thought it was fair that if the property owner was really going to pursue. the reason they applied for approval was to prepare the wall and make sure the wall doesn't get damaged anymore and, you know, in reviewing the -- in reviewing the documents more the documents became obvious that you really can't fixeded wall or get to the root cause of the wall being fixed unless you remove that palm tree and we don't want to let them remove the palm tree unless they agreed to actually fix the wall. it's kind of like -- you know, we don't want to lose the palm tree if they're going to let the wall fall apart. if they're going to commit to actually repairing the wall, we wanted to leave that opportunity for them. >> commissioner: yeah. and i don't mean to apply that

i don't appreciate it the conclusion, but i was curious sort of how that happens because it's been a little bit more of a pattern recently than it was before. again, i appreciate that is not necessarily going to help in this situation. >> yeah. one thing i'd also like to add, the bureau of forestries has been in a lot of duress over the past two years. we had a few members of the public who would protest 90% of the trees we were proposing for removal and really pushing us hard into tree removal hearings and i think that definitely -- >> president: we know all those names by heart. >> yeah. so it definitely caused our small group of permit inspectors to review tree removal permits in a different way and to some degree, we're starting to direct course to some degree and realizing maybe

we were denying too many trees as in the past and kind of like, the public coming to the board of appeals and appealing our removals, now the office happening were more private property owners. as a course correction. >> fair enough. thank you. >> president: new sheriff in town. by the way i do like this approach. >> director: okay. vice president swig. >> vice president: yes. of thank you for that transparency on your answer. with regards to the removal, you seem inclined, more than seem inclined to allow tree number one to be removed. would you like to be put a recommendation there and to mandate a replacement tree or are you going to leave it,

suggest it, leave it to the property owner? >> all i would say is it would be a 24" box and then, you know, probably, i mean, the small stature replacement. something from our small that's all i would say in that matter. >> director: okay. thank you. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this matter? please raise your hand. i do not see any hands raised so we'll move on to rebuttal. we're hear from mr. ho. >> yes. i think the one point of contention and i do appreciate buff's receptiveness to removing the tree now on second look.

i think that one of the things we're hoping for is unqualified approval of the tree without requiring a building permit to repair the wall given there could be time restraints of getting that permit. so imism r mrifrt that the tree is causing damage and making the wall unsafe, we feel we should be granted the right to remove it without any contingencies not the fact that the owner would like repairs. just touching on one issue with spanish bayonet. i didn't think they were worth

pointing out in the presentation, but the photos are in the exhibits and show hairline cracks in the wall. even though we would like to remove it all, you know, there is damage to that portion of the wall too. so that concludes my rebuttal. >> director: okay. we have a question from commissioner lazarus. >> commissioner lazarus: i think actually president honda had his hand up first. >> director: okay. thank you. president honda. sorry. >> president honda: thank you. i can't believe you forgot something on your brief. this is probably one of the longest briefs i've seen on a tree, but the question here is even in your brief, you said that the tree is causing issues and that -- those large crack where the big palm is concerning, especially on the public right of way. i personally don't see if this board is allowing you to remove this tree without the condition of that wall being repaired.

second question is if we allow you to remove all trees, what is your plan of replacement? >> right. just answering that second question first, the application to remove actually identified three replacement trees. so i think there were a number of fie casss and i'm blanking on that third tree. but the plan was to replace the trees likely with native species and we would take the recommendation for small stature replacements. and, i'm sorry, i missed the first question. >> president: the first question is is that even in your brief, you state that the tree has caused substantial damage to the retaining wall and there's quite a bit of dirt behind there and there's quite a wit of water back there. the crack is substantial and it's addressing the right of i

don't know how much background, this board does not allow tree removal. there has to be extenuating circumstances that do allow that. if we were to allow that large stature tree to be removed, we probably would make a tsubject to that wall being repaired and so if that's the case f-you're not going to do the repairs, do we not want the tree removed? >> i guess, my concern about the condition is that, you know, the owner has gotten quotes to remove -- to repair the wall in the past and, you know, that amount is stated in the brief, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and so if the owner doesn't proceed immediately with it, my concern is that the tree will cause further damage whereas if we were granted unconditional

removal now, we could remove the tree and repair the wall in due course. i don't know. >> president honda: i didn't see in the brief that there was an estimate for the wall repair. and you're saying that that wall repair is several hundred thousand dollars? >> yeah. that was um, i'm blanking on the page right now. >> president honda: i'm going through it right now. >> it was on page 8, about middle of the page. >> president honda: okay. but again, and then regarding you're asking to remove large stature trees and replace them with three small trees, three or four trees? >> yeah. the owner would consider four trees. yeah. >> president honda: thank you, counselor. sorry for taking so long.

>> no that's all right. my thinking was that potential danger but that you but i think if we go that route, could that give some time for the wall to be repaired. it doesn't have to be done when the tree is taken out, but within a reasonable amount of time. i just want to suggest that to mr. ho as we go forward. >> president honda: i agree. how long do you think would be reasonable, commissioner? six months. >> commissioner: i don't know. we're not in deliberations yet. so we'll come back to that. >> president honda:

commissioner lopez. >> commissioner: thank you, mr. ho. the language reads that the replacing of the retaining wall along with other improvements would be estimated at 250. do you have a sense with what portion of that 250 would be the quote unquote all the other improvements. >> i don't have an analysis of the cost, there would be improvements to the entrance and obviously to the wall. i don't know how much specifically is allocated to the retaining wall. yeah. i'm sorry. i just don't know. >> director: thank you. we will now hear from the bureau of urban forestry i

would just say the reason the bureau kind of conceded on this one again was to if the palm tree was removed, it would be some some type of condition of the wall being prepared if the palm is granted removal because otherwise, again, it's not a guarantee that the palm is the primary causing factor in the wall damage. it could be other things. it worsened during rains. so there's no underlining drainage issue as well which could be. it's the drainage issue and the palm tree and we can't fix the drainage issue without removing the palm tree. so it's not a full repair of the wall, then it's at least a

removal of the drainage issue that could help further wall damage. again, some type of condition ensures that the palm is not lost. >> president honda: do you have a time line that the department would -- i mean, the beautiful thing when that building was constructed, we now have stuff that alleviates pressure and helps everything else going forward. does the department have a guideline of what they would like to see three months, six months, a year? >> i think a year affair. >> president honda: okay. >> you know, that's. >> president honda: i think that's more than fair to be honest. thank you. >> director: okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president honda: would anyone like to start? >> i mean, i would be prepared to go the route that the bureau

is suggesting. i don't know if i've reached a decision about what to do about the other trees and requiring replacements, but it seems to me allowing that one tree to come out with the requirement that the wall be prepared is not unreasonable. >> president honda: okay. i would say -- go ahead, vice president. >> vice president: go ahead. >> president honda: okay. i think those trees are not indigenous to the city. i think that the wall needs to be repaireded. i think there's some substantial trees there that the representative for the permit holder has already agreed to force small stature trees and allowed him to work with the department on the type of trees, but i don't have a problem with them removing all trees and then to have them installed in the wall repaired within one year i think is really reasonable.

vice president. >> vice president: i rather go i'm not horribly opposed to your position. i'd like to follow the recommendation of the department and allow the big tree to reroot and contingent on the wall being repaired one year is fine one year's fine and, but my issue around that and also with some requirement to replace it with a 24" box out of the small stature tree play book, my one concern is this and it just comes from paranoia for being on this commission for the amount of time. and any time the wall doesn't get repaired, what's the

accountability? you know. >> president honda: i was kind of wondering that as well. if we set a condition on this permit, what is the enforcement? >> vice president: yeah. how do you enforce it. we say go ahead take the tree out and you've got to replace the wall within twelve months. tree comes out next week. three years later and the wall's not prepared. what's the accountability? what's the enforcement? [please stand by]

>> commissioner swig: or do you repair the wall first and then pull the tree? i don't have a solution. i only pose the problem. >> president honda: okay. so although we don't have joe

here, our planning deputy zoning administrator scott have any idea? >> scott sanchez, planning department. sorry. no, i don't, but i can discuss it with steve if it would be helpful after the hearing. >> president honda: all right. i think we can condition the removal. by having newer, you know, small stature trees, they'll have a little bit more canopy, it will sequester more carbon in the future. so i will make a motion to -- to accept the appeal and mobil

[inaudible]. >> clerk: okay. i see deputy city attorney jon givner is raising his hand. >> president honda: help me. >> mr. givner: excuse me, president honda. the ordinance itself includes a penalty section that includes administrative financial penalties for removing a tree in violation of the ordinance, so if the city authorizes

conditions, and the conditions isn't met, that is potentially a violation of the ordinance which is enforcement through the penalty. >> president honda: which is up to $250 a day. thank you for that. i knew there was something in there that would be a catch-all. i appreciate that, mr. givner. >> clerk: okay. thank you. back to the motion, i just want to clarify that you want to grant the appeal, issue the order on the issue that it be removed, the removal of the mexican fan palm only after a building permit is issued or applied for? >> president honda: let's say all three trees can be removed -- >> clerk: i'm just separating out the mexican palm because that's the one that is impacting the retaining wall and that's the one you want a building permit -- or do you want to add the other two? >> president honda: i think i want to add the other two so it's easier.

that's fine with me. >> clerk: okay. so what did you decide? issuance of the d.b.i. permit? >> president honda: issuance of the d.b.i. permit. >> commissioner swig: excuse me. what's their recommendation, department, please? >> yeah. the preference is issuance of a d.b.i. permit. that's the most hold-fast. >> commissioner swig: that's what i would suggest to you, sir. >> clerk: okay. and did you want to add replacement trees? >> president honda: yes. upon removal of the trees, that the owner will replace it with four small stature trees, to be determined in conjunction with the permit holder. >> clerk: okay. i just want to confirm with the city attorney, too, i believe we can only to 1:1 replacement?

>> president honda: he's, like, trees? wait. >> mr. givner: i'm not certain of the rule, but i can look it up as we speak. >> clerk: under the code. >> okay. i think under the code, that's what is required. >> president honda: okay. project sponsor has -- >> yeah. we often made agreements with property owners to replace trees. >> president honda: having small stature trees would be appropriate, and i think having that retaining wall would be absolutely amazing. >> clerk: okay. so do you want the species to be determined by b.o.s.? >> president honda: i trust the department, and i like the way steve keller is taking the helm, to be honest. >> clerk: okay. and 24-inch box size trees?

>> president honda: yeah, 24-inch box size. >> clerk: and on what basis is this made? >> president honda: on the basis that the retaining wall is a public safety hazard. >> clerk: okay. so i'm assuming it's okay to go ahead with the replacement for four trees. >> president honda: correct. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from president honda to grant the appeal and issue the order on the condition that it be revised to allow for the removal of the three trees and the mexican fan palm can only be removed after a building permit is issued by d.b.i. for the repair of the retaining wall, is that correct, president honda or -- >> president honda: until all of -- >> clerk: okay. the trees cannot be removed

until a permit is issued by d.b.i. for the retaining wall. >> president honda: i'm sorry. deputy city attorney, does that comply with the requirement that the removal is conditioned? >> mr. givner: yeah. i think it's matching up -- is that what you're asking? does the motion match up with what you've stated is your intent, commissioner? >> president honda: yeah. okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. and replacement with four trees in 24-inch boxes, small stature, species to be determined by b.o.s. in consultation with the property owner on the basis that the damage to the retaining wall creates a safety hazard for the public. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so that motion carries, 5-0, and we are now moving onto the last item, and thank you very much for your patience. this is item number 7, appeal number 21-066, laura kemp versus san francisco public works, bureau of street use and mapping, 231 dwight street, appealing the issuance on july 6, 2021, to g.t.e. mobilnet of california, l.p., of a wireless box permit, installation of a personal wireless service facility in a zoning protected location. this is permit 21-wr-00051. mrs. kemp, you may begin. >> president honda: before you begin, i want to say, it's been a bit of a wait, and i want to

thank you for your patience. >> thank you, president honda. it's been a bit of a long wait -- >> clerk: miss kemp, you might want to adjust your camera because we only see half of your face. >> that was the point. i will get into the camera. may i restart my time, please? >> clerk: yes. >> operator: i will restart the time. >> good evening, president honda, vice president, and commissioners. adding equipment to these poles maintains the character of the neighborhood. i want to note, over many years, neighbors have worked to improve the quality of life, the character of the portola district. these efforts have included the creation and maintenance of neighborhood gardens, green spaces, the planting of street

trees and sidewalk gardens, pocket parks, and the undergrounding of utilities along the business corner of san bruno avenue. in 2016, the san francisco board of supervisors recognized these efforts by designating the portola the garden district of san francisco. note the applicable standard is proposed if it is a personal distribute which would significantly detract from the attributes which was a special designation of the district. one could argue that this effort runs opposite to the portola as there are no plans to add a street tree in keeping with the plans of greening the portola community. please note, the portola community is in district 9, not as incorrectly documented as

the excelsior district. our district supervisor is hillary ronen. article 25 on page 24 of exhibit h, under section 1514, notice of final determination, types of noticed required, states that for the members of the board of supervisors who represent the district in which the approved personal wireless service facility would be located, since hillary ronen was not notified, the final determination notice did not meet the required notification. the proposed wireless facility at 231 dwight utilizes a six-foot crossbar that is 10 foot in length, and close to 2 feet in height and integrated radios attached at either end

of the crossbar. and i think, alex, if you'd pull up the photograph, the map is following the proposed photograph of the wireless antennas, and those integrated antennas are going to be attached to either end of the crossbar. included in the design is a small meter and a 5-g location box. these proposed additions will be moved to the top of the pole. in 2009, decision by the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit in a case involving the ability for communities to review the assignment of wireless facilities in the public

right-of-way, the court determined that communities have a right, under california law, when considering to install a wireless facility in a public right-of-way. the residents of the affected neighborhood were not notified regarding the design, aesthetics, or need of the facility. the only thing we received was receipt of a notice of final determination, and that was sent out the first week of july 2021. in fact neighbors have had to address or reflect this notification. neighbors were not invited to participate in the design

reapproval district. 60% of its residents are asian, 12% are white, and 1% are indigenous. on a public pole [inaudible] i would like to add, the portola neighborhood adds excellent to good views for the neighborhood on the hill, such as the residents at 231 dwight. the city does not regulate the technologies while the carrier is used, and while the carriers have expressed working collaboratively with the city

and neighborhoods to integrate the facilities in a less intrusive manner. at no time has the carrier, verizon, reached out to the community or desired to work with the community to integrate facilities in a less intrusive manner. i guess on that one, we can look at the photographs 7 and 8 would be helpful with that. thanks, alec. in addition, please see page 4, exhibit a, the san francisco planning department letter signed by [inaudible] oh,

quickly, the proposed wireless equipment is to be placed in front of the neighbor's windows at 231 dwight. please see attached photos. and on that, the permit should either be denied or resubmitted to the planning department for further comment. these are photos in the background of the antennas, the smart meter, and the fiber relocation box. >> operator: that's time. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so we will now hear from the permit holder. we have an attorney for the permit holder. mr. albrighton. >> hi. so -- hi -- or -- [inaudible]. >> clerk: welcome. >> i'm trying to unmute myself, and thank you for your patience, including mrs. kemp,

for staying so late and having this discussion. with me, i am outside temple for verizon wireless. i have modus, here to answer any questions, and bill albrighton. the pole itself is a pg&e pole. it is 39 feet, and there will not be a height extension. miss kemp is right. a new crossbar will be added, and that's where the radios will go. these are integrated radios, so there will not be additional equipment other than the fiber demarkation box and the smart

switch that goes on the box itself. they're all integrated into the antennas. the design has actually been approved by the city of san francisco. d.p.w. issued order number 204901 a few months ago after holding five or six hearings on the 4-g and 5-g proceedings. if i could ask modus to share a picture of the photo sim, i'd appreciate that. this is verizon's smallest design we have. this is the least amount of

equipment, the least amount of volume, and i actually think this visual aid that mrs. kemp has behind her helps illustrate the -- >> clerk: can we pause the time for a moment because we don't see the visual. >> operator: yeah, time is paused. [inaudible] >> it's okay if they can't. it's in your packets, as well. i apologize. >> clerk: we're find holding you if you would like. >> okay. >> president honda: honestly, i think mrs. kemp put an amazing oral presentation and package, but this is her first, even though it's our 300 hearing on this, so that way, everyone has an understanding. i think that would be good. >> clerk: okay. we can see the screen now. >> okay. thank you, and i appreciate the pause. [inaudible] >> so what you see on the left is the pole as it stands now.

so you can see there's an existing crossbar above the light, and that's where all of the lateral lines feed into the pole in order to give the neighborhood power. what verizon has proposed here, which you'll see on the right, is keeping the same pole, not extending the pole, and moving the crossbar to the top of the pole and then adding a crossbar that runs parallel with the street that has integrated radios and antennas on the crossbar. there are boxes that you can't even see here, and both of those are on the pole. again, this complies with the

new d.p.w. order that was under consideration for i think nearly two years. that lays out objective standards for 4-g and 5-g facilities going on wooden and steel pg&e poles in the public right-of-way. with respect to r.f., this has a maximum power of 163 watts. it's only 3% of the f.c.c.s exposure limits. it's only 1.5% on the ground, and one of the issues that miss kemp had raised in her initial filing was whether or not verizon would be willing to provide installation testing, and of course, they're happy to do that. with respect to notice, there are actually three different forms of notice here. traditional mailing, posting, and e-mailing.

all three [inaudible] it would be great if you could pull that up. the notices are also translated into a number of languages. if modus wouldn't mind piping in and telling me how many languages, that would be great. okay. i don't see the number of languages, but the notices went out pursuant to article 25, and they went to both tenant district 11, and they were translated to english, spanish,

chinese, and i think that's all i have right now. paul, did you have anything that you wanted to add right here? >> we can take our time on rebuttal, but i'll just add -- hello, president honda, and members of the board. good to see you again, and all in good health. this is the sleekest design that verizon has. they're sticking out 2 feet. it has to be 2 feet. pg&e line men have to be able to climb behind the poles. that's why they're out there like that. raising them up replaces it with this sleek antenna that runs parallel to the street,

and there's definitely a need for the service now. the ctia has just reported, in the last four years, demand for wireless data has doubled. that would be like increasing the population of san francisco from 800,000 to 1.6 million. it provides all those necessary services. all three departments recommend approval, and we hope that you can follow their recommendations and approve this important facility. thank you. >> president honda: counselor. we haven't seen you in a while. i can't say we missed you, but you look good. >> thank you. we're trying not to visit too much. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the bureau of street use and mapping. i believe mr. gregory slocum is

here. [inaudible]. >> clerk: hello, mr. palacio, and welcome. >> all right. i'm assuming that you can hear me. >> clerk: yes. yes, we can. >> hello, president honda and commissioners. i am leo palacio, representing public works. we believe this [inaudible] article 25 requires public works to refer wireless applications to the department of public health and the planning department. both departments determined that the application complies with article 25. the planning department is in attendance and can speak more to planneding review process if the board has questions -- to planning review process if the board has questions and can respond to e-mail. >> president honda: thank you. and good seeing you, leo. >> clerk: okay. and i just noticed that the deputy zoning administrator was

here. >> president honda: could you chime in at least regarding the view? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the pole is located in an rh-1 zoning location. it's not a planning protected location, which the board often sees, which is streets that have good and excellent views and also if it's a historic resource. the department found that it would not detract from the

historic or neighborhood characteristics. this does appear to have properly been reviewed and approved by our department with one minor typo that i would note. on page 1, it states at&t, but it's verizon, and that doesn't impact our review of the project. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we are now moving onto public comment for this item. if you would like to provide public comment, please raise your hand. you can do that on your

computer or if you called in, press star, nine. okay. i do not see any public comment, so we will move onto rebuttal. miss kemp, you have three minutes. miss kemp, are you there? >> yes, i got muted, i guess. somebody muted me. i'm back. thank you. >> clerk: okay. >> i would like to just take a moment, if i may -- alec, can you give me a moment because i actually need to read the comment from my neighbor who lived at 231, and i would like the board to note -- >> operator: am i stopping time -- >> president honda: why don't you give her a minute? she was patient enough to wait the whole evening. >> clerk: she wants to read a comment from the neighbor.

the neighbor was here earlier but left. >> president honda: yeah, why don't we allow that. >> thank you, president honda. this is a neighborhood that is directly affected. this is at 231 dwight. this is from my neighborhood. hi, everyone. thank you for this opportunity to comment. my name is ernan, and i live at 231 dwight with my two daughters. i work at a small start-up in san francisco, i pay taxes, and i vote in every election. both of my daughters were born in this house. i've lived in this house since 2004, and it's impossible to be happy with a process that will install two cellular antennas in a place where they live. still, i've tried to familiarize myself with the

antenna and its documentation, responses to this appeal from verizon's lawyers and the planning department. there's a lot to digest here. it's [inaudible] it's challenging to do this while juggling a demanding job, being a full time single parent and in the middle of a covid pandemic, and my kids going back to school for the first time since 2019. a better process would have been to notify me and my neighbors in april when [inaudible] were already writing up their findings. this would have given me time to educate myself on the process. instead, i'm immediately put on the defensive and in conflict

with verizon and city planners. anybody would react this way. this process is broken, so i ask you, everyone on this call, should you find yourself to vote on this process to fix it, please imagine what the process is like from the view of the prospective residents. i understand that the departments have approved verizon's application, but i disagree with their findings. in one place, the word, insert zoning district appears instead of the actual zoning district. these basic errors bring into question the actual process of the system.

why should anyone have faith that the approval it grants is the result of any lazy or effort? as much as these approval documents attempt to dot every i or cross every t, no one stood in my backyard to see how my life would be impacted. it would be severely impacted. they confidently proclaim that the installation would not significantly detract from the character of its surrounding. that is not true. it will significantly uglify the views from my front windows and to downtown. corporate and civic mission statements about beautifying

neighbors and building communities don't survive contact with the process that we have here. i disagree strongly with the planning department's findings, and with claims by the planning and verizon that the project will not detract from the [inaudible] and actually come visit the neighborhood to understand the uglification that they have approved. thank you. >> clerk: okay. now, you will have three minutes for your rebuttal statement. >> thank you very much. i need to take a deep breath, if you don't mind. that was a lot. so i just would like to say at no time did verizon reach out to our district supervisor, hillary ronen, and on the document, it states excelsior, 11. we are not in the excelsior. we are the portola district,

and we are very proud portolans. we are district 9, and i would like that notified because these documents did not go out to our district supervisor. the other thing is, too, the photographs, as i mentioned earlier, these are photographs taken by my neighbor of the view from his window. it's actually -- the hill, dwight. at that point, i think it's actually on a 45° slope, so actually what appears to be from the photographs that verizon have posted, it appears to be more flat, but actually, i walk that hill every day to the bus stop, the number nine and the number eight go down san bruno avenue at dwight and paul, and i actually walk down there every day, and so i am very familiar with that hill, and i'm very familiar with the uphill. and so i just would like to note that when one is on an

elevation, things actually appear lower than they do higher, so -- and it would be noted that these antennas -- yes, they are, 20, 21, almost 22 inches tall. this is quite a visual blight, i feel, on the crossbar, and they're going to be painted brown. and so brown is not the color of the sky. if they were supposed to be integrated into the actual view, they would not be painted brown. i feel that these are actually creating more of an obstruction, a visual obstruction, and visual clutter, and i feel like this goes in a -- totally against what we are trying to do. i'm a neighborhood activist. actually, i've been very active in planting street trees,

planting a neighborhood garden, and it distracted from what we're trying to do to improve the quality of life in our neighborhood. these hours that i put in are volunteer hours. i'm not paid to do this. i'm not paid to put in street trees. >> operator: 30 seconds. >> for me, it feels like energy wasted because a corporation can come in and determine what they value and also the city, too. we have views, we have value. we may be a working class neighborhood, but we have value just like any other neighborhoods in the city, and we would like recognition for that and the recognition for the effort of my neighbors who have -- >> operator: thank you. that's time. >> thank you. i appreciate it very much. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from miss san

gupta, the attorney. >> i'll be handling this. the verizon name for this facility is the excelsior 11, and that may be the confusion on the supervisor. that's just verizon's internal name. verizon goes through a very rigorous process. we follow all the requirements of the city. we have to have review by three of the departments. we follow very stringent guidelines set forth by the departments, so all those codes, regulations, reviews are designed to protect the city and how these facilities are deployed while at the same time allowing verizon wireless to provide this service.

you hear from mr. sanchez it's not an excellent view, it's not a view that -- the public view is not one that needs to be protected, and in fact, article 25 has been amended, and the state and federal law confirmed that private views are not protected by article 25 or any of these public codes. and the brief by the department, actually, confirms that. but even so, we've come up with a design that we think minimizes any impact on views. with that, that really is our rebuttal. right now, this is the sleekest design that verizon has for providing public service. we face these with many agencies that require us to put these services on the bars, but it's the smallest that we have

available. we urge you to approve this project and allow us to provide needed service to the community. thank you, and we're here to answer questions. >> clerk: thank you. we have a question from president honda. >> president honda: can you confirm mailing to the supervisor, hillary ronen? >> i think miss gupta provided that. >> president honda: sure. can we get that once again? [inaudible]. >> president honda: you've got third party people doing this? >> do we show that the supervisors were noticed?

>> president honda: do you notify each supervisor for each project or just the specific supervisor? >> yeah. the code requirement is that we notify the district supervisors, and modus can speak to that, as well. >> president honda: i'm looking through it. can someone show that to me? i see ahsha's name, shamann's name. i'm looking for hillary. i don't see hillary. do you guys have her staff noted on here? >> this is [inaudible] chang with modus. we sent the notice to district 10 and district 11 per the address that the planning department provided us. >> president honda: okay. we have a slight issue -- we're very limited because of article 25. are you required to send it to the district supervisor because

if you are, that means it was not sent to the district supervisor. >> let's confirm that; and maybe we're not. that may have been a misnomer from our site. >> president honda: can i get the department to respond to that? is this an issue? i don't know who that would be. would that be leo or planning? >> leo, public works. so under section 1514, the member of the board of supervisors that represents the district in which the approved personalized service facility would be located, they should be notified. >> president honda: so what happens in this particular case, because they're showing a proof of service, and i don't see -- i mean, our scope is

very limited because of article 25, but in this particular case, i see that there is an error in the permitting issue, so what would that entail, leo? >> well, we use the neighborhood groups to determine, which is the planning website, to determine the neighborhood groups and associated board of supervisor that represents the area. looking at the organizations, there seems to be an error under that particular section because it does mention supervisor 10 and supervisor 11. >> president honda: i see shamann's e-mail and ahsha's, as well, but i don't see hillary's. i see supervisor swig's hand. would you like to comment on this? >> commissioner swig: i haven't missed you guys a bit. this is the stuff that fries my

rear end, and this is continuing behavior, deja vu all over again. i still have nightmares about how d.p.w. posted a notice in a neighborhood with an italian flag because it was convenient for d.p.w. to take something from another neighborhood in russian hill and put it in a notice in the sunset. the idea that somebody didn't proofread, put at&t instead of verizon. the idea that you didn't notice the district supervisor is careless. i want to have this whole process redone because what i'm hearing, and you know -- this is ptsd. this is coming back from many years of really being upset with you guys, all right? and i'll admit to it, and to -- and one of the things that i am

really suspect of is that nobody public commented. that means, to me, that the neighborhood wasn't properly noticed, and so i -- i am suspect because i don't see hillary ronen's name. i see an at&t venture versus verizon. i see lack of care. i see that you all were just going to get this done. >> president honda: vice president swig -- >> commissioner swig: but i'm kind of upset, and i think you might know this. i'd like to see this redone. >> president honda: i see scott sanchez raising his hand. is there anything you want to put in here? >> you would say that this is not all d.p.w.s fault, but any means, and there appears to be

an issue with our neighborhood maps. looking at the map, this is listed correctly as supervisor 9, district ronen. it's listed as visitacion valley, a small section of visitacion valley is in district 9, and it should have supervisor ronen, but it does not. it only has the supervisors of 10 and 11. that appears to be annen ror of ours. because at&t looks at it and not verizon, that was planning department error, so i want to take the blame for that. >> commissioner swig: it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter. the error is made. it doesn't matter whether it's planning, it doesn't matter whether it's d.p.w. this is under d.p.w.s umbrella,

so therefore, i point to d.p.w. mistakes were made and proper care wasn't taken to care sure that noticing was correct. the supervisor in the right district wasn't notified. d.p.w. should have known that the right map wasn't used. >> president honda: commissioner swig, i know you're hot. we've listened to hundreds and hundreds of hearings. let's get through this one. i think -- are we in -- >> clerk: no, we're still in rebuttal. >> commissioner swig: that was going to be my question to mr. palacio. my question to mr. palacio is why is this so sloppy and why

didn't this get done properly, my questions, which i kind of relayed with my frustrations. sorry. >> clerk: sorry. please go ahead. >> well, we do our best with every application to our abilities. we do rely on, you know, planning, and we do rely on d.p.h., and we rely on reference materials as a source. we tried our best to ensure that it does go with artificial at that 25 -- with article 25, and it's just within our reference to make sure it goes within article 25. we do our best, and it might be in this case that we can see that the district supervisor wasn't notified, but we don't just rubber stamp everything. we do our best with every application. >> clerk: okay.

thank you. we are still on rebuttal, and i believe you were responding to commissioner swig's inquiry. >> no comment. >> clerk: okay. mr. sanchez, would you like to participate in rebuttal? you have three minutes. >> okay. it's late, but errors were found. we can update because this affects other aspects of our work, as well. we'll ask staff to verify the neighborhood mailing list. my only comment on this is probably irrelevant now, but one of the issues raised was pardon the color of the antenna, whatever the process may be, when we do ask for the devices to be painted, it's to

blend into the background. the background is the pole, and the pole is brown, but perhaps the vendor can look into painting the antennas to reduce the impact, probably moot at this point, but i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have -- >> president honda: actually, i'd like to hear from council albriton. i'd like this to be very, very short. >> i'll keep this short. we get notices from the planning department. we hope that you would approve the project as is, but i haven't confirmed with my client, but i'm just we'd be willing, if necessary, to

continue for 60 days to notify the supervisor's office if you think that's necessary. in all my experience, we've never had a supervisor's office comment on one of these projects in my memory, and we have over 500 in san francisco, but verizon is not trying ever to sidestep any of the noticing process. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the board's mission is to determine whether or not the determination was correct. but in this case, it's the notice that the applicant provided after the determination was correct. the purpose of that notice is to inform the supervisor and

surrounding areas about the determination so that members of the public can file a notice, be present at the hearing. that notice was defective in this case. rather than reversing the department's decision, i think the appropriate remedy for the board here is to continue the item and require the board to provide abcat notice under the code. the notice is in the code, and the applicant can review it themselves, but that's what i would recommend in this situation. >> president honda: thank you very much. i think vice president swig has a question directed to you. >> commissioner swig: no, i just want to say that's exactly right. that's exactly right, and we have done this before when

proper notice was not provided. this is the only -- on this piece of legislation, which is the article 25, this is the only way the public gets their day in court literally. >> president honda: can we go into commissioner -- can we finish the rebuttal? >> commissioner swig: no, i thought we were done. who's next. >> clerk: yeah, we are done with rebuttal, and this matter is submitted. >> president honda: okay. >> commissioner swig: yeah, i agree with counsel. the only way that the public gets a fair shake in this deal is if they're properly noticed. they were not properly noticed, so i would recommend that we do what counsel recommends. i always listen to counsel, and get this done right. and then, if the public responds appropriately and

affirms the direction or denies the direction, we're still here. >> president honda: commissioner lazarus? >> commissioner lazarus: i don't have an issue withholding off on this, but i don't believe that it was a question of the public not being noticed. we determined one mistake in that the district supervisor was not included in that. the rest of the public notice process, as i understand it, for this case was appropriate, so i don't think -- i don't want to go that far, but i will support a motion to continue this to allow the correct designees to receive the notice. >> president honda: okay. so i'll start, too. commissioner lazarus, myself, and vice president swig have heard probably hundreds of theet -- these cases, and we

are limited -- we have a very tight line of which we can and cannot do, and understanding that the departments have gone through a lot of this on a regular basis, and it feels like it's rubber stamped, and this error only intensifies that thought. but this body has been sued by telecommunications, and we have fought hard and hard, and we've had hours and hours and hours of public comment and physical debate. this particular permit, there is an error in notification, so it is defective. as our deputy city attorney has recommended, we are not going to overturn the department's decision but probably continue this, allowing that the proper notification is complete so that this process can go forward. so they recommended 60 days.

unless there's another suggestion, i would recommend that, as well. >> commissioner swig: is that a motion? >> clerk: i think -- i would like to ask a question of the deputy city attorney. since the notice was defective, shouldn't the determination be reissued because the notice gives -- allows people an opportunity to appeal, and they haven't had that opportunity. >> mr. givner: i think the -- my suggestion is that the -- the determination stands. the notice period begins again so that the code requires the applicant to promptly issue the notice. because that didn't happen before this hearing, the board is now asking the applicant to issue a new notice, provided that the members of the public

can file a new notice in 15 days. the 15 days for the new notice -- the 50 days for the appeal under the code beginning after the date that the notices have been provided. >> clerk: okay. but not necessarily the date on the permit, the date that the notice was provided. >> mr. givner: that's right. >> president honda: and i see representing counsel with their hand up. we're already closed at this point. commissioner chang had a question? >> commissioner chang: if we're going to contain all the documentation that contained

errors. >> clerk: that's a typo. >> president honda: well, they had the wrong company, and i guess because the way they labelled it kind of confused people, as well, and then, the staff information and timing, it was a bunch of stuff in a row, and that's why we'll try to correct it. what is the recommendation, executive director? >> clerk: i would like to defer to the deputy city attorney, who's working tonight. >> president honda: boy, jon, you take one day from brad, and you speak more than he has spoken in four hearings. i appreciate your service, buddy. >> mr. givner: thank you. i would defer to the department for those corrections, the department and the applicant work together to make any corrections. i would like the board not to

order any particular changes. >> commissioner swig: and i would suggest using commonsense and certain commissioner's energy, and that would be me, that maybe the department be scrupulous in putting forth something that is clean and crisp and has been fully reviewed so we don't call them on it during the next hearing. >> president honda: i'm sure they're going to fix that. >> commissioner swig: i'm just making a friendly recommendation. >> president honda: don't get rick mad, seriously. let's finish this and close this evening off. >> clerk: okay. i would recommend it continuing it to either -- we can try and squeeze it in november 10. >> president honda: how busy is november 10? >> clerk: or november 17. >> president honda: let's do

november 17. >> commissioner swig: i'll miss two of them. >> president honda: oh, my gosh, so it's going to be a shorter hearing. counselor, will that work for you, mr. albritton? you're on mute, sir. you're still on mute. now you're gone. i jinxed myself by saying that we haven't seen you in a while. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. we can hear you. >> president honda: yes. >> so much for high tech. i said 60 days, and i think i was hearing back to your taxi case or something. we can do it a lot shorter than 60 days. if your calendar is jammed up in november, we can -- >> president honda: we just want to make sure -- >> then yes, november is a fine

date. that would be terrific. >> president honda: isn't that nice, and we probably get to see you. all right. counselor, thank you for being cooperative. >> thank you. >> clerk: so we need a motion. >> president honda: well, i'll make that motion to continue this matter to november 17 so that the department can correct the notification -- would that be okay? >> clerk: so the permit holder can provide -- >> president honda: yes. >> clerk: the proper notification. >> president honda: yes, executive director. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from president honda to continue this matter until november 17 so that the department can provide the proper notice under article 25. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so that motion carries 5-0, and the matter is continued. >> president honda: and we have no more business. thank you, everyone, for being here, and that ends -- >> clerk: and that concludes the hearing. >> look at that beautiful

jellyfish. the way to speak to students and motivate them to take action, to save the planet, they do, they care and my job is to speak to them in a way that they can understand that touches their heart and makes them feel powerful with simple actions to take every day. ♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ >> i was born and raised in the desert of palm springs, california. my dad was the rabbi in the community there. what i got from watching my father on stage talking to the community was learning how to be in the public. and learning how to do public speaking and i remember the first time i got up to give my

first school assembly, i felt my dad over my shoulder saying pause for drama, deliver your words. when i was a kid, i wanted to be a teacher. and then when i got into high school, i decided i wanted to get into advertising and do graphic art and taglines and stuff like that. by the time i was in college, i decided i wanted to be a decorator. but as i did more work, i realized working my way up meant a lot of physical labor. i only had so much energy to work with for the rest of my life and i could use that energy towards making a lot of money, helping someone else make a lot of money or doing something meaningful. i found the nonprofit working to save the rainforest was looking for volunteers. i went, volunteered and my life changed. suddenly everything i was doing

had meaning. stuffing envelopes had meaning, faxing out requests had meaning. i eventually moved up to san francisco to work out of the office here, given a lot of assembly through los angeles county and then came up here and doing assemblies to kids about rainforest. one of my jobs was to teach about recycle, teaching students to reduce, reuse, recycle and compost, i'm teaching them they have the power, and that motivates them. it was satisfying for me to work with for the department of environment to create a message that gets to the heart of the issue. the san francisco department of environment is the only agency that has a full time educational team, we go into the schools to help teach children how to protect nature and the environment.

we realized we needed animal mascot to spark excitement with the students. the city during the gold rush days, the phoenix became part of the city feel and i love the symbolism of the phoenix, about transformation and the message that the theme of the phoenix provides, we all have the power to transform our world for the better. we have to provide teachers with curriculum online, our curriculum is in two different languages and whether it's lesson plans or student fact sheets, teachers can use them and we've had great feedback. we have helped public and private schools in san francisco increase their waste use and students are working hard to sort waste at the end of the lunch and understand the power of reusing, reducing, recycling

and composting. >> great job. >> i've been with the department for 15 years and an environmental educator for more than 23 years and i'm grateful for the work that i get to do, especially on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. i try to use my voice as intentionally as possible to support, i think of my grandmother who had a positive attitude and looked at things positively. try to do that as well in my work and with my words to be an uplifting force for myself and others. think of entering the job force as a treasure hunt. you can only go to your next clue and more will be revealed. follow your instincts, listen to your gut, follow your heart, do what makes you happy and

pragmatic and see where it takes you and get to the next place. trust if you want to do good in this world, that [♪♪♪] >> i just don't know that you can find a neighborhood in the city where you can hear music stands and take a ride on the low rider down the street. it is an experience that you can't have anywhere else in san francisco. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> district nine is a in the southeast portion of the city. we have four neighborhoods that

i represent. st. mary's park has a completely unique architecture. very distinct feel, and it is a very close to holly park which is another beautiful park in san francisco. the bernal heights district is unique in that we have the hell which has one of the best views in all of san francisco. there is a swinging hanging from a tree at the top. it is as if you are swinging over the entire city. there are two unique aspects. it is considered the fourth chinatown in san francisco. sixty% of the residents are of chinese ancestry. the second unique, and fun aspect about this area is it is the garden district. there is a lot of urban agriculture and it was where the city grew the majority of the flowers. not only for san francisco but for the region. and of course, it is the location in mclaren park which is the city's second biggest park after golden gate. many people don't know the neighborhood in the first place

if they haven't been there. we call it the best neighborhood nobody has ever heard our. every neighborhood in district nine has a very special aspect. where we are right now is the mission district. the mission district is a very special part of our city. you smell the tacos at the [speaking spanish] and they have the best latin pastries. they have these shortbread cookies with caramel in the middle. and then you walk further down and you have sunrise café. it is a place that you come for the incredible food, but also to learn about what is happening in the neighborhood and how you can help and support your community. >> twenty-fourth street is the birthplace of the movement. we have over 620 murals. it is the largest outdoor public gallery in the country and possibly the world. >> you can find so much political engagement park next

to so much incredible art. it's another reason why we think this is a cultural district that we must preserve. [♪♪♪] >> it was formed in 2014. we had been an organization that had been around for over 20 years. we worked a lot in the neighborhood around life issues. most recently, in 2012, there were issues around gentrification in the neighborhood. so the idea of forming the cultural district was to help preserve the history and the culture that is in this neighborhood for the future of families and generations. >> in the past decade, 8,000 latino residents in the mission district have been displaced from their community. we all know that the rising cost of living in san francisco has led to many people being displaced. lower and middle income all over the city. because it there is richness in

this neighborhood that i also mentioned the fact it is flat and so accessible by trip public transportation, has, has made it very popular. >> it's a struggle for us right now, you know, when you get a lot of development coming to an area, a lot of new people coming to the area with different sets of values and different culture. there is a lot of struggle between the existing community and the newness coming in. there are some things that we do to try to slow it down so it doesn't completely erase the communities. we try to have developments that is more in tune with the community and more equitable development in the area. >> you need to meet with and gain the support and find out the needs of the neighborhoods. the people on the businesses that came before you. you need to dialogue and show respect. and then figure out how to bring in the new, without displacing the old. [♪♪♪] >> i hope we can reset a lot of the mission that we have lost in

the last 20 years. so we will be bringing in a lot of folks into the neighborhoods pick when we do that, there is a demand or, you know, certain types of services that pertain more to the local community and working-class. >> back in the day, we looked at mission street, and now it does not look and feel anything like mission street. this is the last stand of the latino concentrated arts, culture and cuisine and people. we created a cultural district to do our best to conserve that feeling. that is what makes our city so cosmopolitan and diverse and makes us the envy of the world. we have these unique neighborhoods with so much cultural presence and learnings, that we want to preserve. [♪♪♪]

>> clerk: welcome to the san francisco planning commission remote hearing for thursday, september 2, 2021. sfgovtv is broadcasting this hearing live, and we will receive public comment for each item on this agenda. comments or opportunities to speak are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 146-600-1291.

when we reach the item you are interested in commenting on, please press star then three to be added to the queue. when your line is unmuted, that's when it is your turn to begin speaking. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person to speak. best practice is to call from a quiet environment, speak slowly and clearly, and please announce your name. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. items 1 a and b for case

numbers 2019-013808-cua and var for the property at 4300 17 street. a request for conditional use authorization and variant, and item 2, 2021-001579-cua, at 2715 judah street, a conditional use authorization, is proposed for continuance to october 14, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to make public comment by pressing star, three. okay. seeing no members of the public -- i take it back. go ahead, caller.

you have one -- or two minutes. >> i'm opposing this ceo on 2715 judah street -- >> clerk: we're only taking comments on the matter of continuance. [inaudible] >> clerk: sir, i'm going to interrupt you right now because we're only taking comment on the matter of continuance. you are either for or against continuance. we will take up the subject matter of the authorization for the project when it comes up in october. >> i'm opposed. >> clerk: i understand that, sir. would you like to speak to the continuance? >> no, not at this time.

>> clerk: thank you. >> hi. i just want to make a comment on the continuance for the 4300 17 street project. i'm a neighbor here in corona heights, and i know there's a number of people that want to weigh-in on this but don't have the opportunity to do this, and i look forward to discussing this on october 14. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. okay. last call for public comment on items proposed to be continued. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, public comment is closed, and the item is before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to continue items [inaudible]. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion, then, to

continue items as proposed -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6-0. zoning administrator? >> i will continue the variance under item 1-b for 4300 17 street to october 14. >> clerk: thank you, zoning administrator. now we can move onto item 3, consideration of adoption of draft minutes of july 22, 2021. commissioners, when i submitted the minutes for july 22, i did receive a motion from commissioner moore, clarifying her motion, and i believe she

will explain that herself, but she's recommending that the intent, it was only intended for staff review, not to go back to the historic preservation commission, so she would like to clarify that and proposes the following language, that the condition of approval for item 14, 400 california street, should be edited to read as follows. in addition to preservation staff review of this project, for consistency with the historic preservation staff's consideration of appropriateness, all subsequent tenant improvements will be subject to approval in

conjunction with the at the pointant approval guidelines unless -- with the tenant approval guidelines unless [inaudible] so after consulting with the city attorney's office, we will need to bring that matter back before you and can simply -- we won't need to bring that matter back before you and can simply add that in. >> vice president moore: i would like to add that the record put forward by the secretary is not accurate. instead of it being a d.b.i. over the counter approval, that there is another watchful eye on the matter, and that can be achieved by preservation staff being notified when a modification application is coming in. i support the motion as read

into the record by secretary ionin. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. if there are no questions from commissioners, we should take public comment on the minutes. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes from july 22. seeing no requests from the public requesting to speak, public comment on the minutes are now closed, and they're before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i just wanted to ask a question of one of the items, 555 fulton street. one of the conditions was that it was subject to a one-year informational update to the traffic mitigation measures, and i know we specifically

discussed and approved language that would give us the ability or retain the ability to modify the conditions, depending on how the traffic studies rolled out during that one-year period, and so i just wanted to confirm that the use of the term informational hearing does include our ability to impose conditions at the time, and maybe, secretary ionin, you could explain how that process would work, given that it's called an informational hearing here? >> clerk: right. commissioner diamond, so the informational matter would have to happen after you called any motions for approval or to impose any conditional measures. so that would provide you with an update from staff as to how the current mitigation measures

are being satisfied. and you, at that, would then request that the item be [inaudible] i don't know. ask the city attorney? it looks like miss stacey would like to say something here. >> good afternoon, commissioners. kate stacey from the city attorney's office. if there are new measures that are the result of a study during a certain period of

time, that the commission may update that condition, but it typically needs to be very clear because typically, the city wouldn't have authority to approve a permit because essentially, you'd have to revoke a permit that was part of the approval or to add conditions when there was no subsequent permit before you. the city is obligated to make a decision and then allow the project to move forward or not. so i'm sorry. i'm not familiar with how this condition reads, but if the commission wanted to retain the authority to impose or modify a condition, that needs to be really clear in the condition itself so that the project sponsor is on notice. >> commissioner diamond: we were very clear in our conditions around that, which is why i was somewhat concerned

about that characterization in the minutes, that it just required an informational hearing, and i wondered if it would be additional to all of us to have that condition of the minutes? >> and in the item itself. >> clerk: commissioners, if you would allow a continuance of approval until the next minutes to review the recording of the record, and if need be, update the results to capture commissioner diamond's concerns, and then, we can also accommodate commissioner

moore's request for 4300 17 street. >> commissioner diamond: do you need a motion to do that? >> clerk: yes. >> commissioner diamond: so moved. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. then let's continue -- well, i think a one-week continuance is fine to september 9. on that motion, then, to continue the minutes to september 9 -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0, and thank you for that, commissioners diamond and moore. we can now move onto item 4, commission comments and

questions. if there are no comments or questions from commissioners, we can move onto department matters. item 5, director's announcements. >> director hillis: no announcements today, jonas. thanks. >> clerk: okay. item 6, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and historic preservation commission. is mr. starr not with us? he may be on vacation. i know the zoning administrator wanted to provide you with an update on the board of appeals. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. corey teague. the board of appeals did meet last august 18 during your break and considered the appeals of both the variant and the permit granted to 268 oak street, both of which allow the construction of a unit at the rear of the lot.

the project came before planning commission for consideration and discussion of discretionary review. the commission voted 5-1 to not take d.r. and approve the project. the d.r. requester was also the appellant at the board of appeals, and she's an occupant of an adjacent building, and while the board of appeals had empathy for the potential construction impacts the projects would have on the adjacent buildings, they determined that the variant were justified and the building permits have been properly issued, and they unanimously approved both appeals. the board also met last night but didn't make any decisions related to board decisions. they had a new commissioner seats. his name is jose lopez, and he was appointed by mayor breed on july 27 of this year, so his term will run through july

2024. thank you. >> clerk: commissioners, the board of supervisors are on recess, i've been informed, and the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday briefly and did consider just a couple of items, most importantly, the state mandated accessory dwelling unit controls, which is on your agenda today, and they forwarded a recommendation for approval with staff's modification, so you'll hear more about that shortly. if there are no questions or comments related to those updates, we should 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 comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission under general public comment. through the chair, you will have two minutes. >> linda chapman, speaking for nob hill residents. you know, i'm going to have to come before you a number of times i guess in these two-minute intervals because our neighborhood is in the middle of being destroyed. i reported to you over 1.5 years ago that the height limits have been changed. height limits that are supposed to be 65 feet have buildings up to 130 feet built in them. and now, in another place, 150 feet is being proposed in what as far as i know is a

65 feet height limit area in an area that is still zoned for 65 feet, and right down the street from a 65-foot building built in the n.c.d. the director has been very kind in calling me. scott sanchez did summary search, but then, nothing further has happened. i was last told -- and i'm not blaming an individual, but the department needs to start getting on the ball. you need to stop approving projects in areas with height limits passed by the board of supervisors. there were two more maps after 1979 map that scott sanchez found that showed your current maps were incorrect. there were two more mapped filed by us and one by south of market coalition. now i'm seeing a 150-foot

building in an area that was zoned for 65 feet by us or 80 feet by them. and now, it's shown in downtown sutter street. all the maps show that sutter street is nob hill. what is happening on pine hill is that the wind tunnel that is already documented has been moved so that it isn't only on the northside of pine street, it's on the southside of pine street because of the high-rise that was built on the austin. this needs to stop. you need to pause these and get the zoning maps corrected. >> clerk: thank you, miss chapman. that is your time. >> oh, good afternoon, commissioners. this is georgia schiutish.

your staff are always so helpful. i sent in the videos, and i think you're going to see them, but there's two of them. there's video of the excavation across the street from me showing the outcome so far, and this will ultimately be over 10 feet deep for the entire 2700-foot lot, including the jacked-up house that you can see. this extreme alteration is just to create a basement that will have very questionable exposure and egress under neath the garage. this is a very bad tablet to densefy, and it could have been done in a better way by using a house and a horizontal expansion, not only using a lot of resources to create a

subterranean unit. it's pretty deep, it's pretty astounsing, and i think this is environmentally questionable. i -- astounding, and i think this is environmentally questionable. i know you don't deal with this as a commission, and this is the domain of d.b.i. however, a design like this one is approved by the planning, and it needs an excavation and the rear yard disappears, replaced by a cement patio. it seems like the staff considered the issue of the length between the design of the project and the execution required to complete the design. there's another video showing the soil going into the dump

trucks that we've had, like, 60 of or maybe more since june. just for comparison, when this project was under review, the plans said the excavation was 36 cubic yards, but the final approved plan signed off by d.b.i. said it was 1200 cubic yards. it seems like an inaccurate estimate. >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> can i say one more thing? [inaudible] >> on 1500 townsend, it's just [inaudible] any way, thanks. good-bye. thanks, sorry. >> [inaudible] i just have a message for linda chapman. your smoke alarm has been going off for, i believe, a few months, so i would suggest you check the battery. thank you. bye.

>> clerk: okay. last call for -- oh, is this one more person? have you spoken, sir? did you just speak? [inaudible]. >> clerk: okay. thank you. last call for general public comment. okay. seeing no additional requests to speak under general public comment, general public comment is closed, and we can move onto your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 7, case 2021-006260-pca for state-mandated accessory dwelling unit controls. this is a planning code amendment. i will make you a presenter, veronica.

miss flores, i believe your microphone is muted. miss flores? >> oh, i have a very large screen with these dual monitors, and i couldn't find unmute. good afternoon, commissioners. veronica flores, planning department staff. the item before you is the state-mandated accessory

dwelling unit ordinance. today, i am joined by natalie kwiatkowski. this is the same ordinance that appeared in front of you last year, july 2020, and an update is why we're back in front of you today. the ordinance now incorporates now the recommended modification moved by both you and the historic preservation commission last year, and that modification was to retain the

objective architectural review standards. and lastly, this version of the ordinance makes clarifications required by things for state law, one of which is in [inaudible] on an a.d.u. and junior a.d.u. the last year before this bill, applicants could only choose one or the other.

there's a state a.d.u., and we also have the -- [inaudible] >> -- as you see on the slide, and now, there's different options under the state program

as well as our local program, so property owner may actually qualify for more than one type of a.d.u. or more than one pass for a.d.u.s, and it will ultimately be up to them. the big change is the impact to the fee waiver. the ordinance does require one not outlined under state law, and the department does support this as it further incentivizes

a.d.u.s. under the local program, there are three clarifications that are not required by state law, but these are nonsubstantive and are really here just to clarify our code. the only change that was not included in the original ordinance is that the detached a.d.u.s in the rear yard would be measured from the grade to the top of a flat roof or the mid point of a pitched roof. state law does not currently define how height is defined for these structures. after the packets were published, the department received one letter, a copy of which was shared with you directly, and the letter discussed general questions regarding state law, and urged

commission to support a.d.u. construction within the rear yard. this ordinance covers the same items presented to you last year, which again, focuses on brings our state law in line with code changes as well as modification to the local program. this is a new recommendation that we have included after the staff report was published, so i did include this and highlight it on the slide for you today. for some background, state law does allow detached a.d.u. with side and rear setbacks. after the staff report was published, we realized that it would be really rather difficult to construct such a

detached a.d.u. in the required rear yard area, so this would be an a.d.u. in the rear yard. the suggestion is to follow the same height and back parameters as state law, and it would allow for more detached a.d.u.s and also yield more rent controlled units. this appeared in front of the historic preservation commission yesterday, and after discussion, they made a unanimous recommendation to approve with modification described a moment ago. and this concludes staff

presentation, and i, along with the rest of the a.d.u. team, are available on the call. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, miss florez. if there are no immediate questions from members of the commission, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by presenting star then three. through the chair, you will each have two minutes, and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> good afternoon. rick gladstone speaking. first, congrats to the city staff and city attorney for making sense of two laws which overlap, namely, the state a.d.u. law and our local one. i have represented a number of property owners who created a.d.u.s, i'm not writing this

letter for any particular client. first law, the local a.d.u. program says open space requirements may be granted for a.d.u.s added within existing buildings, but the proposed law seems not to allow that. however, new construction a.d.u.s are very popular, and i do not understand the legal or policy basis to deny those planning code waivers in new buildings. second point, i don't recall if current law says if an a.d.u. may expand into habitable space on any floor. that is, of course, to a limited extent, but it limits the number of a.d.u.s in a multistory building, and i do

not understand the requirements of that restriction. third, a.d.u. height, i believe i heard that no longer will a.d.u. height be measured at the top of a pitched roof, and i appreciate that point. it should be at the mid point of a pitched roof as that will allow a second story. it's often needed to add a second story, and a.d.u.s will not take up as much of the rear yard open space. last point, merging a.d.u.s with original units. law states that an a.d.u. may not be merged with original

units. >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> all right. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. corey smith on behalf of the housing action coalition. certainly share many of the questions and concerns that the previous speaker had on the proposal, and having followed the a.d.u. updates in sacramento, knowing that there was a carveout for san francisco, it's really frustrating to be honest. it does feel like the bare minimums if the goal is to create as many homes, even if the state is not going to create the standards that the housing action coalition hopes would be the case for san francisco, we would certainly encourage the cities to find

ways to go above and beyond to create more a.d.u.s. not going to stick my head in the sand. i do realize there is a red control component to this, but i do think this is something that can be followed at the end of the day, and if we are unable to figure out ways to incentivize a.d.u.s in san francisco because of state law not going far enough, it just shows that action at the state is really the best way to ensure that cities, including san francisco, build the homes that are needed to accommodation our growing population. thank you very much. >> linda chapman. i'm first going to say i'm experiencing technical problems today. i understand there was a

message for me, but the technical problems continue. they're a real detriment to public access to every hearing. with regard to a.d.u.s, i was having a hard time following the presentation while the computer stalled. but any way, i would certainly be an advocate for a.d.u.s. our building before we moved into this three-story was a one-to-three single-family home. it had a large master bedroom and two bathrooms that was added for extra income. and the apartment that i occupied later after my mom went off to santa rosa, was occupied by an a.d.u.

when my mother lived in santa rosa, they lived on half an acre. they turned their garage into a charming rental unit and then built another garage. it made no difference to the neighbors because nobody could probably even see it. in our neighborhood, it's 15 by 25 feet, at most. it would be harmful to be sticking a.d.u.s in places like that. i hope we could put an a.d.u. in the building where i live because the third story is nothing but storage. it would face into a garden. you could have windows all the way across and extend windows out into the bay, but they certainly shouldn't be allowed

to eliminate, you know, the central yards that are so important in our dense neighborhoods or to create an inhabitable condition like those b.m.r. units. >> clerk: that is your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is bruce bowen from delores heights. this is primarily a vehicle for implementing state law, which limits what i can comment on. but first, i hope to see rapid development of ways in which the department may find to incentivize the local program so there may be other benefits to the program, as well. second, this program highlights the need for reports to provide public access to data. the number of a.d.u.s built under each program, specifically, the size, square

footage, whether they're hybrid or ministerial, waiver or nonwaiver in order for us to understand the benefits of the program. of course it is unlikely that any publicly available data will [inaudible] and aren't just ways to demonstrate [inaudible] until that comes. i'd like to mention you all did a good job making this as clear as possible. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. anastasia iovannopoulos. i give a nod to bruce bowen's previous comments. although a.d.u.s approved under state law are not subject to

the rent stabilization provision of the san francisco rent ordinance, waivers are under complete control when one is granted from the planning code requirement and in some cases, the local program offers more opportunities for a.d.u.s. there are two conflicting statements in the september 2, 2021 executive summary that have to do with affordability in the racial and social equity analysis. one that a.d.u.s help advance racial and social equity by allowing for more affordable dwelling units due to their smaller size. who's to say that these units are more affordable. if you look at gordon mar's statistics, a unit would cost $22,700 average.

number two, even if a.d.u.s are less costly due to smaller square footage, a.d.u.s are not rented at low or very low-income, so this runs counter to the housing element objective one, identify and make available for development adequate sites that are -- especially affordable housing, and policy number 1.5, does not make this housing permanently affordable to lower income households or comport with objective number three to protect the affordability of existing housing specialty rental units. further, i would urge a continuance because this ordinance requires outreach to tenants be completed before the

a.d.u. application is submitted -- >> clerk: thank you, miss iovannopoulos. that is your time. >> thank you. >> oh, hi. it's georgia schiutish. i want to refer to a demolition of a house. it was originally going to be an alteration, but the second time they got the appraisal, they took two appraisals to get it in the rh-1, and they were out to demolish it, and the department approved an a.d.u. when it was completed. it was actually completed in the last year, and it hasn't sold. it's sitting up there, the building's been empty since 2015, when the original house was sold, and they've lowered the price. and in the ads for this luxury

home, they never mention the a.d.u. and so i think this is something to highlight when you had all of these projects up in belgrade, that you have all of these a.d.u.s. but this house is empty, so i guess the question is, what are you going to get out of this program with a. -- how do you impose it, especially, especially, especially, especially for these spec projects? i think there's a real distinction between a project like i'm citing here and somebody that wants to create an a.d.u. for their relative. i don't know how you sort it out, but it seems like you have to sort it out if you want it to be effective. it's been sitting empty since

2015. the original house would have been perfect for an a.d.u. it had a tunnel entrance, and they could have just stuck it in the garage. an a.d.u. program should be about practicalities. thanks a lot. take good care. be well, be safe, good-bye. >> commissioners, this is lorraine petty. a member of seniors disability action and san francisco tenants union and long time advocate for affordable housing for seniors. i've carefully read through exhibit a and was struck mostly by how often and how deeply affordability is given as the reason, value, for creating

these a.d.u.s, and indeed, for going beyond that and actually promoting them on that basis. it's hypothesized that units of smaller square footage rent for lesser prices, but really, is that an assumption or is it a fact? it's based on all of us taking on face representations by landlords that they'll rent for a certain price. it is, therefore, unknown what the actual prices are that are being charged. so i have to say, as a senior and as a renter for most of my life, it's almost -- i've almost always seen landlords ask fog the highest amount someone is willing to pay, and the planning staff itself in

the summary has admitted that affordability is an issue here. so since we currently lack the facts on which to make a decision, we need a study of a.d.u.s that have been rented out, say, for at least 18 months. we need to see not just a median or average of these prices but an actual list of specific rents charged. we need to know how many are rent controlled, their sizes, etc., other important information. we should commit to such a study now. we should start talking about such a study now, and make sure it's going to get done in anticipation of the rental housing inventory that's soon to come on-line. i suggest, in the end, that we base our decisions on the fact and not assumptions. thanks. >> clerk: thank you.

that is your time. okay. last call for public comment for this item. you need to press star, three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment is closed, and this item is now before you. i'm sorry. was i muted? public comment is now closed, and this item is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: i am on board with everything, and curious of other commissioners, what they think.

commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i'd like to thank the staff for their really great work in navigating some complex laws. one thing i am concerned about from an implementation standpoint is having multiple programs. on one hand, it allows the city to adjust and property owners to adjust to several scenarios, but on the other hand, i wonder if it creates too much for staff to monitor? have there been feedback on the

programs, that you're concerned that it doesn't have lack of clarity? if this then that, and in this scenario, if you do this, i just wonder in the balance of variety leading to more flexibility but also creating confusion. >> thank you, commissioners. natalie kwiatkowski, planning department staff. the reason why we do have a third program, which is the hybrid, is because there's a carveout in state law that san francisco qualifies for, and therefore, the a.d.u.s approved under the program do qualify under state law. so it has been challenging sharing that information for the public as we're

implementing it for our planners? that's how we branded them in order to make it as easily digestible as possible but we'll definitely continue working on that aspect. >> commissioner tanner: great. thank you so much. i think i read there's more changing coming to our local programs, and so perhaps if and when all of them settle, there'll be some clarification of some requirements. i have been tracking some state legislation, but not much. are we also anticipating any changes in 2022 that we'll need to adapt to, as well, or what are we looking forward to once congress finishes their session? >> we are waiting for that and will come back to you. >> commissioner tanner: and then, we heard from folks that

wanted to have our a.d.u. program be more aggressive to create more a.d.u. units in the city. i am curious if there's anything that would allow for more widespread adoption of a.d.u.s that were not presented to us? is there something that we could be doing in san francisco that would allow us for more thoughtful presentation here? >> thank you, commissioner tanner. [inaudible] planning department staff. staff did have many extensive conversations about the state law and also noting that we do have the ability to be less restrictive than state law, but

because, as you've already highlighted today, there's already a very complex -- complex matter, so it's what is truly required this time under state law, and once we have that in place, perhaps revisiting and after, you know, further discussion and also hearing more of your concerns during the past hearings and in the future, then we would be able to strategize where it's better to have those less restrictive programs. we still have all of those options to landlords and property owners. and i will pause here and see if director hillis had anything

to add to the recommendation. >> director hillis: well, i wanted to draw attention to what you said during the presentation. one of the changes was to allow the local program to be expanded to allow for rear yard a.d.u.s that would kind of have the same limitations that state law proposes, but currently, they wouldn't be allowed under our local program, so if we expand to allow those, it's possible we can get those built under the local program, which would enable us to apply rent control, so i think that kind of gets to your point, commissioner tanner, about trying to encourage sponsors to use the local program.

. >> commissioner tanner: okay. that's very helpful. there was a report that was released earlier this year. it was released in april out of u.c. berkeley center for community innovation, and they did a study of a.d.u.s across california and reported on some things. it doesn't look just at san francisco but statewide. meeting construction costs in the bay area, a.d.u.s about $177,000, about $329 a square foot, and they also look at some of the rental prices. so the median rental price of an a.d.u. in california, it ranges from $1,900 in the central coast region to $2,200 in our city.

it does give us some information. i think we do get every year really robust reporting on our housing stock. i think a.d.u.s are identified in those reports separately, so we can look to those past years and future years' reporting on a.d.u.s in the san francisco housing stock, and i see nodding from staff, so that's correct. [please stand by]

. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> director hillis: commissioner, i think you're muted.

>> commissioner imperial: can you hear me now? >> director hillis: yeah. >> president koppel: yeah. >> commissioner imperial: okay. thank you. just to follow up and just for clarification on when it comes -- what are we gaining in this, the state a.d.u. program, and so just going step by ste. so our local program, we are more explicit that these are going to be rent controlled units, and it looks like supervisor mandelman is introducing another legislation around a.d.u. and rent board notification. so in this hybrid, is the state subject to rent control in san francisco and is that the same thing, as well, for the hybrid program? just more clarification. >> thank you, commissioner. state law prevents us from

subjecting rent control to a.d.u.s. only our local program allows the qualifying a.d.u.s to rent control. >> commissioner imperial: and so the upcoming legislation proposed by supervisor mandelman in terms of the notification, that would -- in what way that can be implementable to the state and hybrid program? is that implementable at all? >> the legislation that you mentioned by supervisor mandelman is scheduled for presentation at your hearing next week. it is scheduled to implement those controls to the local program.

i -- >> commissioner imperial: i guess more clarification on the program itself. i think one thing, the staff, you guys really, you know, put out, you know, clearly as to what our the things that are need to consider and one thing, too, that i'm thinking about are who's going to build these a.d.u.s, right? who are capable of building this, especially if, you know -- and so how are these a.d.u. programs be really accessible to the ones that, you know, i would say whether a middle-income family who wants to gain another income in order to rent it out and that's what

commissioner tanner, asked about the cost of construction will be 100,000. perhaps it's more for the board of supervisors and us on the commission to be thinking about, [inaudible] for building this kind of a.d.u. program? has anyone talks to supervisor mar's office or anyone thinking around -- [inaudible] >> director hillis: i'm just going to chime in. we definitely are in conversations with supervisor mar's office. we want to encourage and make it easier for, you know, homeowners to add a.d.u.s. certainly, we have the solutions yet as part of that,

but, you know, i think part of it is making the process a bit simpler and more easier to understand, which is complicated as commissioner tanner discussed, because there are three ways you can go about doing it, but natalia and others have been extremely diligent about trying to lay out the rules for each of those and how you can get them and also incentivizing and encouraging our local programs because it has some of the benefits like rent control, but i think there's still work that needs to be done with the board to try to figure out ways to make it easier for homeowners to have these. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, director hillis. i mean, i think we've had this discussion the first time it was introduced, this a.d.u.

program, how it's going to look like, especially when it comes to mid block open space. i remember we had this kind of robust discussion, and i remember it that -- from our discussion that we are more afforded the local program and how we can incentivize that. i understand this is for us to be comparable to the state -- the state program, but i also echo what other public comments have mentioned regarding the data. sometimes we do have those data, but when it comes to the sizes, who are the most likely people going to live in there, i think those are very helpful tools for us in order to really expand our local program. but i guess at this point, in

terms for what we have right now, but again, emphasize on our local a.d.u. program to be highlighted, but thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: in terms of on going and new legislation, both local and statewide with respect to density increases, is staff aware of whether those proposed legislations have any discussions in coordination with where the a.d.u. process

is? >> thank you, commissioner fung. so you are correct, there are a number of different efforts right now in terms of increasing density, upzoning, allowing for units on a property, so there's different iterations there, and the department tries to look at everything holistically. it's something that we really try to be mindful of, and even as you see in this current staff report, we're anticipating some of the changes just within the a.d.u. realm itself, but it's something we need to continue to work on, and that's the best answer that i have for you today. and i do see director hillis. i don't know if he wants to chime in further about the

general information for you. >> director hillis: it's definitely something that we look at when we look at legislation. so for instance, when we bring to you supervisor mandelman's legislation to allow four units on a corner lot, we think the question that you'll have and that we'll answer as part of a staff report, will that allow you to have an a.d.u., and the answer is yes in that case, but we're looking at that in legislation that was just passed, allowing property owners to splitting an a.d.u. between their units, and does that allow for an additional unit in the a.d.u. product. so we will definitely continue to ask those questions and

whether it will allow additional expansion or not. >> commissioner fung: yes. i think it's important that we know whether or not it will allow additional expansion. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i wonder if you could summarize the difference between state

hybrid and local a.d.u.s with respect to our rear yard requirements? >> thank you, commissioner. i can try and tackle that one. let's start with the state one. the state program is the one that we do not have the ability to subject these a.d.u.s to our local planning code unless it's specifically stated in state law. the state law allows one a.d.u. under residential law, so this a.d.u. can be a detached a.d.u. in a rear yard. it would require a four-foot set back from side and rear yard boundaries. the hybrid is the one that costs us through the state, but it does require compliance with

local code. that does require a detached a.d.u., but that would need to be placed within the buildable areas of the lot, so those would be a little hard to physically construct because most of our lots may not have buildable area on our lots. the local area currently only allows a.d.u.s within the existing building an extension to the existing building within the building area or legal nonconforming structures in the rear yard. and as mentioned by miss flores earlier, we are proposing to allow one detached a.d.u. within the require rear yard to be comparable to what's allowed by state law? those a.d.u.s would already be allowed by state, but as a

local program, we have the possibility to subject them to rent control. so to summarize my answer to your question, two of the programs is you sort of adapt as proposed today would allow one detached a.d.u. within the required rear yard. >> commissioner diamond: so i understand the reason you want to do the modification to the local program is you think they are going to be built any ways, so you might as well get the benefit of rent control if they are. regarding the state density program, we are pretty much undermining if not eliminating in some respects all of the benefits that were assumed when we adopted rear yard requirements in the first place. as we get denser, as we should, there's all the need in a dense

urban environment for more open space. how do we advocate for hybrid units, which is the only one that would not interact with the existing rear yards? >> [inaudible] under the state program or the local program, the hybrid one is utilized the least because even though it does, in certain situations, allow more a.d.u.s, it's difficult to comply them with local code. so the hybrid program does not allow us to waive any requirements. if we could waive it, that would allow us to encourage it a little bit more and be in line with our local program. >> commissioner diamond: just concerned on a policy level how

we come to a balance between the desire to add a.d.u.s and yet do our best to preserve mid block open space, and it feels like the balance is shifting pretty significantly with this law to -- our adoption of this ordinance with the favor of addition of a.d.u.s at the expense of mid block open space. from a -- you know, from a policy perspective, i get quite concerned because it seems to me that for those of us -- most of us want to increase the density of our city to accommodate more people. it doesn't necessarily have to be at the expense of open space. we could be going taller but not necessarily going in our backyards. i recognize it's not a city issue so much but a state law

and that's where the law is coming from, and i'm wondering what position the city is taking on this particular subject. >> thank you, commissioners. just want to clarify one thing about our local program? the requirement would be to retain open space for any existing units on the lot, and that would, in design, likely open up the space between the two buildings on a lot so it continues to function as open space. >> commissioner diamond: thank you for clarification. >> director hillis: and just to add, i think that's why we wanted to add the opportunity to have the rear yard a.d.u., you know, at least be approvable under the local program because we can look at it in, you know, review it for design and perhaps shift where it is around to try to maximize

the open space that would recovery room because under state law, it's a bit blunt. it's state law, so it's applying to every parcel in the state. there's a requirement for a four-foot set back from the property line. being where you kind of want the open space, you may want to push up against a property line and then maximize the remaining open space. so i think that's part of the reason beyond just rent control that he wanted those to be approvable under the local program so we can make some modifications to it that we talked about. to answer your other question, i wasn't here when this was moving through the state process, so i don't know kind of what our position was on it, but i don't think the city -- the city goes through an official process to kind of owe

pine on state legislation, and i don't believe this has been discussed as part of those efforts. >> commissioner diamond: i'm sorry. i missed -- >> director hillis: it's a priority in our state legislation, but we can certainly raise that when we talk about kind of future state legislation and what we're trying to accomplish. >> commissioner diamond: densities of a certain size may need to be different than suburbs with respect to this open space issue. perhaps not, but i think it's worthy of some discussion. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yes. just want to piggyback on what commissioner diamond was saying. i think as we're looking into

this, it really does make me think, as we're looking into an appropriate density, what is an appropriate density for san francisco, i think we need to be very sensitive on that and, you know, i appreciate what, you know, commissioner diamond and also director hillis is, and other supervisor working on this, but in terms of density, i think there are different ways that can be sensitive, as well, in terms of the ideas of open space and rear yard, and there are those articles that are reading into what does a low density neighborhood look like. something just to, you know, as

we are going to go through this process, just also want the planning department to look at that in terms of density in s.f. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. i just would have a few more questions kind of building on commissioner diamond's line of questioning. in regards to the hybrid program or local hybrid program, i'm not sure. i think it's called a local hybrid program, for those that want to build a local a.d.u., do you see incentives there, are there incentives that we could do above state law, more generous, such as, i don't know, allowing multiple stories, that would make that program more attract tiff and

is already in compliant with the rear yard standards. is there anything that we could change in this ordinance that would make that more attract tiff? >> thank you, commissioner. i'm going to ask our deputy city attorney to opine on this. adding more requirements -- >> commissioner tanner: not more requirements, more per sistiveness so you can do more and require less. >> so state law does require flexibility. that's sort of where we originally had the 12 -- the [inaudible] detached a.d.u., and we brought it down in regards to the concern of the mid block open space. if the city attorney is available and can speak to our ability to be flexibility to state law, that would be helpful. >> commissioner tanner: stacey,

are you there? >> peter [inaudible] from the city attorney's office. state law does allow the city to be more permissive in the structure safety programs. there may be challenging for other reasons resulting from our local code and our charter. the amendment of the planning code to create more permissive a.d.u. controls could require more review. i think we'd have to look at this proposal to understand what the potential obstacles could be, but certainly, state law does allow the city to be more permissive. the question is what steps the city would have to take to accomplish that. >> commissioner tanner: absolutely. [inaudible] this legislation, and i think what i would hope

to see as we move forward, that our local programs really would be the best and be the path that most people want to go down so that even some of the things that might be burdensome on it will be outweighed by the benefits of that program and even helping direct people so that we are retaining open space, perhaps not retaining that configuration, but we are retaining that, just to your point, just a bit more privacy in the rear yard. so i would make a motion to support the staff

recommendation. >> president koppel: i will make a second. >> clerk: thank you. if there is nothing further by commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with modification. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0, and places us on items 8-a, b, and c for case numbers

2019-023623-enx, ofa, ofa-02, and var for the property at 130 townsend street. you will be considering planning code amendments, office development authorization, and the zoning administrator will be considering a request for variance. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. can you hear me okay? >> clerk: we can hear you just fine, mr. westhoff. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. alex westhoff, department

staff. this is for a property at 130 townsend street, located in the central somaix mixed use office district, central soma business district. instruction of a five-story 65-foot separate and completely autonomous rear portion of the lot, which is called the stanford building. the building has 37,740 square feet of office space.

the stanford building will include 46,764 square feet of office space. the project does not propose automobile parking spaces. the project includes 17 class one and 4 class two bicycle parking spaces. office uses are not considered active uses in the central soma special use district. additionally, a variance from the street law requirements is required given the entry niche which is required on the stanford building. there was opposition in regards to the elimination of the parking lot and the lack of

parking that the project does not provide. all public correspondence was outlined in the case report or, if received more recently, has been forwarded to the commission. the project was brought before the historic preservation commission on august 14, 2021, who unanimously approved the certificate of appropriateness. the project has been designed in a way which is modern in appearance those compatible with the neighborhood, which is rising. the department urges approval, this concludes my presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john kevlin here with reuben,

junius, and rose, the project sponsor. we're excited to present the

project. the project is designed to be consistent with the south end historic district and has been unanimously approved by the historic preservation commission. next slide, please. the project as conducted outreach with both community organizations and neighbors, and we're not aware of any significant opposition to the project at this point. next slide, please. and next slide, please. and thank you, commissioners. i'd like to hand it off to laura from page and turnbull, who's going to present the designs. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. [inaudible] with page and turnbull, architects. i would like to briefly present the design approach. here you have the proposed project within the context of the neighborhood. this is townsend street looking east. and next slide, please.

this is the view of the overall development showcasing 130 townsend street. again in the context of the city, this is the new process spec tiff view looking northwest. next slide, please. i'd like to mention that the design team worked very closely with planning and preservation planning staff to determine the designed approach and to lean heavily on the neighborhood character defining features. 130 townsend is a contributor to the south end historic district, so we looked carefully at the type of architecture that exists and forms the neighborhood. next slide, please. here, again, this is the

project relative to the neighborhood. it creates a sense of continuity with the neighborhood and the 50 stanford is different shaded by the use of different color and the type of cladding. next slide, please. here is the opposite view looking south, and this is where you see the -- up close the development at 50 stanford street, the photo and the massing of 130 townsend street. next slide. wanted to have a quick introduction of the materiality of the building and the approach to the rehabilitation of the building. the historic facade at 130

townsend is being restored with all the character defining features of that building, and the new additional features, as i said, the aluminum blades that are terra cotta color to enhance the sense of opacity that is seen in the historic district. next slide, please. we included several blues of that. here, you can see the continuance of the addition at 130 townsend street and the glimpse of 50 stanford further down in the alley. next slide, please. a few in the opposite direction. you can see the glazing that is a contrasting material to the heavy brick of the existing building and the terra cotta blades of the addition. next slide is the overall view

of the development. both views are present here, and different shade, 150 stanford is different shaded by the use of different cladding material and color, and on the next slide, i'm going to hand it over to john to speak about the proposed variances on the project. >> thank you. thank you, commissioners. the project requires variances from two code provisions. the first one is in the central soma s.u.d. are only allowed up to 8 feet. our proposed niche is 20 feet deep. if you take a look, what you're seeing right now is a code compliant set back, and this is problematic because we need a greater set back to distinguish between the new building and

the historic building. we actually spent quite a bit of time with historic staff and the commission to make sure that this separation was appropriate, so an eight-foot set back would not be appropriate for purposes of preservation here. next slide, please. also, the niche is going to serve two buildings, the entrance to two buildings, and with an eight-foot depth, we can make it a.d.a. compliant, but as you see here, it's really not appropriate for two close to 50,000 square foot office buildings in such a small space. next slide, please. as you can see here on the left, you know, what is proposed is a very clear separation between the two buildings, and on the right, you'll see that it's a really nice appropriately sized entry for these two new buildings. next slide, please.

>> clerk: sorry to interrupt you, but that is your time. >> thank you, and the commission can ask questions if you'd like to get into that. >> clerk: the commission and zoning administrator may call you up if they have additional questions. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak by pressing star then through. okay. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak to this item at this time, public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you, commissioners.

>> what we proposed, which is on the bottom, is to take that area and consolidate it into the north end of the stanford building and turn it into a p.d.r. space. retail not expected to be successful, even with a greater depth, and certainly, there is

demand and use for p.d.r. space here. next slide, please. this really is a nice consistent use with the neighborhood, as well. so we feel this is superior than what was expected to be underused retail space on the frontage. thank you, mr. teague, and i'm here for questions from other commissioners, as well. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i am

pleased to support the two buildings, and the explanation about the two variances is quite convincing. and while we are not giving the variances. that is our zoning administrator's privilege, i am in full support to see us support them. i would like to ask mr. kevlin a question. who is the intended user, and are you able to envision this building to be used in a time when we have significant amounts of unoccupied office space? >> thank you, commissioner moore. at this time, it won't be surprising to you that we do not have a tenant identified for the office space yet. however, the project sponsor is

bullish enough about this project that they are going to be building this. they are building it on spec, and that's the amount of confidence that there is that there will be office tenants to fill this space, even a new office space 18, 24 months from now when it does come on-line. >> vice president moore: okay. i appreciate that. curious what other commissioners have to say. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i, too i am very supportive of the project. i just have a technical question, i think, for the zoning administrator. this has come up on other projects. could you explain how you reconcile conditions two and seven in the office allocation motions, where there's seemingly inconsistent timelines, one for 18 months to start construction and one for three years? >> sure, commissioner diamond.

i'm happy to try to explain, and i can understand why it can be confusing. office allocations are a little bit unique in the sense that prop m actually built in the 18 month provision, so that becomes codified, and that just basically just states that the planning commission has the right to revoke an allocation if construction hasn't commenced within 18 months. so for other entitlements, like conditional use authorizations, there's not a specific performance period called out in the code. that's where our standard condition comes from, which is the three years. you have three years to have a site or building permit issued or have a tenant map approved, but the planning commission has discretion there to make that

less or more used. condition seven is more specific, which is after 18 months, if construction has not commenced, you have the right to rescind that, but if the project is not moving forward after three years, you also want that to come back to be extended or revoked for that purpose, and that is generally consistent with the adopted policy that the commission has. in 2017, they adopted a policy that basically stated that the 18-month construction commencement requirement is actually quite tight, and that it's actually the intent of the planning commission to not have those revoked and brought back

for revocation as long as those are being actively worked and pursued. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you for that clarification. so i would move to approve all of the motions for this project with the exception of the c.u., which is the administrator's motion. >> second. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve all the entitlement measures. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. what say you, zoning

administrator? >> i will close the hearing on for the zoning variance. >> clerk: thank you. that will place us on item 9, 2020-009813-cua at 18 palm avenue. planning department staff, are you ready to make your presentation? [inaudible] >> clerk: could you put your microphone closer to you? >> thank you. that better? >> clerk: yes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code conformity inspections 209.2,

303, and interim zoning controls. the site at 18 palm avenue is located within the rm-1 zoning district and a 40-x height and bulk district. this would propose the expansion of the existing first and third floors, approximately 927 square foot of an existing two-story over basement single-family dwelling. the project also included interior remodelling of the existing second floor. the project does not meet the criteria of the entire zoning controls because it does not meet the principal residential density and creates a residential building unit

that's more than 1,000 square feet in size. the proposed addition has been set back from the existing front facade of the building to ensure visual impact. the project is designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood character and pattern particularly because the proposed building is of a similar massing and height to the existing structures in the neighborhood. staff will update the motion as necessary. the project has conducted community outreach in the form

of a preapplication meeting in may of 2020 and duly posted notice of public hearing which started 20 days before this hearing date. the department has received ten letters in support. subsequently, staff received one letter requesting continuance of the item before planning commission. the plan conforms to the residential design guidelines and is in keeping with the neighborhood development pattern. the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation, and i'm available for any questions. the applicant has a brief presentation to make, and i will hand it over to them. thank you.

>> clerk: okay. project sponsor, are you ready to make your presentation? . >> yes. [inaudible] >> -- that this would be a good opportunity to reconfigure [inaudible] to be more functional to add another bedroom down stairs for their parents and to add a little bit of square footage to the home.

the c.u. would not have come to you last year, you're hearing it because of the interim controls in january and because it is over 900 square feet. historically and today, this is a single-family home that, first and foremost, meets those structural repairs. the project is necessary in order to correct the structural deficiencies. it will make this home more functional for a multigenerational use. the existing building is a contributing resource to the jordan park historic district. we are increasing the building height minimally, by 4.5 feet, but both of the adjacent buildings will remain taller at

36 feet and 40 feet. the building is consistent with the height of the buildings on this block, and the project does not change that. we've also done a lot of outreach and knocked on our neighbors' doors. you have ten letters of support and no opposition. we heard from one neighbor who is concerned about construction safety first and foremost. that is a d.b.i. issue, but we will comply with his issues and will mediate construction monitoring to alleviate his concerns. i will now turn it over to the project architect. thank you. >> steve [inaudible]. project architect. the structure that we're talking about, 18 palm avenue,

was built in 1906. palm avenue was later on developed with multiunit buildings that line the street now. 18 palm avenue itself, as was

mentioned, we have ten letters of support, and this is a small map showing the location of those letters of support in the neighborhood to give you some context of the support that the project garners. thank you. that's it. >> clerk: does that conclude project sponsor presentation? >> yes, it does. thank you so much. >> clerk: okay. 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. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking, and through the chair, you'll have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is matthew winer. i represent the owners of the adjacent property on palm street, and we're asking today for a continuance of this hearing based on review of the

letter from counsel and the current approval. most notably in the letter, there is a four-foot increase in the height of the property, but the letter says 3'4" in inches. my client would like to review the entire height that's going to be added to the property. in addition, my client was hoping to meet with the parties relatively soon to discuss a shade impact at the property. it's my understanding that it's adding an entire story to the building, going from two to three stories. we do want to address some issues with the adjacent construction, given the location of the property and the sand, and we understand that that is another issue that would be developed, but we would like the opportunity to continue this hearing to the next available date to discuss with the owner the height and changes to the property and the

construction related issues with safety. that is my time. thank you. >> hello. my name is joshua baker. i own and live at the property, 8 palm avenue, which is two doors down, and i just wanted to call in and, you know, mention that the owners of 18 palm, christine and scott, you know, have been great neighbors. [please stand by] comment.

seeing no additional -- one --

[inaudible] >> clerk: go ahead, caller, but if you would mute your speaker or t.v. >> okay. thank you. i will do that. >> clerk: if you could mute -- >> definitely, i'm doing that. >> clerk: thank you. your time is running. >> my name is elizabeth bader. i support the motion for continuance. we've had numerous e-mails, a lot of formal motions submitted to the staff. the problem we have is that while there was notice given in 2020, we did not get any notice, and that's been candidly admitted by the contractor. the first we heard about it was two weeks ago, and we have a number of problems with the

project that can be fixed by communication, and we're hoping to do that, but we need some time to do that so that we can talk to the other side, and we're setting that up. i'm just going to go very quickly to say a couple of things. one, the things by the planning commission and staff in here about the height in here is different than what the attorney's papers say. we need to know what the actual height is. our experts that we've been able to contact in two weeks say that the height is twice as big. the other problem is that -- our primary problem is not with the lateral support issue, so that's important. it's with the fact that the way the buildings are configured, their building height will

impact the availability of sun light to 12 palm avenue. the support from other buildings is wonderful. we like to hear that people support each other, but without notice, the only building that will be affected has not been given any notice or real opportunity to look at it. we want to talk to the contractor. they've said they want to talk to us. our sticking point, and we've actually set a date, which is monday, to try and -- >> clerk: okay. ma'am, that is your time. >> hello? >> clerk: that is your time. >> may i ask for more time? is there any procedure where i can get more time? >> clerk: if the chair would provide you more time. >> thank you. i would appreciate this. our family has been in san

francisco for 65 years. may i ask the chair for more time. >> president koppel: if i start giving extra time to you, i have to start giving extra time to everybody. >> i understand. i understand. >> clerk: i'll take that as a no. excuse me. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. okay. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public -- i take that back. >> hello? >> clerk: ma'am, your request for additional time was denied. >> oh . >> clerk: so public comment is closed, and this item is now before you, commissioners. >> president koppel: i'll be supporting staff's recommendation. >> president koppel: commissioner moore?

[please stand by]

>> so rejoin your conference, press pound. to replay this message, press 9. >> commissioner moore, can you hear me? >> commissioner: yes i can. [inaudible]

>> commissioner: unfortunately your comment was blanked out by some announcement about redial whatever. could you repeat the statement, please. >> i'm sorry. >> for tones on entry and exit, press 2. for silence. >> can you hear me? yes i can. >> okay. i'm so sorry. i think there's some background noise. as i indicated the existing height. i had noted my brief was 33'. i think. >> commissioner: i move to approve. >> commissioner: second. >> secretary: i believe commissioner tanner is requesting to speak.

no? okay. commissioners, if there is no further deliberation, there's a motion to approve this matter on that motion, [roll call] so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us on item 10 for case number 2016-013012cua, 478-484 haight street. staff are you prepared to make your presentation. >> yes i am. >> secretary: the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, commissioners. chris mayhem planning department staff. you have before you a request for conditional use authorization to prevent the demolition of an existing two-story building containing one dwelling unit and the

construction of a new four-story building and nine accessory dwelling units totalling approximately 9,942 square feet on the ground and second floors. conditional use authorization is required for the removal of a dwelling unit and to allow nonresidential use exceeding 4,000 street in the lower haight street. the project includes a mix of eight two bedroom units and ten one bedroom units. approximately 2400 square feet of open common space is proposed on a roof deck and 1700 square feet for the child care use is it proposed in the rear yard on the second floor. the project proposes 36 class one bicycle parking spaces and two class two bicycle parking spaces. no off street vehicular parking is proposed and the existing 12' curb cut would be removed to allow for on street parking and loading. the project is code compliant and does not require any

variances in the planning code although the nine adus will require a density waver. since that density waiver would be granted and the existing building on the site was a renewal unit, all of the proposed adus would be subject to rent control. this is referenced in the condition of approval 34 in the draft motion. the edition of adus would be at the discretion of the project sponsor and would take place to building permit stage. commissioners, since the publication of the staff report, the department has received one letter in support of the project. planning staff have also been in communication with the owner of nicky's restaurant and bar which is directly adjacent to the proposed project. while supportive of the proposed project, the owner has asked that the commission consider additional considerations of aapproval require soundproofing on the east property wall and a written scloesh and elevated levels of noise and odors that may be expected from time to

time. a draft of these conditions was distributed to the commission yesterday. the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the policies of the general in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation and i am available for further questions. thank you. >> secretary: thank you, mr. may. mr. shaw, you have five minutes. >> thank you very much. dear president koppel and commissioners, my name is jeremy shawb representing the owners of 484 haight street. i want to thank chris for getting us this far.

as he mentioned, we're here to present our demolition and construction use of mixed building. 18 residential units including nine adus. next. the existing building contains a grocery store that's been empty since about 2007 and on the second floor, there's a vacant single family dwelling. next. the existing site plan shows the odd configuration with the driveway to a back yard loading area and a two-story structure in the rear yard. this lay-out is why we're pursuing the residential demolition. next. our proposed building is fully code compliant. the lower floor has full coverage while the upper three stories have a 25% rear yard. zoning only nine units are permitted. they did not pencil out next.

the grountd floor contains residential entry, 36 bicycle parking spaces and approximately 4955 square feet of child care. the site is well situate wednesday no large child care operations within a one mile radius. at full capacity, the owners need to be licensed for up to 180 children with 20 staff. located along the curb. designated in coordination with sfmta and public works. next. the second floor is also proposed for child care. the rear yard of the second floor is our open space, activity zone where children will have scheduled outdoor time. this is a waiver from the typical state law where as long as we can schedule them separately, then it's okay to have a more or less space. and four and five-year-olds may

utilize nearby parks with two public playgrounds within a three-block distance. next. the third and fourth floor plans are the same each with nine units. the project features ten one bedroom units and eight two bedroom units. next. the smaller nature of these dwellings will help them be more naturally affordable and nine will be new fully rent controlled units and they're all fully accessible. next. roof plan shows our shared open space for the residential units along a roof top garden and solar panels. next. the building is proposed at 40' tall per the height unit. the ground floor has stucco around the child care with residential having wood siding. alternating bays subsiding stuck out from the stucco

above. next. this slide shows the rear facade with large retaining wall adjacent to us in the back. next. the right side is mostly up against our adjacent building. next. the left side shows some articulation for adjacent light wells where we notch our upper stories to match theirs. next. this is the longitudinal section showing our sight program with the required ceiling heights especially for the adus. next. this is the bird's eye view showing the mapping of the building relative to its neighbors. you can also see where i mentioned that rear yard retaining wall behind there's a park inlet back there. next. this is the rendering from the left-hand side showing the different plains of the facade and the material variance. next. this rendering shows our

relationship again with the adjacent buildings and how well this will fit into the neighborhood where i lived for 13 years i might add. the four story height and ground floor level retail will match the rest of the neighborhood corridor. as chris also mentioned. we held our meeting with the merchants neighborhood associations september 2017. many folks were excited for the space to be revitalized. and then last but not least, in conclusion, the project provides two much needed units in the neighborhood. child care and rental housing and rerespectfully ask that you grant the project. thanks. >> secretary: thank you. that concludes project sponsor presentation. we should open up public comment. press star then 3. you're allowed two minutes.

when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi. my name's carolynn constantino. i'm in my back yard right now which faces the back yard of this proposed building and i want to formally object to this project and ask for a continuance. since 2017 when this meeting was supposedly held. the use was changed. it was the roof of a store. now you want to put 180 screaming children in a back yard next to my back yard which is going to create a very loud noise. in addition, the two additional floors are going to create asia doe over my back yard. i'm pretty sure given the

building next tore to it given how far its shadow goes and in addition, i have traffic concerns because four drop-off stops for 180 children is not going to cut it on haight street. i don't know where these people did their traffic study, but they just put traffic lights on every block supposedly to speed up the buss and now you're going to have 180 people dropping their kids off in the morning. the project sponge sorries claim they have 180 children in this neighborhood is laughable. these people are going to be driven in from other neighborhoods. i don't have any problems with the housing as long as the accessory dwelling units will in fact be rent controlled. i'm a little concerned about what the staff person said that seemed to indicate the owner could change the um, rules or zoning or whatever for these accessory dwelling units after

construction and therefore would they not pooshl be rent controlled at that point. i'm concerned about light, air, and as i said, the noise coming from this building. i wish that there's a chance to maybe meet with the project sponsors to discuss perhaps putting a wall up behind the play yard or something to reduce the noise. >> secretary: thank you. that is your time. >> hello, my name is recall maldanado and i live in district 11. i wanted z to call in support for the conditional use authorization. i really see a good opportunity to provide prosperity and offer children a fun location to have where as we all are aware we're becoming more not less a community within sf or things

like that just being away from each other due to covid related issues. but i do want to stress this provides an opportunity for prosperity in the and not housing crisis some others might try to find a way to contest this. authorization. again, just calling in support of this and hoping for the opportunity. and, yeah, have a great day. >> hi, my name and scott coral. i live above nicky's bar next door. i support the project. my concern is that there is an

18-year-old farrell cat that i have been feeding his whole life. he lives on the roof of 4788. he climbs around over the back of buildings and jumps on to the roof of the bar we live above and we leave some food out for him. and when the demolition comes, i would just like a way to coordinate or just talk to the contractor so we can get animal control to rescue him so he doesn't get crushed or starve to death over there and there was a chance because of his age that, you know, he will pass away before they demolish the building. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is robert. i live in lower haight. i think i live actually within 500' because i got notified of a cell tower.

i just want to call in support of the project. i live on page and philmore. i don't have concerns about light and air. and i have seen children in the neighborhood, i've seen more of them since page was considered into a slow street. i think that child care is a good use. it will bring people to the neighborhood. it's always good to have more capacity for children in san francisco. despite the presence of children in the neighborhood, san francisco is becoming more and more childless and i think the presence of more housing in this neighborhood is definitely needed. now, there's a condo across the street from me that just sold for $2 million, a $1,000 a square foot so i think we definitely need more housing

because clearly, we just don't have enough in lower haven especially on this corner. so thank you. >> secretary: thank you. that was the last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star, then 3 to be added to the queue. okay. seeing no additional requests to speak from the public, the public comment portion is closed. the matter is now before you, commissioners. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner: i just wanted to voice my support for this project. i'm super excited there's going to be child care there. what a great use and that there are -- the owners are experienced in that so very much looking forward to that. i live in a building myself

that has child care and you indeed can hear the screams of children, hopefully, usually it's pretty fun. i will admit the first time i was home i wondered what was happening in the courtyard and the children were there the kids are out having fun. i did want to ask mr. shawb if you had concerns about the proximity to the bar. we just had an idea to have more idea of sun proofing in the building to prevent any of those uses conflicting with each other especially with the residents at night. can you just explain any plan to have for how the building would be soundproof or if you have concerns about the noise? >> yeah. absolutely. we have not yet done a sound study, but we'll be sure to do that during the building department phase. the way i always explain soundproofing is that it helps everyone. we want the tenants to be happy.

we don't want them to have complaints against the neighbor and we want the children to be happy. the nice kind of synthesis here is we have a daytime child care and evening time bar restaurant use. they're not going to conflict. >> commissioner: i'm not concerned about the child care and the bar but the residents and the bar. there's a bit of distancing, but i also live next to a bar for awhile and it was loud at night when people came outdoors. so just something i know you are planning to look at, but just do want to encourage you to think about the residents in particular with the bar next door and just in general, it's a busy area. the other question i had was we heard a caller talk about the cat he's been feeding if for awhile. you know, he said he lives in that building on the second floor. maybe you can reach out to him to see if the cat is still.

>> 100% absolutely. >> commissioner: great. thank you. those were all the questions i had. just looking at my notes here. i will say i do share the concern about the loading zone and the number of children there. i don't know that there's really opportunity for additional loading zone because it seems like the entire frontage of the building. i don't know if there's anything else you'd offer about for parents who are bringing their kids in vehicles, picking up, dropping off, or ways to address those concerns. >> yeah. we did go through an exercise with mta and public works and planning and kind of figured out staggered drop off and pick up times so that there shouldn't be more than four or five cars there for any about 10-minute period. >> commissioner: that sounds great. and last question, for the workers at the child care, where would they be able to

have bike parking? or is there -- i just wanted to understand how they're getting to work and then if there's any bike parking or other opportunities for bicycles if they're using them? >> yeah. a lot of the class 1 bicycle parking is for the child care use, actually. >> commissioner: okay. excellent. great. those are all my questions and i would -- i know we have xhsh imperial, but i would move to approve this project as presented with the conditions that are presented. >> commissioner: i as well will be supporting the project and call on commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: thank you. i have a question. actually, i would like to question our zoning administrator, mr. t.. in terms of these adus, these eight or nine units, my question is do they have full

kitchens? >> thank you, commissioner imperial? >> do they have full kitchen. >> an adu is a dwelling unit and they do have full kitchens. >> the reason i'm asking is i'm looking into the unit sizes and i remember we had these couple of projects that this looks like similar group housing, but i remember the difference is that whether they have full kitchens or not and that is my only thing whether this is, um, you know, i think that is my issue here. are the unit sizes of the units are pretty small for -- it ranges from 300 square feet to 600 square feet for one bedroom to two bedrooms.

although, i don't have objection at all with the child care space, i think that is a good substitute instead, so i'm also grappling with i believe the reason that there is nine adus in here because only nine units can only be built and it sounds like this is more of a compromise in order to build more units. am i understanding -- is this -- am i understanding this project? >> sure. and i did just take a quick look at the plans. i haven't really been involved with this project today. and it does look like some of the units are not providing full oevens and so we can d. follow up and make sure that the final plans and the building permits are required to meet the minimum requirements to a full kitchen.

for burner event. >> commissioner: yeah. i think i will get the conditions approval to look into having the full kitchen, but i'd like to hear what other commissioners say. thank you. >> president: commissioner. >> did your conditions include yesterday with the soundproofing and requirement for the notice to be required. >> commissioner: that was my intention to include the additional comment. i would say, i think commissioner imperial wanted to include a condition to make sure all the units have full kitchens as well. that focus i think we're just asking to double check that and make sure that's part of that.

i would happily include that in my motion. >> i am supportive of this project provided it does contain the additional the recommendation of the notification and the catch by commissioner imperial that all of the units have full kitchens. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i don't have any issues with the mapping and with the general uses assigned to the building. what i do have increasing comes with is seeing increase in the small units become the main stay of what we're approving. i see this to be a further distancing from issues of equity and in this particular

case, we have eight units which are in the low 300 square feet are being advertised as one-bedroom units and i believe that these units are too small, and for that reason, i will not be able to support the project. again, i like to put to record that i am in support of the mapping and in support of the stacking of uses, child care and housing, but i can't support the size of the units that we are designating as livable, equitable units for our identifying city in the future. on the other end of our spectrum, we're continuing to approve large expansions of single family homes from the 5,000 to 6,000 square feet and just for that particular conflict that i will not be able to support this project.

>> president: jonas, do we have a second on the motion? >> secretary: well, i wanted to seek a little clarity. commissioner tanner made a motion. it sound like commissioner diamond made a subsequent motion that captured what most of what commissioner tanner's motion did but also included commissioner imperial's concerns related to all units having full kitchens. so, but to answer your question, i have not heard a second to either. >> president: to? >> secretary: to commissioner diamonds? >> president: yes. >> secretary: this as have been amended to include the commissions circulated by staff and including that all unit haves full kitchens.

on that motion, [roll call] so moved commissioners. that motion passes 5-1. placing us on item 11 for case number 2021-001698cua at 340 fell street. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes. i'm ready, jonas. good afternoon president koppel and members of the commission. the project before you is a conditional use authorization to authorize a merger of three existing tenant spaces totalling 19,470' to create a single nonresidential use

greater that 2,998 square feet. the project is qualified under review for the planning commission's business priority processing purpose. which produces all automobiles proposes to the existing principle for repair and service on its electric vehicles and accessory of automobile sales. the accessory of valuable sales will authorize 1,562 square feet of the building which is less than one third. pursuant to planning code section. the planning commission must approve a conditional use authorization to create a single nonresidential use for 2,999 square feet. a letter of determination in february of 2021 concluded that the proposed project would be

consistent with the legal nonconforming automotive repair use with the accessory automobile sales and the conditional use would be required to combine the three separate spaces all of which are greater than the maximum use size of 2,999 square feet because such merger would represent an enlargement of the conditionally permitted nonresidential use size. included as conditions of approval number twelve and 13. the department has received z two letters in support of the project siting that the use would neither be appropriate or a neighborhood serving business and 303c and findings submitted

as part of the application. the proposed use and character is compatible with the existing surrounding area and is on balance in compatible with the general plan and use. a building that historically has been used as such. additionally, the project will restore a historical use building. i'd now like to introduce the project sponsor who also has a brief presentation for you. >> secretary: thank you. you have five minutes. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> secretary: yes. we can hear you. >> great. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. john here on behalf of