reminding you about it. but then we had that very robust discussion, just to remind you that it was scheduled for today's hearing, april 4th, that was widely shared in print and online with concerned citizens and i thought many some may come today not realizing that it wasn't on the agenda. so they should know that they have the opportunity to speak now during public comment, just to say that neighborhoods united san francisco welcomes yesterday's news from the mayor. asking for a revised plan that works better

to achieve affordable housing goals in a more appropriate way. the mayor's press release and letter to the planning department generally talks about a preference for 6 to 8 story, 6 to 8 stories across the city, as opposed to taller towers. but neither the press release or letter mentioned the state density bonus form based housing , which can, as you know, triple desired department heights, the new map not coming out of the planning department, but is being circulated today by spur and yimby and others is it's also mirrors the hcd map that has been around for many years, updated year after year, and it indicates much more widespread zoning than the previous version that focused on transit corridors. and so finally, please remember the mandates. and i know you know them. 46,000 units, affordable housing, seven years cost of $19 billion. that

is the task. and lastly, i just wanted to say we hear a lot from politicians and in the press about visions that aspire to be like other cities san francisco, like other cities, miami beach, vancouver, paris, hong kong and even yesterday, the chronicle headline says breed is pushing for a housing plan that is more paris, less hong kong. so i get that this is like a kind of shorthand that people use. but, you know, we all know you experts know that urban planning in the mainstream discourse needs to be taken more seriously, less flippantly, let's put san francisco first. and just as an example about san francisco and our unique character, i wanted to show an image on the overhead jonas. so this is 680 spruce street, it's

between geary and euclid and this image dates to 2017. there were, permits issued for a renovation. no demo permit that six, eight zero. now. thank you. nowheresville let's not do that. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, thanks for seeing me. my name is tom ray. i spoke with you, like, a couple of weeks ago in regards to, the, rezoning proposal, at masonic and geary. and thank you very much for discussing it and answered a lot of questions that i had, but i just wanted to restate that and that my neighbors, a lot of them are elderly, and they can't they really can't make it out to, to meetings and quite a few of them

really aren't online and everything. so if, if an effort can be made with what you guys are working on to, to, to send like updates through, you know, through the mail, it would be very appreciated. and and also just something to consider, as far as the neighborhood goes, my, my family has been there for generations. and this is just going to gut and destroy. this is like a meteor hitting hitting your neighborhood. there have been there have been some major, changes in the neighborhood over the last ten years or so and one one that i could give as an example. i should have some something to throw up on the screen and everything. but if you could take a look on usf did a big development along anza street. and when i was a kid, up until like ten, 15 years ago, 10 or 12 years ago, it was, it was just a you know, grassy hill, lone mountain. and they they

ended up building a lot of, housing along there. but they did it in a very subtle way, and it fit in with the neighborhood. this is extremely out of scale for the neighborhood. and, i mean, it's just pretty scary. so i'd appreciate it if, the city has taken into account in the past for, you know, like a freeways through golden gate park seemed like a great idea to a lot of people. you know, now it seems absurd they were going to, you know, get rid of the, the cable cars. you know, all kinds of things and everything. just it'd be nice to pump the brakes a little bit. i know there's a deadline for a lot of money and everything, though, but i didn't i didn't create the deadline and everything, and my neighbors didn't either. so anyways, thank you. okay, last call for public comment. general public comment for items not on today's agenda. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is marie

joyce, and i've been a 12 year homeowner in the outer richmond. i'm going to go a little off script today because catherine mentioned that there were people who might have thought on today's agenda we would be discussing the up zoning issue, which came up in an ad hoc basis today. just so happens the lady sitting next to me had brought her flier with the april 4th date that was distributed by grassroots activists. because so many neighbors are concerned about the up zoning proposal. so i thought i thought that was kind of ironic, given today's remarks, my neighbors and i are really proud that the richmond was named by time out magazine as one of the 40. i'm going to interrupt you for one second. just pull the mic down a bit. okay? sorry. can you hear me now? just a little bit more. okay. thank you, thank you, our neighbors are really proud that the richmond was named by time

out magazine as one of the 40 coolest neighborhoods in the world, but. but the city's drastic up zoning plan could dramatically change that for residents and visitors alike. while fueling ramp out real estate speculation, rent control tenants will be displaced. many of our vibrant small businesses will disappear, and with eight story buildings on fulton stretching from arguello to la playa and going for parcels deep into the avenues, everyone's access to the beautiful vistas of golden gate park and ocean beach will be walled off. all of this seems to mainly profit luxury developers and their

insatiable demand for iconic san francisco views, with upzoning also slated for california. clement, gary and balboa streets. the traffic will be a nightmare. muni will be burdened beyond capacity, while our streets will be clogged with rideshares robo taxis and amazon delivery trucks. other thriving neighborhoods are targeted for this current upzoning, such as the sunset, the castro and ingleside share the same concerns. that's why a growing coalition of civic groups have joined the organization that catherine mentioned. neighborhoods united san francisco. so in usf is an advocate for smart, sensible planning that gives us the affordable housing our city

desperately needs. thank you ma'am, that is your time. thank you. okay, final last call for general public comment. seeing none. general public comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar. commissioners for items 12, a and b and c for case numbers 2,007.0903. pca and map. hyphen 03gn. hyphen zero five and dva hyphen zero two for the treasure island and yerba buena island project that you'll be considering planning code and zoning map amendments. the design for development and amendments to the development agreement. okay. good afternoon, commissioners and president diamond. i am jessica luke, senior planner from the planning department, and i am happy to

present to you today a series of amendments to the treasure island yerba buena island development project. this endeavor embodies a collaborative effort between the project sponsor, treasure island community development and the city, involving over a year of dialog and deliberation to prepare the amendments to the development agreement, disposition and development agreement designed for development and related planning code and zoning map updates. i'm joined today by the project team ann marie rodgers, deputy director of treasure island development authority. lee letinsky, deputy director of joint development for ud. josh whiskey, deputy director of citywide planning and with the project sponsors team, we have andy wang, senior development manager and chris meaney, managing partner at wilson meany. we're also joined by expert staff and sponsored team members to field any specific questions that would benefit from their expertise. thank you all for being here. so to begin

our item today, i'd like to introduce madison tam from supervisor matt dorsey's office. the district supervisor for treasure island and the co-sponsor of this package with mayor breed. thank you. good afternoon. commissioners. the item before you today, sponsored chiefly by mayor breed and supervisor dorsey, will help propel the treasure island and yerba buena island project forward through several planning code, zoning map and development agreement amendments. this this legislative package has called attention to a san francisco neighborhood that is, at long last, playing host to a long planned housing boom. treasure island has made significant progress in the last number of years towards completion of the first. the first stage of construction on nearly 1000 homes are nearing completion, along with parks, utilities, public art, new streets and ferry service. when complete, the island will be 27% affordable and home to even more of these world class amenities. as you will see in the presentation today, the vision for the island really embodies

the sort of 21st century urbanism that is so exciting to see right now. treasure island represents nearly 10% of our arena targets, and supervisor dorsey is committed to doing everything he can to ensure that that progress continues, not just for the sake of our arena targets or for our obligations to the developer, but for the residents of the island. the island is home to a very resilient community of around 2000 residents, the vast majority of whom are low income and bipoc households, and many are members of the recovery and reentry community, which is, of course, very close to supervisor dorsey's heart. as someone who is in recovery, residents of the island have been waiting patiently, some for over 20 years, for new units and new infrastructure that has been slower to come online than originally hoped. these delays only further exacerbate their perception as being treated as second class san franciscans, or that their island is treated differently than if they lived somewhere else in the city, with the bridge separating them for

from the opportunities of the city. their constant power outages, they fundamentally experience being a resident of san francisco differently than others do. they see the lack of city investment, and this reimagined development agreement will help boost the city's investment and stake in the project, and fulfill the many promises that were made to them on things like the infrastructure, parks and affordable housing. the city and treasure island community development are committed to ensuring that the project does not lose momentum. so now is the time for the city and the developer to double down on the project. through this series of thoughtful adjustments that stay true to the original deal, while affirming a mutual commitment to the next chapter. on behalf of supervisor dorsey, i'd like to thank everyone who's been involved in this process, especially lee lewinsky and anne topia and their team at o'dowd. and, of course, who i'd like to invite up next, anne marie rodgers, deputy director at tida. thank you very much, miss tam, commissioners, it's an honor to be before you in my new role as deputy director at the

treasure island development authority, the item before you is this product of a powerful partnership between public and private. it's also emblematic of san francisco's entrepreneurial spirit. 13 years ago, this commission approved a development agreement, to create this new neighborhood. the da's plan for a sustainable and equitable neighborhood has been recognized by leed as a platinum level for neighborhood design, earning the most points and being the largest neighborhood, ever. so today, we're seeing that plan come to life, and it's doing so in this time of worldwide certainty. the proposal before you would ensure that the momentum that is visible on the island today continues to generate economic returns and also to create housing. so before we get to the amendments, first i'd like to share a bit about the

development. anyone who's driven across the bridge or even looked out over the bay has can see the progress. we're nearing the completion of the first phase almost 1000 homes are now or soon will be available for occupancy. parks, utilities, eye popping art, new streets, ferry service have all been accepted by the city and are in use. the new neighborhoods are growing in the areas outlined here in yellow. we have 991 units under construction. the development is something that san francisco could be proud of. any time, and it's all the more remarkable that it's happening now. it's no secret that the city, the nation and the world have been in unprecedented times. and yet this project has advanced. t is the city's largest project underway. in a moment when there's a tremendous push in

need to build housing, continuing the project is important. now more than ever. the benefits are evident in seeing what the partnership has delivered already. so let's take a look. since this is the planning commission, i know you have a keen interest in housing. however, it's important to know that before any of that housing can be realized completely new infrastructure must be built. underpinning the housing literally starts with the ground . the geotech upgrades for seismic safety are beyond that. that's been done in any other san francisco project. wicks are used to extract the water from under the ground. the dry earth is then compacted with mountains of soil for surcharge over an extended period of months, and then the soil is only partially removed, leaving behind an extra 3 to 6ft of soil that raises the elevation in anticipation of sea level rise. vibro compaction

further solidifies the ground, and the potential for lateral spread is contained by a perimeter. reinforcement of the entire island. this is a dual benefit in that it also enables continual adaptation for future sea level rise, and it's from this very solid base for the entire development footprint that the rights of ways are built with new utilities, streets and furnishings. there's also a water system that now has fresh reservoirs in a new on island water treatment facility is under construction. this system will enable the purple pipes that are in every building built since the mid 90s to actually be used on treasure island, yerba buena, and in this picture, what looks like a beautiful native plant garden is also functioning as a stormwater treatment area. part of the green infrastructure for the

islands. we have a new ferry landing that's open so residents can boat home in ten minutes, avoiding bridge traffic, and city agencies are taking ownership and operation of this new infrastructure, integrating the island residents into their work plans and budgets. the san francisco county transportation authority leads a host of roadway projects connecting to the bridge. the east side is open, the west side is under construction. hillcrest will start shortly, and a mixed use bicycle ped connection between san francisco and oakland will start soon. in total, the ta's projects are valued at $265 million. as this infrastructure comes online, tida is also decommissioning existing facilities that have outlived their useful lifespan. for instance, the existing wastewater treatment plant on the island is expected to close in 2026, and as this infrastructure is completed, the development of the vertical buildings can advance as. so

let's talk about the housing. we have 229 units complete, another 745 under construction and scheduled for completion by 2025. there are 360 units that are in the planning phases. this level of home building just isn't happening in many places in the us. and yet it's happening here. new buildings now house residents on both treasure island and yerba buena island, and with masoumeh in the bristol now built the next building will be the 100% affordable starview court. as that opens this summer, we estimate that about one sixth of our existing on island residents will be moving into this new building. as this slide shows, the amount of parklands on islands is immense. almost three fourths of the islands will be dedicated to parks and open space. the plan spaces are now

springing to life. as you can see, the variety of parks spans, wildlands, signature parks, beaches, fields, neighborhood parks and shared streets. here is yerba buena panorama park this park in signal park are complete with a grand opening planned in may, and in this image you can also see the first of major artwork. it's a sculpture known as infinity point by sugimoto. hiroshi sugimoto. and this is the first permanent work of art from the $50 million public art budget. so there's a great deal of important progress on t and ybe and its progress. we want to maintain. it behooves both the developer and the city to keep the project on track for the next phase. now, as the cost rose and you'll hear about more about this in a second, it became clear to the team that the fiscal challenge, that the fiscal challenges were immense and change was needed. and yet

the city team knew that we didn't want to lose any of the public benefits, like affordable housing, design excellence and sustainability. that's why the amendments before you are grounded in these key policy objectives. first and foremost, keep the full public benefits package that was negotiated in 2011. keep the affordable housing requirement at 27.2. defer costs were possible. modernize sections of the da to be consistent with later agreements. excel great treasure island generated revenues to finance the project and, where possible, implement process improvements and reaffirm city commitments to permit review timelines. with these guiding principles in place, the staff of pd and tda worked with the developer to on the proposal before you this fiscal package was tested by the city administrator. the city comptroller, the mayor's budget office, and outside consultants.

the title board has reviewed the proposal under their jurisdiction and recommended approval. last month. your staff have been at work reviewing the planning and land use controls. so now let's get to those amendments. and for that, i'll turn it over to the very talented project manager, lee letinsky from pwd to describe the fiscal changes. thank you. ann marie. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm lee luzinski with the office of economic and workforce development. a significant element of our project amendments is the proposed fiscal package that will accelerate public financing to the project and enable the next development stage to proceed. construction costs are higher than expected. infrastructure has taken longer to deliver due to permitting delays. tax increment and special tax revenues are coming in slower than expected due to

the turbulent economy of the last few years. stage two will slow under these conditions, but the city, as partners in this massive undertaking, do not want this to occur. instead, we propose to build on the current momentum to be able to advance the next stage. this uniquely large project requires a unique solution. the magnitude, size, and complexity of the treasure island project means that there is no reasonable comparison with other projects in the city. the basic infrastructure costs alone total $1.4 billion. the master developer has sourced and invested over $800 million towards the project to get us where we are today. the existing public financing tools have generated $125 million in reimbursements for this eligible infrastructure. we now propose a

forward looking package to accelerate $115 million in city general fund certificates of participation, which is a form of municipal debt, to fulfill our reimbursement obligation for the next phase. stage two is the next and second largest phase on the island that will complete the major backbone infrastructure. it creates parcels for 1300 units of housing. of those, the city is well underway in predevelopment and financing for two affordable housing buildings with 250 units and a partnership with the department of public health for a 240 bed behavioral health facility. we must say on track with the corresponding infrastructure to facilitate these important projects. here are a few details about the fiscal package. the $115 million

in cops would be advanced across three separate issuances over the next three years, all of which would be subsequently appropriated and approved by the board of supervisors. the use of the cops does not change the amount that the developer is reimbursed. instead, it expedites the timing. this revenue will directly fund developer reimbursements for the infrastructure in stage two. the total cost for that stage is expected at $204 million. in partnership with the comptroller's office and city administrator, we conducted a detailed fiscal study that demonstrates that future tax growth generated by the by the development will provide revenues in aggregate that exceed the cop payments. additionally, during this period, the developer is required to reinvest any proceeds from land sales and tax increment back into the project. with this unified approach, we can advance the project at this

critical juncture in a fiscally responsible and forward thinking way. thank you. thank you. lee. i would now like to provide an overview of the proposed amendments to the design for development planning code and the zoning map. as a development agreement, project building controls and guidelines are largely found in a separate design guideline document, which for treasure island is called the design for development or d for d for short. the proposed amendments to the d for d seek to incorporate adjustments based on learned lessons and implementation in the first sub phase, address unforeseen constraints from site conditions, and respond to code changes. post the 2011 entitlement, which was 13 years ago. over the past six months, planning staff collaborated with cdd to devise solutions which are now outlined in these amendments. the amendments are

following for building form. we have minor rooftop allowances to accommodate high speed elevators and to permit wind screens in order to foster a more habitable outdoor space. there's also a five foot height addition to areas with height limits of 40, 60 and 70 to balance desired floor counts with functional floor to ceiling heights. considering the tight constraints. and i'm going to elaborate more on this amendment. in the following slides. there's a floor plate calculations adjusted to reflect fire code changes, but this would not change. max plan length. max apparent phase, or any max diagonal dimensions for item number four, we're allowing use of patios as an alternate to a individual front entry or stoops. the intent to this amendment is to assist in situations where lateral slopes pose challenges to achieving stoops, and it also will allow exceptions for 100% affordable, supportive, affordable housing due to the operational needs of

the population being served. for item five, the amendment is to lower the minimum percentage of fenestration at mid-block easements by 5, and this would allow flexibility in design relative to california building code item six is amendments to standards for screening of rooftop mechanical equipments to allow for more practical solutions. item seven permits mirroring of townhomes designs for yerba buena islands. this would that this would increase efficiency between adjacent units. other miscellaneous miscellaneous items we have is amendments to the yerba buena irrigation standards. item nine is an amendment aimed to streamline and improve clarity on the process to amend these deferred fees. and finally, there's other layout adjustments due to the new content or page shifting from these amendments. these amendments are consistent with the intent of the d-4d and city policy and, if approved,

would continue the momentum in developing this special neighborhood. so amendments to the d for d also require updates to companion sections in the study, and these amendments will ensure coherence and compliance between the two documents. the key companion amendments are for figure six, which is the t bulk and massing figure, and the second is to update the code, which aims to streamline and improve clarity on the process to amending d for these. what i just mentioned on the previous slide. other amendments would include providing additional circumstances that may authorize a minor modification, which are unforeseen site conditions and changing building technologies, and this is to provide for additional minor regulatory relief in instances as long as the overall gross floor area remains constant and meets the intent of policy and design guidelines. so the amendments to the zoning map do include an additional five feet to the

maximum height limits for areas that have 40, 60, and 70 height limits. this five foot height increase will address the height constraint issues that have arisen on treasure island due to two primary factors. the first is the d for d requirement for the 2 to 3 foot stoop, and the second is due to the thicker modern floor assemblies accommodating mechanical systems and sound proofing. without this five foot height increase, the project could develop be developed to floor to ceiling heights below the target. functional heights of eight and a half to nine feet, which is the case for some units at 490 avenue of the palms. after a careful review of this condition, planning is in support of this solution, as it is reasonable and consistent with the project's policy and design goals. granting an additional five feet across all floors offers flexibility in designing stoops. it addresses concerns with these floor assemblies and can also resolve issues related to changes in grade in long parcels that are

found in treasure island. these adjustments ultimately will will enhance the functionality and design of both the housing units and the public realm. other amendments to the height map include a correction of a special height district designation and other other updates aimed to make the height the deferred height map and the zoning map consistent. we also wanted to spotlight our first ever treasure island transition talk that was held in mid january. this community open house was hosted by supervisor matt dorsey's office in collaboration with city agencies, which includes the master developer and our nonprofit community partner, one treasure island. this event was organized by titus equity program, which is a collaboration between planning and tida were dedicated staff from both departments are working together to foster an inclusive and equitable community on the island. at this open house, the community had a

chance to review a summary of the amendments, as well as learn about the ongoing development and transportation planning on the island. the next event is expected to be a hearing at the title board in may and a second transition talk this summer and i'll be sure to send an invite to everyone to join us on the island. so before we end the slide deck, let me summarize the three actions going before the planning commission. they are the planning code, text and zoning map amendment recommendation to the board of supervisors. the second is the development agreement amendment recommendation to the board of supervisors, and the third is approval of the design for development amendments. the department is recommending approval to all three items. so that ends the staff presentation

before you. but before i hand it off to the project sponsor, i want to note one clerical item pertaining to the da ordinance. the ordinance cites amendments to exhibit a. the project site, and exhibit b, the legal description that would reflect revisions to the marina lease boundaries. however we have determined that these changes are unnecessary and therefore no updates to these exhibits will be made. also, we have received one letter of support from one treasure island expressing their support for the amendments, and this letter was forwarded to the commission earlier this week. we also have received a correspondence from moe hcd's, joint development director, regarding the two affordable housing sites that are slated for phase two of this project, the statement reads. moe cd continues to work with our affordable housing sponsors and tida to advance both treasure island, the senior and the

family properties moe cd provides predevelopment financing support to both projects and has made preliminary gap finding financing commitments for these developments. additionally, mohd is committed to providing preliminary gap financing at some point in the future. the completion of the phase two is crucial for these two affordable housing projects funded by mohd. without the completion of the crucial infrastructure, construction cannot commence for both affordable housing projects . we anticipate the respective sponsors will submit applications for state financing and hope that the infrastructure will be sufficiently developed for both projects to commence construction once they secure state and tax credit financing. so with that, i'll hand it over to chris meany, managing partner at wilson meany and the lead developer at treasure island, for a presentation on behalf of the project sponsor.

project sponsor. you'll have five minutes. thank you. commissioners as you know, because this commission has been so central to this process, the development of treasure island is a joint venture between the city and treasure island community development, a private joint venture. we wouldn't be here either of us, without the success of this collaboration ation. these have been this is a challenging project and these are challenging times. and we are just so grateful that the that the staff has, has, has worked to make this happen. i want to call out antonia lee latinski jeremy corbyn bob beck

and anne marie rogers. all have worked hard but have so many others. treasure island was created in the 1930s as a landfill. the fact that this city has 500 acres of new development is spectacular, but the fact that it was created with an engineered landfill is problematic. that problem creates problems that we deal with today, but that doesn't mean there's not great potential here, as the 1939 1940 world fair showed, this is a place in which spectacular things can happen after the world's fair, treasure island was used as a by the us navy for 56 years. for now, more than two decades, we together have been engaged in bringing this island forward. and during that time, during

these last two decades together, we have been true to the cornerstones of this project that we seek together to create a most iconic example of the best of san francisco, a place with 8000 new homes, 27% of them affordable, and a place that is a regional hub with over 300 acres of public parks, 22 miles of walking trails. this is a picture of the master plan that you had such a. this commission had such a role in shaping a place that responds to the environment. it uses only half of the available land for housing development, so that the other half can be used as a regional resource. i have a few, pictures here, and we've supplied to staff that someday you may want to see a little drone video that shows what's going on here. but this project has literally demolished the structures both above and beyond

ground in the development area. we have taken the ground down and seismically strengthened it. we have put in all new trunkline infrastructure, and created new system like a four and a half gallon domestic water service. today we are finally at the point where housing is being created, housing of all types, affordable and market rate. in addition to the housing on yerba buena island, which includes the bristol townhomes and flats, we have masoumeh, which currently is operating, providing supportive housing to, to veterans. we have soon to open star view court in addition to those affordable housing projects. we have the i'll house with 250 rental units opening this summer, the hawkins soon

thereafter with another 176 homes and at the beginning of 2025, the 150 home for sale for 90 avenue of the palms. stage one together will have almost 2000 housing units. but as the various members of the staff has said, we want to keep it going. we want to move on to stage two, which will provide another thousand homes, 250 of which will be affordable housing units with 240 supportive beds. thank you for your consideration today . thank you for your many years of help. great. thank you. if that concludes both presentations, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. please come forward

and line up on the screen side of the room. good afternoon. excuse me. good afternoon, president diamond. members of the commission, san francisco planning commission. thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. my name is mauricio chavez, and i am an organizer at norcal carpenters local 22. i represent approximately 36,000 carpenters in northern california and 4000 here in the city of san francisco. i am here today with my brothers from the carpenters union in support of the proposed amendments to the treasure island, yerba buena island project. this development has been critical in bringingren francisco that has very little available land for new housing. what a beautiful community it will be once it's completed. stage one has already generated nearly 1000 units, with over 250 below market rate units at full

build out. stage one will include a total of 2000 units, including 300 below market rate units. once realized, this development will make a sizable dent in san francisco's requirement to build 82,000 units. stage two will provide the infrastructure necessary to build the next phase of the development, provide wedding pads to build up to 1300 units, including 250 below market rate units and 240 affordable beds. these proposed amendments are a vital step in moving this project forward. not only has this development provided much needed housing, it has also created hundreds of construction jobs during a period of significant economic downturn. phase one of the treasure island yerba buena project has kept hundreds of people off government assistance by providing full time union jobs that pay livable wages, health care benefits not just to the individual, but to their

immediate family as well. if you have kids and or a spouse, you know how important it is for them to be able to seek the medical attention that they need when they need it. it has provided opportunity for local apprentices to begin or continue their career in construction. when these workers earn a pension, something that has virtually vanished today in america so that they may retire with dignity. your support for the proposed amendments ensures both job creation and housing production will continue in san francisco for years to come. we are happy to be here again in support for the treasure island yerba buena project, and we ask that the commission support the amendments proposed. thank you for your time and service. with afternoon, commission.

planning commission, my name. is oswaldo duarte. i'm a field rep, a carpenter for the local, 22, and i represent 40,000 carpenters in the north california, as as well, 4000 of them live here in san francisco. and, me as a carpenter. i'm here today in support of this project , this project will be constructed by, you know, 100, you know, inner labors. so where this project will create thousands of unit labor jobs through, duration of the project and give individuals, the opportunity to earn good, livable wages war where, like, they live. and also providing both healthcare and, you know, retirement benefits for our members. so the project will, you know, have a, training educational opportunities to those entering the carpentry trade to apprenticeships, that includes, you know, like women, minorities and veterans. so and,

in continuous training, the mastering, of the craft of our members who are already, you know, union pensions, union person, sorry. so in closing, we ask the planning commission to vote in favor of this project. so the members of the carpenters union know you will make a right decision and look forward to working with the commission building bigger and better projects for the city of san francisco. thank you for your time. good afternoon, commissioners, i'm sherry williams, the co-executive director of one treasure island. i'm here with my co-executive director, nella gonsalves, as well as one of our members, elizabeth kawata from mercy housing. we were formed under the base closure and homeless assistance act of 1994. so we've been at the reuse planning, both the planning side and the implementation side for almost 30 years now. one treasure island is a collaboration of community based organizations

and housing developers, an affordable housing developers, and that includes catholic charities, swords to plowshares, healthright 360, mercy housing, chinatown community development center, and the john stuart company. and they are all in in strong support of the amendments before you, after almost 30 years. now we have, as you've heard, the first affordable housing project. we have a second one coming on next month. but if we don't have these amendments, the three that are in the queue will be jeopardized. their future unknown, and the people who are expected to live in those units or lives will be in limbo indefinitely. so we are strongly urging the support of these amendments, while the navy housing provided the existing navy housing provided thousands of unhoused and low income san franciscans housing, that housing is exceeding its useful

life at this time. and so it's imperative that we replace those units. and lastly, i just wanted to mention that the developer, treasure island community development, have been an exceptional partners with the community. and with this project for 20 years now. we are intentional building a mixed income san francisco neighborhood, and we are trying to be very intentional from the ground up, and so to that effect, we have commissioned, some studies from the national initiative on mixed income communities and collectively with the treasure island community. we developed an aspirational statement. so this is a joint statement with one treasure island, nonprofit partner, the for profit partner, treasure island community development, and the government partner treasure island development authority. and the vision is a thriving san francisco neighborhood in the middle of the bay, celebrated for its inviting culture,

outdoor experience and sustainable community. the mission is to create a welcoming, healthy and vibrant community that honors the diversity of its past, present and future residents, businesses and visitors. so we're hoping you will support these amendments and support our vision and our mission for this exceptional and extraordinary opportunity. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is nella gonsalves and i'm the co-executive director for one treasure island. i'd just like to add to what sherry has already shared with you all, as you've heard, one treasure island works closely with tida and the developer cd to provide the current treasure island community with services and community events. this includes our construction training program, where we are training and putting low income island residents and san franciscans to work on treasure island, prepare

the infrastructure and building the new housing developments while creating new careers for these individuals. this development is providing an incredible opportunity to include low income san franciscans from the ground up, while growing a diverse and equitable neighborhood. these amendments are critical to realizing these goals. i'd like to thank you for your consideration and support of these amendments. thanks. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is elizabeth kawada. i'm director of real estate development at mercy housing. mercy. i'm here today to express mercy's strong support of the amendments here for the treasure island project, before you today, mercy housing is a leading affordable housing organization with many affordable housing homes completed throughout the city and many more under development throughout the city. we're also a member of one treasure island. we are proud to be a partner of the mayor's office of housing and community development,

treasure island development agency, and treasure island community development and delivering much needed affordable housing in the city. specifically, we're partnering on three projects on the island. we're especially excited about our star view corp project. this opens up next month and will provide homes for 138 households, including the majority of which for existing families living on treasure island. we also have two projects in the pre-development planning process the first is a partnership with the department of public health to develop a new building for a residential step down program. this is the first new building of its kind being built in the city of san francisco. we're also working on a third project on the island to provide approximately 100 units of affordable senior housing. the city's investment in stage two will help ensure that we stay on track to build these units. in addition to city funding for these projects, we work to leverage state and federal funding as much as possible. site readiness is crucial to our ability to apply for these competitive funds and to receive these funds. so moving forward with the stage two investment will enable us to move forward with the affordable

housing as well. we continue to be very excited about the future of treasure island as a vibrant and inclusive neighborhood, and we hope you'll support these amendments to build on the project's success. thank you. good afternoon, president diamond commissioners, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on the treasure island and yerba buena island project. my name is pedro mendez. i'm a field representative for carpenters local 22. as a labor leader for norcal carpenters union, i represent and help provide agency to close to 40,000 men and women throughout northern california. i'm here to express support for the proposed amendments outlined before you today. these amendments represent a crucial step towards realizing a vision of sustainable urban development in san francisco. by incorporating the environmental findings, aligning with the city's general plan, and establishing a clear development standards. these amendments provide a framework necessary to guide the project's

growth while preserving the character and integrity of the surrounding area. the proposed amendments not only establish a transparent and inclusive process for community input, but also prioritize, prioritize sustainability and resilience through the guide guidelines. ensuring responsible development practices that minimize environmental impact and enhance the overall quality of life for residents. the treasure island yerba buena island project has special significance for us as labor leaders because this project not only provides much needed housing stock, it also provides good paying jobs and health care benefits for all workers and their families. i urge the planning commission to support the proposed zoning amendments by giving by doing so , we can lay the groundwork for a thriving, inclusive and sustainable community that benefits all residents of san francisco for generations to come. thank you. oh i didn't

know. i had three minutes. good day commissioners. my name is jeff klein. i've lived on treasure island for 25 years. i'm opposed to the city being goaded into doubling down on this risky and ill conceived project. nine years behind schedule, and nearly doubled in cost to $9 billion. but i have only have time to mention a few unaddressed risks. not the economic and financial risks the navy left forever. chemicals on t that the epa just created regulations for and dangerous unexplained radioactive objects, which may be hidden below the high water table. that's why the northern quarter of treasure island may not be transferred for a decade and cannot be safely developed. and there's a new risk of a of a 7.3 magnitude

earthquake on the hayward fault with a 10% probability in the next 50 years, with peak ground acceleration up to one g twice what the building code and project planned for, plus an increasing flood risk higher than predicted by 100 year historic data due to global warming and sea level rise. but the biggest risk may be a mega storm like the one that hit california 163 years ago. last year, the usgs modeled a mega storm scenario, which is expected to cause $1.7 trillion of damage for the state of california now. and they also found there was twice as likely to happen more frequently, or likely to happen twice as frequently due to climate change. the risk to the project from a mega storm has never been

acknowledged or analyzed or mentioned. the bcdc has an online tool that allows modeling of the expected 36 inch sea level rise, with a 100 year storm surge, both of which are supposedly planned for. the resulting map shows the entire perimeter. you don't call it a seawall, the entire perimeter being overtopped and almost all of treasure island flooded. contrary to projects claim to raise, quote, the island's base elevation by 36in, only the building pads have been raised, and it's impossible to raise existing job corps and tide a buildings that comprise a significant part of the project. even buildings on raised pads will suffer flood damage from the 77 inch total water level predicted by the online tool. such flooding will stop electric pumps from lifting stormwater over the perimeter, and t will fill up like a giant kiddy pool. so please oppose this proposal for the city to bail out a $9

billion boondoggle. thank you for hearing my comment. okay, last call for public comment on this item. seeing none. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. so i see that a number of commissioners want to speak. but i'm going to start us off here first by thanking staff. the project sponsor and all the members of the public who showed up to testify today. the hard work is really evident, and of course, this is an absolutely critical project for the city. i understand its unique nature, and i understand the desire to keep going, with stage two, i am supportive of the planning code, text and zoning map amendments as well as the d for d amendments. and i think i'm supportive of the financing amendments that are part of the da. but because they are quite

complex and unusual for the commission to undertake that kind of approval, i want to make sure i've got it, so i have a few questions that really relate to the exhibit, to the da that deals with the alternative financing plan. i do appreciate the documents that were included in the package, particularly the explanation of the financing plan. it was much easier to understand what you're really proposing then it was to simply review the revised exhibit four. so what strikes me that's different about this project and what you're proposing with the alternative financing plan is instead of using t or tax increment, not to be confused with t, treasure island. so instead of using tax increment to reimburse the developer for their outlay of extraordinarily significant funds, you're using general funds, from the city. and the way you're doing that,

if i've got this straight, is you are going to the intent and i use that point, that word intentionally. the intent is to use three tranches of bonding capacity. 50 million, 50,000,015 million, from bonds that are issued, to reimburse the developer for expense already incurred. this is not an outlay that is done in anticipation of the improvements being built. it's a reimbursement. they'll submit bills and you reimbursement could the financing i don't know whether it's lee or whoever it is come forward so i can make sure i get answers or confirmation or corrections as i go through this . great. absolutely. commissioner, i was going to say you actually absolutely understand the package. that's an absolutely accurate description. but what you didn't mention, and i want to make sure it's clear to all of us, is that it's not just the 115 million that the city is setting forth is it's there's interest on the

bonds as well, too. so what's the total amount including interest plus, excuse me, principal plus interest that's being asked for here. thank you. i'm going to turn the podium to jamie korubin. she's the finance director at tida. and she can answer those specific questions. okay thank you, commissioner diamond. jamie rubin, the finance manager with the treasure island development authority. you are correct. the $115 million of general fund commitment is in the form of direct project funds. so the financing plan amendment contemplates borrowing $115 million of project costs. however, you would pay that back over a likely a 20 year terme, depending on how the final certificates are structured. and in, in in preliminary numbers, that were run by the comptroller's office, assuming three individual tranches, assuming a 6.5% interest rate

paid over by a 20 year terms would result in approximately 233 million of principal and interest payments over time. okay, i also understand that the reason you're doing this, and is that you've done a fiscal study that shows that over time, the amount of sales, tax, revenue and other revenues that come from the project, justify why this outlay from the general fund that you are expecting, that you will have this increased flow of money to the city from these other sources, not that directly reimburses, but in a way is a compensation for the outlay of city funds together with and this was important to me is you are taking a certain amount of residual t at the end of the day and using that to directly reimburse the city, obviously a much smaller amount, than the amount that we're setting forth. but there's still that secondary

source. is that correct? so to your two points, commissioner diamond, yes, we there was a fiscal impact analysis that was done in collaboration with kd and tida, with a third party fiscal consultant, that as as miss lewinsky shared in her presentation, on a cumulative basis, it illustrated that over time, the treasure island development project was generating a sufficient amount of net revenues, including primarily transfer tax and ongoing property tax revenues that would sufficiently cover the payments on the cops, over time, on your second point, that is just escaping me. apologies the reserve. right, on your second point about what's referred to as the stage two contribution, ryan, was a specific provision that was negotiated as part of this process that would make residual

tax increment on an annual basis that is not needed to repay debt service on tax increment bonds to be redirected back to the general fund, up to a fixed amount per year, the terms of that contribution would match the terms of the outstanding cop certificates. and so that's approximately 13 to $14 million if contributed over the terms of that 20 to 25 year period. okay and given that the original plan was to use tax increment to reimburse the developer for these improvements and now you're using or the intent is to use general funds, did the documents eliminate the opportunity that otherwise existed to use tax increments? so there's not double dipping? that's absolutely correct, commissioner diamond. so the, there are provisions, as it relates to this stage two alternative financing that they are only to be used on stage two

infrastructure, only for that single and sole purpose, and because those, those developer costs will be reimbursed by their certificates of participation, they are not eligible to be reimbursed by any other future tax increment. thank you. and then one last question as to the exact nature of our action here today on this. this is a we don't adopt the development agreement. we make a recommendation to the board of supervisors, but we're making a recommendation. not that there's a guarantee that if the board of supervisors agrees to this, that it will happen, but that it's the intent that it happens. is that correct? thank you for that question. yes. so the item before you today is to recommend approval of the amendment to the development agreement. the amendment before you is only changing one exhibit, which is the financing plan. what we've been discussing

today, when the board considered that item and acts to amend that agreement, their adopting, you know, an update to that contract between the city and the developer with the intent meant to advance this proposal for alternative financing, as is clearly written in the contract. and per normal city process. we anticipate after this amendment is adopted by the board and the contract is updated, we will engage in a 6 to 8 month underwriting process with the comptroller's office. we will be bringing these three tranche issuances through the capital planning committee and subsequently through the board of supervisors, for their discretion to approve and appropriate those issuances the same way we would bring any other debt financing through the city. so this is sort of the first step to create a joint statement of intent to move forward with this package. and then we have a lot of work to do subsequent to actually gain the

approval to authorize the spending. thank you. so i really appreciate the answers to those questions, it's an unusual way to proceed. we don't, you know, i don't know, that we do this for other big projects and nor do we necessarily want to set a precedent, but it's the unique size of this project and the commitment by the developer and the amount of infrastructure that's required. that makes me supportive of, of using this unusual financing package. and i would like the findings to actually reflect that. so i'd like to read into the record an additional finding that i propose that we add to our adoption. it would be a finding into the development agreement resolution ation. and i did talk with staff about this in advance. so it does have their approval. so this is what i would like to say, implement ation of the treasure island yerba buena island project requires a significant level of infrastructure investment to

prepare the island, technically raise the elevation for sea level rise and install modern utilities, streets, parks and other community facilities to create a brand new urban neighborhood. the scale and cost of this investment is projected at 2.5 billion, which is uniquely high among large projects in san francisco. the proposed amendments would provide a fiscal resource that addresses the significant scale and scope of this project. so i'm going to now turn it, you know, call on the other commissioners. but if we do have a motion that supports the project, i would request that we include that finding into the da motion, i'd like to now call on commissioner koppell. thank you. president diamond, let me just start by saying thanks to everyone involved, especially chris meany, for his decades worth of work and involvement. this is a more complex project than we really see here in san

francisco. it's on an island, so you've got a lot of land, but just all those coastal considerations and issues as well, and those of you who don't know about lead platinum design, it's almost unattainable. and it it only, can result from a, you know, precise and intelligent planning. so hats off to you for that, i really appreciate the, impeccable design throughout the project and love how you are promoting economic growth within the san francisco business and resident community, this project has and will continue to utilize san francisco tool and materials wholesaler suppliers, contracting businesses here in san francisco that are employing local san francisco residents, paying san francisco living wages, supporting san francisco local apprenticeship training centers who accept san francisco residents from disadvantaged neighborhoods, giving them career options and pathways

through city funded apprenticeship, pre apprenticeship programs like city build. so in my opinion, this project is a slam dunk i want to move to approve with president diamond's findings, items 12 a, b and c, second vice president moore. this is a bright moment when everybody else says we can't do do it here. somebody who says they can. and they have been proving that since 2003. the work that has gone into this project is phenomenal. the results are even more phenomenal because nobody else can do it. everybody else is basically throwing up their hands, asking for more and doing less. i think this project is delivering at a scale that is remarkable. the comments made by my fellow commissioners is something i fully agree with. for commissioner diamond's, findings, i would like to add a

reference to the leed platinum green infrastructure development practices, and i would like that to be mentioned in that particular comment, because so far, this project has not cost engineered. the impossible task become less and less emphasis on any of the things that are important to us, from building type, building mix, architecture , air quality, treatment of open spaces, building things in harmony with each other, not just leapfrogging from the highest opportunity sites, but delivering from the bottom up. you see that hardly anywhere. this is a very demanding plan, and i believe that the response, the responsible development practices shown in this project clearly manifests that in everything we have seen in phase one, and hopefully in phase two and three. and as we go on seeing this project delivered under the same developer leadership that has started this project, in consideration of the

financing, which is the most difficult thing for me personally, and i echo everything that commissioner diamond asked. i would like to ask one question, and i'm looking perhaps for you to answer it, in the cop, which is a tool i have never actually heard before, it does this particular, approval go with the land or does it go with the development entities? thank you for that question. vice president moore, so this would be a city supported debt financing, and so the city would be the holder of the funds. we would only we would we would issue the funds to be restricted , to be spent solely on the eligible infrastructure in stage two of this project and disperse those funds only after the developer has demonstrated that

they have expended the funds to create the assets. for example, a water pipe has been installed that is consistent with the plan . we will then reimburse the developer for that portion of the work that they've spent. i'm not sure i'm totally answering your question. no, you're not. my question is a little bit more, targeted towards the issue of assignment. we have seen, unfortunately, other very, very, promising and very high end projects being sold to other investment entities. and the attention to detail that has so far brought to this project is exceptional. and what i like to see is that not all of a sudden the city is supporting development, which i fully agree with, but supporting this particular developer to continuing with the high degree of performance and liability. but i would be very cautious. c should, for whatever unforeseen reasons, the any any one of the

development entity would step away from it. that this particular special certificate of participation is not automatically be extended to anybody who comes down the comes down the road. thank you for that. i can say that we have worked very closely with the master developer and in updating this contract with that joint venture partnership, have representations. they are proceeding with the next stage as lead developer, and, and i also would say that the way we've structured the financing in three sections will be tailored to the construction phasing that we anticipate they will pursue. they have they will imminently receive approval for the street improvement plans and permits that they have diligently worked at risk to advance. and so we have put all the pieces in place and are very confident that the partnership

that you've seen today will continue. i'm happy to also defer to the developer who would like to hear from him to mr. mooney, if you wouldn't mind. and i'm not putting you too much on the spot, which i hate to do. could you give me some confidence that we're doing the right thing here, maybe a little bit on the spot, sorry. so, commissioner, first of all, we're not planning to go anywhere, that said, this is a big, complicated project in which we are constantly needing to raise funds. we've deployed $800 million to date, so i suspect that our we will continue to raise investment dollars as part of a group of part of an effort that is led by the existing partners. and we don't plan on going anywhere. i appreciate you saying that. thank you, as far as the other aspects, no, thank you that that was said. thank you, as far as the other aspects are, the more physical aspects i have very

carefully looked at the design guidelines in the d-4d, which are extremely elaborate, more elaborate than hardly anything we ever have. and i feel that they're completely in line with developing site findings and conditions by which you basically, are able and allow yourself to redefine or recirculate a guidelines when, when you need to. and i think they meet the intent of the original ideas in every possible way. they are technical issues, and i'm in full support. and with the amendment to the text adding the reference to platinum and green infrastructure, i'm in support of every aspect that is in front of us today. i just want to clarify so that it's one of commissioner moore's questions. do you mind coming back up again? while it's reassuring to hear mr. meany, say that they're going to be there forever, bottom line on the way you've structured this

agreement is, you do reimbursement for the infrastructure, and it doesn't really matter who the owner is at that point in time. is that correct? if the infrastructure was built, that you're obligated if you go forward with this and get all the rest of the approvals, that you will reimburse them and it doesn't matter if they've transferred it to somebody else, even though that's not the hope or the expectation. yeah. as a as a structural matter, this source of funding comes in solely as a reimbursement source. and so, in that way, the city very wise and validates that the assets are already installed before, you know, we're actually dispersing any funds, there is a lot of collaboration that between city departments, public works, puc, the developer entities, everybody's engineers to get to that point. and so we have a tremendously close collaboration where we will absolutely be able

to head off any issues from far in advance because we know you know who the construction teams are on the ground. i mean, we have inspectors out there daily. it's a very coordinated process, and so we have a lot of foresight to make sure everything is going to plan. but bottom line is it doesn't matter who the owner is. correct yeah. the master developer is responsible for doing all of that infrastructure that is assignable. but as you heard from the developer, that's not something we anticipate. okay. thank you, commissioner imperial , thank you, president diamond and vice president moore, for your meticulous questions, the financing, when i looked at it, just, for me, i was also a lot of questions for about it. and also also concern as well as to the return back to the city. as of now, it looks like there is,

you know, there's a financial feasibility that the transfer tax and property tax, will, you know, will incur through that, in that feasibility study, did it say, the potential for how many years were the tax, increments will return back to the city. is there some can someone answer that? thank you, commissioner, for your question, i don't have the exact years, where, that show the final year in which, the tax increment comes to the city. but i think generally to address your comment, i first, you know, want to make very clear that this the cops are a general fund secured debt. so as a, as a very important fiscal partner, and also just the city as a partner

to see the success in treasure island, they are stepping in to offer their credit, to be able to provide this stage two alternative financing. and so they are making the general fund commitment over time to appropriate those revenues to repay the debt. i'm happy to get back to you on the exact question of the time frame, but the projections do show over time, and the net revenues generated from the project are sufficient to cover the payments over, you know, through the build out of the project and years beyond, and so i'm happy to share that, when i have that information in front of you. yeah. please do. thank you. and, my other question is about the phasing. most importantly for the affordable housing, when will that be or what is the schedule for affordable housing units being going to be built? i will turn that question over to ty, to director robert beck.

sorry, we have three buildings that have been described, the senior housing, the behavioral health building and the family building. the target for to is to complete the behavioral health building and the, senior building by the end of 2026. and to complete the family building in 2028. okay. thank you very much, i just want to make sure that, we're prioritizing the affordable housing units in this big investment that the city is going to provide, with all this clarification, i'm in full support of the development. with also, finding that, amendment and findings that include, by present timing. thank you, commissioner braun. thank you, i think my fellow commissioners

have already covered the ground. the ground really well on this. and i've gotten a lot of good answers for some some more questions about the financing agreement. so i appreciate the amount of attention that, president diamond particular paid to, trying to consider the addition. i mean, i'm in support of approval. i'm in support of the additions made by suggested by president diamond. you know, i'm just really excited to see this project moving forward. for a long time, there was the in ground site preparation, infrastructure work going on, and nobody was really seeing the vertical construction happening. and now actually seeing all the vertical construction happening and gain that great momentum. it's a really exciting time. i'm looking forward to actually going out to yerba buena and treasure island this weekend, riding the electric ferry and just walking the entire site, seeing the new sculpture, i do recognize that with the change to the development agreement, there really is a big change to the project financing approach, and this is this is the city

taking on more of the cost, more of the risk in some ways. and i think that's been, you know, my fellow commissioners have all raised those concerns and issues , but i also recognize that, you know, but for this project, we don't get the revenues that are going to reimburse our general fund, for spending those revenues. and meanwhile, you know, we might not get the affordable housing units as well as the market rate housing units that could be built for this project. we might not get them on as quickly a time frame, without supporting the project. and so on balance, i'm always thinking about trade offs, and i think that this is a really good outcome to keep this project moving forward and keep this momentum happening so that we can we can provide that additional housing, welcome new neighbors, really see something new and exciting happening here in treasure island, in yerba buena, so and then as far as the design guidelines, i'm very comfortable with those as well. the change to the, dda, i think

there's just some helpful flexibility built into those guidelines, and it's helpful that we want to come back for minor modifications in the future as well, with the changes that are included. so i'm definitely in full support, and i appreciate all the hard work that's been done on this to keep this project moving forward. commissioner williams, thank you. thank you for the presentation, really exciting to see what's going on in treasure island, i'm i'm trying to understand the copy, the bonding . does that have any effect on other programs and stuff that come out of the general fund, like, you know, programs for, you know, vital programs for the city that, seniors and stuff like that rely on. how does that impact how do these cop, funds do they affect any any of that or, thank you, commissioner williams. that's a great

question, so the cop program is just a debt program that the city uses. so it's not a program that directly impacts, two year budget, you know, general fund discretionary spending. we have a policy to keep our cop debt expenditures within a certain cap, and we budget for that cap within that program. we have been working over the last year collaboratively with the city administrator, the controller's office, to sort of validate this program. coming into the cop program. and we anticipate that it is all going to be sort of processed on the schedule we're proposing within that program without any sort of, you know, distinct trade offs needing to be made. thank you. thank you. commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded,

to approve all three items, as amended, to include the finding read into the record by commissioner, president diamond, including a reference to the leed platinum certification for neighborhood design. requested by commission vice president moore on that motion. commissioner williams i commissioner braun, i commissioner. imperial i commissioner koppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and i think we'll take a break. mr. ionin at this point, how long? 1515, as if we're going to take a 15 minute recess. good okay. good afternoon, and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, april 4th,

2024. commissioners we left off under your regular calendar on item 31 for case number 2020, hyphen 005089 pr for the 30 501 cesar chavez street mission bernal care complex informational presentation. good afternoon, president, dimond and commissioners, i'm here to present an informational item, an update on the final design of the medical office building at the cpmc mission bernal campus, located at 3501 cesar chavez street. the item is before you as cpmc was required to provide an informational presentation to the planning commission on the final design of the medical office building as part of their previous project. approval to amend the planned unit development for the saint luke's hospital campus in 2013, the project was originally approved as part of a development agreement between the city and california pacific medical center in 2013. it included the

medical office building that consisted of health services, medical office space along with building infrastructure and admin spaces measuring approximately 86,000ft!s. the project also intended to retain the 1957 building of the saint luke's hospital campus. later in 2017, in an addendum to the eir, cpmc revised the project to demolish the 1957 building to maintain efficiency, and accommodated its square footage of 32,000ft!s within the expandd medical office building. this medical office building now measures 129,000ft!s, approximately, and it consists of the originally approved programing of medical offices, patient care, diagnostic and treatment spaces, retail education and conference spaces, along with building support and infrastructure. it also has four levels of below grade parking with 210 spaces. staff would like to note that a redlined version of the memo to the

planning commission was circulated on april 2nd, which clarified that there is no reduction in the space dedicated to the medical office building when compared to the original project, as it was erroneously suggested in the first version of the memo. the project sponsor has a brief presentation about the design and staff is available for any questions. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. my name is karthik ramadurai. i'm an architect with smithgroup and i'm going to present the mission bernal care complex design. this project has been in development for some time, but throughout it all it was guided by a set of design principles. the big ideas are being a good neighbor, we understand the neighborhood and the people in the neighborhood are very interested and invested in in the community. so this design, you know, does help to or respects the community and the environment. the other big tenant was strengthening connections, this design does act as a connector to the san

jose and the seventh street, you know, 27th street behind from cesar chavez and valencia. the other bigger, the big tenant was patient experience is key. make sure there was easy wayfinding in and around the campus and to the building. i'm sorry. i'm sorry to interrupt you folks that are entering the chambers. if you could do so quietly. we have proceedings that are ongoing. thank you. go ahead. sir, the other major tenants. big idea was the new design not to overpower the existing, mission bernal hospital. so a brief look at the site plan. project plan? true. north is planned north. in this one, the for the site is flanked by cesar chavez on the north side and valencia, you know, on the east side, there is an existing lower plaza, an existing upper plaza, and the existing hospital, you know, like on the on the west side. it has access from cesar chavez and valencia services, access through the, valencia

side, there is also a main entry from the lower plaza to the lobby, and there's a drop off on the first floor that is that has the building cantilevering on top of it, and there is a sub plaza to the south side that enables the connection from valencia to 27th street and san jose. here's a rendering aerial view from the north. as you can see, the building is on the left side, predominant material is gfc, a glass fiber reinforced concrete, window walls, curtain walls, glazing, insulated glazing unit and some metal panel very similar to the existing building that you see on the on the right side. and as you can see in between the buildings, there's the lower plaza and the upper existing upper plaza. and the design actually extends the plaza all the way to the corner of cesar chavez and valencia, thereby creating a really nice gateway to the entire campus and also a lot of green space for the community and neighbors to enjoy . here is another view from the south side. an aerial view from

the south side showing the building on the right and the existing building on the left, and you see the upper plaza and the drop off on 27th. and san jose, you know, like at the bottom left. and you see the, the new south plaza, splitting the, the new building and the existing building and connecting to valencia. and there is a staircase there and elevators to enable people to access, again, predominantly the material used is gfrc glass fiber reinforced concrete, multiple colors help to emulate the existing building design, and the pattern, but not too drastic color changes. so it doesn't overpower it is pretty subtle. and here's the view along, at the corner of cesar chavez and valencia and the three circles up at the top are the three colors that we've used, white, pale gray with a little bit of texture, with a little bit dark, you know, like

granular texture. and then the light green. so there's a composition of all three in this building. so here's a view, you know, of the both the buildings, you know, like if you kind of do an aerial view from the cesar chavez, as you can see, it completes the campus. it is complementary, similar, but not the same to the existing building. thank you. thank you. that concludes presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this informational item. may i proceed? my name is robert coleman. i'm a resident of san francisco in my fourth decade. i do currently live near the project described. there is a bit of neighborhood history there. when the project was

approved, the stub of san jose avenue that went to cesar chavez was basically deeded over to the project and closed to the public . in exchange, there was a open space park area under the jurisdiction primarily of dpw, even though there was a, overlapping jurisdiction. and it's called variously, guerrero park and other things. it's where guerrero becomes san jose at 28th street, currently at the, dead end there on san jose avenue. the project was given a small amount of funding that ran out during the design phase and was never actually implemented, so that quasi park is in terrible disrepair, for it is basically not part of the campus footprint, but it is to be, i think, imagined as part of the

larger medical campus because people going to and from it pass through that area. it's remarkably, in, in poor condition. and it was supposed to be part of the, of the cpmc bernal campus responsibility. and it's sort of fallen by the wayside. the community has been largely shifted from district eight to district nine through supervisorial district redistricting. and it's on the edge and frontiers of both districts. so both supervisors offices need to be informed about the conditions and the sort of lack of resolution of this community matter relating to this project. thank you. okay. last call for public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. and this is now before you

commissioners vice president moore. i think the public weighs that very interesting point, something that is not being discussed in today's presentation. but i would like to ask our landscape architect, mr. coley, from smith's group, to see as to whether or not he is aware of the history of that particular aspect of the planning of the project. afternoon commissioners with sutter. i've been working on the project, 15 years. our landscape architect on the hospital project was not involved on the guerrero plaza work. we're working with hok architects on that project. we have a submittal in to department of public works, a 90% cd set that's under review by the city,

the city family, all the different departments. we're waiting for comments back, once we have comments back, then we'll be ready to mobilize and construct, it has been to, to the previous speaker's point. it has taken us a long time to get there. but our commitment remains the same. we will deliver guerrero plaza, since this project is informational only, i would encourage the planning department and this commission to, see that cpmc comes with a full, develop a conceptual idea about this park. because while the district redistricting has changed responsibilities or focus on the project, i do not want to lose our own responsibility of overseeing and commenting on the master planning of what cpmc is doing citywide. i thank you for

responding. i would like to see that answered as quickly as possible so that we can indeed, as a commission, send you a new, new, medical complex of building here on its path without losing track of the fact that that is a lose end and an unanswered question. thank you. so overall, i believe that the central lower upper plaza or central lower, plazas and the project, including the waking of the building to see that sunlight and usable city is fully established, it's a good idea. medical office buildings are what they are. smith's group is known for doing that as their mainstay of their practice. so i am in support of that. the outstanding question about that missing piece is what i'm interested in. and otherwise that would be my comments. commissioner braun. yes,

actually, i'm glad, you know, i'm going to be outside of the sort of informational item about the medical office building lane here a little bit, too. and so the first issue is i want to echo the concerns about getting guerrero plaza built, and now i know that sometimes on a regular basis, we have an update provided to this commission on the status of the agreement and implementation with cpmc, because i remember this coming up, last year as well. and it's not just the plaza itself getting built. i actually use that bike share station at that plaza quite frequently, and it's one of the only crossings on guerrero that has not yet been signalized. and it's a very scary one that crosswalks on guerrero, as you can imagine, to cross that street. and i know it's part of mta's, plans right now to build a signal there, but i imagine i'm just kind of speculating here, but i imagine some of that is being held up by not being certain what the

actual final design of guerrero plaza is going to be, and getting that moving forward, while i'm on the topic of, transportation, more specific to the medical office building, you know, i think i on, on the whole , the site plan makes sense to me. the medical office building seems to be pretty well designed. i was a little concerned about the blank wall facing valencia until i realized that there will be. it will be set back and landscaped area in front of it. i am concerned, however, about again a traffic issue, a sort of livability issue that's attached to it, and that's more to do with the fact that there are major bike lanes on valencia and cesar chavez. and there are there's a very large driveway entering the underground garage for the medical office building at valencia, and then a smaller driveway as well on cesar chavez. and i know there's a separate plan for how, you know, the lane design will work, and also for relocation of the bus

stop that's currently at valencia and cesar chavez. but still, i would, i do want to make sure i just want to put out there. i want to make sure that there's going to be a very safe way for pedestrians and the sidewalk for bicycle traffic, vehicular traffic to all interact in a way that's not going to create a lot of conflicts or endanger anyone, certainly a hospital should not be contributing to endangering anyone, so it's just it's a point i wanted to bring up. but besides that, you know, i this project, on the whole, i think thanks to the agreement hammered out with cpmc, you know, there's a lot of benefits, coming from this project. we retained a community medical facility in an important location, and it's, you know, very much needed, and then also the, the upper and lower plazas that have been constructed actually serve as a very pleasant open space for the neighborhood, i walked right through those plazas on a regular basis, and seeing this design that kind of draws them out continues that plaza along

cesar chavez to the corner, as well as creating a new pedestrian pathway that lines up with 27th street to valencia. i think it's wonderful to see, i think that with those improvements, this this building could be a real benefit for the neighborhood beyond just the medical office building. so i'm really happy with with seeing that. miss wadi? yes. i just wanted to chime in on the guerrero park aspect as you guys , i guess some of you are on the commission during the development agreement approval for cpmc, but the park is part of their development agreement, so they do have the obligation to build it and finish it, if you want any additional information about the status or our oversight, we do also have elizabeth pearl, who's the development agreement, compliance manager, basically, on the, on the line as well. but i just wanted to reiterate that it is part of their obligation. so it's not going to slip through the cracks in any ways, it is one of their obligations that they'll need to see through fruition. so can we have the compliance officer? sure, elizabeth pearl, if you're on the line, if you have any additional information to share

about the guerrero park status. yeah sure. thanks. elizabeth pearl, planning department staff , we do have a final design that's been submitted. could you speak a little louder, please? certainly. i'm sorry. this is elizabeth pearl, planning department staff, sutter has submitted a final design. and as i mentioned, it's going through the final review by public works and other city agencies. they currently have 90% drawings in for their street improvement permit, we expect that that will be approved within the next couple of months. and that construction will begin this year. one more question. so i know that cpmc has been here a couple of times pre-covid and post covid. are they done with their annual reports or are there any remaining with their coming to us? we do have one final report remaining. they have the development agreement expired in august of last year, and cpmc and sutter are wrapping up their final reporting, we

expect to have that last report in may, and then we will go through the city process of reviewing it, issuing our own report, and coming to final conclusions about their compliance with the da. so it's a little hard to hear. but if i understood correctly, they have one more hearing. can you make sure that they update us at that hearing on the status of guerrero park? sure. of course. thank you. thank you. could could i ask that, the designers of guerrero park and smiths group's landscape group have a talk with each other so that the integration and transition from one park to the other is indeed a connected experience. i think that is extremely important in a place where we really only have small, disconnected, open spaces rather than a city where every green place flows together. so i strongly encourage that that is being done. and perhaps a staff together with smith's group could encourage, that meeting to occur. thank you. commissioner

williams, i just i'm not really familiar with, the project, but i really appreciate, all the commissioners concern with that area, my brother was born in that hospital, and, you know, i, i've been grew up in that area. so i really appreciate you guys taking the time to make sure it's a nice place. thank you. that's all. okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, we should move on to item 14 for case number 2000. excuse me, 2021 hyphen 010333c8 620th street. conditional use authorization. commission secretary, may i hand

you some edits ? good afternoon, president diamond and planning commissioners. the last item on the regular calendar is 620th street. and a request for conditional use authorization to remove the existing, two at the second floor of a two story commercial building, demolition and new construction of a five story mixed use building consisting of, approximately 24,961ft!s, the first floor woud consist of laboratory non life science. the second and third floors would be approximately

11,000ft!s and consists of offie . the fourth floor would consist of arts activities and the fifth floor would consist of a three bedroom residential unit. the project would otherwise be principally permitted, except for the unauthorized dwelling unit removal, the edu will be replaced with a code compliant family size unit. three bedrooms, since the publication of this packet, the department has received one letter in support of the project or overwhelmingly supportive, from the west, abutting property owners, the project qualifies for a housing element. general plan evaluation. subject to mitigation measures, which have been provided as exhibit s, c yeah, and the department found that the proposed design draws on the features of the third

street industrial historic district and is consistent with the policies and objectives of the general plan and central area waterfront plan. and lastly, the project includes several uses that the zoning district, urban mixed use zoning district, promotes. therefore, the department recommends approval of the cour, if you have any questions, i am here and we have representatives. the project sponsors, attorney, as well as the architecture team. we get the computer, please. good afternoon, commissioners john kevlin here on behalf of the project, sponsor of this new mixed use development at 620th street. we're excited to present this, new project to you. we're currently parallel processing the permits at dbi and hope to have it under construction before the end of 2024. so this is a live project before we get to that, though, the c we are

seeking today is to allow for the demolition of an unpermitted dwelling unit in the existing building at the site. the existing 9000 square foot, two story commercial building was constructed in 1972 and has been occupied by various sales office and business uses over the years. it is typically been broken into multiple tenant spaces. a previous commercial tenant of the building, eco imprints, occupied a suite on the second floor over the years. the business has. owner john borg would sleep over at the site so he wouldn't have to drive home. his principal residence is in bolinas, where he lives with his family, and he vacated the property in 2022 when his commercial lease expired. oh, yeah. thanks, due to the technical, standards, it was determined that this 738 square foot space was a you.do, although it never served as any tenant or household's principal residence and was always associated with the single commercial tenant. next slide. this is what the space looks like today. as you can see, the interior of the building has since been demolished. after all of the tenants vacated in 2022. and next slide. the cost to

legalize the dwelling udu is $655,000, and an appraisal has determined that it would result in no net no value increase to the property. the highest and best use being a redevelopment of the property, and therefore the findings are met to remove the udu. and so now i'd like to hand it over to will mollard at workshop one to present the actual proposed project. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. our proposed project involves the construction of a five story mixed use building that is 68ft in height, just under 25,000ft!s in area, where the principal uses are laboratory, office, arts activities, and residential. truly a mixed use building and we have a design that we believe responds to its historic context. the project site at the corner of 20th at illinois and dogpatch is 5500fts in area. it is across the street from historic bethlehem steel building on the right. in this image, and the american industrial center to the south.

the project is flanked by the betrayal lodge apartments on the illinois to the north, and the residential condominium building on 20th to the west. now for the same corner with our proposed design, the building's exterior consists of a two layer skin with a vertical screen set in front of an inner window wall. the screens sit on a horizontal i-beam channel at the slab edge of each floor level. these metal elements, which are all anodized aluminum, are then framed by a green glazed tile. looking south on illinois by the use of the screens allows us to create privacy within each floor without the loss of light or views. our design approach allows flexible city to add solid walls as needed, and a mixed use building like this one with small floor plates requires

a good deal of solid wall. the wall panels are in the same plane as the windows behind the screens, and are distributed across each level, where the floor plan requires it. turning briefly to the floor plans at the ground level, the building served is served by two lobbies. the 20th street lobby serves the top three floors, while the illinois lobby serves the floors one and two. the lab space itself has occupied floor area of roughly 2400ft!s, is directly accessible from illinois street, and has a garage door for loading. the ceiling height in this space is just about 16ft. the office spaces on levels two and three are full floors, each with just about 4200ft!s of occupied floor area and ceiling heights of 12ft. the fourth floor features an arts activity use with approximately 3000ft!s. it is served by a landscape low roof deck which overlooks

illinois. lastly, the fifth level features a private 3000 square foot residence. the unit has three bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms and windows on three sides. the unit has its own internal stair leading to an occupied landscape roof deck. just a word. just a word about the design. the exterior design draws inspiration from the neighboring american industrial center, one of the characteristics of the aic is a strong horizontal emphasis. here you can see how our horizontal elements align with those of aic to the south. aic also features some strong vertical elements, although secondary in nature. we have incorporated those vertical elements in our design as seen here in our building elevations. this has been achieved by replacing windows with solid panels. that is your time, sir. the commissioners may have additional follow up questions

and call you up later. and i can go on about some of our other references just to say, i hope on the whole, our design makes its own statement. thank you sir, and thank you. at this time we'd like to open up public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission. seeing none, public comment is closed. this matter is now before you, commissioners, i'd like to ask the architect. how much longer was your presentation that you got cut off from? about 60s. go ahead. let me just get back to this last slide. there second to last slide. ten minutes was good. back in the day, but five

minutes is a little brief. but hopefully those days will change. so the eic features a consistent window width and the use of brick as an accent material. our project design is based on the same four foot wide window with groups of 4 or 5 windows, just like that of the aic. our projects green glazed tile seeks to emulate the brick of our neighbor without being too literal, and we hope on the whole, the design makes its own statement, as john mentioned, we

have a were in the incorrect row, those have just been put in a row. and then i'd like to read into the record , edit to condition of approval number eight, and it's to add an additional sentence that bike parking, including for e-bikes or cargo bikes, will continue to be refined during the building permit, application. thank you. thank you. vice president moore, it is interesting to see that we still have the ability to add interesting buildings in very exciting parts of our city, so i am delighted to see not being constrained by sbs and abs, etc, but really allowing the discussion about architecture and buildings. that would be my most important comment. generally, i am in support of

the building. i'm interested in a very unusual mix of uses. if you or mr. kevlin could briefly comment on the viability of leasing or owning a building like that, i know it is a special lab used, not the one that comes in under different types of classifications. could you briefly describe particularly how the art use, happens as to whether or not you have already interested tenants for the art for the lab, as well? organizations who would be using the art space, and then lastly, who would live up there. would you mind telling me the story? thank you, commissioner moore. it is a unique building. so i appreciate the question, this is actually the third iteration of this project. will and workshop one have been working through each of them. it started as a residential building about ten years ago. it was then didn't work out. went for a lab office combo building that was not going anywhere. and so the owner is in contract and is actually we're entitling this on behalf of a purchaser user of the building. and so to separate

the ground floor out the two floors of office, the arts activity, the arts activity is actually a media center that's going to be associated with the office uses that are on the second and third floor. so we're talking about podcasts, photo studios, those types of things. right, which are kind of more and more common with, you know, more social media attuned companies these days. right, the unit is also going to be associate ed with the company in terms of it being housing for the company, and it's going to be in control of that unit, the ground floor. we're still trying to figure out. we filed this project about a year ago. lab is kind of the what brokers will tell you is the highest and best use right now. and we're look, we've got some interesting lab tenants that we're talking about. it would be separate from the buyer, the purchaser user. but we're still exploring that ground floor so that that's still being worked on. but yeah, the upper floors about the ground floor, it's actually for one single user. and so we're

building and that's why it's going to be under construction this year is because we're building it for because we have an occupant. well, the interesting thing for me to ask you is that while lab is an i understand the story about the offices one, two and three and the top unit being interactive with each other, i would be concerned that we are not entitling a use by which we only will have a blank ground floor for too long of a time, and that can be addressed in a number of ways, hopefully not just putting paper on on the windows, but a landscaping attitude that kind of really greens a building on the ground floor until it's determined what's going to be in there. so i'm personally in support of what is in front of us, with the caveat that there is a little bit more time spent on how do we experience the building if it's coming online quickly and the time that we are not occupying the ground floor, or in case we don't. so i'd like to see a landscape architect,

attitude, expressed in some form discussed with the department. and i am personally in support of the project and would move to approve it. thank you, commissioner. commissioner williams yeah, i was just wondering. i was under the impression that, the space, the artist space, was that going to be like a community, place or have you reached out to any of the local artists, or is that was that maybe i read through that wrong. but yeah. so we have done outreach. it's important to note we've met with both the trail boosters and dogpatch, neighborhood association, both very enthusiastic about this project. we didn't take it to the full, group. so we didn't get a formal endorsement, but they've been very positive on the design. no. and also met with the owners of the condo units in the adjacent building, no. no request, comment, kind of encouragement for anything

beyond what we're proposing. it's a modest project and like i said, the art space, arts activity space, which, you know, kind of includes these media center activities are very much integrated with the future occupant of this building. so it is going to be a part of their operations not planned for other use. oh, thanks. okay i am intrigued by the combination of uses. it's unusual. and, you know, in this area that seems entirely appropriate, so very supportive of this project. okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions as amended, by staff in their submittal, and read into the record on that motion, commissioner williams, a commissioner braun, a commissioner imperial, a commissioner, coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i

so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 commissioners that will place us under your discretionary review calendar for items 15 a and b for case number is 2020 hyphen 004486d, r, p hyphen zero two, and va r at 820 laguna honda boulevard. commissioner as you will consider the discretionary reviews and the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance, each discretionary review filer will have five minutes for a presentation. the project sponsor will then have ten minutes. and then members of the public will be afforded two minutes, after which both dr. requesters and the project sponsor will receive a two minute rebuttal. we'll hear from staff first, mr. hall. yep thank you. jonas. good afternoon. president. diamond commissioners david winslow, staff architect

for the department. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application 2022 .0503. 3449. that proposes to legalize a three story, ten foot by 25 foot rear extension to a single family dwelling that was constructed without the benefit of a permit. planning code section 134 requires the subject property to maintain a rear yard equivalent to 30% of the lot depth, which is 25ft and approximately 25ft in eight inches. a portion of the building proposed to be legalized extends into the rear required rear yard. therefore, a variance is required. the existing building is an age eligible be historic resource. built in 1936. as a bit of background, it's at some point, excuse me, approximately 20 years ago, unpermitted construction of this three level, ten foot by 25 foot building expansion was completed at the rear of the subject

building without a benefit of building permit or rear yard variance. city records indicate that several complaints were filed to dbi starting in about 2013 regarding work without permits, none of none of which were work directly related to the expansion of the building, but more building permits of plumbing, plumbing, electrical, fence work, excavation, things of that nature. as such, these complaints were not referred to the planning department. in october 2021, sorry. in october 2021, variance was applied to the planning department for the addition of a deck which uncovered the expansion of the building that had occurred at some time in the past, and then a complaint was issued, 20 2184 157 dbe issued a notice of violation in january 2022, stating a site inspection

revealed that the addition does not appear on the sanborn map in 1993, or an aerial photograph, until 2002, and a search of city records failed to unearth a building permit for this addition that brings us to the doctor. requesters. there are two. the first, anthony hall of 20 rockaway street, the resident to the northwest, is concerned that a deck, any deck extending beyond the unpermitted building extension, would impose undue privacy and noise impacts due to the proximity of several of his bedroom windows adjacent to the rear yard of the subject property. his proposed alternative is to limit the size of any deck to no more than

three feet deep. by approximately 14ft wide, or remove the deck entirely. this doctor was filed when the previous set of permits, which included a deck, were proposed, and the second requester, karen tarantola, on behalf of the greater west portal neighborhood association, is concerned that extensions made over time without permits far exceed the setback requirements for approximately ten feet towards

the rear at about the same time or shortly after excavation of the rear yard and construction l in your deleted the deck. the it's the legalization for the building extension into the required rear yard. the building. the resulting building as it is now maintains the depth and massing that moderates the depths

between the adjacent neighbors, which is aided by the spacing of the side setbacks. since this permit is to legalize an existing non-compliant condition performed without the benefit of a permit that extends into the required rear yard. there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, namely the lack of regard for process, including proper neighborhood and regulatory review that resulted

in that is taking place. no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that apply to 820 laguna honda. they do not apply. they've never applied to any of the other properties in the area. what is exceptional is the construction of an illegal and unpermitted three story addition to the protected rear yard open space of laguna honda . the

unpermitted warehouse like extension is not in harmony with anything in the neighborhood, and it's clearly visible by the many passer bys on rockaway and saint brendan's church. it's most certainly injurious to the closest neighbors at 812 laguna honda, because its shadow has greatly diminished the sunlight to the kitchen and backyard of that residence. it's most certainly injurious to my property at 20 rockaway, because its proximity is so close to my bedroom windows and has on many occasions created noise disturbances when people are gathered and what remains of the

rear yard. over the years i've had on many, many times to relocate several members of my own family to other parts of the house just so they could sleep. lastly it's materially injurious to the neighborhood because being built without permits, no one really knows how it complies to fire health and safety codes. do we this case because it's under their watch that the unpermitted and illegal construction took place. there's also the involvement of a corrupt former senior building inspector, mister bernie kern, who is now in prison for taking bribes on projects just like this one. he signed off on seven different minor interior permits related to 820 laguna honda in an effort to shepherd it through the permit process, all the while telling complaining neighbors that he was working to return

the house to its original footprint. the situation has intensified in recent years because the owner had the audacity to submit prior proposals to the planning department that, incredibly included a deck that would be added on to the permitted unpermitted structure that would further invade the open space and allow for even more disturbances to my property. this variance does not mention a deck, because the owner knows that once the structure is legalized, there can come back and ask for a deck. it's that simple. which they will do if it's not settled by special restriction. now throughout the 20 plus years, well, let's put it this way. the issue would not be before you. now, if the reasonable solutions forwarded were accepted by the owner. throughout the 20 years that i've tried to get this issue resolved with the help of your able staff, several proposals were forwarded, falsely accepted, and then at the last

minute rejected. the sponsor and his representatives have been untruthful, deceitful and very vindictive in their dealings. indeed, the owner of 820 himself is a contractor, and he knew very well that if he were to apply for a permit and the first place for such construction, he would have been denied. the best solution for the entire neighborhood is that this house be returned to its original footprint. but that is for you as commissioners to decide. i've insisted from day one that no matter what decision you arrive at, it is absolutely imperative that a notice of special restriction be placed on the deed so that no further developments or intrusion could ever take place on that property , regardless of ownership. regardless of ownership, and especially in a way that will preclude the owner from ever seeking another variance to develop a deck without tearing down the structure. my family and the neighbors have suffered enough by this total disregard for other people's rights by this particular owner. and if i just can wrap this up, there's

been a lot of time and money wasted on this project. thank you sir. okay, i have nothing but respect for you commissioners and the work you do. you will have a i hope you make the right decision. thank you. we should hear from our second requester. supported this . we're going to hear from both dr. requesters first and then public comment. well we'll hear from the project sponsor and then public comment. far away. good afternoon commissioners. my name is karen tarantola. i'm a resident of west portal and i'm here representing the greater west portal neighborhood association, which encompasses residences between dewey boulevard and portola drive. 19th avenue to and including laguna honda boulevard. the purpose of my comments today are

one to reiterate why greater west portal neighborhood association feels compelled to submit the discretionary review proposal. the illegally constructed horizontal and vertical extensions to 820 laguna honda have impacted its immediate neighbors by restricting natural light onto their property, encroaching on another neighbor's right to privacy, and have disregarded the city's mandated setback requirements. this situation may have a serious impact on the value of the homes surrounding. 820 laguna honda, and may also create an increased fire danger with the subject property so close to those neighboring homes in the submitted drp, there are specific residential guidelines and checklist items that address

the concerns. excuse me, i have just stated the impact to the overall neighborhood is not as direct, but does create serious concerns for those who do follow regulations and do work within the system to maintain and improve our homes. if this egregious situation is allowed to stand without being brought into compliance, what prevents the future disregard for rules and regulations from happening by by this owner or by others? any credibility held by our citizens for your commission and the department's, as well as the building inspection department will be lost. number two, in the question of the permit history, the only in extensive review of

the permits, the only permits that i found that show completion on this property are two, two, one for powder room and a basement storage area for plumbing and another for light thing. there is no record of building permits for the additions that were made. being that are being requested or approved in the permit history for this property other than in 2016 for fencing and reroofing to comply with previous notices of violation. all others appear to have expired and none address the construction of the illegal extensions. our organization is requesting that this illegally constructed extension be fully removed and the property returned to its original footprint, and that any future modifications to the property, whether to the interior or exterior, be done following the established and extensive requirements of the san

francisco planning code and the proper oversight by the department of building inspection, one final comment i was told, per a statement submitted to the planning commission, the neighborhood association association had never reached out to the owner, mr. o'keefe, to offer the opportunity to present his point of view. i have a copy of the letter which i will submit to you here, written by me on behalf of the ciioin february of 2023, inviting mr. o'keefe to attend our monthly meeting in april of 2023, or any subsequent months, and make his presentation. then i hand-delivered that letter to the property and followed up with a phone call to his office in brisbane. i was told by the person answering the phone that he did not wish to attend. i

hope you have taken the opportunity to review the extensive documents that accompanied our drp, and i thank you for allowing me this time. thank you. project sponsor. you have ten minutes. disappear on the. it will. you'll need to start speaking. and then. sfgovtv. he's got overhead. president. vice president. commissioners. thank you for your time today. my name

is stephen hammond. i represent bill o'keefe. put the mic up so we can hear you as project sponsor. again, my name is stephen hammond. i represent bill cephas. project sponsor. if the planning commission takes the doctor, it should grant the variance without conditions. the scope of the planning staff proposed notification of neighbors. that condition is vague and represents a condition in perpetuity that is cumbersome and unnecessary. mr. halls dr. was based on his concerns about the construction of a new deck. there is no longer any deck at issue. the previously existing deck in the rear yard has been removed. mr. o'keefe submitted amended plans, removing the addition of the deck, and now seeks only to legalize the addition that has existed for over two decades and for which he has already been assessed and pays property taxes. the

criteria for variance are satisfied. the addition is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding homes. the addition does not add any height to the residents. spacing between adjacent homes is aided by side setbacks and the adjoining properties have comparable encroachments into their rear yards. it is worthy to note that not all of this additions encroaches into the variance area. in fact, only 171 square foot footprint is requested. as you can see here, this represents mr. o'keefe's home. the slashed area represents the, the addition and add the yellow highlighted area is the area of encroachment. and so what we are asking for is art

is not as, significant or as impactful as the dr. requesters would have you believe. the existing rear yard addition has been there at least 25 years. it is impractical to remove and removal is opposed by next door neighbor at ten rockaway. the first level of the addition is below grade, which mitigates its impacts on neighbors. further, it is an irregular, small shaped rear yard that significantly reduces the buildable area of the lot, which is a factor in favor of granting the variance. finally, the previously mentioned existing side yard setbacks are a factor in in favor of granting the variance. there are essentially four

adjacent neighboring properties to this rear yard. two of them, ten rockaway and 804 laguna honda, support the variance and have provided letters of support. that's gerald sullivan of ten rockaway. you can find that in page 67 of our supplemental comp notes and miss carlin at page 70 to our supplemental comments. only two adjacent neighbors oppose the variance. first, mr. hall of 20 rockaway, who is aware of and approved the initial construction when mr. hall and mr. o'keefe were very good friends, but have since had a falling out and is near spearheading the opposition. second, the owners of 812 laguna honda. the owners are mr. hall's

daughter and son in law. however, they purchased their home in 2009, a decade comments. for an opportunity to meet with her and to discuss ways to resolve the issue, she refused that request. she simultaneously admitted that she had been in significant contact with tony hall with respect to mr. hall, we negotiated with him

at length to try to resolve this. i dispute mr. hall's representations about bad faith. in fact, we did our best to reach an agreement that would involve payment to mr. hall and that would allow for a small deck. but ultimately, be it, there was not a commitment, at least as far as we could discern from mr. hall, that we could be assured of his full support of the project. therefore, we

simply did away with the deck, and we're moving forward with this request for a variance. i respectfully request the commission grant the variance without conditions. i'm happy to answer any questions. i'd also like to address the fact that some of you may be questioning why this was built without a permit in the first place. this is an issue that we take head on in pages five and six of our supplemental comments. mr. o'keefe believed that he had a permit for the addition, the

record support, his good faith belief. in 1998, mr. o'keefe, who at that time was best friends with mr. hall, spoke to him extensively about his desire to have to do the work, and mr. hall recommended eamon murphy to do the construction. when mr. o'keefe hired murphy and relied on murphy to obtain the permits, and he believes that he did so in 1998, murphy pulled the permits. in 1999, murphy renewed the prior permit, and in nine and later 99, that permit was finalized. it does not appear that there was ever a approval of this rear yard addition.

we're not suggesting that there was, but mr. o'keefe believed that there was, and the record reflects a good faith, his good faith belief. after the falling out with mr. hall and mr. o'keefe in 2013, a litany of complaints started to come in about the rear yard and constructions in and around the rear yard. in 2013, a complaint from major work done without a permit again in 2013, a complaint for major remodeling without a permit. in 2013, another complaint for major remodeling without a permit in successive years 2015 and 2016, there were additional complaints made about construction to the rear yard or concerning this modifications to this addition or, or or complaining about the horizontal addition at the rear ground floor in each and every case. the complaint was investigated and the building department determined that there was no violation and it was closed or it was fixed and abated. and in many of these abatements had to do with minor things like a fountain in the backyard or the deck that, mr. o'keefe understood didn't require for a permit, so, so at each turn after a multitude of complaints, this there's either been no violation or or mr.

o'keefe acted expeditiously to take care of it. so it was his reasonable belief that there was no issue with the ten foot addition. it wasn't until. 1920s, over 20 years later, that it came to light, that there apparently was not a permit for this rear yard addition. and as a result, gbi instructed mr. o'keefe to apply for the variance, which is what he did. he did it also with the deck. he faced significant opposition and so he removed the deck. the record supports mr. o'keefe's good faith belief that he had a permit for the addition. he relied on eamon murphy and mr. hall's recommendation, and he understood that those permits had been approved and finalized.

i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. thank you. with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address the commission on this discretionary review, please come forward. you will each have two minutes. to speak, please. could line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. that would be helpful. thank you. go ahead ma'am. thank you. commission. and thank you for volunteering for this position and all your hard work. i've been to the location. my name is audrey pulliam. can you pull the mic so it's closer to you? yeah, my name is audrey pulliam. i have been at the location. i've worked for mr. o'keefe at age 20. laguna honda, and been observing the situation from the inside. well, mr. o'keefe does

have a building company, and he just constructed a very large part of union square, might i add, and made it very beautiful. and mr. o'keefe does have some extraordinary situation with his family matter of fact, has grown and has extra ordinary circumstances in health situations that, i might add, i am a caretaker to the elderly and i feel like mr. hall may have some health situation because usually that's when people become more, susceptible to noises and decimals and variations of situations. so as i see it, i walked around the neighborhood and i tripped twice walking in front of mr. hall's, sidewalk has large rocks protruding out of it. and i would like to know why the public has accepted this. and mr. hall's comment to the dpw

was, it's been like that for many years, like 30 years. and he had no, no remorse for my twisted ankle that i was wearing high heels. and yes, there's i took video and i submitted it to 311. i think we should look at this situation as being, more personal than the building codes. and actually, when i look at the building, mr. hall's house seems to be extraordinarily close to the fence. and i'm wondering how that's even legal. but thank you. thank you very much. good afternoon, commissioners michael antonini, thank you for your service. i've given you all a little map there. that sort of depicts things as they exist in the area. i'm going to interrupt you for one second. sure. first,

welcome back to the commission. thank you. appreciate it. when prior commissioners show up and want to acknowledge that. second, we received a lot of correspondence from you, and i need to know if you're an agent for the applicant, in which case this is not the right time to talk. or if you're just an interested party, i mean, a interested bystander. at one time, i was a lobbyist. i'm no longer a lobbyist, so i can speak as a member of the public in support of the doctor. mr. ionin does that meet our criteria? are we okay? well, it appears he's you're not being paid for by the or. excuse me, the doctor requester or you're not part of the doctor requesters team? i'm not. i'm not the team, the member of the public? yeah. a member of the public? yes that's. so you're not being paid by the project sponsor? well, the doctor was in the past, but i'm no longer a lobbyist, and i was told by the ethics commission that i could cease being a lobbyist, even if i had to speak on the part of

this matter. that's fine. go ahead. thank you very much. appreciate it. all right. we start the clock again. so okay. so i just want to refer you to the, materials i gave you. and look in particular to figure number two on there because it shows the sanborn maps and shows quite clearly that all of those properties along laguna honda, which came quite a bit after the houses were built on rockdale, were afforded large spaces for reasonable spaces for their rear yards. and they were while the line is not a parallel line because of the 45 degrees and the fact that rockway veers off of, laguna honda at that angle, there, you know, was not a reason for this addition to have been done the way it was, even with permits. because please notice on another figure, you can see that, i think it's figure b, yes. figure b shows

after the addition and how much that addition takes up of the rear yard, it was admitted even by project sponsors, attorney that it takes up quite a bit of it and it was not done parallel to the property line of, 20 rockaway. if it had been in that manner, it would have been less intrusive into the, required rear yard. instead, it was just done in a box formation. so 171ft!s of the 250 square foot addition is there. and in my involvement during the last five years on this whole situation, i have noticed that, there have been some instances where a lot of things were done. in addition that led to further complaints. mr. hall mentioned the loud parties, and there was also a hot tub request and this huge deck that was trying to be built. thank you, commissioners.

good afternoon. commission. my name is stephen martin pinto. i'm a firefighter here in the city. i'm also the former president of the west of twin peaks central council. and i'm here to speak on behalf of the neighbors of rockaway and rockwood drive. for too long, two standards have existed for people in san francisco a standard for ordinary citizens and a standard for special, privileged groups with a right city hall connections. what we are seeing here is a case of possible abuse of city hall connections to get unpermitted work approved on a home expansion project that unduly encroaches on neighbors on a neighbor's private property. i'm all in favor of simplifying and detangling the permitting process, but that is not what is at discussion here. what is at discussion is pay to play politics and how it is being used to bypass rules and policies, procedures that everyone else must abide by. the rules must apply to everyone, regardless of who they are or who they know. a system in which

this is not true is a corrupt system. approval of this variance request and permit without the proper scrutiny sets a precedent that corruption is an acceptable practice in san francisco. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is carl wendorf. i'm a neighbor. i reside in rockridge terrace, which is in forest hill extension, i've lived in the area for nearly 25 years, i walked the dogs often in the neighborhood. i talked to neighbors. this has come to my attention that this is done without permits. and i questioned that because that's not right. how could this happen in a city that i reside in? we have these rules and regulations for a reason. granting a variance for this illegal construction would not only undermine the integrity of our

zoning laws, but it also sets a dangerous precedent that could encourage others to flout these rules. such actions could lead to a domino effect of unpermitted work, compromising the character of our neighborhood and, more importantly, public safety. i am an individual that when the city wanted to replace street lights in our neighborhood, i asked for meetings, to look at our make site visits, to look at our street lights, which were constructed with stone taken from a quarry behind behind my house that is surrounding the street lights. we have special street lights for our, rockridge terrace. we wanted to keep those and we were able to do that. the fact that these additions were built illicitly as a matter of grave concern, it's essential that we uphold the rule of law to maintain order and fairness with our community. therefore, i strongly urge the board to

enforce the regulations by requiring the property owner to remove the unauthorized structures and restore their home to its original lawful condition. additionally appropriate fines should be levied to deter such reckless behavior in the future. i thought it was interesting. as i wrote down here on the train today, i read an article in the chronicle about a resident in, noe valley that's had his home insurance canceled because of density. you can submit the article if you'd like. thank you . my name is nora hall. i live at 20 rockaway with my husband, tony. and our life for the last 20 odd years has actually been hell. we've been put through a nightmare. our lives have been threatened. and just to give you two tiny examples from our neighbor at 820 rockaway, my husband and i came back from a

trip a couple of years ago to find a huge, almost 20 foot fence up around our house. the back of the fence came right into my back. i need to interrupt for a second. are you a family member? i am, yes, i live at 20 rockaway, at the same residence as your husband, who's filed for the discretionary review. i can't speak, you're technically part of the discretionary review team. oh, okay, so i can't tell you about. you can in the two minute rebuttal. you can if your husband affords it to you. i was just getting started. thank you. starting alive. my name is father mike quinn. i'd rather not be here, but thank you, commissioners, for all that you do to keep our city safe, when the deck was the issue a couple of years back, i wrote a letter back to willie brown. and i said, i know your honor is going to win. so all i can tell you is

that when, if. and i was told that it was supposed to have a hot tub in a. and i thought, you know, don't just if you could have some restrictions on that, and then because when the kids go down there, if there's anything, if there's music going on, we do have funerals at night at saint brendan's, which is, which is within listening. you could it's real close, you know, that's like one rock away. where? number 29. we're adjacent to. so we have funerals at night. we have funerals during the day. it'd be nice to have no music, you know, so it's kind of quiet. the second thing is, i found it interesting that someone said the gentleman who came up, that's the i guess he had, i guess one of the, the proponent for the fellow. i received a letter from miss pulliam on, march 18th, an email, and it said, i was wondering if you might be able to share experience after suggesting that mr. hall

probably, turned us in for some parking, but he says, i have presided over if there's any letter that you want to acknowledge your willingness to the neighborhood to improve and game home improvement value of course, the church would want to see proper property values increase, and surely it will dramatically once the deck is produced. the backyard and the glass for mr. keefe. so i think you have to make a decision. my position is simply from the church. view is no deck. if you if you want to allow houses to touch, that's your job. that's it's not my lane. i'm only the representing the church people. but please, the little children going to school. thank you. just to clarify, there is no deck currently on the table. is that correct? that's not. that was my letter. it says there is a class that the plans that are before

you and me today do not have the deck proposed. originally that was the proposal, but it has been removed. right. so there's no deck currently on the table as part of the project. correct. except that the, doctor requester has requested that either the zoning administrator or the commission to take proactive steps. right. and for the future, i get it, commissioners, thank you very much for allowing me to speak. and thank you for your service, i kind of have a unique, view of this because i. i known bill o'keefe for a long time. i've known tony hall for a long time. they both stayed at my home. i used to be a resident of san francisco up until just over a decade ago. and now i was living in the northwest. and so they'd both come up and visit. and i know, i know, you know, i know them privy to a lot of conversations that they would have at my home. and also when i lived in the city during the

time that's disputed. and i, i feel really bad that two really good people have gone so sideways and suddenly 172ft!s is a huge deal. i'm kind of shocked by the whole thing, all the minutia, because we all have something better to do. i think it's ridiculous. and whether if this mic wasn't here and if it's sudden disturbance, whether i'm standing here or i'm standing ten feet back suddenly that's a huge disturbance. i'm sorry, i'm not seeing it. and i just see it between two parties that no longer get along and the party that suddenly has something a thorn in his side. and it's to me, it's very tragic. i think some people should pick up more hobbies or something, because this is a big waste of time, in my opinion, and i hate to see it because i was friends. i'm friends, i was friends with both of them. of course i with this

going on, i read through in detail, that, the information about the variances and everything else. and i've known mr. keefe for a long time. he's the most generous guy i know, and he's did a lot of things for tony hall with his campaign and put us, gave him a skylight for his house. he's the most generous guy i know. and he's, you know, obviously up in age, the last ending of his life. and it just the whole thing makes is just disturbing to me that it's even happening and wasting time. and i would i would appreciate it if you allow the variance. thank you very much for your time. good afternoon, commissioners, my name is bill o'keefe, and i'm the owner of 820 laguna honda boulevard. i want to thank all of you for all your hard mr. iona. he's the.

you're the project sponsor. i'm sorry. you're the project sponsor. what? you're the project sponsor. you're the owner of the property? no, i'm mr. o'keefe. right. you're the owner of the property. i'm the owner of the property. right. i'm sorry your time to speak is under the project sponsors time. but you will have a two minute rebuttal if you care to. oh, i can't speak now. okay. that's right. sir, we're just taking comment from members of the public. thank you for that commission. commissioner diamond. i acknowledge that it can be confusing as to when you're allowed to speak and when you're not, but we have developed a series of rules that create order for all doctors, and we stick to them pretty tightly. so we appreciate your understanding as to when it's an appropriate time to speak and when it's not. thank you. okay. good afternoon commissioners. my name is tricia mccollum. and thank you for your time today. i was living at the home, at 820

laguna honda boulevard from the fall of 2000, 2011 until the fall of 2016. i am here to speak for and support the variance. bill o'keefe is a very generous man. he lives an active and social lifestyle. tony hall and bill were best of friends, and bill financially and personally supported his successful run for the board of supervisors. in my experience, bill has always spoken to tony about the proposed construction projects past and present, and wanted it to be agreeable to all as they were best friends and discussed everything from construction to politics and everything in between. after much effort to be amenable to all neighbors, land scaping and maintaining their properties while working on his own in order to lessen the impact the construction might have, as he has always been very thoughtful and generous to his neighbors on both sides. wanting to make this a beautiful remodel

experience for all. there were huge, big trees between the properties of bill o'keefe and tony hall, which blocked all of their sunlight to their wall and their bedroom window, they never had a view on that side of their house until bill started the construction and remodeling of his backyard. he first cut down those trees completely. that completely covered their view, and then met tony to come to agreement on the height of the new barrier between the properties, tony initially agreed to the first height and bill began constructing. once it was done, tony waited till it was done, then had a problem, wanted it lowered so bill had it deconstructed and lowered to suit tony. after a few times of tony repeating this pattern, he invited tony to a breakfast to discuss his backyard fence height and how to come to agreement. after tony initially approved the height, then retracted the approval after the construction was completed. i believe he did this in order to hold up construction and create confusion time. okay. good

afternoon commissioners. my name is bill maher and i'm here speaking in support of the proposed variance in the present case. tony hall, who is now the complainant, was part of the design of the project. i'm a prescient witness. i known mr. hall and mr. o'keefe for decades. tony was at the house regularly before construction. during construction and after construction. he didn't file a complaint until 15 or 20 years after the construction. during the construction, tony had asked bill to move a door that he had previously approved, but it was too close to his wife and bill said sure, and they sealed it up and moved the door to where tony proposed it. what you have here is two people who were neighbors

and good friends for many, many years, and they've had a falling out. and so now what you have is an attempt to use the governmental process to help in a fight between two friends. that's not really what commissions are for. the project exists on its merits. bill thought he had the permit. tony thought he had the permits to. tony recommended the contractor and at the end of it, tony was fine. bill was fine. tony was still coming over to the house, sitting in the addition, having a drink. three of us would do it regularly and then, as i say, 15 or 20 years later, they have a falling out and everything changes. this commission should not pick sides in a grudge. thank you. good afternoon, commissioner. my name is ralph nunez and i've been around tony hall and, bill o'keefe for many

years. i known them both real well, and throughout all the years, tony hall and bill o'keefe have been good friends. they had a falling out. and back then, when the project was done, i was around tony hall recommended murphy's and the project was completed. everything was fine until they had a falling out, just recently , you know, at the project, when he's trying to pull more permits to get more stuff done, tony attacks them on every which way, i support the, variance, please. look it over and, give your opinion. thank you. well, commissioners, my name is alonzo bennett. i'm bill o'keefe, son in law, i like to preface something before i explain. i

have two grandsons. two great grandsons and four great great grandsons. so that says bill is on the upper side when i say grandson. so his great grandsons, my greats are his great greats. and over the past several years, going back. yeah. when bill started this, one of the avenues was to spend more time with the kids. so i've heard the hot tubs situation. i have a hot tub at my home, and bill has come to my home, and the kids love it, i don't know what the situation is going to be, and, you know, part of the backyard. so the kids would have somewhere to go. and i don't know what the situation is going to be with mr. hall and anybody else when the kids are back there. i'm sure you folks have kids and know people. they make noise. birthday parties. so, basically what i'm saying, aside from the permits that everybody

been talking about, a big reason on this bill is doing. and like i said, i heard the hot tubs. he's been at my house and he sees the kids love this. and it's to spend more time with the kids and i love it because it will be out of my house for a little while. can be at bill's. so, that's pretty much all i have to say. thank you. i'm eileen bennett and alonzo is my husband, and i am very concerned and upset about this because because i feel that, there's three things. either tony hall is prejudiced because he sees people of other color. being at my dad's house. mr. o'keefe is my father. he's jealous. or and this is a fact. miss, stop for a second. mr. brown and i have to check again. she's a family member. she doesn't reside at

the residence, though. okay, for the doctor. requesters. so it's. my husband just talked. it's sort of one of those fine lines, but i feel. i feel he's the neighbor that's nosy from my dad's house. when i'm standing at the addition, i cannot see in anybody else's houses or windows or anything. it's just pure green. so when you're standing in the addition and you're looking out of the windows, you don't see anybody's private area . now, tony says his windows face my father's house. he's the one that's looking through his windows at my dad's house. he's the one that's being encroached on his privacy, not tony. my dad can't see over to tony's house. only tony can see over to his house. that's all i have to say.

good afternoon. it will be short and sweet. my name is sheila robinson nash. i am a neighbor and a friend, and i have known both men for 25 years. i do object to tony's hall attack on bill o'keefe. you could not find a more upstanding, generous, kind person and truthful. i object to his character being damaged by this. he deserves so much more. i am in favor of the variance, and i thank you for your time. oh, it's a purse, not a music box. good afternoon, commissioner. i'm in, i support the variance, and i'm here to show you a something that i came to see this, project for the first time in 2013. and and mr.

o'keefe asked me to show, mr. hall, the proposed height for the new fence that he wanted to do. and. sorry about that. yes. can we go to the overhead, please? this is. in 2013, and it shows the stick that are to show the. the stick are showing the height of the new fence, the proposed new fence. and mr. hall agreed with the height at the time, and it was going to provide more privacy to his stop windows and help to stop the noise as well. he agreed with all that, and then later on, you had mr. o'keefe cut the fence twice, which he did in good neighborly fashion. but mr. hall

now is going after some other details that happened 20 years prior. and that's why we are here today. so i would, suggest to the commission to accept the variance and resolve this matter once and for all. thank you very much. finally, excuse me. my name is peter pusateri. i'm the business manager of financial secretary of the international brotherhood of electrical workers. i'm not here to talk about a popularity contest, but who loves who? who dislikes who? whose fault is fault? whose judge judy kind of situation? the electrical workers follow? rules were inbred with inspections, permits, codes,

restrictions, and we follow the rules. i'm here to talk about the interests of the union. workers in this town is following the rules. i don't care how popular, how generous, how tall, how short. we follow rules. rules should prevail. my only concern is that i expect, and i believe in my heart, that there will be no political favoritism and of story. thank you, thank you. i'm bobby coleman. i'm moved by the last speaker's, efforts to, refer to

process and to sort of keep squabble elements out of this. i i, i think that reducing it to a neighbor squabble actually isn't appropriate and that the process is important. the integrity of the process is important. i think the earlier comments on the earlier matter by president diamond and vice president, more about the professionalism of the planning commission, the professionalism of the planning department and the planning profession's integrity as a whole are really important and when you look at the situation here, you've heard some unevidenced, unsupported accusations means that when you look at the actual language of the department staff's recommendation, you don't really

get into any of that. what's what's striking about this is something else. the language reads, there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, namely the lack of regard for process, including proper neighborhood and regulatory review that resulted in the condition. today, the staff recommends that should the commission find the retention of the illegal additions be justified, and i agree that it should not find that that that the legalization of this would constitute a taking from the neighborhood that never should have been enjoyed for all these years since i don't agree that it's burdensome or impractical to remove the structure, the property taxes that were paid, allowed for the enjoyment of the of the of the property. i also don't think that there is adequate backyard space. somebody needs to speak for those trees that were removed.

thank you. good afternoon, commissioners and president diamond. my name is matt gonzalez. i'm a former member and president of the board of supervisors. i served with tony hall on the board. he and i voted against one another more times than we were in unison, i also know bill o'keefe and consider him a friend and acquaintance, and i've been to that residence. i've been to nora and tony hall's home. i've also been to the molinari home, i am here to add my voice to opposition to the variance. i think that the merits are pretty clear cut when you think about the fraudulent nature of this addition to mr. o'keefe's home. i have heard some things today, though, that may make me reflect on the merits. i mean, one is

the suggestion that mr. o'keefe says he believed the contractor had in fact, gotten the permits, i have a couple of thoughts about that. first of all, whether or not you should believe it to be true, it could be that he could present information to you that the contractor made representations to him, that there was a contract that he paid for that work, that he had real reason to believe that, but we're not here testing whether or not there's a criminal case for someone to do, additions to their homes. and whether or not they truly believe they had permitting. the real issue here is that's not in the planning code. you don't get to just add significant parts to a home and say, well, i thought i had permits, the real issue one of the other speakers spoke to it is what kind of confidence to the rest of san franciscans have over what's happening here,

if you allow this, you're in effect saying it's okay to build something this extravagant and just say, hey, i'm sorry about it afterwards. thank you for your time and attention to this. thank you. last call for public comment at seeing none. we should go to rebuttals. thank you. here i am again and, i would just like to say my husband and i came back from a trip one time and we were shocked that a fence had gone up all around our side garden and half of our back. it was over 18ft tall and it was a fire hazard, and it created a tunnel effect towards the back. my back bedroom. my son is in the fire department and he warned me. he said, mom, you've got to get this taken down. it was a fire

trap and a fire hazard. it also cut off all the sun. i have a beautiful side garden and that was all gone in total darkness and a shadow. when i went to our neighbor. he just laughed at me and i lost about 25 plants. you know, we live in san francisco. it's a beautiful city with beautiful neighborhoods in our beautiful neighborhood. people actually take care and have pride in their gardens and in their backyards. and what has been done to us is shocking. it's against the law. and it was illegal. and i really didn't actually ask for someone to push his whole home back into my back bedroom, i have a bedroom in the back of my home that i cannot use now because of the noise, the intrusion in all night long noise. but it's disgusting because when our children come,

they can't sleep there. thank you. sir, we should hear from the second requester. is there a second? dr. requester? sir. sir. i'm sorry. we're going to hear from the second dr. requester first. yes. i don't, i don't you right after her, sir. okay. i have a couple of comments to make regarding someone mentioned a mr. corsi who had reached out to me to meet with mr. o'keefe. i have memorialized that in my records. not today, but. but he started his conversation by telling me that he was sorry that mr. o'keefe had not been able to attend the hearing. when i told him the hearing had not

yet happened, he asked me if i would like to meet with mr. o'keefe and hear his side of the story, i declined simply because the doctor had already been submitted. we had a date and i didn't think it was appropriate to have separate conversation, i don't understand why mr. o'keefe feels that. because he took the word of his contractor, no matter who recommended him. when you get a building permit for any work on your house, you. you should have a copy. you don't just believe so. it is his obligation and responsibility to have made sure that what he was doing was appropriate. and there was also a comment about a

building permit being applied for in 1999, if in fact that were true, i have not been able to find it in the permit history . i believe that's all. thank you. thank you. project sponsor. you have a two minute rebuttal. this is the last two minutes. so if mr. o'keefe wants to speak, this is his time, right? now thank you. commissioner. you understand this? this is the last two minutes, right? so if mr. o'keefe wanted to speak, this would be his only opportunity. very good. commissioners the issue before you is the variance. there is good cause for the variance. as previously explained and as supported by planning department

staff. if mr. o'keefe believed that it was permitted, and there is an ample record to support multiple investigations that either cleared the complaints or were abated, they're well documented in our supplemental comments on pages 15 through 39, mr. o'keefe will need to go through the dbe approval process. he will need to pay penalties. he will need to go through the entire process, per our current code, to bring to get the permit. this is not the end. this is a first step in legalizing this structure. in terms of the issues about noise, those relate to the deck that is no longer there. it's been removed. there is no deck in front of the commission. now we've ceded that issue. we are here to correct the permit for

the rear yard extension. in terms of the 1999 permit, it is documented in our supplemental comments. you can refer to our table of contents. it's at page three, which show you the permits and. if i can just quickly refer you to the. the i believe which is in page. 13. thank you. thank you very much, commissioner. commissioners. that concludes, this portion of

the hearing and now the matter is before you and the zoning administrator, thank you for all of the members of the public who came out to share their views on this acrimonious matter with us. i will say, our job is to look at the planning code and decide how we want to proceed here. and i have a series of questions that will be helpful to me in trying to figure out how i feel about this, they are questions that i will start with, with staff. but in the meantime, it would be helpful if the project. i guess it's mr. hammond, if you can actually find that 1999 permit you made reference to and show it to, staff, or do you have it do you? okay, that's fine. then you don't have to. so question. if we were to vote, we

as a commission to take dr. and you as d.a. to grant a variance. i'm very concerned that we make sure that the building is safe because it never went through the building department process. how do we have assurance, that it complies with all of the requirements of the building code, that that's on the assumption we were to take dr. and grant the variance, which i'm not saying they would, but i want to know the answer to that question. so there's a notice of violation outstanding on this that the building department is aware of this condition. should the commission decide and the zoning administrator decide to allow the construction to remain, proper permits would need to be obtained, as well as the inspections, which would presumably more than presumably would 100% require opening up the walls to determine the condition of everything that went into the construction prior to closing up those walls. that meets current codes of the current code, correct? okay. thank you. secondly, a number of years ago, a couple of years

ago, we spent a lot of time looking at, penalties for violations, you know, steep financial penalties. and the board of supervisors ultimately adopted regulations to any of those penalties apply to this situation. the short answer of that is no. those, first of all, we're not retroactive to prior to when that ordinance took effect, which was last year, additionally, those were only for certain types of violations, and they were revolved around two specific scenarios. either the addition or removal of dwelling units of a certain extent, or or significant impacts to historic structures. and that's not what we have here. there's not been a loss of units or an addition of units, and there's not been a significant impact to a historical structure. so even if this violation happened today, it would not be subject to those new, larger penalties on our end. from the planning code perspective, there is an enforcement case, their penalties have not been assessed

for this because they are in the process of abating the violation . and so they, you know, are subject to time and materials for the enforcement costs to cover staff time. but we have not, had reason to assess penalties on the enforcement case at planning yet. yeah, but there are penalties. penalties would accrue if they stopped with the abatement process, if they were not actively attempting to abate the violation. the one of the ways to abate the violation is to legalize it. and that is the process they're going through now. so no penalties would be assessed from the enforcement perspective unless they were not taking active steps to abate the violation. i'll just throw that throw out for consideration by the planning department, which is in addition to penalties for, the removal or addition of whole houses that portions of whole houses might be considered as you know, a subject for future legislation. we might want to consider. okay, the way i look

at this is would we grant a variance today, is it eligible, for a variance because if it is eligible for a variance today, then it feels like a waste of resources to tear it down, have them apply for a variance, grant the variance and have them rebuild it again. so for me at least, it's important to understand and whether or not, the addition would be eligible for a variance that that is not our purview. it's the tsa's purview, but it's tied so intrinsically into the gr that i'm looking at this thinking, does it meet the criteria for a variance? i will say the unusual property shape feels like a factor that we could take into account. but i don't know. mr. teague, if you want to comment on this. sure. just to clarify, i mean, we are looking at two different things, right? so you have the building permit in front of you. that's the subject of discretionary review. so you're looking at a kind of the

same way you would whether there was a variance or not in the sense of are there any exceptional, exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would compel the commission to modify the project? and typically that's a question of is it consistent with the residential design guidelines, whereas for the variance, it's specifically looking at, does the project meet the required five findings and the design component and impacts on adjacent properties is one of those five findings. but there are four other findings that have to be met. right. so they're related. they have overlap, but they are separate separate review criteria and separate decisions that each body would be required to make. and mr. winslow, in your view, it does meet the residential design guidelines. yes yes. as i stated in my report, you know, if i weren't looking at the code issue that corey mentioned, which is seeking a variance, and

that that line wasn't there, i would say, oh, the buildings, relationships to one another are within the they meet the guidelines with respect to scale or access to mid-block open space, etc. for adjacent properties. okay on the request that if we were to grant take doctor, you know, they would want a condition imposed forever, that says they can't do anything further in the backyard for if i understand the applicant, mr. antonini's request, i will say i'm not sure that we have the legal ability to tie the hands of future planning commissioner is just the way that prior planning commissions didn't have the ability to tie our hands. and i want to turn to the city attorney to ask her view on that . thank you. president, this is deputy city attorney kristen jensen, and you're correct. the

commission does not, have the authority to tie the hands of future commissions in that way. okay. so in light of that, i will say that i believe mr. winslow's solution, that if we were to take doctor and if the variance were granted. and i'm not saying that would happen, but if we were that i do support the condition, suggested by mr. winslow that says if they want to do anything in the backyard, whether or not it currently requires notice under our code that they have to issue notice because that would then require, that would then give the ability for any of the neighbors, whoever owns the property at that time, to bring it in front of us. so i want to again turn to the city attorney and make sure that that passes muster with you. the suggestion. thank you again, president diamond. and yes, that would be an acceptable, condition. okay. with those, facts out there, i will say i in general, i don't

want to do things that encourage , you know, violation of the code. or that create the wrong incentive system. i am curious about the 1999 permit that was referenced. what did that do? yeah, i'm happy to. and i actually was going to pose some questions to the project sponsor on that as well. but just to answer your question specifically, first, because we when my turn to speak, i will go through that process. but there was a 1998 permit that was primarily worked in the garage, that permit expired. the 99 permit was to restart that permit essentially, they were very small permits. they were not for an addition to the building, such was constructed. okay did you want to add anything to that, mr. winslow? okay so only that the permit stipulate the only thing we could determine from those

permits. it said level the garage floor. okay all right, so if it complies with the criteria and the zoning administrator were so inclined to grant a variance today, then i would say, you know, that would be okay by me. if it meets the criteria for a variance, i wouldn't make them tear it down, because it meets the criteria for today. but i would want to see the imposition of the condition that says, they got to give notice whether or not it's required to all the neighbors. but i recognize that there may be many other questions and points of view. mr. teague. sure. yeah. i just wanted to make a few points about a little bit how we got here to add a little more color in the sense that there's obviously been conversation about when the addition happened or around the late 90s, early 2000, and that there's been, a few periods of time in the past where there were complaints and dbe enforcement activity before coming to planning, in 2016,

there were permits that the property owners sought to address some of the dbe novis that showed a deck in the rear, the, a planner kind of flagged that and let them know that actually, to legalize that deck would require a variance, sometime later in 2020, that variance was filed to legalize a deck. our staff did the, evaluation of that application determined that the illegal additions had occurred. it was part of the review process. and then that was communicated to dbe. we did joint inspection and work and determined and confirmed that, yes, the addition had happened. and so that's why the project before you now is a little more is a little larger than what the original variance project, was, i did also just think it's important to point out that at least for the for the variance decision, it's very much about the project and not the people, obviously there's some relationship issues with this

project that are not particularly relevant to how i'm going to be reviewing. the project is very much about the nature of the block and the lots and the building. and to president diamond's point, like, does it meet the findings regardless of the people involved? and i did have a couple questions for the property owner or the property owner's attorney. either one, if you wouldn't mind coming to the podium, please. thank you. appreciate it, so again, the aerial photographs that we have are from 93 and the 2002. there's a gap. and so we know from those photos that the addition happened in between that time. we know that there were the permits from 1998 and 1999. and some amount of work was happening around that time. but can you let us know more specifically, when was the rear addition actually constructed?

1999. okay. so it was basically in the same timeline as that 1998 and 99 permit for just the garage work, correct? okay and that's consistent with a number of the letters actually in opposition that have described, you know, the construction timeline. okay. thank you, and then there was reference that the property owner doesn't currently live in the home. and i just wanted to confirm. or is this your current residence or is it leased or vacant? is this i have a i my hearing is going. that's fine. mr. o'keefe. may may also has a maintains another home. is this your primary residence? primary residence? absolutely. yes. i have a i have a business. sir, if you could speak to the microphone. i have a business located in merced and have about 300 employees down there. so i have a secondary

place where i go there. but i was born and raised here in the city, born on corbett avenue and raised in san francisco and now live in. moved in just about five years before tony moved in to the neighborhood in west portal. okay. and so this is my primary residence, and that's the reason i didn't show up at the meeting that i was that the west portal people asked me to come to. i was down in merced. where in at my business. thank you. those are the two main questions i wanted to have answers. thank you. thank you. commissioner braun. so you know, again, thinking about the use not user, but also taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances here, i want to know, you know, i'm pretty comfortable, moving forward.

with approving the variance and the basis of the assessment that, that, you know, in agreement with the assessment that this would comply with the residential design guidelines for the site. but, i am curious about something, though. so, the staff's recommendation is that we take discretionary review and we but we require that neighborhood noticing happen for any future expansions into the rear yard, i believe, i am curious if we can actually expand that a little bit to say that this site, not only would there be noticing, but also mandatory discretionary review, for any future projects like the same description of the categories of projects, can we add a mandatory discretionary review requirement? and maybe this is a question for the city attorney. thank you for that

question, commissioner. i think in order to add another notice requirement, you'd want to be as specific as possible about what kinds of projects would trigger that notice requirement. so, and i maybe i just didn't hear the last part of your. well yeah. so the, the recommendation by staff is that, any future building permit seeking to alter or add to the building be required to provide neighborhood notification, so i'm definitely comfortable with that. i'm curious if on top of that, we can also add a requirement that any, any future building permit can alter add to the building would trigger a mandatory discretionary review. in addition to the noticing. well, mandatory discretionary review is set by the code. so that would effectively be a change in code that is specific to this project. i think that's a little bit more complex than the earlier question. so i'm not really prepared to answer that question on the record here. i'd

need to look into that and see whether that was a bridge too far. but with the notice, you at least are triggering the ability for the neighborhood. daca requests. so i think that i'm comfortable with. but for the mandatory der, i would need to look into that. okay, in that case, given the uncertainty around it, i think i could move forward with the recommendation, that future building permits, would generate a need to provide neighborhood notification. i i think the other concern, of course, is if there are no building permits pulled for future work. and so i think that this is clearly under a microscope in the neighborhood. and there are a lot of people who are monitoring and watching this property. so i also, encourage folks to file a complaint if they do notice future unpermitted work at this property, but i'm curious to hear what my i see many fellow commissioners waiting to make statements, so i'm curious to hear their comments. vice

president moore, unfortunately, this project is shadowed by a lot of he said she said there is a history which is extremely personal, which has nothing to do with what we were doing here, and we are kind of confusing why these stories are being told in front of this commission. and while they probably good personal memories, they seem to be more bad personal memories than anything else. i think we are obscuring of what we are supposed to do. i like to pick up on what former supervisor gonzalez says this is about process and process is really all in everything we have to do here. if this project would be as built in front of me, i would probably first have a discussion with mr. winslow and staff as to whether or not, given the extremely irregular configuration of sites on this, on these streets, warned a slightly more careful analysis

of guidelines on how they apply. the hardest part is not just the street geometry. it's a demising lines between the lots, which literally make every project a special design consideration. the maps provided as a sanborn map, historic map, and how it moves forward from there shows that that problem is particularly exacerbated for mr. halls and mr. o'keefe's projects. you've got to be friends in order to take this forward. there is no there is no ways about it, particularly the property line, the demising line between the, projects facing rockway are so irregular that they basically have their apex in the middle of mr. o'keefe's property. so any variance is the most unusual variance because it's not a straight line. and i think because of this extremely

awkward geometry, the illegal addition has built is a problem. it's not only a problem between those neighbors, it's a problem for the entire block because it sets precedent. that process that is in place requires extra attention. that requires specific design review. and what puzzles me most is, if you're assuming you have you have a permit. and i think people who are not in the construction industry often assume that, oh, yeah, because i talked to somebody that and i have hired a contractor, my contractor, hopefully not a san francisco license business. knows that he has to get an appointment, however, we also know when we take a permit that in this type of construction, you at least have 3 or 4 inspections. and if mr. o'keefe is in the building,

business, which i heard he is. if i'm wrong, please correct me. he would have known that there are at least a electrical plumbing framing, and inspections. and where are they? so in addition to that, you ultimately have your occupancy permit when everything is said and done. so after 8 or 10 months of construction, you're waiting for a piece of paper by which you know it's done. so given that talking about process and supervisor gonzalez's former supervisor gonzalez's, comment, this is a complete breakdown of process. it's actually a slap in the face. and this is not the first time, at least in my years on the commission, that we are encountering this again and again. and again, i do not like to reference particular names from dubai. that is kind of like inappropriate. we all know the names we all know the lengthy

descriptions in recent papers about what these people did, how long they did it, what benefits they derive from these processes . tell you the truth, i'm kind of sick and tired, and i would like to kind of have this commission really serious. consider is this, just a supporting a variance or is there anything we need to do in order to avoid not future notifications, but a process by by which no notification would be necessary. and that is unfortunately a special restriction on this property. nothing else can happen here anymore. everything that could go wrong has already happened. i have a very difficult time trying to say that somebody should incur unnecessary expenses and destroy their home. 20 years past the fact, and we build it as it is. i do not have the floor plans as to whether what, what living spaces were

built in response to growth of family, whatever. what was built was not built by permit and was what was built is not following the best responses for a good building addition in the context that is in. so my recommendation is if i support the variance, i would ask that we put a special restriction on the property, that no future action is allowed on this property. and that's all i can say, that a motion. i would like to make that a motion, but i am very, very interested to hear my fellow other commissioners speak to that issue, because that is slightly different from what the department is asking. but i need a little bit more truth in this, because this building is not built the way that careful considerations would have properly shaped the building. if we would do it today. just to clarify, you're asking for us to put a condition on the property, the same one the city attorney

said we can't do. you can put as a notice of special restriction on the title of this property. you can do. i misunderstand that we do that. we frequently do that. and i'm i'm sorry, i'm not sure how your proposed condition is different from the question before. you're different than my when i said i thought we couldn't put a condition on the property, whether it's through an nsr or through, you know, something related to title, that you can't do anything on the property in the future in the backyard. i thought you said we can't do that. no, i don't think you can say that. no further work can be done on the property . and if i could ask for just a distinction, because i think there's two, two issues happening here because the planning department, the planning commission, the zoning administrator has the ability to put conditions of approval on a permit and that's what happens when you take discretionary review, and those types of conditions can be fairly broad. i think the distinction, though, is that any condition that this commission or this wsa puts on a

project, a future commission or a future wsa could modify that condition and i think that's a distinction between can you even adopt the condition versus does that mean the addition, the condition lasts forever, guaranteed? i think those are two different things because that type of condition and obviously deputy city attorney can weigh in on this. you may have a doctor where essentially a condition of your approval is that the top floor is set back ten feet, and that is a requirement for that permit to go forward. a property owner can come in in the future and propose to expand that. and then a future planning commission will have to decide on that. and so i think that distinction is important between do you even have the ability to adopt that condition versus what does that mean for future condition? commission's ability to modify that condition in the future? mr. teague, let me ask you the question differently. this this particular property in a strange configuration with that acute angle of one very long property

line in a very short one, which creates like a haze of conflicts on every possible angle. can we say that this site is overbuilt given the expansion that has already undergone? i would like to find some guidance by which i would like to protect the strange configuration. not to be further impactful to everybody else. sure, and just to be really clear again, what's before the planning commission is a discretionary review, just like any discretionary review, this one requires a variance. so that's another layer to it that i have to consider. there's the fact that it's already been built, but the consideration is the project as it existed before it was permitted, constructed without permits and what it is now. so there's really no different than if a property owner was coming today and asking, you know, from the start for a three story rear addition that was ten feet deep. the

planning commission has the authority, through the discretionary review on the building permit to modify that project as deemed necessary to deal with any exceptional, extraordinary circumstances or to respond to the residential design guidelines. so you have that authority to do that, and that's what you have to decide. if you think you want to. it's appropriate based on those considerations, to authorize the project as it is physically, and then take other conditions if you want to, on the rear, you know, the future of any work in the rear, or if you think it's more appropriate to, you know, not approve the entire addition as it was constructed and proposed. commissioner moore, do you want to repeat what it is or modify what you said as to i want to make sure i'm understanding what you're proposing. i'm trying to get some guidance from mr. teague to prevent that. any, additional three dimensional objects as to

whether or not there are three feet high or anything else, further impair the difficulty which has been created. so an illegal addition, which i'm asked to approve today or supportive variance to approve it today. i'm not sure if i completely understand the question. are you just asking again about what would be the mechanism to prevent future work in the in the rear yard and or provide some kind of obstacle to that of any kind in the rear yard? right. and that's why i believe you would have the ability as a condition of approval, to acquire an nsr to be recorded on the property that would put those types of requirements, you know, on the property going forward as a condition of approval, just as there are conditions of approval to conditional uses and the variances. i think the distinction, again, though, is that a property owner could come in the future and make a request to change that condition of approval. right. and a future commission's hands would not be tied, on that. but i think that

was the distinction i was making. and i was asking the deputy ca to, to weigh in on that distinction to see if there, you know, on the same page on that issue. so this is deputy city attorney kristen jensen. again, a condition of. approval that the project sponsor could never increase the size of the building again would be an unenforced condition. this is the advice that i gave before . however, and i think this is the recommendation of mr. winslow. an alternative would be to make sure that any time a project sponsor sought to enlarge the project, that notices were given either to the neighbors or some kind of block book notification was given to city staff, triggering a heightened review. so those are the alternatives that are possible because then it wouldn't slip through the cracks as apparently has in the past.

can i just ask about the option of a commission hearing? yeah, because i think we've had that in the past as well. i can require a commission hearing for an item that otherwise would require notice. is that possible? we have done it. yes, we have done it. and we've imposed, you know, mandatory drug on bond projects. so you can you. yeah in the past when this situation has come up, it has been in the context of a conditional use authorization. so it's easy to require that any further revisions come back to the commission, because that would be a requirement under the code. anyway, i think this is a variance. pardon me. yes. so i think it could be at the discretion of the zoning administration administrator that it come back to the commission and come back for a variance, if further expansion, particularly further expansion into the backyard, was

requested. so that's something the wsa could impose on his approval of the variance. and it wouldn't necessarily be a mandatory daca. it would just be a staff initiated discretionary. exactly. so this is why the suggestion i made before comes into play. in other words, we want to make sure that any requests would be raised to the attention of the zoning administrator and planning staff so that at staff's discretion, they could initiate a doctor and bring it back to the commission. we're supposed to simplify processes, but apparently we are still running into a situation where exactly the opposite occurs. so i will be looking for your guidance of how we verbalize that, because as we're continuing, as i said earlier, to be burdened with past effect violations of process, we have to kind of increase how we attend to that. so if you could help craft of how that's best said in a motion, i totally rely on your ability with staff initiative. initiative initiated

reviews, etc. for things to come back to the commission. because i do believe that this particular project, right now and in the future requires special attention. if i could just suggest and you can correct me if i'm wrong, i think you can take dr. urge the zoning administrator. if he were to grant the variance to require that any future additions or or on on that rear yard would require commission approval. he then through the variance decision if he grants it can make that requirement. so former commissioner hylis verbalized what i would see as a director. he cannot really advise us, but i take his advice as a former commissioner and turn this over to, zoning administrator and take it from there. so just to recap, to make sure i understand where we are in the bidding. right on this, is that we could take doctor, we could impose a two conditions. we could say one

is you got to give notice to all the neighbors. if you know you're going to do anything. and we could also adopt language saying to the wsa, if you were to grant a variance, we encourage you to adopt a condition that says any changes to the backyard require a planning commission hearing. am i accurately summarizing? everybody's under okay, so moved to say that. well i, i can't make the motion but i, i'm making the motion and, the zoning tweak will actually fine tune the wording that's necessary to make this a stick. and that's the way we go. okay, let's see. commissioner moore did. are you done? i'm done. okay, okay, mr. teague, did you have more? sure. some of that got to it a little bit. i mean, i intend to do that, just fyi, i think at a at a minimum, a condition of approval to any variance. granted, just to

provide, that requirement for extra review at the rear is necessary. i mean, i think if you look at this, it's impossible not to look at it and say it's an unusual scenario in terms of the lot layout, the proximity of the buildings, it's not a typical situation that we see. i can understand why there's potential, challenges here, whoever the occupants may be now or in the future, so i do think that is a completely legitimate issue. i do think that obviously just looking at the variance for the property itself, i mean, it's an up sloping lot. it does have, a pretty large front setback. it pushes the home at the rear. it has an irregular rear yard line as we've talked about. so it's got it has irregularities there, i think the main challenge for the variance is really getting to the, the issue of does it have any, you know, impacts that

go beyond, to the adjacent properties. and that's where i feel like clearly from the doctor requester, the first one, mr. hall's request, there's a specific impact that they're reaching out on, i also think that because if you given the height of the building in the rear and the nature of the surrounding buildings and the fact that 812 the adjacent building is slightly downhill and much less deep, i'm not entirely convinced that a full three story expression at the rear is something that would be, completely, justifiable from a variance perspective, to that note, you know, if you look at the floor plans, the way that was expanded, at least at the third floor, the expansion on the top floor allowed for another bathroom and a small office and a balcony that looks out onto the mid-block open space. i don't know if removal

of just the third floor portion of the addition would be as terribly impactful. i mean, it's obviously way less impactful than having the whole thing or a larger portion of it removed, but i don't know if that would be something that would address the issues overall, while obviously not being a much larger impact to a structure that's been that way for 25 years, that's something that i'm still considering from the variance perspective. but i do think and you know, i'd love to hear your thoughts on that if any. any commissioners have any thoughts on that from a doctor perspective, but at a minimum, i do think that some amount of variance is justified and that a condition on, you know, requiring notice and or planning commission review of any permits for work in the rear are justified and or, or just aren't . well, i think i'm absolutely fine requiring them to come to the planning commission, not just require notice. i think that's what i heard. yes,

absolutely. sorry. just the and not the or. okay, commissioner williams, thanks, i won't be voting on, you know, for the variance as it is stands right now, i think it sends the wrong message, you know, so, so, it's not like it's a little deck. it's it was a three story, you know, build out, and you know, it's just unfortunate that all these people had to come here today to, to deal with this. but it just goes, you know, it again, i just think we're sending the wrong message. if we, say, okay, it's been here for a while, we're going to let it go, it's caused a lot of, unease in the community. and a lot of people are involved. and i think it, it requires a correction, not just, a little

correction, but a big correction. i kind of like the idea of, like, going through the variance process and see, because it seems like it's overpassed its allowable lot usage as far as, as far as the addition. so if they went through that whole process again and, you know, got got that correct, and then at that point i might, you know, consider being okay with with how that turns out. but outside of that, i just, i'm, i'm not, not convinced. commissioner koppel. yeah. those of us in the construction field, are going to feel the same way if there's anyone more concerned with safety, it's our firefighters out there, and, those. it's so funny that the people who are in

the construction industry are the ones usually violating these rules and laws. more often than not. and it's incredibly disheartening. it's what's even more disheartening is no one's really doing anything about it, so that's all i got to say. let's see, someone want to make a motion? so we did that. okay, well, is there a so we do have more. made a motion, but i didn't hear a second. so can we repeat what the motion is to make sure we got it right? well, the way the way i understood the motion is that, commissioner moore made a motion to approve the building permit application before us. however adding a condition that any building permit application looking to the to expand the structure would trigger neighborhood notification, and then there would be, i believe, consensus from the commission to urge that

the zoning administrator impose a condition if he so grants the variance, that would, trigger a staff initiated discretionary review for any expansion at the rear. second. can i just verify, is that said in a way that it has a stick that you were looking for? this was a very lengthy, motion. i mean, i think for my purposes it's fine. i think i would probably ask to clarify. the way it was read was like a building addition. i think the concern is kind of anything like deck, etc, especially a deck. so i think there'd be some clarification about what scope of work we're talking about. anything at the rear? yeah anything at the rear is what we're saying. so i guess would that be planning building any rear construction? yeah great. good. well, could i just verify that, commissioner moore?

that is that is the motion that you made just. that's correct. okay. thank you. so let me reiterate one more time because you want to make it has been seconded that the commission, will actually take doctor on the building permit application in order to impose the condition that any building expansion or addition, any construction on the building itself, would trigger neighborhood notification and urging the zoning administrator to impose a condition on the variance if he so granted the variance that any any construction at the rear would trigger a staff initiated discretionary review. okay, on that motion, commissioner williams. nay, commissioner braun, i commissioner. imperial i. commissioner coppell. no commissioner. moore. no. i'm

sorry you made the motion. no, i made the motion. i, sorry i got and commission president diamond, i, i got so moved. commissioners, that motion passes 4 to 2 with commissioners williams and coppell voting against. zoning administrator would say i will close the hearing for the variance and tend to grant the variance with a condition that any additional work proposed in the rear, including decks, would require, review and approval by the planning commission. and i will continue to consider an additional condition regarding removal of unpermitted work at the third floor. thank you, commissioners. that concludes your hearing today. streamlined the process. i mean, two hours on the.

sfgovtv san francisco >> [music] in the town inside here i'm young. he was putting art, music and

drinking together upon today have a nonpretentious pretentious spitz that the community can enjoy each other and the time off we get in this world. [music] >> spends energy elevating artists and credit a safe place. a place to have a community. >> it is i great neighborhood the art district because we have the contemp refer museum of sf. yerba buena for the arts all of the operators and businesses here we get together and xhoukt and support each other this is a very cool neighborhood to be a part of. [music] paint on canvas is primary low when we do. this is guilty pleasures an all female artist show. it is going to be great.

fun we have interactive elements. >> we love having this gem. you know people come in and discover it and get to feel at home. this is like home san francisco >> never be afraid it anybodying on our door. [laughter]. if the hours are post and you had want to seat art we are here 9 o'clock to 5 o'clock most days. [music]

good morning. i called the san francisco department of disability and aging searchses commission meeting of wednesday april third, 2024 to order. i am the daus president jabbet spears this is conducted pursuant to provisions of brown act. members of the public may bench via sfgov.org or sfgovtv channel 78 and offer public comment calling the published phone number. i like to welcome the public and staff who are watching on sfgovtv. all panelists and presenters this are presenting via web ex asked to mute themselves. >> the