settlement, correct? >> [indiscernible]. >> yes. >> madam secretary: can you please answer? >> yes, so i would just like to extend sympathies to the family because, you know, in reading through the settlement, i just -- it sounded like quite an experience that the family had, and just wanted to extend sympathies to them as part of this settlement. >> president moller caen: that was very kind of you. madam secretary, please open to public comment. >> madam secretary: members of the public who wish to make public comment on item 17 and 18, dial 888-273-3658, access

code 3107452 and pound followed by pound again. dial 1 then 0 to be added to the speaker line to be a. . ♪ ♪ >> madam secretary: mr. moderator, do we have any callers for these items? >> madam secretary, there are no callers in the queue at this time. >> madam secretary: thank you. public comment on item 17 and 18 is closed. >> president moller caen: madam secretary, could you please take a roll call on item 17. >> madam secretary: on item 17,

president caen? >> president moller caen: aye. >> madam secretary: vice-president vietor? >> aye. >> madam secretary: commissioner moran? >> aye. >> madam secretary: commissioner maxwell? >> aye. >> madam secretary: and commissioner paulson? >> aye. >> madam secretary: there are five ayes. >> president moller caen: the motion carries. and then again a roll call of item 18. >> madam secretary: on item 18, president caen? >> president moller caen: aye. >> madam secretary: vice-president vietor? >> aye. >> madam secretary: commissioner moran? >> aye. >> madam secretary: commissioner maxwell? >> aye. >> madam secretary: commissioner paulson? >> aye. >> madam secretary: there are five ayes. >> president moller caen: motion carried. that now concludes the business for today. this meeting is adjourned. at 3:05.

minn the health emergency, the commission chamber and city hall is closed. furthermore, the mayor and governor have issued emergency orders suspending select laws applicable to boards and commissions, making it possible to hold remote hearings. on april 3, 2020, the planning commission received authorization from the mayor's office to reconvene remotely until the end of the shelter in place. this will be our sixth remote hearing. i am requesting everyone's patience in advance. the merged platforms are not perfect and at times will seem clumsy. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone and turnoff your video camera. do not hit any controls that may affect other participants. to enable public participation,

sfgovtv is streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment for each item on the agenda. sfgov is streaming the toll free numbers across the bottom of the screen. comments and opportunities to comment are available via phone by calling 888-204-5984 using access code 3501008, pressing pound, and pound again. when you are connected, and the public comment period opens, please hit one and zero to the added to the queue to speak. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your time is up, i will announce your time is up and will take the next person

queued to speak. best practice is to speak from a quiet location, speak slowly, and mute the volume on your television or computer. at this time, i would like to take roll. [roll call] [inaudible] >> clerk: -- that you may be watching because sfgovtv broadcast is delayed by a good 60 to 90 seconds. so if you are going to turn your microphone on, please turn on your computer speaker or television speakers. thank you. [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is items considered for continuance. item 1, as 440 through 448 waller street, proposed for continuance to june 4, 2020. item 2, at 2001 37 avenue, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to june 11, 2020, item 3, for the arts activities and social service or philanthropic facilities as temporary uses is proposed for continuance to june 25, 2020. we have received multiple requests for continuing the hub items onto your regular calendar for item 10, case

numbers 2015-000940 env, 2017-000871-env, 2016-000168-env for the hub plan, 30 vanness avenue project, 98 franklin street project, and hub housing sustainability district, item 11, 2015-00940 env, market octavia area plan amendment, and items items 12-a through e,

as well as item 13 at 10 south vanness avenue, a mixed use project final environmental impact report. are all proposed for continuance for one week, commissioners, to may 21, 2020. i have no other items proposed for continuance, and we should receive public comment on these matters. chan, let's open up the public comment. >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer

mode. to join, press one and then zero. >> clerk: so i would remind callers that this is your comment time. press one and then zero to enter into the queue. just for the benefit of the public, through the chair, you will be limited to one minute. >> operator: no calls so far. >> clerk: chan, please let us know if any callers do enter the queue, as well the first item. commissioners, the matter is before you. >> operator: we got one call right now. >> clerk: okay. very good. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hello. this is miss iovannopolous, and i would like to support the items proposed for continuance.

there needs to be more involvement and equity involved in the plan. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, now the matter is before you. we will allow for additional public comment. >> president koppel: commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: thank you. i move to move items 10 and 11 to the dates specified and items 12 and 13 to may 21. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: there has been a motion to continue. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that'll place us under your consent calendar. all matters are considered a consent calendar and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or staff so requests. in which case, they will be removed from the calendar and be considered as a separate item at this hearing or a future hearing. item 4 at 3813 24 street and

item 5, 667 folsom street, 120 hawthorne street, and 126 hawthorne street. these are amendments to the existing conditions of approval. chan, why don't we go ahead and go to q&a? >> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press one and then zero. >> clerk: so any member of the public like to public any of these items off of consent, this would be your opportunity to do so. do we have anyone in queue? >> operator: no. >> clerk: commissioners, the matter is before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: move to approve. >> commissioner diamond: second. >> clerk: very good. on that motion to approve items under your consent calendar -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. >> commissioner johnso >> operator: jonas, i got one on-line. >> clerk: commissioners, through the chair, should we take that call? i would suggest we do. >> president koppel: yes, let's go ahead. >> clerk: okay. chan, go ahead and patch them through. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> is this where i speak on the hub? >> clerk: no, it's not. the hub matter has been continued until may 21. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: all right. thank you. commissioners, commission matters, item 6 for consideration of adoption draft minutes for april 30, 2020. chan, why don't we go to q&a?

>> operator: your conference is now in question-and-answer mode. to summon each question, press one and then zero. >> clerk: again, for members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit testimony on the minutes. >> operator: no calls. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, the matter is before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: move to approve the minutes. >> commissioner fung: second. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, on that motion to approve the minutes of april 30, 2020 -- [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners.

item 7, commission comments and questions. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i just would like to bring to attention and also ask the planning staff since there are actually state bills that are moving right now, and these state bills will absolutely affect san francisco, so i'm wondering or i'm asking if the planning can do analysis of these upcoming state bills such as the sb 902, ab 2345, and to look into this analysis as to what it is these bills do, and

how do they change our existing land use standards? also, what kind of -- and how are these bills also override our local procedures and sessions both demonstrably and figuratively so we can know how it will affect our decision. also, it will be great to see how these bills interact and add to already existing state law that san francisco already needs to comply. example, like how sb 902 would behave with the state ceqa analysis. these are fast moving, and i

think these are going to come up in state by may 28. so if it would be possible to have this kind of information analysis in the next week or two, so yeah. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: commissioner imperial has taken the words out of my mouth. it's particularly the 902 that i'm particularly concerned about it and i would like to hear about it. among the coronavirus, we forget there are things moving in sacramento and we need to stay on top of them. i think san francisco has been in front of everybody else in the state, and i hope that director hillis will appreciate and dedicate some staff hours to doing exactly that.

and at this point, i would like to raise -- i don't know if that is the correct moment, i'm looking to our clerk, jonas ionin, whether we're able to get any documents to help us not go through the same pain that we just did with the hub project, which was extremely difficult to review, given oth size of the documents and our inability to post stickies on the document. i would like to encourage that e.i.r.s and large documents are given to us two weeks before being heard. this is an item that is being continuously impressed on president koppel and myself.

second ionin has acknowledged it. i -- secretary ionin has acknowledged it, but i just wanted to make it known. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i want to support commissioner moore's request, with particular emphasis on the response to documents, draft e.i.r.s, and any plans. thank you. >> clerk: director hillis? >> director hillis: just to quickly respond, as the process continues, we can thank you, commissioner moore.

staff has been great in the past on reviewing these and giving us information on how they will continue to affect san francisco. we will continue to get you that work and move forward on their ability to continue to impact us. >> vice president moore: thank you. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> clerk: okay. if there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move onto director's report. >> director hillis: two items quickly. one, i don't know if you read in the chronicle, there was a disaster involving service workers, and over 300 workers are being deployed in disaster service. one of our planners was featured in the article, and we've had over 30 workers featured in disaster service

workers. also, next week, we are getting budget instructions from the mayor's office and the budget office, so how do we react to the budget shortfall. the mayor's office has updated their numbers to show that a $1.7 billion for the rest of this year and the next two years; there's about a $250 million shortfall for this year. so not good news, and we'll have to respond to that, and we'll certainly be back to you as that process unfolds, and that's my report. thank you. >> clerk: seeing no questions, i can move onto item 9, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals,

and historic preservation commission. >> hi, all. this is aaron. at the full board this week, supervisor peskin's ordinance on intermediate length occupancy passed its second read, and commissioner ronen's ordinance passed its first read, and that concludes my report. thank you. >> clerk: okay. if there are no questions for mr. starr, we can move onto general public comment. at this point, members of the public may address items of subject matter jurisdiction of the board except for items on the agenda. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceeds the 15-minute limit, public comment may be moved to

the end of the agenda. chan, why don't we go to the q&a. >> operator: your call is now in question-and-answer mode. to enter, press one and zero proceed again. >> clerk: again, for members of the public, this is your opportunity to present public comment. to get into the queue, press one and zero. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> hello. this is jonathan randall. last week, supervisor peskin asked why no one else had tried to propose anything having to do with the residential planning threshold. it's time for the planning department to propose amendments to planning code section 317 that are in line with creating more affordability.

things have changed since planning code 317 was written. part of it was old housing is rent controlled and newhousing is not rent controlled. it's not always the case that old housing is more affordable if the new housing provides more housing services. there's a change -- the premise has changed because sb 330 from last year contains a costa hawkins exemption, projects that create replacement housing. we should amendment 317 to protect the tenant protection from the neighborhood character. in the tenant protections, we should look at sb 330 and see if those protections are good enough for san francisco. if those are good enough for

san francisco, we should follow 330 instead of having our own planning code 317. now for the other part of planning code 317, which is neighborhood character, that, we should put into design guidelines rather than 317 because 317 is kind of a mess at protecting neighborhood character. it doesn't really do it, so, yeah. i think the planning department should start looking at how we can amend 317 to protect tenants and separate protect neighborhood character. thank you. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> oh, hi. good afternoon, commissioners and everyone. this is georgia schiutish. on sfgovtv, on april 30, 2020,

following the public comment regarding the budget, president koppel asked director rahaim, just a quick question. if there's anything, those democacs, because he emphasized emphasized -- [inaudible] >> so what i wish former director rahaim had advised to the commission was the following: commissioners, you can adjust the democalc's

submission at any time. section 312-b is in the code to protect housing affordability. that is my suggestion. if you have nothing else to do than to watch that exchange on january 23 at 3:56:25. that's my request. stay safe, and bye-bye. >> operator: you have two questions remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is katie bindleman, and i'm here to support s.p.u.r. s.p.u.r. is a partner -- [inaudible] >> market octavia has created

thousands of new in-fill housing units and visibility improvements for the public to enjoy. in the years since march octavia was adopted, it's become clear that the city has not produced sufficient housing for those who want to be here. the hub is a strategic effort today to increase capacity in a central transferring location that is appropriate for both jobs and housing. even during the covid-19 challenges, this is a great place to live and work because of the ability of public transit and biking. we urge the planning department to embark on a new set of area plan, setting all three housing concepts outlined in the housing strategies report. continue to did he right lane the op the area plans for the east side, grow opportunities on transit corners across the country, and the call to

increase density across the residential neighborhoods. in a time of great uncertainty on many sides, the approval of this plan will help set up this city and its surrounding area for a future of success. >> you have one question remaining. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is anastas anastasia iovannopolous, a district 8 resident. the previous speaker has her agenda and most of the members and equity partners have slightly different views, so we'll take that up next week. as far as review of state bills, you've got two commissioners who are

requesting a review of state bills that are pending. on may 20, all the assembly bills will be in committee heard. the following week, the state bills will be heard at the housing committee. it's the job of the people there on staff -- you have the resources -- to look at these bills, analyze them, and bring them up to the public what is coming. select the ones that deal with housing that would impact us and tell us about them. thank you. >> operator: you have zero questions remaining. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. that will place us under your regular calendar which has, in

its entirety, been continued to may 21. therefore, we will move onto your discretionary review calendar for item 14, case number 20818-005918-drp at 254 roosevelt way. is staff prepared to present? mr. winslow? >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> thank you. good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission. david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a review of housing permit application 20 -- >> clerk: david, it appears as though you've frozen.

>> -- 19 -- >> clerk: david, i believe you have a bad internet connection, and you may need to begin your presentation or we can move onto -- okay. yeah, i just got a message from mr. winslow that he has lost internet connection. commissioners, my suggestion is staff report has been provided to you. at this point, up until the time mr. winslow can reconnect, we may want to go to the d.r. requester and project sponsor

presentations, but unfortunately, now that i think about it, mr. winslow would have had those presentations. christine, do we have those presentations? >> i think if you just give me one moment. >> clerk: okay. so good thing, as a back up, we also provide my staff with presentations, and as soon as miss silver can share her screen with the d.r. applicant's presentation, d.r. requester, you will be provided five minutes to make your presentation. are you on the line and prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> clerk: very good. so as soon as my presentations team is able to push your slides forward, i will indicate that your slides are on the screen. and then, if you would be so kind throughout your presentation if you want to go to the next slide, please just

indicate next slide. >> okay. very good. i'm actually just e-mailing christina a copy of it in case she doesn't have it. >> clerk: so for the benefit of the public and the commissioners, as a result of the hub plan and associated matters being moved to may 21, by one week, it will most certainly impact your future calendars, as well; and other projects will be pushed out further as a result.

again, appreciate everyone's patience at this time.

>> jonas, this is david. can you hear me?

>> clerk: we can hear you. >> okay. should i start presentation over? >> clerk: i think that would be best. >> okay. very good. the item before you is a discretionary review of 2018-005918drp-02, to construct a three-story horizontal addition at the front of an existing three-story building with three dwelling units. the project will also include a new roof deck at the front of the building on the third floor, which will be accessed from the unit on the third floor. building's historic resource is a category c, no historic resource present. there are two d.r. requesters. the first of 250-268 roosevelt

way, the adjacent neighborhood to the west, and 248 roosevelt way, the adjacent neighbors to the east. the proposed alternate is to create a proposed larger light well to the side windows against her property line and reduce the third level deck to either a juliet balcony or set back. mr. helman and kerr are three

things. [inaudible] >> -- the proposed alternative are to remove the height for the parapet for the deck, provide a side set back from the property line to match the adjacent neighbor, reduce the size of the third floor deck, screen the second floor balconies from these two back ended windows, and relocate the side door adjacent to the light well. to date, the project has received five letters in support of the d.r. requester and five letters in support of the project. the project sponsor has

answered back. it was deemed that the deck at the third story did present impacts to privacy to adjacent properties due to its size and location. the project has been modified from the design sent in the 31 notification in the following ways. one, there is a one-foot side set back to the west, the reduced parapet at the front, and there is a relocated door from the side yard adjacent to light well of neighbor to the east. therefore, staff proposes taking d.r. to memorialize these changes. that concludes staff's presentation and i'm happy to answer questions.

>> clerk: thank you, david. is the first d.r. requester prepared to make their presentation? david, do they have a presentation to share? >> yes, they do. bear with me while i share that. very good. can you see the screen? >> clerk: yes, we do. so the first d.r. requester, phyllis shiman, please make your presentation. you will have five minutes. >> okay. is the slide show on? >> clerk: it is. >> it is. >> okay. thank you. thanks, guys. good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission. my name is kate mcgee, and i am a consultant representing the d.r. requester, phyllis shiman at 268 roosevelt way. phyllis is a senior disabled widow who maintains the building on her own and is

aging in place. bel below her, in 258 roosevelt way, is a family living in a rent controlled unit. mark and andrew own a three-unit building adjacent to the property. they house josh and matt in one unit and kathrin and her cat, lizzy, in another. it's important to note that in addition to these eight people, there are 11 others in reside on ten properties on the block that are currently opposed to the project as proposed. here is a map that highlights the properties in opposition. it's important to note that while the proposal serves a 3,000-foot home, the neighbors are not opposed to the entire

development but support improvements made to support the current family. [inaudible] >> slide 6. on this slide, you can see the proposal. the southwest wall blocks all side facing windows. our request is to modify the expansion to respect the windows of the adjacent property. recognizing that the third bedroom is being proposed on the upper story and provides the proposal the only opportunity to provide a family sized unit. the focus has been to request modifications to the solid wall which currently proposes bookshelves. slide 7, please.

you can see on the floor plan a better description that shows the southwest wall doesn't propose useable liveable space but a mezzanine-library that hoe houses books. slide 9, please. side windows can be respected and applied to modern architecture as seen here in a building a couple of blocks away also on roosevelt way. slide 10, please. the other area of concern is with regard to privacy with the proposed roof deck.

impact studies hawere performe at the request of the neighbors, however, no revisions were made to remove the impact. next slide, please. -- or slide 11. this slide shows the d.r. requester's master bedroom and the current roof deck proposal, which is on the same floor -- actually, i'm sorry. that was the previous slide. slide 11, which is what you're on now, is what we believe will be presented today, which is a modified roof deck, however, it does not mitigate the privacy impacts with respect to the master bedroom. and slide 12, here's another slide just to demonstrate where the roof deck is in comparison to the master bedroom. you can see that on the top left corner. slide 13, please. we request the following design alternatives to mitigate the stated proposal.

final slide. i want to thank the staff for working with us in preparing the report and endorsing the report, however, we would like to have a few more revisions, even with the department's suggested modifications. one, to provide four or five-foot set back and provide external stairs to match, two, reduce the third floor deck, three, provide peek-a-boo spaces, and four, making sure that the tenants that currently live there are protected in the spaces that they live in. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you.

is the second d.r. requester ready for their presentation, and david, if you could push their presentation forward. >> very good. i have the first slide up. can you see it? >> clerk: i can. >> we are the second d.r. requesters. can you hear us? >> clerk: we can, thank you. you will have five minutes for your presentation. >> thank you. >> great, thank you. beginning with slide one, andrew kerr and mark perlman. we support the redevelopment of 254 roosevelt but not at the expense of our three rent controlled homes, and not at the loss of privacy, light, and quiet enjoyment of our homes. we have requested four modifications from the 311 drawings that will not harm the developer's ability to deliver

a profitable project to market. slide 2, please. we would like to note that the developer has not lived in the property for nearly a decade, and the sponsor is a known real estate developer who owns multiple properties of which the project is just one. the developer has frequently communicated conflicting statements to us about the speculative nature of the development versus her intention to move back into the property. we don't know the fate of the developer's current tenants or that the developer will apply for an exemption from rent control based on the significant amount of demolition and new construction. slide 3, please. in effect, the proposed development will be market rate housing when completed with significant demolition, the replacement of facades, and a complete reconfiguration of the existing units. since this is essentially new construction, the developer could have easily incorporated a request, but at each step, the developer rebuffs us. slide 4, please.

we're grateful that mr. winslow managed to convince the developer to match our light wells. david, could you please skip to slide 6. we're moving onto the unit two level two roof deck. we ask that this deck be removed as suggested by mr. winslow at our january 2020 meeting. this roof area should be redesigned so that it can't be used for any other purpose. the deck is on the property line, and people will have direct lines of sight into our properties 9 feet away. slide 7. we ask the developer to modify the proposal with a privacy screen. as you can see, the deck does

not block direct views into our home. slide 8, please. we do not mind the windows that remain in the redesign. windows are to be expected in a compact city with zero lot lines. david, could you please skip to slide 11? moving onto the large roof deck on level three, unit three, mr. winslow asked the developer to spin the deck so it doesn't extend at far toward the street. 11 feet from the facade is better than the 21 feet that the developer wants but still does not solve our privacy issues. the deck is still closer to the

property line, and the red arrow show that people standing on the deck can easily see into a bedroom window and two living room windows of our homes. we ask that the deck be scaled back to 4 feet from the facade of 254 and pulled back from the property lines as shown by the red rectangle. slide 12, please. with mr. winslow's intervention, the developer created seven privacy impact studies at three-feet increments starting at 21 feet from the project's facade all the way to 3 feet from the facade. we spent a lot of time working on these privacy studies with the developer, but when she didn't like the results, she jettisonned them and did not include them in the packet. she threatened us with a breach of confidentiality here if we shared them with you.

we have another option, showing the winslow option still shows a significant loss of privacy from our unit. we request the deck be shrunk from 4 feet from the facade as the developer's own privacy study shows it will be the point at which our home will be protected from cloep-up views. slide 13, please. thank you, commissioners, and we request that you consider our four modifications to the project. we're available for questions. >> clerk: great, thank you. is the project sponsor prepared to make their presentation? >> can you hear me, everyone? >> clerk: we can. you'll have ten minutes. >> and can you see the slide up? i can't see it, but i'll just be referring to the number in the lower right hand corner. okay. thank you. thank you, everyone.

hello, everyone. my name is nahag baresh, and i'm an architect. the project sponsor did not live in the project, but she lived in the project until 2010. the owner is holding off on doing this renovation for years as the lower unit had been rented to the same person since 1965. roosevelt way is an ecletic mix of residential fabric. the predominant materials include stucco, metal, and glass. there's a predominance of the square window finestration which serves as the base of our

proposal. there are three buildings on the street that are largely constructed from wood slats and feature large glazed windows. the majority of the houses extend to the street on roosevelt way. of the 25 houses shown in this street elevation, the subject property and one other are the only ones that can be set back. slide 5, please. along the same street of 25 houses, there are only four with set backs from the side property line. this meaning the side set back is an family on the street, not the rule. slide 6, please. our project would include the following. currently liveable and affordable family units, maintaining the units at an affordable price, creating a unit for the owner to age in place, continuing the street

wall, and working with the existing context, including the mass and finestration to create something exciting. here, the concerns expressed by the two d.r.s, item 6 show up in the two d.r.s, and items 2 and 4 only after months of concessions. we provided the calculations to andrew and mark and senior planner linda hoagland. this project is approved as a horizontal addition. the second issue is due to

privacy concerns from a modest balcony that is under 4 feet in length. the d.r. requester asks for a privacy screen on the side of the balcony to limit the sights back to their property. we did two studies with the screen and found it effective in protecting the privacy for the -- [inaudible] >> -- while we feel that the screens are necessary due to the distance from the house, we offer this as an option as this issue remains unresolved as the d.r. requester disagreed with the option of their own

suggestion. the proposed patio, there's no loss of privacy to the lower level window on 250 roosevelt. slide 13, please. a third concern was to review our exit egress from the third level to avoid any privacy and/or concerns to the light well at 250 roosevelt, shown here at the top of the image. they did these claims directly from the egress door. [inaudible] >> what is shown here is in the 211 plans and in keeping with the character at 258 roosevelt. it's 28 inches below the deck at 258 roosevelt which overlooks the subject property. over the past four months, we have prepared a series of studies for the neighbors, which included the reduction of the roof deck and alteration with proportions and have also

proposed to bring the deck in 10 feet from the property line. what is shown is in compliance with the modified roof deck guidelines, contains a 6 foot set back between the property and 258 roosevelt. in further conversation with david winslow, the roof deck was adjusted by rotating its geomet reback to reduce the view angle back to the adjacent properties. this leaves a 14' 8'' from the side property. this is a view from the unit in

206 roosevelt and its view to the describe line with the extensive roof deck highlighted in blue, and you can see the area surrounding it which is a very small view surrounding this level. next slide. this is a refrom 250 rose -- view from 250 roosevelt way. we feel that the final proposal mitigates impacts, and is one-third the original proposed roof deck size. 17 please. [inaudible] >> the d.r. requester asked for a lowering of the parapet, which we adjusted the length of

the property. [inaudible] >> 258 roosevelt way d.r. requester asked us to set back from their property due to the set backs on the streets. these are the four windows in question. [inaudible] >> 258 roosevelt's ways rooms receive ample light from the large floor to ceiling southern exposed windows, we've introduced a length of set back

along the property line for a distance of 21.5 feet from the rear facade to establish a separation between the two buildings. the final issue was a concern for the entryway 258 roosevelt being dark. we've directly addressed this by changing the direction of our building vestibule and stair exterior opening up an additional 4 feet of space between the buildings as well as supplying light in the area to address any concerns. this shows the street level opening between 254 and 258 roosevelt way. this shows the area that we've carved way to open up more distance and light and the distance to the building faces shown here between the two buildings. slide 29, please.

in conclusion, we feel that the d.r. requester's concerns have been adequately addressed. we ask the commissioners to not take d.r. and to leave the code compliant project as originally planned, but if you had to take d.r., you support david winslow's recommendations and accept it with these modifications. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, i believe we should take public comment at this time. why don't we open it up to q&a. >> operator: thank you. your call is in question-and-answer mode. >> clerk: members of the public, this is your opportunity to take public comment by hitting one and zero, and we should take the first caller. >> operator: there are no callers at the moment.

>> clerk: great. if that's the case, d.r. requester number one, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. kate mcgee, representing 258-260 d.r. requester. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> okay. great. just in response to the project architect's presentation, there were a couple of items that came up. one was with regard to the views from the master bedroom to and from the proposed roof deck. one slide showed that actually the angle that that was taken from was assuming that a person who was standing in the bedroom was not actually at the window but standing back behind it, which i don't believe that that's an adequate representation of what one would really see, which is when

you're standing in front of the room, looking across onto the roof deck. in addition to note there, the master bedroom actually has two windows, one in the front and one on the side, and so much like the other adjacent neighbors who are concerned about people standing on the roof deck and looking into the -- into the front windows, that is also a concern for us, so there's -- in my presentation, i highlighted the view going onto the side window, but there is that additional view issue that goes into the front of the bedroom window with regard to the roof deck. and then, just the -- one other thing i wanted to comment on with regard to the architect's presentation was the building's side set back. what is shown, just to note, is

the 258-260's current side set back of 4 feet, but what is shown is with the existing buildings. he's showing they're willing to add a one-foot set back, so a total of 5 feet, and our willingness to abide by the exterior entryway is consistent with the residential design guidelines. thank you. >> clerk: d.r. requester two, you have a rebuttal of two minutes. >> great. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> great. we'd like to state that our position was stated in our slides today, and it was presented to the project sponsor when we submitted a project request to the planning

department. there's an ample back yard at the 254 property that satisfies any outdoor requirements, and the decks do not -- are not utilized to meet the outdoor space requirement. regarding the unit two, level two deck, it should be noted that that unit of the 254 project has, you know, stellar views of the city skyline within the unit, and the deck isn't necessary to access those views, not that views are even a protected item. and, in fact, that unit two deck is 12 feet away from our bedroom window, not 25 feet. the project sponsor chose to choose the center living room window for their measurements. regarding the screen, we offered this as a suggestion to help the project sponsor realize its goal of having a deck, and when they provided the view studies, it showed that the screen didn't block the views, and so we didn't

accept that compromise. the sponsor also refers to the no view asset in referring to unit one in our building, and we're referring to units two and three. unit one does not have a loss of privacy. more importantly, with the level three deck, the views that the sponsor shows are potential views from the inside of our unit. they weren't in our community at all, but that's not what we're concerned about, what we see. it's about what's seen from that roof deck into our building, which is a potential loss of privacy, being able to see 9 feet deep into our bedrooms and living room. the developer could have addressed this in their submission, but they chose not to. thank you. >> clerk: project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

project sponsor, are you prepared to rebut? >> can everyone hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> thank you. well, first of all, i want to point out that the project sponsor is not a huge developer. this is their only rental property in san francisco, and the reason for the elevator is they want to age in place. i think it's being characterized as a luxury development, and that's not the case. in regards to the balcony that's looking out that mark and andrew were concerned about, it's definitely not 12 feet. we have a very detailed 3-d model based on survey measurements. we took the midpoint of the balcony to the midpoints of the three bay windows. 25 feet is the width of the current property, so it's not nothing. in terms of the roof deck, the current proposal what we're showing is one-third of the size what we originally submitted and had approved

before 311 went out, so we brought down the size significantly from the original proposal. we've rotated it to mitigate it back from the two units, and from our standpoint, there's very little view you can see significant views into those apartments from here. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. i'm just going to get real quickly if there is anyone in queue, chan. >> operator: no. >> clerk: very good. commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioners, you may need to unmute your mics if anyone would like to comment on the item before you.

commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: did you call on me? sorry. i heard a weird noise. >> clerk: yeah, go ahead, commissioner johnson. >> commissioner johnson: okay. just need a little clarification from the project sponsor before we get into the project. it looks like the top unit was at least listed for rental in 2016 and 2017. can you clarify the tenant occupancy and whether or not there are any tenants and what happened to the tenants? >> yes, of course. all of the units are currently rented, and they're rent controlled, and there's no plan to evict the tenants. the tenants have been informed of this project all along the way, and there's -- they've been totally in understanding of it, and there's no kind of threat to them staying or -- if

they choose to. >> commissioner johnson: okay. so the plan is for them to stay on-site while all of this happens? >> it's their decision, you know, in the end, but we've just laid out what is happening. >> commissioner johnson: okay. thanks. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i'm prepared to take staff's recommendation and would move to take d.r. with the recommendations proposed by staff. >> president koppel: second. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i would like to clarify and see

mr. winslow refer to attachments 4, 3, and 2, which are the 3-d modifications not reflected in the drawings. mr. winslow, could you please go over that with the commission? and i would like to ask you, on balcony number two, i have a couple of questions on that. would you lead us through the small space balcony. >> sure. can you hear me? >> vice president moore: yes. >> the items that you're talking about are the modified items included in the packet. >> vice president moore: yes. they're also shown in 3-d, but they're shown in sketch format. >> sure. i didn't catch the other number, but were you referring to the roof deck, and then, there was a second roof deck at the second level. >> vice president moore: correct.

>> let me get to these in these plans, which is this level here. i don't know if they included plans in that roof deck. >> vice president moore: it does show 3-d, which was a screen. >> which it was back here, i believe. here's the patio. so as the three dimensional. >> vice president moore: right. my question is i think the north facing screen will not do anything to deal with privacy issues, but i kind of personally believe that while that may remain, like, a peek-a-boo as far as setting the living room back and having, like what looks like a balcony, make it a nonoccupied roof and have no people step out into it.

i believe it is quite close, and i believe there are reasonable concerns about that privacy once you stand on that particular opening. >> so the -- >> vice president moore: you have to pull up the drawing a little bit in order for -- >> can you see this drawing? >> vice president moore: no, you're showing the existing condition. is that what would be? >> correct. >> vice president moore: yeah. >> just the plan for purpose of clarity. >> vice president moore: yes. now, we can see it. and instead of making it a stepout, you can make it with operable doors doors, but you step out because i believe by simply adding doors for those looking at the north. >> a screen proposed for this wall here. the look back into this bedroom window would be mitigated.

>> vice president moore: i think that is not enough. somebody is speaking in the background and that's not part of our -- >> i'm sorry. that's my -- --- daughter. >> vice president moore: hello to her. i would like you to take us to explain the reducing of the set backs. could you go up to -- yeah. why is it 3'6" on one side and 3'8" on the other side and 6 feet on the other side? >> i think this is a question best asked of the project sponsor. i think it relates to the interior of the third floor,

but it still maintains 5 feet or more between property lines. >> vice president moore: okay. and that is mostly what we're looking at. >> correct. >> vice president moore: i like the idea of turning the deck the way you're suggesting it. the one deck size certainly fitting with what we are recommending to the reduction of roof decks as a metric, and i believe that in those conditions would be added as the manifestation of the d.r. and in response to commissioner diamond, i'm supporting the d.r. with those modifications. >> clerk: david, could you please clarify that those are part of staff's modifications. >> so the recommendation was --

the only thing that's not part of my recommendation is the item that commissioner moore brought up with respect to that second-floor deck. in other words, why this brief set back was part of my modification to take d.r. and memorialize this? the reason being is additions into roof decks could be applied for after the fact over the counter without a thorough vetting of the previous issues that occurred here today, so -- >> vice president moore: if i may add, mr. winslow, i would also say that this front portion of the decks at 14-8 would have to be called out as a nonoccupied roof and those would have to be called out in those drawings so, as you say,

they would not go unnoticed. >> that could happen. that would be part of this recommendation. >> vice president moore: is part of your recommendation also the drawing that you showed relative to the one of the door coming from the kitchen, to move that from the north so that it does not interfere with the light well? >> yes. >> vice president moore: then my only point, in response to the question of secretary ionin's, is the commission prepared to support the second-floor balcony not to be an open balcony but rather an unoccupied roof?

it. >> clerk: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperia -- commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i would support that motion. >> commissioner diamond: i don't have any problem with not being able to step out on the balcony on the second floor, so i would not include that in my motion. >> operator: jonas, we have one caller. >> secretary ionin: okay. we're well into this deliberation, but i think to exhaust all due process for the public, commissioners, we may want to just take the call. >> president koppel: yeah, jonas, go ahead. >> clerk: thank you. go ahead, chan. >> operator: you have one question remaining. >> hi, commissioners. thank you for taking my call. apologies.

there's a delay between watching it on the screen and knowing when i can call for public comment. my name is matt delaney, and i live in unit two. and my particular unit has a rear facing unit with a rear bedroom. adding an additional story to 254 potentially blocks that light into our unit. we only have one window that comes into our unit from that light well, and i haven't heard anything acknowledged about that impact, and i'm curious about whether or not that was addressed. >> clerk: okay. is there anyone else, chan? >> operator: no. >> clerk: commissioners, so we did leave off after deliberations with a motion that has been seconded. shall i call that question? >> president koppel: yeah. >> clerk: very good.

there has been a motion with second to take d.r. with modifications seconded and proposed by commissioner moore. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: one suggestion. i am supportive of commissioner moore saying that we need to add a top deck -- >> clerk: no, that was implied in the modification, and if not, he will certainly clarify that in the plans. thank you. >> commissioner diamond: okay. [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and due to the continuance of the hub matters, that is all we have for you today.

>> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. >> vice president moore: thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners, for your patience today. welcome to the did you know that many buildings in san francisco are not bolted to the foundation on today's episode we'll learn how the option to bolt our foundation in

an earthquake. >> hi, everybody welcome to another episode of stay safe i'm the director of earthquake safety in the city and county of san francisco i'm joined by a friend matt. >> thank you thanks for being with us we're in a garage but at the el cap center south of market in san francisco what we've done a simulated the garage to show you what it is like to make the improvements and reduce the reflexes of earthquake we're looking at foundation bolts what do they do. >> the foundation bolts are one of the strengthening system they hold the lowest piece of wood onto the foundation that

prevents the allows from sliding during an earthquake that is a bolt over the original construction and these are typically put in along the foundation to secure the house to the foundation one of the things we'll show you many types of bolts let's go outside and show the vufrdz we're outside the epic center in downtown san francisco we'll show 3 different types of bolts we have a e poxy anchor. >> it is a type of anchor that is adhesive and this is a rod we'll embed both the awe hey that embeds it into the foundation that will flip over a big square washer so it secured the mud sell to the foundation we'll need to big drill luckily

we have peter from the company that will help us drill the first hole. >> so, now we have the hole drilled i'll stick the bolt in and e post-office box it. >> that wouldn't be a bad idea but the dust will prevent the e post-office box from bonding we need to clean the hole out first. >> so, now we have properly cleaned hole what's the next step. >> the next step to use e post-office box 2 consultants that mixes this together and get them into tubes and put a notice he will into the hole and put the e post-office box slowly and have a hole with e post-office

box. >> now it is important to worm or remember when you bolt our own foundation you have to go to 9 department of building inspection and get a permit before you start what should we look at next what i did next bolt. >> a couple of anchors that expand and we can try to next that will take a hole that hole is drilled slightly larger marathon the anchor size for the e post-office box to flow around the anchor and at expansion is going into the hole the same dinning room we'll switch tamet

so, now we have the second hole drilled what next. >> this is the anchor and this one has hard and steel threads that cuts their way into the concrete it is a ti ton anchor with the same large square so similar this didn't require e post-office box. >> that's correct you don't needed for the e post-office box to adhere overnight it will stick more easily. >> and so, now it is good to go is that it. >> that's it.

>> the third anchor is a universal foundation plate when you don't have room above our foundation to drill from the top. >> so, now we have our foundation plate and the tightened screw a couple of ways to take care of a foundation what's the best. >> the best one depends on

what your house is like and our contractors experience they're sometimes considered the cadillac anchor and triplely instead of not witting for the e post-office box this is essentially to use when you don't have the overhead for the foundation it really depends on the contractor and engineering what they prefer. >> talking to a qualified >> this is the may 13, 2020 treasure island board meeting. board members are participating remotely via video conference and participating in the same extent as if they were physically present.