>> thursday, january 6, 2022. happy new year and for those members of the public celebrating orthodox christmas tonight and tomorrow, merry christmas. remote hearings require everyone's attention and patience. if you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming live. we will have public comment on each comment on the agenda. opportunities to speak on each item on the agenda are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering access code 2486 636

0086. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. each speaker will have up to three minutes and when you have 30 seconds ringing you will hear a chime indicating your time is up. when your allotted time is reached, i will alert you and take the next person. best practices are to speak clearly, slowly, from a quiet location and mute the volume on your tv or computer. [ roll call ]. >> thank you, commissioners. first on your agendas is consideration of items proposed

for continuous. number 12021-008810 cua for 1520 lyon street and item 2 for 2740 mccallister street, a conditional use authorization is proposed. we should take public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on either of the items being proposed for continuance by pressing star 3. when you hear your line is unmuted, that's your indication to start speaking. >> yes. i live across the street from the intersection at sky line and scout and it is my understanding they want to permanently close the great highway from skyline

and scout. and my neighbors and i are -- >> sorry, i'm going to interrupt you. it sounds like you're speaking to the only regular item on the ocean beach climate project. >> yeah. >> you're going to have to wait until we call that item on the regular calendar. you'll have to press star 3 back again, please. >> this is steve williams. i am calling about agenda item 10. a continuance was requested on that item as well. i forwarded it to the commission about an hour ago after finding out new information from the cal hall --

>> mr. williams i'm going to interrupt you only because that item has not been called for the commission's consideration. but i suppose if the commission chose, we could take up that matter now. but if [indiscernible] -- wait to make your request to continue when the item is called under the discussion review calendar. >> okay. as i said, i forwarded it. >> okay. last call for comment for either of the items proposed to be continued. again, you need to press star 3. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and the items to be continued are now before you, commissioners. >> regarding the item number 10, if someone from the planning

staff can explain in terms of the matter of continuance whether the kal hallow association needs to be informed. >> i don't see the zoning administrator here -- there he is. >> are we considering this item now? >> well, i think the commissioner has a question, but it hasn't been called. >> just briefly on the issue that was raised today is that the planning code mandated that the cal hollow association review that project with the design guidelines, however, that is not a requirement of the planning code and the resolution adopted a couple of decades ago

from the planning commission only states that the department and the commission should consider those guidelines when reviewing projects. there's no requirement from the commission or the planning code specifically that projects go to that association for review and comment. >> thank you. >> if i may, i understood the argument slightly differently. i never saw anybody challenging what you were explaining. i saw people commenting on having an agreement with each other to keep each other [indiscernible] that between people who work with each other have legitimate requests. if you go by and not agreed that we talk to each other, that is a valid thing to bring to our

attention. i'm not for or against it. but that has a basis for a request at least to me. >> and just to speak to that, i did clarify that to mr. williams that as a matter of a project being required to be continued because it didn't meet a code requirement, that wouldn't happen today, but his [indiscernible] they could make that argument when they came to the commission to request their continuance. >> which we would hear then later in the program when item 10 is called. is that a yes? >> that would be the appropriate course of action unless you decided to take up that matter now. okay, commissioners, so as previously stated the matter of continuances are now before you. >> i move to continue items 1

and 2 and [indiscernible] item 10 today. >> second. >> okay, commissioners, if i understand that correctly, commissioner we're continuing items 1 and 2 and hearing commission 10. on that motion to continue items 1 and 2. [ roll call ]. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 and we'll place this under commission matters for item 3, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for december 9 and 16, 2021. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the minutes by pressing star 3 to be

added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and the minutes are before you, commissioners. i take that back, there is one person requesting to speak. you have two minutes. >> i'm having difficulty hearing. it's not very clear. what item number will the great highway ocean beach project be? >> that item will come up under the regular calendar and it is item 8 and the only item on our regular regular so we will be there very shortly. commissioners, the minutes are before you. >> i only want to ask the secretary in the course of minutes last time around we also had the discussion of the calendar being revised. is that being reissued? as many. >> the hearing schedule? >> that's correct.

>> yes, i will send all of you that. i apologize for not having do that sooner. >> thanks. >> you read my mind. >> thank you. >> almost every thursday, guys, almost. i'll take a motion on the minutes. >> move to approve both sets of minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. on that motion to adopt the minutes. [ roll call ]. >> so moved, that motion passes unanimously 7-0, placing us on item 4, commission comments and questions.

seeing no requests to speak from members of the commission, we can move on to item 5, case number 2021-009977 crv. again, commissioners, we need to authorize every 30 days through adoption of a resolution to continue remote hearings. i will say there seems to be some promise in reconvening in city hall in person. there seems to be some indication of an effort to get us back in there by the end of february, for us that would mean the first hearing in march. stay tuned because as always things change at a moment's notice. yes, we should take public comment for the remote hearings. any member of the public wishing

to speak to the resolution authorizing the remote hearings for another 30 days, press star 3. >> hi, happy new year to everyone and merry christmas. i think that as long as your remote hearings go on -- and frankly i'm pessimistic. i don't think it will be. who knows. anyway, i think as long as you are remote it would be good to have the full amount of time to hear from both public and project sponsors and developers, as written in the rules for the commission, especially coming up in the spring you have some very -- and even in the next couple of weeks you have some important hearings on housing policy and legislation and rezoning and the housing element

as well as the usual programs. as mr. ioin always gives us these good instructions, when you call in to speak slowly and clearly. and i think it would be good to have the full three minutes for public comment and five minutes for requests and 10 minutes to cui people, et cetera, et cetera. thank you and i hope you will consider that. >> okay, seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, public comment is closed and the resolution authorizing remote hearings for another 30 days is before you. >> thank you for running great meetings heading into the beginning of our third year of doing remote hearings. this is something we never

thought we would do but here we are. we've had comments about some of the difficulties different folks have. i think some of the departments try to adjust them. one of the things related to hearings and preparation is some folks have trouble accessing documents or plan -- >> if you could move a little bit away from the microphone. we're having reverberation from your headphones. >> it might be the disconnect from my headphones. can you hear me now better? >> it's slightly better, but still an echo. >> is this better? >> yes. >> one of the comments is about trouble getting e.i.r. documents or view plans. i wonder if you could share with

us what folks need to do if viewing online doesn't meet their needs and other things if folks are having trouble getting in contact with the planner on the project. i don't know if director hill wants to mention that for myself and the public listening. >> for my end for any member of the public viewing plans with difficulty or looking at e.i.r.s online, they are always able to come down to the planning department, either schedule a time or drop in. our offices have been open for several months now to members of the public. clearly it's always better to make an appointment just to make sure we can have things available, but we do try to

provide those as much as possible. some applications are only submitted electronically so there are no hard copies of those plans, but as far as i know there are a good number of plans of projects that come before you are in hard copy that can be viewed. >> okay, great. >> and obviously getting ahold of a planner, the best way is e-mail, but our phone system will ring on your individual computer. you can still talk to residents and constituents. >> i also hear over the course of the holidays it's hard to get ahold of people. >> certainly this time of the year it's hard. i just wanted to bring those up today. i total support the resolution.

maybe if there is some change in the future, i will not hold my breath unfortunately, but hopefully we will be back together in person soon. certainly if members of the public have other ideas how to improve the hearings, i am open to that and the staff. we're into our third lap of this. i think we do a pretty good job with the challenges that we face. >> i would like to pick up on more time. again, this is a question of judgment. i often find in public comment someone is in the middle of developing a thought or a community presentation and there goes the bell and abruptly ended and sometimes people are not able to come back and ask

questions. in personal hearings, three minutes would be better. i would be prepared to give three minutes as long as they stay relevant and not just air. it is a two-way street. i feel like two minutes are not always enough. i'm curious what other commissioners think about that. >> do i hear a motion regarding the remote hearings? >> just to respond to commissioner moore. two minutes seems fine to me for public comment. i think we do good if the

presentation gets cut off we ask follow-up questions. >> sometimes it is harder for the public to come back and complete their thought. >> yeah. >> move to approve. >> second. >> on the motion to adopt the resolution extending the remote hearings. [ roll call ]. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0 placing us under department matters, item 6, director's announcements. >> happy new year, commissioners. as you probably heard, most of

our staff has returned to a work-from-home mode at the direction of d.h.r. for the next couple of weeks post holiday. but i do want to thank our team that works in person, those at the public information counter in serving the public at this time. i also wanted to highlight as part of the city's connect s.f. network, the strategy has been -- you had an informational item on this in october of last year, the strategy outlined on the programs to meet existing and future needs in this city. primarily strategies are around maintenance and repair, getting our system working better, delivering a five-minute transportation network in modernizing and expanding our rail system. you can find that report on s.f. connect website. and our land uses and housing

element play a big role in this work and we're planning a joint planning n.p.a. hearing. this is between housing and transportation and the basis for our transportation element update. thank you to our team that has been working on this and the m.t.a. transportation authority. i want to thank the current planning and housing team for the scramble to update our bulletins and applications. s.b.i. will have another hearing this month, but it took room work to update our information. they will report on applications coming in. i don't think we've seen any yet, but we will keep you

posted. that is my report. thank you. >> thank you, director. if there are no questions for the director, we can move on to item 7 review of past events at the board of supervisors. there is no report. >> the land use committee did not meet this week but the board did and held another hearing on the emergency declaration of the tenderloin. this was not a planning hearing. staff is preparing a formal response to the supervisors' questions. there will be an informational hearing before this commission on january 20 to update you how the commission is fulfilling their obligations through the break. supervisor safai created a charter project for those

residential units with 25 or more. that is in excess of what is required by the planning code. those extra units would be there for occupants earning no more than 140% of a.m.i. the streamlined process would be available for the projects. this excludes projects that demolish existing housing or historic resources. the proposal would limit the charter review for eligible projects. the proposal would allow eligible projects to receive certain modifications to planning code, allow limited design review by the planning department and require ministerial approval within 180 day it is of submittal of a valid application. since this is a valid [indiscernible] you can hold an informational hearing on the

matter if you so choose. that is my report for you and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. starr. the historic preservation commission did meet for their first hearing this new year. the only issue is they also amended their rules and regulations to include a statement that reflects the racial and social equity endeavors of the department in their rules and regulations to satisfy phase one of the racial and social equity plan. if there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on now to your -- excuse me. to 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. again, members of the public, you need to press star 3 and you will each have two minutes. >> hi again, it's georgia shootish. i sent you an e-mail on sunday and i also talked about it before the break about the water bills and why do i talk about the water bills? i was disappointed by a couple of things. all of the articles over the holiday about the pending projects and then the chronicle article on tuesday that was in tuesday's paper about projects and socket site has two more

articles. all these projects are pending and it seemed to resonate with me because of the idea that the debate about the housing shortage. most of the article talked about market rate housing. seeing the quote which was compelling, the three projects in the district that are not fully occupied. it resonated to me and something i talked about. i think i started talking about it a couple of years ago, but whatever. that to understand occupancy, building all this stuff has been built. cities built a lot of housing or what looks like a lot of housing. that's great, but is it occupied full time or a place to stash cash and that is the underlying

rumor. it seems you could look at the water bills or conjure up the study to look at the water bills and see what the occupancy is. that's about it. i hope you read the e-mail and the links. take care and have a wonderful afternoon. be well, be safe. bye. >> if we're going to continue to do remote meetings for another couple of months, please planning department staff, without and he happensing you need to have training about where to sit in relation to your microphones because it's really hard for the public to hear you. when we're at city hall, we can wave and get your attention somehow and we don't have the problems. but the problems are really intense right now because

planning department staff members without exception all up and downthe chain from the director down need to pay to being audible because the you're not audible right now. thank you very much. >> okay. last call for general public comment. you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, general public comment is closed. we can move on to your regular calendar item 8 case 2019-020115 env for the sfpuc ocean beach climate change adaptation project. this is the draft environmental impact report for your review

and comment. please note that written comments will be accepted at the planning department or at the e-mail address of cpc.oceanbeacheir@sfgov.org until january 24, 2022. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes, i am. >> the floor is yours. >> i'm asked to open system preferences. i'm sorry. i don't know why it's not sharing.

>> julie, we going to let josee share her screen. let her know when you want to go to the next. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, josee. >> happy new year. i'm julie moore, planning department staff and environmental coordinator for the ocean beach climate change adaptation project. the item before you is review and comment on the draft environmental impact report for draft eir for the proposed project. the purpose of today's hearing is to take public comments on the accuracy and completeness of the draft eir pursuant to the

environment california act or ceqa. the proposed project is located at the south ocean beach an approximately 1-mile part of the pacific coastline. chronic erosion of the beach along this stretch has damaged beach parking lots, storm drain facilities and the great highway and threatens underground wastewater structure. in addition, it has constrained public shoreline access and recreation. the project design represents the long-term strategy for addressing erosion challenges at south ocean beach while removing rock and rubble from the beach in compliance with the california coastal commission

permanent and a legal settlement agreement. this is based on the vision of the ocean beach master plan and the adopt canned policies of the western shoreline plan. the plan would manage retreat, beach assurance to preserve and enhance public access close to recreation and scenic resources while protecting the infrastructure from damage due to coastal hazards. this project is a multi-agency initiative. additionally, there is involvement or coordination with public works, sfmta, the national park service, the federal highway administration and the u.s. army corps of engineers. the main component would permanently close the great highway between the boulevards

to public vehicular traffic, reconfigure the access from the san francisco zoo parking access. it would construct a buried wall to protect existing wastewater infrastructure from shore erosion, remove pavement, rock, and sandbags, rubble and debris, reshape the bluff, and plant native vegetation. it would construct a multi-use trail between the boulevards, install a beach access stairway, coastal access parking, restrooms and provide beach nourishment or sand replenishment. this slide is a typical cross-section showing the existing lake merset tunnel currently located beneath the great highway.

there is coastal trail at the top left adjacent to the seat wall. the inset depicts a service road and multi-use trail. this section also shows the current grade in the dashed line at the top and the project's final grade of sand above the slope stabilize layer, showing a wider and more gently sloped beach in the future. the rendering on the left depicts the project from slope boulevard looking south with the plaza and restroom in the foreground. the coastal access stairways at various sections are visible at the proposed parking lot. now i would like to provide you with a brief summary of the draft eir. it found that the project would

have significant and unavoidable impact related to transportation, noise, and biological resources. transportation, the permanent closure of the great highway south of south boulevard would reroute vehicles on to scout and boulevard adding a half-mile per trip which as 2.5 million miles traveled per year. no feasible mitigation is identified. noise, the vehicular traffic would result in significant levels of noise on the boulevard. mitigation could be speed reduction, new traffic signals, and/or street design.

the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. biological resources. sandy bluff and south ocean beach are used by bank swallow as a nesting habitat. this breeding area is one of the few coastal breeding locations in southern california for the state-listed endangered species. the eir calls for mitigation including educational signage and fencing which could protect the birds. however, there is no known feasible mitigation to replace or otherwise compensate this breeding habitat. the eir concludes that the impact on the bank swallow

habitat would be significant and unavoidable without mitigation. the study also identified that construction-related impacts on noise, air quality, biological resources and pail yen tol ji kal. under the no project alternative, there would be no change to the roadway, rubble, or existing park surface parking lot until affected by erosion. no shoreline protection or coastal trail would be constructed. periodic things would be

implemented and the wastewater infrastructure would remain vulnerable to coastal hazards. the increased beach nourish alternative would be similar to the no project alternative, except the revetments and rubble would be removed and there would be a limiting of further erosion. the wastewater infrastructure would still remain vulnerable to coastal hazards. as an aside, the photo below is from the army corps of engineers beneficial use project which put sand there this past summer. the eir analyzed a conventional alternative, such as this photo of santa cruz.

this would remove the rubble and revetments. this would require three times more sand in order to maintain a sandy beach. the fourth alternative analyzed abandoning the lake mersed tunnel and replacing it with infrastructure, this would include removal of rubble and revetments. construction of a parking lot and multi-use trail and similar sites in the project. without shoreline protect, the city would need to close the great highway and additional wastewater infrastructure located further east of the lake mersed tunnel would be vulnerable. in comparison, all four alternatives would reduce the impact of the bank swallow habitat and three of the

alternatives would reduce the bmp and noise impact related to diverted traffic from great highway closure. with removal of rock and rubble revetments, the bluff is anticipated to erode over time resulting in future habitat loss and roadway closure. the inland infrastructure alternative includes removing this as the unprotected bluff erodes. today the planning department is seeking comments on the adequacy and the accuracy of the information in the draft eir. for members of the public who wish to provide verbal comments, please state your name for the record, speak slowly and clearly so the planning department can

respond. comments will be written and transcribed which will respond to all relevant and verbal comments in the comment period and make revisions to the draft eir as appropriate. the draft eir for the project was published on december 9, 2021, and extends to january 24, 2022. those interested in commenting on the draft eir in writing may submit them to me at cpc.oceanbeacheir@sfgov.org or mail them to me at the address on the screen. all commenters who provide their

contact information will receive a notice of availability of the response to comments document, also known as the final eir, when it is published. if you are providing verbal comments today and you wish to receive this notice and want a final hard copy, please provide your contact information to the e-mail address above or call me at 628-652-7566 and leave a message with that information. this concludes my information. thank you. >> thank you. members of the public, if you wish to address the commission on the accuracy and adequacy of the environmental impact report, please press star 3. i would like to stress that we're not taking comment on the project itself, just the accuracy and the adequacy of the environmental impact report.

through the chair you will each have two minutes. when you hear your line is unmuted, that is your indication to speak. >> our house is right across from scout and skyline on lake shore. my neighbors and i are really against the rerouting of traffic through there because when the great highway is closed for clearing sand and other issues, the traffic is backed up for a half-mile, the drivers are honking and cussing and yelling. there is a lot of noise and the intersection can't handle the load and it's gotten a lot worse in the last 15 years. in the last 35 years plus, that intersection has seen pedestrians killed and fatal car

collisions. if as a last resort you need to rout traffic there there, i would recommend a roundabout because signals and stop signs don't work. as an alternative, when i was a kid, the traffic from skyline used to go between tungston and the zoo or where the treatment facility is and the handicapped center. it went out and came out near the sewer plant. as one option, you could route the traffic through there or at least keep one lane each way open. in addition to that, i can't understand over the years that

the city of san francisco and the park service has not built a seawall such as the one in the middle of the great highway. we were starting to lose the great highway in the 1980s and mother -- >> your time is up. i will remind members of the public that again we're taking comment on the adequacy and accuracy of the environmental impact report, not the project itself. >> i'm with the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods speaking on my own behalf. regarding sand replenishment on this project. the 800 pound gorilla is the commercial sand mining in san

francisco bay with the sand used for construction purposes. the u.s. geological survey has conducted modeling of the sand coming down being transported through san francisco bay and out the golden gate bridge. sand mining around angel island and alcatraz changes the sand transport patterns. this has exasperated erosion and in other places build up. the sand mining issue has been brought to the attention of the commission. i would courage the planning commission to conduct an informational hearing on the sand mining issue. thank you.

>> i and many other citizens are opposed to the adaptation of the managed retreat. this is a method for city agencies to perpetuate another land grab at the expense of the [indiscernible] emergency evacuation plan. there are 20,000 people who use this highway and their needs are being ignored. people need this road to conduct daily business and living life in the city. [indiscernible] there is absolutely no need to close the

road right down to motorists. in fact, i would say there is a greater need to protect this road. we have already started by reshaping the bluff and providing long-term nourishment and remenishment. it will be far more expensive to close the road than to protect it. there are numerous recreation venues in this area. it cost $200,000 to channel [indiscernible] -- there is a complete lack of transparency on these closures in the city.

over 15,000 people signed a petition to keep the great highway open. please don't ignore these needs by closing the highway. thank you. this road is a major commute route. it's a way that the people of the west side have to evacuate during emergencies. none of that appears as far as i can tell in your eir. in fact, i have read through almost every document you have beyond eirs and no one has made

a case for the road and existing road or automobiles are contributing to coastal erosion. there just seems to be an assumption. there is no data, science, research showing that coastal erosion is something being abetted by the presence of this road or automobiles. why is this road and these automobiles being removed in total disregard of the needs of the people on the west side? is it there are other options available to you. for example, instead of having two lanes north and south bound, you could have one lane north and south bound and move it closer to the treatment plant. at the current rate of erosion that would buy us at least another 25 years of usage of that road. why is that not explored? the aerial overhead, that access in the middle could be used as the road connecting to skyline

and you wouldn't have automobiles going so far out. they could cut through the middle. why isn't that being explored. somehow for cyclists and pedestrians to have a trail. why wouldn't a bicycle path also be threatened by coastal erosion and yet you're talking about putting in a bicycle path instead of maintaining the road that you have when you could put a bicycle path next to the road by redesigning that with a little bit of creativity. please, do not take away this road from people. thank you. >> thank you for your work on the draft report. i have not reviewed all of the documents yet, but i have identified two potential concerns with the accuracy and

completeness of the record. estimated in the draft plan 2.5 million miles per year is underestimated. this figure is calculated using only 73% of the current traffic volume. the calculation ignores the additional b.m.t. that will result from the other 27% of the traffic volume that will use longer routes such as sunset avenue. this additional b.m.t. should be added to the total in the final e.i.r. even though the plan concludes there will be an increase in the b.m.t., it does not talk about the greenhouse gas emissions that will have a significant impact on the environment. it does not seem possible it could not generate additional greenhouse gas emissions. this matter should be addressed

in the final e.i.r. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. last call members of the public. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed and it is now before you, commissioners. >> i've been reading secret documents for over 40 years and i want to say this is one of the most interesting documents i've read in those four decades. this is an example why ceqa

continues to be important for these projects that have multiple goals. in particular, it really demonstrates the benefit of the alternatives analysis and how each alternative has varying impacts and mitigation measures with respect to each of those goals. i particularly appreciated the disclosure about what's likely to be the case based upon what's currently known when acknowledging the uncertainty that still exists in the science. i really want to compliment staff and all of the e.i.r. preparers in creating a document, including the response to the questions raised today that will assist the decision-makers in ultimately making a decision where they understand the trade-offs that are involved in their choices.

with that, i just wanted to have -- i do have a couple of clarification questions i hope would be addressed in response to comments. the first is i find figure s3, the same as 2.6, which is the same figure ms. moore put up at the beginning of her presentation somewhat challenging to read, especially in the e.i.r. it's very faint, hard to tell the dash lines from the straight lines. there is not enough labelling. there is a circular symbol which i assume is the tunnel, but it's not labelled as tunnel. just sort of simple things that would make it easier for the public to understand that cross-section. on page 20 in the summary of mitigation measures related to

noise, there is a sentence that refers to compliance with the 9 dba and 10 dba standards and i think more explanation is necessary as to what would trigger or what the difference is between those two numbers relative to existing sound. i think a couple of more sentences of -- would clarify that section. section 2.#, the markers for the trail point to the plazas at both ends and i assume the trail is the green line which goes from one parking plaza to the other one, but there is no legend indicating that if the

green line is supposed to be the trail, there should be a legend that indicates that. in section 2.7.3, there is a line that describes the role of this mission. it says two purposes. one is [indiscernible] which is self-evident and the other has a note general plan referral. i think it would be helpful if you could explain in more detail what exactly it is we're doing with respect to general plan referral, what is the subject, what part of the general plan, when does that take place. i think more explanation would be helpful in demonstrating to the readers of the document what the role of the commission is with respect to the e.i.r. thank you very much and again my compliments to the staff in producing a document i think really was very challenging to

produce because of the complexity of the subject but will be fascinating to read and helpful. >> okay, commissioners, if there is no further request to speak -- >> i would like to echo the preparation of this draft e.i.r. there is a lot to be learned for everybody. what i would like to see and i'm not sure we're hitting the sweet spot, the national environmental description and future ways to restore protected seems to be not as conclusive as i would like it to be, plant material, additional planning, including knowing a little bit more about a sandbank swallow.

i have no idea what this animal looks like. i think it verves more description if at all possible. otherwise, i'm very impressed by what is in front of me here and that would conclude my comments. thank you so much. >> seeing no other requests to speak from members of the commission, we can move on to discretionary review calendar for item 9 case 2021-010563 drp at 192 to 196 laidley street. this is a discretionary review. mr. winslow.

>> good afternoon, members of the commission. david winslow. this is the discretionary review for 2021.0929.149 85 to replace an existing rear deck and stairs in kind to an existing three-story four-family house. the subject property is concerned that the proposed [indiscernible] adjacent to the requester. further, that the spacing of the posts creates a safety hazard. the proposed alternatives are to

remove the posts closest to the back door and increases the space to 48 inches to provide adequate space to navigate through them. there is one letter of opposition to the project and no letters of support. although the planning commission has routinely directed staff to work out problems that impact livable and respond with mutual agreeable solutions, this is not a land use issue that the planning department regulates, either through the planning code or other policies. there is a recommendation not to take discretionary review and concluding. this concludes the department's presentation and i'm happy to answer questions. thank you.

>> d.r. requester, you have three minutes. >> thank you for hearing us out today. if you could jump me forward to the second slide. as david highlighted, the main two issues are the footings proposed in the structure block our access to our laundry room. the second issue is the post in the middle of the structure require us to navigate through the middle of the two posts and will create a hazard for us accessing our laundry room. we created an alternative set of plans which was proposed by the structural engineer. for some reason we've rejected those plans in favor of the one submitted. i'm not sure why. we also know that the post in

the middle of the structure can be made wider. we've been advised that there is no building issue widening the post to give us better access to our space and preserve the open space outside of the house. the core of the issue comes down to fixing the retaining wall. if you could jump me forward two slides. so the problem here is we have this retaining wall sagging 18° and where the red dot is where they're proposing adding a new post. i think you can see that putting the post there is far from the get-go. putting it there jeopardizes the structure to begin with. our ask is to move it wider which is fixing this retaining wall which neighbors have written about.

if you could jump me to the last slide. other procedural issues, the applicant is asserting to be the president of the h.o.a., but has held on to power for the third year without following our h.o.a. guidelines to reat a time between units. we are the next president in order and should be driving this project. next, we emphasize the deck is getting longer. we don't think that this conforms to planning guidelines. it also takes away the only gated area for children to play in and doesn't limit the livability of the property.

it will make it difficult for us to carry anything into the back room or laundry room which is a daily access need for us. thank you for hearing us out. all we're asking is they make the posts a little bit wider so we can access our laundry room. if we have to fix the retaining wall because of that, that's the deal of being a homeowner. >> thank you. we should hear from the project sponsor. >> can you hear me? >> we sure can. you have two minutes. >> not three minutes? >> sorry, my apologies. >> thank you in advance for taking the time to hear us.

we would urge you to adopt the staff's recommendation to deny the petition and approve the permit. this is an internal h.o.a. dispute. the project sponsor is the homeownerers' association of which mr. palthuck is a member. the disputes were voted on and when the man bought the unit, he knew that this project was in process and there was an in-kind replacement in foot. the owners of 192 laidley street engaged the structural engineer. this is not something properly before the commission. with that said, i would address the issues. this is a four-unit building built into a hill. the top unit is occupied by a single family. there are two small units on the ground floor and my unit is in the middle. access to the top floor is via

miguel street and there are two points of entry. what you're looking at in this picture is the bridge from the yard which is sorely in need of repair. in this picture -- maybe it's gone. all right. in the photos it shows the supporting beams are rotted and cracked, the structure shakes and it is not safe for the occupants nor any firefighters in the event there were fire and somebody needed to be rescued. the engaged structural engineers

called for a design for an in-kind replacement and we chose that for purposes of cost and simplicity. the initial proposal was for four posts, reduced to three sets of posts. that's why we're here for discretionary reviews. the questions are, are there any extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that would justify denying this permit. if there are none, this permit should be approved and the petition denied. the petitioner makes arguments about the location of the posts and a safety hazard and it's all predicated on this notion that the walkway is a patio that services their unit, but, in fact, the walkway is common area. no unit has special rights to that walkway.

h.o.a. voted and decided to use the walkway for purposes of safety and not for convenient or design. the post closest to the door will not [indiscernible] -- showing that moving the post -- >> thank you, ms. ross, but that's time. just for the record, i paused your time when david's shared screen went blank. >> thank you. >> you will have a one-minute rebuttable. i see no members of the public wishing to speak. d.r. requester, you have a one-minute rebuttable.

>> the only thing we would say back is we don't think the patio is on our issue. we think it's unsafe to allow construction to continue given the state of construction around the building area. we want them to fix the area to make it suitable to holding this bridge. once done, they could widen it it wouldn't change the style or anything about the deck. thank you. >> you have a one-minute rebuttable. >> we're not here to talk about the retaining wall. what we don't want to do is create a condition causing the

retaining wall to move. we believe that the recommendation should be followed. >> thank you. that concludes presentations and rebuttables. the public comment portion of this item is closed and it is now before you, commissioners. >> it's too bad that folks can't come to an agreement at this development, but i agree with staff and the project sponsor that the matters before us are not really matters that the planning commission has jurisdiction over and i don't find any unusual or extraordinary challenges with the project. i will hear from the commission more, but i would be making the motion not to take d.r. on this

project. >> i call on commissioner moore. >> i would like to expand on that thinking. i am very surprised this matter is before the planning commission. this is not in our jurisdiction to consider, other than a dispute between an owner and an h.o.a. which is different to start with. since this requires a permit, would a permit appeal be the right way of handling this? i think as an h.o.a. participant, you can apply a decision the board makes in form of the appeal, but nothing else. >> correct. there's nothing that prohibits anyone from filing a discretionary review.

in my opinion, the best would be the board of appeal. >> thank you for affirming that. i share the commissioner's opinion. if there is nothing extraordinary in this particular situation, i'm in support of the h.o.a. basically having a say over common area decisions. because that is a decision by those who live there, that should be something that i would acknowledge and support and no d.r. needs to be taken, which mean call the question. >> there is a motion seconded not to take d.r. and approve the project. [ roll call ].

>> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. we'll be placed on the final item on the agenda number 01 for 2016-008167 drp at 65 normandie terrace, also a discretionary review. >> thank you. david winslow staff architect. the item before you is a discretion review for building permit application 2021.0901.7599 to rectify and legalize the construction of the exceeded building permit to add an elevator, alter the northwest

elevation, remove walls on the second floor, remove old perimeter railing and replace with glass. the scope of work in building permit 2021.0901.7599 to abate the enforcement case 2020-010614 enf includes reducing the height of the elevator shaft to 40.11 feet above curb its originally approved height, reducing the height of the roof to 39.9 feet as measured above the curb, removing and restoring the lower roof areas, as it was determined to be inconsistent with the planning department's deaf nation, restoring the wall at the south exterior elevation on the roof level to its original location towards the north five inches, and replacing all

decorative exterior elements to an existing four-storey single-family house. this exceeded the building permit to add an elevator, and remove the walls on the second floor. the scope of the work -- that's redundant, sorry. the scope of work in this b.p.a. 2021 that abates the enforcement as mentioned includes reducing the height of the built portion of the roof to its originally approved heights as measured above the curb and restoring a lower area of the roof as it was inconsistent and the basis of approval in the original permit. the building is a category a historic resource.

the d.r. requester, the resident of the adjacent property to the immediate south is concerned that the proposed fourth floor addition is in excess of the code. once non-complying features are removed, they cannot be rebuilt. the roof and facade was removed in its entirety and rebuilt in contravention of the planning code. his proposed alternative is to bring the building into compliance with the height limit. to date the department received three letters in opposition to the project and no letters in support of the project. the planning department's review of this proposal confirms support for the project as it attempts to rectify a project that conforms to the planning code and the residential design guidelines. planning department enforcement

staff, in coordination with d.b.i. spent a considerable amount of time in the last year addressing the issues. planning department staff worked with d.b.i. to conduct site visits, reviewed several draft plans and coordinated with department staff to review compliance with the planning code. the project sponsor arrived at the proposed permit to rectify the process. the original permit submitted in 2017 proposed a complete alteration of all floors, including expanding the roof with an elevator and a dorm. it also lo youed for windows and stucco to be replaced. elevators are allowed to exceed the allowable height limit,

however, the proposed dormer that was subsequently determined not to be categorized as a dormer, but rather an expansion of a part of a compound hip-shaped roof which was above the height limit. therefore, that part of the roof has to be rebuilt to the existing or below existing footprint and height of its prior condition. the project was properly noticed per section 260 and subject to compliance with the residential guidelines. [indiscernible] and the work that exceeded the permit was issued with a notice of enforcement. the permit that's under appeal right now 2021-0901-7599 was applied to correct the

violations by proposing to reduce the elevator to its previously approved height, remove the previously approved dormer mentioned above, reduce the height and extent of the portion of the roof which were built beyond their previous footprint and height and reduce the other elements to at or lower to previous listing. and to document the extent of the removal of the planning code. the current permit proposes to add proportions to the roof and 4 inches lower as well as lowering the height of the elevator to 6 inches to its originally planned height. the planning code allows these structures to be repaired if it does not increase the degree of non--compliance. for the sponsor's calculations, the work did not exceed

thresholds. therefore, staff deem there are no extraordinary conditions, recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. i'm joined by a member of the enforcement team who has been working hand and glove over the past year on this. we're happy to take any questions. >> mr. chang, we had a mark thomas listed as your representative. are you going to be making the presentation or mr. williams? is if. >> mr. williams is going to present as well as mr. thomas. >> very good.

>> mr. williams, you have three minutes. >> [indiscernible] -- >> mr. williams, i was instructed by the commission to have this matter today. you could argue for a continue ance. >> i understood that the continuance would be heard first and if it was denied it [indiscernible] -- as stated [indiscernible] -- the first slide show on the [indiscernible] -- photo photos microeconomicing this violation -- >> [indiscernible] --

>> you've got two microphones that are unmuted, either your phone or the computer and it's creating an echo. i would suggest that you remedy that so the commissioners can hear your presentation. >> we can let him start over. >> sure, of course. mr. williams, you've muted your computer, but the information we received indicated that mr. mark thomas would be making the presentation and a different phone number so i don't have your phone number, mr. williams, to unmute if that's your preference. >> they're using the same number listed as mark thomas. they're in the same location. >> unfortunately that number

doesn't appear in the attendee list. so i'm going to unmute you, mr. williams. is there a phone number you would used? >> is this working? >> it is, but because you have two devices unmuted or close to each other, it's creating an echo. >> is the echo still there? >> i'm going to restart your time and you have three minutes. mr. williams. >> is the echo gone now? because i can't hear it. >> it seems to be slightly better. let's try it if you say you've turned off your phone. >> the first slide shows the slide and the [indiscernible]

left there. this is an extraordinary and exceptional case because of the [indiscernible] voluntary demolition of the structure. we have photos confirming those violations that were taken by staff. surprisingly the staff [indiscernible] the code is super clear on this issue. the second question. inspection 188 c, it says if you voluntarily -- structures above the height limit can be repaired, but not if you voluntarily take those structures down first. that's what happened, you can't put it back [indiscernible] how far above it is above the

30-foot height limit on the facade and those were demolished. they were told in the initial project review not to touch the structures over the height limit. they say the planning code simply doesn't allow for you to take the structures down. they were told this over and over and it was in the planning department. the planning department grew them a picture and created a four-page plan set drawn by staff illustrating the roof structures that cannot be touched or removed. despite all of these

admonitions, there would be extensive demolition at the scene and that was confirmed [indiscernible] -- documented by d.b.i. more than a year ago, where they spelled out the exact percentage. the planning issues and notice of enforcement is exhibit a. the staff and the sponsor has not put that in front of the department or the commission and that's exhibit a to our brief. the structure was out of compliance and demolition and reconstruction over the height limit and it's easy to see at the facade. slide 6 -- that slide 5 shows the demolition view north.

slide 6 shows the demolition of the facade and then slide 7 which shows it completely reconstructed. i put tiana tam's photos -- [indiscernible] -- >> [indiscernible] -- >> mr. enbridge, you have three minutes for your presentation. >> thank you chair and commissioners. [indiscernible] remodel their home. this is at 65 normandie terrace. this shows their home preconstruction on the right and the home of the neighbor requesting d.r. on the left. slide 2 shows the state of things today. yes, this an extensive

remodeling involving demolition and replacement of the third and fourth storeys. those were approved by planning and d.b.i. without objection by the neighbor [indiscernible] -- the mistakes involved a small amount of extra demolition to address height conditions without first obtaining permits. that was improper and the planning staff came down on the family. [indiscernible] the elements shown in brown were removed and the elevator penthouse in green was to be added. the removal of the features improved the situation for the neighbor. the bottom depiction is what it

will look like once the project complete. the slight lowering of this. this is not about exceptional or extraordinary impacts on the neighbors, there are none. this improved the views. what this d.r. is about is a neighbor hoping to capitalize on the errors by having the commission require that the entire top floor of the home removed. this home has the stood in this configuration for 84 years and the roof line will look substantially the same when completed.

[indiscernible] -- they all believe the revised plans adequately address the plans. the family incurred tens of thousands of dollars in fees and lost a year on this project. because your staff and the b.a. dealt with this appropriately and no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, please do not take d.r. and let the family complete their project. i can respond to any questions including the code interpretation [indiscernible] -- >> thank you, mr. enbridge. members of the public, this would be your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

you need to press star 3 to be added to the queue. through the chair, you'll have one minute. >> my name is steven chong and my family and i live directly behind the home at 65 normandie terrace. i just discovered that the cal hallow association wasn't [indiscernible] -- i request that you give an opportunity to the association to consult. in addition, my understanding the family still have their original home in the east bay and they're living there. the reason they moved to this home is so the daughters could attend a certain high school.

it's not like the family doesn't have a home. >> last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star 3. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, mr. williams, you have a one-minute rebuttal. >> i am an architect working on this. i would like to point out some errors in the plan. in the approved site drawings issued to the neighbors, the height of the pre-existing lower flat roof structures were 309.2 feet and 309.9 feet respectively. we would like to make sure that

these numbers are adhered to and these are from the project sponsor's own plan. and this drawing, the height of the existing -- the height of the room, we would like to make sure that is adhered to as per the neighborhood-approved drawings aligning with the adjacent flat roof i just talked about in slide 9. we appreciate these suggestions being implemented in order to fully comply with the terms after the abatement. thanks. i'm available to answer any questions and i can turn over any remaining time to mr. williams. >> you don't have any remaining time. mr. enbridge, you have a one-minute rebuttal.

>> to mr. thomas' point, he's misleading the commission in a plan trying to show the [indiscernible] by surveyor, by your staff and d.b.i. and they presented no evidence to show that those calculations are inaccurate. in the code section [indiscernible] -- he's actually referring to [indiscernible] but should be referring to 188(a) which says a project that is not complying can undergo a change as long as it does not undergo

[indiscernible]. >> thank you. that will conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. it is now before you, commissioners. >> [indiscernible] -- i believe this project should be further described. i think this project should be further discussed, but i find myself in a great deal of comution and contradiction about

what is rightnfusion and contra about what is right. i'm completely open to look at this package, whatever way is the right way, i personally don't have any ability to put it on the right or the wrong. this is a project that has multiple violations. we are being asked to approve something, but i personally don't believe i have the correct tools. it doesn't matter who interprets what. i believe there is too much background including very expensive staff work about how this project has evolved. i want to leave it at that and i'm basically uncomfortable sitting here today to decide on this project. that is my personal opinion. thank you.

>> could the zoning administrator please address the code compliance issue and interpretation raised by mr. williams and countered by mr. enbridge. >> i will rather simplify this a little bit. again, this is a very substantial remodel originally, basically replacing all the exterior stucco and windows and doors, all the roof shingles and some other actual portions of the walls on the fourth floor that are partially above the height limit and went overscope which triggered where we are now. the issue regarding co-compliance is the planning code in several places references what can happen with non-compliant structures and it basically states that they can be moved, repaired, as long as

you're not creating a new non-conformity, but there is the section that does talk about when structures are demolished due to a calamity or an act of nature that they can be replaced even if they are not complying. it does say that such a structure cannot be voluntarily razed and put back. >> you can take the spectrum literally on either end, which is that you can't replace the structure and the other is you can do everything, but take down the final piece of material which is not razed or fully demolished. this is something that is a

case-by-case call over the years. generally we are pretty strict about structures over the height limit and we look at all the proposals in context, in the relevant context that they're being proposed under. as the project sponsor mentioned, this project originally came in proposing to do more about the height limit and there was a lot of work with staff. at the end of the day, there was a decent amount of replacement work that was permitted above the height limit, including a good deal of the wall structure for that fourth floor, the roof shingles, et cetera. so it is a case where is this on higher end of the spectrum and how much is removed and replaced above the height limit. can it be permitted under the code? yes, it could. if we determined that could not happen, that would not be in front of the planning commission

today. >> thank you. [indiscernible] -- i do not think that we should take d.r. and i move to not take d.r. >> because we were in the continuance hearing earlier, this does not need to be heard

by the housing association. >> correct. there is no planning code requirement or planning commission requirement that any specific action relevant to this project be taken by the housing association. >> thank you for that. my only thing, since this is still with -- this is the project in the cal hallow area and it looks -- i do have questions for you. i think it is still in the good space for the project sponsor to reach out to the cal hallow association. we have asked the project sponsor to meet with the neighbor, especially at this

time with the cal hallow if not well informed. it looks like from the e-mail that there is some communication, but no presentation really happened. i would actually more adhere to a continuance so the cal hallow association be given more time to look into it and it is more of a community process which i think should be respectful of what community voice should sound like. i will put a counter motion to continue this project.

>> although there was a motion to not take d.r., the motion for continuance takes precedence. we should take that up first. commissioner moore, did you have additional comments? >> actually, i wanted to comment that i found the drawings indicate lg ing how it was modified is interesting, but i believe that getting community buy-in because this was a very controversial project and i understand certain administrator's position about case-by-case interpretation, that i think there should be a meeting of minds. i would like that whatever the solution is [indiscernible] should be discussed with the

neighborhood support. >> there are two motions on the floor and the procedural motion will take precedence. on the motion to continue, did you have a date in mind? a month. >> is mr. steven williams still available? >> are you there? >> yes, i'm still here. >> in terms of the cal hallow meeting, how do you proceed in their process? >> you know, i think that -- i could be communicating with the

vice president of the association and she said she couldn't make the access code work and she wanted to call in and speak on this fasting -- more on this matter. i think that they would make themselves available to fully understand the project. it has never been vetted before. >> thank you, mr. williams. >> for a month. >> very good then, commissioner s. >> on that motion. [ roll call ].

>> that motion fails 3-4. the original motion on the floor was not to take d.r. on the project as proposed. [ roll call ]. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 4-3. commissioners, that concludes your first hearing of this new year. i'm looking forward to seeing you all in person at some point,

but until then, enjoy the rest of your afternoon. [♪♪♪]

>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san

francisco's unique character. ♪♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪♪

so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important.

we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved

meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important.

♪♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and

that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city.

pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪♪

>> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪♪

welcome. go ahead and start the historic preservation meeting. remote hearings require your attention. sfgov tv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will receive public comment for each item oven today's agenda. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling