okay. good afternoon, and welcome to the san francisco planning commission. excuse me. hearing for thursday, april 11th, 2024. when we when we

reach 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 you're 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. thank you. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item one, case number 2023 hyphen 010016. see you a at 3225 fillmore street. conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to may 9th, 2020 for item two, case

number 2022, hyphen 000438 drp at 320 through 322 frederick street. discretionary review is proposed for continuance to may 23rd, 2024 and item three, case number 2023. hyphen 011307 drp at 1234 francisco street a discretionary review has been withdrawn. i have no other items to propose for continuance, so we should open up public comment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. again you need to come forward. seeing none, public comment on your continuance calendar is closed and it is now before you commissioners. commissioner braun, move to continue. items one through three is 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 commissioner. president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and we'll place this under commission matters for item for the land acknowledgment. commissioner braun will read the acknowledgment today. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place. as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. item five commission comments and questions. commissioner koppell.

watch out for golden gate park, everybody. i just got my presale tickets last night. the new concert lineup is amazing. i cannot wait to see all the activity heading towards the sunset and richmond district. little point of privilege. i saw system of a down in the late 90s at transmission theater at 11th and folsom. i saw the deftones on their first tour at bottom of the hill. they're both headlining this amazing concert coming up in the park, so hats off to supervisors and guardio and chan just get ready for the businesses to be thriving. there's going to be so many people down there, and it's just going to be a huge injection of energy and economy for the city. maybe we can have more of these in union square. justin herman plaza, the giant stadium, not just at chase arena, but i mean, let's let's utilize our outdoor venues and get people back in the city. please commissioner. vice president, more. as well,

week in, week out, struggling with looking at flats, i took a letter that came in from miss to. we read the planning commission's resolution on october 12th, 2017, and i want this particular commission to go through that very carefully with the guidance from the planning department, so that we all have a bearing in the importance of protecting flats and have a common understanding that these are policies that not only guide the department of how it chaperons people to with flat applications, but for us to have a unified standing in how to judge these applications. that is my ask, and i hope that you all agree. i have a question, vice president moore, on your, comment, do you recommend for,

the planning commission to have itemize this on the agenda in the future, or how do you want this to move forward? suggesting that we have a discussion implies that we cannot have a conversation about the details of how to do it, but i think i would look towards the city attorney in support of, with miss vardy, that we schedule that as a discussion here with full background and the insights of the department of how that has not been working well enough for the past few years. sure. deputy city attorney austin yang, that's correct, vice president moore, there's been no agenda item, noticed to discuss the residential flats, you know, in these commissioner comments, questions, directors reports are able to have a summary discussion or about a land use item that may be relevant. but

if you want to have a more in-depth conversation, we would do that as an agenda item. that is my ask. yes and. commissioner braun. i if my recollection is correct, the flat policy is an item that is supposed to, to some extent come forward as part of codifying, some of the policies. i remember seeing this on, on prior documentation related to housing element implementation, miss, what do you. yes, you're correct. it is one of the action items in the housing element. so it i forget off the top of my head what the time frame was for us to work through that. but it is, it is there. so, i mean, unless there's a desire to have this sort of out of order, we're happy to, you know, i think there's the intention to come forward with housing element discussion topics periodically moving forward, and so as part

of that, we can kind of highlight where that specific discussion will be is planned to be slated in. we can have discussion about whether or not that's too far out or if you want to make timing adjustments. i would like to see it independently come forward, particularly because it has been a strong piece of work of previous commissions, and for that reason, i do not just want to streamline it into the overall housing discussion, but sees as a clear tool for us to fully understand. and then again, ultimately successfully apply it in the discussions about the housing element. so why don't i suggest at the next officer's meeting that we work with staff to figure out what the best timing is to schedule that? yes. okay. that's fine. if there's nothing further, commissioners, i'll only mention that the, there are no items on the april 18th agenda or advance calendar. and so we sent out a cancellation notice. so you have an unexpected break next week,

commissioners that will place us under department matters for item six director's announcements. thanks, janice. director hills is out of the office today, but there are no directors announcements. thank you. item seven, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. there is no report from the board of supervisors and the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. i don't see the zoning administrator here to provide a report for the board of appeals. moving on. then to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes, and when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda by 3 minutes or 2 minutes. three no. ten time thank you for that discussion.

i'll just throw that in there. thank you all very much. it's always started. okay. so see these? i used to get a lot of these. i haven't gotten one in months. i don't know if you ever got them. so i guess my question is, is the drop off in 311 notifications due to the economy or is it due to the constraints reduction ordinance? i don't know, it'd be interesting to know. and when i cleaned up, i found this and i found these notes i had made to myself. if i put it on the overhead, yes, to speak about, the price changes. oh, is it okay? oh, no. overhead price changes of two projects in nowy valley. and one of them, you know, you saw in january of last year because you had to make a legal wise it it was a turn out to be demolition. there is there's no overhead. can i can wait sfcv can we go to the overhead, please? i'm sorry miss, you keep turning towards

it. i know from the mic i know i'm sorry. okay? it's like just. i can't quite figure out after ten years how to do this. sorry okay, so you may all remember. well, five of you may remember this. so there's the original house and that's what replaced it. and it was found to be a demolition that they didn't even have demo calc supposedly when it was reviewed by staff, even though staff did ask for demo calcs. so and here's the so that's what's on the back of my envelope where all the price increases and for 21st street you can see it started at 7.99. and they went up to they were asking 7.9, but it sold for 6.5. okay. so the other one is this one here. and there is the original house and there's what they built. and there was nothing on the pem. so i went this morning at dbi records and i looked at the demo calcs, and you can see those two there on the 317 be to be. and if the

calcs had been adjusted at least twice, which they should have been since 2009, this thing would have been a demolition. i think it looks like a demolition. if you look at it closely, i don't see how anybody using common sense could say it isn't. and that one sold for, 5.7 and 21. they both sold during the pandemic and started at 1.3. and the other calcs are a little strange. they make no sense. they say they removed 83, but they say 24ft of horizontal. i don't know, it's the calcs needed to be fixed. they weren't fixed in. i know you're trying to fix them now, and i really hope you do. and i hope you codify the flat policy at short range in the housing element. 8.3.2 and also i have one more question is planning now in charge of intake, not dbi? i was

just curious about that. and that's it. there's my words for the minutes. thank you. sorry for the chaotic presentation. any other members in the chambers wishing to submit general public comment? if not, we'll go to our reasonable accommodation. requester good afternoon commissioners. my name is sue hester. i am pleading with you to schedule a serious discussion of sea level rise as it as it occurs around the rim of the city. we had a really good presentation from the man from the, army corps of engineers and the port about four weeks ago, and it was extremely informative about changes that are needed in the zoning on the lancet. touch the area that is under the control of the port. but there was a lot of area that is not under the control of the port, and

specifically it's the ocean. ocean and also hunters point. you have had issues around them already. you're not not so much at the planning commission, but there has been issues raised around hunters point and that's an old redevelopment area. and there is problems regarding hunters point, former shipyard that is not totally cleaned up, to put it mildly. and you never had control of it. it was under the redevelopment agency and so that needs to be discussed. and that that's not the doesn't have the benefit of having the port commission on it. and on the west side of the city, you doing a massive rezoning of the sunset district. and the ocean also is rising, not only the bay and when the ocean rises, that is

not rising against rock, which is downtown, it's rise against sand. and you have a hearing on 2,745th avenue on the second. and that is going to get into side wise, a jurisdiction of the not the port commission, whoever has jurisdiction over the ocean and, you should have a presentation on that gets into that as well as the bcdc area and hunter's point, please. we have ocean level on a three. we have a rising waters on three sides of the stage. it's important that you dig into it. thank you. have a presentation. thank you. a last call for

general public comment. seeing none. general public comment is closed. commissioners that will place us under your regular calendar for item eight, case number 2022, hyphen 009383 koa at 4,021st street. conditional use authorization, please. sorry. please note that on february 22nd, 2024, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to march 14th with direction from the commission by a vote of 5 to 0 and from march 14th to today's date, commissioner ruiz was absent. commissioner williams, you were not yet seated as a commissioner at that time, and unfortunately, i failed to instruct you to review the previous hearing and materials. and i just confirmed with you that you had not on your own, which you wouldn't. so my apologies. you will not be able to participate in this hearing today. no worries. okay.

thank you. good afternoon. commissioners michelle taylor, senior preservation planner, department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization for the property at 4,021st street for 4,021st street is a one story, over garage, wood frame, single family home. the project site is located within an rh two zoning district and a 40 x height and bulk district. the commission originally heard this item on february 22nd. at that time, the project included the construction of a one story vertical addition to the existing single family residence. this addition would have expanded the existing 2579 square foot dwelling unit by approximately 1128ft!s, resultig in a unit with a gross floor area of 3707ft!s. however in response to comments provided by

this commission, the project sponsor has revised the project to include the addition of an accessory dwelling unit under the state program and a modest expansion of the proposed third floor addition within the buildable area. the revised proposal will add approximately 402ft!s to the primary unit, resulting in a total square foot floor area of 2981ft!s and a 106 square foot adu. the project requires a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 249 .92 and 303 to allow the expansion of the primary dwelling unit with a gross floor area of more than 1 to 1.2 floor area, the floor area ratio within the central neighborhood's large residents, special use district. the department has not received any letters in support or

opposition to the revised proposed project. the department finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. the project proposes only a moderate expansion of one residential unit and will provide a net increase of one dwelling unit to the city's housing stock. the project is compliant with the planning code and with residential design guidelines, and the entirety of the expanded building is within the buildable area and will not require any variances or modifications. furthermore, the new third story addition will match the existing lightwell of the adjacent property, thereby providing relief to the neighboring windows. the project is necessary and desirable because it will modestly expand the existing single family dwelling unit, while adding a new unit that is generally consistent with the prevailing pattern of development. therefore the department supports the proposed project and recommends approval

with conditions. this concludes my presentation and i'm available to answer any questions. i'll now turn it over to the project sponsor. thank you. sponsor. you have three minutes. hello. thank you, i'm ryan nock, the project sponsor and project architect for the project, i'm here to present an updated request for the coa authorization. section 249 .92 for the central neighborhood's large residency way, the commission's specific request from the last hearing was to add an adu to this project. and we have done exactly that, we have proposed a new adu that's 1006ft!s with a main residence. that's 202,981ft!s, the new unit is located on the ground floor. it has a distinct entrance, it's greater than one third of the main residence area. it has 9.5ft ceilings. it has exposure on multiple levels, again, it

has its own private entrance through the rear garden, it's a great adu, it's, you know, attached, but it's very distinct from the main residence, i just wanted to quickly go through, the findings, and just point by point, you know, just kind of make sure, you know, show you how we're hitting all of these findings, the first finding is that the project is contextual with the neighborhood meets applicable, applicable residential design guidelines and seeks to retain any existing design elements, so the context of the project here is a range of 2 to 4 story homes found on all the adjacent blocks, the adjacent buildings directly next to this are very contemporary in design, which we are matching the ones both 4001 21st street and 378 collingwood. both are very contemporary. we are matching with that, their glazing sizes, their glazing types, those sorts of things, in terms of retaining the existing design, the existing house is comprised of white stucco. it

has a flat roof. it has one third of the walls as fenestration. and what is being proposed has a flat roof. it has white stucco walls and it's fenestration, although slightly more concentrated, is very similar to what's already there, the second point is that the project does not remove any rental units, this does not remove any rental units. it's entirely owner occupied and has been, the third point being that it increases the dwelling units. it does it increases this by 1 to 1. it's 100% increase in dwelling units from 1 to 2, again, as i pointed out before, this is greater than 33% or one third of the of the main residence. it's at 34% of the main residence size, and in terms of the last two points, which is the historic integrity, this is a class c building, it is not historically significant. and the block and surrounding buildings are all it's a mixed block, there's no adjacent historic homes next to this, and

i thank you for your time. thank you. with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. you each have one minute. one minute. okay, so i sent you the georgia. i sent that email about comparing this project with the project on bernal heights. and i did that because i just stumbled on that one in bernal heights. and i think it's really important because i don't think it's easy to understand what these projects are in the field when the walls are gone on and the floors are gone and the roof is gone, and that's why i sent it. this project has, in 2023, that plan set. the values were exceeded for both see values and then they adjusted it by taking putting back some of the things both of these projects have. the 5% warning letter i don't think projects should be approved that have 5% warning letter. there's a lot of those. i'm sorry, i just don't i think the cap should be adjusted. as for the

adu, it used to be the family room. will they put the stove in when the dbe inspectors come at the end? i hope so, they're supposed to. and i would just say that this house is in the lbgtq district, and i hope that this unit will be available to somebody who follows what the guidelines are for the castro district cultural district, which is people taking care of people from that district. it's in your summary that's it. thanks for the minute. we get to pass this out to the commissioners. the person speaking after me will be addressing that. hi, my name is steve bain. my husband and i are owners of the adjacent property west to the 4,021st street property. we have some major concerns about this project. as i stated in the hearing on february 11th, we have no level of confidence that the project sponsor or the owner intend to complete this project in an

ethical manner or adhere to the planning code and safety precautions unless they are made to adhere to it. we believe they've been dishonest with the planning department. they've submitted plans which are contemplate, which are contemplating approval for today , which are erroneous and have misleading information and give the appearance that they are complying with planning code, including inaccurate information related to the demolition. demolition. we believe this project constitutes a demolition , and there's a significant amount of excavation that's going to happen below this building for this project that we think is going to significantly destabilize the foundation of our property. the demolition will be right up to the property line, right up to our building. and we have concerns that this is going to damage our property. am i out of time? you are. thank you. tell me when my time starts starting.

greetings, commissioners. my name is ray willett and i'm an architect here to speak on behalf of the neighbors at 406 21st street, directly west of the proposed projects. i'm here to ask you to enforce section 317 based upon the criteria for section 317, subsection b, the drawings, and particularly the structural calculations, the entire facade of all four elevations will need to be included at 100, as new plywood shear panel is proposed at all. exterior walls. this will require the removal of all finishes and all facades. although the proposed elevations call for a veneer of plaster over the existing walls, the structural calculations and detail for on sheet a 1.3 clearly call out for plywood shear panels, two layers of building paper, and a membrane up the wall and behind new 7/8 inch three coat cement plaster. even if new shear panels are not required and new plaster was to be applied as a veneer, as noted in the elevations and calculations on a one point on a 0.1 omit parapets and other elements. from the calculations.

i'm here to ask you to enforce section 317. thank you. last call for public comment. hello, commissioners. jeremy paul. last time this was before you, we discussed that, how the large building, limitations came into effect by popular acclaim in this particular neighborhood, how the supervisor brought it forward as a result of the action of the neighbors in this community who wanted to see things change, wanted to reduce the acceleration of property values and home costs, increase the availability of homes for people in the community. this is, as mentioned specifically, the lgbtq community and make it affordable. now you're you still have a request for a large building before you. there's no reason that this building cannot

be modified and made more contemporary without a need for a conditional use. the project sponsor listed there, a findings, but i didn't hear a single finding of why they need to be a large building in order to remodel this building. thank you. i would ask you to send them back to the drawing board and start over. okay. final last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. vice president moore. the. the expansion of the building relative to the unit in question falls within the rules that were established. and that, i think, is a positive step. adding an adu on its own is something that we desire. however when we do that, we need to follow the very obvious rules that are

established for having an adu. the first one is, if i may direct the commission's attention to drawing a 1.1. that's the entrance to the adu has to be through a separate entrance, and while the door to the street is separate, it will have to have a separate house number. there has to be an enclosed corridor not going through a garage to get to the door, that is another point number one. excuse me. i'm speaking to the commission. if there are questions, we'll call on you. i'm sorry sir. sir. sorry. right now it's not. it's not a back and forth right now. the second point. and i think that is actually a more significant point, is this particular adu, does not have a sufficiently independent access to the main unit, the alcove in front of the adu bathroom happens to be at the same elevation as the entrance to the

main unit through the foyer. there that means once this particular project has received its approval, it is very easy to bust through that wall and basically make this edu an integral part of the upper unit, the for those people who are following with that drawing as you noticed, the bathroom and the alcove to the bathroom is reached by stepping down in to the bathroom, which is at the same elevation as the entrance to the main building coming from the garage. so that in itself is not acceptable. i think it's a little bit playing the system open that nobody will notice. i personally believe that it's not sufficient for establishing a credible adu, and i would say that this project would have to go back in order to rectify that and come up with a solution by which the adu, by its very nature, needs to be a completely independent unit from the unit

above, from the main unit above. so i believe that our ability to, judge on this project today is insufficient. i am not inclined to deny the project. i'm not asking for that. i'm asking that this project is properly designed to meet all of the stipulations of what an adu needs to do, including sufficient separation from the main unit and an independent access from the from the street. those are my comments. did the architect want to respond to the comment? yes. thank you. sorry for the interruption before, but i just wanted to make sure that, it was acknowledged where the entrance to the adu is. the adu entrance is not off of 21st street. the adu entrance is off of the rear yard, the rear yard is dedicated to the adu. there is a new private gate into the

garden. there are steps up and then there is an entrance that is facing the rear yard. that is the dedicated entrance to the adu. the access door to the garage is purely for access to common areas such as the toters and to laundry area, and to speak to speak briefly on the stairs. we'd be happy to omit those stairs and make it all flat and have an adu bath. if that was the commission's decision today, we would we would be willing to remove those steps and make this all flat to where the adu bathroom is. there still do need to be steps to the garage because it is a different elevation, but this would meet all the criteria. it's a simple request. you can approve this right now. i'll remove those steps. it's easy as that. thank you, if i may, the your your project is not really shown in context. i'm responding without

you having to answer my question. the project is hard to understand because it is not properly drawn in the contextual map where your building is shown relative to others. i do not see any ability to come from the street to the rear and enter from the rear, which i would be happy to see, but it's not shown to me here. the second point is i am not asking for the bathroom and the alcove to be, level with the unit. i am asking for the bathroom and alcove to be at the existing level of the adu. that means the alcove is not at the same level as the, as entrance to the garage from the main unit. yes so i'll point you to sheet a 0.1 drawing two. there is a note that says entry gate to adu. it's near the building line at the backyard. specifically says entry gate for adu. that is the entrance to the adu's allocated area, including the rear yard, the stairs to the

adu and the entrance to the adu. would you reference that drawing again, please? a drawing one point. what? yeah. could i have the overhead? it's, sheet 1.0. drawing two. point zero. drawing like that. i do not have a drawing like that in my in my set. thank you. i still do not see

how you get to the back of the of the building. when the property line is the. another drawing. hold on. the drawing sits on the property line. that's 1.6. would help. would you say? so one a 1.6 would show the, this new fencing and gate and direct access to the garden. one a 1.6 is an isometric drawing. i need to see that in plan. and in plan drawing the

one you're referencing. the project is a zero property line, building. and i do not see any space like a tradesman's entrance or so by which you can get to the back of the property. i do not see that. it's a corner lot, commissioner. it's a corner lot. i still don't see it. is the entrance off of collingwood street correct? the entrance is directly off of collingwood street. you may want to enter that into the record. it is. i mean, i'm sorry. i don't want to make it very difficult for you. it is confusing because in your elevation drawing, you are showing a second door from the garage, which may be the recology entrance. i don't have any idea. with a direct line to the to the unit, which makes me made me assume that that is your main entrance. no, i do understand that. and that that is it's contemplated all that it

says. look, this is not closed off, which i completely understand, but the intention was always to have this as a private entrance off of collingwood street, through the gate and rear garden with the steps up to it, it's just it's just a it's a much nicer entrance than having to go through, exit passageway to get to your front. front door, it's just incredibly more welcoming to come through the garden rather than to have to go through an enclosed corridor, through a garage, which would not be very nice. we're just trying to make this adu as nice as possible and attractive as possible for someone that still does not quite answer the other issue, and i would just i would just suggest that we give this project a little bit more time to sort itself out the, elevation of the adu relative to the bathroom needs to be clarified. so there is no possibility that the upper unit connects to the alcove to the

adu, and that is at this moment, because of the elevation difference not possible. so can i direct a question? i have a question for staff. yes. are the drawings sufficiently clear that there's an entrance off of collingwood? yes and i would like to add that the adu is a state adu. it's ministerial, so it meets all requirements under the state code and planning code. and do we have any regulations that prohibit a entry into a common area where there's a washer dryer? no, there's no prohibition against, a common area with a washer and dryer. okay i will say that while i understand the fear that this could be used as one large

unit, the fact is it meets our code, and i don't want to deny a project based on a fear that something could happen in the future. because somebody may choose not to comply with our code. so i would be in favor of approving this project. commissioner braun. yes. i so when i first looked at the plans, i had some of the same questions that have already been addressed, you know, at first i was thinking, well, how do you get into this? adu. and then i realized, it does indeed have that access through collingwood, through the backyard. and i'm satisfied with what i saw about that independent entrance, i had the same concern about the fact that as currently designed, it's possible to come in through the garage, to the stairs for the main unit. and if you just push through the wall that's currently showing the plans, it would be very easy to create a

corridor door that has access into the adu, i however, after thinking about that fact, you know, i would i sort of landed more in the field of, well, what we have before us is a plan that shows the wall there, i do like the possible idea of maybe also trying to create, a change in the height of where that bathroom sits, maybe excavating a little just a little further down. so those stairs up aren't necessary. so it's not at the same level as the entryway from the garage, i'm wondering if the . well, first of all, i'm wondering if department staff could speak to, you know, can we, even though it's a state add adu? do we have some ability to, make that more of a condition on the design that we approve? it's my understanding if it's cocomplete saying we are required to approve it as is. however, we can always make requests and they can

voluntarily make changes and commissioner brown, just to add in, it did. if i heard correctly, the architect was offering to have that be part of the proposal. if that is part of their proposal, then it's not a condition of approval. so if the applicant is willing to say that they are requesting that the commission you know, incorporate that change as part of the approval, it's a nuanced difference. but i think it's a distinct enough difference from state, from a state adu compliance perspective, that that's not a condition of approval. could the architect, could you please speak to what change you're willing to make and how you would address this? yes. so the primary reason to have the bathroom elevated, there was just the ease of, of maintaining, accessing plumbing below, i do understand your concern about this connection. so i am willing to remove the stairs that are on the west side of the bathroom near where the door is, and make that entirely flat. so the adu bathroom is flat with the rest of the adu, and there would not be a direct

level connection between the hall of the of the main unit and this adu. i'd be i'd be willing to change that. i'm sorry, we will lower their height of the bathroom to the rest of the height of the adu. we want we want to keep the nine foot six ceilings we have here. we don't want to go any lower than that. currently, it's three steps up from the adu level to the bathroom level. is that correct? it's three risers. correct? yes. and so this would bring the bathroom level of the adu down to the same level. yeah. before it was eight feet. it will be nine feet six. correct. okay. yes yes. so we i am willing to make that change as part of the conditions of approval. thank you. okay. with that assurance, i'm much more comfortable with, approving this and less concerned about the idea that these units could potentially be sort of de facto merged, by pushing through that wall, especially now, there are still some risk i perceive in this because, you know, you can still push the wall. maybe if you put steps down. but now this would also involve a little bit of change of the configuration of

the doorway into the bathroom. so i'm, i'm satisfied with that eight design change. and wouldn't i personally wouldn't need to hear this again, to be brought forward with us, as far as the demolition calculations go, i agree with the idea that this is really pushing the limits on the demo calcs. and there is a warning letter, that is, you know, following our requirements and guidelines. but i think just think for the project sponsor's sake, think very carefully about this, because this could get rerouted back to planning. if once dvi takes a look at these plans and finds that the demo calcs don't work, so i think it's just i'm willing to approve this, but i would be concerned for your behalf on your behalf. and, i think you should tread carefully , besides that, though, you know, i appreciate i do want to acknowledge and appreciate that

this accessory dwelling unit has been added at our request, i think that on the whole, this is going to be, you know, we're discussing a lot of details here, but i think on the whole, this is going to be a net positive for the neighborhood by having, having the additional unit included, whether that's rented right now or it could be rented in the future. either way, it's still helpful to have that added to the housing stock. is that a motion? i will yes, i will move to, approve the project, including the offered solution of lowering the bathroom height of the adu to the same level as the rest of the adu. second commissioner moore. city attorney, you had something, sure. i was just, hope i was offering to have the secretary clarify in the motion

that the sponsor has offered to revise the project to lower the bathroom associated with the adu, as opposed to making that a condition of approval by the commission. since the adu permit is technically a ministerial permit under the state program. thank you for that clarification. further to this, for staff, the project would be code complying no matter what. however, i do believe it remains the commission's responsibility, despite the fact that we apparently don't have any say anymore to point out things like that. and get clarification. and i will not abandon this commission's right to do. indeed, look at things critically, particularly if there's potentially a loophole, unintended or unintended. that we are sufficiently cautious to prevent future merger mergers, mr. paul, you had a comment to make. i wanted to give you the time to do so. thank you for giving me this opportunity, commissioner. this this adu

exiting through the backyard depends entirely on a plan that requires a variance. however, staff called it out. the project sponsor removed that scope of work from this permit, massaged their numbers so it didn't require a variance anymore, essentially requiring the same thing being done. avoiding the variance process. even though the numerical criteria are met, requiring a variance. this is a rock outcropping in this backyard. this is a very steeply down sloping portion of the block with a big rock outcropping and the drop off. if you're changing more than 30in, it requires a variance at. and the way they pulled that portion of this project out and got a separate permit issued without any neighborhood notice, essentially pulling the, in my opinion, and pulling the wool

over department design review staff's eyes by presenting numbers that just don't work without a variance. so i would suggest that the entry from collingwood is really something that can't be done in a code complying way, and if that's going to be considered, it should be considered in all honesty and candor. thank you. in addition to that, i would say the fire department has a say of where the building is addressed. if you are addressed with one street, that is where the entrance comes from. if it's if it's entrance is taken from another street, you get into discussions relative to how would the fire department service a fire that originates in that unit. and they're going to the front and they can't get to the unit. that's just a practical question. i've encountered that in an older built up neighborhood quite a bit. i'm just throwing that out that this perhaps may require some additional investigation. but perhaps a question for the motion has precedent called the question, and let's see what

falls. i think the one earnings that this project needs to be looked at a little bit more carefully are definitely out. let's see, commissioner braun, did you you're done. okay, commissioner imperial, i just would like to comment, you know, given what we have in front of here and also, since a lot of the conversation or the questions around the adu, which is on the state, adu, and so i, as of now, i am more inclined to support the project, as proposed as the motion by commissioner braun. but i guess in the future, in terms of the state, adu, process in itself and where are these questions like to during the state adu process, where does the planning commission understand about all of this quality of life type kind of questions? where, what

would be the process for a state 80? it's just ministerial. and then the public wouldn't have any kind of notification. i understand there's no notification requirement already at this point, where can be the investigation happened during state adu application? i'm happy to jump in here, but i think you kind of hit the nail on the head. state adus, our ministerial, so certainly people we have processes in place where people can get alerted about projects in their neighborhood. doesn't matter whether those are discretionary or ministerial. so they can be alerted to know there's something in under review by staff, when that happens, members of the public can certainly reach out to the staff planner. if they have questions, they want to get a copy of the plans. they want to come in and view the plans. all of those same normal things are available, but when our review has concluded and we've determined a project to be code compliant and we're ready to approve it, it's done. there's not a discretionary review

opportunity, under ab 1114, which is a recently approved law this year, the building permit is not separately appealable to the board of appeals. really, the state has really made it quite clear that adding these units is as of. right. so if you meet the rules, you get it to be approved. and it is worth noting this project has not yet been fully reviewed by the department of building inspection. the you know, i don't think this one would trigger fire department review, but public works, all of the other technical review stations will follow. so certainly if there are any life safety related issues, those will get fleshed out as they always do post planning commission approval. thank you for that explanation. there's nothing further. commissioners. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions as were as the project was amended by the sponsor, voluntarily reducing the level of the bath to the same level as the adu unit. on that motion, commissioner braun i, commissioner imperial i, commissioner coppell i commissioner. moore, no. and

commission president diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes 4 to 1 with commissioner moore voting against commissioners. that will place us on item nine for case number 2023. hyphen 0110510 for the property at 350 rhode island street. this is an office allocation plan amendment. good afternoon, president diamond and commissioners, kalyani agnihotri, department staff, i'm here to present a request to modify a previously approved office allocation at 350 rhode island street, located in the umu zoning district, 48 x and 68 x height and bulk district. the item. the project originally approved under motion number 14988 in the year 2000. adopted findings relating to the authorization of office space in excess of 50,000ft!s. to permit the new construction of the subject office building. the project now proposes to remove the sunshade, louvers system on

the east and south facades of the building, which are specifically mentioned as, as a part of the quality of design findings related to the office allocation in the previously approved motion. this item is now before you, as the ca determined that the proposed modification is significant. thus requiring commission action. further the findings for the office allocation under planning code section three, 20 1b3 were modified in 2020 under proposition e, this amendment eliminated four findings, one of which was the quality of design for the office development. therefore, in consideration of the proposal to remove the louvers and modify the office allocation findings, this commission must now consider the new criteria that have been established under prop e and determine if the proposed project would promote public welfare, convenience and necessity. the project only proposes to remove the louver system, and there are no other changes proposed to the existing building or the amount of the allocated office space. the building overall still maintains

a high quality of architectural treatments used to reduce the apparent bulk of the building. the department has so far received one letter of concern, but it was neither in support nor in opposition. staff would like to note that the hearing dates on the cover sheets of the executive summary and the draft motion in the packet should have read as april 11th, 2024, continued from february 29th, 2024, overall, the department finds that the project is, on balance, consistent with the showplace square potrero hill area plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. it finds the project to be necessary and desirable and recommends approval, staff and project sponsor are available for questions. thank you, thank you. project sponsor. you have five minutes. awesome. good afternoon. my name is hal pham. i'm with the project sponsor. i have earned my architect to answer any questions. our main

concern or, proposal to remove these louvers because it's offering, marketability to the office space, allowing the tenants from the inside a viewpoint outside, the lower louvers also attract transients during, colder, winter days. and it's also offer a comparable service for those who, by any chance want to climb it, and therefore is creating a hazard for our building. that will be it. let us know if you have any questions. okay. if anyone would like to speak to this matter, please come forward seeing none. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioner braun. yes, i'm. i have to admit, i'm a little disappointed in some ways to lose the louvers

in this building just because they are an interesting architectural feature. this building, as one comes down through 16th street on from the west, for example, and this is in the east and south side. but, you know, the building kind of stands out and it's a little bit more notable. but as far as, whether or not i approve it, i understand the reasons for removal. i know people work in this building who also agree the offices are extremely dark in the spaces that are behind, those louvers. and, you know, there's already an example on the starbucks side of this building on 16th. i believe that , does not have louvers. so i had a pretty good you know, there's a pretty good view of kind of what it would look like. and i consider that and also, you know, the industrial context that this building sits in, in this area and the showplace square area, there's a new building at 300 kansas across the street that has in some ways, similar design that does not have this kind of element to it. and so, you know, i was just

taking all this into consideration, and i am comfortable with approving this removal. and, i'll actually make a motion to approve second. vice president moore, i think it would sometimes be good. i think it would sometimes be good to let some of us speak first before we make a motion. i think we need to understand that the exterior sunshades are not. louvers are not simply an architectural element to create buildings, scale, facade variation and visual interest. they are an integral part of the building's engineering system and energy performance. this is an extensively long south and east facing facade. particularly, the south facade is very, very long and the original green performance of this building was calculated not only based on the structural frame having energy saving criteria, but the building of

the building itself. use the combination of the concrete frame regulating energy mass, together with the sun shades as energy performance by taking the shades away, we would have to do a complete recalculation of the performance of this building under the energy code, and that will not be achieved by just adding some shades or some curtains on the inside, which you open up. i do not know what the right measures are, but i do not think that we can just esthetically wave the magic wand here and saying we are approving it without having the proper retro fit of this building to today's energy code in front of us. if the shades would not be altered, it would perform as it did when it was designed. when you remove them, you basically apply to have to conform to the new standards. the updated

standards in the 1998 design, this was still kind of a forerunner of how to do it correctly. it was just the beginning of a code which has become much more elaborate and much more stringent for green performance. so i would caution us to not just jump on this and just say, okay, okay, okay. because we don't have enough information on. what is interesting to me is that originally this building was designed for dot.com tenants, was a very interesting design and interlocking design of two very large buildings with an absolutely fabulous interior courtyard, which in itself was a real architectural tour de force relative to landscape architecture, which won quite a few awards. however, the building i think, came late and it was immediately in 2022, we modeled to accommodate, a pdr use, which was the california culinary institute at that required, among other things,

major structural modification, including 3000 cores into the existing floor slabs in including the placement of a very, very large freight elevator. these are all things by which the building performed below its expectation as an office building. i'm just saying that that unfortunately, the building at this moment has a very large list of complaints on it. i have had a total of 11 complaints on the building, ranging from concrete crumbling from upper floors and endangering people who are working there to electrical issues to boiler failure. the seiu local 2015, who apparently has office space in this building or had office space in this building, had major issues with the performance of the building and i believe that we would be a little, rushed to

just take the esthetic, challenge here and, and move to approve it. i don't have any at all, issues with seeing the building come forward. i do need better information, to do so. and in addition to that, the property has a notice of special restriction on it. but i cannot figure out what that is. and perhaps that's not anything that perhaps affects us. but that is a notice that was put on the property in the year 2000. so those are my comments. and i would like to suggest that we give this project a little bit more time for full disclosure for including its energy performance, so that we indeed can support adjustments for it to become a better office building for today's, standard of office. just before i go to, commissioner koppell, miss, what did you want to respond to some of those comments? yeah, i just thought it was worth sharing. we did, part of the staff review. we did sort of bring up the

discussion of the fact that the removal of these louvers may impact their title 24 compliance and other energy performance of the building. and it was at least my understanding that they were aware of that and had other interior alterations that they were going to need to do to sort of offset the removal of louvers to comply. and i believe on their cover page, they cite that they are subject to the 2022 sort of electrical codes and building codes and energy codes and all of that. so i was just thinking it might be worthwhile to give the architect an opportunity to respond because i believe that was an anticipated resulting scope of work that would need to be dealt with. could you come forward and give us. and then as he's walking up here, i believe the nsx-r is just from the 1990 or the year 2000 approval, where all conditions of approval always get recorded on the deed. oh, that's okay. thanks. good afternoon. sean capps with dx architects. and you're correct. we will when we get the building permit, we will have a mechanical engineer evaluate the envelope, make sure that it does

apply with the energy compliance. so i don't think. commissioner koppell so yeah, this is in a very, direct sun part of town, why were the louvers installed in the first place? wasn't part of that project so we can't hear you come forward. i wasn't part of that project. when i looked in the existing plans, i couldn't see anything. that. why the sunshades were put there, other than it is on the south and the east or the west. and so that's kind of you would assume that it does block the sun. so i talked with architect fauci and long, who were the original designers, followed by gordon chung, stantec and, gensler and the answer from mr. fauci is that

given the size of the building in the neighborhood that looks onto it, it was very desirable to give indeed architectural variety facade articulation, and experiment with, energy performance and make it a more interesting building. without it, it just looks like a huge blob, undifferentiated as it is a concrete building. it is a very kind of massive, tough building. and i think the intent was to give it indeed a visual interest, at least on the, on on, on the, on the way it's perceived by, by people from the outside. yeah. because i was, i was in a ucsf building just earlier in the week and the sun was absolutely blinding me. and it was like literally causing me to break a sweat. so like we have the louvers there to actually protect all the direct sunlight from coming in and heating the building as well. it's going to my understanding is when we work with the mechanical engineer, we will

make sure that it is compliant. it's not going to. they have sunshades already inside interiors. so i'm my assumption is that we would be putting in, additional shades. interior shades. there's sun shades in addition to the louvers. no, there's i'm saying there's, i guess their interior. yeah, there's interior shades. so when you. i don't know if they're on the interior portion, wouldn't it make sense to just remove the interior shades? so what was that? would it make sense to remove or, you know, make the interior shades just not work or not casting additional? i think it's more of, again, it's more of an esthetic opening it that up is my understanding from the ownership is that they they are looking for it more, a leasable space, people have because typically the high voltage lighting, which is very efficient, can provide light at

a better rate than would be feasible to get rid of the sun and then increase the air conditioning. thank you. i would need to talk to the mechanical engineer on how they they're going to do that, but i know that it's feasible. i know, but the way i just said it also is feasible too. okay sorry if i may, the interior blinds are reusable, so we're able to lower and raise them when necessary, the exterior louvers are permanent, and they remain pretty much an obstruction to from the inside out, we do understand your concern on title 24 compliance and energy conservation within the building, which is why we are once we're drafting and submitting for building permit, we will do the complete title 24 compliance in order to, make sure that we don't we do not have any energy issue. is there

a reason why there's so many expired? permits on the property , i am not aware of that, but we can definitely look into that if necessary. it's right here on the dv permit tracking information. okay, i will look into that. one of the things that i'm most taken by in this discussion is commissioner brown's comment about the people who work there, finding it very uncomfortable, but but, you know, it's weird that that isn't part of the presentation given by the project sponsor. i want to encourage i don't want to discourage people from going to the office. and if this is designed to make the office more comfortable. so that people will work in the office, that's a really important goal that i think we're trying to accomplish as a city is to have people at

the office, and it feels like i mean, that's why i'm, you know, supporting this and why i jumped a second your motion so quickly, especially because i also think the energy compliance has done at the next step. not this step, if i'm not mistaken. but i see that vice president moore wants to speak again. yeah, i will definitely stand up for a solution that also addresses the architectural treatment of this building. and i don't have a particular feelings about the type of louvers that are here. i think they were an experiment, perhaps, and they perhaps served a purpose at their time. i do think that it is not about internal louvers. it is about external louvers that are a permanent, basically ability to heat and cool the building appropriately, given what time of the year it is. and we see in europe a lot of horizontal louvers, which also have the ability to swivel its fins. and

i need to see something more architectural than, oh, i'm going to be talking to my mechanical engineer as to the lease of the building. the city has a lease of 127,100ft!s on this building, and from what i understand, the district attorney's office is there right now together with seiu. 15. so the building is not vacant. and i believe that architecturally, this should be addressed in a slightly more germane manners. and just ripping off the louvers . we have a building, and i think if we are indeed interested in supporting a resemblance of acceptable architecture, this needs a little bit more help. and so i'm not support and i'm not at this moment, together with the technical issues prepared to support this project. but ask

for a little bit more creativity and a little bit more long view of what this building will do. this is a very good building, and i think just ripping off the louvers is just not quite enough. commissioner koppel, i will still agree with you. commissioner moore. i do like the look of the louvers, but i did hear you mention something about transients and i don't know what they're doing or how they're doing, what they're doing. and what's that doing to the building and the public safety. can someone please. and i mean, be honest and tell us what's really going on, like be frank with the transients and what may be happening with, with this like part of the building that may seem like it, like a ladder. right? it seems like a ladder. correct yes. so, we do observe transient to take shelter under the louvers, however, our, i'm not talking about the higher one, the lower ones, and it's a possibility that they can climb these.

that's a good point. okay. that that changes a lot here for me because i often in certain parts of this town still don't feel safe. and i'm starting to have less and less tolerance for this type of activity. commissioner imperial, first, i want to thank vice president moore for, in a way educating including me in these the in terms of the energy, so savings and preservation and, in and as you know, as from this conversation, i think, i am inclined not to remove the louvre, and really think about the creativity in terms of how can we how can this be building more, be energy efficient? and i think there has been a lot of studies and works on how these louvers actually really, contribute to the energy

efficiency that also, i think our future should be moving into. so, i support vice president commissioner moore on this. to clarify, i had said that i do not necessarily support this type of louver external louver, actually, it's a sunshade. it's not a louver, but that there should be some more creativity in terms of how we give this building without these particular sunshades for safety reasons or for interior comfort, still, the ability to we'd like a well-designed building and just taking the louvers off will not achieve that. so i'll leave that up to the architect. and perhaps even talk to the original architect, mr. ford, who was very creative, very accessible, and see what he says. perhaps you can discuss it together of what may be an ideal. he has spent lots of time on this building, so, that's just a recommendation from for

me to you, commissioner braun. you know, if there if there was a way to do a continuance with clear guidance on what the expectation would be, i'd be open to hearing what that is and , yeah, potentially in favor of it, i guess i'm just not entirely. i mean, there is no continuance that's been no motion's been made for it. and i'm also not sure exactly what the guidance would end up being. commissioner koppel, can you come up here and maybe tell us just a little bit more? are the are the people in the building feeling unsafe if they are, i'm not okay with that, are you referring to the transients or, we have no indications from the tenants themselves, but we have not quite done a survey on this particular topic either, so i can't say with certain. yeah. so

okay, if you would answer me a little differently, i would have voted a certain way. so i'm going to stand by the exterior architectural standards of the building. if you were to tell me that the inhabitants of the building don't feel safe because of transients, i would be okay with removing the louvers. so that's where i'm at. do you know or not know if the tenants feel unsafe? we just have observed that there are transients under the lowest, louver shades during the winter months. that's that's all. i do not want to reflect, details that i do not know for certain regarding the tenants. so if we have not done the survey for the with the tenants. so if we need to do so, we can. i think part of my issue is we don't have the project sponsor here. we just have the

architect, and so some of these questions are, you know, that we're asking we can't get answers to them, might have an impact on how some of us feel about this. but on the other hand, it is very hard for me to support a continuance without really clear guidance about why we are putting people off. and so far, i'm not hearing clear guidance on that, so unless i hear that, i, i wouldn't be supportive of a continuance. vice president moore, clear guidance is to reflect on the energy performance of this building with external sunshades, because internal will not just do it. it's not just about curtains. it's about the building performing as a whole. that is, i think, i think a fair description that's an that can, in its own technical description , become immediately also an esthetic solution. that is that is the way the previous building was designed. it was not the architect designing something, it was pharrell aldisert

together with the architect coming up with a solution and i'm sure you have the same type of people available to work with, to just explore that. and again, none of us would want to create anything that is a public hazard, unfortunately, even our own entrances on our residential streets often find transient people sleeping in our entrances overnight. so this is just like, as coincidental as anything else, but that would be my recommendation, because i think it is not just one or the other. it's both issues architecture and building performance as one issue. that would be my recommendation. okay, i can i respond on the. yes. so for the building permit, we would be required to meet performance for the energy compliance no matter what. so when we apply to take these louvers off, we're going to be providing new energy calculations from the mechanical

engineer to make sure that the building does comply. and if necessary, sir, you'll have to come up and speak in the microphone. and if necessary, we do plan to put on window film in order to help with that, heat conservation and keeping the sun, from overheating the building as well. commissioner koppel, just i just don't i can't make sense of the fact you want to remove the louvers and then put sunshades on back on the window. so if you were to tell me that someone's doing something more than just sleeping on the louvers, that warrants you wanting to remove them, i would be okay with that. but if you don't, i'm still going to stand by the building design the way it was originally. okay commissioner, again, i think the louvers, it's an esthetic, item and that we can make the building meet code

for energy compliance. so i think it would be more of what does the building look like? why? or it's more of a element, an architectural element on the building. thank you. okay vice president, more, this this project has never gone through any kind of neighborhood reviews by the, portrayal boosters of which it is it is in that neighborhood. it's allowed to it should have gone through some neighborhood discussions in a neighborhood that is generally very attuned to, participating in, caring about better architecture. and i give, our architects all the benefit of the doubt. i would just like for us to have a slightly more, caring hand about what we do with transforming architecture. and by just taking the louvers down, i think we are dumbing

down the building to the extent that it is not an acceptable, building within in its neighborhood. i'm going to be very clear about that. okay. i heard a motion from commissioner braun that was seconded. that's all i've heard so far. so maybe we should take a vote and see where we are. indeed. there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. commissioner williams. nay commissioner braun, i, commissioner. imperial nay. commissioner. coppell. no. commissioner moore. no. and commissioner. president. dimond, i. that fails 2 to 4 with commissioners williams, imperial couple and moore voting against. is there an alternate motion? vice president moore i make a

motion that we give the architects a benefit of the doubt with proper instruction to spend just some sketch. time to come back and present some more creative ideas of how to meet the objectives of moving the louvers as a the sunshades. i mean, i'm falling into the trap of using louver, using the sunshade shades, as they are, and replace them with something that still provides the building with some architectural interest and meets the energy code, as you will be asked to do anyway. does do you have an indication of how much time you'll need to come up with the design solution in two weeks, three weeks, a month, a month? can i also ask, as part of that motion, that to the extent there's a concern with tenant safety that you address that in your design, we want to know exactly what the issue is and that the design, take that into account and be part of the presentation. i would also suggest it's not part

of the motion, but if it does pass that when you come back again, you have the project sponsor, a member of the ownership team with you so that we can ask questions that go beyond just the architecture as to the use and the transient concerns. is there a second to the motion? and may 23rd would be the date. i'll second the motion. thank you, commissioner braun. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue to may 23rd with direction to the, sponsor related to energy efficiency and external sunshades. on that motion, commissioner williams, i commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner coppell i commissioner moore i and commissioner. president. diamond i so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0 and concludes your lengthy hearing today television.

>> (music). >> my name is vet at a original artist based in san francisco. >> i love it i love it i've

never seen something else and we see how the people see which is happening and what is going on. kind of cool i wanted to be part of that. >> i saw it 2, 3, 4, 5 minutes you yeah. >> so we have you - yeah. i started going when i was young but not the type of kid would get food but this is something i really have been progressing on a talent from like other artists. >> this is amazing. >> this is so good yeah, it is so good like the artists. >> i love it. >> what a great project. >> part of the part for have i

grants. >> yeah. i love it. >> i serve in for 2 two years now and i really am fortunate to live in a place for art. >> an effort creating places it serve san francisco soul and that makes them want to see this place; right? with the experience of art in san jose experience in from the get-go sometimes our environmentalist has created tests but we have an opportunity for that and have artists in the storefront part of project you can walk in and experience and hoping we'll be there for a long time. >> this is the first farther

easy way of going to spaces i didn't know how it is really cool it would be and we're forced to be in the moment when we're test and creating something really cool. >> makes us feel good. >> as far (unintelligible) done all temporary and took them down i like the temporary aspect base (unintelligible) (microphone distorted) not permanent can enjoy it.

>> >> [music] you are watching golden gate inventions with michael. this is episode exploring the excelsior. >> hi i'm michael you are watching golden gate inventions highlighting urban out doors we are in the excelsior. pickleball. let's play pickleball! pickleball is an incredited low popular sport growing nationwide.

pickleball combines tennis, bad mitton and ping pong. playod a bad mitton sized court with paddle and i plasticic ball. starting out is easy. you can pick up paddle and balls for 20 buck and it is suitable for everyone in all skill levels you see here. the gim is played by 2 or 4 players. the ball must be served diagnoty and other rules theory easy to pick up. the game ends when i player or team reaches a set score 11 or 21 point bunkham win bright 2 pickleball courts are available across the city some are and others require booking ahead and a fee. information about the courts found at sf recpark. org if you

are interested in playing. now i know why people are playing pickleball. it is so much fun you play all ages. all skill levels and pop on a court and you are red to g. a lot of fun i'm glad i did it. all right. let's go! time for a hike! there is i ton of hike nothing excelsior. 312 acres mc clarin the second largest p in san francisco. there are 7 miles of tris including the there was fer's way this spreads over foresxeft field and prosecute voids hill side views of the city. and well is a meditative quiet place in mc clarin p you will siendz labyrinth made of rock:now we are at glen eagle golf course special try out disk

golf >> now disk golf! so disk golf is like traditional golf but with noticing disks. credit as the sport's pioneer establishing the disk ballsorption and the first standardized target the disk ball hole. the game involves throwing from key areas toward i metal basket. players use different disks for long distances driver, immediateerate. mid range and precise shot, putters. players begin at the t area. throw disks toward the basket and prosecute seed down the fare way. player with the lowest number of throws the end wins the game. disk golf at glen eagle cost 14

dollars if you pay at the clubhouse. there is an 18 hole course this is free. du see that shot? i won! am i was not very good now i have a huge respect for disk ball player its is difficult but fun. thank you for joining me in the excelsior this is goldenate adventures.

>> welcome. vice president gilman. >> present. commissioner adams >> here. >> commissioner harrington. >> here. >> i believe commissioner-[indiscernible] the san francisco port commission acknowledge we are we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. item 2 is approval of minutes for march 12, 2024 port