item 1, 20919-022661-cua, at 628 shotwell street. at this time of issuance, this was being proposed for continuance to june 3, 2021. it is now being proposed to be continued to july 8, 2021. i should also announce -- excuse me, and mr. winslow, we've received confirmation from the d.r. requesters? mr. winslow, are you with us? okay. >> yeah, we are still awaiting confirmation from two of the d.r. requesters on 3441 washington. as soon as we have that, i will forward that to you.

>> clerk: okay. we should take public comment on that. members of the public, this is your time to speak to item 1, which is being proposed to july 8, 2021. you'll have two minutes. >> good morning, commissioners. this is ryan patterson, attorney for the d.r. requester at 628 shotwell street. we can live with the three-week continuance, and we can even live with the continuance to july 8. there's no need for a longer delay, and i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you.

>> good afternoon. my name is tony ranner, and i am a neighbor two doors down from it. i just wanted to express my support for the project. i have lived in the neighborhood 15 years -- >> clerk: i'm sorry, sir. right now, we're only taking public comment on the matter of the continuance. we'll take up the public comment if it's heard on that date >> okay. i'd like to voice my objection to the continuance and hope that the commission hears the item quickly. >> clerk: thank you. last chance for public comment on the item to be continued?

seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed, and commissioners, the item proposed for continuance is before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to continue item as proposed. >> vice president moore: second. >> president koppel: commissioner fung. >> commissioner fung: can i ask again, what was the purpose of the longer continuance? >> clerk: is staff here to respond to that? >> yes, hi. the purpose of the extended continuance is that the project sponsor sent a [inaudible] first off, a letter to organizations that were interested in obtaining a residential care facility, and those organizations asked for more time so they can gather

more sources. they need to make a plan, and they need to get money to do that. >> commissioner fung: and how much time do they need [inaudible]? >> they asked for ten weeks. the board of supervisors asked for three. we have agreed with the project sponsor to the six weeks. that is fourth of july for then -- >> commissioner fung: okay. thank you. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners. there's a motion that has been seconded to continue the motion to july 8. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

7-0. placing us on item 2, consideration of adoption, the draft minutes for may 6, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the adoption of the draft minutes for may 6, 2021. seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to adopt the minutes. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved,

commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, placing us on item 3, commissioner comments and questions. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: good afternoon, everyone. i just wanted to thank the staff, particularly [inaudible] who arranged for a tour for myself and commissioner imperial for the new planning department, the new permission center, which is now getting ready -- already has appointmented and some walk-ins, and -- appointments and some walk-ins, and it was just great to see the new facility and the new location that our staff has to work at. i don't think there's a bad location on any of the three floors. it's great to see staff integrated on many of the new floors. i know that many staff have not been to their new offices yet, and their plans are underway for what staffing and scheduling will look like, but

it's a great city facility, and if you haven't had a chance to take a tour, it's great. it's a really dynamic facility, so i'm just really excited to see how we're able to use that. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: and i just would like to reiterate what commissioner tanner just said. thank you, [inaudible] for the tour. it's really nice to see them, and i hope -- i wish to see them in person in the future, too. and in terms of the permitting center, it's a really great system now. it's great that people are not being waited, and there's a better way in terms of handling

the applications. and the -- i hope the staff get to see the new -- the new building is really pretty, in a way that i think -- thankful for the staff in a way that you provide a service to the city, and we really need to take care of the staff, as well. in terms of different agencies being in that building, i think it will be great to have faster communication. i think it's great that everything is in that house in that building, or most of the agencies are in house in that building. so i really appreciate it, and i hope other commissioners appreciate, too. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the commission, we can move onto other matters. item 4, department matters and director's announcements. >> director hillis: thank you. i think most of you are going

to come and take a tour of the permit and office center, so thank you -- even though we're starting to see more activity here in the office and more employees here, there's been a core group who have been coming in throughout the pandemic, and just a special thanks to them. a couple of items. we're going to be here june 3 to give you a more detailed briefing on our yslais creek project. we did have two meetings this week on tuesday and wednesday. i want to thank supervisor president walton who attended the tuesday meeting. i think overall, you'll hear more about this in june. the meetings went well and the

residents were keen on seeing more investment in the neighborhood. i also wanted to let you know that supervisor mandelman introduced -- and there was an article about it in the chronicle -- that will allow for four residential on corner lots in residentially zoned neighborhoods that don't allow for four units. that legislation will have to go through environmental review, most likely an addendum to our existing elements, e.i.r., probably will be in front of you in three or four months. just wanted to give you that heads up, and that's my report. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, director hillis. if there's no further comments, we can move onto item 5, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals,

and historic preservation commission. >> [inaudible] to allow existing liquor stores in polk street neighborhood benefit district [inaudible] with modification. those modifications were in two parts. the first recommended that the creation -- recommended the creation of a new temporary use permit for legacy businesses seeking to relocate, and the second part included [inaudible] to the ordinance in its current form. at land use committee, supervisor peskin recommended that due to the tight timeline for the [inaudible] shop, the [inaudible] and the duplicated files would remain in committee. next on the agenda was the mayor and supervisor haney's ordinance that would allow

certain projects to proceed while a ceqa appeal is pending before the board of supervisors. the criteria is as follows: the project has to be related to a safety health measure necessary to protect the public, public employees, or public property. a temporary activity lasting no more than 180 days, and a reversal activity that is limited to additions that can be easily removed without damaging the site. the ordinance also [inaudible] or for properties under leases from the port commission. appeals of such projects would require 50 san francisco residents or five supervisors to subscribe to the notice of appeal. commissioners, you heard this item on february 25 and unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance. during the hearing, supervisor haney was present as one of the sponsors and introduced

nonsubstantive changes regarding the verification process. supervisor preston concurred with supervisor peskin, reiterating the infrequency of these appeals. he also expressed concern that environmental groups are not in support of the ordinance and would note that one of those groups, sierra group s.f.a. chapter has voiced their opposition for the ordinance. during public comment, there were over 30 public callers with a two-to-one split in favor of the ordinance. supervisor peskin voted to table the ordinance with

supervisor melgar not in dissent. at the full board this week, supervisor peskin's ordinance that would allow the temporary closure of liquor stores in the polk street district [inaudible] and that's all i have for you today. >> clerk: if there are no questions for mr. starr, the board of appeals did meet last night and considered several items that would be of interest to the planning commission. first, the planning department staff, miss jardines and miss connor presented implementation of s.b. 35, and the board requested, after hearing the first appeal, recommended approval of s.b. 35. the board adopted a resolution encouraging the status of

notice of all tenants where improvements are had. 4326 irving street, an appeal of a building permit application for a fourth floor vertical addition and expansion of three dwelling units, the appellants raised a variety of concerns related to the proposed addition which was a staff related d.r. on august 9, 2020. on that hearing, the planning commission voted unanimously to take d.r. and reduce the size of the fourth floor addition. the board voted unanimously to deny the appeal with the planning commission's discretionary review commission. the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and considered a couple of

items [inaudible] first being the first of the i. magnin building on geary street to mixed residential units. and secondly, they considered an art installation to install illuminated letters on the spreckels music band shell.

if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public captain may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on items that are not on today's agenda by pressing star then three. through the chair, you will have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia schiutish. the e-mail i sent with the pictures on tuesday was for two side by side alteration

projects and one of them sold in january 2021 for $9.5 million. the other sold two years ago for $8.7 million. after i sent the pictures, i remember that these were projects where someone coerce impersonated me. anyone looking at the google earth photos sent to you by the commission would find this reasonable to question the demo calcs. the calcs for the two calculations did not cross the threshold but were within a few points of doing so.

the two projects in the photos and all the others like them do not get the attention they should have the decision makers, but the outcome is the same. they should get the attention of the public and the commission. the two projects use the current democalcs do not comply with the intent of the housing element of the general plan. please look at the facts as shown in the last two slides and as i wrote in my e-mail to you. thank you very much. take care, be well, be safe, be happy. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and staff. my name is kathleen rock, and

i'm calling regarding the upcoming second c.u.a. hearing for 239 texas street on june 3. i'm the owner of the building adjacent. in a few weeks, the demolition of this building will be heard by you. on march 4, many people came forward to voice their concern about the sponsor's failure to state facts. if not for the neighbors' diligent, the commission would never have known about this unit which would have resulted in the removal of affordable family housing that is so critical for san francisco to retain. i want to thank those commissioners who listened to the neighbors at the march 4 hearing and heeded our concerns

by ordering the staff to investigate the serious omission further. i am hopeful that the commission will hold current and future sponsors accountable for these types of blatant omissions. the commission needs to send a letter and author thaitive message out to owners and developers, especially those that are wealthy and influential that this won't be tolerated. thank you very much for hearing me. >> hello, commissioners. my name is russell maureen, and i called in last week to talk about public comment to talk about a project that you're going to hear next week about another cannabis retail location coming to visitacion valley at 5 leland, and i just wanted to give a little bit of background because i know next week, it's going to be

contentious, and a lot of suggestions and ideas might get lost in the noise. i just want to give a little bit of the background that this project started way back in 2017 or 2018, and it was more or less continued due to the efforts of the project sponsor because of the changes to the planning code section 202. that really clarified where cannabis locations can establish themselves. if this application was filed today to open another cannabis location on that location, at that location, i would be automatically denied because it's within 100 feet of another existing business. i think they're trying to get

something open that is not clear based on the planning code. the last time they were trying to get it established, commissioner moore was on the planning commission, commissioner hillis. when prop 64 passed in california, legalizing the recreational marijuana, san francisco passed it overwhelmingly, but there were four or five precincts in san francisco that voted no, and it just happened that one of those precincts is on this block, a block that they want to put two locations. one is good. we don't need two, so thank you very much for living, and hopefully next week, we'll have a good debate on that, but section 202 says you can't have two within 600 feet. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, sir. that's your time. >> linda chapman.

i want to say first -- express my appreciation for scott sanchez getting in touch can me again to let me know that he's relocated two more of the rezoning maps to show that the maps were issued that i got copies of last summer are completely false, and i so he and are to get -- and so he and i are to get together to go over the entire area between polk and van ness. somebody has issued false maps in the case of that california and polk street project that was up just before you. i'm going to have to ask your indulgence and come in a few times to ask to set the record straight because my area has

been turned into a development area. i know you are public servants, and you do a tremendous job of studying these things up, but when false information is presented to you, and presented by false groups pretending to represent the neighborhood, groups like lower polk currently, it does the most tremendous job of defeating the people who actually are affected, such as the neighbors, for example, in the case of the grub stake site or such as robert varney, who was leading that 900 members of the nob hill association at the time they were fighting the masonic, and up pops this group calling itself the nob hill coalition that defeated robert varney and the 900 members of

the nob hill association. so i'm going to be bringing up these associations that deserve a rico investigation, and where they are encouraged -- you know, call me old fashioned, but i was trained -- >> clerk: thank you, miss chapman. that is your time. >> hi. is this the time to make a comment on 217 hugo street? >> clerk: no. 217 hugo street will be taken up later in the calendar. >> thank you. >> clerk: any other members of

the public wish to speak? seeing no other members of the public who wish to speak, public comment is closed. we will move onto item 6, 2020-007074-cua at 159 laidley street. mr. horn, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes. the 2500 square foot lot has 25 feet of frontage. the lot slopes down towards the rear. the site is currently developed on an existing 2,614 square foot three bedroom, three-story

over basement dwelling constructed circa 1909, and the existing building is three stories tall with a gabled room. subject property is located on the northside of glen park and parcelled within [inaudible] constructed mostly between 1900 and 1920s. a second period of development between the 1940s and 1950s, and several more recently constructed buildings. subject lot exhibits a great deal of styles -- the project

is code compliant, and the facade includes items that are architectural in nature. at the time of the case report's preparation, no comments had been received. since the noticing of the project for hearing, one comment letter in support of the project has been received from adjacent neighbors to the west at 157 laidley street. there are two items in the case report package that i would like to address. the first is an error on the land use table. to correct this, there is just one single-family home. item 2, within the draft motion, staff would like to amend the language to section

101.1-b findings. priority principle f, which reads, the city achieved the greatest possible preparedness in case of emergency available. in summary, the department finds the project is consistent with policies of the general plan. the replacement home will provide an increased number of bedrooms suitable for families. the overall scale, design, and materials of the proposed building complements the neighborhood character with a contrary yet context al design. the department finds that the project is necessary and

desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. this concludes my presentation, and i'm prepared to answer any questions. >> clerk: thank you. project sponsor, are you prepared to make your presentation? mr. gibson? mr. gibson, are you with us? unfortunately, it does not appear that mr. gibson is with us or if he is, he might be having technical difficulties. okay. in light of this, why don't we open up public comment and see if mr. gibson calls in.

the person just requesting to speak lowered their hand -- oh, they're back again. through the chair, you'll have two minutes. >> hello. this is jeff gibson. >> clerk: okay. mr. gibson, you have five minutes. >> okay. thank you. so i'm hear before you for this conditional use authorization for the demolition of this existing nonhistoric single-family house and its replacement with a new single-family home. thanks for taking the time to review this project. we've been working closely with jeff horn and the team and we're pleased that they're recommending approval now. we don't know of any neighbor opposition. we have the support of the neighbors at 157 laidley. no one has been in touch with

us from the planning department, and we have been in contact with everyone who attended the original preapplication meeting, updating them along the way, and they haven't expressed any opposition, so we feel good about the neighborhood support of the project, hopefully. let me take a moment to introduce the clients. tak and rebecca are on the webex. they're moving back to the city after being in the suburbs. they have three children who live with them, and they frequently have extended family visiting for long periods of time, as well. they're going to be living in this home. it's not a development project. it's designed for them and, you know, at the beginning, jeff horn outlined the square footage of the project, but that's a stacker project,

garage space, crawl space. it's a modest family home with 3300 square feet of family space and four bedrooms. we're really not trying to design a massive house here. it's to meet their needs. we're working with the down slope lot, sort of tapering and terracing as we go. i want to talk about the c.u.a. and while we're pursuing full demolition in this case. i think the commission is familiar with this work. at the outset of every project we do, we take a look at section 17 to see how the demolition calculations would work. we started this project as a he remodel, removing the rear and squaring it off, but as we got into it, we realized there were three conditions that would probably push us to toe the line or cross the threshold and

we thought we would show you what we're doing and do the right thing, so i'm going to briefly explain the three project specific conditions that i think push this project to demolition. one of which is the house is just not well built. if you look at the photograph in the upper left corner, there's been a lot of strange d.i.y. work done on it over the years, a lot of structural compromise, and we believe there's probably a lot of stuff hiding in the walls that's going to spook us later. we felt it's really a mess, and as we start construction and opened up the walls, even if our modifications work, we'd discover things that needed a lot of remediation. secondly, the house was

originally built without a survey. a couple of spots are built over the property line and encroaching on the neighbors, and that makes it awkward when you remodel the house, so trying to add onto a building that's already skewed on the lot is a real challenge, but then demolishing those skewed walls pushes us over 317. and then lastly is the soil quality in this area. when laidley street was originally graded in this area at the turn of the century, they graded the hillsides and dumped it onto the side of the hill on these down slope lots, so the soil beneath our house is unconsolidated fill. it's actually quite dangerous.

the foundation that's there is not safe today, and in order to gain access to the foundation and work on it and build a foundation, we would really be tearing the house to shreds, as well. we understand the intent of section 317 to retain sort of relatively affordable housing stock, and in this particular case, trying to work within and around the existing house would just make the project more expensive and onerous. we've designed a -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. that is your time. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioners may have questions for you later. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star, three to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners, public comment

is now closed, and this matter is now before you. >> president koppel: as we're waiting for the other commissioners, it's reassuring to see staff come before us and tell us what's wrong. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i think they've done a good job in satisfying the contextual status of the structures around them, and i am in support of the project. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: when you see projects being torn down, have you considered adding an a.d.u. or a second unit? there's a question for the architect. >> am i unmuted? >> vice president moore: yes, you are now. >> okay. thank you.

yes, we do always look at that possibility. in this particular case, because of the down slope lot, it would be difficult to do and maintain the circulation to the downward lot, access to the back of the lot and the garage, and the pathway to the house to a reasonable location for the a.d.u. was not really possible, but we have, in this project, developed kind of a guest space on the ground floor which is actually geared towards extended stay by their family, which is often the intend of a.d.u. units. so we didn't feel it was possible to add a few a.d.u., but we kind of have tried to add a true extended flexible family home. >> vice president moore: i appreciate the comment, and i am in support of the project.

thank you. >> president koppel: thank you. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i am glad that commissioner moore asked that question. that was one of my question. another question, when i looked at this project at a high level, i was concerned that it was a very large home with no second unit, but then, i was seeing 1100 square foot are nonhobbitable. could you go over what is making -- nonhabitable. could you go over what is making that space nonhabitable? >> okay. can you hear me again? >> commissioner tanner: yes. >> okay. jeff horn, if you could advance the slide, there's a definition of habitable and nonhabitable -- that one, perfect. so yes, because this is a down

slope lot on the two lowest levels of the home, the two upper levels of the home are street level and one up, and the two lower levels of the home are basically below grade at the front, and so our nonhabitable zones are the garage on the ground floor, which are shaded green, and then, when you move down to the right, it's a car down. it's a secondary stacker garage, which is nonhabitable, and then, when you go down another level, there's sort of a crawl space garage level behind. basically, when you total all these things up, the habitable area occupied by the family is only 3347. >> commissioner tanner: which i thought was a much more

reasonable size. [inaudible] >> commissioner tanner: the third story that's there, is that because of the location or limited or no access to light. is that -- or is that just in terms of wanting storage rooms there? >> it's really because of the light. so on that area, it's 100% buried in front because of street level. we thought how could we make a bedroom there? there's just no way it's going to have any light at all. it's just going to be a raw unconditioned storage room. i wish -- maybe the planning department required an architect that submitted plans like this. i think when you dig in to what's often habitable and useable, it's a different story. so we're trying to dig in and

help you guys, and we hope you appreciate it, as well. >> commissioner tanner: i think this home is appropriate, and i think the design was appropriate. i do think the topo graphy of the site makes it challenging to build a second unit. it could be done, but certainly not without some challenge and certainly some compromise to the home that is being replaced. so i'm supportive of this project, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you, mr. [inaudible] for your thoughtful -- well, first for the thoughtful plans and also when it comes to the issues of a.d.u. and also the [inaudible] around the issues of megamansions because those are things that also come up to us in the planning commission. and i guess i have another

question to planning department staff or perhaps just the planning director. when we look into demolition and construction, and when we look into the square footages, i think we have commented several before that we would like to see an a.d.u. how could we incentivize project sponsors or what are the qualifications, what do we look into in order to encourage people to add an a.d.u.? >> so generally, we don't have any required policies to go beyond the underlying density,

the findings of 317 [inaudible] we have these discussions with the project sponsors from the beginning, if possible, [inaudible] as a single-family home. >> commissioner imperial: so i guess that would have to be a policy in order to look into the a.d.u. [inaudible] what are the qualifications for the h.r. -- you know, the technical side of our a.d.u. program, so that's something that the planning or i guess there are some -- i don't know how far that they're getting into that, but that's

something we've been hearing at the planning commission about the megamansion and hoping to see an a.d.u. i would like the other commissioners what they think on this, but looking at what the purpose of a.d.u. and what could be the incentive for a.d.u. and for the planning to incentivize, too. so thank you -- and i'm also supportive of this, and thank you, mr. gibson. >> thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i'm interested in the commission picking up at some other point, not today, when enlargements pick up another unit or a.d.u., not today. mr. gibson very clearly explained what the habitable space in this building will be,

but there are many other cases where the enlargement is such a scale that one cannot ignore the fact that some projects are intensification. that said, i'd like to make a motion to approve the project. >> commissioner imperial: second. >> president koppel: next up, commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i was going to move to approve. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there's a motion to approve the c.u.a. with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

7-0, and that places us under our discretionary review calendar, where i am pleased to tell you that item 9, 2020-007734-drp has been removed from the calendar. they are pleased with the alteration from the project sponsor, so item 9 has been withdrawn. placing us on item 7, 2019-019822-drp at 40679 sever chaz street, a request for discretionary review -- cesar

chavez street, a request for discretionary review, where i am pleased to tell you that an agreement has been reached, but i'll let mr. winslow tell you about that. >> thank you, commissioners. david winslow, planning department. d.r. requester and project sponsor have agreed to sloping the stair and removing the pop out at the second floor 3 feet to the east to better preserve the light to d.r. requester's side facing windows. it complies with the residential design guidelines related to articulating the building to minimize impact to light and privacy and scale at the rear and access to mid block open space. therefore, staff recommends

taking the d.r. and approving the proposed modification. this concludes my report at 4079 cesar chavez. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow. i don't see the d.r. requester in our attendee bucket to afford them the opportunity to address the commission, but i do see mr. [inaudible], so because this was not withdrawn, we should provide them with the opportunity to speak. mr. pashlinski, you have three minutes, and you don't need to use all of that or any, if you so choose. >> so commissioners, can you hear me? we've worked almost two months back and forth with different ideas. david winslow was very, very

influential in help us come to a decision. i think it's a nice ending to something where, you know, provide the adjacent owners some more light. they seem to be pleased by that, and so we were able to reach a resolution, and that's all i have to say. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star then three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional -- or seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and this matter is before you, and so to just remind you, staff is recommending that you take d.r. and approve the project with the modifications read into the record by mr. winslow. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i move to take d.r. with the modifications read into the

record, and i'm delighted that the modifications were accepted in a manner that very clearly expressed the d.r. requester's concern. congratulations to everybody, and thank you, mr. winslow. >> commissioner diamond: second. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: mr. winslow, do you have a response made by the d.r. requester in their last e-mail? >> i do. you know, i felt they were moot at this point, but i'm ready to read those into the record just for edification. so the hearing date for this item had been continued twice from the original hearing date of april 15 to april 29 and then to today to allow the on going negotiations between the project sponsor and d.r. requester. on the eve of my deadline to publish the packet, may 10, i requested or i informed both parties that i would need any final materials that they wished to have included into that packet in order for that

hearing date to be maintained. this was intended primarily for the project sponsor who had been engaged in several revisions and alternatives and attempts to address the d.r. requester's concerns and resolve their issues so that i would have a final plan for inclusion into that packet that i could base my recommendation on. that was received. no other materials were required or necessary from the d.r. requester, and on may 17, i e-mailed a reminder to both parties about today's hearing date, informing them of the date again and requesting their e-mail, phone number, contact information to participate in this hearing, and per our standard procedure, staff set the hearing date. no further request was made to

continue this until i received an e-mail this monday, i believe, may 18, from the d.r. requester, indicating that they had no idea that that hearing date was in place, and it wasn't confirmed. the project sponsor was not willing to continue that, but all due notice had been given per standard procedures, so... >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow, if there's no further debate from members of the commission, there has been a motion to take d.r. and approve the project with modifications read into the record by staff that has been seconded. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and will place us on item 8 for case 2019-0199373-drp at 217 hugo street, a request for discretionary review. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. this is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit application numbers 2019-0730.7350 and 2019.0730.7351 to demolish an existing one-story commercial building and instruction a

three-story over-garage building with two dwelling units within an rh-2 zoning district. this was supposed to be on consent last week to memorialize a change, a change specifically that was requested and adhered to by the project sponsor was to reconfigure the third floor to create a 5 foot by 12 foot set back adjacent to 250 hugo street, the requester's property, and number two, to reduce the roof

and provide a privacy screen that extends 2.5 feet above the side of the deck and additionally to provide frosted glass windows at the light wells adjoining the d.r. requester's property. therefore, the staff's recommendation was to also take the d.r. and approve as modified to memorialize these changes, and to my knowledge, the d.r. requester was satisfied with these. however, on the eve of the hearing last week, we received 45-plus e-mails from neighborhood residents concerned about the project mainly from noise disruption to commercial establishments adjoining this property, and therefore, it's not on consent and before your review. this concludes my presentation, and i'm willing to answer

questions. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow. d.r. requester, you have three minutes. >> yeah, thank you. david, do you have the -- yeah, thank you. i think i'm just going to give a brief statement, and i think the first page is helpful to illustrate context. we don't need to go through the entire presentation. i made this when we were negotiating with the design team just to clearly illustrate our issues. so good afternoon. my name is amir cunan. i live at 230 hugo street. my wife's family has lived in this house since the 1970s, and we've lived here together since 2000. during this time, we've enjoyed

abundant light on the east side of our home. when we learned that a four-story home was going to be instructed next to us, we carefully reviewed the plans and filed a d.r. request to address our concerns about light, privacy, and noise. it was during this process that we learned that due to the current political mandate in san francisco to create as much housing as possible of all types, ranging from low-income to luxury condos, and the fact that this project met the planning department's requirements, the development was most likely going to be approved. we decided that our best course of action was to work with the design team to lessen the negative impact on our home. we don't believe that the demolition of the dance studio on this site and the construction of two market rate units is in the best interest of the neighborhood, we eventually reached an agreement with the design team on some

modifications to the plans as described earlier by david that allowed slightly more light, air flow, and privacy, and we gave our consent to those changes. however, we are not the only residents of this neighborhood who will be affected by this project. we understand that the owners of businesses on this block, along with the communities that they serve have their own concerns. we are pleased that these groups will have an opportunity to voice their opinions about this project at this time. thank you. >> clerk: mr. vin, you have three minutes. >> hi. good evening, commissioners, and thank you for allowing me to speak. i would like to say thank you to mr. winslow for including us in this process, and i would

like to thank mr. amir to work with me on the design. the ownership has always wanted to work with the neighbor on the designing of projects that not only fit in the neighborhood content but also to attract more businesses. i don't have much to add. i understand that there are going to be public comments that are going to come in that have some concern about parking and construction noise and issues. i responded in an e-mail to one of the public -- one of the neighbors, his name is bill, and i will see if there are any other questions that i would like to answer, and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. for members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star then three to

be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, this is your indication to begin speaking, and through the chair, you have one minute. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] and i own and run baddy philosophy, a clothing store that is 15 feet down the sidewalk from the proposed project. i've lived in the city for ten years and in the inner sunset for five. i opened my shop, a lifelong dream, in 2019. i don't mean to get emotional, but my business is really important to me, and after 14 years of covid induced hardships here on the block and just as a business owner in general in the world, two to

three years of construction 15 feet away from my business could really just sink me, and this business is right next door to this project. so i'm really asking you to consider, what will benefit this neighborhood the most? two luxury units that will sell for millions of dollars that is not affordable housing or four small businesses -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners. thank you for all that you do. my name is greg dillard, and i live a block away from the proposed development. normally, you would never hear me at one of these planning commission meetings because normally, these things are not

my concern. however, after a year of pandemic, the one light in our neighborhood at third and hugo is in danger because of two luxury developments. again, i would not be here if these were affordable housing. it would bring more people to our neighborhood and our city. i would not be here. that is not what i'm here to discuss. instead, we're talking about disrupting the neighborhood for two developments that would benefit the rich. i'm here today because i'm standing with the businesses and with my neighbors. thank you. >> yeah, hi, thanks. my name is benjamin kaplan, and i live a few feet away from the site of the development, and i am concerned, also, by the introduction of the two luxury

housing units, and specifically not how it'll disturb the neighborhood but how they're going to almost certainly displace those businesses that are just to the east of the site. these are immigrant owned and queer owned businesses, and i understand the impulse to bring as much housing of every type into the city, but when it's luxury housing, and it's displacing immigrant and queer community members, i think that's something that we really need to rethink, and so i request that you don't approve this project. thank you. >> hi. i would also like to call in and contest the project at 217 hugo street. my name is wendy, and i've lived in san francisco for over ten years, and i'm also a small business owner and love to go to the businesses on hugo

street. and the -- i just can't see how two luxury condos at the expense of four small businesses is something that the city should be considering at -- like the other caller was saying, if it was affordable housing for people, it would be a different story, but there are a million luxury condos that are for sale in san francisco right now, and i don't think two more at the expense of businesses is something that the city needs, so i would like you all to please consider not approving this project. thank you. >> hi, there. my name is emily rosenberg. i am a resident of the sunset and also a small business owner in san francisco. i run a restaurant that, up until covid -- and so i just

want to add my two cents. my firsthand experience of getting through this year of covid has been absolutely devastating to our business. as a resident of the neighborhood, i frequent all of these businesses. the other three regularly, they are the type of businesses that make me want to live in this city, and the luxury condo is exactly the type of thing that is pushing families like mine out and it's not in line [inaudible] so i would also ask the commission to please consider these businesses. they are vital to our community. thank you. >> hi. my name's sarah johnson, and i'm calling in to contest the

development at 217 hugo street, and i kind of agree and align with everybody else's responses, but i guess speaking personally, these are two of the four businesses that would be displaced, i frequent often, the philosophy club and [inaudible] cantina. they're focal points for the queer community. they're huge massive staples to the city of san francisco, and i think there's more than enough housing for the wealthy, and displacing this community seems irrational. yeah, thank you. >> hi. my name is katie dougherty, and

i live just around the corner from 217 hugo street, and i would like to make some comments in opposition of the project. the first reason is, as many of the other callers mentioned, is community. s.f. can feel like a very lonely place because it is so transient. but the reason i say it is because the inner sunset and the community. the heart of the community in this neighborhood is hugo street. these businesses have worked extremely hard to build businesses that bring all different kinds of folks together. young folks, old folks, who have all kinds of generations in the community. straight folks, lgbtqiis folks like myself, i think this project would greatly interfere

with our ability to gather at these businesses and maintain and continue to build this community that is so special to this neighborhood, and just add to that, the noise factor, of course. i think it disproportionately affects neighbors for two units -- >> clerk: thank you. that's your time. >> thank you. >> hi there. my name is kimji benish. i am one of the owners of the [inaudible] cantina. i am calling in to express my concerns about the proposed project going in two doors down. i am at 257 hugo street [inaudible] and then there's the laundromat.

we've been here for three years. since covid, we are only able to operate outside, so all of our seating is outside. this would extremely impact how our business is run. i don't see who would want to sit outside during prolonged construction. also, not just that, i think the design and the proposed luxury condos are completely inappropriate for this neighborhood. the space that it is right now is a beautiful dance studio. it should be restored as a community space, not be demolished. i see a lot of complications, not just for our business, but also for the community and for people that have been coming here and walking their dog -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> hi. my name is [inaudible] pena.

i'm a seven-year resident of san francisco and a long time patron of u.c. [inaudible]. after covid, i don't see how the long-term disruption and multiyear construction will allow these really vital small businesses to our community, would allow them to survive, so i vehemently oppose this development project. >> hi, good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kaitlyn galloway, and i'm a long time resident of san francisco. i'm calling in, like the others, to just voice my support for the businesses along hugo street. i think this proposed project is going to be detrimental to a business corner that i think

has kind of been a model of how small businesses can survive in such a horrific year. the way these businesses have turned to their community and adapted. i'm just going to read back to you a portion of the criteria that i see here on your website for, you know, discretionary review, which is what we're discussing, and it says the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances occur where the design of a project does not enhance or conserve neighborhood character or a balance of right to develop properties with the occupants. these circumstances arise largely due to unusual context. i just want to highlight that

we are in an unusual context in 2020 coming out of a pandemic -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> hi. my name is alexis spaulding, and i'm calling in opposition of the project at 217 hugo street. i'm really concerned about the effects that this unnecessary construction of a luxury condo could have on their livelihoods and the general community of this neighborhood as i don't feel it provides the housing that's already needed. it's actually incredible. hello? >> clerk: you have 30 seconds remaining. >> yeah. i'm already concerned about the affordability of this neighborhood and want everybody who lives here and wants to live here to be able to access it, no matter their income

level, and i'd ask you why a large luxury condo building for only two units is even up for consideration. i want this neighborhood to thrive and i want it to be the community that it is. that is why i love it -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> hi. my name's daniel wright. i'm a long time resident of san francisco. i'm calling, just like everybody else, to oppose the proposed development on hugo street. i think it's unnecessary. it would be devastating to businesses, and as you've heard, there's plenty of good reasons for that. there's no good reasons for luxury buildings in this city. there's plenty of them sitting

empty. i don't think there's anything else to say. thanks for your time. >> hello? hello? >> clerk: yes, go ahead, ma'am. >> oh, hi. my name is [inaudible] i'm a long time resident of san francisco? i'm a somatic movement therapist and dance educator, and i'm calling to express my opposition to the 217 hugo street building. this has been a community space and dance movement studio no, sir -- studio for decades. it's a place where many children have learned to dance since the 1970s, and i myself have been renting this studio since 1998. it's a perfect space for my work as i live a block away in the inner sunset.

until the pandemic, people from across the city, the neighborhood, and even internationally to study the services that i provide. the project will require two to three years on time, and due to the pandemic, all of the classes i have has come to a halt -- >> clerk: thank you, ma'am. that is your time. >> -- and -- thank you. >> hello. my name is erin cleeno. i live across the street from the businesses, and i visit them often. i'm calling in opposition to this proposed development. like many callers before, i just want to reinforce the two businesses in particular

[inaudible] have worked really hard to attract a lot of different types of people to their spaces, and i've seen a lot of beautiful interactions happening outside the businesses. i just imagine construction completely erasing the ability of people to have a conversation and go into the shop and order their drink at the restaurant, so i just, like everyone's already said, don't see the tradeoff on this particular block of the sunset. thank you for your time. >> hello? >> clerk: yes, go ahead. >> hello.

my name is isabella [inaudible] and i'm the coowner of [inaudible]. i'm an immigrant, moved here seven years ago, and always lived in the sunset. i just want to reiterate a demolition of this level would endanger not only my business but the other businesses on hugo street. this lot was originally zoned for commercial use, and between [inaudible] the body philosophy club, we're the only businesses in the whole hugo street, and by approving this development, you'll not only be taking away something from the community, which is a safe space for people to meet and people to get together and yeah, to support small queer owned

businesses, to build two luxury condos is the last thing we need in our community and in our city, to be honest, and i just want to thank everyone for commenting and calling and supporting us. thank you. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on this matter. you need to press star, then three, to be added to the queue. you have one minute. >> hi. my name is charlie miller. i live here in the sunset community. i love these businesses on hugo street. it's just more of the same coming from me, but we all know

the last thing that this city needs is more luxury condos. please support these businesses, and yeah, that would be great. thanks. >> yeah, i also agree. i'm also a resident of the neighborhood. these businesses are spaces for community and inclusion, and it would be very sad to see these businesses adversely affected by this development, so as a residence, i really support these businesses and hope we can all come together as a community to support these businesses. >> good afternoon. this is edo kim, one of the owners here at queen, a small business in san francisco.

we moved out here from new york, my wife and i, to san francisco six years ago, just because we loved the diversity, the neighborhoods, sort of the support of small businesses, and just the general environment. every year we've been here, it's sort of started to lose its soul in terms of these big building going up, these big developments. this is an opportunity for us, we feel, to stand behind the small businesses, especially after such a tough year during the pandemic, and just hearing everybody today, it gave us a little more motivation to keep doing what we're doing, and hopefully everybody here today is what this city is about, which is a call for more diversity, more beautiful

neighborhoods like hugo street, so we vehemently protest the development on hugo street. thank you. bye-bye. >> clerk: okay, commissioners. public comment is now closed, and this matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i want to thank all of the neighbors and businesses that came out to express their opinions and share with us their views. we have two conflicting policies. obviously, the goal and desire to preserve small businesses, and we have a desire to increase housing in the city, especially on the west side. we have a project that is code compliant, consistent with the design review guidelines, and

an agreement has been reached between the project sponsor and the d.r. requester. i have a hard time seeing under those circumstances where there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that would justify denying the project. i believe and understand that construction is challenging to live with, but we live in a dense urban environment and have regulations against extensive pollution and noise, recognizing we're in a dense urban environment. i appreciate how diverse hugo street is, but as i don't see exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, i would move to take d.r. with the conditions and modifications as proposed by staff. >> vice president moore: second. >> president koppel: well said, commissioner diamond.

i'm also supporting the project today and will call on commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you, commissioner diamond, for, i think, providing a really good overview, and i also want to thank all of the community who came out and the business owners, as well. clearly, the businesses in that area are very much loved, and i hope they continue to be beloved and succeed and are very prosperous as they hopefully head out of the pandemic. i did have a few questions. for the project sponsor, who i hope is still available, were there any discussions about rebuilding the dance studio and integrating that into the new building? can you share with us what those discussions were? is there anyone here for the project? [inaudible] >> clerk: yes.

i unmuted him. >> commissioner tanner: okay. >> yes, i thank the commissioner and i would like to take the time to thank the public. i understand myself as a small business owner, as well, and the ownership, as well. i understand the struggle, and we all invest, and hopefully we can get through this together. yes, there were discussion about keeping part of the commercial on the ground floor, but in the -- but, you know, after a few rounds of designs and working with the ownership, parking has been an issue. now, when there's two units in this building, we're anticipating at least two cars. we're going to pick up part of the parking on the street, and it affects small businesses in the area, so in that case, we decided to include a parking garage over keeping the commercial space on the ground floor. >> commissioner tanner: okay.

so the parking spaces required the enclosure of the studio. your conversations with the studio owner-operator, have they -- i think they testified because of the pandemic they couldn't use it anymore because people couldn't gather. >> i believe it was the case, those discussions never really went that far, or project sponsor never gave us that indication that the business owner wanted to return. i don't have that answer. >> commissioner tanner: and then, i read all the e-mail correspondence. one part of the correspondence that intrigued me and concerned me was the project owner was

confused. >> i think there was contract between the project applicant and the previous owner that the property was [inaudible] in terms of the detail of the contract, i don't have that information, but i was assured that a contract was in place, and the building will be transferred over to the new owners. >> commissioner tanner: so the hours of construction, i don't know, mr. winslow, that's regulated by the city. can you share with us what those hours are, and if they want to change those hours, what they have to do? >> i'm not sure what those hours are. i believe it's something on the order of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 or

6:00 p.m. monday through friday, but i don't think there's a chance for exceeding those. d.b.i. is the one definitely -- >> commissioner tanner: okay. great. thank you very much. so i guess i would just leave it -- i do agree with commissioner diamond that it is a challenge to negotiate how these policies are [inaudible] and also protecting our small businesses can go hand and hand. i would ask, perhaps, mr. winslow, if this project is approved today, they still have to go through the building permit process, is that correct, or is the consent happening for the project? >> that's correct. >> commissioner tanner: and so that will take sometime, i assume. i don't know we can project how long d.b.i. would take to issue the permits and begin construction, but i'm assuming, given the backlog, it's probably not going to be quick that the construction would be take is place. i see mr. winslow nodding his head. but i think hopefully there

will be a buffer of time between when this project is approved today, when they get their permits and construction begins. hopefully it will be some more time for the businesses to get more patronage before the construction does create some challenges for the businesses that are located there. overall, i think the project does add housing, it does add parking, which is to try to minimize the parking aspect of the unit. i do want to thank everyone for their testimony today, and at this point, i am persuaded to be supportive of this project. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: thank you, commissioner diamond, for so well verbalizing what expresses my support and concern for the project. thank you also for the

community will invoicesing your concerns about what is bothering you about the project. i am very inspired by your holding up the -- voicing your concerns about what is bothering you about the project. i am very inspired by your holding up the community, but if construction is properly and respectfully done, which in many, many and most cases, it is, a construction site becomes a site that you can accept for a few years, knowing that you go beyond it, but it does not destroy community support for the business, and it does not destroy community life. i personally find that the building is respectfully designed relative to context and compared to many other

buildings, i find this building is a very modest residential expression. it is two units, but there's nothing spelled out that these have to be luxury units. they can also be affordable units, and i'm not saying they are going to be, i'm just saying they are respectfully designed context. i'm in support, and i hope this will all work out for you. >> clerk: very good, commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, i believe there was a motion that has been seconded to take d.r. and approve the project with said modifications. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. commissioners, that will place us on item 10 for case 2019-016244-drp at 239 broad street. this is a discretionary review. >> good afternoon again, commissioners, president koppel, and staff. this is david winslow, planning department staff. this is a request for discretionary review of building permission application number 2019-0820-9263 to construction a new two-story single-family home with an accessory dwelling unit on a

vacant parcel. are the 1,149 square foot a.d.u. will be located on the ground floor and accommodate two bedrooms and three full bathrooms. the 1,433 square foot main unit will be located on the second floor and accommodate three bedrooms and three full bathrooms within an rh-1 zoning district. to date, the department has received no letters in support or opposition to the project. the department's review confirms support for this complying project because it affirms the goal of providing more housing while fulfilling

the residential design guidelines concerning light, air, and privacy. the project proposes one on-site parking space and one bicycle parking space. there is no code maximum for on-site parking -- i'm sorry. there's no code minimum for on-site parking. in other words, street parking would be perfectly fine with our codes. up to four bedrooms are permitted without a conditional use authorization. the primary resident has, as i mentioned, three bedrooms and an office. the depth of the rear extension in the rear limited the mid block common open space from the d.r. requester's property. therefore, staff recommends taking the d.r. to provide a

five-foot set back of the building at the southwest corner of the building at the second floor. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. winslow. d.r. requester, you have three minutes. >> hello. my name is ivan, and i'm the representative of the [inaudible] owner at 239 broad street. it's my cousin, and he's not here, so i'm authorized to speak for him. [inaudible] and then, our neighborhood is so kind of a

parking issue already [inaudible] to kind of plan a multiunit building to have, like, a [inaudible] parking space currently for the plans, just one, so that's our concern, for sure. thank you. >> clerk: if that concludes the d.r. requester's presentation, we should take -- project sponsor, you have three minutes. >> i will begin. good evening, commissioners. my name is derrick. i'm making this presentation on behalf of the property owner, mr. david yee, and the following are some of his concern and response to d.r. [inaudible] believed to be

[inaudible] page three, please. as you can see, our building is built up against a property line, but the d.r. requester building are -- the minimum set back is 4 feet. we have measured that based on the property line of ours, and we do have the proof that this is more than 4 feet. we also design a line that would preserve light and ventilation on our building on

the side. the current building is built could you tell. as you can see, there is no cutout can he corner. -- cutout at the corner. [inaudible] page 11, please. this is a current photo that we

took recently. the d.r. requester took account to block his own natural light. the best natural light came from the front and back of the building, but the d.r. requester chose to block his natural light with the illegal construction of a cap owe pea. he has illegally reconfigured his layout without benefit of the permit. this will conclude my presentation on behalf of the property owner, and i'm happy to answer any questions on behalf of the property owner. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star then three to be added to the queue.

through the chair, you have one minute. >> hi, everybody. my name's may, and i'm the owner of 233 broad street, which is right next to the subject property right now? so i'm calling today to support this project just because our family has been living here for over ten years, and this property has been always, like, the stop for, i don't know, like, the neighbors to dump their trash and junk over here, so we just want to express our support for this project. hopefully, it can work out for this project -- project sponsor and the next-door neighbor. thank you so much. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests to speak, d.r. requester, you

have a one-minute rebuttal. d.r. requester? okay. project sponsor, you have a one-minute rebuttal if you need it? >> no, i don't need it. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. commissioners, that concludes the presentation portion of this matter, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: the project is a code compliant in-fill project that meets the code. the project sponsor addresses

any concerns that anybody may have. i would move to approve. >> commissioner diamond: second. >> vice president moore: i would also like to ask mr. winslow, on the side, not related to any projects that we've heard. why is there no title block for an architect or a civil engineer who is responsible for the production of these particular documents? >> i can't answer that concluesively. sorry. >> vice president moore: you see the initials on this one and the previous one. i feel strongly encouraged that we do have reference to those people who are the originator of these drawings, but it's

just a comment aside. it does not have anything to do with my making the motion to approve. >> okay. just to be clear, commissioners, the recommendation is to take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. >> vice president moore: thank you. that is what i was saying. correct. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i wholeheartedly agree, and i just want to commend the project sponsor for having an a.d.u. that is a great size of a.d.u., and i hope we continue to see homes come forward with an a.d.u., and that is a great size of unit, so i will be supporting the motion. >> clerk: if there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there's a motion that's been seconded to take d.r. with approved modifications. on that motion -- [roll call]