>> 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 the project responser. rivion is an exciting new company. due to this larger size, they are expected to replace gas powers commercial business leads to move away from gas

powered vehicles. they expect to release vehicles this fall. what you're seeing is renovated restored property. next slide, please. 340 fell is a perfect fit for rivian. it's operated that way ever since. for its customers, for things such as tire changes, wheel alignment. their service operations will be much cleaner and quieter and more consistent with the commercial neighborhood district. next slide. rivian's proegs will include an accessory sells area. model cars will be displayed and sales associates can conduct sales. if we can go back to the first slide, thank you.

rivian will restore and enhance the facade of the historic building and continue its use for another generation. the conditional use authorization is required to merge the three existing tenant spaces. the small store front character will be unchanged. left bay will consist of pedestrian traffic and the right bay will be maintained as a primary vehicle access to the service areas. also note it will be established along linden street. when the second generation owner decided to sell the building in february, the tenants were contacted immediately. all tenants were on month to month leases and rivian's purchase was a real opportunity for securing and stabilizing these businesses long term. one of the businesses was essentially no longer functioning and the tenant asked for time and financial help to dispose and remove his equipment from the building. starting in march, the owner

allowed him to stop paying rent and we're working right now with him to wind down his operation. we actually continued the originally scheduled planning commission hearing in may to provide them more time to provide new locations. both businesses have now identified new locations and are in the process of moving. the owner has abated rent for them since the beginning of the summer and they have the ability to stay in the space rent-free in the end of 2021. finally, while the owner wouldn't have otherwise been able to utilize the financial support. provided the ability to pay these tenants financial compensation for all costs and establishing the business at new locations. they are essentially starting at the new locations in the same situation they are today, with long-term leases ensuring the long-term stability of their leases. you should have seen the letter that i e-mailed to you this

morning from the tenants expressing the background of our conversations and their support for this project. so the project before you will one restore the existing historic garage building. two, reduce the noise and order of the out service operation at the site. three, improve the street frontage and, four, it will help secure and stabilize the existing businesses into the future. for these reasons, we respectfully request your support for the conditional use and i'm here if you have any questions. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. that concludes project sponsor presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. >> commissioner: just a second. i need to make a disclosure at this time. i just want to disclose in my work, we have process permits for rivian but that will in no way impede my ability to have a

fair public hearing today. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. so again members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star then 3 to be added to the queue. through the chair, you'll have two minutes and when you hear your line has been unmuted and that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hello, commissioners. my name is lloyd silverstein, i'm a board member of the neighborhood association and president of the hayes valley merchant association. i'll also the immediate and past president of the friends. i'm here solely in my capacity as a linden street merchant. my business is directly adjacent to these properties. our commercial corridors have undergone a dramatic change over the last few we'res. it's grown to include many national retailers. they legally exploited a loophole in a retail.

many have come into our neighborhood for the business opportunities provided by our resident and demographics but do little to be apart of our community. perhaps, i'm naive, but based on my conversations with rivian, i think they can be different and set an there was a lot of concern when they announced coming to hayes valley. i participated in these community meetings. rivian and their representatives described this as well and we also answered questions from the public. the concerned expressions had more to do with big business than the actual use of the space. specifically, my concerns were how were the long standing and well utilized buildings going to be treated as part of this process. most importantly, would rivian commit to being an active and

contributing participant of this community. rivian gave us their insurances they would work to find acceptable solutions. as you were just told, they've done so. i've spoke with the tenants and they are pleased and satisfied. regarding linden alley. the intent of this program was to take underutilized alleys. rivian's restoration of these buildings is much. the vehicle access onto linden are trying to increase the traffic, not remove it. there's a history of the rear alley being moved. we need the street parking for our customers and the traffic minimized for pedestrian safety. secondly, i would like to ask rivian to consider carving out space for another small retail store. >> secretary: thank you. sir.

that is your time. >> hi, my name is sarah buker. i am a 24-year resident of hayes valley as both a renter and now a homeowner. i appreciate and support the existing businesses. i've taken my truck to sal street auto for years but as california leads the way in addressing global warning, electric cars and trucks will be replaced. i mean will replace gas vehicles and my husband and i placed our reservation for a rivian truck almost two years ago. we are happy that rivian has decided to become apart of haze valley and i appreciate the comments before me that they conducted their community outreach in such a proactive way. i'd like to say one of the

letters that was received by the planning department described itself a haze valley safe and i get their e-mails, but i don't feel it's a representative organization. there's no sort of way of leaders. and so that letter that says while the haze valley residents is really representing the office [inaudible] thank you. >> okay. last call for public comment on this item. >> secretary: sir, i believe you conducted your public

comment. >> yes. >> secretary: commissioners, that concludes public comment and this item is now before you. so my only concern was going to be the potential displacement of the existing businesses. i'm satisfied with what i'm hearing today. so i'm supporting the project. commissioner tanner do you have anything more or do you want to disclose upfront. >> commissioner: i did have one question for the project sponsor which is about the exit onto linden and that if it is essential for the business and the way it would operate? it does strike me that the city has with the spot and have that pedestrianized environment and so i wonder if they could speak to the efforts to get cars off of linden and if that would be detrimental to the function of their operation with needing to have cars come in and out

there. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. let's, you know, get into the specifics here. those bays have a rear door that cars can fit through. so just to make clear on the left bay where the accessory sales operation is going on, that will almost always serve as a pedestrian entrance. the letter determination confirmed we can have no more than two model cars on a site at any given time. so there will be a small time access to have two cars on. that's very minimal vehicular use of the rear door on the left bay. the rear door on the right bay as the president of the merchant's association said, lloyd, this has been something we've discussed in neighborhood meetings. it is necessary to maintain that door for movement of cars to the building, but we've already been working and having conversations about directing the vast majority of the traffic in the right bay out

onto fell street and so really the goal here is consistent with the comments made which is we're going to direct as much traffic out to fell street. we're going to limit that as much as possible. because we have had those conversations and rivian is very interested in particular working on further enhancing linden street as much as possible. >> commissioner: i would imagine one thing would be to try to encourage certainly the folks who are commenting the patrons, i guess you would say to not use that door. i could certainly see it throughout the day, the staff may need to maneuver cars in and out there, but if that's not seen as the main entrance for service when folks are bringing their vehicles to service, i think that can go a long way of reducing healing or other types of driving behavior for those who come to get their

vehicles serviced or something like that. i'd like to hear what other commissioners have to say about that. >> secretary: commissioners, i do see another member of the public requesting to speak. should we take that caller now? >> president: yes. >> secretary: you have two minutes. >> hi, my name's dan don patrick. thank you very much for taking this. i know i just missed it. my wife and my family live at 5 oak and we strongly support this proposal by rivian. we've lived in san francisco about 20 years, we have three kids. the two are in public schools. recognize it's change, it's hard. but i strongly support it. thank you. >> president: commissioner moore. >> commissioner: i would like to ask commissioner silverstein who got interrupted on his talks to complete his sentence. he's a person speaking for the public.

mr. silverstein, if you're still there, would you please dial again and complete your statement about what you saw to be important for the linden side of the operation. >> secretary: mr. linden, your line has been unmuted. >> thank you. thank you for allowing me to continue. a couple of comments. second, i'd like to ask rivian for carving out the space on the retail side. who worked hard to remove the back alley. the rear entrance on linden has little to do with that. i think they've done a wonderful job with what they've shown so far. third shgt linden avenue is known for its street art. i'd like to see them make some effort to save some of the art on the existing walls. lastly, only time will tell if

rivian makes good on their commitment to engage with our community. but so far they've been very true to their word. thank you for your time today. >> commissioner: thank you. i would like to see you continue speaking with mr. silverstein on some of these ideas. they're very subtle l. they're very site specific they're very linden avenue specific and if that's acceptable, i would like to ask that you do that. >> yes. thank you, commissioner moore. absolutely. in fact, the plans that are in your set as well as that was in my presentation, these are really the bare bones distinction between auto service and auto sales that we did for the letter determination. in fact, in recent weeks, we've been digging in to how do we, you know, connect this space with the community further. we've been talking about retail, we've been talking about potential community space and so, everything that mr. silverstein and you just

mentioned is on the table and the team is already working on it and so thank you for that direction and rivian's listening to the hearing today and that is certainly their goal. >> commissioner: i feel it's difficult to make this part of a condition and often at least having witnessed it myself in the past large use. corporate users have a tendency of making progress in this change projects often fall under the table. i'm not about to mention one in particular i'm thinking about, but i would put it into your trusting hand to basically keep your finger on the pulse of what's important in this community. i was originally not going to support this project, but i see the benefit of historic preservation of an important building which is a great contribution to & that is a modern contemporary building, but maintaining this building

and its current configuration will be a part. however, the devil's in the details and your attention to detail, that's what i will be asking you to become responsible for as this project moves forward. thank you. and i will support the project. make a motion to approve with conditions. >> president: okay. >> secretary: seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the commission. there is a motion that's been seconded to this matter on conditions. on that motion, [roll call] so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing us on item 12 for case number 2020-008959cua 376 hill street. this is a conditional use authorization.

mr. warren. >> thank you, commission secretary and good afternoon president koppel and planning commission. jeff warren planning department staff. item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to allow residential density at a ratio of one unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area. the project site is located at 376 hill street which is on the north side between sanchez and church streets and is located within r.h.1 zoning district and 40x bolt district. the 7,300 or 236 square foot lot has 66 inch officer frontage and a varying depth of 9' and 114'. the lot slopes deeply upwards towards the rear of the lot and laterally along the west of the

street frontage. 2,317 square-foot. and the lot's rear yard is developed with a pool and a noncomplying one-story 449 square foot dwelling unit. the eastern half of the lot is mostly underdeveloped. subject property is located in the delores heights neighborhood in district eight. the subject block exhibits a great variety, architectural styles, scales, and mapping. and hr1 and additional loss has been the delores heights district. the building determined in 1907 was determined not to be a historical resource. the project proposes the demolition of the existing

2,317 gross square foot and the pool within the rear yard to construct a new three-story over basement. 7,986 gross square foot two-family dwelling which includes a 5,458 square foot main square bedroom dwelling unit. one bedroom, second dwelling unit and a 1,401 square foot garage providing storage for both units and two vehicle parking spaces. the project is located within the boundaries of the delores heights special use district and complies with the additional development control. and a max and planning code section 209.1, one dwelling unit is principally permitted and one unit per 3,000' square

feet of lot units. there shall maximizing the density allowed. as a site with two units for proposed demolition and replacement provisions are dependent upon the income levels or the current and previous tenants. it's a rare unit that's been vacant for over five years. it shall be replaced with the main unit. but the current owner has rented out the unit. income levels of the tenant currently in the main unit are above 80% of ami and therefore may be replaced with a record unit. therefore, both of the units to be demolished will be replaced with rent control units. the project sponsor in august of 2020 and in comment letters in support of the project and

no letters in opposition. there are two corrections i would like to make to the draft motion. the first is within finding 8f. the last sentence of staff's findings states both the project sponsors are willing to offer to impose a restriction on the broj such that three of the new units will be subject to rent control and this should be corrected to stay the two new units and conditions approval of number 17, title replacement unit. the language reads three of the four proposed units shall be subject to the city's ordinance and the project sponsor shall record a restriction on the property. three units as presented, the project is proposing two units and the conditions should be corrected. the project's proposed unit shall be subject to the rent control and the project sponsor

shall record a restriction on the property that these two units shall be subject to the city's rent control ordinance. the project finds that the project is unbalanced consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan in the delores heights. the proposed new building is compliant and neighborhood character along hill street. projects includes the demolition of two units. the project would create two new larger units with one additional bedroom on the site while created in additional housing. found to be necessary and desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. and i'm available for any questions. this concludes presentation. >> secretary: thank you, jeff. project sponsor.

you have five minutes. >> can you hear us? >> yes, we can. >> hi. good afternoon. good afternoon president koppel, commissioners. i'm tom tony on behalf of the project sponsor. michael musculino who is available for any questions you may have. our architect also is here. in greater detail in a moment. as described by mr. horn, the proposed project replaces two nonhistoric poorly functioning units and separate structures with two new units and a single subject maximizing density. the project scale by comparison is smaller. the f.a.r. of the two units campaigned is 0.90 where the

project ranges from 1.11 to 1.26. if you can hold with the slides for a moment, please. just keep it at slide 1. the new second unit is much improved over the existing unit replacing a code deficient 449 square foot detached accessory structure located in the rear yard that functions in the pool house. the new unit is up 1120 square feet with its own independent entrance. removing the old structure from the rear yard opens up the mid block open space. the project has been designed to have no light, air, privacy impact on neighbors and the connection to the street has been significantly improved. with that, i'll turn to mr. ranzino. >> thank you. hello commissioners. my name is ron. and i'm the design partner, the architect of the residence. in addition to the homeowner's

program, it's been all about community outreach in addition to the doors and heights in san francisco. our intent is to design a building that's both beneficial and sensitive to the neighboring contracts. we believe all these attributes are clear in the proposed design and hope that you agree. the homeowner has enjoyed being personally involved with neighboring and community outreach as future residents of the community. as the architects, we've prioritized and talked to the neighbors very early on in the design process. letters of support received from both the adjacent neighbors on hill street as well as the neighbors across the street. we've also been in contact with the neighbors north of the property and are continuing to collaborate as the projects develop. slide 2, please. so shown in this diagram of the uphill portion of the block, the proposed design encourages

the mid block open space through masking and landscaping in the rear yard. the uphill neighbor has a beautiful english hawthorn tree which attracts birds to the mid block open space and we hope to encourage a natural urban setting with our proposed landscape as well. [please stand by]

the step planters connecting the two entrances continue the prominent pattern of sidewalk landscaping on hill street. slide nine, so lastly, due to the -- the sloping nature of the property from north to south and also from west to east, lessens the development on the two lower below grade, meaning there are only two levels above grade of the house. we hope to have your approval and are excited to add to the san francisco neighborhood. thanks so much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should go to public comment. members of the public, if you wish to enter public comment, press star, three.

when you hear your line is unmuted, that is your signal to start speaking. >> [inaudible] with delores improvement club. the unit is much larger than most, and i note that the size ratio between the larger and smaller unit is about 5:1. it compares favorably to a

project you approved last week in [inaudible] 1:1, and it differs from the project that you will be seeing next on the agenda. third, even though we're getting huge newhouses, there's the benefit of newly reclaimed open space. thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is robert, and i live in district five. you should absolutely not approve this project. this is -- it's a ridiculous project to demolish existing houses which are already big enough, 2,000 square feet and

900 area feet to build a 5,400 square foot mansion. san francisco does not need mansions. we do not need housing which is so far beyond the pale unaffordable to everyone in san francisco except for the very richest people who might live here. we do not need to build $10 million residences, we don't need to build $9 million residences. this is an atrocious project. i think it's important that the planning staff even consider it consistent with the general plan. i find nothing redeemable about it. it does not add anything to the fair housing. this is a neighborhood which

has plenty of opportunity. it's a perfect place to build apartments instead. i ask you to reject this project. thank you. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star then three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, public comment on this matter is closed, and it is now before you.

>> these buildings are -- even if they're owner occupied, as is, they're already subject to rent control. the same thing would apply to this project. the unit would be subject to rent control, if they're owner occupied, there is no rental agreement involved, but should the owner of that building at any time choose to rent either of the units out, the tenant that moves in would be there by protected by rent control for the length of the tenancy. >> vice president moore: the second part of my question is if this owner would build a building as is, the obligation for rent control would remain if the owner chooses to sell the building, is that correct? >> correct. that would be recorded with the property, not with the ownership, but again,

enforcement of the rent control would be different jurisdiction of the rent board. >> vice president moore: and i assume there's nobody who can force you to rent a unit. for me, the real problem is understanding densefication, understanding liveability, and

understanding the property sized housing is not addressed in this property that we approved earlier, together with the fact that the obligation for these two units to be rent controlled doesn't really mean anything, so i just want to let that part stand in the room as we deliberate. i will not support this project. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i have to join commissioner moore in expressing my deep concerns about this project. notwithstanding, i think, a very well designed project, very thoughtful, i certainly appreciate a lot of aspects aesthetically of the project, especially the greening, that will make for a pleasant

experience for people walking along the sidewalk. i do find myself troubled by just, you know, essentially, as one caller suggested, a mansion that we're supporting, and similarly, i think the rent controlled unit is important as a way that we're trying to include and moderate rent increases for future units as they are moderated through the rent control ordinance, but i do find myself very troubled, so i wonder for the project sponsor, if they're willing to increase the size of the second unit or to give size to that second unit to increase it, but the smaller unit to increase in size and the primary unit to decrease in size, i just find a very large imbalance between the two, and again, a very large house in the future that is not affordable.

i am struggling to support is this project, and -- to support this project, and i'm wondering if the project sponsor could comment on the size of the two units between each other. is there any comment -- >> sure. this is tom tunney on the project sponsor team. we're absolutely open to doing that. the way it's been designed, it's a large second unit as is. the way it's been designed is to take an entire level, and then, the second unit, the larger unit is above. and maybe our -- i'll allow our architect to chime in here if there is a design solution to increasing the side that's easy

for that's doable, given the -- the programming as is. we're absolutely happy to do that. >> commissioner tanner: yeah. certainly with the slope and the topo graphy, i don't know if you can do it on one floor, but i'm just troubled, and i want to see if there's a way to get to a more favorable outcome or even possibly creating an accessory dwelling unit on one floor as part of one floor so there's three units that are part of this building instead of just the two. and again, if you want to keep each unit being on a contained floor, maybe that's the way to do it, doing an accessory dwelling unit -- maybe on the third level up, if you're looking at the part that has the rec unit and office, perhaps that would give to that

third unit, three units total for the building. i don't know if the architect or the sponsor want to speak to those ideas. >> let's see...yeah, this is the architect. i want to say, when we designed the unit above, we were trying to make this second unit a very liveable real unit that truly cannot rented out. this isn't tacked onto a back corner or anything like that. i think looking at the planning guidelines and the code, i think we felt like we really went beyond, you know, what is -- is asked for by the city, and honestly, when i hear these conversations, look, it's not to say it couldn't be bigger or there could be, i suppose,

another unit, but i feel like these are conversations that should be had within the city in terms of just changing the code. i mean, if this is what the city wants, rather than, i think, make an owner -- i think he's going beyond what is required, have to even go further, so why not approve

this project? >> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i appreciate commissioner moore's comment earlier regarding the idea of rent control and a.d.u.s, and at the same time -- or the size of the unit for the a.d.u.s. i remember from our previous hearing before, and i think this is something that we talked about, i think one of the projects in between the areas where it was around 5,000 square feet, and then, during the a.d.u. that was about 900 square feet, and i think the next issue that we're going to have is that kind of dilemma, as well, in terms of the

relativity of the main unit to the accessory dwelling unit. and i do think that in terms of -- and perhaps this is for more of a policy level in terms of our local a.d.u. program and how to be more intentioned in terms of the racial and social equity of this unit, if we do have a good local a.d.u. unit, like this project should have three units. like, one main unit and two additional a.d.u. units that are. that's how i can see this project is. unfortunately, we don't have that right now with the local a.d.u., and what we have right now and how we're making this decision is based whether this is a -- should be a rent controlled, and it's being put as a rent controlled, so we are in a position where the current

codes we have right now is not really allowing us to be more -- to look into the liveablity size of the accessory dwelling units, and even before the items before us earlier, the 478-484 has really tied us in a position okay, what are we giving up and what are we gaining at the same time? and i think because i see this right now in terms of [inaudible] and at the same time, you know, what are we being accountable to right now is the current local a.d.u. program that we have. i am also struggling in how to decide on this, but i'm kind of leaning to support this just because our local a.d.u. program is still not as robust as we would like to have it, so that's my initial thought right

now. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: could staff clarify if this is one unit in an a.d.u. or if it's a two-unit project? i'm not sure it makes much difference at the end of the day, but i want to make sure i'm understanding technically what we have here? >> sure. thank you, commissioner. jeff horne, planning department staff. it's allowing two units into an rh-1 zoning unit, so the second unit is a conditionally premised unit based on lot size. so there's a secondary approval based on zoning, one unit for every 3,000 square feet of lot. this lot, at 7200 square feet.

gets to about two units -- or gets to two units. so it is not an a.d.u. that is currently being proposed on-site. >> commissioner diamond: okay. thank you for the clarification. >> the building is also completely code conforming as designed. >> commissioner diamond: that's what i was going to get at. this is a code compliant project? >> that's correct. >> commissioner diamond: and they have done something that we have requested of other large projects, which is to make sure that the project is amply sized relative to other units, and it's another floor and not just tucked into the back, so in my opinion, this is a code compliant project, it's met, you know, the goals of what we previously stated on other projects, which is to have -- make sure that the second unit is well sized relative to the size of the

first unit, and therefore, i am in support of this project. if, in fact, we want these kinds of lots to produce more units than they are, then i think that's a policy change that should be accomplished through legislation, but we shouldn't be doing it through attaching those kinds of conditions to this type of project, so i would move to approve as proposed. >> president koppel: second. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: i had similar comments that commissioner diamond just made. the discussion on large homes that we've had and consistency of this commission's actions dealt with the two issues. one, did they maximize the

density on that particular parcel, and secondly, was the conditional unit of a sufficient size instead of the 300 or 400 square feet that we've seen in some of these cases. in fact, it was either last week or the week before, the results of this commission's actions was to increase it to 600 square feet, so i'm supportive of this project and allowing them to do what is code allowed. i will second commissioner diamond's motion. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. there is an additional request to speak from a member of the public. shall we take that person now? >> president koppel: yes. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. you have two minutes.

>> yes. my name is kirsten mccloud, and my husband and i have owned the house across the street from the project for 25 years. i would like to point out that what was said about the current schoolhouse is true. it's only 400 school square feet. it's never been used or rented by anybody in the 25 years we've lived here, so i do feel that you are succeeding to increase your density with the new apartment that's located above the garages. i would actually be against making that second unit larger because i think that the -- the owner and the architects have worked really hard to minimize the impact of that second unit on the streetscape and also on the neighbors directly across the street. that's been just a green area for the 25 years i've lived here, so the fact that they've done such a good job of keeping it green at the street level and even up to the second floor

level of my house, i really appreciate that, and i appreciate all the plantings they've done where the patio is on that unit above the garage. the fact that they've included plantings there is a positive. so i just want to support this project strongly. i have thought that the homeowner and his architect were very responsive to our concerns. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, with that, there is a motion that's been seconded to approve -- commissioner moore, did you need to say something? >> vice president moore: no, it has resolved itself. thank you. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. then there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this item with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 5-1, with commissioner moore voting against, placing us on item 13, 2020-006406-cua, at 3757 21 street. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. the floor is yours. >> thank you. commission, my name is jeff speirs. the project will construct a new four story over basement approximately 4400 gross square

feet single-family unit with an accessory dwelling unit. the project originally started with an alteration permit that included permission for one unit with no accessory dwelling unit. through discussions with department staff, the project sponsor withdrew the variance application and applied for the project you see today. the executive summary page 2 and draft page 3 stated that the homeowner held two meetings with neighbors, however there were two additional meetings and two virtual meetings with the neighbors. also, commissioners, today, the homeowner has proposed to

increase the a.d.u. from 375 square feet to 475 square feet. this change will be further elaborated during the project sponsor's presentation, as well. today, the department has received no correspondence in support of the project while three correspondence in opposition of project are contained in your packet. the project does provide a well defined placement dwelling with an additional accessory dwelling unit which is a goal for the city. the department finds the project to be compatible with

rh-1 zoning district and immediate neighborhood and that the proposed residential building will be compatible with the development pattern, size, density, and height of the neighborhood. this concludes staff's presentation. i'm available for questions, and david winslow from the planning department is also in attendance to help with this. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. speirs. project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm here to request approval for project at 3757 21 street. just to be clear, i'm representing the owners and occupants of this dwelling unit. this is not a spec build. we're proposing to demolish an existing single-family residence with no historical significance. the project that we're proposing is in the delores heights special use district, zoned rh-1.

can you do the slide show, please? >> sorry. i've stopped sharing. apologies. one second. is it sharing now? >> yes. perfect. pages one through three, the demolition will greatly improve the feasibility of the project as well as assuring the project, from a construction project, much safer for my staff and the adjacent neighbors. the demolition of this will also expand the rear yard open space. we're proposing to construct a four-story single-family home over a basement to include a two-car garage and two bike parking. we are proposing the two stories below rear grade, which would include a

one-bedroom-like a.d.u. along with two bedrooms below grade. we've worked extensively with mr. speirs and with the planning department and have received numerous comments from rdat as well as neighbors to approve this design. the rear deck as currently proposed is slightly below grade, page five, and we've incorporated a 3'6" side yard set back on the western side of the property in order to respect the architectural massing at the western side of the property, page six. as you can tell, this is an upsloping lot and a large percentage of the home is below grade. we've also incorporated a 14-foot front set back at the first, second, and third floor and an additional ten-foot-plus

set back to virtually eliminate visibility from the sidewalk. page seven. we believe this home has been designed according to the architectural guidelines of the adjacent homes and neighborhood. the family that will be occupying this home is a nuclear set of three family members with two aging parents. while we have received some opposition to the project, as most projects that come before the commission, we've done or utmost to appropriately address and mitigate these concerns. we understand these concerns about the southern magnolia tree and have consulted with an arborist to preserve the tree and is something that we're

willing to do. please let me know if you have any questions or comments. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address members of the public by pressing star, three to enter the queue. when you hear your line has unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is bruce bowen from the delores heights improvement club. i have comments on two items that i believe the commission should take action on in this project. the project now includes significant excavation deep into the required set back. it should not be allowed to cause damage to neighboring properties, including trees.

the protection is realized by the minimum of a required 45% rear yard. because of the excavation of the rear yard and the proximity of the neighbor's trees because of letters that you've received on both sides, there is a concern of the mature trees located on both sides of the excavation. i would propose that condition be added to the excavation would include tree monitoring. the second issue is the meager size of the a.d.u. even with a larger a.d.u. as proposed, it is only one-ninth the size of the main unit. when the a.d.u. was originally proposed, it was along with six

bedrooms. just as you can with 35 belgrade, i believe the a.d.u. should be increased in size. there's plenty of room in the new house. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mark kajar. thank you for the opportunity to speak on this application. i am an owner of 3761 21 street, which is the property that is adjacent and on the west side of the applicant's property. that property has four trees running along our shared property line as well as landscaping and one large pine with a 24-inch diameter trunk that is within 8 feet of the property line and fence. the attachment i provided has photos of the trees and an ariel photo of the site diagram of their locations. all of these trees are well over 60 years old and are in good health. they are as risk due to -- at risk due to the excavation,

fence replacement, and retaining wall the applicant has proposed. i ask the commission to attach a condition to any approval that requires the project sponsor to hire an arborist to monitor the condition of the trees throughout this process, and i thank you for your time. >> oh, hi. it's georgia schiutish. in my correspondence, i think i raised issues of the context of the development on the block,

which has been pretty intense, but mostly, my concern is with the transformation of this project. from an alteration with six bedrooms to a demolition with five bedrooms and a teeny a.d.u., which has obviously added because it became a demolition, and this is obviously a sound house. why and how did this happen? why did the project sponsor originally think they could create a project this way and without the potential for a hearing facing them? did it have to do with the thresholds of the democalcs? remember back in march of 2009, when the c.i.d. was before you, the staff said they would be coming back to you within a year, which would have been 2010, with adjustments to the calcs, which never happened. if that happened, where would

we be now? would we have all these projects that are super sized and super moneyed. i disagree with the 317 criteria. you don't tear down a perfectly fine house because it sits along a bunch of expensive homes, and especially since you eliminated section 317-d-3-a, the demonstrably affordable section, so that's it. thanks. take care, be well. >> hi. my name is robert bruckman. i live in district five. i oppose this project because i think there's no reason to build a 4400 square foot house. i think this is in mansion territory. i think it's -- to stay on the

subject of this item, i think that this is within the commission's discretion whether to approve this project or not, so yep, i'll leave it it at that. thank you. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment on this item. >> hello. this is jonathan randolph. i have to say i sort of disagree with a lot of the commenters here that unit equity is -- is, you know, sort of an important goal. i think unit diversity is just as important as unit equity, and when we have projects like

this that provide both, yes, an unaffordable unit, a large unaffordable unit but also a small a.d.u., it provides an opportunity for people to rent in this neighborhood who would never be able to rent if it was a unit equitable, if it was an equitable 2,000 unit upstairs and 2,000 square foot unit down stair. i think the a.d.u. provides value in allowing people who would not otherwise be able to live here to live here, and we should consider that as one of the benefits of diversity of units. thank you. >> hi. my name is debra nelson. i am the next door neighborhood immediately adjacent to 3757 21 street on the east side? my concern is how the

substantial excavation aspect of this project for the subterranean floor affects my backyard and the health of a large and majestic magnolia tree located on my property. i'll note that the architectural plans do not show the actual location of this magnolia tree. the tree is immediately next to the fence between the two properties. i'm relying on the planning commission to provide a tool to protect my tree. i'd like the planning commission to make a condition of approval for this project, which is that an arborist consult on the health of my tree during the excavation and construction process, and for the project sponsors to pay for the arborist's services. i sent the commissioners a copy

of the arborist's report that supports this condition and contains photos of the tree and its location. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, final last call for public comment on this item. seeing no additional request to speak on this item, public comment is now closed, and this item is now before you. commissioners? >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: yes. i wonder if staff has potential language that we could use with respect to trees on both sides of the property if they were to approve this project that we could attach it as a condition. in the case of one neighbor, they did an arborist's report that showed that the tree could be saved. in the case of the other, i haven't seen any underlying reports, so i don't know about the root structure and whether

it's possible to save it, but i'm wondering if there's one kind of -- this is really an important issue, and i'm wondering if there's some kind of language that you could propose that we could attach? >> yes, thank you, commissioner. we have consulted with the city attorney's office on some language. from my understanding, the language that we can provide, it will be added as detailed, and finding [inaudible] located at 3753 21 street. also, this language can be modified to avoid damage to the

tree during this construction. project sponsor will also implement measures that such arborist may recommend to protect the magnolia tree located on the site. >> commissioner diamond: i would favor language that would address the trees belonging to the neighbors on both sides, and i'm interested in what other commissioners have to say. >> president koppel: i would support that request, commissioner diamond. commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: [inaudible]

>> vice president moore: i am in support of the added conditions that commissioner diamond read into the record. i would like you to address how that addition in square footage would be achieved? >> we actually showed it on slide number four. we basically just deepened it, so it only has exposure to one side of the building. one thing we wanted to do because this is a

multigenerational home is we wanted to keep access to the elevator without reprogramming the entire space since we are having -- we do have an entire set of aging parents living on the lower level. >> vice president moore: could you take the cursor and kind of describe where the enlargement is? as it is proposed, the garage space is actually larger than the unit itself from what i could see, so you're enlarging in that area? >> correct. >> vice president moore: okay. you don't have a drawing plan on that, though, right? >> say it again. i'm sorry. >> vice president moore: you do not have a plan drawn up showing us what that means. it's just a dark space. >> yeah, there's windows at the front.

>> vice president moore: right, but no additional windows in the back. >> no. >> vice president moore: okay. thank you. that's all i wanted to know. thank you very much. >> president koppel: i've got a motion and a second. >> clerk: okay. if there's no further commissioner matters, we've got a motion -- commissioner tanner, did you have other comments or a second?

[inaudible]. >> clerk: add language to identify both property line trees. so on that motion, commissioners, to -- [please stand by]

>> their letter in opposition which was sided here in the packet. in total, six letters of support have been received from various neighbors and individuals. to the improvement of the existing building that the garage would get another car off the street and the project express concerns for compatibility. the material, the presence of balconies and the roof top penthouse among other items. this letter also stated that the new garage should be eliminated. the project is on balance, consistent with the projects and policies with the

surrounding neighborhood and will not be detrimental or adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation. the project sponsor's here to provide further insight. and we're both happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> temporary iter ration of the iconic san francisco home and incorporates features that are harmonious -- >> secretary: project son spore. i'm sorry to interrupt you, but you were not unmuted to begin your presentation. so you have five minutes starting now.

>> thank you. good afternoon, president koppel and fellow commissioners. my name is david matsul of 472 greenwich street which my wife and i own with our son. this will house our multi-generational family including our 93-year-old great grandmother. it incorporates features that are harmonious, compatible and common place in this neighborhood and addresses accessibility issues for all family members. please allow me to turn over this presentation to our architect ms. dawn law. thank you very much for your kind relation. >> thank you, david. good afternoon, commissioners. this is dawn, your architect for the project sponsor. next slide. thank you. the building currently has two floors. one for each unit.

the proposed expansion will create two larger family of five multigeneration dwelling. the building currently has no garage and is posing an accessible issue for grandma who will be living on the upper unit. the garage will provide safe interior access to take her to the top floor or the lower units to see her grandson. while it allows for one off street parking unit, we decide to just stick with one. from the outside, the single car garage which mirrors the uphill neighbor with the addition of the one last car parked on the streets, we believe this is an enhancement to the street gate to the court tower. if you remember, almost all garages are found on our side of the block as you can see from the survey below. next slide.

this is a floor plan for the two upper level units. the addition story has pulled back 14' with an outdoor rear deck in its place. next slide. there is a roof access provided by an interior staircase. the roof itself will be constructed with the one rate assembly for the upper unit occupants. even though it's not required by code, we've added this in the worse case. we purposefully positioned the stairs so the stairs are not visible from the trees across which you can see on the sideline analysis. next slide. the footprint of the stair access is at its minimal. we plan to install a chair lift for grandma so she has equal access to the roof as well. so for that reason, we're providing a four by four

landing as well as any future caretaker we need to assist her. given the standard ada wheelchair turn around diameter is 5', this is below that standard. here's a block survey of all the existing stair access within our block and you can see half of the buildings already have them. next slide. we carefully surveyed the surrounding block buildings on the front side. upon confirmation from preservation determination, the project is consistent with many reviews of property in the historic district throughout the city. with restraint to a form that retains the access of the neighboring block and alter immense improvements. we're stepping down following the sloped typography the one

story neighbor would still be higher than us. next slide. we cataloged all the existing windows around the block and followed the optimal windows. next slide. the front balcony is a designed decision to reduce overall glazing which was recommended and we thought it was a great idea. this also can be found in the next neighborhood. next slide. the final existence of the last summary of all the comments including windows, entry portals, these same elements which we promptly responded and made revisions to the drawing. we just want to thank planning for the collaborative efforts that we've come together on eye mutually agreeable design.

thank you. >> secretary: thank you, that concludes project sponsor's presentation. we should open up public comment for members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star 3. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. you have two minutes. >> hello. can you hear me? >> secretary: go ahead. >> we are adjacent property owners 1714 grant avenue. we've seen the plans. we're supportive of this project. it's got our thumbs up. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mark russian, i am the real estate agent who worked with the matsuls when they purchased the property. i'm familiar with the condition of the property at the time that they bought it and the livability and their plans will

definitely make it livable for everyone including obviously the great grandmother who was mentioned, but for future owners of the property as well the accessibility with the garage really enhances it for any people who might have mobility issues climbing both the hill and the stairs located at the property. i think it's very important for usability for both the current occupants and then any future occupants that would live in the property. that's all i have to add. thank you. >> secretary: okay. members of the public, last call. there's another. >> hello. i am maurine mcginnly.

i work with mark russian and i saw the property when he helped z the current owners buy it. i live in the 1,000 block of greenwich and i want to emphasize what mark talked about with the accessibility improvements in the building and there are relatively few buildings that are accessible to motion motion disabled seniors and i think that it's important that we when possible make adjustments as more buildings and more residences are available. >> secretary: okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional request to speak from members of the

public. public comment is closed and this item is before you now, commissioners. >> president: commissioner moore. commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> commissioner: sorry. i'd like to ask a question that we mostly don't address when we're looking at a project of this kind. i like to look at the architects to explain to the commission what happens to the public realm on the sloping street adding a garage because you start to warp the sidewalk in a manner that the passage for pedestrians who do not enter this building becomes rather uncomfortable. i happen to live on a street where that happens and i'm finding it more and more

difficult to contend with the warping sidewalk. >> yes, commissioner moore. so there are a couple of strategies dealing with the natural state of the site. so first of all, the sidewalk is 19' wide. it's relatively spacious. again, we're following what the uphill neighbor already has and we are actually raising the building by 2'7" to minimize the warping of the regrate grading of the garage. we're doing our best. >> commissioner: wouldn't the raising of the building make this not a renovation, but a demolition? >> no. with the cal observations that because we're retaining the

side to side as well as the horizontal elements, we actually made the demolition. >> commissioner: yeah. i appreciate your explaining this and previous discussions. i am wondering, we're starting with a building that's basically too flat and ideal relevant size for san francisco units in this particular part of town. we're increasing the height of the building and we're creating two two-story flats instead of another unit. i just want to put that out there for the commissioners to consider. again, there's no real identification to achieve there. i want to leave was that comment and thank you 23r your explanation regarding the sidewalk and the warping. appreciate it. thank you.

>> thank you. >> president: commissioner diamond. >> commissioner: i'm supportive of the project. every other house from this one moving east up the hill has this kind of garage, in fact, some of them even have two car garages and i believe the renovations are reasonable within the realm of the neighborhood, so i would move to approve this proposal. >> second. >> commissioner: second. >> president: commissioner imperial. >> commissioner: i just have one question. so this is not a demolition, this is a remodel? i mean, this is what i'm

looking to what we have is a remodel, but is that really what is in our demolition, in our section 317 or -- >> i can answer that question. that's correct. so we've put out a number of these today and in some cases it's not. the two other components for demo and it has to be special space to have horizontal as well as vertical elements. it's not one or the other, it's a combination of both. because we are raising the building, 100% horizontal elements are being removed but their vertical removal is not hitting the threshold they would need to under 317. >> commissioner: okay. so it is a remodel. okay. thank you for that clarification. in terms of the additional of or remodelling are against its remodelling of the garage and

in terms of like in the slope that it is, i do find it, i'm trying to visualize that in terms of the garage and how it's going to be adding into that and then people walking by. so that's something that i'm also concerned about in terms of -- i am actually more leaning towards not adding the garage in this space or in this area. i'm leaning against it. >> secretary: right. and correct me if i'm wrong, jonathan, i believe to answer the commissioner's questions directly, it's the addition of the parking space that's before them, right? >> that's correct. the only aspect of this project that is subject to a conditional use authorization here today is the addition of the garage. but, of course, it is before you. it's been triggered by the

garage as a demolition. >> secretary: commissioner imperial, if there are no further questions from you, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on that motion, [roll call] so moved commissioners. that motion passes 4-2 with commissioners imperial and tanner voting against. that concludes your meeting today commissioners. we're adjourned. see you all next week. >> president: thank you.

>> this is the historic preservation hearing wednesday, september 1, 2021. remote hearings require everyone's attention and patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming live. we will receive public comment for each item today. comments or opportunities to speak are available by calling 415-655-0001. access code (146)502-2048. when we reach the item you are interested in, please press star

then 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to speak. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear the chime. when your dime is reached i will take the next person to speak. best practices call from a quiet location, please mute the volume on your computer or television. roll at this time. president matsuda. >> here. >> commissioner black. >> here. >> commissioner foley. >> here. >> commissioner jones. >> here. >> commissioner nageswaran. >> here. >> commissioner so. >> here. >> commissioner wright. >> commissioner wright. i can see you are here, but i cannot hear you.

>> here. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> very good. first is general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to agenda items your opportunity is afforded when the item is reached. each member may address the commission for up to three minutes. if you would like to submit comments on under general public comment press star 3. commission president matsuda, do you want to providely or two minutes? >> three minute is fine. >> when your line is unmuted begin speaking. >> linda chapman from rob hill. coming before you for the first time. usually i go to the planning commission to require when the

sub stake has ever come before you. i was astonished when i read the thereport. those are usually not the ones that go deep into the strongest reasons why preservation should be done. it was astonishing, you know. i knew it was important to the q lbgq district where i live in 69, really. when it was at the time it was appropriate for gay rights and the place where people from knob hill went, where everybody went from the community we women would have not gone to the gay bars. it is still there. it was charming. we understood it hasomething to do with a railroad car.