>> chair ronen: thank you so much. please read item number 5. >> clerk: hearing consider appointing one member for investment term to the food security task force. i wanted to mention that ms. monique was accidentally appointmented to the seat last week which is not a vacant seat. we have scheduled this matter to appoint vacant seat 9 which has the same qualifications. i apologize for this error. >> chair ronen: no problem. thank you very much for flagging it for us. we can this up for public comment. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to speak on this matter can dial 415-655-0001. please dial star 3 to lane up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand.

please waive to the system that you have been unmuted. do we have any comments for this item? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> chair ronen: okay. thank you very much so much. then if i could make a motion to send this item forward with positive recommendation. can we please take a roll call vote on that motion? [roll call vote] the motion passes without objection. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. any other items on the agenda? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> chair ronen: thank you. have a good day everyone. see you soon.

>> welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for september 24, 2020. february 25, the mayor de claurd a local state of emergency for covid-19 and being you'd emergency orders making it possible to hold hearings remotely. by april 3, 2020 the planning commission received authorization to reconvene remotely through the shelter in place. this is our 23rd remote hearing. it requires everyone's attention and your patience. if you are not speaking, please

mute your microphone and turn off your video camera. to enable public sf gov tv is streaming live. public comment is available by calling 1-415-655-0001 entering access code 146 152 9199 when you are committed or want to submit public health -- public comment. when your allotted time has reached i'll indicate and take the next person to speak. best practice to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and mute the volume on our television or computer.

before i take roll, commissioners, i'm sad to announce the passing of our longest tenured zoning administrator bob passmore. he was with the department 39 years and a zoning administrator for 21 of those and considered him as a mentor early in my career as a planner. he door to his office was always open when he arrived in the morning until he left in the evening after most. as the zoning administrator he attended every planning commission meeting from beginning to end and represented the department on every case that came before the board of appeals and i don't ever recall bob being sick or taking vacation time. he was always there. he was soft spoken with an

amazing memory and can practically recite the close and explain the policies the regulations were based on. he always conveyed complicated information with a bit of a smile and a chuckle. bob was not exactly a snappy dresser. he always had a dishevelled look but i believe his mind was always on a project and weighing the impact and balancing for a fair resolution. in order to grant a variance bob had to find of exceptional extraordinary circumstance related to the subject property. i'd like to express my condolence to his fam and recognize an extraordinary man by adjourning in his memory. at this time i'd like to take roll. [roll call]

thank you, first is the proposed for continuance items. authorization is proposed for continuance to october 8. item 2 at 1560 folsom street proposed for continuance to october 29, 2020. i have no other items proposed for continuance. we should. up publ-- open up public commen this time if you wish to submit comment for matters only on continuance suppress star 3 to get to the queue.

i see no members of the public requesting to speak. we'll close public comment for matters proposed for continuance. they are now before you commissioners. commissioner imperial. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on continuing items as proposed. [roll call] >> so moved, commissioners. the motion is unanimous. under your consent calendar considered to be routine by me

planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote and there will be no discussion unless the public or staff so requests. and if any are removed will be considered for a future hearing. item 3, at 3030 fillmore street. item 4, 764 cole street. a condominium conversion subdivision. we should take public comment. all members of the public if you wish to pull any of these off consent now is it the time by requesting with star 3. there are no speakers. it is now before you. commissioner diamond. >> move to approve the two items

from the consent calendar. >> second. >> thank you, commissioner. a motion to approve items under consent. [roll call] . so moved as the motion passes unanimously 6-0. for commission matters item 5 consideration of adoption draft minutes for september 10, 2020. we'll take public comment. press star 3 in order to speak to the minutes. i see no members of the public requesting to speak. it is before you. do i hear a motion?

>> moved. >> second. >> thank you on the motion to adopt the minutes for september 10, 2020. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us on item 6, comments and questions. commissioner moore. >> i'd like to extend my condolences to the family and would like to thank secretary ionin for a remarkable sentiment for what the passing of this gentleman means to all of us. >> seeing no other comments,

commissioners, we can speak to directors announcements. >> thank you for your words. he was a legend in the department and city and our condolences go out to his family. i wanted to mention that the mayor nominated rachel tanner to fill the vacant seat on the commission. in of you know her. she's been a member of the board of appeals the last couple years and assistant director of planning and development services in palo alto. she worked for the planning department here a couple years working on the excelsior neighborhood strategies and was also a legislative aide. the next steps will be for the board's committee to take up her nomination and we expect that to happen in the next week or so. that's my report. thank you.

>> thank you, director hillis, through the chair, i see a member of the public requesting to submit testimony. i have a feeling they are raising their hand early but just in case let's take their call. member of the public you have a couple minutes to speak but which item are you requesting to speak to? >> caller: i just learned also the passing of robert passmore. it's not the appropriate time to make a comment. i can hold. >> wait until general public comment. >> caller: yes, sir. >> thank you. commissioners, item 8, review of past events of the supervisors and board of appeals. there was no historic preservation commission yesterday. >> aaron star manager of legislative affairs.

this week there was not a planning code on change but did discuss some things in how retreat forest spaces. we considered supervisor mandelman's ordinances requiring all san francisco to be electric. the need clear we reduce the carbon-based energy is making san francisco a more sustainable city and buildings will need to accommodate more transformers. they've been difficult with a design standpoint and in the grand scheme of things it's a small challenge but challenges like these will be more common in addressing climate change. the department did most the presentation along with supervisor mandelman.

there were questions on outreach and community and many people called in to the hearing to express support for de carbonizing our energy system and how outreach was done to in particular the san francisco chinese community. while there is widespread support it was continued to address community outreach concerns. at the full board it passed on second read supervisor peskin's ordinance to allow limited restaurants to convert in the north beach sud. and resume end zone parcels to pbr and other zoning districts. the board has ceqa appeals for september and october and a proposed project for demolition of a single-family home and construction of a new large single-family home. you heard this on june 11 as a discretionary review and

unanimously voted to approve the project. the concerns related to the aesthetic and historic resources. the existing building is a contributor to the sea cliff historic district. the appellants expressed concern the existing building without result in significant impact to the potential historic direct. the departments responded it's located in a transit prior area on a development site and therefore under ceqa aesthetic impacts are not considered significant impacts. though the existing building is to the california eligible sea cliff historical district it would not impair the potential district therefore it would not result in an adverse change in historic resource or effect under ceqa. the ceqa appeal resulted in a large conversation among the supervisors regarding demlation of contributors within adopted

ineligible adopted districts. supervisors wondered with the demolition at one point is a historical district no longer able to convey it's historical registry. in the end the supervisors denied the appeal 10-1 and supervisor fewer upholding the appeal. while it was not subject to condition use authorization a single project would require conditional use authorization. because of the recent change to section 317 removed the demonstrably unaffordable claus for single family home and there's a north planner and i met with mr. butler on numerous projects. what i remember most is how he treated me with respect and great sense of humor and

exceptional architect with high standards. his quote from his wife from an article sums it up nicely. his strength was he always exuded confidence and a can do attitude and it was a happy place to work because every idea was respected and everyone was given independence in the project. he never had arrogance but did have a good sense of humor and charm. that concludes my report and i'm available for questions. >> with no immediate questions for star, the board of appeals did meet yesterday and considered one item that may be of interest to the planning commission. the board heard the peel of a letter of determination for the property of 150 morning side drive and two 80-square foot storage sheds on the property

did not comply with the planning code which limits such structures to no more than one of 100 square foot and it did not comply because they exceeded 100 square feet in total but more than one structure may be allowed with the contiguous amount is no more than 100 square feet and the structure is for health care materials for a family member. the board adjourned their meeting in memory of rob passmore and his service to san francisco. seeing no s or -- no questions or comments from the commission

we can move on to public comment. you can comment within the jurisdiction of the commission exempt agenda items. with respect to agenda items your opportunity will be afforded when that item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minutes general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your public testimony for items not on the agenda by pressing star 3. you'll have three minutes. is the call prepared paired to submit their testimony? >> caller: yes, i'm joseph butler. an act -- architect in san francisco member of the ama amer tus. when i moved to san francisco

was to work for architects not in the city and my firm desire was to get that job in the city. eventually they moved and san francisco work became part of our world. when i met mr. passmore he was as described always will to talk and educate and his door was always open. once or our third or fourth occasion to have a conversation he sat me down at his desk and stood across the room and said imagine you're the project sponsor, make your argument and then he said, imagine you oppose the project, make your argument. with that one simple demonstration he gave me a lesson that is to this day in my heart and i miss him so much. condolences to bob passmore's family. thank you.

>> thank you. >> caller: i wanted to talk to the commission about an issue that addresses one of the items continued today. 531 bryant street and how the planning commission handles zero street. it's technically an alley though it's called a street and i live at the palms working with the folks at 531 bryant. they said the planning commission has insisted the street is 35 feet wide when it is not. it's an alley. our building has measured it. it's 21 feet curb to curb. the city currently has zo street set up for three lanes. one lane of parking and two lanes of traffic.

the reason this is important is because when the central subway project was approved access on fourth street was reduced to one lane in front of our building. the palms is a 300 unit residential building and with fourth street gone, zo street is now the exclusive access for large fire trucks. city fire code requires at least 20 feet of access for trucks and the reduction of fourth street has already increased traffic on zo to the point that cars and trucks are rel regularly driving up on the sidewalk. we saw this with bryant street. planning commission has in the early draft said there would be no impact to traffic or the other building and it's very concerning to the 600 plus

residents in this building that we've got actually four parcels around us being prepped for development and the planning department seems to be failing to recognize zo is the main access for fire to our building and is already over loaded and you seem to think it's wider than it actually is. it's a big safety concern as do gets developed around us. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm sorry about bob passmore. if anybody sat in room 400 before it was remodelled you

were watching a very good public servant. i wanted to comment today beyond that about if you got the chronic this morning if people still get it at their door step they have that fancy glossy real estate section and there was a property for sale for $6.5 million. i looked it up and it's in liberty heights. they call it delores heights, liberty hills and a kicked it out and it was too flat so i'll get to the point it's gone up in price enormously. my point is i'm very glad that you did the residential flat policy because that couldn't happen today where you'd lose two victorian flats like that adjacent to the mat 2020 area and it's gone up in price and

more expensive now. it reminds me you did the residential flat policy and change to the naturally unaffordable done by the supervisors for the rh1. there's been all these reforms and changes in 317. i've inundated you and i apologize i feel like the 317 stalker with projects on jersey street and diamond street and sanchez and 28th and ray cliff terrace to illustrate the issues with the demo calcs. since other things have gone on and have you the ability it's right in the code. it doesn't require anything else. it's not even a policy change. it's not a legislative change. i encourage you to look at the e-mails and the photos and think about those things particularly the one i sent the other day on 28th street.

just to really grapple with the idea of adjusting the demo calcs as you can per section 317. it's not just a matter of the sticks or anything like that or what remains. it's a matter of preserving housing and making best use i think of the housing that we have and going forward in the future. thank you very much and thank you to aaron for showing that gorgeous house mr. butler did in stinson beach. and i'm sorry to hear about bob passmore. take good care. bye. >> thank you, georgia. this say final reminder for members of the public if they wish to submit their testimony under public comment or general public comment need to press star 3.

okay. seeing no further requests to speak under general public comment, we can go to your regular calendar for item 9. [reading item] you continued this matter to today's date by a vote of 6-0. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. can i share my screen? >> i need to make you the presenter first.

>> i'm joined by the manager of the community development team. before you is the proposed ordinance that looks to make clarifyi clarifying changes to the planning code. this was before you last week and substantive amendment. public comment focussed on two of those changes. the first regarding the central soma infrastructure specifically around subjecting non-residential projects to and the second focus of the discussion was regarding the lot and coverage requirement in the central soma special use district. after your deliberations you moved to continue the hearing until today. this morning before you are

revised draft resolutions for your considerations and reaction to your discussion last week. the revised draft resolution includes the following changes and these are relative to the resolution before you last week. first incorporates staff recommendationed changes with the project -- recommended change at -- changes at the requirement and switch the uses and be removed from section 329 where it currently is in the draft ordinance for substitutions would be subject to discretion and we are recommending you move that to section 249.78. that's the central soma special use district. able to substance retail to pdr would be subject to specific

retail. the second item in the new draft resolution, this addresses your deliberation and your deliberation you indicated a desire to direct the board of supervisors not to include the tier b provision until staff can do further analysis to whether adding the additional fee would be feasible for projects and this revision could maintain the as part of their decision making. finally, staff is recommending changes regarding the lot coverage requirements you also discussed. the draft ordinance would require 80% lock coverage at all residential levels except those

with 100% lot coverage is generally inconsistent with similar ones in high-dense any neighborhoods. staff is recommending additional language that would enable 100% lot coverage in limited circumstances. the original intent of the requirement was to address projects on small lots that might feature corridors and where units would have exposure to streets or alleys. or other situations where single aspects residential uses would face the street or aly and may wrap another non-residential use. the revised language. the language we're now recommending would allow the 100% lot coverage in situations with residential uses would have exposure on the streets however, we're being more definitive in that situation and it would be

limited to residential uses enable 100% of lot coverage within 40 feet of street facing property line. the draft ordinance also includes a recommend to include a grandfather claus allowing projects with applications submitted on or prior to july 1 to avail themselves of the current lot coverage provision. commissioners, this concludes my presentation. either josh or i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> if that concludes staff presentation and i don't see any immediate requests for questions from the commission. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to get in the queue by pressing star and 3 and through the chair as this is the

second hearing on the matter you'll be provided with one minute. >> caller: i appreciate the staff recommendations. we want to do everything we can to incentivize more housing in san francisco. we think it's a policy goal the city should be embracing every and see this as a positive recommendation and thank staff for the proposed recommendations. >> caller: as a resident of soma generally i'm very happy with the plan. just some comments on the recommended changes with the

retail exceptions please make it clear existing retail would still be allowed. currently there is a dog play area or canine play time have been a long-time seat a -- asset and have limited open space and i would be as a resident i would be against the 100% lot coverage for residential because we do have an extreme lack of open space. yes, we need homes but they don't all need to be in soma and the ones that do come here need open face of their own otherwise -- open space other ways there's no way to get out. thank you. >> thank you.

>> caller: linda sarjapor and ask to strike this that would add more to non-residential projects. i wanted to reiterate a couple points. first we have reviewed the legislative record and does not show clear innocent to impose the -- intent to impose the fee and there'd be a new special tax. and many small projects that would be impacted have been moving forward with design review relying on the package in place and adding this now less likely we'd get the project and get new jobs or community benefits realized. thank you.

>> caller: i'm calling regarding the trb impact fee. i'm a little confused. it does appear staff is recognizing further analysis and discussion is ready -- necessary. the text will stay in the legislation but then a recommendation the board of supervisors remove it seemed to -- odd to me and i suggest the planning commission removes the language as that's the position of staff at this point in terms of needing further review. thank you. >> members of the public this is

your opportunity to submit public comment by pressing star then 3. i see no additional requests to speak commissioners so the matter is now before you. >> let me put in my two cents before i call on other commissioners. i don't think we're in position to impose dollar amounts or fees until we know how we'll come out of this situation and where we're going to land and what the impact will be on future development. commissioner moore. >> i appreciate your comments. i agree with the staff's recommendations and i believe

the public's comments should be restated to the board of supervisors as a reasonable question however, we will not able to answer that question. and i believe this is a good operation on what was unclear last week. thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> i'm also in support of staff's recommendation but i too am a little confused about why you're retaining the language in this text to keep the fee in place when the staff's recommendation is not to include the fee. could you elaborate on that a little bit, please. >> i can clarify that the fee

p provision would not be in the fee schedule but the ordinance is the commission's ordinance moving forward. we recommend to strike that provision. >> are you saying it when we wore far it the revised -- forward it from the revision you'd be striking that from the text? >> yes. it would be removed before it gets sent to the board. >> that makes sense to me. then i'm also in favor of adopting the resolution as revised. >> commissioner imperial. >> i have a question regarding the 598 bryant and also

responding to like what public comment has mentioned. the existing retail. is that something mentioned in terms of making sure they use the retail and exists. that is part of the recommendation as well? >> the project approved for that site has retail already included in the product. we are obligated to replace the pdr and provide additional pdr as far as the tenanting of the retail it would be permitted on the site. >> yes. i also look forward the staff's recommendation and thank you.

>> did you need more time or should go to commissioner moore? >> no, thank you. >> commissioner moore, go ahead. >> i have a follow-up question for reference. in your cover memo to the commission you mentioned in aligning a parking garage i want to have it on record for residential units for the parking garage in these conditions that the typical residential guideline apply that is set back by a minimum of five feet. is that correct? >> that's correct. the design guidelines would apply and they continue to apply. >> thank you. i think the commission needs to be aware showing more

constraints than normal. that is something the commission should heighten attention to. i make a motion to recommend approval to the board of supervisors. >> second. >> seeing no further deliberations the motion has been seconded to approve the opposed code amendments on that motion with staff modifications. on that motion, roll call. [roll call] . >> so moved. the motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us on items 10, a, b and c for case numbers

2019-000494dnx. is staff here and ready to present? >> i am. members of the planning commission, the items include a downtown project authorization and conditional use authorization for a proposed project at 555 howard street and the zoning administrator will consider a request for two variances as well as a height exemption. they will approve a downtown project pursuant to section 309 with street wall based, reduction of ground level wind

currents and two bus loading upper tower extensions and bulk controls. the department start find the request exceptions are warranted as held if the draft before you and staff was asked to establish the hotel use. this is not unique as hotel uses city wide do require conditional use authorization. for the project itself it's comprised of three contiguous parcels between first and second streets. half block south of the sales force transit center in the heart of the trans bay development area and would contain non-res didential uses d reaching a height up to 385 feet tall or approximately 419 feet inclusive of the elevator overrun and mechanical

equipment. it includes approximately 374,000 square feet of retail use and square feet open space located on the rooftop level 36. the hotel includes 401 hotel guest rooms and accessories open to the public including a full-service restaurant and bar tone ground floor bar on the ground floor and sky bar and lounge. it would include 18,000 square feet of function and meeting space including pre-function spaces and a range of conference room sizes to accommodate events of varying sizes. fitness facilities including a pool, spa and exercise room on level 6 and includes three off-street loading spacings and no off-street parking provided. the project is similar to a mixed use project the planning commission approved back in

march up 2017 and the difference is the elimination of the residential uses rendering the current proposal an all-hotel project with the to the norm of guest rooms from 255 to 401 rooms. the other change is the elimination of all off-street parking spacings. beyond the changes the building heights, massing and architecture are nearly identical. the project sponsor has held outreach with local organizations and community groups. the department has received five letters of support from the organizations and the hotel district of san francisco and chamber of coarse and hotel association and speaks to the transit oriented nature of the sight and support for a luxury hotel to bolster the city tourism economy

and there's a letter of concern of construction impacts associated with the proposed project. in summary the department finds it's on balance with the plan of the city and through the construction of an oriented commercial development in walking distance from the downtown core and a an urban walking context and will expand services available in the area. further the ground floor commercial uses will help the adjacent street and the park featuring the public space along the western edge. the project is designed to contribute an elegant iconic and elegant massing to the sky line.

lastly the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to adjacent properties in the city. i'll make myself available during deliberations. we have the project sponsor i believe on the line and i'll advance the slides. thank you. >> nick, whose your project sponsor? >> commission president koppel

are we providing five minutes for the project sponsor? >> yes. >> your slides are up. >> my patricia iay on pacific howard and our company been in san francisco over 23 years and we are investing in the future of the city. it is the long-term vision that guide our commitment to quality architecture that will have international promises. our core business is hotels and this project is designed by the architect so serve as an a location for our hospitality group. since 2017 commission approval for the mixed use residential

hotel project we underwent further design and analysis of the auto proved project. in an effort to improve the building design, the project was modified as singular motel use and able to achieve more efficient by eliminating separate elevators mechanical system and other components of the building. and it's for additional use we are aligned with the primary business proficiency. while we understand the further

challenges of the hotel industry this hotel is targeted to be open by the end of 2024 which by even conservative estimates san francisco will see a recovery. today, this project would be the only hotel in the neighborhood and greatly contribute to the trans bay district. and you see the current proposal right and amenities. and we're representing hotel rooms and representing the open space on the top.

this meets the goal of the fifth street plan and it's consistent with the zoning control. we have met and reached out to the community and policy goals and organized our team. they have worked together for many years having worked on the landmark california academy of science in golden gate park. i'll hand it over to you partner of the building workshop.

>> maybe get closer to the mic. >> we can't hear her at all.

>> can everybody hear toby? >> no. cab we have more time to make sure elizabeth has connected?

>> you need to put your phone on speaker. >> let me try that. it's not working. can i present? >> have you 45 seconds remaining. >> okay. so this is designed from the

idea of architect [background noise] and how we have a public space on te rooftop. >> this is very open on three sides to the public with the park all connected with activities. this is equal quality on both sides and lets in the natural lighting to go to the floor plan and the massing. though this project is very

modern, with a lot of detail with the architect team we have confidence that this project will have a lot of layered detail quality to it. adds we say anyone looks at the view because it will be easy to see the public space on the rooftop. the project has a cable nets on the ground and transparent you can see the hotel lobby fill the park as connected to the hotel.

[background noise] very open. with the limited residential [indiscernible] you can see through to howard street. >> patricia how much more time do you need because we provided a couple extra minutes. >> think we're almost done. this is a project sight. thank you. >> thank you.

sorry your presentation work out. >> sorry. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to get in the queue by pressing star and 3 to get in the queue. you have three minutes. >> caller: can you hear me? this is rob shabata. i'm with eden floral company a tenant at the san francisco flower market. we've been selling flowers in the flower market for 114 years -- >> are you calling about 555 howard? >> i'm calling to support the proposal submitted for the flower market. >> we're taking public comment

for the project presented at 555 howard. we'll take that item up next. >> caller: i'm sorry. >> members of the public this is your opportunity to get in the comments for 555 howard street. i have no request for public comment. we can close public health and t public comment and the matter is now before you.comment and the matter is now before you. >> having heard the project in 2017 i'd like it bring it attention to the commission the project was presented by the gentlemen we couldn't hear from today and it was supported. many questions were asked to

fully understand the openness of the ground an strong connections of the proposal including the connection on the site. i continue to express my full support from residential to hotel. i also believe we will be doing better with providing more at the heart of our emerging district instead of only luxury residential units which is 69 in the past the project has my full support. commissioner imperial. >> >> i'm supportive of changing the hotel use. it's a good location for hotel.

i have a question when it comes to the rooftop and i want to make sure that the it will be accessible not only to the hotel guests but office work nearby but to the residents wondering if i believe there's a sky bar and what are the hours between access and having the sky bar on top of the rooftop. >> can i answer the question? >> there's an elevator system that will take the guests directly to the rooftop. with the change of eliminating

the residential we actually have a larger one on the rooftop and we always wanted to do this roof and this will give us an opportunity and we're also adding more support facilities on the 33rd floor. this will support the rooftop as well. >> thank you for that response. i guess my question is more to like the hours are proposed and a would recommend the project sponsor as well because many are not as accessible in that area in the way of marketing and it's a greater way for people to

access these and the area has a lack of access to open space. i'd recommend the reasoning -- project sponsor to have more marketing and outreach to be more accessible. the question on the hours of operation proposed and how can it be more integrated with the committee is that something the project sponsor has been thinking about? >> absolutely. we'll follow the guidance. however, the hotel is public and people can come to the hotel lobby anytime they want and the access will be to the rooftop and we added the restroom on the rooftop for public use as well.

>> thank you very much. >> may i interject planning code has regulatory aspects. the least of which is accessibility which is what your question is anked -- anchored are to be open during reasonable hours to accept members of the public sunrise to sundown. soma has explicit hours but generally speak from morning to evening. there's a robust signage program required and codified through the planning code as well as a notice of special restrictions. it's clear to all members of the public they're free and willing to come to the lobby and use the elevators that patricia mentioned and take to level 36 to use them as they see fit as long as they see fit. one aspect that's nice is the

bifurcation between level 35 the sky bar lounge and rooftop level 36. by placing the least rooms on the rooftop it's servicing them ber -- members what want to be on the rooftop and we have a robust program codified through numerous restrictions if we found they were not operating as they're supposed to or signage wasn't properly placed make it abundantly clear members of the public have full rein to go to the rooftop we would intervene. >> that's what i wanted to hear. thank you.

>> the commission needs to ask questions of the proj sponsor about the financial viability of the hotel industry at this point. there's been several media articles that describe the permane permanent closure of high end hotels lost to foreclosure and they've been late in paying their commercial mortgage backed securities. i wanted to pose the question because i feel i need to hear more from the project sponsor. can you explain converting to a hotel and why this is a good project for the city. >> we also tell people we don't

do real estate development. and the residential in this tower is luxury residential. with everything expensive we don't think it makes sense and with we studied on projects and we decided to do a hotel only and commissioner chan you mentioned financial. our companies is one of the few we don't rely on the construction loan. we are ready we just don't have a chance to do so.

>> you mentioned why you're not in the luxury condo business so why was it proposed as a residential and hotel building? >> i wasn't hear -- here at that time but the market changed so much and mainly it's because when you do a building design with a small footprint we realized it was inefficient and made the hotel difficult it build and excessive. -- expensive. >> thank you. >> any other callers? >> we have two that raised their hands after we closed public comment. we'll take them now. >> okay. then i'll get back to the commissioners. >> go ahead, >> caller:. -- caller. well, they hung up.

>> caller: i'm alex ginsburg in support and reminding in 2017 pacific eagle made a commitment to support san francisco hotel workers with these projects. local 2 has submitted the letter and i think it's really important at a time like this when construction is really going to be struggling that the commission upholds the precedence it set in ensuring a local workforce is thought of and considered in the development of these projects. thank you. >> caller: a quick comment in

support of open space and having rooftop open space is appreciated by myself and fellow residents in the city i know. the one ask i would put in is just to stipulation rather than sunrise to sunset one that says the public open space is accessible so long as the bar or restaurants on the floor below it is also open. that would allow residents of the city to enjoy the open space at night. thanks. >> commissioner fung. >> question for staff. the environmental review is based on the trans is district area review the indication from

staff is there's no greater impact than what's been determined in the area plan. i wanted to confirm transportation and transit impact from a hotel and increased meeting space conforms to the impacts as mitigated within the area planning e.i.r.? >> there's was certified by the commission in 2012. the community planning exemption completed in 2017 piggy backed off much the analysis conducted in 2007 through 2012 for the

plan area e.i.r. there are no additional impacts being created. there's no impacts caused by the increase. it's a land use category. i don't know chelsea fordham's on the line if she want to el elaborate further but did not find additional impact. >> the other aspect is the meeting rooms. >> the function rooms i think the reliability of the fact that this is problem trip the most transit rich location in the

entire city most the assumptions are that folks would travel to locations on foot or by mass transit. >> this is chelsea fordham. can you hear me? >> yes. >> for the community plan evaluation for the project there was a new transportation impact study prepared for the change in land use. that looked at the completely different land use the project had which is all hotels with meeting function room and conference room. there were new mitigation measures required as part of this project that were not required as part of the previous project. it was studied in depth as the

new land use program. >> thank you. >> are you all set commissioner fung? >> that answered my question. >> go ahead commissioner on diamond. >> i have a follow on to commissioner fung's comment. i am supportive of the project but i want to understand from the planning staff and maybe city attorney's office how's the expiration and renewal condition works performance condition number 2? my understanding from reading this is they have three years to obta obtain this and if no action happens by then to seek a site

permit within three years, mechanically what happens? does the planning staff track this and bring it to the planning commission's attention? can you walk us through the steps when there's no action on the part of the project applicant within a three-year period. >> your question's about the three-year vested period. if the project sponsor has not del -- diligently pursued the if he -- effectation of that we would recommend a one year, two-year, three-year extension. i don't think we can exceed a three-year extension because that's the baseline maximum allow allowed under the city charter. there's been several hotel projects thwarted by numerous economic activities.

we are hopeful i think everyone is we're able to come out of this economic recovery and have shovels on the ground and this is fully operational in 2024 as the project sponsor intends but in the unlikely event they'll be unable to get a building permit we'd be back before you. >> so it's within our discretion to extend or grant an extension is that correct? >> correct. >> thank you very much. i am supportive of this project and would move to approve as proposed with the conditions recommended by staff. >> second. >> commissioner moore do you have a comment? >> i was going second the motion but commissioner diamond came ahead of me.

>> we did look at the project earlier. i believe this is where the project of this height belongs and i am thrilled to see their sustainability plan which looks thorough and the commitment to using not just temporary workers that will construct the building but later on which hotels specifically cater to a full-time staff downstream of the construction to facilitate operation of the building. thrilled to see the commitment made by the developer today. >> commissioners, that concludes your deliberation, there's a motion with conditions. on the motion, commissioner chan. [roll call] .

so moved. the motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> i'll close public comment for the variance in height and propose standard conditions. >> thank you. >> commissioner places us on items 11a and b. a large project authorization and conditional use authorization. is staff prepared to make their presentation? mr. sucre i'll make you the presenter. rich, you are muted.

mr. sucre you are muted. seems as though he is experiencing technical difficulties.

>> can you hear me, commissioners? >> we can. >> the project is requesting

certain exemptions. the proposed project include re-use of existing building at the wholesale flower market and a two-story parking garage. as parts of the project an existing modular office building would be demolished and two $shed building and a one-story brick building and a new mezzanine and new parking garage with 25 box truck parking spaces would be constructed. in total it would include 125,000 square feet of wholesale use and with a loading dock off mississippi street to accommodate four long-haul trailers and 13 class 2 type bike spaces. the parking garage would be

enlarged to accommodate up to 180 off-street vehicular parking spaces and would expand the parking garage to 101,000 gross square feet. since publication of the packet the department has received numerous public comment. in total the department has received 10 letters of opposition including there neighborhood groups such as dog patch neighborhood association and save the hills and the primary focus of their comments has been on the variant and larger parking scheme, opposition to the bold purple exterior and the ned for more street active and landscaping and concerns over truck traffic and the re-use of certain historic elements such as the water tower. there's also been nine letters of support including from construction trades council and friends of jackson park. the support letters have note

the retention and importance of this important pdr business and retention and reuse of the historic buildings as positives of the project. as mentioned the department supports the exception and various amounts of exceptions to the project. the project is subject to a development agreement between the city and county of san francisco and k.r. flower mart llc. the development agreement obligates the develop tore pay for and re-locate the flower market to a new location of their approval. the department can confirm the flower mart has confirmed this site adds the preferred the location. the department has become aware of a few the changes and i'd like to read them in to the record for adoption of motions including clarifying the variance number of parking spaces to be 180 and not 169 and

page 8 to read the project and project variant propose a new parking structure to provide 150 parking spaces and the project sponsor is obligated to build pursuant to the development agreement and the agreement with the flower market venders. the proposed spaces will serve needs of the flower market including short term customer parking and vendor loading. during off hours it would be available for short term neighborhood parking. after analyzing all aspects the staff recommends approval with conditions and retains and restores the pdr business unique in form, function and operation. the project sponsor is present

and i'm veil for questions. -- available for questions. >> you have 10 minutes and members of the public will have two minutes. >> i'm with the project sponsor. thank you for having us to design the new project. you'll hear from the president

of the san francisco flower mart and other members of the project are here to answer questions. the beginning of this year the wholesale flower market developed to move to an off site location. >> do you have a television or computer on in the background? there seems to be feedback? >> i do not. >> i'm sorry. >> is that better. >> it is. >> since january we've had upwards of 75 meetings with

tenant and staff and local community groups and several conversations with the community and we've got feedback molded in to the project and we want to assure you we're continuing to work with the community after today's hearing to address comments and deliver a project everyone is excited about. before i pass it along i want to make sure we are able to reiterate we're breathing new life into an existing vacant warehouse in potrero hills.

>> i will make my remarks brief. the flower mart supports the plan submitted to the commission. we support developing the blan -- plan submitted to the commission. 901 16th street will provide a new home for vendors mostly owner-operated and employs over 300 employees. it is an important it provides a home for vendors to thrive in to the future and at the same time can add to the vibrancy of the

neighborhood. we believe the tan before you will do that. the san francisco flower mart is somewhat different from most pdr businesses in the city. we are more of a distribution business in which flowers from all over the world arrive daily processed and resold to floristed and decorators and interior designers, hotels and restaurants in northern california. unlike most pdrs we're highly dependent on vehicles to receive and distribute our product. we do not add congestion on the streets and take parking from the neighborhood residents is our concern. and the large loading dock will provide ample space for delivery

and when not in use will provide space for various community events and parking in the area. the interior building environment the sunlight can reduce the life of flowers and we designed the facility with as few windows as possible especially those that would impact the building temperature and allow for direct sunlight. the new flower market will host various community activities. the current design allows vendors to operate in a safe and

efficient environment. for example, one of our biggest problems is there's multiple access points from five streets in to the market. loading and unloading of delivery vehicles overflows on the streets and security with covid-19 right now is a total nightmare for the market. the new market will have entry points where we can control access and provide a secure and attractive facility not only for vendors and customers but also for the neighbors. the same central flower mart is one of the few remaining flower markets in the united states. we're over 100 years old and

this will be our fourth home in the city. we are excited about the new market design, location and being part of a great neighborhood in san francisco. during these times of covid-19, the new market gives our vendors and customers hope for the future we ask you approve the new plan. >> thank you. jackson miles architecture and thank you to the commissioners for letting us have an opportunity to share this unique project. modular building is

proposed to be demolished and the two-story parking garage will rise in place of it in the grade-level parking.

and table container for all things flowers and artisanal customers that come from event planners and other businesses.

>> project sponsor we can't hear you. from the next slide is a conceptual section of the project. you see the main techniques we're using and developing in the upper left hand corner interior approach to the project with interior aisles with ambient space and refrigerated storage and supply areas. we're adding a small mezzanine to the project within the project envelope in order to accommodate the site and as mentioned earlier we are trying to take they'll loading and you unloading traffic. you should see the first floor

plan and vendor space on all sides and in the upper right hand corner the parking garage. we've got extensive plans on how to open that up for special events and off-our -- off-hour event and happy to share those later if desired and you see a small area of the interior space targeted towards small vendors, 500 to 200 square feet local producers and the rest of the vending space is provided for the larger vendors at the far right-hand side are long haul truck accommodation we mentioned earlier in the presentation.

this opens to the second floor of the structure accommodations. you see this area has numerous [indiscernible] as well as the space for larger vendors which you showed in the next slide. this shows the refrigerated sales and display and market haul in the foreground as well as the context.

we have other slides we can share with the commission. >> thank you. that you concludes your presentation. i'm sure the commissioners will have questions for you. we should open this up for public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to get in the queue by pressing star and 3 i see seven people requesting to speak. through the chair, you'll be ed -- provided two minutes. >> caller: this is from the potrero neighborhood association and you asked for a continuance of this matter and the rationale behind that request. the project site is unique and it's a great way to the neighborhood from traffic from

mission bay, soma and the design district and longest fron taj -- front and is longer than a football field. the design of the components is of key importance to the neighborhood and made clear in initial conversations with the project sponsor the frustration has been expressed and the first time we saw it for some was this morning and that puts us in a tough position. the tenant of the site is also unique. our neighborhood welcome the flower mart and wants to see it succeed and have moderated our positions such as desire of the activation of the 17th side. we want customers to have features to help them weather our presence when leads to our request for a brief continuance.

it needs a little more work and work done tire to commission approval is more efficient. thank you commissioners. i hope to speak to you again soon in support of the project. >> sir, your time is rung. do you want to submit your public comment? we'll take the next caller will. will.

ill. ll. . . >> caller: this is alex lanceberg again in support of this project. you heard about the importance of the flower mart to the fabric of the city and the tremendous effort that the folks have done to preserve it. there's been a commitment to san francisco's construction workers and local contractors and this project is a key pillar of making that commitment come to life. it's exciting to see these large visions taking place and i encourage staff to support it. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> good ahead, caller. >> caller: for your time. i'm representing the flower market. and i'm calling today to support this project. we worked hard over the last few year to see this project come to fruition. we're very excited to see the project be completed and make the move to the flower market. i'm calling to give my support as is one of the tenants for the project. thank you very much. >> go ahead, caller. >> good afternoon. this is laurell windler from

floral designs and i'm been a badge holder with the san francisco flower market since 1989. i'm a local small business and i am working on the steering committee with jackson lyles and the flower market tenants and management on the design of the new space and i'm calling in support of the design. it is something that i think serves the needs of the ultimate customers like me as well as the needs of our vendors. and is a place that we can work together and thrive. the other thing about the space i was not familiar with it at all until we were looking at it and it's a very exciting location and an exciting neighborhood for us to be a part of and we're all very much looking forward to being part of the neighborhood and creating off many of market hour activity

that will activate the space for the neighbors and for san francisco in general. one major concern is parking because of course we all have to drive to the market to fill up our vehicles with flowers. so we have urging the commission to allow for the second parking deck because that will make the space usable for us, keep our vehicles off the neighboring streets and keep us from waiting in line trying to get in the market because we all come at the same time. we all need our product at the same time for our projects. thank you for the hard work for everyone and on behalf of the customers i urge you to approve it. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> caller: good afternoon, missions i live between pennsylvania and mississippi and i'm voicing my strong opposition to the project. it's the right project but the wrong location. the flower mart is worth saving and there's sue -- suitable locations nearby. this a burgeoning residential and commercial neighborhood and the flower mart is essentially a wholesale distribution facility and incompatible use. there were 395 housing units slated to be built including affordable housing and ground floor retail and recent plans for a building that in fact incorporated much of the architectur architectural features of the shed and would have housing. we continue to have housing

affordability crisis and need to build more to address the problem. the flower market can be located in an industrial area by cesar chavez where the wholesale produce market is near third street whereas housing cannot be reasonably built in those sections of the city. the site should be reserved for housing and commercial retail on the ground floor. i'd like to add my voice to those in the neighborhood opposing the site and the heavy industrial traffic it the bring. thank you very much. >> caller: we're an anchor tenant at the market and would like to good on record supporting the plan submitted to the commission.

the location is excellent. i believe our customers will enjoy shopping in this location at the new flower market and support the single access point for optimal security, minimal windows in order to protect our perishable inventory from the sun and importantly the two full decks of parking which are critical to this project from the standpoint of our customers and tenants. our company supports this whole heartedly and think it will be a great location for the flower market. >> caller: this is rob shabata. i'm a tenant of the san

francisco flower market. we've been selling flowers in the city of san francisco longer than anybody else for 114 years actually before there was the original flower market. i want to lend my support to this plan as submitted to the commission and we're in support of having the full second decker parking because it takes loading and unloading employee traffic off the streets and support a single access point. i can appreciate the design queues the public would want to have but this is primarily a wholesale distribution point. it's not a public venue. so there are certain thengs we need to bible -- things we need to provide the best product and service to our summarize. -- customers to the retail

florists can give the best product to consumer. having a single access point and not having a lot of windows which are not very good at preserving the cold and the heat aren't the best for the flowers. we think it's a good location. if you ever received flowers for any occasion or any haven't where there's flowers, the chances are 99% of those flowers came from the san francisco flower market. there is no other place for retailers and resellers of fresh flowers to receive product except from the flower market in the city. it's a super important source of floral products for the entire retail community and for

consumers. we are happy to have been a part of the flower market. i'm also on the design committee and worked hard with the architect and killroy on getting the project designed and moved forward and i give it my full endorsement. >> members of the public this is your last opportunity to press star 3 to enter the queue in order to submit your public comment. good -- go ahead, caller. >> caller: i'm chair of the boosters committee. when the perhap was taking shape our neighborhood was the main vote of a growing mixed use neighborhood at the foot of potrero hill. that is now well underway.

it's focussed on retail and resident uses next to jackson park. the flower mart will be the perfect cornerstone to this wonderful unique and dynamic mixe mixed-use corridor. we can't make sure the pdr will stay alive with the jobs provided through the years and we look forward to welcoming them to our neighborhood. the proproved design is a deep disappointment turning its back on a neighborhood with a design that ignores the context. this is disappointing to those

of us who worked so hard and diligently over the years advocating for what we believe is the best possible use of this site. furthermore the failure to include anyone outside our committee and design review was unprecedented in my experience and our committee was left scrambling at the last minute to resolve issues with the latest iteration presented to us less than two weeks ago and made worse by the addition of jarring purple stripes run the mass of the 380-foot facade. i hope with the short continuance we can resolve the issues and the boosters and i will soon be able to give the project a full support. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon. i'm a san francisco native and currently a resident of potrero

hill. i know the neighborhood really well. for many years i i've seen changes in the neighborhood sometimes for the better and sometimes worse. i'm excited to see the flower market relocate to our area and will energize the intersection and bring back advisable businesses. the boarded up buildings are disheartening and the flower mart will have a positive impact on the area. it's the right project for the right place. the project architects shared their work and worked hard with the neighborhood to address their concerns for the reuse of an industrial building. i love the use of landscaping and transparency screening and bold colors to reflect the new function of the collection of buildings while being a functional and economic realities of the program.

with can all use more flowers in our lives right now and hope the commission approves this project without further delay. thank you. >> okay. members of the public, again, if you would like it submit your public comment on the item press star 3. i see no other members of the pub public so the matter is now before you. >> before i call on commissioners i wanted to put on my two cents. i can't think a project that has gotten more public note -- note

notariety than this. we don't see pdr very often and great job creators and great creators of commerce and lively hood on an important corridor like 16th street. if you're done there it's an interesting intersection with the train tracks and hospitals and warriors arena down the street and housing and i think this will fit well at this specific location. hats off to kill roy for going through the motions and working on the project for years. not months but years. hats off to the kilroy development team constructing new building in san francisco and they managed quite a few

properties existing here in san francisco. that's no small feat. they're a reputable local developer which should be noted. i don't think the plot should be used for housing. i was thinking back to a strong number of projects already approved that supply housing and we have bay view hunter's point phase 2. we have an incredible amount of housing approved on this side so i can't buy the argument this plot should be how long. i think it should be pdr. those are my strong talking points and i want to extend a strong thanks to mr. kilroy for

involving the trades on the project. we've had a great relationship with kilroy along the way and i don't know where the construction community's going to go. i don't know how busy it's going to be in the future and it's really good solid projects like this that are going to feed into our construction pipeline and give kids from the disadvantaged neighborhoods trying to get in to our trades a place to go to work and a paycheck to take home and they're more than likely going live in the city and more than likely going to spend in the city. this is something i take seriously when it comes to equity is giving good san francisco residents good paying careers not just jobs. that's my two cents. we'll start with commissioner diamond.

i am very excited to see this project. it has many aspects i think are really wonderful for the city. started with the fact they're pdr projects and it needs to account for the functional needs of the user and puts limitations on what can be done on the outside of the building. it's a wonderful example of adaptive reviews and an iconic uses in san francisco and i'm happy they found a new and appropriate home. i really appreciated the letter submitted earlier this week that outlined in detail the changes that had been made to the design to respond to the community

where i really appreciated his explanation as to why request to changes couldn't be accommodated. i think this is an appropriate time to move along projects like this. we have an economy that really could use help right now and a project like this will go a long way. finally there are obviously design refinement have to happen and condition 8 allows for that. i am very supportive of approving the project. thank you. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you. i too am also excited about this project. i think a great site for this institution. i want to acknowledge the community's desires to continue working with the ash tect on the

design. -- design architect. i may suggestion if other commissioner open to have a conditional approval that requires the department to do more outreach to address landscaping, color and exterior design to have a design that works for the neighbors and allows vendors to carry out business operations. the second point is i've been thinking about the collage if you are considering a project variance to have two full decks of parking and almost 100,000 square feet of space for the garage. i'm trying to think of ways to have a stronger commitment for the space to be used for public use after hours the flower mart. i understand the operations would be completed by the first

part of the day and we still have the ability to do like a farmer's market it seems like a no-brainer and wondering if the commission would consider the use of the garage being used after hours when not used for the flower mart and adding something about work with department staff and community members -- [please stand by] .

>> i do believe that a good project involves community input, and this is just a little bit of, you know, more

of discussion or input with the community, but i'm generally supportive of this -- of this item, so yeah. that's my -- that's my comment. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i am fully supportive of the project. the site is ideal. the existing buildings for reuse are perfect, and i am very impressed by the fairness of the entire infrastructure by which the shop will be able to operate in its new location. i had a conversation with mr.

lyles and mr. grisso and his team, and touched on what i believe is a current issue for myself, that a singular scheme in the building would be -- color scheme in the building would be better. san francisco is not a city of color, it's a city of hues and tones. the use of purple is far too strong. i don't want to take that too far. it's just basically support, which i heard from the potrero boosters and other people who wrote and spoke today, and while i'm in full support, and i couldn't be more expressive

about that support for the project, i would like to see a condition by which the orrin works with the community and staff to explore and revisit potentially earlier schemes and color directions. i talked with mr. sucre, and there are other color schemes in the other industrial buildings. i would like to support the project of every aspect except for adding a condition of exploration of other color schemes, and potentially what commissioner chan and imperial

said. i'm making a motion for approval and hope that other commissioners will expand the small expanded conditions of approval. >> second. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i'm supportive of the land use aspects of the project. i'm supportive of the project program. if the desire is to have the project sponsor continue to work on some of the design aspects, i think it would be important that we understand

and establish where changes potentially can occur. i am of the opinion that the base case, which is what has been presented now, is one that is approvable, and that should the condition be that we will -- this project sponsor will try to work to see if a color condition can be developed, but understand that the base case is an approvable case. >> commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: the base case is definitely an approvable case and in support of every item that commissioner fung just talked about.

i think what is skrie-- a colo scheme on an industrial building will be very hard to maintain, that looks sharp and crisp on an industrial building overtime. this particular color will wear and scratch and will be hard to tend over the years. so i think the architect should work with the community, step back, and look at less is more. so having said that, i am highly in support of the items that commissioner fung read into the record. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: i also would be supportive of that. i also wanted to clarify for

the conditional use for the after hours use for the garage to be kind of after hour nonparking uses, so i just wanted to clarify that. >> vice president moore: thank you for that. i accept that into the motion. >> president koppel: mr. sucre, would you like to weigh-in? >> from what i understand, the commission would like the department to continue working the community and the project sponsor, including the architect and the developer on the overall design of the project with a particular focus on the exterior color, the exterior materials, and the landscaping that are before you, and also potentially examine, add a condition of approval regarding the after-hours operation of the garage to basically encourage public facing or public uses,

including a mobile facility, which would be, like, a food truck parts, arts facility and other activities that are consistent with the u.m.u. district. is that correct? >> vice president moore: i want to be the maker of the motion, and i'd like to hear other commissioners' reaction. i want to be careful. we're not trying to redesign the building. when you generally talk about materials, i think that's kp exaggerated, and you're asking too much, but i think the use of color on the building, that's one discretion. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: so like commissioner fung, i believe the base case is

approvable. if the direction is for staff to work with the developer on the color pallette, i think purple is nice and would look good outside. however, that's within the purview of the developer and the department. where i need clarification is in the materials. i read that the sponsor would use the flower mart in op hours for the types of uses that commissioner chan had listed, so i'm not sure what you want to accomplish in the condition of approval because i don't want to dictate in a condition what it has to be used for, the

hours, any of the pricing. i think, you know, the fact that we like this offer, and we like them, to attempt to come up with uses that fit those community oriented purposes, i would be supportive of that, but i don't want to dictate specific conditions or uses or hours that they must have because they've already indicated that they already wanted to try to do this. so i think i'd ask commissioner chan where she was trying to go on these uses? >> commissioner chan: sure. i absolutely agree that we don't need to be dictating the business hours at this point. i think it would be helpful to have some idea of what those nonparking leases might be, such as a farmer's market.

i that i that's already been mentioned in the activities, so i think that would provide some more specificity with what the program would look like. >> commissioner diamond: if the condition authorized the use of the space after hours for those kinds of community oriented uses, i would i very supportive of that. i think the word supportive would be very important for me to include in this. >> president koppel: let me step in. i agree with commissioner diamond. nobody knows where this pandemic situation is going to land. i don't know when it's going to happen, how it's going to happen, and i don't know -- i like the idea of all of this

work, but i'm not comfortable conditioning it just because nobody knows what rate we're going to get through this and what the outcome is going to be. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: when we use the word encouraging, i think it's more towards both partying working with each other and who, in the long run, will need each other after hours. this does not need to be looking like a deserted place because flower operators work from the very early morning hours to early afternoon, and then, they're gone. so i think we need to include the word encouraging. that could be part of the conditional use. they're looking at more mutuality both on the exterior as well as coordinating mutually after-hours uses.

there's nothing dictatorial, it's about open the door for further discussions. >> commissioner imperial: before we go into vote, again, as it is going to be facilitated with the staff, with the planning department staff, i think we're not trying to dictate. i just want to add that. i believe in this facilitator discussion with the project sponsor and the community and with the planning department, that there's something that can be resolved. i actually don't think that even the community would like to, you know, dictate anything. they just want their input, and just needs to be more facilitated. that's all. you know, we're not trying to dictate anything, so that's my piece. >> president koppel: okay. >> clerk: okay, commissioners.

if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with the conditions read in by staff with the amendment to amend a condition of approval, recognizing that the existing project is appropriate, encouraging the project sponsor to continue working with department staff and the community to refine the landscaping, color, and design, and explore activating the garage use after hours explicitly for nonparking uses. on that motion -- >> vice president moore: they includes the alternative with full parking, yes? there's an alternative that we never discussed this, but

there's the alternative of the full second parking deck. >> commissioners, just to -- my policies. i was just trying to get my video on. the motion that's provided to you includes both, so you're approving the project as well as the project variance, so the larger garage in the motion that's in front of you. and then, it'll be up to the flower mart and kilroy on which one to move forward with, so we'll analyzed both projects. >> vice president moore: thank you for clarifying. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and places us on item 12 for 2017-009840 zsh cua and 859

through 861 baker street, a conditional use authorization. is staff prepared to make their presentation? >> jonas, can you hear me? >> i can. >> good afternoon, commissioners. matt dito, planning department staff. the property is legally authorized as two family dwelling. there are two unauthorized units on the property, the units proposes for removal [inaudible] that has been converted to an unauthorized unit. this unit is proposed for legalization. since the publication of the case report, the department has received one comment in opposition to the project from the unit's current tenant.

the application states that the unit has been occupied since 2017, and the kitchen provided removed. the tenant provided photos showing the kitchen and says that the kitchen was never removed. the project is not compatible with the general plan nor necessary and desirable for the community, and as such, the department recommends disability of the project. thank you, and i'm available for any questions. >> hi.

>> commissioner fung: jonas, you're muted. >> clerk: thank you, commissioner fung. project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> hi. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> my name is [inaudible] and i'm the architect of the project. this building right now, it has two units -- legally two units. the top unit is another legal unit, and it's built within the existing attic space. there's an attic spate. it's not really a story, and the owner converted the room to an illegal unit -- i mean, the

room to a unit over the years, and it's not built up to the code, and the standard's really low. and the room doesn't have enough ceiling height or the clearances is not really up to the code. i think the city is -- is looking for additional units, i understand, but this is not a good candidate. it's not built to the code, and if we legalize it, there -- it's going to be a changed use from a single-family to the apartment, and we would have to bring it up to code. it also has to be retrofit, and the cost for my client is

really significant. again, i understand the city is looking for housing, but this is not a good candidate. he'd have to spend a lot of money to come up to the code. the owner already has to spend a lot of money to add the separate story, so i hope that we can work for the city, and over the year, we got a violation already, so we've got to take care of it and resolve it all and make a space -- maybe a couple of bedrooms, but not a unit because they're going to [inaudible] and a lot of thing had to be upgraded to building code. this is all i have today. thank you.

thank you, commissioner. >> clerk: okay. thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star then three to enter the queue. i have one speaker. go ahead, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi, thank you. yeah, i'm actually the tenant that matt spoke of as living in the unit, so to address those units, it is a unit, regardless of whether it's legal or not. it is, as you mentioned, covered under rent control. i've been -- as he mentioned, covered under rent control. i've been here close to a decade, and i know that it's

been occupied for over 15 years at least from some of the former residents. the [inaudible] actually live in the other unit that is -- that they're trying to have legalized. they don't understand what's going on with this application, and i think that matt said that the application stated that the kitchen has been removed. it has not. i've used the stove and sink today, so yeah, i guess i don't probably need to add anything to what matt said because it's pretty thorough. i'd appreciate it if i could just continue living in my home. thanks. >> there's one more person. caller, you have two minutes. >> hi. this is jennifer bieber. i'm a counselor sometimes with the san francisco tenants union. so i just wanted to point out that this owner or previous

owner, they were happy to collect rent from these tenants over the years whether it was legal or not. so i fully support the department's obligation that this not happen. in this case, i would urge the tenant to sue the landlord for all the illegal rent collected over the years, so just want to let the tenants know that that is a resource for you. thank you. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call. star, three, to enter your public comment. okay. seeing none, public comment is closed, and commissioners, the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: question for staff, matt, this dpwhen y

at the drawings of this existing building, it looks like an apartment was put into the attic space, is that correct? >> yes. >> commissioner fung: and so the attic space was converted basically? >> yes. whether it's an attic or a third floor would really come down to the department of building inspection, but it's the upper area -- >> commissioner fung: no, what i meant is it's in the pitched roof portion of the building, correct? >> yes. >> commissioner fung: okay. thank you. >> president koppel:

commissioner imperial? >> clerk: commissioner imperial, you may be muted. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, yeah. i was talking to myself. yes, i would like to make a motion for the staff's recommendation -- in favor of staff's recommendation. >> second. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, seeing nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to disapprove this project. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, that will place us under your discretionary review calendar for item 13, case number 2019-022758-drp at 24 rosewood drive. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. good afternoon, president koppel, vice president moore, a commissioners, and staff architect. this is a request for discretionary review of building permission

2019-1120-7775 to construct a two-story 758 square foot horizontal addiction at the front of an existing two story single-family home. the resident to the south of the proposed project is concerned that the proposal will cause noise and disruption from construction activity that will cause her financial hardship. the department has received no letters in support or opposition to this proposal. the department's review included the residential design team's review of this as it conforms to both the zone and the residential design guidelines. it keeps the land capp at the front and keeps the gable and window proportions and detailings. it maintains more than

five-foot set back as required by code. as some noise and disruption are normal expectations for many construction, but upon the purview or means of the planning department to regulate. this is not exceptional or extraordinary circumstance or land use issue, therefore, staff's recommendation is to not take the d.r. and approve as-is. that's my intentipresentation,m happy to answer questions. thank you. >> clerk: i'm just looking for the d.r. requester's phone number here. danita here, do you have your phone number -- i don't see your phone number here that you provided to us in advance. david, do you have any indication what their -- if there's an alternate number that she may have provided?

>> commissioner chan: it's under her name. >> clerk: yeah, but i can't unmute her. i see her name, but she's not using a platform by which she can speak. miss culp, if you can hear me, you need to either log out and log back in for me to be able to unmute you or call back in with a phone number. in the meantime, president koppel, should we go to the project sponsor? >> president koppel: yes. >> clerk: okay. miss tully, i'm going to unmute you, and you can go first. >> i'm jennifer tully. i'm the principal at jennifer tully architects.

i'm speaking on behalf of the clients, mark looney and stephanie rodriguez. they're proposing this addition to their home for their family including two young children. they've lived in the neighborhood since 2009. they have been good neighbors and respectful of noise issues during other small projects, and other neighbors have expressed approval of their project. this is the existing home and the neighbors. snie next slide. you can see the lower portion of their home. our addition on the front of the house will provide a more

direct entry, provides an office to the left after you enter, and then, the third bedroom and shared bathroom for their children on second floor. next slide. i've indicated in orange the area of the extension, and you can see by the site plan here that it is in relationship to neighboring building size. next slide and this on the right is the proposed extension to the first floor, with the office and powder room, and on the left is the second floor with the bedroom and bathroom. and the -- the neighbor is on the right side of the building. and next slide? so this will show you the

extension right now on the lower view. this is space where you can see the -- the three windows of the family room area. we would be covering those windows, and then, on the upper elevation, you can see that knowing that this neighbor is sensitive to noise, we only put in a couple of small windows, we did not add windows in the office or the bedroom even though we would have liked to, but out of respect for her concerns, we did not put windows there. next slide. and this is a 3-d view from the neighbor in question, kind of her side of the site. and then next slide is a 3-d view from the other side of the street. so i hope that you'll see that

this is a modest addition, and that we hope that you support the project. that's all. >> clerk: okay. if that concludes project presentation, i'll just ask miss culp to please try to rejoin us. i have forwarded you another invitation, and if you can't join us through those means, you might just try calling our general public line, which is 415-655-0001, entering access code 146-152-9199, and when i take your comment, just identify yourself as the d.r. requester, and i'll provide you with your five minutes. commissioners, we should go to general comment -- not general

public comment, comment on this matter. i do see one caller. hopefully, this is the d.r. requester. go ahead, caller. >> this is davita culp. >> clerk: okay. miss culp -- [inaudible] >> clerk: miss culp, if you could mute your computer, we could hear you better. there's a strong echo associated with your call. >> okay. i have had trouble all through your meeting trying to stay in on the meeting line, but here i am on the phone. i am going to be operating blind. i heard what jennifer said, but i did not see anything she showed, so i'm probably going to be tripping over some things that she did.

>> clerk: okay. miss culp, your slides are up. your slides are visible to everyone, and your five minutes are starting right now. >> okay. i'm trying to open my screen because i can't see anything that you've got. hold on. please don't start my time yet. i'm trying to get into the program. for god's sake. hold on, hold on, hold on. hold on. still trying to just get onto -- just get -- to open something so i can see something so i'm not operating blind. all right. if somebody could say to me, you know, what the topics are because i can't even see the topics on my own screen here.

everybody -- >> clerk: this is your presentation, ma'am. it's presentation on the first slide. >> i'm certain. let me try to go into one other thing i've got here that maybe i can actually read what you're looking at because i can't just sort of make this up out of thin area here. trying to find anything i can open to read what you're looking at here -- there we go. maybe this will do it. ope opening, opening, opening something. i'm going to try one more time to open up the adobe acrobat program so i can read what you're seeing on your screen. apologies. so while it's opening, i just wanted to say, i was very sorry to hear about bob passmore.

and i just wanted to say mr. winslow and his staff have been wonderful helping me. as i am here today representing myself, i was still, during the time that this was all moving forward -- >> clerk: ma'am, i'm going to start your time. >> okay. great. you're starting your time? >> clerk: well, you're making your presentation, so i'm starting your time. >> as i was saying, even the timing came up for applying for the d.r. application, so i'm a little behind the game here. i only about two weeks ago or so had hired larry salt as my architect, but when i finally realized that this was so beyond my skill level to represent myself, that i needed

to bring somebody else in, so david winslow kindly offered that i needed to open up a conversation between myself, my neighbors, and our two architects, and we did that about two weeks ago. this has been an ongoing discussion for about two years. in 2018, my neighbors, very pleasant neighbors, they had talked to me about a plan they had drawn up by a different architect. i went to plan. the only thing i asked about as best i remember was moving it closer to them, 3 feet, and moving it back four because because i felt that the office area was humongous for what the views would be, but i like those drawings. and then fast forward to last

year, to the end of thanksgiving. different border plans coming out and over from their house, and to me, it felt more sterile, you know, not as friendly, not as much fitting into the neighborhood. and i -- but it was -- so when we had the meeting, it was on a conference call about two weeks ago with everybody involved. one of the things that larry fall had asked was if they were opened to other things because he had other day why the, and they said no. so far, they've said no to everything that i've asked for or that i've shown a strong feeling about. i'm trying to get a continuance of one more month with the hope that you would ask the project sponsors for a [inaudible] because then i can look out of

my home, look at the approximate breadth, depth. i see how it's going to affect me, a sunshine fills office, sun coming in from the west, so the sun will probably be blocked, as well as shadows. i also would like to see the windows of the bathroom that's along the border between us, the smaller -- i'd like to have a little bit more of a soundproofing type of exterior. we have a lot of car alarms, burglary alarms. the police come, nobody it find them because it sounds like it's coming from everywhere. i'd like some soundproofing

more closer to me. i'd love it if we could get another idea proposed by larry fall. i actually think story poles would solve a lot of things on their agenda. they're not very expensive. i understand they're about $1,000. larry's idea, he thought it would save them about $40,000 to $60,000 in the project of their building, and give them the space them and the rooms that they want and have it just a little bit further from me. the other thing is collateral damage. i ha i have two trees in the back that came in through the

foundation, bringing water in to my building. i put in a french drain, and that got handled at my expense, so there's a history of collateral damage, and so when we get down to the -- you know, the air being exaindicatcavate the clay and the dead room [inaudible]. >> along t >> -- along the back of my home -- >> clerk: that's your time. >> can i -- can i real quickly wrapping this up? >> clerk: in your rebuttal, you'll have two minutes additional at the end, okay? so just hold on the line.

>> okay. >>. >> clerk: members of the public, this is your chance to submit public testimony by star pressing star, three to get into the queue. i don't see anyone, so i'll go back to the project sponsor for rebuttal. miss tully? >> thank you. we did have a good meeting actually a couple of weeks ago, and we want to be respectful neighbors, but we also feel that we've already accommodated some of these neighbor issues by not putting in office or bedroom windows on that side, and we don't feel that we should be required to make anymore changes. we feel that the current plan is inkeeping with the size and scale of the neighboring building and does not even extend as far as we could extend, kind of the minimum amount that the family needs to have functional spaces.

thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. okay. i believe it's miss culp, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> yes, i want to finish what i was saying, just put in three one-gallon azalea plants, and it could three hours with -- it took two days with pick axing, preservation of neighborhood characteristics, i feel like that's getting lost in the shuffle. it's a trendy neighborhood built in the 20s, and then more building was done in the 40s. their home was like the 20s, and mine is the 40s, but i did include photos, including

trying to show not only where light comes in in the afternoon over on their front lot and my bedroom window, and -- at the front of the house. i also want it to be -- i also wanted to say that i'm concerned about the loss of the style here. it's very charming, it's very old fashioned, and whoever's running the slides, if you can just flip to my slides, as you get to the -- maybe around the sixth one, i was taking photos up and down the street, and i was trying to take photos of some of the homes, the details, it's very storybook like and very romantic, and i'd like it included in their styling. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

commissioners, that will conclude the public comment portion of the hearing, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i'd like to start with a question for mr. winslow. mr. winslow, this project is code compliant, is that correct? >> correct. >> vice president moore: thank you. given the fact that this project sits on the large residential parcel, 49 feet by 100 feet, this project stays even way away from the project line, and this places the request for modification for noise. it's temporary and does not really affect any situation which would be exceptional or

extraordinary. the design of the building is indeed a perfect fit for the neighborhood if i look at other photos of homes nearby. i think it fits next to the property to the north and south. it's also well positioned, and east and west is well positioned, and i think the expansion of 758 square feet is nothing extraordinary. i suggest that the commission does not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. that is a motion. >> commissioner chan: second. >> clerk: okay, commissioners. seeing no further requests to speak by commissioner moore's motion, it's been moved to take d.r. as proposed. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. that places us on item 14, 2017-0150399-drp at 350 to 352 san jose avenue. if i understand correctly, mr. winslow, there are four d.r. requesters, and through the chair, members of the public will be provided for two minutes with their public comment. go ahead, david. >> thank you. good afternoon, again, president koppel, vice president moore, and members of the commission. david winslow, staff architect. this project was continued from april because the backyard was incorrectly shown in the 311 notice, and windows and doors

should have been shown on adjacent buildings were omitted. therefore, it required an adjustment to confirm to the required rear yard along with the adjustment information. it was renoticed with that 30-day period expiring on july 6. the items before you are four public initiated requests for discretionary review of building permit application 2018.0803.5430. the project originally proposed a 70'6" addition. the proposal also included lifting and relocating the building 15 feet towards ant

jose avenue. the existing -- san jose avenue. since the 311 renotification june through july 2020, the project sponsor has proposing moving the building an additional 8 feet towards the front, reducing another portion of the southwest corner of the third floor by 5 feet, and removing off-site parking and adding an accessory dwelling unit to provide a total of 13 dwelling units, and you can see this in the reflected drawings that are dated 9-16-20 at the very end of your packet. there are four d.r. requesters, the adjacent neighbor to the north of the proposed project, is concerned that the project does not provided a code compliant rear yard and does not comply with the residential guidelines to articulate the building, minimize impact to

privacy, and to design the height and depth of the building to be kbabl with the building scale at the midblock open space. the alternatives are to reduce the building footprint and take other americas to ensure privacy. the second and third d.r. requesters, 338 san jose and 376 san jose, adjacent neighbors to the north and south respectively, are concerned that the project does not conform to the residential guidelines to mine mithe impacts to light and air -- minimize impacts to light and air and that the project dresses the city's alternative housing stack. their proposal is to reduce the building mass at the rear to the 45% rear yard line, reduce the fourth story to reduce shading on jury commons, a park

that runs along the park property line, and to remove the parking and use the lower floor for housing. the fourth d.r. requester, jennifer fever, on behalf of the san francisco tenant's un on is concerned that removing the historic building is tantamount to demolition. her proposed resolution is to get rid of the parking and ruse the addition to 781 square feet. as part of the department's

review, we reached out to the rent board, which confirmed there have been no evictions in their records over the past ten years. the four existing rental units will remain at rental units subject to rent control. as i mentioned, the proposed building has been modified since the 311 notification in june and july. by moving the building forward 8 feet, thus reducing the portion of the building that would be shading the park and affecting the rear tenants, and accessory dwelling unit was added by removing the on-site parking. as currently shown, the project is not entirely code compliant as the bicycle parking does not meet the directional requirements, and the a.d.u. would need a waiver for

density. it maintains midblock open space and accessibility to jury commons. since the proposed relocation of the building is significantly different than what was proposed, the commission would need to take d.r. to accept these modifications. in addition, the staff recommendations two additional modifications. one, a five-foot rear set back on the deck at the second parking line, and modifying the bicycle parking to be in compliance with code. staff's recommendation it so take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. there are a number of issues also raised by d.r. requesters related to tenancy and rent control units, so i

unfortunately joined by the department's housing specialist kate connor today, and we are happy to answer any questions. this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, david. let me try to find one of the d.r. requesters. let's try mr. williams. you are representing some of the d.r. requesters, so i will try to unmute you first. mr. williams, are you representing all of the d.r. requesters or just one? >> no, just two of them. >> two of them? very good. he have ten minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon, president koppel, members of the commission. i'm steve williams, and i represent, as i said, two of the d.r. requesters.

the neighbor who lives adjacent to the site and to the south at 367 san jose avenue, and the house on the northside of the project at 338 san jose avenue. let me preface my remarks about the project by saying something that i think the commission already knows, if you've looked at your packet. the neighbors, indeed, the entire community, does not like this project. this is a project that seems to get it all done at once. i know there's probably a dozen yimbys who say more housing, and yadda, yadda, yadda. projects like this are the root cause of the housing crisis in

san francisco. developers acquiring historic rent controlled housing -- this is the class a historic resource -- then pushing out the tenants -- and i don't care how they try to spin that issue. these tenants were pushed out. the buyout declarations were first filed in may 2017, before the place was sold, and all of that material presented to you by the project sponsor comes almost a year after that. i put that timeline in my brief, how that procedure was used to apply pressure to long-term tenants, and now, to the project luxuriates and expands the project with market-rate units. all of the cities directions--n

and violates ought of the city's directions on housing density and rent-controlled houses. the department in its written analysis calls these new shadows on a public park exceptional. i've never seen the department staff use that language in their analysis, and they didn't do anything about it. this development team is doing a very similar project not far from this site. you're going to see it, up by dolores park in the demolition of two houses in the construction of a 60-foot tower. this is a project that seems to get it all among.

with that said, none of the neighbors -- they can't support the project, so we have spent the past many months trying to work with the sponsor working with supervisor mandelman's office, trying to help the neighbors so they wouldn't feel so exposed. [please stand by]

>> so this is a good start moving that forward. obviously reduces the impacts on the neighbors. we're also asking for some additional changes. and hit me show you why -- and let me show you why. looking at the exhibit i put up. this was from the very first analysis done by the department. and it shows the type of articulation that they were as asking for, from the project sponsor, because it was just too large of an extension, going way too far past smaller buildings. please recall the building on the south side you're looking at

is one story tall. i mean, it is dwarfed by this proposed project. so they were looking for articulation along the property lines. this was an actual drawing that i believe mr. winslow did. i'm not sure, that went out to the project sponsor saying, please, you know, emulate this, use this, to try to reduce the impacts of this project. can i have exhibit 2, please. exhibit 2 is the review memorandum. it went out to the president and the sponsors nearly a year later. it says essentially the same thing. it says it's extraordinary these new shadows will be cast on the park. can i have the next page, please. this is the second page of this memo. it says the exact same drawing again showing the sight lines deemed necessary, because of the residential design guidelines and the desire to maintain light

and air to the existing neighbors. there's six units on the north side and five units on the south side that are going to be dramatically impacted by this project. so they sent the same sketch on hut. however, the sponsors have never really adhered to this drawing. they essentially ignored it. because if you look at what's in front of you, the project has never been articulated on the south side. not even a little bit. let me have exhibit 3, please. there's the site plan that you're being asked to approve today. and as you can see, the south side of the project has no articulation. none. that's a solid wall all the way along the south property line. and they did set it back after much negotiation on the north side, so that it starts to look

a little bit like the drawing sent out to the project sponsors over a series of many, many months. and so one of the things we're asking for today is that the commission approve this project and set -- set a setback on the south side, you know, perhaps 3 feet from where the buildings first end together and articulate it to 5 feet to create the sight line out to the common, so well illustrated in the drawings sent to the project sponsors. so even with that new foot -- the new move forward of 8 feet and that's what the new plans represent, is that the whole project was going to be moved forward. the whole building was moved forward 8 feet. even with that new move, the proposal still goes more than 2.

and an astounding more than 30 feet past the neighbor to the south. so, you know, what we're asking, in addition to the articulation along the south property line, is that the overall depth of this project be reduced. there hasn't been any reduction at all. they can still mr. all of their units, they can still get all of their projects, if we just reduce 5 to 10 feet. something reasonable to bring that back in, so they're not running many, many yards past the folks on the north and on the south. so the next issue that we're asking the commission, i was glad to hear mr. winslow ask for it, setbacks on the decks. they have a large number of

elevated decks on each floor. and this is a four-story building, even though they're saying it's, you know, three stories over a basement. it's all going to be above ground. there's no real basement involved. and so can i have the next exhibit, please. this is what's called the first floor. [bell dings] we'd like those setbacks. difficult the next exhibit, please. this is the one i believe mr. winslow mentioned. it's a massive 20-foot long deck, right on the property line. we'd like that set back, he says 5 feet. i think it should be 8 feet, maybe more. could i have the next one, please. there's also a deck on the front of this one, a very large deck that we'd like set back. what's called the third floor, which is actually the fourth floor. and then actually can i have the last slide, please.

[bell dings] this is -- >> thank you. you will have a two-minute rebuttal. >> okay. just two items here. the easement door and the bike rack that david talked about. and i think we're in agreement on those. so thank you very much, commissioners. >> clerk: okay. ms. fever, you have five minutes. >> all right. thanks. this is -- i've got an echo. >> clerk: that might be if your computer is on and you're talking through your phone, we're going to experience that echo. you can mute something, except for however you're speaking to us. it's still there. >> clerk: okay. >> i have everything muted.

there. can you help me? >> clerk: not from here i can't. >> well, i have done everything on my side. >> clerk: okay. you're coming across fine. there's no echo. your time is starting. >> okay. so this building and the tenants in it first came to my attention by a neighbor, who received notice. his name was eddy steel. he reviewed the plans and sent the letter dated may 1st, 2018. 2018, to the planner. because he knew that the existing tenants would be displaced by the plans. mr. steel had attended the preliminary meeting with the architects on march 22nd, 2018. he told me he point out to the architects that it was occupied and that their designs would force people out during lengthy

construction and probably forever. he said that they said there was no plan for the tenants offered. he met the two tenants living there at that meeting. and then contacted me to get the tenants' union involved. i found the two tenants in our database, because they had already come in separately and independently five days apart, after receiving buyout offers in 2017 from the previous owners. on february 21st, 2018, again received buyout forms from the current owners, after the sale was complete. the same law firm mr. zachs filed both of them. the sale seems to have transpired unadvertised. i tried to call the tenants in 2018, but i was unable to connect with either of them. months later, i learned that penny, who had lived there for 30 years, had passed away from cancer. i hear that penny was retired from the davis hospital, where

she was a nurse. she had at the end of her life the double whammy of having to deal with both cancer and displacement pressure. what i'd like to point out to the planning department, if you're a tenant and your home may be eliminated and your told -- after permits are approved, you're going to feel doomed. a buyout offer may seem like the only option if you're not informed that there are ways to object and have help to do so. i wish i could have reached the tenants sooner. general plan policy 2.2.4 states that you want to ensure that at-risk tenants are not evicted without adequate protection. not to be rude, but the department's policy is to approve plans that will very obviously lead to displacement. program applicants aren't even required to say whether tenants

exist. how would staff know if tenants need protection, and what actions are they permitted to take. i don't see any real effort to protect tenants as stated. there are many procedures that could be put in place towards a real anti-displacement policy and we've been begging for those for years. this project violates several more general plan objectives. i, therefore, ask the commission to use its discretion to approve the proposal and offer our suggestions. limit it to 12 units total, including a.d.u.s, which came up in negotiations. i don't understand why we are distinguishing between a.d.u.s in this case. it's not like you're squeezing an a.d.u. in on a existing garage space and altering nothing else. while i support a.d.u.s in theory, it seems like you utter the magic phrase a.d.u. and you get to bypass the tenant rights.

reduce the proposed height to three stories. the top units are too large and out of reach price-wise for most future residents. make the units smaller and affordable by design. the project eliminates naturally occurring, affordable rental stock in contrast to a policy objective number three. the owner could sign waivers to make eight, not four of the units rent-controlled, which is more in line with the policy goals to retain and improve existing housing affordability to housing stock. [bell dings] the owner will still get to charge market-rate to cover his costs. policy 2.1 states that you want to discourage the demolition of sound, existing housing unless the demolition results in a net increase in affordable housing. it often results in the cost of

lower cost rental units. new units are generally more costly. these are planning department's words, not mine. [bell dings] >> clerk: okay. that is your time. but you will be provided with a two-minute rebuttal. commissioners, there is a fourth d.r. requester. however, we never received any information from mr. willis. so i can't unmute him. but mr. willis, if you are listening and would like to make your presentation, feel free to call our general public comment line at 415 -- sorry, i have to look this up again. (415)655-0001. and enter acces ak 146, 9199 ann

i unmute you, after you press star 3 to get into the queue, i will provide you with five minutes. so for now we should go to the project sponsor, mr. keflynn. you have ten minutes. mr. keflynn? >> yeah, can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. you have ten minutes. >> okay. i'm hearing an echo, too. and i have got mute as well. but i'll just go ahead. okay. thank you for the slides. good afternoon, commissioners.

john keflynn here. on behalf of the project sponsor. the project before you is, in fact, a great example of urban infill development. expanding four-unit building on an underdeveloped lot and adding nine new units in 100% code-compliant mapping project. the nine units are ranging from 700 to 1,100 square feet. making them more naturally affordable than most other units being constructed today. this is not a monster home. this is not a luxury condo. this is a project that is maximizing density on the site with 100 code compliance. all four of the existing rent-controlled units will not be reconfigured and they'll be preserved as rent-controlled units. and then to start to go through the slides, last week the

supervisor's office did facilitate a negotiation with the d.r. requesters to modify the project. that modified project is what is before you today. and it includes the building being moved forward by 8 feet, off-street parking has been eliminated and replaced with a two-bedroom a.d.u. unit, and that was requested by the d.r. requesters. third floor was also reduced by 3 feet at the rear. excuse me, 5 feet at the rear. so the project does propose is very much consistent with the character of the neighborhood. mr. winslow, can you go to the next slide? i think you're on the last slide. there you go.

yeah. i think you're going the wrong direction. >> clerk: mr. keflynn, are your slides numbered? >> slide number 1. okay. now slide number 2. thank you. let's start with the front of the building. as you can see, horizontally between the two adjacent buildings. one of which is closer to the street than the other. the vertical addition, has a setback of 15 feet. and this is going to -- you're going to hear this on a number of slides, as a result -- as seen from the street, this -- the house is going to be 7 feet shorter than the north neighbor. next slide, please. at the rear of the building, the building does not reach the rear setback line.

the second and third floors are set back an additional 13 feet. and the first floor is over 44 feet from the rear property line. the second and third floor are more than 57 feet from the property line. these are enormous setbacks and sometimes looking at these plans it's hard to remember that this is a very deep lot. can i go to the next slide. this may be puts it into context. half a basketball court is 47 feet. the first floor of the building is 44 feet setback and the second and third floor are 57 feet set back. closer to that lower image. it is an enormous rear yard setback. next slide, please. looking at the rear of the building, only three of the floors are above grade. basement level is below grade. the first floor is angled with the rear property line. and once again the north neighbor is closer to that rear property line than the project. next slide.

at the rear of the building the building again is shorter than the north neighbor slightly. and there is no roof deck or elevator, penthouse proposed. there's just a minimal amount of mechanical equipment at the center of the roof. next slide, please. so let's move on to jury comments here, which is a great example of a narrow urban pass-through. it's 25 feet wide. and most importantly it is closely bordered by buildings and trees the entire way. if you look -- if you can see closely on the slide, a number of buildings have zero setbacks, 1 foot, 3-foot, 12 pat. the project is going to be hugely more set back than the rest of the buildings along jury commons. next slide, please. just taking a couple shots of jury commons. you can see right at the entrance, building right at the property line. and as you walk down the

commons, you can see it's a very narrow kind of cozy, nestled space. not some big open park. next slide. a couple of other photos along the commons. i joke, you know, you can jump out of a window of one of these buildings and jump into jur commons. that's how close they are. next slide. and so let's look at the rear of the site. here is the existing building. for context, the proposed building again is going to be shorter than the north building, as we can see on the left there. and the first story is going to be completely obscured by the fence on juri commons. all you're going to see is two floors and and both of those are 57 feet set back from the rear property line. a huge setback. next slide. just quickly going through the shadow study that we prepared for the project. and just to be clear, this is before the 8-foot move forward. so the actual project is going to have less shadows than this.

the summer solstice, the shadows over by 10:00 a.m. you can see some of the other buildings on juri have shadows still. next slide. the equinox. can we go back one? the equinox, the shadow ends by 12:00, noon. but you can see at 10:00 a.m. when the shadow is being cast, much less relative to the other buildings on this commons. next slide. and then in the winter, sun ends at 2:00 p.m. but again you can see significantly less shadow than compared with the neighbors. and i'll just be clear. the sequence analysis concluded that there's no significant impact with regard to shadow on the commons. next slide. so since the agreed-upon plans or the potential agreed-upon plans last week, there have been a number of requests that came from the d.r. considers, most of

which we have agreed to. we have agreed to limit the exit door along the easement area for only fire exit. we're going to frost the northern windows, that affect privacy on the northern property. there will be a privacy fence constructed along the north property line and the rear yard. we had had some thoughts about the sidestep on the deck. just to be clear, the plans ms. williams was showing was not the current plans. the third floor -- the deck is already set back. we're happy with the 5-foot setback, recommended by staff on the second floor. the first floor patio is so small, we would recommend maybe just increasing the property line from 3 1/2 feet to 6 feet. but again we defer to the commission on that. next slide. so in conclusion, in our initial preparation, this is a project

that fulfills a lot of -- a lot of priority policies in the city. most importantly maximizing density on the site, including with one additional a.d.u., and all of those units being modest in size. the largest is 1,100 square feet. these are not luxury. these are not mega homes. the building is shorter than the north neighbor. it's got a larger setback than the north neighbor. i think as we've shown, it's not inconsistent with the existing development in this neighborhood. and again that huge 57-foot rear setback, from the visible stories, with juri commons with development and tree lines, this is not going to stand out. and so we'll leave it at that for our initial presentation. so thank you, commissioners. >> clerk: great. thank you, mr. keflynn.

commissioners, we should take public comment on this matter. and, through the chair, public commenters will be provided two minutes to submit their testimony. i'm sorry, david, what's that? >> has each side had their two minutes of rebuttal? >> clerk: oh. they have not. thank you. mr. williams. you have your two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. could i have the slide number 7 up again. i want to thank you, commissioners. this is when i really regret not being in the same room with you,

where i would have access to the -- the next slide. number 7. there it is. thank you. so not being able to react to what's been said and throw things on the overhead is a real disadvantage to our rerote hearing. confirming that we were close to an agreement, we would like the building articulated more and reduced more. and we would like the commission to confirm that these things that we're hearing about the -- i have circled it in the middle there, the easement, access door that's only going to be for fire exiting. it's going to be alarmed. and they won't be able to disarm the alarm. and the bike rack, which is currently all the way in the back of the easement, this is the sole access for at least three of the units on the north side. and they just can't have people

going up and down that easement with bicycles at all times night and day because of the noise and the security issues. because i've been told that that bike rack is going to be moved to the front. we'd like to confirm that, et cetera. you know, mr. keflynn is doing an apples and oranges comparison for you all. the building to the north was built more than 100 years ago. it's also a historic resource. back when juri commons had a steam engine going through it. that's when it was built. saying a new one should come in and enroach upon what is now a public park is simply wrong. and that's why the department's analysis said that it was wrong. it said that the shadows should be limited. right now you're looking at the height of the summer solstice is more than five hours of extra shadow on that park. and it will cover a full 15% of the entire area of the park.

the analysis, which was based merely on the e.i.r. done for the area, eastern neighborhoods, didn't speak to it directly at all. it simply said that, you know, we don't analyze anything over 40 feet. therefore, it was anticipated. and, therefore, it's not significant. in this case, it is significant. and the staff recognized that, which is why we're trying to get reductions on the size of this thing. so, you know, if this is providing a huge setback, i guess both the neighbors are providing gigantic setbacks. because their setbacks are much larger. also this particular lot is much larger than the lot to the north that mr. keflynn keeps comparing it to. it's a wider lot, it's a much larger lot than a building built, you know, 100 years ago. [bell dings] so, you know, thank you for your

attention to this matter. we need you to take d.r. today. we would like to get setbacks on all of those decks, on the third floor, there's a front deck that should be set back. the huge deck on the second floor needs to be set back at least 5 feet. i would push for 8 feet. even though the two decks are very small on these, what's called the second floor, they are directly on the property line of building that's only one story tall to the south. and so -- [bell dings] every obligation would be appreciated. thank you for your attention. >> clerk: thank you. okay. you have two minutes, miss keeper. >> thank you. so you can call the proposed and required replacement units rent-controlled, but they're not going to be affordable. these are going to be market-rate units, larger than they were and expensive. if this project simply added the

new units within the existing footprint, let's say it went up two floors in the same footprint, all of those units would be rent-controlled. asking for eight rent-controlled units is not outrageous, especially given the loss of affordability we're looking at here. so thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. keflynn, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. >> clerk: i'm sorry? >> you can hear me? i didn't know -- i'm on. just one second. okay. thank you, commissioners. john keflynn here on behalf of the project sponsor. i'd like to first briefly speak to the tenancy issues on this site. and just reiterate what mr. mr. winslow had mentioned. we now have the rental board history for this site. the project sponsor has not evicted any tenants.

and there's been zero evidence of any other interactions with the tenants in this building. the project sponsor has been doing work in this city for 35 years. and feels very proud of never having evicted a tenant during that time. that's all i'm going to say about it. obviously we're here if you have any questions about those issues. it sounds like we're pretty close here. i mean, we've got a set of plans that we all agreed to last week. we are in support of staff's recommended conditions of moving the bike rack indoors. the setback on the 2nd floor and again defer to the commission on whatever it feels is appropriate on the ground floor. i just want to make the point, this commission has been encouraging all project sponsors to maximize density throughout the city. because we know we're in a housing crisis still. and in many instances, you know, requiring a single-family home to be a duplex, because the

a.d.u. program now allows for that. so let's keep our eye on the fact that one of the highest priority policies in the city is to maximize density. this project does it, not with larger units, with small units. and provides significant setbacks from that juri commons. and it does it in a way that's 100% code compliant, so i'll leave it at that. let me just mention staff does support the project, with these conditions as well. just correcting that. and we're here if you have any questions. thank you. >> clerk: great. thank you. okay, commissioners. we should now take public comment. and again, through the chair, members of the public will be provided with two minutes.

go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your public testimony? okay. that caller left. so we'll go to the next caller. go ahead, caller. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. you have two minutes. >> caller: okay. my name is layla stanley. i'm a concerned resident of district 8. i would like to read this letter from eddy steel, sent to the department back in may of 2018. i have his permission to do so, but it's also included in your packet. mr. steel was sounding the alarm that this project had on the lives of tenants from the very beginning. the planning department should reject this proposed project out of hand, because it unnecessarily destroys rent-controlled apartments,

leading to the likely permanent evictions of the permanent residents. like similar proposals leading to rent evisions, this -- evictions. however, the plans show a complete gut rehabilitation of the existing four apartments. all four apartments would undergo complete internal reorientation, existing two bedroom becomes a one bedroom, existing one bedroom abouting as two bedroom and the other remains one bedroom with a total remodel of every room. clearly the property owner and project sponsor are not designing the new apartments for the current occupants. the represent ordinance allows for the temporary eviction for capital improvement with a standard relocation of 90 days. at the march 22nd, 2018, reapplication meet, the project sponsor indicated that the proposed construction period would be 12 to 18 months. also at the meeting, the property owner disingenuously stated he had not considered a solution to the problem, which he could avoid if he left alone

the existing apartments. indeed, the planning department should so require. i -- [bell dings] instead it focuses on the property rather than on the profound impacts of the proposed construction we have on the existing residents, most notably likely permanent displacement. the planning department has this process all wrong. if 350, 352 san jose contains developable space allowed under the zoning codes and the project sponsor and property owner can design and mr. the project without affecting the current apartments in their occupants, what's the planning department rejects this proposal. [bell dings] >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. >> caller: hello? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: yes. my name is kathy lipscomb.

i'm a recent of district 8. i'm very concerned about this project. i speak in opposition. and in planning my testimony, i looked at the objectives of the planning commission, with the housing element in mind. and it says in part, retain existing housing units, promote safety and maintenance standards, without jeopardizing affordability. discourage the demolition of sound existing housing, unless the demolition results in a net increase of affordable housing, not the case here. protect the existing housing stock, especially rental units. until district 8le, where this property is located, they say the net new affordable housing build was only 244 units. the total new units constructed was 1,414. this is what we could call a big housing imbalance. the units removed from protective status were 605 in number, only exceeded by the

mission district 9 with 606 units gone. this is what we call a big housing imbalance. yesterday 923, the "san francisco chronicle" reported that the planning department data shows of the 19,718 net new units built over the past five years, only 23% or less than a quarter have been affordable. this situation is no longer acceptable. [bell dings] i'm -- especially jennifer fever and take goals in deciding this case. i am in favor of the suggestions that this jennifer fever has made. thank you very much for listening. >> clerk: thank you.

go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared? >> caller: yeah. i had to unmute. theresa here with senior and disability action. i'm calling in support of the d.r. requester's suggestions, above all we must preserve affordable housing in this situation in particular. we know that there have been buyout attempts made, prior to -- first with the pre-sale of the building back in 2017. and again asking two tenants to take buyouts so they could increase their profit in selling it. and again when the new owner, the current owner took over, it was also asking them to sign declarations of buyout discussions. a final buyout was never filed, although what we do know is that

that last tenant is gone. we also know that in february 2018, following the b buyout declaration, construction began, per the d.v.i. complaints. and while penny, who was diagnosed with cancer and then died within three months later, this is what she also had to live with was the construction. and so with stress of one and a half years of dealing with take a buyout, no doubt that this did, indeed, happen. but with confidentiality agreements, we cannot know that. the tenant is then forbidden from admitting that a buyout was, indeed, done, that they had taken one. and again because it wasn't filed, we don't know. [bell dings] and in addition what we know is there is no record then for the board of supervisors to track

how many buyouts have actually occurred, which are actually deemed to be evictions, given all of the stress that tenants are and -- that tenants usually go through. again you have 120 veran last year, commissioners, where 86-year-old couple and their child and grandchild were forced and swindled in taking a buyout and you denied that project. so please support the requester's suggestions. thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. the san francisco land use coalition. this is a case that demonstrates which we need to act on behalf of neighbors and city more broadly to protect all from the demand for greater and greater returns to developer's pockets. first, this should be project

tantamount to demolition, not a remodel. it has a lower threshold from the material removal to be considered. the sponsor's propose to move the fatalitied is by 8 feet forward to make room for the keanu project. we can't see how they can delete. keep in mind as you review the evidence, they bought 350 landlordses and at one point they demolished a cottage. third, there are more than 30l.l.c.s under one man's name. a number of them the addresses are properties purchased, gussied up, converted to condos or rent flipped. a lot of properties are with two or four units. this is a pattern that will continue unless the city stops it in the interest of upholding the general plan policy for

existing homes and protection of tenants thanks to the rent-controlled ordinance. please listen to the neighbors, the tenants' union and others and use your authority and discretion to take d.r. and remove the top floor expansion, make other recommended changes proposed by the d.r. provide rent-controlled units and be affordable units. thank you. >> clerk: okay. >> caller: commissioners, you need to reject the proposal until they're willing to scale back the square footage and eliminate deck close to the south property line and near the park. i'm a senior and i live right next door on the south side. my bedroom is 10 feet away. this oversized project is threatening to my daily life. if there were reasonably sized

project, i would not oppose it. but this proposal is anything but reasonable. it's massively out of scale and features second, third and fourth story luxury condoing with decks looming down on us and the park. this is a diverse low to middle class neighborhood. some i.a.s proposal is equivalent to plopping down a club med hotel with decks. it doesn't fit. the proposed square footage is three times larger than other buildings on our blocks and the decks and balconiys are huge. that element alone would disturb the lives of all neighbors who live within the shared, mid-block open space. a building of this size belongs on mission street near bart, not in a residential zoned neighborhood four blocks away next to a public park. this project has been in conflict ever since it began two years ago, two planners at s.f. planning told s.i.a. architects

to reduce the massing, add setbacks and the planners also said, quote, -- [bell dings] instead of following those recommendations, they arrogantly added square footage and balconies. that shows no respect for the planners, no respect for neighbors, or the community of san francisco at large. they seem thrive on greed, evictions and actual deaths of tenants. this is not about housing, it's about higher rents, speculators trying to buy cheap and sell high. converting middle class housing into upper class luxury units for higher profit. they are trying to squeeze low and middle class clients out of these numbers. stand up to the monster. make the units smaller and eliminate those noisy decks and balconies. >> caller: members of the

commission, my name is f. joseph butler. i'm an architect and member emeritus of the a.i.a. i represent the little house committee in this case. the planning department recognizes my dictation and experience as a qualified expert for analysis of cases under ceqamp. it matter mr. the demolition is tantamount at 350 san jose or completely demolished as at chestnut a couple of years ago. in both, the resources lost. simply moving category astripped them of historic significance in the eyes of the department that you govern, citing context, association with events or persons of historic interest to the city or the state of california and the degree to which the building conveys it's significant to the period are among the elements of integrity that must be established, to have a resource. the resulting loss of this historic resource, represented

by the design, is a negative environmental impact. that will cause a significant adverse affect on the historic resource for purposes of ceqa. the project sponsors both -- guardians of category a resource is both long and ugly. today 350 san jose is a resource. but this project will make it a mere billboard for the continuing it neglect of such resources by this department. cheaters never prosper. [bell dings] if you could lower that size, -- you could go against that. by movement and facade, splendid example of the -- [indiscernible] elder tenants were protecting their homes, where historic resources were protected, where the rules were learned by gentleman to be abided, not derided. thank you.

>> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. go ahead. >> caller: oh, good afternoon. i was one of the original d.r. applicants in this. and my apologies for not being able to join earlier on. i tried. i just add -- i was at 330 san jose avenue, the building directly to the north. i would like to focus for my few minutes here on just urging the commission to think through the easement in particular, the easement issue that directly affects us, the owners of the building next door to the north. that's 330 san jose through 340 san jose. we have gotten a long way in negotiations in the last few weeks. but i would urge the commission, when you are taking this d.r.,

to really think that through. because that has a tremendous impact on us on a daily basis. that's because the easement, which is 3, 4 feet runs -- if you look at that, the easement is the only -- it looks like it is exclusively for our use. it has been 14 years that i have lived here, exclusively for our use, our building's use. because there is a grade differential and it uses -- it is the only access point to our -- the front of our building. it is our front stairs to our front building. so if there were to become easement that is used by the neighbors, it would be a highway, if you will, coming up through our building, up to our front stairs, dedicated to our building. and that is why we urge the commission to follow the recommendations of both parties to move the bike racks, so that it will not be a lot of traffic

on through our building essentially, through our property. and move the bike rack to the front and make sure that the easement is for emergencies only. and it would not be a source of heavy traffic. that is -- i really just impress upon you the importance of that, this will upend our lives. obviously the building is very big. the buildings next to it are much smaller. so we are very concerned about that. however, you know, we're pretty far down the road here. i just urge you to help us out and protect our daily lives, with respect to the easement. thank you very much. >> clerk: mr. willis, as a d.r. requester, up a couple minutes, if you would like to expand on that. i will afford you that opportunity. >> thank you. i would just add, you know, this building is very big.

and the buildings -- our building and the building to the south and the two buildings are much, much smaller. so we are facing in our back buildings, in the back of where we get all of our sun on a daily basis is through our backyards. and so we just urge -- we really appreciate -- i have always urged the building to be moved up. i'm very glad to see that. it's being moved up 8 feet. i would really urge the commission to really think through cutting back the footprint of the building by some additional amount in the back, because every foot has a huge impact on our privacy and more importantly just a wall that will now take over kind much our pack yard area and the sun that we get. all of us at 3:30 to 340 get the natural sunlight through our backyard. so the wall there that is really going to impact us negatively.

so i'd also urge the commission to think hard about that to match the building. that's all i have. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. >> caller: hi. my name is renee curran. i am been a tenants' rights counselor for 11 years. i do take issue with the developer inning they've done no eviction. i believe that's splitting hairs. when tenants, especially in smaller buildings and this was a four-unit building, are faced with a buyout quote/unquote offer, this is coercion. and it is basically eviction through harassment and fear. and i would beg the planning commission to not reward this kind of behavior and to support

the d.r. thank you. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> caller: hi. my name is -- [indiscernible] i'm writing to express my total dismay in having the development project plans at 350, next door. i have lived in this neighborhood for a number of years. the street is a residential, quiet, and natural green spaces in the juri commons. more affordable housing will be built in the -- continuing to bring up throughout the mission and the noe valley. our street alone also i can count a dozen empty apartments that are being used for

short-term rentals, corporate housing or airbnb, which do not provide any housing for san francisco residents. the fact that another for-profit luxury development is being pushed through is wrong, leading to greed on the part of the developers. this project is huge. originally a modest four-unit building, now eight additional units i believe are going to be built, complete with a luxury penthouse. all cram into a tiny space. please consider the density of our neighborhood. i don't know why they're saying that the density suddenly is a good thing. in the covid-19 pandemic, where social distancing is the new normal, overcrowding for profit is not a reasonable nor desirable option. we must prioritize the greater needs of public health. also as other people have pointed out, this giant structural -- [bell dings] -- the juri commons and nearby

apartments creates shadow, blocking, sunlight and air. i guess that's the main points. also i knew other callers have pointed out that the other prior tenants there, maybe they weren't evicted, but they were pressured for buyouts, penny while she was battling cancer. i knew her personally. and so i really -- i'm just really, really deeply -- [indiscernible] i know the pressure that she was under. [bell dings] >> clerk: thank you. >> caller: good afternoon, commissioners. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. >> caller: thank you. my name is catherine kos it willo and i resides and own the property immediately to the south. i'm a retired from the city and county of san francisco after 30 years of service. i plan to live another 30 years right where i am, god willing.

this proposal as it is would have an enormous and completely avoidable negative impact on me and on everyone whose homes face juri commons and the interblock area. these owners have not -- these new owners have not been -- what they're showing you today, includes misrepresentations of my property, so who knows what other lies are included in the visuals they're showing to you and saying to you. no one is trying to stand in the way of added housing. 12 units or maybe now 13, it always gets bigger with them, can be built without being a menace to all of the other homes here and without towering over and spying down on juri commons park and its newly renovated children's play wher -- area, ts being constructed as i speak. i'm asking you to enforce the department's own excellent recommendations, specifically to decrease the mass of the building and to add open space,

without using terraces or decks. even one added deck would be a terrible noise and privacy nuisance for the whole interblock, nine decks in juri commons would ruin the sight and sound environment in the sweet and treasured block in san francisco. not to mention the decks would stare down directly on the children's play area. how creepy. please imagine it for yourselves and see that it's wrong. it doesn't have to happen. you can easily fix it. i am personally aware of 58 emails and letters that have been written to you from residents asking that you reduce the size of this proposal. i pray that the city politics have not reached the point where one developer comes in and calls their own shots, while everyone else who lives here has no say. i hope you won't ignore the voices of a san francisco school teacher, school district teacher, next generation san francisco whose family has lived alongside juri commons for three generations. a city college teacher, a disabled veteran, a longtime

head librarian and our poet laureate kim shuck, who have all written in and a whole bunch of others. please scale this project down. and don't allow -- [bell dings] and of our little jewel of a park that provides refuge -- >> clerk: thank you. that's your time. >> thank you very much. >> caller: hi. it's georgia. i support all the d.r. requesters. i was down there in march, i took a photo specifically of the rear. and i met a young man coming out the front of the building when i went around. he said he lived there. that was march. i said are the units nice? yes, my unit is very nice. a tenant living there in march. i have a question about the count -- accounts. the moving of the 23 feet forward. when the building set back down, how do you know that it won't

have been raised and have an impact on the counts as presented. with regard to the open space, it can be net without the large decks. by my math calculations, you need 1230 square feet of shared space and according to the a01, 1520 is available. those large private decks are contrary to the r.d.g. how do i know that? because i read page 52 of the residential design guidelines, chapter 7. special guidelines for alterations to buildings of historical and architectural merit. where it says, quote, avoid adding materials or features that were not historically found on the building. and that to me sounds like the weird decks with sliding glass doors and metal railings. and they are definitely not historically sound on the building. and the rear of this project

should be redesigned. but to look more reminiscent of the residential buildings from the era, wit porches with real backdoors, since the rear is visible from the public right-of-way and can be seen from hurricane juri commons. i think you should listen to what jennifer said. i had something else to say. i lot of my train of thought. i think that the neighbors all have it right. those decks are too big. thank you very much. take good care. bye. >> caller: hello, commissioners. district 8. zoning allows up to did units to be built at 353 san jose avenue. if the project s