>> hearing for thursday, october 28 2021 and those meetings require everyone's attention andpatience . if youare not speaking, please commute your microphone . sfgov tv is streaming mishearing live and we will receivecomment on each item on today's agenda . comments are available by calling 1-415-655-0001 and entering access code 2486 151 4664. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to , please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your linehas been unmuted that is your cue to begin speaking . each year will be allowed three

minutes and when you have 30 secondsremaining you will hear a chime indicating yourtime is almost up .i will announce your time is up and take the next person . our practice is to call a quiet location, clearly and slowly and mute the volume on your televisioni'd like to take role at this time. commission president koppel . [rollcall] thank you commissioners. we expect commissioners chadand diamond to be absent today but we do expect both to return in november . first on your agenda is considering items for continuance, 33971 epa the dwelling unit density exception for corner lot in residential district plan" amendment proposed for continuance until november 15 2021.

items 2 a and b case number 2019 02 611 cua, 5116 third street a conditional use and variances proposed for continuance december 9 2021. further commissioners on your regular calendar items 9146 cua at 247 upper terrace conditional youth authorization expecting to be continued to december 9 2021. and under your discretionary review calendar , i'm sorry, misterwinslow was it the 19th ? >> 1857 church street. >> item 11 a, 2020- 008529 the rp, the review portion hasbeen withdrawn .

the item 11 b for case 2020 008529v ar, 1857 church street the variance project will need to be continued to the next zoning administratorsvariance during . no other itemsproposed for continuance . we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of the items proposed to be continued by pressing star 3. when you hear a line has been onmuted that will be our indication to begin speaking . >> caller: this is after marx and i would have 1125 upper terrace and if for continuance at 247 upper terrace is granted please require that the project sponsors meet with the neighbors as agroup . i also request this item be given an indefinite postponement rather than

thursday, december 9 because the parties can have the opportunity and i want to quote from the poll on a specialuse district text .thorough assessment of proposed large-scale residences that could adversely impact the area . this takes time. we need something later than december9 . there are many neighborhood concerns. the total square footage of 4081 gross square feet is a massive project for this narrow street. can the project be reduced in size? there is insufficient use of space. there are questions regarding excavation which threatens the neighborhood home. with planned excavation the tree will survive? it doesn't seem as if would. removal of parking garages are of concern because of scarcity of parking. there aremany neighborhood concerns that need to be

addressed . for a thorough assessment please continue the matter for an indefinite postponement. thank you. >> this is david penn calling in on behalf of theproject sponsors who i represent . we are the project sponsors are happy to continue this item as a neighborly gesture to engage further with the neighbors. the project, while the special use district was really established to prevent the demolition or expansion of existing housing into a much larger housing while not providing any increased density or number of dwelling units,

this project as you all well know proposes the demolition of the garage to provide brand-new housing to the city and tothe neighborhood and family size units . but just to reiterate the project sponsors are happy to engage with the community and we are working with supervisor madeleine's office to assist us in the community and the neighborhood and this engagement and we would like to continue the item to december . the project sponsors have been in the process for some time and are eager to get the definitive direction from the commission . thankyou .

>>. >> caller: do it now? hello, this is edwin marx. my name is evelyn marx and i am the present owner of 251 upper terrace in san francisco which is directly next to a proposed building project onlot 45 . i am deeply concerned about the proposed project on lot 45 at 247 upper terrace because it would impact me and my property tremendously in a negative way. notto mention the impact on the entire community of upper terrace . >> clerk: i need to interrupt you just one moment but we are taking the matter of continuance on theproject so public comments need to be related to the matter . >> caller: so do we forget that until december 9? >> the proposal is to be

continued until december 9. >> caller: thank you sir. >> clerk: thank you. last call for public comment on items proposed tobe continued, press star 3 to be added to the queue . >> this is georgia, i'm just curious because of this continuance thing in sb 330 . i mean, this is a confusing thing that i think is before the commission and for the public on these projects being continued. since the project sponsor apparently requested the continuance , does this mean this ring doesn't count and we're starting from scratch or is this going to count asone ? i think that needs to be because it's confusing to the public and raises a lot of questions. ask i'll listen on thephone for my answer .

>> caller: this is esther marx at 125 upper terrace and again i'm asking for the continuance if granted to be an indefinite postponement because of the many issues. >> you have the opportunity to speak already so we will clear the board and then invite those persons who have not yet spoken to the items proposed to be continued, press star 3 if you have any furthercomments . i did receive word from miss connor that projects for the sponsor is requesting a continuance do not count towards the hearing limitation. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public public comment is close and the items proposed for

continuance are before you . commissioner tanner. >> moved to continue all items as proposed. >> second. >> commissioners to continue all itemsas proposed, commissioner tanner . [roll call vote] >> clerk: that motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. >> i will continue item 2b to the december night. item 11 to the december 1 variance hearing. >> clerk: thank you administrator. commissioners that will place us under commission matters for item 3 adopting tenants for october 14, 2021. we should take public comment. this is your opportunity to th minutes by pressing star 3 .

seeing the requestto speak from members of the public public comment on the minutes are closed and they are now before you . commissioner imperial. thank you commissioners and on that motion toadopt the minutes .[roll call vote] >> clerk: so moved, that passes unanimously. placing us on item 4, commission comments and questions. and commissioners, if you would indulge me for one moment before you get into your particularcomments , i wanted to introduce a proclamation from the planning commission for one kate herman stacy that

will be retiring from her post very soon. and if i could just share my screen. i don't know how to share my screen. after all this, i've always had staff do it. i will forward it to staff and have them put it on while i read it to you. >> you can share. >> clerk: i can share now? okay. that will tell uswhat the problem was . there's a proclamation now and if i could just read it into therecord . that whereas the mayor and board of supervisors will proclaim october 29 21 kate

herman stacy day and whereas she never expected the time spent waitressing would prepare her for dealing with difficult situations in public places and whereas after graduating from the university of chicago law school in 1985 kate began her illustrious career of public service in the city attorney's office in 1989 and whereas since 2007 kate led the land-use team with intelligence, integrity, empathy along with her signature calm and eloquent demeanor and whereas as general counsel to the planning commission and planning department kate advised numerous commissioners, five planning directors, by five zoning administrators and five review officers and whereas he earned the respect of all those whom she works and particularly that planning commissioners and planning department staff whereas enough paper between

multiple chambers in city hall have crossed kate's desk and whereas after 32 years her thoughtfulness, creativity and wit will be deeply missed and whereas she has truly left her mark on the form a san francisco leaving the city in a better place than it would have without her influence. now therefore be it resolved the san francisco planning commission in recognition of the exceptional and extraordinary contributions to the city and county of san francisco by one kate and stacy issues this proclamation in her honor. commission president koppel i believe you have some words followed by director fung. >> president: as i've been on this commission for five years now i'm back then couldn't have imagined what i would have seen and heard since then. so also to you. i can't evenimagine what you've

seen and heard through the years and decades under your service . i wanted to thank you for properly on renting some new deputy city attorney's to help fill the void. it's going to be some big shoes to fill so i appreciate the fact that you brought on mister yang and everything will pretty much keep running smoothly because i'm sure you can't just put anyone in this position so i wanted to thank you personally for making that transition easy. selfishly i'm extremely jealous and i'm already counting my years even though it's not anytime soon but enjoy yoursel , your free time. you've earned it and congratulations,you will be missed . >> a few kate, huge thanks to you for all you've done. for me, congrats on your retirement. i've had the good fortune of working with kate for i think

two decades now. as city employee and asked the planning commission and now a director i can say without doubt she is one of my favorite city employees and i think many of the planning staff would show that just because she's a fellow wait staff person as well as the university of chicago grabbed she's just great at what she does. her advice is straightforward and practical and you've all seen herin action here . she is smart and dedicated but the most important thing is she's just fun to be around and makes our job more enjoyable. any meeting with her is fine but weget to answer which is always great but i can go on . you know the giants have an award which they give to players who don't just do their job well but our outstanding people so if the city has had a

willing, maybe we create one, the kate stacy award but thank you kate for everything you've done for us and we love you. and i think kate other commissioners want to talk but kate wants to say something as well >> go ahead . >> director koppel and planning department, i can't tell you how much i appreciated, here we go. working with you all and i feel this enormous fence of gratitude for the many years that i've had the privilege of being able to work with so many dedicated and talented and creative people. this department is filled with so many impressive planners who tackled not only complicated problems, try also cutting edge approaches that push the limits and definitely push us as

attorneys to think hard about our advice to becreative with you .this commission works hard every single week. the amount of work you do and thoughtfulness and intelligence with which you approach often very difficult cases and difficult zoning problems is impressive to see every week and i feel so lucky to have been ableto be a part of it . i respect and appreciate how much you try to keep pushing us forward in search of something better to make san francisco a better place and to keep sort of rolling with the changes on trying different policies and solving tough issues. i love the hopeful attitude that we can do better that the whole department shows in this commission and director hillis and jonas, you all continue to be optimists that we can do

better and in san francisco mostly we do. we are really at the forefront of so many issues that we in turn affect other places and that you concern and care for not only the city but the world has beena really wonderful thing to be a part of . and for 32 years i have loved working with the departmentand commission and you kept it interesting and challenging an never dull . thank you for caring so much , for including me in what you do and solving your plans, your problems and all of the problems that we face as a commission on a weekly basis and at the planning department on a weekly basis. it's been an incredible two years and it has been so satisfying to be able to work with all of you and ijust send up and in august appreciation for having been part of it . so thank you. >> president: commissioner mar.

i think you aremuted . >> city attorney stacy, she shows who she really is. it is the smile on her face but also sometimes i miss in her voice when she speaks for us. i have admired her when those dumb questions isometimes answer , she always brings understanding and kindness but let me recommend to all of you if any of youare subscribing to linkedin , pull up kate's profile. there is a remarkablebeautiful photo on there that speaks about empathy . i wanted to have this on the

screen today but it takes too long. follow-up linkedin and look at that and when you see that photo you know what kate stacy isall about . thank you katie. you have been a true asset to the team. >> commissioner fung. >> as the one here who has worked with kate thelongest , it's goneover three decades . thanks very much kate and good luck in your next ventures. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> maybe i'm the one with the shortest in this role so i'll follow up commissioner fung. i've had my share of of work with city attorneys and i think what that you are part, you and your team are that you are not just sayingwell that's risky, we can't do that . you're saying how might we do this in a way that could limit

the city's risk and achieve the policy objectives that we have. i think that attitude is what sets san francisco apart from other cities and allows us to push the envelope and sometimes we get it wrong or at least courts tell us we do but we figure it out and it's been great to work with you even as a planner and here as a commissioner your reputation precedes you in many instances and many rooms and i think in all in a great way i am sure thatwhen we think about public service , you are the type of public servant that is inspiring that we can be do really amazing things on behalf of the public and i hope you feel so proud of the work that you've done and the other lawyers i'm sure you've inspired and counsel and help to serve the city as well. good luck and best wishes in whatever endeavors that you chooseafter you retire. >> commissioner imperial . >> i will miss this day. i didn't know that but in a

short matter of time that i've worked with you i again just like others you set a good role. and good advice for us in the planning commission. i always look up to your advice as well and when you give advice, you give us not just the two scenarios are different scenarios that we have. and it's really tough and i don't know how you all do this with tackling different policies and how it may affect outcomes with us but again, thank you for all the service you have provided to the city and you're one of the people reasons why the city is great. >> thank you so much. you are so generous and kind and i look forward to your great things from theapartment and from the commission . and i know kristen jensen also

love working with you all and i know the team loves working with the planning department. you will continue to do great things together. thank you so much. >> thank you kate. if there are no nothing else from commissioners we can move on todepartment matters.item five . >> good afternoon commissioners. two announcements, one i wanted to let you all know we are officially back in the office next week starting november 1 so that's when we start with our staff being in the office at leasttwo days a week . and possibly three days but it's our first time occupying 29 south bend and that's why you are looking forward to that. i wanted toannounce to another staffing change . adam garrett many of you have known and you've seen here at

the commissions. he's leaving us.he's not going far though. he's going to the port to be their direct deputy director of planning for waterfront resilience programs. he's done with planningfor 19 years . all within our citywide planning division and as you know like kate he's passionate about what he does and thoughtful. he's been involved in most of our long-range planning work from climate resilience to managing our city design work to developing a better streets plan to connect sf so he will be sorely missed but he will be close by and working with us on our resilience work. so congrats to adam and those aremy announcements for today if you have any questions . >> for this, i know you've been working with the climate resiliency group .

if you have any prospects of replacements for that. >> we don't yet. we're eating with or i'm meeting with the citywide team to go about their work. i mean, i'll say also which i should have mentioned again, it's a bit of a tough budget year. so we've got the revenue numbers in for october which we thought were on a more positive trajectory but turned out to be fairly poorcompared to budget so we looking at it even being $10 million shortfall this year . so filling vacancies is difficult. i'm meeting with the citywide division and looking at work programs to prioritize work but clearly that isimportant work that we will continue todo . so . >> i hope we still can continue to work through the planning department. >>.

>> commissioner tanner. >> i have one question and first i'll ask adam that advice but with lots of planning a lot of things are happening there so definitely it's a great place to have a skilled planner. i was curious, it seems like sometimes when we're getting folks calling in the continuance is confusing for folks. i don't know what people see on the screen at home.would it bepossible to have a slide that lists what items are being continued folks can read along with it ? just to improve the communication because it seems people are confused and they hangout because they don't understand what meeting it is or what's happening with that. some people realize we're not going to catch anybody but i was curious if youcould give insight on that . >> it comes up on the screen

but your idea of sharing the screen that lists the continuances and the items that are up for continuance is something we can do especially now that jonathan is fully adept at sharing his green. >> thank you director. it's certainly something we can consider and possibly work with sfgov tv to have the ticker note continuances. so let me put my offices brain trust to work on that and see what we come up with. >> i don't want to make my work, just trying to see if we can helpful to little bit. >> that concludes directors announcements. we can go to item 6 board of supervisors. there is no report from the board and historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. >> erin star,manager of

legislative affairs . first the land use committee with supervisor romans ordinance i would update the city's inclusionary program to among other things ensure that the tenure of the market rate unit and the bmr units in the same development match. commissioners you heard this item october 14 and voted unanimouslyto recommend the ordinance to the board. the latest hearing that are about five public commenters all in support of the ordinance . there's among thecommittee members was very positive and supervisorasking and melt are all requested to be added as cosponsors . committee then recommended the other to the full board . next the committee considered supervisor chance ordinance that would repeal article 12 . you heard this item on october 14 and recommended approval modifications modification you propose was amended the definition of manufacturing two and 32 excluded from the

definitionof production or assigning of the true assisted with well i guess exportation. atthe hearing there was no public comment . kelly's rostrum wanted to incorporate the planning commissions recommendation . but wasn't able toget the amendment strapped in time the item was continued for one week to allow those americans to be finalized. the vote to continue the item was passed unanimously finally the committee considered supervisor haskins orders that would require conditional use authorization to change the use of the laundromat .this item appeared in front of the planning commission october 14 and on order to recommend approval with modification . the proposed modifications include one to revise laundromat definition to require washing and drying as part of the services to to amend the ordinance to approve more quantifiable agreements. supervisor asking incorporated the second to provide stability to planning staff in analyzing this finding did notinclude the

modification to revise the laundromat definition to require washing and drying as part of the service. through the hearing there were six public commenters all in support of the ordinance . after public comment there was no significant assessment but supervisor melgar didn't have to be added as a sponsor.the committee then forwarded the amended ordinance to the full board. the full board thisweek supervisor haskins forbids noted controls in chinatown north beach and oak street at the second read, supervisor mandolins , mandelman's ordinance that would extend the sunset dates for cannabis retail and health planning police codes passed on second read . supervisor weldon's ordinance that would delete life sciences and medical special use district after its first read. supervisor mandolins ordinance that would prohibit the loss of housing services to add a sensory dwelling unit . the appeal for 35 ventura avenue to reach november 9 but

the board did take up the appeals of the eir from 469 and the proposed project would demolish the existing surface parking lot which has 176 parking spaces and replace it with 495 dwelling units, 4000 the ground floor retail and envelopeground parking garage. the project would provide 73 affordable dwelling units . the pellets were represented at the hearing by johnoverly . in their appeal statements we found the department could analyze technical issues in the initial study rather than the eir and the department's reliance on state and local code and dvi review process. they believe the findings to be inadequate and disagrees with the departments included in the historic resources impact. risks of other projects can potential to result gentrification and displacement

and the appellant disagrees with the planning commission's decision to rejectalternative that would have resulted in less than significant impact . in their remodel the department pursued each of these assertions point by point citing building code standards on the report. notably they also responded to the facts technically under the purview of cqua. stating while some displacement may occur is not a natural result of gentrification and many factors influence resulting from this development not supported by the available literature on the subject. there were six speakers in favor of the appeal including heritage and someone on filipina and in aproximally 14 speakers in favor of denying the appeal .

midmarket coalition, founding action coalition, san francisco building trades council, the filipino community development organization and sf senior power during the hearing supervisors disagreed with the department and city position on the standards of eir adequacy and raise concerns about displacement and displacement analysis for the project . several supervisors did not agree it was adequate to rely on state codes . questions were raised about the historic resources impact analysis and concerns were raised about the alternatives for the significant impacts identified in the eir. there were two votes on this issue and the first was to deny the appeal and the vote failed on supervisors haney and safai voting to uphold. because we're all saying goodbye to kate stacy, i can't tell you how much the legislative team has relied on

kateover the years and i like to say thank you for your service and all the help you've given us over the years .best of luck . >> thank you mister starr. if there are no questions from members, we can move on to general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on item of interest to the public within the subject matter jurisdiction . with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address th commission will be afforded with the item in this meeting. each member may address the commission for up to three minutes . if speakers exceed the 15 minute limit public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members need to press star 3 to be added to the queue.you will receive two minutes and when you hear that your line has been a muted that's indication to begin speaking. >> caller: this is sue hester. i want to acknowledge kate

stacy as well.members of the public depend on kate stacy's to give honest and impartial advice on planning issues to the planning commission and other commissions in the city including the board of supervisors. thank you kate. we really appreciate yourhard work. secondarily , there was some board meetings last night and the planning department one two cases or two appeals. one was a matter that's been reported to the planning commission 2722 february 27, 2024. street which the owner was trying to make and run around the planning department and the planning commission and you should get a report on thatfrom the zoning administrator . the other case that was at the planning commission was a variance is a case that has not yet been to the planning commission because the owner was attempting to do a variance

without filing a building permitapplication . even the rule of variance first that was 408 412 portland street. those were unanimous decisions from the court of appeals. i just wanted to be accurate. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. this is georgia. the commission should please continue the discussions that have emerged recently during various objects on the importance of the rearmament block open space. my email comments for today include two projects from the past few years showing a foreign actor that has obliterated the national excavations. that would only expand the house but spread out into the

remainder of the lot beyond the 45 percent line and all the lot lines of adjacent properties. this causes the loss of a natural rearguard replaced by his retaining walls and so-called patios that adjust more cement with the drain. right now i have a project across the street that i sent photosin illustrating this loss . it's a huge cement box that will hold one subterranean uni . not only is there loss of a rear yard but the energy and waste of materials used will this unit is extraordinary and exceptional . as the number of dump trucks use the hallway the soil is over 1000 cubic yards the soil has been gone. this is a very bad temper that

has negative effects due to the loss of the rear yard as well as cumulatively on the open space. please continue to have these discussions on the commission on the rear yard open space for projects whether they are lega demolitions or extreme alterations in the residential neighborhoods please ask your staff to consider this as well and good luck to mrs. stacy and everybody have a happy halloween and take care . >> this is jeff bassi here. i'm calling in support of the cannabis store 3415 california street. >> this is general public comment foritems not on today's agenda. that item will be coming up in the regular calendar meeting . press star 3 when we call that matter. members of the public last cal for general public comment again for items not on today's agenda . to confirm press star 3.

seeing no additional requests general public comment is closed and we can now move on to our regular calendar commissioners for items seven . case number 2020 item 05729 cu . this is a conditional use authorization. mister may, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> yes i am. good afternoon commissioner president. i just would like to congratulate kate stacy on her upcoming retirement . it's been apleasure working with you and i wish you all the best . you're going to be missed. commissioners you have a request for conditional use authorization to permit the demolition of the three-story single-family dwelling measuring approximately 11,051 square feet and the construction of a new three-story single-family dwelling entering 9341 where feet with 1a dumeasuring 799

square feet . the project proposes to parking spaces at approximately 2185 square feet of usable open-space on several terraces for both the principally permitted unit and a du. conditional use authorization is required for the removal of the zoning district. the subject property is located within the conservation area which was established by the planning commission in 1996 to protect the local street from environmental degradation. in accordance with the commissions resolution establishing a conservation area the project will employ several best benefit practices including planning to avoid disturbance, avoiding the groundwater sources by minimizing excavation, reducing low-impact landscaping, installing sedimentation runoff and a pump to deliver sewage to the city system.these measures have been confirmed by

this commission and storm water control plan and will be further explained by the project sponsor in their presentation. and environmental planning staff is on hand to answer any questions you may have regarding these properties. the department or sorry, the project was reviewed by the departments design review team where it was noted the proposed treatment with vertical siding is not in keeping with the character defining features of the eligible is the district. while preservation staff have determined the subject property is not a contributor to the district staff would recommend a condition of approval the sponsor continue to work with planning staff for a treatment that better complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. commissioners and the publication of the staff report that apartment has received one additional letter of support in the neighborhood 24 25th avenue apartment finds the project is on balance consistent with the

objectives and policies of the plant and the local street conservation area. although the project result in demolition of an older more naturallyaffordable dwelling the project closes the addition of a du which will add to the city's housing stock . the apartment finds the project to bedesirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not detrimental to persons in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation and i am available for further questions .>> thank you . >> we are here. >> good afternoonmembers of the commission, this is glenda fine . thank you for taking the time to review the conditional use approval for the demolition of the single-family home that is considered a non-historic resource . we are proposing a smaller single-family home for our client and his two young children trying toraise their family . we have the support of the two adjacent neighbors, the one to the last and the one to the

south at 25th avenue. and we are have been into medication with the neighbor at large. as you can see in this diagram the site is large and the lot measures around 26,432 square feet or 0.6 acres. the main impetus for new construction is to build single-family house that has less square footage and to add and a du. it's the buildable area allowed by the planning code to arrange the current structure for the footprint of 8311 square feet and the fund will have a footprint of 5963 square feet leaving 78 percent of the lot as open space. with the intention of creating a continuing the presidio. the proposal has not only a much smaller footprint but also uses reduces the area by 20

percent from 11,002 9321 and adds a adu of 81 square feet. like number three we aim not only to reduce the footprint of this existing building but also to reduce the high home as a single-story structure. versus a three-storystructure allowed by the planning code . the slide in blue is an envelope of code with the average height of 30 feet . the orange is existing average height of about 15 with a minimum of 15 and a half feet and a maximum of 17 and then the proposed 15 feet in and five inches. on slide number four is a slide that compares the existing at the bottom and proposed at the

top with the intentionally moved the garage to be more in line with the driveway and paving areas. on the side as giving access to the garage for the neighborhood kids to play. on slide five is a view of the house existing at the bottom in the larger context of the neighborhood. in the slide number six, we compare notable neighborhoods of 890 designed by joseph with forklifts. they have the opposite exchange of the neighborhood and 890 spaces within the park in the same way for interfaces to that studio. on slide number seven we compare seacliff with 535

designed by jade margaret highlighting the massing and the detailing of the exterior material. on slide number eight is something that is we want to present a small change that would not include in your packet and was the result of a easement. this easement was not recorded in thetitle of the property and we were only made aware of it when we first brought it up . stated here it's a small change to the easements. and we basically movedit to the north . it's in the orange, it's the outline of the buildingthat you have in your current packet . in the orange areas are the areas that we are proposing is subtract and in blue are the small areas we are proposing to add for a net add 28 square

feet and we submitted this change to the planning staff and confirmed it will comply with the code and should you be inclined to support the position of these requests, we will provide plans for final review. any questions. >> does that conclude your presentation? >> that concludes our presentation >> that means we should take public comment . members of the public this is youropportunity to address the commission on this item by pressing star 3 . no requests tospeak by members of the public. public comment on this matter closed . >> i don't think the sponsor is

taking this too far. this is a neighborhood that does accommodate larger houses and we call on commissioner in. >> thank you. i'm curious i have aquestion for the project sponsor . are you planning for the adu to be rented or to be used for a family member? just curious. >> we anticipate excuse me commissioner, thisis dan . we anticipate that the adu will be used by a family member. >> thank you so much, that's my question. >> commissioner moore. >> codecompliance building is also approved . >> commissioner tanner. >> i had two questions, one about the adu to see if you could describe a bit how the

access to that building would be, that part of the building with her. family members are great and maybe in the future as a family member we don't know. just how the persons living there would get in and out of the topography of the building. >> can i have slide number two? it is basically at the lower level of the level and the access is through, is facing the east part of the yard so to have a separate path onto the adu. >> that is my only question. i would support this project as well. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this item and just for clarity, i heard they were requesting

modification . >> that's correct. >> so you are proposing a modified project . >> the motion is to improve the modification. >> very good commissioners. on that motion then to approve this project as modified by the project sponsor withconditions, commissioner tanner . [roll call vote] >> so moved, that motion passe unanimously . for the benefit of members of the public that were not with us earlier item 9 or 2.7 upper terrace has been continued to december 9 and the

discretionary review of 1857 church street has been withdrawn. commissioner that will place us on item 8 2020 090 5915 california street. this is a conditional use authorization . staff is prepared to make a presentation. >> yes i am. >> first off i'd like to wish stacy a happy retirement and say thank you. good afternoon members of the planning commission . the project is for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 29.2 03 to allow the demolition of the building 1279 square-foot one unit two story residential building under construction. >> a 5389 square-foot per unit, four story residential building that has been an rn one

residential mixed use district . project five is located within the other richmond neighborhood and surrounding development consists of a single and multi unit residential building in the immediate area consists of 24 story structures on opposite blocks consisting of residential and mixed-use buildings. the proposed residential building will contain three dwelling units. the first and second floor residential units will have approximately 1600 and 29 square feet of floor area. the third floor residential unit will have a proximally 1100 and 83 square gross square feet of floor area and fourth floor residential units will have approximately 950 square feet of floor area. the project includes residential units and

two-bedroom residential units with optional parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces. the project provides proximally 1051 square feet of open space from the rear deck and rear yard. the project as nice as the team on the residential guidelines. the project sponsors have visions that have been made in their slide presentation. today the department has not received public comment in supportof or in opposition to the proposed project . the department recommendation is for the project is approved conditions as indicated in the commission and just to know commissioners there's a correction on the report which the project sponsors applied t that . the current occupied existing building since april 2021 and

not april 2020.so this was a great dissertation andi'm available for any questions . >> thank you sharon. >> mister long, we find you. mister long, are you with us. >> i am here, sorry. >> clerk: do you need me a ton your phone often marks just a second. let me find your phone.>> can you hear me? >> you have five minutes.

>> sorry about that. president, this is john long, architect for the project. maybe have slide one. this project removes an existing market risk category single-family house with the new three unit larger rate . the proposed project would meet the long density zoning which is three units. slide number two please. this is project for families between the two story commercial building on the corner towards the east and a three-story to unit over garage building towards the west. slide number three please. the existing house on the 25 foot by 90 foot lot is approximately 1497 square feet. existing house has two bedrooms and a single-family house and there is no evidence that the

single-family house has been subject to rent control. the building presents a 28 foot wall with small second-story mike wells to the east and the west property has a 31 foot property line.slide number four please. this shows the rear fagade of the adjacent building to contract with the property. slide number five. this is our rendering comparing the proposedproject with the photograph of the existing building .the new four-story building will contain three units and three bedrooms and is located on the first two floors. the two-bedroom unit will be on the third floor and the smaller two-bedroom will be located on the fourth floor. these units designed to be naturally affordable and the garage allows for three classify spaces. slide number six.

this would show close-upof the entryway which we have modified to with wall to increase exposure to the street and a more welcome presence . slide number seven please. this slide shows the view from california lookingto the east . slide number eight please. and the view from the corner of california and 21st. i will briefly go through the plans of thebuilding . slide number nine. the first floor contains the three-car garagethe third bedroom of the three-bedroom unit . slide number four. this is the second floor of the three-bedroom unit that shows three bedrooms in the rear, sorry and two bedrooms in the front and the living room at the back . slide number 11 please would be the third floor containing the two-bedroom units with smaller living room and also mohler deck in the back slide number 12 contains the fourth floor which is a smaller

three-bedroom unit 900 square feet. slide number 13please . regarding that neighborhood alterations we held a pre-application meeting on may 14 2020 and had a follow-up conversation with the property owner and tenants occupyingthe upper upper flat . further requests for the rear fagade was reduced to the rear fagade to impact the adjacent debt. there wereother no other comments from any neighbors . we also during that time if they asked us to modify the 12 foot pump out on the back so slide number 14. we also removed the proposed fifth floor roof deck and minimize the shape of it so this shows a comparison between the original proposed deck and modified version. slide number 15 please. so the zone encourages density and recognizes gentrified

housing and the proposed building use in sizes consistent with the neighborhood as it is a mixed-use family building on commercial retail services. proposed project adds housing to the neighborhood thathas historically been limited to units . the demolition increasing in size is required to allow parking. the architecture of this proposed project respects existing developments acknowledging adjacent three-story buildings with the three-story second map and day windows. the fourth floor down toward the street minimizes the appearance of the building. the project meets all requirements necessary to grant conditional use authorization under section 317 planning code and is consistent with general plans and design guidelines. position of new family-style housing that is affordable and appropriate in a neighborhood that is lacking housing will

benefit san francisco and meet its greeting bowl. i am available if you have any questions . >> iq. that concludes your presentation we should put it to the public this is your opportunity to address this item by pressing star 3 . seeing no requests to speak from members of the public public comment on this matter is closed and the item is now for you . >> commissioner tanner. [roll call vote] >> i want to thank the project sponsor for bringing this item to us . i want to thank them and it's a project that we need more of in san francisco and we need to think about this in context hour of our discussion on the density that we still want to see versus some of the things

that we may be concerned about seeing with some of the other state laws put into place so thank you and we can put that into our for a future session about this, building still retaining some of the eir. i think it can still be instructive for what we might see and certainly for some of our forward competition. i want to ask the project sponsor we saw in your brief questions that came up from neighbors when you met with them. it seems like you were able to resolve someissues . for you also able to resolve the light well and if you could kind of explain a little bit about that i knew there was mention of style and perhaps in the adjacent properties and perhaps you could help us understand how that challenge may have been resolved if it was. >> i think we can hear you. >> do i unmute?

>> you are on you did. >> yes, we had really good conversations with the landlords of the building and also the tenants . i believe that accepted the fact that ... >> you still able to hear me? sorry about that. what i was stating is that the they agreed that was okay for that to be removed and there was no further discussion about putting the skylight. i think their main concern was just making sure that the rear fagade aligned with their fagades because the planning code does allow our building to go out another further i believe three or four feet mentally and it was going to rectally affect their debt so they were verypleased with the fact that we were willing to work with them on that .>> i'm glad to hear that they were

able to come to a solution and if you had a number of comments that were written and what you had with those meetings it sounds like they've been addressed at least pace on the lack ofcomments that we're hearing from neighbors . so i will be happy to be supportingthis project today . >> thank you. >> commissioner more. >> i'm happy to support the project but i agree with commissioner tanner that this project serves as the prototype of what we'd like to see for unit size as well as the very sensitive treatment of the rear walls by stepping back and leaving sunlight and exposure for adjoining buildings to the south. i've found it a agreeable project and approve. >> i have a question to the project sponsor. i believe he's also agreed with commissioner tanner when it

comes to discussion of item 9. one question to the project sponsor is for the existing tenants. i understand they are in agreement that they will lead by the end of this year. i'm wondering as to what kind of notice that you have put to them and if it ever returns to a rental market, then the tenant should be notified of their rights. i'm wondering if that's something that you as an owner discuss with the tenants regarding those issues or whether that's why for us in the planning department should be aware of differences to. >> commissioner imperial, the owner of our planning department i believe is on you tears i hope you can join us

but again i'm trying to work withthe technology so arthur, are you able to discuss this ? >> i am. >> commissioner the intention of the tenants is they are searching for ahouse . so they were made aware of our elements and told us that they need some time to look for a house in san francisco to purchase. we haven't, we've given them the way to, you don't know the timing so in terms of their economy and when they plan to leave.>> again, just for the planning department i think it's also good that even though the owner or the tenants are looking for a home ownership in the future i think just to be

consistent in terms of knowing just cause protections for the tenants . but i thank you for that statement and answering. >> thank you. >> if there's nothing further wehave a motion to item and this item to be approved with conditions as amended by staff . on that motion commissioner tanner. [roll call vote]. >> that motion passes unanimously 520 and will place us on item 10. for case number 2021 item 009 three 5415 california street with conditional use authorization.

>> yes jonas, thank you. >> afternooncommissioners . sorry about that. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant planning code section 202.2 03 and 713 to establish a new kind of associated storage space doing business as elements seven within the commercial space of a one-story building at 3415 california street in the lower village shopping center. the site is located within the neighborhood commercial shopping center sbs zoning district and the ncs district requires conditional use authorization or establishment of canvas. the location complies with the 600 foot rule established on the planning code section 202.2

and the closest other approved cannabis retailer is 1530 feet away from the site at 2845 jerry boulevard. the rules are 150 parker avenue presidio hill school, san francisco university high school, claire elementary school, wallenberg school, doctor william elementary school, which are greater than 4500 feet away from the site and additionally there are other sensitive locations which are the kids on camera tv acting drama school, miller rachel nursing school, the little school and the russian hill school which are all again more than 1000 feet away from the sitethese locations are not identified as schools under the planning code .however in response to context with the proposed leaders while remaining transparency along with a strong security presence

and staffmonitoring the storefront . the project is not authorized for on-site smoking for vaporizing cannabisprojects . the proposed hours are9 am to 8 pm . the project is proposing minor tenants augmentation such as storage and bathrooms. the project is also proposing that willbe under the accepted site . the department has received a total of26 letters in support and one letter in opposition . letters of support encourage the revitalization of the bridge including safety security presence and the business models for health and education such as elements seven plans to rain. the letter of opposition expressed concerns about smoking of cannabis projects in the vicinity of the site and additional security issues that the business might bring. and section 1316 and equity applicant is minitab interest in up to four locations in san

francisco. the applicant has other locations, these locations at 4001 after street have been 84 street and 1541.3 are currently under review. in summary the project complies with the zoning and policies of the general plan and provides new business by activating current green space and complies with the city's equity program. the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation and i am available forany questions . the applicant has a presentation to make and i wil hand it over tothem now . >> thank you, project sponsor are you with us . >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, this is joel flack from elements seven and i'm here with chante . i want to mention that for your benefit. excellent, thank you sir.

german i might just take five minutes to do a brief presentation and then maybe i can join your questions. a couple of sections i want to run through. really talking about our visions for the site and how we treat our workers. some of the community outreach we're going to do and we can go into our operationalplanning . and i believe if you could advance another slide please. this is based out of san francisco, we have a diverse team of people in los angeles but they're also located to the san francisco about18 months ago . actually just they started to meet out of losangeles up here. everyone has very different backgrounds . my background is marketing for 11years in asia .

i worked for a large international media and content company and i gotinto cannabis about four years ago . chante who is the social equity applicant owns 51 percent of this business. as a 20 year history in the hospitalityindustry in san francisco . currently works just around the corner on the project site as well as he worked and the financial district for many years. next slide.we have a lot of really good solid retail experience across traditional retail so our head of retail is jen. barry and jen spent 15 years in anthropology and has worked in cannabis for three years with nick and me, helping us on systems and experience and then

as i said i was with tessie for 11 years on grant park and we worked with themfor another five years . looking after sales and marketing. existing retail operations, we have operations across several locationsin california . the two predominant stores today are i think rio dell which has been in marina which is down in the monterey castro villa area just two hours. they're very compliant, exceptionally wellrun . i'm very proud of the design standards. we are very focused on using data and analytics to understand what our customers want. next slide. i have great relationships in the industry and with other bodies. us cw is a partner ofours . united food and commercial

workerslabor union , out of california, we work closely with them and with ucla, we did a project a couple of years ago with their school of management students and i'm really proud of the relationships with cannabis which are both university groups that we represent . americans, latinosand hispanics . next slide. ongoing engagement we know we held two public meetings and we areholding the second one today to address , discuss the concerns of local residents and business owners. i would say the first public meetings were 50-50 on the negative andpositive's . on the negative comments we addressed most of it frankly was fear and concern and some reeducation of the cannabis

industry. we talkabout safety and security , loitering. no consumption on-site. and just this overcomes a lot of the concerns of the local plan. we offered the commissioners to talk about reeducation programs. we've done some work with local business owners from laurel village that came to our sister location in berkeley and we were able to see how the business is run and then we also proposed in the events that we were successful trying to enter into some sort of minimum standard with the village merchants association to talk about parking and security and other factors. we absolutely want to be held accountableby the local community . next slide. we want to develop a cannabis wellness lab. some of the regulars we've got.

some of the local concerns that we obviously addressed in every location we want to go into. we'll look at parking. i think is that my 30 seconds? >> that is your time actually. commissioners may have additional questions for you after public comments. members, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressingstar 3. when the light indicates you have been unmuted that is your cue to speak . we will each have three minutes. >> caller: this is jeff riley calling and in support of the cannabis store at the california street. i'm a regular shopper at laurel village and definitely support

the idea for this store. laurel village i think needs fresh businesses to revive the mall there. especially after the shutdowns and several restaurants going out of business. and i cannabis store would also avoid neighborhood folks having to drive across the city to get other neighborhoods toget the medicine . and basically from what i see on and 17 is putting together a great business with a stick and is wellness center and is going to create a neighborhood advisory council to address neighborhood concerns and keep the business aligned with the needs of the committee. it's going to bring more safety

to the neighborhood with good outdoor lighting and security staff which can be discreetly positioned inside the door. and regular patrols through the village without uniformity. cannabis store will open up in thelaurel heights neighborhood eventually . so it may as well have a well-run business with a good business plan taking that slot and heading back to the community. i also heard that element seven is planning to donate money back to the community taking advice from their neighborhood advisory board on where to put their donation dollars to support the needsof the surrounding community . element seven is also going to provide training, fair wages and career opportunities for their employees . also addressing the concerns by adjusting their business model based on community feedback they've already made several changes to their plans based on previous feedback so i will always be a supporter of

underprivileged as well as black and brown communities so i support it wholeheartedly. thank you. >>. >> my name is scott marengo, canyou hear ? >> we can hear you. >> i'm calling in support of the dispensary in laurel village. my family has lived on street for 20 years and the laurel hill co-op preschool, washington hi, alice on you and we feel that a couple of things.one is the management of this organization element seven is a very professional, professionally run organization. they're going to have good emphasis on security, on

education. and also i want to say that the equity of representative sean he deluca was involved. i've known him for many years and he is a longtime sfresident , aresponsible parents and certainly a really good human being . so to just on the character side of things i'd like to support that man. thank you. >>. [inaudible] >> i'm not sure but i'm having difficulty with the comments. i can barely hearthat you are on a .>> i think it's

somebody that's gotthe tv on the background . >> color, are you with us? go ahead. >> and i on now? >> you are. >> when it is kathy denton and i'mpulling for the laurel heights neighborhood association . this project is in the laurel heights shopping center and at the community meeting okay, i'll try to close the computer. that should do it. it's not me. i close my computer. can i continue? >> clerk: yes. >> the community meeting project sponsors said they would provide roving private security.

and they even said they would have them be in plainclothes to fit in with the family-friendly character of laurel village. so i'm kathy devon chelsea from the laurel heights improvement association and we request a condition of approval that they provide this exterior private security and that it be a mandatory condition of approval beprovided during operating hours which is what they said they were going to do . as you know there have been some burglaries these type of operations and their summary today only indicated some kind of podium security. didn't talk about this writing private roving security they said they were going to have so association does not have a position against the project but we would appreciate a mandatory condition of approval thatthey provide the exterior private security during operating hours . >> thank you.

>> caller: my name is natalia thurston, i'm an attorney and i've been a familyattorney for 10 years based out of san francisco . i just most recently worked as a typical support consultant for the san francisco office of cannabis with josh black and the elements 17 and i've been working with them for the past six months or so with just an sf equity applicants and i'm calling in to support their dispensary on laurel on california in laurel village. i have found. >> if you're part of the project teamyour opportunity to speak . >> i'm not part of the project team, i'm just calling to support the project .

as somebody that's has worked on other projects with josh black and his team and i've found them to be very reliable and knowledgeable and experienced so ithink they would be rate operators for that location . that's all i wanted to make this comment to support their professionalism and the experience thati've had working with them on otherprojects . so thank you very much . >> thank you, members of the public on call. seeing no additional requests to speak public comment is closed. the item is now for you commission. >>. [roll call vote] >> i am in support of the project. it would be nice to see a storefrontbeing filled . i'm in support.

>> is that emotion?>> motion to approve. >> no further deliberation. seconded to approve this matter withconditions, on that matter commissioner tanner . [roll call vote] that motion passes unanimously, 5 to 0 and we will place this under your discretionary review calendar for the final item on today's agenda . number 12 casenumber 2021 -00267 erp . 4763 19th street for a discretionary review for benefit of members of the public and dr reflectors and sponsors the dr requester is provided three minutes and the

project sponsor and that there are multiple clusters in this case will be provided with case a six minute presentation time. members of the will have 12 minutes for comment and dr requester's and project sponsor will receive a oneminute remodel mister winslow . >> thank you. good afternoon president, hold, vice president moremembers of the commission. david winslow planning staff architect . i also want to say congratulations to kate stacy who sage advice and professionalism were delivered with grace and fostered our work. congratulations on your new life and retirement. before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of buildingpermit application121 .0217.4759 . to remove a two-story portion

at the rear of an existing building and construct a two-story horizontal addition to an existingtwo-story over basement single-family home . the new rear position would be set back from the last and eas property lines . the project would increase supplies of the existing residents from 2395 square feet to 3100 48 square feet. the site is a 25 foot wide by proximally 74 and a half the lateral and a slowing lot containing an existing two-story single-family home which is categorized as a potential resource built in 1910. and it's flanked by two-story houses over basements on 19th street. there are three dr requester's. the first john car 56 eagle street, resident of the property to the southwest of the proposed project was

concerned that the project will negatively impact midblock over open space and cause loss of privacy. the second requester james conti of 50 eagle street resident of the adjacent property to the south is of the project is concerned it is uncharacteristically deep and tall in the context of other buildings that define common midblock opening space and due to their depth the projects will impact privacy to midblock open space. specifically the project does not conform to the residential design guidelines allowing and depth to be compatible with existing sales and articulate buildings to minimize sunlight. the third requester matthew marquis 4769 19th street resident of the adjacent property to the immediate west is concerned that the projects

impact on street parking and the vehicle accesswould negatively impact public safety and health .and that the proposed addition would also impact the midblock open space. the proposed alternatives are to eliminate the upper floor of the addition. to date the apartment has received no letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project . planning departments review of this proposal confirms the support for this project conforms to the code and residential design guidelines . it's worth noting the original plans for 311 erroneously depicted the required rearguard line and proposed projection extended yacht that allowable open area. project sponsor was made aware of this and modified the design to be compliant with the rear yard. this change was we noticed to the immediate neighbors for a 10 day period.

in yourpackage the original plan and corrected version are included for comparison . section 136 25 a of the planning code allows two-story productions with five foot wide side setbacks to extend beyond this required rearguard dwelling.the rear extension in this case does maintain those five foot setbacks. which also helps happens to be coincident with the residential design guidelines illustrated in design height and depth of the buildings to be compatible with existing scale at midlife open space incorporating these side cutbacks. due to the topographyof the subject property that is lower than all three adjacent dr requester's , the project allows the upper access to light and air and access to midblockopen space . it's also worth noting the dr requester's property also extends deeper into the rear o their lots and would be allowed

by today's planning . the windows of the proposal are sites located not to present undue impacts to privacy and there was an allegation of undue or unwarranted permits or additions occurring in the past. staff was not able to find any record of past illegal work and if there were illegal work that was brought to the apartments enforcement team. therefore in light of all these circumstances, staff deems there are no acceptable or understood exceptional circumstances inapproving the project. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer questions . >>president: thankyou mister winslow. we should take the first dr requester mister hammond . are youwith us ? >> i am . >> president: three minutes. >> can you pull up slide one?

>> i've gotten an here. can you hear me? now you can hear me. i apologize. i just need to turn off my phone. okay, now can you hear me? >> clerk: we're going to get a echo . >> can you hear me without an. >> we can hear you fine. >> i got an on my end but i will work through it. can we start the timer, reset thetimer please ? >> clerk: i just started it si . >> my name is stephen hammond,

counsel for matthew marquis. he lives next door to the project. slide one as you can see shows the dwelling which is the project in mister markey's home right to left.he does not object to the project sponsors loweredtwo-story extension . the objects only to the projects third top story rearguard addition because it will leave his property feeling blocked in and cut off from the mid- block open space. note the matthews rearguard addition is limited to one story and the uphill neighbors visualaccess to midblock open space. regarding matthew's home , note the lower story windows and glass doors which provides a strong source of light and air tohis kitchen andmain living area . slide to please . this shows the view from

matthews kitchenmain living area. the french doors to the left are the main sources of light . it is particularly troubling that the project sponsors submitted drawings omitted the existence of the master bedroom and windows instead showing this area as mere effects with no habitable space below. slide three please. the graphic shows how the project is out of scale with matthews property and would extraordinarily block matthews visual access to mid-block ope space and leave his property blocked in . project sponsor made specific dimensions of this graphic but beyond dispute is the third top story was would unreasonably leave matthew boxed in and cut off from the midblock open space. matthews kitchen, main living area and master bathroom would lose all visual access to the midblock open space and related lighting air. next slide please.

the residential design guidelines is physically page 25, 26 and page 5 provide midblock open space and the project should be compatible with existing buildings to the scale of the block open space and not leave theneighbors feeling blocked in . this graphic shows how the project is out of scale with the property next door. whether it exactly represents the project dimensions it indisputably shows with accuracy will i set the midblock open space and how matthews property in red would be locked in and lose visual access to the midblock open space. it further shows matthew's home in red respects the uphill neighbors light, air and visual access and downhill midblock open space in contrast to the project does not. in conclusion, matthew asks fully third top story of the rearguardaddition be eliminated .

he does not object to the lower two-story rearguardaddition. thankyou for your time .i'm available to answer questions . >> thank you. i am now going to turn to mister conti. mister conti, are you with us? >> i am, canyou hear me ? >> i am and for the benefit of thecommissioners and members of the public , mister carr has designated mister conti as his representative so you have six minutes. >> thank you very much, i have been at 16 eagle street where i've lived for over 25 years as the property directly behind 47 230. the proposed backyard expansion clearly violates the design and construction guidelines laid out for the department residential guidelines. it such as privacy, white and

scale. furthermore the approval process has relied on information that had been correct. next slide please. guidelines on page 5 are there to ensure that the scale is compatible with other buildings that respects the midblock open space but maintains lights to adjacent properties and protects privacy and the modifications make it compatible with the surrounding context to help alleviate these issues. nextslide please . my main issue is privacy. a proposed three story rearguard expansion would significantly reduce the capacity of the master bedroom in my property to eagle street which is behind it but also greatly affect the privacy of 60 eagle street which is owned by sam roberts has been there

for over 50 years who has an application with a 90-year-old who sat long time resident of theneighborhood . the winslow's proposed extension would be in front of my bedroom. currently the third floor of the building is 41 feet from my bedroom and over to the side. a proposed expansion would bring thatseparation only 19 feet . this would be a 40 percent reduction in space between the building and result in the proposed windows be brought front and centerdirectly into my bedroom window . i would add this is another indication of the planned space being two inches under control which is yet another error to the plan supplied. next slide please. this is actually an indication of what it would look like.

the current view from my bedroom window, the proposed use would deface that older plan and nowthe windows wouldbe brought almost 2 feet closer to my house . next slide please . the other issues of midblock open space which the caller and i talked about quite eloquentl . we have a tightly packed neighborhood and with the midblock open spaces there's been enjoyed by all neighbors for 40 years. homes have been built or expanded to get everyone visual effect. the proposed extension greatly eliminate the view of the green reach on the open space. next slide please. the transition is on the downhill slope and on both 19th street and eagle street there

are no front yards. the topography was built so they face the midblock opening. that's the only green we have. across the street from me is a retaining wall because of the steep slope. during the pandemic outline visual access to the spaceis more important than ever. next slide please . you've seen some of these pictures before but these are ones that indicate how much green space this addition would block. next slide please. again, the proposed backyard expansion violates the guidelines of privacy according to mid-block open space and scale. for me the main issue is to severely impinge on issues of midblock open spaceto scale. next slide please .

as mister hammond said we all understand and accept the owner's right to remodel and expand his property but we all would request one compromise. at the top floor of the rearguard extension be limited eliminated.it would protect the quality of life for the neighborhood while allowing the owner to expand . in addition to maintaining privacy this would at least address the issue of access to mid block open space as well as neighbors issues of life and scale. next slide please. i have to say this and maybe it's politically incorrect that we been at this january 2021. we tried to work with the applicantsand the city and neighborhood bore and everything else you tell us to do .the applicant has ignored or misrepresented issues that affect the neighbors and even for instance line of sight is

an important issue to me and in our august 12 zoom meeting with mister winslow and the architect mister winslow says it isn't an issue and the architect assessed line of sight. we offered to have the residence at eagle do whatever they want to do this and in the passage you see no line of sight representation. maybe that's an oversight. maybe he's trying to avoid something that we believe now this procedure isclearly flawed . we seem incorrect plans presented to the commission and approved by the commission. we don't understandhow that happens . and we try to participate in the process but we're trying to claw back of the complete that the planning department presents us and our questions are often ignored. we have tried hard.

we had to go after the second 311. thank you very much. >> clerk: mister ni, you have three minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am the project architect. the project is the rear addition project following the planning code and design guidelines. i have our first slide showing that what we add to the building and also from the situation of the lot what i would note is there's a lot of existing nonconforming situations for the subject building and also for the building that you can see almost no compacts.

next slide please. as i mentioned the city building has some existing nonconforming issues so let me propose the design be proposed to be moved this portion which is showing on the part to be moved. that's including the existing building and also three-story portion which is two stories from the rear. by doing this it creates the existing nonconforming to meet the current plan code and residential design guidelines. next slide please. showing the proposed building we believe it's not accurate and misleading. so we do provide 3-d models,

use the same angle to show what it intends to look like from the neighborsbuilding. next slide please . that's the building that we calculate an initial hearing on these photos you can also see that the building absorbs the applicant which is of a much higher grade level. our new property only is on the floor level you can also see the role of the property line 3 stories high around the wall on the 50 eagle street block the light for the 60 eagle street. again, both 50 and 60 eagle street buildings are sitting on a higher grade than the subject

building. nextslide please . this is provided by the applicant. nextslide please . this is our rendering showing the proposed building. although you can see we actually also removed the part of the building, the existing building on the property line 247 69 19th street, we believe this setback provides better lighting and the condition to the neighbors. also by the way we mention the windows. we added back because in the beginning when wemeasured the building , we cannot even see

the level of the 4769 19th street because of the great difference. it's almost like a half story lower than the adjacent building next slide please .this rendering shows the same around the building rear of 60 eagle street.again, it shows that impact on applicants picture. also please note that the proposed addition provides code compliance with the setback. this looks like three because the photos were taken i believe pre-code to the rear parking lot. that's a compound situation. next slide please. this rearrangement shows that

the buildings on both sides adjacent buildings with adequate setbacks. next slide please. we also show that about lighting and privacy concerns. i think once the applicant mentioned about the site line analysis. clearly what was mentioned that you wanted to show what does that look like at about the beauty of career. actually commissioners when you join the 84.2 and also 4.4 you can see the levels actually have higher grades. but yes, i know i'm out of time so i will resolve hereand i'm

here to answer any questions . you. >> clerk: thank you. thatconcludes project sponsors presentation. we will go to public comment . this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak publiccomment is closed and we should go to remodel . mister hammond, i'm going to unmute you. go ahead, you have one minute. >> thank you very much. i live at 4757 19 which is the opposite side of this property from mister marquis. when we purchased our home 32 yearsago , the yard in the mid

block area was a majorreason . we put on an addition after buying the house that we really carefully designed to extend back to the distance, the same distance as the neighboring building so as not to intrude on the space . and since then other people have in the same thing to maintain the space. the proposed addition next door to my house projects a third-floor deep into the lot and as i think you can see not only from the dr peoples drawings but also general drawings. it reduces the open space or the present from its current extent. because of the fact that it's extending the third floor of 4763 back so far . it blocks light and splits the open space into 2 small spaces. basically it's breaking the

block in half. i thank mister ni for showing his renderings becausethey demonstrate the massive intrusion into the middle block on this project . thank you. >> clerk: last call for public comment on this item. press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing noadditional requests to speak , i take it back. go ahead and call her, you have 1minute . >> caller: my name is fran roberts andi'm a 95-year-old . i live at 60 eagle street which is behind the proposed property and am i coming through? >> clerk: we can hear you just fine. >> caller: the line of sight of the third story is exactly in the line of sight of my living room window which is on the

gate and we will be like noseto nose . >> we can hear you.>> even though i'm in a one-story house because of being my patio doors don't hurt anybody. but the third story of the proposed structure is being high is in direct line with the window that i have, before by window. and there's no way of looking out my window without looking directly in the face of that third story.

>> clerk: final. >> my name is robert cartman, i've been in business for five. my only comment is thisprocess is ridiculous . there's no reason the city should empower homeowners to fight each other on this. i think you should just eliminate the ability to offer discretionary review on rear yard extensions. i think the planning commission should actually take the time to clear such frivolous matters and focus on real issues of inequityin san francisco . not squabbling over how much of the building your neighbor has holes with that. >> iq.

>> can you hear your line has beenunmute that's your indication to begin speaking . go ahead. >> caller: hello. i am a neighbor just to the left of the proposed remodel and just wanted to reiterate some of the frustration with this process. we have been trying to have our concerns be heard. we don't feel as if they have been heard. this is ahuge intrusion into the space . it will impact all of us will impact the quality of the neighborhood and it doesn't need to the this.

>> clerk: final, final last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star3 . seeing no additional quest requests to speak from members of the public we will go to remodel. mister hammond, you have one minute. >> the afternoon, this issteve hammond, thank you . with respect to the articulated rear wall that the project sponsor showed in the demonstration, there's a knock on either side of the rear wall which provides articulation. so it would be better to have no articulation into stories so that their rear wall is just a solid line and eliminate the top floor rear yard extension. that way you could recapture them of the spirit lost as a

result of the norear top floor extension . by not having those articulated notches on the lower two floors. i would also like to point out that with respect to the removal of the project sponsor discussed a significant portion of that which is the dilapidated shed is uninhabitable that was represented to be part of the house .but now it is just a crumbling outhouse. that had to be demolished. because it was. >> that is your time commissioners . mister conti you have two minutes. we can hear you.>> the other thing i want to say is personal again looking at the computer generated things which i've never seen before, i can only

look at them and measure them in terms of the size of the number of panels on the fence in picture. and those computer-generated images are again a misrepresentation of what the size of that would be andhow hard it would project out . again the property has been complicated. there have been so many errors that have been approved and that have been approved plans by the planning commission. and we tried to come up with solutions. again mister hammond has alternative way of looking at it but the top floor of the existing extension would pretty much solve the issues for all surrounding neighborhoods and maintain the integrity of the building . thank you. >> thank you, mister need you

have a one minute. >> so the last two slides for the last slide. hello. [please stand by]

>> the only discrepancy that really came to light was the incorrect measurement of the rear yard, and you can see that both into the reference to the later set that went up for notification. to my knowledge, that's the only discrepancy and was allowed to go out to the

public. >> commissioner tanner: and we hear some representation that what went out to the public was misleading. i didn't find that to be the case. did you find any indication that renderings that went out to the public were misleading between the proposed buildings and the neighboring property? >> i mean, nothing stands out to me that we're misrepresenting anything. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i would move to take d.r. >> president koppel: thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. there's a motion and a second

to not take d.r. and approve the project. on that motion [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, and that concludes your calendar. should we adjourn in miss stacy's honor today? >> i think that's great. thank you. take care.

thank you all so much for coming. i'm very excited about today's programming and i'm so grateful that you all came out for this important event despite the much needed rain. i am deeply honored to be here. my name is jeffery tumlin and i'm the executive director to have the san francisco municipal transportation agency. before we begin, it's also important to