>> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is bruce bowen from delores heights. i believe that 1142 26 street should not be continued. this appears to be a disingenuous trip to hide behind [inaudible] of a problematic project, especially a project that proposes to demolish two units. please do not grant the continuance and hear the project today. thank you.

>> oh, hi. it's georgia schiutish. i checked it out on sfgovtv, as i mentioned to mr. ionin about this. here are the dates, and you can check it out yourself. february 20, 2020, it was supposed to be heard and wasn't. it was going to be continued until april, and then, it wasn't because we had the shelter in place because of the pandemic. it was scheduled for april 30, and now scheduled for indefinite continuance in june, and now, today, a continuance on march 18. i just want to raise that for questions that the commission needs to consider because you need to consider it because of s.b. 330, as mr. bowen said. that's it. thanks. >> thank you for the

opportunity to speak. i am speaking regarding item number 2 on the agenda. if it's premature, let me know. if it's not, i'll continue. to continue, i do oppose the continuance for 1861, but if it's not continued, i will voice my opposition then. i am the owner of the adjacent property. my name is peter pappas, p-a-p-p-a-s. i do agree that cannabis has medicinal -- >> clerk: thank you, mr. pappas. this is only public comment to the continuance. >> thank you. does that mean i am to call in

then? >> clerk: that is correct sir. >> i won't oppose. i'll just wait until you let me know if it's going to be continued or if somebody's going to object to it today. >> clerk: very good. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is stephanie peak. i'm a member of the san francisco land use coalition, and i agree with the first two speakers that these continuances have gone on long enough, and i think it's a way that the sponsors game the system. what they're doing is converting two fine units into one single-family home. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment regarding the matters proposed for continuance. seeing no additional requests -- take it back.

one more. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzie reaume. i, too, am calling to object to the project on the 4211 26 street. we have had four continuances, and counting continuances as well as hearings, it is not okay to continue this project. there has been four continuances, and this project has always been problematic. the owners and project sponsors, they knew that this was a problem for the community and a problem for tenants' rights activists. the tenant was displaced. they just bought them for $6,000, moved them out, and now they're declaring this is a duplex, and all the time, they knew we were going to be

objecting to this. so here comes s.b. 330 waltz in to new bag of ammunition to silence the voice of the community, and i believe that they're just using this as a ploy to just get the plans rubber stamped without the commission's review or feedback and without the community's feedback. this is not okay. i do understand that per assigned planner, miss pantoja, the plans have been revised as early as a few weeks ago. however, this project has been continued while the plans were never revised. this is a new development, so what gives? we object to this, and we strongly believe that this project should be heard today. otherwise, because of s.b. 330 and because the city of san francisco has not passed an

ordinance to do a local implementation of this law with a better definition of what a continuance is and who can continue a project to the maximum number limited to five, i believe we should actually hear this project. thank you. >> clerk: okay. a last call for matters related to continuance. seeing no further public comment, the matter is closed, and the item is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. a question for director hillis or our attorney, mr. yang. can you speak to the five continuances for the s.b. 330, whether we're tracking that for projects that are continued and have a handle on it, and two, if we have any concerns about the number of continuances for

items, what our practice is or will be for those projects? >> director hillis: i will defer to mr. yang. >> sure. i mean, i think, you know, it's important to remember that s.b. 330 is effective january 1 in 2020, and i would have to go back and look at the date of the application for agenda item number 1, but it appears to predate january 1, 2020, so s.b. 330 would not constrain the commission to five hearings here. and then, whether -- whatever practices the department has, i'll let mr. -- or director hillis respond to. >> director hillis: i mean, i did -- i would just add, too,

and mr. yang, some of the continuances may be coming from the project sponsor itself, so it may not be that we're requesting the continuances. to be honest, s.b. 330 is not terribly clear on what happens after five meetings, so it's our hope to get this to you to the time you're continuing it, but i don't think we fall under any issues related to s.b. 330. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: so just to restate all of that, so it's perfectly clear to all of us and the people who called in, if we continue it today, we are not risking automatic approval of this project? >> director hillis: i would say s.b. 330s not clear. it doesn't necessarily talk about whether the project sponsor requests to continue it or the city or the department requests to continue it, nor does it say what kind of -- what the outcome is if we

exceed those hearings. i don't have that answer for you, and i don't know if someone from staff is here who can answer questions if this was continued at the request of the project sponsor or us. >> clerk: director hillis, the project sponsor requested this continuance. >> commissioner diamond: but just to be clear, from the city attorney's perspective, i don't know if you want to take some time to check the dates, but based upon what you said, it doesn't really matter whether it's the project sponsor or neighbors continues it, s.b. 330 would not kick in. >> i mean, i'd have to go in and look more closely at the application date, but the effective date of the legislation is january 1, 2020.

>> commissioner diamond: so could we -- are we in a decision to defer -- position to defer a decision on this particular issue? i don't even know if we can take this up today because i didn't see a packet attached to the agenda that would allow us to review that. >> director hillis: that is correct, but we can do that if you'd like us to. >> commissioner diamond: i think i'd feel better if staff had a chance to look at this before we defer this particular issue. i don't like the idea that we stumble into automatic approval. >> commissioner tanner: certainly. i would support that. just checking, it seems that our basic practice of how we name items and the date, it does seem to predate the law, but we would want to make sure. as we go forward with more

projects that are subject to s.b. 330, that we can just keep that in mind and that maybe, as part of the -- i don't know. i don't want to add another check box to some form, but for staff to keep an eye on the number of continuances, where the continuance came from. we can keep an eye on something as commissioners, so we can be mindful when we are hearing the item or continuing it. >> director hillis: commissioner, we are definitely tracking that, and we're asking project sponsors to indicate that they are asking for a continuance so it can give us some cover under s.b. 330, as well. >> commissioner tanner: okay. that's great. >> commissioner diamond: i would move to approve continuances on all items but this one and move to accept continuance on this item to the

end of the agenda. >> commissioner tanner: second. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: oh, i think commissioner diamond clarified what i was about to ask. >> vice president moore: so was that a second? >> clerk: that was a second that i heard from commissioner imperial. so this is a motion to continue all matters except item 1 as proposed and consider moving the consideration of the continuance for item 1 to the end of the agenda. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously, 7-0, and places us under your consent calendar for one item. this matter listed hereunder

constitutes your consent calendar and is considered to be routine by the commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. this item is 2012.0506-cua-02, at 950 gough street. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak on this item on the consent calendar and move to the end of the agenda. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed.

>> so moved. >> second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there is a motion and a second on the item on your consent calendar. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us under item 6, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for march 4, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to offer public comment on item 7. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed and the item is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: move to adopt the minutes from march 4. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us under -- >> president koppel: hey, jonas, really quickly, let me call on commissioner chan real quick. >> commissioner chan: great. so good afternoon, everyone. the spring equinox is just around the corner -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, commissioner chan. if i may call the item. item 7, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioner chan: thank you. so the spring equinox is just around the corner, andtion ande light at the end of the tunnel as we emerge from a long and

difficult year. i'm delighted to announce that this summer, san francisco youth will actually have many more options to choose from, especially if they are interested in exploring planning as a potential career path, and that is the spot for our san francisco young planners program. the mission is to provide paid opportunities for young leaders between the ages of 16 and 18 to explore the issue of urban planning and the city of san francisco as a living and breathing laboratory for knowledge. during this eight-week program, young planners are assigned a planning commission mentor and will have a holistic

introduction to the urban experience and planning. i want to emphasize that we want to encourage youth from neighborhoods with lived experiences in public housing, single-room occupancy hotels, and affordable housing projects. i have to say this project has been a dream for me for about eight years or more since i founded the [inaudible] in 2012, which was an effort to establish a community based program to introduce planning at a youth and grassroots level. since then, i think many of the youth at the institute have gone onto pursue graduate

degrees, so i'm just excited to see more of these types of programs and especially the opportunity to have those be expanded citywide. i think it's safe to say that many of our youth growing up in san francisco have a lot of expertise in how the city works. they have a vision for the future of the city, and i think these types of programs will not only serve to bring these valuable perspectives to the planning field, but in the long-term, allow the profession to be all the stronger for it. so to apply, the san francisco young planners application is live, and you can find more information on the planning department website, i believe on the front page, under news, and that will take you to the opportunities for all application, and from there, you can specify that you're applying specifically for the s.f. young planners program. i want to take a moment just to

thank everyone who was further involved with making this program possible [inaudible] from opportunities for all, nicolle rodriguez [inaudible] alvin youth works, director sheryl davis from the human rights commission, and i want to thank director hillis for your support and to my fellow commissioners for unanimously adopting the resolution for the institute's work of which i think this is one of the many concrete outcomes coming out of that. i look forward to welcoming the first cohort of this program and what -- look forward to

seeing what they have to offer for the future of our city. >> president koppel: thank you, commissioner chan. super proud of your work in the department and very admirable job. i think i have next, commissioner moore and commissioner tanner, if that's correct. >> vice president moore: commissioner chan, amazing work. you have been quiet about it, and i congratulate you for doing it. what is the time frame in which these young planners will be involved. is this in addition to the summer internal program? is it tied together -- there is a lot of room for having other people stand by and helping those young people understand planning and what it means? >> sure. so i think the program will take place from june -- i forgot the exact dates, but from early june to mid-august,

and it's understand going seminars, training. it's kind of a package of tours and then working on a project, that they'll provide a final deliverable at the end of it. i think the program that the planning department has had is a robust internship program, and we're excited to prioritize the youth that we've mentioned so far. >> vice president moore: so this will be in addition to the intern program. >> i believe so. >> vice president moore: that's great. i hope you will call on commissioners to help. i myself have actually tutored students for a number of years, and it's a great reward as you see them entering the profession as is the case with me. thank you very much, and i will support the program in whatever way i can. i want to thank staff for

putting out printed packages, as the commission have received. last time around, i had two copies of the more voluminous hyde street project. i found this very, very helpful, and i wanted to thank staff for supplying us with that information. thanks a lot. >> commissioner tanner: i just wanted to add onto -- or i do want to say something about the packets. >> clerk: i want to thank commissioner moore for acknowledging the staff that are in the department and printing the packets. i didn't realize you were still

in the queue. sorry. >> commissioner tanner: it's okay. i just wanted to echo what commissioner moore and chan said. i'm glad the vision that you had, commissioner chan, from eight years, is coming true. i know that many staff had the idea of something similar. i'm excited, so if you do need assistance over the course of the summer, i'm happy to lend my voice as needed or whatever the young staff or planners need that can further their experience, i'm happy to lend my voice. i know i was one of the only people in my graduate school program in my class, and i know we have a long way to go to get more black people and people of color in the planning program. i also wanted to just touch on

the wave of violence that we've been having across the bay area and the country. i know it's been difficult for our asian american communities to deal with what's going on, especially in the wake of the shooting in atlanta. whether or not that perpetrator, if there was any race-based motivation to his actions, it's very sad and shocking and frustrating to us, and many, many, many emotions. so i just want to encourage folks, it can be hard to know what to do in times like this, but showing strength and kindness to each other is what's needed. we also have a program in the area, the aapi staff hate. so if you witness a hate crime, you are the victim of a hate crime, please report it. they started it last year, and

continuing to collect incidences of hate crime. i hope that we can see an end to race motivated violence, and we can come together to denounce these actions and come together and certainly not to have any acts against people based on their race. i know it's a tough time for many in our community, and just want to say that we're with you and see you and are with you in spirit, and our hearts are grieving with you after this incident. >> president koppel: very well said, commissioner tanner. commissioner moore? >> clerk: commissioner moore, you're muted? >> vice president moore: i was respectfully pausing to acknowledge what commissioner

tanner said. i want to move onto acknowledge commissioner chan as well as commissioner tanner to think about the civic side of the young student program, the young planner's program. being a commissioner does not require necessarily to be a planner. it helps, and we have several people that are doing that. but when it comes to introducing people in that age group about it what it involve being a commissioner and being a citizen is part of it, and i would appreciate commissioners talking to young people revealing a little bit about that part, that part of involvement. thanks. >> clerk: okay. seeing no further requests to speak from commissioners, we can move onto department

matters. item 8, director's announcements. >> director hillis: thank you, jonas. i wanted to echo commissioner chan, who really inspired us to move quickly on the fellowship and the young planner's fellowship. you saw the success of our college internship program, so we hope and intend that this will be successful, so thank you, commissioner chan. and thank you, commissioner tanner, for your words about the growing antiasian rhetoric and violence that we're seeing in san francisco and around the nation. we're having various conversations at the staff level and hope to learn more, but i think it only heightens the importance of our collective work around racial and social equity, cancering racial equity in our housing element, strengthening our cultural district and the

equity budget tool to kind of our decisions around the budget. i think it underscores, too, the amount of work we still have to do, so thank you for those words. i'd like to mention two pieces of legislation the mayor introduced this week. one, which we've talked about in the past was to make permanent the shared spaces program. that doesn't have any changes in the program. it's only in the administrative code, so it may not come back to the commission. the other is a bit of prop h 2.0. it's continuing to make adjustments to streamline what prop h did -- streamline the process for small businesses to open in san francisco. amongst other thing, it reduces the number of use definitions in the code, expands the type of uses that are able to take

advantage of our cb-3 program, expands the 30-day requirement for ground floor uses and other things, but you'll hear more about that. that will be before the commission for your recommendation in the next couple weeks. and then finally, i just wanted to acknowledge the year anniversary of shelter in place and the hard work remotely and just thank you and staff for your continued flexibility, especially jonas and our commission affairs team who quickly adapted to this. i think we've had success under it, so thank you all. >> clerk: well, thank you, director hillis. commissioners, item 9, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of ael pa does. there was no historic -- board of appeals. there is no historic preservation commission yesterday. >> thank you, aaron starr,

director of legislative affairs. commissioners, you heard this item on september 24 and recommended approval. the item was also first at the land use committee on february 8 and continued to the call of the chair so that staff could brief supervisor peskin on the ordinance. this week, supervisor he is cane made some minor amendments, and the committee forwarded the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. the committee was scheduled to hear [inaudible] because resolution needed to be amended. at the full board this week, the rezoning for 118 to 134 kissling passed its second read, and the project approvals for 550 to 552 howard street received their first read, and

that's all i have for you today. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. starr, and i did not receive a report from the board of appeals, so that will conclude item 9 unless there are questions from the commission. seeing no questions, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items that are of interest to the commission except agenda items. each member of the commission may address the public for up to three minutes, and when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to get into the queue by pressing star then three. through the chair, you'll have two minutes. >> oh, good afternoon, again. it's georgia schiutish.

i just wanted to finish up when i ran out of time last week at 1647 sanchez, project that's never been occupied since it sold in july of last year for 9.1 million. the point i was making was that this should have been a demolition, a real demolition, but instead, they used the demo calcs so they could avoid the c.u.a. and sell it for 9.1 million. if the demo calcs had been adjusted once or even better still twice, that could allow for true alterations that could efficiently expand and even officially densefy our sound existing housing within the current planning code, and i did send some e-mails about it on september 8, 2020, with the photos of it before and after as well as what i sent last

monday, whatever day that was, about the demo calcs for the project and your draft approval motion. so that's it. thank you for letting me continue to talk about this, and take care. bye. >> good afternoon, commissioners. ozzie reaume with san francisco land use coalition. i'm just calling to continue the conversation we had earlier on s.b. 330. i totally agree with director hillis. the law, s.b. 330, is vague in terms of what is a continuance and whether or not the continuance without a hearing and direction is considered a continuance.

>> clerk: staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. good afternoon, president koppel and members of the commission. linda ajello hoagland, planning department staff. the project, which received approval in 2018, includes horizontal additions at the front and rear of the home and a vertical addition of approximately 7 feet, resulting in a 2,602 square foot home. the project has not changed in terms of its approved size, design, or features. the subject property is located in the noe valley neighborhood. the existing structure was instructed as a single-family

home in 1912. in 1915, the house was raised 7 feet, and a concrete foundation basement was poured, and a 4 foot by 12 foot addition was added to the front of the building. as detailed in your packet, the project was originally filed and reviewed in 2018 and 2019. during the neighborhood notification period, no comments in opposition were received. during instruction, additional demolition work that caused the project to exceed the demolition threshold outlined in planning code 317 had occurred. a complaint was filed with the department of planning on november 4, 2020, describing that work had occurred beyond the scope of the approved permit. an enforcement case was opened with the department of building

inspection shortly thereafter. d.b.i. and planning staff conducted a site visit in december 2020 to verify the vie -- violation on the site. in january 2021, the conditional use application was filed. the department recommends approval as no additional changes or modifications are noted to the project. the project is necessary and dieshl with the surrounding neighborhood and not determined to be detrimental to other areas of the city. this concludes staff presentation, and i'm available to answer any questions. >> clerk: thank you. mr. rogers, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you, and your slides are up, and you

have five minutes. >> excellent. thank you so much, linda, and thank you, commissioners, for hearing our conditional use presentation. again, my name is andy rogers. i'm the architect for this project, and i have with me here kristoff -- next slide. i have here kristoff, one of the owners of the property, with his wife, irina, who is expecting their first child in six weeks, and they would like to have this taken care of by then. the house was only 1200 square feet. that's not including an illegal added space. next slide, please. part of our challenge in getting them the square footage

that they needed for their growing family was that the existing structure was pretty small and is on a small site and set back much more than is required on all four sides, so we decided to get them a liveable house and decided to expand to the north and south and also to the west, and that made our demolition calculations a little bit tight from the start. next slide, please. but we went through a pretty lengthy design process. we met with neighbors and sought out their input. we got some key input, as well, from planning staff, including linda and david winslow, on the left is the facade as we originally proposed it. on the right is what we ended up with. i think it's a much more --

much better design in the end and that had the support of the neighbors. so we proceeded to the building permit, and construction got nund way. pretty soon after opening up the walls, we saw some structural deficiencies that we hadn't known to exist. as you can see on the left, there's the rotten wood framing, and the wood studs were actually buried into the concrete, which is an unusual situation, where there's no sill plate whatsoever. the contractors ended up rebuilding, new framing, which was required by the instruct al engineer. it was also required to meet building codes. however, we did receive a notice that there was a

violation. we proceeded to get the city what they required. i'll make a few comments and can fill you in later if that would help. you heard from georgia schiutish, and she was right. we were very close on our democalculations, and we came in just under the threshold. in short, there were several items that put us in this situation. i made a mistake when i did the demolition calculations. i was off on the horizontal portion of that. planning staff even missed a few things during their review. finally, we did try to meet with a building inspector

preconstruction to go over some of this stuff, and that didn't happen. next slide, please. but we did promptly put together everything that the planning department required, and interestingly, on the right, you can see the demolition calculations that we ended up with, which we did for chaska berger. significantly, we do currently have letters of support from both immediate neighbors. they support the project, they support the approval of the conditional use. next slide, please. in summary, i've learned a lot about the pretty complex planning process. i wouldn't ever let this happen again. we are very sorry to be in this situation, and the same can certainly be said for our general contractor. we appreciate your considering this conditional use to allow this project to get back

underway. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open it up. members of the public, this is your opportunity to comment on this matter by pressing star, three to enter the queue. you'll have two minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is jerry dratler with the san francisco land use coalition. good afternoon. my name is jerry dratler with the san francisco land use coalition. commissioners, i sent each of you a brief summary of the facts and pictures of the front and rear facades that show the original house has been demolished. the house is gone. there is no need for democalculations. why has the planning department not issued a notice of enforcement for an obvious

illegal demolition? has there been a planning code enforcement change at the planning department? i believe the enforce of the demolition needs to be approved before the project goes forward. i don't know why the planning department is allowing the owners to construct a house 1,000 square feet larger than the house being demolished. if the planning department rewards the sponsor with a larger house, the planning commission will be sending a clear message that illegal demolitions are no longer illegal. also, you know, i'm really tired of hearing of the glowing family and extended family justifications for illegal demolitions. thank you very much.

>> oh, hi. it's georgia. this is all unfortunate, and i think it goes back to the democalcs. if they had been adjusted since 2009, maybe they wouldn't have found this thing. i'll take him at his word, but i think if the demo calcs would have been adjusted, we wouldn't be in this now. there was another complaint about the roof line, that that wasn't accurate in the original plans. so there were two complaints; it wasn't just the complaint that i filed, so for what that's worth. i'm sorry. i'm sorry for them, i'm sorry for the staff that had to do more work in the middle of this pandemic, for the staff that had to go in the field.

i shouldn't have had to have this complaint, and they should have been in the house with their baby coming. i go back to the demo calcs. if they wanted to get rid of the house. it would have been tantamount to demolition at the beginning, regardless of fact that there may be a u.d.u. i don't think you should impose a u.d.u. on them. i think this is a matter of the demo calcs being shifted. i don't want a pirate victory where they're not allowed to have their house, there's a director's hearing or something like that. just adjust the demo calcs. that's it, and everything will be better. you can see the photos that i took from september through december. the addenda was issued august 15, so i don't know what happened august 15 to

september -- end of september, when i saw it. i just think please, just the demo calcs. it'll be better for everybody. take care, be well, be safe. bye. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. it's ozzie reaume with san francisco land use coalition. i am very much opposed to the demo calcs adjustment or readjustment because this is not a demo calc issue. aside from my personal belief that that is not going to stop demolitions and illegal demolitions in this case. this is a very open and shut case. either the contractor was unaware of the laws of the land and made a mistake or they

deliberately did this to demolish the entire house. if you passed by the house yesterday, there was nothing left, so this was not a matter of demo calc. even if you change the democalculations to, instead of having it at 50%, having it at 10%, this is not going to change it because this house has 0% left. it's a matter of going back to the person, the project sponsor and the owner that actually allowed this to happen and say, okay, you've done something illegal. are you willing to pay for it? and to me, the best way to deal with this and the best way to get them to pay for this arrear or illegal activity is to have them to build the house that this demolish, and if they want -- that they demolish, and if they want to expand it, have

them add an a.d.u. have them add a 600 square feet a.d.u. or second unit that's going to help our reallocation. i don't think building a 3,600 square foot single-family home because you're having one baby is going to be justified to demolish a whole house illegally. so whether the contractor made a mistake or whether there was purposeful -- whether this was purposeful, i think the only way to deal with this is to have a just punishment. let them build whatever was there, and then, if you want to add 1,000 square foot, have it as a second unit. thank you very much. >> hello? hello? can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> that's great. thank you. thank you for the opportunity giving me to speak to this

project, 403 28 street. the sponsor was making a presentation on slide three, how he got all the approval, full support from the community, and i, as a neighbor, i really don't think he achieved that. and to not only tear down this house, but also plan to rebuild it, there was no test pole, there was no really consulting the labor to actually build something for future over the roof line. if you really need extra space, look at the 419 28 street. it was the cathedral facade, but in the back, it was the flat roof. in the 403 design, you could do that, too. but i just don't think --

they're claiming that they actually worked with the whole neighbor and not intruding making their neighbor to lose the view in san francisco is true. i think it's violating the neighborhood and hurting their neighbor not able to maintain the same kind of view in the past. so i do not think whatever false work 403 28 street has done is actually really respecting the community and the neighborhood. i do not think that san francisco should approve a project having 4 feet over the existing roof line, not to mention the violation, and the demolition, but the increase of 4 feet in the roof because you are hurting your neighborhood from seeing the existing san francisco skyline, and your

neighbor paying over 20k a year for property tax, too. >> clerk: ma'am, your time is up. members of the public, this is your time to speak. seeing no additional requests to speak, the -- public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i regret to let my fellow commissioners know that this project today in front of us is quite problematic. it is unfortunately, before me, one project in a long row of similar projects where we had demolition that was not properly reported, became tantamount to demolish of various homes in the neighborhood, which all had a story very similar to what we

heard today. there's state street, there's alvarado, there's montclair, and the list goes on. the question is why is there nothing there? and i believe we may have to go back, as we did a few years ago, and ask perhaps d.b.i. to better understand what happened here. my understanding is that any contractor who wants to do work in the city of san francisco has to be familiar -- has to be licensed and has to be familiar with all the intricacies of a

building project here, and that holds true for everybody else involved in this, as well. i am having a hard time, and perhaps miss [inaudible] my understanding is the existing home was 1615 square feet. what's in front of us today is a home that is 2602 square feet. is that correct? [please stand by]

consequences and i'm at this moment, just curious what other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner fung. if you think . >> we received a complaint from a neighbor about construction debris that has gone on to their

property. can you respond to that? >> yes, i can. i did see that correspondence and right away got in touch with the general contractor. the general contractor was familiar with the situation and according to the contractor, they addressed it right away, a small amount of debris right away and took the outdoor furniture cushions and had them dry cleaned for that neighbor. it sounds to me it was addressed completely and pretty quickly. we were assured that wouldn't happen again going forward. >> okay. >> commissioner imperial. >> a particular project, and i

think when it comes to zoning, i'm quite -- i would like to adhere on the zoning we have, at the same time, the issue here is the enforcement and i really do think we've had the kind of cases where it's up to us to correct what the project has done and say that it's -- it's after the fact. i'm always curious what is going on as well with dbi and how the enforcement is going. but for us in planning, i would like to make sure that we're not becoming a scapegoat for the mistakes in the project. i do think this is in terms of the units, i think there is a

chance for the project sponsor to add additional units and not -- not that it's not going to more than 2600. what's being proposed to us right now, 2600, there's ways to adhere to the zoning that it is here. i would like to propose for the commission that we -- that we look into this project where there will be two units for this project and not one single family home. that's my comment. >> commissioner diamond. >> a couple of thoughts. first, a question for staff. did you explore with the project applicant the willingness to

consider the addition of ad to the project? >> there was a potential udu when it was submitted. we went through the process and it was determined they were not interested in pursuing a second unit at that point. although they might consider it at this stage. >> question for the project applicant and architect, have you thought about the possibility of adding a junior adu or adu and what are your thoughts on that? >> yes, we have. we have sketched out plans for that. it would for sure not be my client's preference but he also understands the project is in the rh-2 zone.

we did sketch out a plan and i'm happy to share that with the commission if it would be helpful at this point in time. >> yes, i would like to see that. before you do that, i have a question for staff. maybe it's the director. given the number of cases, it feels like whatever the building department is doing about contractor education is not sufficient. so i'm curious what conversations have taken place or do you think should take place with dbi about better information being provided to all contractors and architects on project approval and about what happens if they need to do if they feel like once they take down a wall, they need to go beyond the scope of what was previously approved. it feels we could have avoided the situation if contractors knew if they want to go beyond

the scope, the first call needs the be to dbi and that's not happening. i don't start with the assumption at all that people are doing it deliberately. i think they're in the middle of tearing stuff down and even if we -- who knows the people working on the project, it feels like we need a better education program. i don't know if you have explored that or what the status is of the discussion. >> if i may -- can you talk more about our -- how we interact with dbi in these instances and how we communicate the demo counts the them? >> absolutely. good afternoon commissioners. this is as you guys know, an evolving issue over the years but since the end of the latest effort to reform 317 we have been working with the department

in building inspection on two fronts. the first is they do working with greater level of construction. projects of this nature would be getting an inspection by one of the senior building inspectors to go through the issues of construction methodology. the city doesn't usually dictate means and methods. but the point of the preinspection is to articulate the calculations and the importance we have locally about retaining certain aspects of the building. i'm not familiar if this project received one of those but it should have if the initial construction occurred within the last year or so. linda should be able to talk about when the construction originally took place. that is an effort that has been a recent advancement. the second is -- we're issuing

a disclosure letter to the parties at play, the architect and homeowners and cc'ing others. it needs to be scrutinized highly and so the homeowners are familiar with the fact that they don't have a lot of wiggle room on the project. i would say those are the two latest items but it does continue to be an issue for projects that are very close to the demolition threshold. >> i'll just say personally, i don't know what we accomplish by punishing the homeowner in this particular situation. i take it as an opportunity to

figure out how to change our system so our contractors and homeowners and architects are better educated to avoid the problem going forward. i am interested in seeing, if it's okay with staff, the drawings that show what the addition of the adu would do to the project. if that's okay, can we put them up? >> absolutely. let me share my screen. >> can i jump in with a quick comment on the heels of what liz said. i agree with everything she said and i think those are very positive developments. i can't speak with what happened to the other projects referenced by commissioner moore but in this particular situation, the preconstruction meeting with the general contractor would have been really, really helpful. and it did not occur.

it was supposed to have occurred and the general contractor called in to the building inspector to schedule that. i don't know if it was because of the pandemic or what happened but the building inspector said to the contractor i can't make it. just proceed. had that meeting occurred, our general contractor i think would have better understood the process. they have been working in the city for a long time but haven't worked on a project this close to the demolition threshold and just didn't know the process to calling into the city if they needed to remove the wall in the plan. i think that really would have made a difference here. >> do you want to walk us through the plan? >> yes. so the top plan is the ground level of what was approved. you can see in the upper right toward the street is the entree, stairs going up to the next level and toward the back is a

guest room with its own bathroom and closet and the garage to the east. the bottom plan is an alternate plan that we sketched up recently which shows a studio unit, listening space that was previously a guest room could be with its own private entree, kitchen, bathroom and access to the rear yard. that is the best we could come up with without an overhaul of the design and structure put in place. >> your client is willing to do that? >> i think he's willing to do this if that allows him to proceed. certainly again, not his first preference but he understands the big picture of housing needs in san francisco. >> i'm interested in what my

fellow commissioners think. maybe even at last week's hearing, i'm not in favor of requiring a second unit. i'm in favor of encouraging a second unit and hoping the project sponsor does that. i would like to hear what my fellow commissioners think. >> commissioner tanner, i'll get you next. i wanted to put in my comments quickly. i don't feel great seeing these items. we have seen items like this, i get an uneasy feeling from them. i can't prove or deny anyone's lies or truths but i know contractors don't normally do work unless directed to with a design contract. i don't always buy the accident

issue. at what point after the demo and overdemo, at what point did the thousand extra square feet get installed? >> i can address that if that would be helpful. >> sure. anybody. >> the project was approved to be 2600 square feet. there was no point in the process after construction started where that plan changed at all. what is getting done now is what was approved. the problem is there was the removal of framing that wasn't supposed to be removed without prior authorization. there was no change in plan, no expansion of the square footage since reviewed.

>> i agree with most of the things said before. to me, what we're not dealing with today is the route cause and i think that's what we require. it's the same project that would be approved today. more of the existing building removed than proposed. kind of strikes as a little bit of misaligned that the goal of the program and calculations are to have a certain goal in mind whether it is for an existing housing unit or other goals and being achieved through

mathematically at the planning level and building conditions only known so far and we see the photos we saw. it seems we have good practices in place. the dbi pre-site inspection to try to prevent this issue from occurring. what would have happened ideally, the contractor would have called dbi and dbi would have come out to understand the work needed to be done. >> if i understand correctly

commissioner tanner. it would have come to the commission at that time as a demolition. >> if i could jump in. if the replacement is needed because of deterioration or dry rot where the building inspector has gone out and seen the materials and issued a correction notice, that's allowable under 317. the issue is kind of the order of operations and acknowledgement of building npgszs that that's a damaged piece of lumber that needs to be replaced and could be exempt. it's not an absolute that this would have come before the planning commission for 317 if the factors would have been proved as true through the proper protocols. >> thank you. with that in mind, we can't do

today is change our process or change the legislation, change how demolition is calculated or how we understand what we want to have happen when we rebuild homes but in this case, if the project sponsor and property owner is open to adding the adu, i'm supportive of that understanding to the project sponsor it's not the preferred option but given what has occurred, even if it was accidental, that would be something in line with our zoning and our goals to achieve housing. and hopefully provides your family living space in the two floors above to meet your family's needs. >> commissioner moore.

>> this commission has never heard dbi and planning talk to each other and if there's progress i would like that to be highlighted based on what is in front of us. with respect to what commissioner diamond said, i personally could barely see the drawings because my screen doesn't allow me to enlarge them.

i need to look at them independently of what is being asked to be approved. i saw a door that may not be in the right space perhaps, it looks too small to critically what needs to be understood and approved in the adu here. my discomfort about the project to demolition project remains and i am not prepared to vote on it today. >> i do feel it puts the commission in a position. there could be three units here, two with adu and the discussion

around acquiring a second unit, i would be in favor of that. i would want to see more specifications around the square footage. it's hard to make the decision on the fly looking at a map with a share screen feature. >> commissioner diamond. >> i pressed the button. >> sorry, commissioner moore, you're first. >> commissioner chan following up on what you're saying, i actually support your curiosity in really figuring out if we can do a full fledge unit and adu as you were saying in addition to what we should be doing in rh-2. i'm more interested in looking at the flat policy or equitable second unit rather than an adu which is an after thought. it is basically a place holder

that in most cases doesn't even get rented. i would like to see for the family to have adequate living space, however, using additional square footage, particularly the 1,000 square feet in the manner that creates not just an adu. >> commissioner diamond. >> first i want to acknowledge one of the comments that i agree upon, which is my decision isn't based upon the needs of the particular family that wants the unit right now or that owns it. i believe we should make decisions based upon the use not the user. and i agree with him, that shouldn't be a driving factor in our decision making. i would be in favor of continuing this to see more detailed plans on the adu. i agree with commissioner moore. we shouldn't just approve

something we flashed on the screen for a moment. i do not believe this needs to be a full fledged unit. i think that it is fine by me if this is a project with an adu, a single family residence but with the separate adu and i would be in favor of continuing this for a couple of weeks or whatever the time frame is to have it come back to us with staff having looked at the particular resolution. maybe i'd make a motion to continue for that purpose to see if there's a majority that wants to do that. >> i'll second that. >> do we have one more speaker jonas? >> we do have one more public comment. should we take them now? >> yes.

>> i just want to make sure the roof will not be increased. it needs to be -- >> ma'am i believe you already spoke. >> right, i did. >> okay. thank you. okay commissioners, i'm not sure if you want to deliberate further or call the question. >> we have the motion and second but did you have anything else to add? >> i have a question for staff. forgive my ignorance if it would be classified as adu or second unit, is it up to the owner to designate or is there size that would make it second unit or

accessory unit? >> i'm not as savvy with the adu regulations because they change constantly. in my conversations with the project sponsor, i recommended it be with full fledged unit. it is zoned for two units. >> right. the difference between what i understand and maybe this can be part of what comes back, if there's a difference for us as a department. what i hear commissioner moore saying is a full unit would be a full flat and it is the size of the unit is what she and commissioner imperial are looking at to see it is a larger living space. whether it is larger or smaller, it is the second unit in rh-2. maybe that can be further elaborated on. what that leaves then in the future is a third unit at the

site that would be the accessory unit. just furthering the need for it to come back to us and i just want to support what commissioner diamond has put forward. i'm not particularly needing for it to be a full floor or equal size flat for my preferences but i would like to see -- be able to see the plans that were shared today about the additional unit. >> commissioner imperial. >> i just wanted to thank commissioner tanner for bringing that up. when it comes back, at the planning commission again, i would like to see if the planning department staff has looked into the full fledged unit. i would rather see full fledged unit since this is rh-2 and we need to take advantage of the zoning laws we have in san

francisco. i support as well the continuance. >> do you have something to add? >> i wanted to add on the question of regular unit and adu unit. so typically when you're in a zoning district that allows for second unit like here, we would encourage the sponsor to have it be a traditional unit. typically the requirement is does it meet open space requirements and those sorts of things and appeared from the plan presented by the sponsor, this would be fully code compliant. in that case, it would count as regular under density unit so we include the future right on the property to include the adu in the future. first and foremost, it is under density. if you need variance, we would

encourage them to continue with the adu. >> very good commissioners. there's a motion that is seconded to continue the matter. no date is specified. may 6th seems to be the most appropriate date. is that okay for the maker of the motion? >> it seems quite far out there for plans that don't require that much revision. do we not have time in april? >> we can squeeze it in on any other date you would like. >> ask the architect. >> how much time do you need? >> we could meet tomorrow. we prefer to do it sooner than later. it's a hardship for our client. >> jonas, i would prefer a date

in early april. >> april 1st. >> okay. there's a motion seconded to continue this matter to april 1st with direction from the commission. (roll call) >> i want to make sure we are clear this particular redesign was density unit and not adu. i do not want to just see an adu in april. (roll call) the motion passes 7-0. commissioners, item 13, at 46

rancine lane, a discretionary review. we received a request for translation services on this item. and therefore we have arranged to have members of the public listen to the proceedings in cantonese by creating a translation room similar to last week for four different languages. today we're just doing one. basically to provide members of the public the ability to listen to the translation through their browser or their telephone. for members of the public, please call and enter the conference number or if you have a computer, you can enter the

bitly planning cantonese url in order to follow the translation services. sfgov tv will scroll the information at the bottom of the broadcast screen for the item. for the benefits of the interpreters, i suggest we all speak slowly and clearly for them to translate in real time. we'll accept public comment, members of the public who wish to submit public comment on this item will need to call into the web-ex, 415-655-0001 and enter

187-162-4407. if you need translation services please submit your testimony in short intervals to allow the translator to translate. if i could have the cantonese interpreter read this into the record please. (speaking cantonese)

>> thank you. mr. winslow, i see you are here with us and prepared to make presentation. we'll have the staff present, then the requester will make presentation and then the sponsor and then public comment. >> thank you jonas.

good afternoon. david winslow, staff architect. the item is a request for public initiated request for review, a building permit application, 2019.0923.2311 to construct a new single family home with ground floor accessory dwelling unit on a vacant tree lot on bayshore boulevard and rancine lane frontages. the building front is set back 16.2 inches from bayshore and 27.10 from rancine lane. no on site parking is proposed. the dr requesters are adjacent

number and adjacent neighbor to the north of the proposed project. the dr requester is concerned -- the project does not conform to be compatible -- >> david, i'm sorry to interrupt but you're going to have to kill your video. your audio is choppy. >> that's fine. how is my pace for translation? >> great. >> okay. good. residential design guidelines related for design of the building to be compatible with the height and depth of the particular buildings and to minimize for light and air and request the existing pattern of side spacing.

the proposed alternatives are to have the building face front base shore and design a building adjacent to two story garages and provide set-backs. the building is scale of proposed project one story taller than exist buildings and the generous front set-back in conjunction with the third story set back, staff deems this

moderates the scale appropriately. while four adjacent properties do have side set-backs there's not a pattern that necessitates this project to respond and therefore a staff deems there's no extraordinary circumstances and recommends the commission not take discretionary review. this concludes my presentation. i'm here and happy to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. winslow.

you can begin speaking any time. are you with us? sorry commissioners. i'm going to try to scramble and find his phone number in case he doesn't want his computer unmuted.

>> yes, i am. >> your slides are up and you have three minutes. >> before i start, i would like to point out there's a typo on the commissioner's parking lot where the arrow to the subject property is incorrect. >> okay. thank you. your time is running, sir. >> okay. the subject property is between 2184 and 2168. all the houses have bayshore as a front and back alley on rancine. the developerer proposed 32 feet, square feet two story over a baseline building on the 2195

square foot lot. historically the houses around the zoning are 12,000 not 1200 square feet with building to lot ratio of around 15%. the proposed building has a building to lot ratio of 150%. next page please. next slide. the height and length of the new building is not compatible to the surrounding house, making it out of character and atypical in our neighborhood. there are a couple of houses located on the corner of rancine and san bruno avenue that have a

lower level, it has a lower level of 200-300 square feet but still the houses are much smaller than the proposed building. it's three story building would block tremendous light and overshadow the house on 2158 bayshore. and next slide please. the deck -- the building would block his windows and from the deck, they can see all the windows. next slide. so on monday we had a meeting with mr. winslow and he agrees that the deck needs to have some

set back because of you can see all the windows in the front and the side. and stated that the 3-d drawings are required as new construction but somehow they were never submitted with the submission of the plan. so, they didn't submit it until we asked for it. >> thank you. that's your time. you do have a two minute rebuttal and commissioners may ask you additional questions later. we should hear --

>> can you hear me? hello? hello? >> i can hear that person. is that the project sponsor? >> yes. >> it looks like jonas dropped off. >> sorry, i'm still here. i was muted. sorry. are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. >> okay. are you on your phone or computer? >> i'm on both. >> okay. i'll leave both unmuted them. you have three minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm the property owner of the proposed project. failed to demonstrate why such concerns would result in significant impact and failed to suggest reasonable alternatives. on the slide you can see the middle green building is the

proposed building. next page, please. the application proposal did not follow and failed to meet design guidelines. in the existing picture, you can see it is filled with bushes and has illegal dumping. trash is scattered along the sidewalk. it will stop illegal dumping and enhance the neighborhood. applications failed to the scale is compatible to the surrounding buildings. compatible not to be misinterpreted to be the same. it doesn't have to be the same height around the buildings. proposed project is compatible and any differences are not extraordinary. next page please.

this is the rear view. next page please. application notes that the proposed project is out of context which is an opinion and all houses are two story businesses but houses to the west are three stories consistent with proposed design. next page. application then notes most importantly -- projects must respect existing pattern of size spacing. since both adjacent houses have size up acts, spaces on both sides. the applicant failed to reference size requirements. this map shows houses not standard 25 feet. there are no other houses on the

block 25 feet lot. next page please. application further notes can allow of sunlight used on a daily basis on ground and on-air during construction. construction will be within property limits. the guidelines assume impacts to be reasonable and expected as part of construction. it is unreasonable to expect no change after project just because adjacent areas are used to the site conditions. we propose to incorporate three feet wide landscape on side of patio to serve as privacy screen between their side windows. >> thank you. that's your time but you have a two minute rebuttal and

commissioners may ask questions later. this is the public's time. press star 3 to enter the cue. you have one minute. when you hear your line is unmuted, that's your indication to start speaking. go ahead caller. you should probably mute your television if -- however you are watching. go ahead caller.

>> i'm sorry this is eddie long. i'm on the phone. >> you're on two phones. commissioners, we have no members of the public requesting to speak on this matter. i will close public comment and then there's a two minute rebuttal.

>> we had a meeting on monday with mr. winslow and mr. winslow agreed that a set back is needed on the deck. but as of today, we have not seen anything on paper and in terms of what needs to be changed. so there's a lot of questions right now that seems like it's not being answered. actual i am requesting commissioners to grant me a continuance on this case because there's so many unanswered questions like on the drawing, there's -- it seems like a 40 feet height on the building and on the a-3, the basement finishes are six feet but on the

a-4 drawings there's a difference of 12 feet between the same floor and question about the amount of escalation, if the floor is minus six feet, we need a study of which -- mr. winslow said they needed to do a study. so like i said, there's so many unanswered questions, so that's why i'm really hoping the commissioners will grant a continuance to give us a little more time so both parties can sit together and try to resolve -- come up with some resolutions. thank you. >> thank you.

>> i disagree with the assessment. regarding the excavation, it has been submitted. if he's unsure of why -- maybe there's a question we can respond to and not postpone for a continuance. we did discuss at my presentation, we proposed to add planters, three feet planter at the patio to serve as a privacy screen. i did address that in the application. it meets my family's living needs and meets the standards and guidelines. none of the applications are

extraordinary. please consider approving this proposed project. >> and i wanted to add -- we're adding an adu which is occupy the entire floor. i think it's really good project for the city and we're adding housing. not just one unit. we're adding additional units. hello? >> yes, does that conclude the rebuttal? >> thank you. >> you have 30 seconds remaining, but it would be nice if you mute one of your devices. does that conclude your rebuttal? great, thank you. okay commissioners. i think that concludes the

hearing for this -- the public hearing portion of the matter. >> mr. winslow, i was going to comment on the roof deck needing to fall back on all sides and to come back by five feet. is that what you envisioned? >> yeah, it's a discussion around just a standard buffer, typical roof deck stance. it wasn't made as a you need to do this requirement but it was something for them to consider in an attempt to mediate some of the issues they brought forth. i believe the project sponsor would be comfortable with that

suggestion. >> i think since the other neighbors at some point in the future may consider building up or density, this is the safest way and makes the acknowledgement. what i mean by that, it's not just putting the planter in the five feet but basically pulling the occupied roof back. that would be my suggestion. i personally don't have problems with what is proposed here. i find the building fronting bayshore a good addition to the neighborhood and i'm in support of approving the project except for the roof deck. >> is that a motion? i would second it. >> i believe to impose that modification you would need to take the dr.

>> okay. i'm not quite sure. it's like lost in translation here. the applicant had talked with you about it, i assumed you already acknowledged it without having drawn it up. >> i believe the safest and most direct way of implementing that is to make that a condition. >> i'm making a motion to take dr, take the roof deck in typical five feet by all edges and approve the project. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. if there's nothing further, there's a motion seconded to approve the project with the condition that the roof deck be pulled in five feet from all sides. commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond.

>> aye. so moved. that motion passes 7-0. commissioners, that will bring us back to your continuance calendar through the chair for item 1. i'll let staff take it from here. >> i'll jump in. since the original item was at the beginning of the calendar, we have confirmation on a few

questions you have. this is the fifth hearing. however, all of those have occurred since january 1, 2020. most importantly, we have a letter in hand waiving their rights under sb-330 to waive this hearing as counting towards the five under state law. hopefully that gives you confidence to move forward and approve this continuance today. >> just to add to the comment, i think the intent of sb-330 was to avoid government delay of housing projects and as she stated all of the continuances have come at the request of the project sponsor. >> i want to add, i think you

have summarized things quite well but sb-330, there were questions about resources for the public and the director's bulletin is available on the planning department's website and does have a wealth of information. sb-330 created a new application process. based on my conversations with staff, the project sponsor has not invoked that application process that's required. that's something the commission can consider. >> the request for continuance is one week. (please stand by...) stand by]

[please stand by] [please stand by] please >> good afternoon. welcome to the march 16, 2021 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> thank you, mr. president. >> supervisor chan: present.