>> >> welcome to the san francisco planning commission hybrid hearing for thursday, september 15, 2022. >> to enable public payment, we are receiving public comments to this agenda. >> public comment call-in: (415) 655-0001 / access code: 2490 942 8188 we will take public comment from those present first and then

online. each speaker will be allowed 3 minutes and then you will be notified when your time is coming up. i will take the next person in the queue to speak. for those personification calling in to submit their testimony, when we reach the item that you are speaking to, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. when you hear your line is unmuted, you may begin speaking. speak clearly and slowly and please mute the volume on your television or computer. for those in person to speak, please lineup at the end of the room. >> i will call roll. >> vice-president kathrin moore: here. >> commissioner sue diamond: here. >> commissioner theresa imperial: here. >> commissioner joel koppel:

here. >> commissioner frank ruiz: here. >> for items a. consideration of items proposed for continuance the commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. the commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar. 1. 2018-004217gpa (d. ngo: (628) 652-7591) 2022 safety & resilience element update - consideration of approval of amendments to the san francisco general 2. 2021-011352cua (r. balba: (628) 652-7331) 4835 mission street - southeast side between russia and france street; lot 021 in 3a. 2019-022404enx (e. samonsky: (628) 652-7417) 1458 san bruno avenue - west side at terminus of san bruno avenue; lots 015 and 006a 3b. 2019-022404cua (e. samonsky: (628) 652-7417) 1458 san bruno avenue - west side at terminus of san bruno avenue; lots 015 and 006a to be continued to october 13,

2022. >> we will take public comment for items proposed for continuance. please come forward or press star 3 if you are calling in re -- remotely. >> public speaker: i'm calling from san bruno, at the request of the continuance, i can ask that you continue to november 10th. not october 13th. that's fine with me. we are agreeable to that. i just wanted to make that clear. >> my apologies, october 13th. me. we are agreeable to that. i just wanted to make that clear. >> my apologies, commissioner. >> i'm opening up the line for callers.

>> public speaker: good morning, commissioners. we had opposed the continuance for san bruno. ceqa required an extension within the 60 days and with the exemption within 180 days. those deadlines are long past. our department, the committee was august 8th. the ceqa was not published until august 11th. they had a hearing on a document that did not exist disregarding the planning memorandum in order to rush this process to meet deadlines. the director requires this hearing within 12 months, california requires approval within 60 days of that august

extension. 60 days would be oar that period now. the process was taking too long and costing too much money. it's not requesting this delay on the behalf of the community, he is requesting this delay in order to use this hearing as a negotiating tool to try to sell the property. the planning commission is not a sales tool. this is a slap in the face if you are not able to meet the timeline. if he meant to sell the property although the report shows it's contaminated, then he should sell it. if he want to develop it, we should have this hearing and stop wasting everybody's times and stop delays which is in the -- bad in the eyes of our governor. public speaker: hello, i have

the resident of the next block of the san bruno avenue project. i have no strong opinion about continuance, but i have a lot of concern about the community feedback addressed so far as far as the design is too big and it has a large number of the apartments that are close to the location of an elementary school and apartments that would cause a lot of traffic. i have repeatedly heard this from the developer and would like to have this considered because this is not a sustainable type of development. we do need more housing in san francisco, but we need more family oriented housing and not any adu's. thank you.

>> last call for public comment for being continued for november 10th. seeing no additional public comment, public comment is closed and the matter is before you for continuance. >> move to continue as proposed for 1458 san bruno to november 10, 2022. >> second. >> to continue that item as proposed, [roll call] >> so moved., commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> commissioners, that will

place us on your consent calendar. b. consent calendar all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing 4. 2022-002108cua (m. langlie: (628) 652-7410) 414 columbus avenue - east side between green and vallejo streets; lot 015 in assessor's block 0131 (district 3) - 5a. 2022-000936dnx (n. foster: (628) 652-7330) 235 2nd street - east side between tehama and clementina

5b. 2022-000936cua (n. foster: (628) 652-7330) 235 2nd street - east side between tehama and clementina are there any questions? seeing none, the recommendation is to approve. we have a motion and second >> [roll call] so moved., commissioners, that item passes unanimously 5-0. >> this places us under commission matters. >> c. commission matters 6. consideration of adoption: san francisco planning commission thursday, september 15, 2022 notice of hybrid hearing & agenda page 7 of 13 • draft minutes for august 25, 2022 commissioners, i forwarded you a memo and includes some modifications and amendments.

unfortunately after speaking with commissioner ruiz, staff was not able to finalize some additional amendments. so i would like to read those into the record that under the dr action memo conditions of approval, that a lifetime guarantee for rent control be included as well as that construction of the project for this be possible. commissioner, you have concerns p the language related to the removal of the spiral stair and the roof deck. when i went back to listen to the recording and audio of that hearing, essentially i used the exact language that commissioner ruiz used in her motion. so i would suggest that we retain it that way because effectively it

does what you are intended. >> vice-president kathrin moore: i had used the word porch which was interpreted as roof deck which is intended for the drawing. my reference was porch because we are talking about the resemblance of the porch on first and second floor. the roof deck as referenced by commissioner is not a deck but a porch. i asked for the switch of the word and director winslow agrees with me. and that's when i first heard and we'll ask for only a change in word. >> that confuses me. so you are

suggesting that they are able to keep the roof deck? >> no, the spiral stair and the roof deck are eliminated, but instead of saying that a deck on the second and first floor are matched on the third floor is an incorrect use of the word deck. it is a porch and not a deck. >> but the word deck is not even used in that context. >> i have this in front of me. if you want to look at it. in the first situation to eliminate the first stairs to the roof and create a wall in addition to acquired open space similar to the deck on the first and second floors. the first and second floors they don't have decks, they have porches. and i'm

stating the same words to be used. >> there was a separate amendment to follow that suggestion. >> i did not agree with that. >> which is essentially using that exact language in the motion by commissioner ruiz was to be the third floor identical to the second floor. >> that is not, the porch can't be matched because the porch is part of a pop out. porch is part of a pop out and pop outs are only allowed on the first and second floor. on the third floor, you cannot have a pop out. that's why i am using the word porch. it's a real subtlety and mr. winslow agrees with me is that what he heard me say and that's what i'm saying to avoid

a variance which the commissioner did not try. if commissioner could explain herself for the use of the word but this is to avoid a variance. >> sure. i'm happy to. the planning department has the proclamation against adding obstructions. if you are using a pop out, you cannot have an additional projection above. the difference between porch or deck is irrelevant in that context to code compliance. so we can ensure that this project is fully code compliance if that's the spirit we are trying to get at here if we are to make sure there is not appropriate addition of obstructions being provided but the code does not have any language differentiation that would make porch versus a deck difference in that context. >> would you point out the

applicant is not of the city and since using in the drawing porch that you clearly understand that is what is the intent. >> we will go back to be sure that is fully code compliant. no doubt about it. we don't rely on words on the drawing and i'm go back to check that it is fully compliant with regard to that. >> would you be prepared to put the word porch in parenthesis? i'm a stickler on words because we want there to be the correct word. i want to be sure that porch is used as a reference when we use for on the second floor. >> secretary, for the purposes of our review, it doesn't make a code difference. i would like to

different the conversations out of code compliance versus the motion made. >> commissioner would you mind commenting? >> i recall when making the motion there was a back and forth with me and president moore about ensuring that there were specific words, and i recall the first suggestion because i had originally said staircase and then commissioner moore inserted herself and said spiral case and there was a motion and i believe there was discussion around the porch based off the conversation. i also know the notes that i have is not reflective of what was actually said during the hearing. so, yeah. i guess i would have to go back and listen to the exact words, but i do, i can recall the conversations around the spiral staircase and the

porch. is it acceptable to just put porch in parenthesis or is that not possible? >> we can put porch in parenthesis but it has no real impact. i prefer using the word as you spoke them in the motion, and essentially when we went back and listened to the audio, your motion was to configure the third floor to be identical to the second floor. >> just so you understand what the concern is. this is why we said we look at porch and deck the same in the code. i think it's important whatever was said was the motion. we can't go back through the minutes and amend that motion. >> i think the concern is to

ensure that we are keeping the language consistent with what was included in the packet. >> commissioner gabrielle ruiz: i would be concerned that it would be included. >> it's referenced as porch. >> that is what that space is. changing it from porch to deck, i'm not understanding what substantially changes. we want to be true to what the motion was and what you articulated and not necessarily making a change to that through the minutes. >> commissioner gabrielle ruiz: i would turn that back to

commissioner moore. >> >> vice-president kathrin moore: i spoke throughout my rebuttal of different aspects about that project. using the word porch. porch is a very specific explanation to something that is contained in the overall massing of the building. words as something as decking out or onto the ground floor. then the most important part is to notice that the drawings throughout the various plans refer to the opening held as open space is referred to as porch, and it's for that very reason that i am using it to make sure that the applicant properly understand that irrespective of your ability to hold it back, etc, there were already enough misunderstanding or non-understanding of the applicable code. and because of what you said in the motion, call it deck, what i asked is

that in parenthesis is that we are saying porch. that is my position and i will ask that that be respected. >> commissioner diamond is requesting to speak. >> commissioner sue diamond: i went back and listened to the motion very carefully and although commissioner moore in discussion mentioned many of these issues, the actual motion that commissioner ruiz made on this subject simply said that third floor should be identical to the second floor. i have a question to the city attorney which i think it is very worry some to start to change the minute to reflect the intent of the discussion when we should be sticking to the words of the motion. as i understand from staff that as it plays out in interpretation when we work with the project sponsor, it will accomplish what

commissioner moore wanted but i'm very worried about using minutes or stating the minutes that it was not actually part of the motion. i would like to get the opinion of our city attorney. >> thank you. deputy city attorney. i would agree the final motion should reflect, or the minutes should reflect the conversation that was in fact had in the chambers here. since there doesn't seem to be a difference and staff has confirmed that it will be interpreted as desired, i think the best course was to reflect what was on the record. >> which means the motion. i'm drawing from the discussion of the motion and the actual language of the motion. i'm asking whether we should stick to the language of the motion? >> yeah, and i would agree that the actual language of the motion should control.

>> if commissioner moore and ruiz want to defer this for a week so they can go back and listen to the actual language of the motion, i would be amenable to that. >> >> commissioner gabrielle ruiz: i will turn to president moore on that. >> i just want to, in terms of the, because the issue here now becomes like wordsmithing at the moment. but i also see the intent in terms of what we are trying to for the project sponsor, the clear outcome of this. i do not have a problem in terms of using the deck, but we would have parenthesis of porch. if the deck and porch that we are talking about are actually the same thing. so is that something that we can put in the minutes as deck because that was being

worded during the motion. >> actually it wasn't. that's the concern. she didn't use the word deck in the motion. when she talked about this issue, she said the third floor should be the same but it didn't state deck. >> there is the wording to eliminate the word deck. >> that remains. >> i think it's important to talk about the minutes and the motion what it reflected. we have an understanding of that and the project sponsor going forward. you eliminated the roof deck -- or roof porch. you eliminated the roof deck and the spiral staircase. and what you did, you enlarged the private

usable open space on the third floor to make it equivalent to what in size and dimension in scope to what it was on the first. >> except it does the opposite. it pulls it back and the building wall that is in order to provide properly sized porch open space. >> yes, they are going to eliminate that third floor, there was a washer and drier there and bringing in the deck porch. when we call it deck -- or porch, that's what we are doing. i want to be sure we are all in agreement that that's what it does. we are happy. we got that when you did it. that's what we will do. >> we are not supposed to have conversations here, but let me add here that in the past we often have people with different backgrounds making comments with

the verbiage that we use is not always consistent and when we give the benefit to somebody to make a motion, we hope that the intent of what each of us said is somewhat captured without being so worded. but when it goes back to the drafting of it, i would expect what we said and what we do is as clearly reflected as possible. when i called him and asked him to please exchange the word deck for porch, he says, yeah, i agree with you. i kind of missed the word. the intent is what's being said. it can't be that verbatim that a young commissioner makes the motion that is bold and way out there is something we are stuck there if there is something we need to correct. >> i think we are all in agreement on the intent of what the motion has actually done. regardless, we get it, you get

it and everything is in agreement as to what that motion does. i don't think changing the wording and the minutes because that wasn't what was said as the best course of action, but we all understand that that's what is called a portion of the drawing on the third floor was referred to as the deck, that's the space that needs to come in and we are going to reduce the living area and add open space to that third floor and that same configuration that is there on the second floor. >> let me ask. would you see a revised drawing set before this moves on to construction and dbi. is there more to be collected? >> yes. >> you will be sure there is no misinterpretation between first and second and third floor or

glass railing or something like that? >> yes. i will make sure. >> i do not like to argue, but i do like us to be as diligent about what we say and do as we can. thank you. >> very good, commissioners. we should open up public comment. members of the public, if you wish to address the commission, you have three minutes to do so. >> public speaker: my name is jerry dratler, last week was not the first time that the memo failed to follow the wishes of the planning commission. however, last week was the first time this planning commission

acknowledged this problem and the planning commission is to be commended. in july 2019, mr. winslow also issued a false action review memo where they approved a building permit for 17th avenue. the motion that was approved 5-1 july 25, 2019, was to "take dr and revert the property back to its previous condition" please note the approved motion did not include the word. i sent a memo to mr. winslow and requesting they revise the dra. that memo was ignored as was my request at the august 21, 2019 planning commission meeting to revise the minutes. the issuance of that false dr is documented in the attached whistle blower complaint that you have.

it is my hope that my public comment today will motivate others who have been the victim of the issuance of a false dra issued by the planning commission to come forward to share their experience with the planning commission. thank you. >> public speaker: good afternoon, commissioners, i'm from the neighborhood association. as we look at the language of the most recent draft, the item no. 2, somehow, i would like to suggest some additional language that

would strengthen that particular item which we think are in the upper chinatown critical to the viability of our culture of our neighborhood. in the language right now it has commissioners recognize the rent control ordinance and its direct impact as it relates to tenant rights and evictions and obligation. i would like to add the word of the project sponsors to provide a first right of refusal. and to exercise a due diligence in locating previous evicted parents and offering them first right of refusal at their previous rent and provide a lifetime tenancy to the remaining tenant at the same rent provided for relocation during construction and to make the relocation as short as

possible. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. ryan patterson. >> first in clarifying, item no. 2 in the action memo, i think there is a missing word. right of first refusal and to exercise due diligence of the previously evicted tenant. also should include the mention of life ten -- tenancy at the same rent. and that we are not expanding the deck. and it's important to come back with a written motion

to see what is being discussed with the public. i think commissioner diamond's idea of getting this in writing now and coming back with a final version of the action memo is not a bad idea. the public would benefit from seeing it and perhaps the commissioners would as well. and i think that is everything. thank you very much for your time spent on this. >> in light of this discussion today, i move that we review the minutes at the next hearing.

>> we have other public commenters. public speaker: i'm calling on housing and the park. it could be very additive to have it there to make it more public. just generally to figure that. >> public speaker: this conversation has proven again that when documents come to you, errors have a big problem. the dra didn't come in the packet. it didn't come until the day of the planning commission hearing. the minutes should always have

available the proposed motion for dra. that is what the zoning administrator and the planning commission secretary can enforce. one of the things i wanted to say is the zoning administrator is the interpreter of the planning code, not the planning director, not -- by charter is the zone administrator. i would like you to figure out what the zoning administrator stated was the language. and the last thing is, please add condition that the permit goes explicitly back to the planning commission. dbi is a

questionable corruption and there should be final planning review by the department on the plan so they can be signed off in the beginning and go through the process. it's just shades a little bit. so put that explicitly in your resolution, and then since you have two weeks, next week you should have the final resolution from mr. winslow. thank you very much. >> go ahead caller. public speaker: good afternoon commissioners. i am echoing what was brought up by the public on this issue. this is not the first time that the commission

secretary has misrepresented and truncated the motion by this commission. it's very rare, once in a blue bloom that this commission actually rules for the neighbors, the people that have been in this place and people who have issues of development that encroaches in their homes and causes displacement. in those cases, once in a blue moon that the commission rules for these people, it is a rule that this is captured accurately. however, that is not what has been happening. and this commission actually commissioner imperial added succinctly that this property if it comes up for sale that it shall be restricted up to 80% of the ami of the

buyers. that had specifically said and she amended the motion and this commission passed it. however it did not capture that and just default to what commissioner diamond added which was reference to the law of housing crisis act. that is not the position. we have been discussing this back and forth and we do not have any legitimate answers from the planning department. this is a huge issue and should be addressed. commissioner diamond, it is curious that you actually pointed out that the motion should be accessed as discussed. in the case that i am talking about, the motion that the secretary did took did not reflect to that and did not object to that. >> thank you. that is your time.

last call for public comment on the minutes. seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed. >> vice-president kathrin moore: i would propose the motion that having the updated motion in two weeks, that if full commission is most likely seated that we are not to open this process to a new hearing and only the people that participated in the motion itself will be entertaining to approve this motion. >> well, actually commissioners 45 bernard is not before you today nor is it being proposed to be continued nor is it proposed to being reopened in two weeks. what is before you is the minutes and your rules and regulations actually afford every commissioner to vote on minute whether they participated in the hearing or not. >> then we have to go back to

listen to everything in order to participate. >> yes, they do need to as i encourage you all to do the same to go back to listen to what was actually spoken before the motion, please. i have gone back and listened to it. >> i believe there is a motion and commissioner moore, you seconded that motion to continue for two weeks september 29th? very good, commissioners, on that motion to continue the minutes to september 29th. >> commissioner gabrielle ruiz: aye. >> commissioner sue diamond: aye. >> commissioner theresa imperial: aye. >> commissioner joel koppel: aye. >> vice-president kathrin moore: aye. that motion passes 5-0. >> excuse me, the land acknowledgment, this is the time. >> right, this is for comments and questions. >> please join me on the land

acknowledgment. the planning commission acknowledges that we are in the unseeded homeland of the -- for the original habitants of the san francisco peninsula. as indigenous stuart's of this land and in accordance with their tradition, they have never ceded nor failed to take care of this place for all the people that reside in this territory. we benefit from living in this traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respect by acknowledging the ancestors of the community by affirming their sovereign rights by the people. thank you.

>> if there are no other comments from commissioners, we are at item 8, advance calendar. >> looking at the advanced calendar, there are some items but not until the 29 on the design element and we'll have more information on the housing element in terms of how and as of the discussion last week as to how we can go deeper or have a more robust discussion in some parts of the housing element. i

would wait for that information until i can add it in our advance calendar. i would like to thank mr. cider for giving us the update on ab 511. i would like to have that added to the calendar. >> >> vice-president kathrin moore: i would like to have a scheduled meeting with the health department. i was listening to the board of supervisors having a long discussion about honda and having their concerns about speaking again with the health department we have postponed a number of times last year to get

the joint hearings which is not easy. i would like to suggest that. i would also like to have a meeting with historic prevention. it came to my attention that there is a very complicated matter in the stone sand master plan and would like to hear how the historic preservation hears the issue. from our perspective speaking more generically and specifically that we support housing whether it's owner obsolete buildings and all of a sudden it was discovered that there is a specific building in that area that may arise to historic preservation status. what is important for us is to find that middle ground where perhaps historic preservation can share with us about housing. i do have to admit that i was out at stone sand and i realized

with a lot of chagrin i have to say, that there was a tremendous amount of busses and cars parked on the curb understanding that students live in those trailers, buses and cars. one out of 24 students at sf state apparently do not have housing. i was mildly speaking shocked, and that made me then reflect on this particular site, not to render judgment but to share concerns of this master plan going forward for housing and every opportunity to create that. that was my one comment. the second comment i wanted to make is i want to thank the department for digging deep and acknowledging a comment i made last week was indeed correct and

that is that adu's in new construction as well as i think as an existing construction cannot be connected to the homes in which they occur. we had a case last week in dr where i was questioned that that was correct. to make it brief, i appreciate the department coming back and recognizing that it must have been a mistake in interpretation. thank you. >> those are my comments. >> i will just remind members of the commission that we are on the advance calendar. >> i see to your polling under commission comments so i rolled that in there. >> it was a discussion to have for the advance calendar to put items on for the rest of the year. it's not something to vote on but what we like to see in

the advance calendar. >> >> okay, commissioners, since there is no other comment, i would like to go to public comment. >> as i said in the email, last october i wrote a letter and at that hearing commissioner diamond asked director hillis could he please have a hearing and director hillis assured us that yes they would have a hearing in 2022 and it hasn't happened. i'm hoping if you feel as though there is a space in your advance calendar and remaining agenda that you please do. back in 2020, it was raised

to former director ram and from the status coming back talking about this in the next couple months and this never happened and what i think is a famous article from 2012 where there is this quote we were doing demolitions all the time. you see you knocked the entire building down to three studs and that's how you get around the demolition ordinance and it was being circumvents legally. that's why i go back in my letter that i sent to you and from the minutes from that meeting from the follow up to the letter and i add the question. if section 317 bd 2shgs was put

in the code, why was it put in the code if it was never used. >> thank you very much. >> >> any other member in the comments? >> seeing none, we will go to department matters and directors announcements. >> there are no announcements. >> thank you. >> 10. review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. >> thank you. >> the landmark designation for city cemetery was sponsored by supervisor chan. she gave insights highlighting the importance of that site to the city's italian, chinese and

scandinavian immigrants. the supervisor mentioned several small amendments to ensure the staff allegiance in honor could still follow with the processes with the necessary operations and maintenance of the museum. planning staff gave a presentation noting that the san francisco alliance had a question whether the landmarking would affect their operations of the golf course on the site. however planning has recommended this site and they are in support of the landmarking. there was four public commenters, one expressed concerns regarding the golf course and the other three were in support. supervisors asked to

be -- cosponsors. >> next was the neon special sign district for the tenderloin and you recommended approval with modifications. the modifications that you recommended include striking # neon sign provisions and allowing to return to the property with the same condition and changing blade signs to projecting signs. some minor clarifications regarding residential hotels and revising the design guideline names to design standards.

>> supervisor preston made these recommendations and there were four public comments including from the museum and san francisco heritage and public comment supported the neon signs in the tenderloin and return them back to the building after. supervisor peskin asked to be a cosponsor and before the amendments and the ordinance was continued to next week. the last item at land use last week was ordered by supervisor peskin to extend interim controls that require conditional use authorization for large projects in rto and rc districts. these interim controls have been for 18 months before they expired and to extend the interim control for

six months which would put us to extend to january 2023 and one minor amendment to our existing controls and that amendment would grant the exception for the conditional use authorization requirement proposing projects for minor expansion units which was to propose to add a drawing unit no more than 3,000 square feet and no less than 50% of the size of the largest unit in the building. supervisor peskin said their office is working on permanent controls before they work on the interim controls that would expire in january and planning staff has been working with their office collaborating to establish those controls and working for those controls to bring to you this year. the landmark designation of 200 rhode island street the takahashi trading company passed final reading. i'm available for

questions. >> no questions. there was a recommendation to the planning commission first the appeal of the building permit application to construct new elevator and garage in front of the building. the original variance of this project was voted against but then voted for it and the project came before the commission 2019 as a discretionary review and the planning commission voted unanimously not to take the permit. this issue has been in litigation between the neighboring property owners regarding a shared easement and the new elevator's placement and there was a judgment litigation and the board expressed concerns that the permit may be consistent with the judge's orders and deny the building permit with an understanding

that a new permit may be filed once the new litigation issues are settled. the second piece is the commission appealed by the commission on july 28th of this year for the project 925 bryant street a seven story 218 bedroom group housing density bonus project that fronts on lincoln street. the same numbers on lincoln that the planning commission filed the appeal and raising same issues to the board and having the vehicular entrance and the commission did notererr in granting the appeal and moved forward.

if there are no questions, we can move to general public comment. >> e. 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. >> you have two minutes. >> public speaker: okay, when i submitted this information to 51 bernard in 2015 it was in demolition and by 2014 it was an alteration and remodel. it was completed in 2016. by november 2014 it had been revised to an alteration. the design did not change and the

photos and rear elevation shows that. and the agenda are confusing and do not matchup with the info on how to do this demo for an alteration as shown in february 2014 civ right here. in the september 24th meeting, staff used this criteria even though it's rh 3 and prior to 2016, the rh 1 standard was part of the discussion which seems to get to the issue that's most important in section 317 demolition criteria which is relative affordability of existing housing. it has never been completely clear to me whether the protection of relative affordability of existing housing is only for the house in question itself or other houses nearby or even throughout the neighborhood and city. by spring fall 2019 when 4529 bernard went

on the market given what happened at 51 bernard, it wasn't surprising that it sold for 1.4 million and why it is attracting to a buyer with a good investment that has this i end indoor and never adjusted as a loophole. thank you. here is the add when it first went on sale. >> that is your time. >> last call for general public comment. >> we have a few remote callers.

>> public speaker: good afternoon. to continue my comments about inaccurate capture of the motion, i just want to draw your attention to what was discussed a few minutes ago. commissioner diamond, you mentioned that the motion should be captured as what is stated. as i said, it is curious because in the case of 228 that we complained about the fact that the motion was not captured as was stated. our supervisors got involved, neighbors got involved and we have still not received answers as to why commissioner imperial stated should the sponsor decide to sell these units rather than renting them,

that he shall sell to buyers that make-up only 80% of the ami and we should go back and he keeps referring to the commissioner diamond specifically asked to be added, but he doesn't tell us why is it that commissioner imperial's amendment was -- mitted from this case. this is a huge problem. obviously we don't see it all the time because 99% of the cases, this commission does not vote with the public, and in those few cases where the commission does vote for the public, the motion does not get captured accurately. i do want to thank this commission and particularly president moore for bringing up for catching this

issue and pressing for accurate capturing of the motion. >> thank you. that is your time. >> i would ask the planning commission to schedule a hearing on the rules of the planning commission. one of the things that came out on this discretionary review on bernard street is the rules require language here to be moved and stated back to what you voted on to be stated back. it wasn't stated back very clearly or at all on this discretionary review on 45 bernard. so the commission has a role to play and the planning commission's secretary does as well. he is required to state clearly

what the motion is. what is the elaborate motion on conditional uses, you have a motion in your staff packet. when you have a discretionary review, you have almost -- so it's really important where there is a discretionary review that there really be a focus on reading back what is the motion that is made by commissioner imperial and moore. i think you would have caught the problem if it had been read back to you. you

really need to pay attention to the rules. thank you. public speaker: good afternoon, commissioners, this is bruce. i would like to follow up on the question of adu's and whether they are separate and independent units. supporting the adu's that can bring to residue # residents in the area to expand this and is not separate and independent. a unit that is not truly separated by walls created potential conflicts for the rules provision in b 7 and the residential flat policy. we are beginning to see that

adu's which are not truly separate. an existing home with an adu can limit the regulations and expanding the section by opening the door thereby offsetting the expansion of the adu without walls to separate from the main unit. i know how i feel when i check into a hotel room and find that the door is connected to the room even though the door is locked. the tenants should expect the same kind of security. you should find that these are acceptable units agency adu's. thank you very much.

>> >> last call for general public comment. press star 3 or come forward. seeing no additional request to speak for the members of the public, general public comment is closed and you can move on to regular calendar, commissioners. >> 11. 2021-008991cua (a. westhoff: (628) 652-7314) 200 rhode island street - southwest corner of 15th street; lot 001 in assessor's block 3936 (district 6) - request for conditional use authorization >> good afternoon, the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization to pursuant to planning code sections 210.3b, and 303 to establish a change of use of approximately 22,580 square feet of an existing production, distribution, and repair use to an office use on the third and fourth floors of the subject building, within a pdr-1-d (production, distribution & repair-1- design) zoning district and 58-x and 68-x height and bulk districts. this action constitutes the approval action for the project for the purposes of

ceqa, pursuant to san francisco administrative code section 31.04(h). preliminary recommendation: approve with conditions subject to vertical control to office uses. this planning code section limits maximum of two story and two story buildings and two stories for conversion for office space in additional space to existing legal conditions and an additional square feet and to the fifth floor. the landmark

designation has passed the final landmark designation. once designated, the property will join the short list of landmarks with japanese america community specifically the building is significant for itself association with prominent japanese american entrepreneurs and philanthropist who owned the property until 2019. the family purchased the property after being displaced from their original japan location due to the agency redevelopment agency efforts. from this property, they operated the takahashi trading company of distributors of high quality japanese house

wares and the property is a merit of lanceberg. the structure was reviewed by historic preservation commission who at a february 16, 2022 hearing supported the landmark designation and conditional use authorization. the two stories will ensure this project is economically viable and will support the vitality of this historic asset and supporting san francisco history. the department has received no public comment and will now make a presentation. thank you.

>> you have five minutes. >> >> thank you, commissioners. on behalf of the project sponsor. the project before you is one piece of a larger redevelopment of the site which includes a major rehabilitation renovation takahashi building which we heard the project sponsor just completed the landmark process for. the site consist of three buildings. there is a five story building along 15th street, three story building at the corner of 15th rhode island and two buildings south of rhode island street. we came across the story of the takahashi building and their family's fascinating history of being sent to concentration camp and being sent to japantown and then finally reestablishing their

business to rhode island is a landmarking request. the landmarking will include future alterations of the property to maintain its historical character and to turn the building into office. the conditional use permit request is to authorize the third and fourth floor of the five story building and will be 580 square feet. and there is also an existing 12333 legal and existing non-conforming use. the remaining 75,000 square feet of the building will be in the pdr zoning district. the conversion to office will support the project sponsor's efforts to rehabilitation of these buildings and will cost $5 million and which will be for

repairing the exterior facade and streetscape which will be enjoyed by the public in the area and this is prepared by a preservation consultant. it is expected the office space will be occupied by a tenant or tenants that have a mix and light industrial of office uses and already in touch with a number of tenants looking for that combination. the light industrial units will be on the lower floor larger places and more appropriate for such uses on the smaller upper floors of the building. in such case, conditional use permit authorization will be to include a landmark building to preserve it for years to come. thank you for your consideration. we respectfully request that you support the project. thank you. >> new.

that concludes comment for this matter. there is no additional public comment. >> thank you for the presentation. good to know that this is being forwarded in the historical preservation as well. i didn't have that much questions. i think you already answered some of my questions regarding conversions, whether it would require but it doesn't look like it would need a replacement. >> so, yeah, i'm in support of this and i would like to hear what other commissioners have to say. >> i'm in support of it and a way of adjusting the use of the way this small office would be appropriate. commissioner koppel?

>> motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to approve the conditions, [roll call] so moved., commissioners, that motion passes 5-0. >> that will place us on items 12a. 2020-005514dnx (r. salgado: (628) 652-7332) san francisco planning commission thursday, september 15, 2022 1010v mission street - north side between 6th and 7th streets; lot 026 in assessor's block 3703 (district 6) - request for downtown project authorization >> good afternoon, commissioners, rebecca salgado, department staff. the request is for an addition to the rear yard for 1010 mission street. the project also request for allowing additional square footage above the floor area

ratio and revised to clean up the language for the impact fee. i have copies on hand for your review and will go over the specifics if desired. the project site is a through lot between 6 and 7th street located within the 3g zoning district and currently use as a parking lot with 13 parking stalls. the project consist of a nine story 80 foot at all residential building and common space on the ground floor. the project proposes no off street vehicular parking and would provide class 1 and 2 bicycle parking required by code. the project includes common open space on the ground floor and the roof. today the department has not received any letters in support or opposition of the project. the project is

on balance consistent with the objectives and policies with the original plan and also find the project to be necessary and desirable and compatible with the existing neighborhood. the project will provide 60 dwelling units to occur with the surface parking lot. the project will provide 13 below market housing rate on the site and meet with affordable housing goal and is well served by the future public and transit options and walking distance with the goods available for the resident. based on the findings contained in the case report, the department recommends approval of the project. i'm available for questions and the project team also has a presentation of the project. thank you. >> >> on behalf of project sponsor.

the project before you would construct a nine story building with 15 sro units. the property is a small through lot on mission street between sixth and seventh street. it has an unattractive surface parking lot currently by a sidewalk with a chain link fence. the building arises adjacent to building and to upper floors on both street projects to of that five foot setback is provided. 57 dwelling units proposed on five floors, 13 which will be affordable. the market rate units are naturally affordable due to their small size. the units have provided more than twice as much open space required by code and the ground

floor as well as a large roof deck. there is also a 400 community space along mission street. no parking is proposed for this location. the project is seeking an exception from the rear yard and exposure requirements. since this site is so small, 4400 square feet, providing a code compliant rear yard is one on the housing unit of this size to seek a greater height along the 60 foot height limit which is appropriate for the location and the buildings in the area. this is on jessie street and the code and policy is to provide building massing along both street frontages to allow complete blocking of the frontage. this has been relocated to the center of the block to provide roughly 40 feet

to the rear yard. the project provides twice the amount of required over space from the planning code. the project is also seeking a common exception in the c 3 district to exclude the far limit to allow 13 additional units to allow the appropriate massing within the district. the project replaces a small parking lot that is designed as a housing unit, 13 units affordable. this is an appropriate location for the site located in the downtown location and we respectfully request your support for the project. thank you. >>

>>clerk: would any members of the public wish to express public comment on this matter, please state your name. public speaker: hello, i work for the saddle market for six years. i ask that you vote no. i work for the community action network and we work with youth, family and workers. we provide tenants, workers and family resources. we have families that live in the studio and there are five of them. this is in the soma. some were involved as an advocacy to shape the soma plan. the central soma plan does not allow market rate sro sand market rate group unit and higher existing sro units. these units are largely affordable but

there has been an influx of market rate sro and route housing that are not affordable and do not support children and families in our communities. these projects are right next to the central soma plan area and the same issues also apply here. we do not need more tiny expensive units down the street on six are going over $2,000 to rent and can be almost a half million dollars to buy. we need affordable housing, we need family size housing, we need housing that fits in this community and meets the needs of the community. we ask the commission to support children, families and seniors in our community and vote no on the project. thank you very much for your time.

public speaker: hello, commissioners, i have been working on the market for over 15 years. i'm here to oppose the project and highly recommend the commission to vote no as well. the children's program serves youth and families at the filipino education center schools from kindergarten to eighth grade which is located a few blocks away from this project. a majority of the families served will not benefit nor afford this. many are low-income, working class and some are unhoused. we do not need more luxury double occupancy units that many families cannot afford. we do need affordable housing and family size housing that meets the needs of the community. this project is right next to the community center and this

project will never house people who come to the community space and also go there for services and work there. so we ask the commission to support our families and seniors in the community and vote no on this project. thank you very much for your time. good afternoon commissioners. this project does not support children, families, multigenerational families and seniors. beside it will be land banked by the city nor available affordable housing: it has given so many waivers and like the rear yard and unit exposure.

we need this in the community and many will not be able to afford rent for this project. sro units that are more than $2 to rent. we do not need these sro units. this makes sure that the projects are well designed and support in soma. please vote no on this project. thank you.

>> public speaker: hello, commissioners. my name is briana, a second generation college student and soma resident. i'm speaking on behalf of my community and all planning coals where # -- coalition where i'm a member. i ask the commission to vote know. i believe this project does not serve children, youth, families or seniors especially low-income and working class. i live a five minute walking distance from the community center and spend my time volunteering at the food bank inside their building. naturally i have seen this space as a second home. for instance, i see many children and families and seniors pass on a daily basis coming from home or work. people come by this space looking for community and

belonging. i want to address the dire need for affordable housing such as low-income family size housing and accessible for seniors, immigrants. instead of developing tiny expensive sro units catered to a few select individuals, we need housing in this community and meets the needs of all community members. i hope this planning commission see's the lack of cultural awareness that will be impacted by this project. i encourage you to aim to develop equitable solutions involved around city planning by identifying the land resources to develop more affordable housing to be inclusive of all generations. please think about the people you want to protect and vote no on this project. thank you. >>

>> public speaker: hello, commissioner. david wu. the central plan across from this project has a prohibition rate and market rate group housing unit due to advocacy by community members that these types of units were changed that were not permitted in the central soma plan in the recognition that this type of housing does not meet the needs of children and families in this market. as the developers seek to maximize profit and the cost to development seems to rise, developers are proposing building smaller units to increase their return. this however should not be the guiding force of city planning and the planning commission should scrutinize and consider projects in the larger context of the block it is being built on and the type of housing needed in that community.

given that even just in terms of basic design standards, the project does not mean minimum requirements. the project is seeking and downtown project authorization and in doing so, a request of additional square footage upon the base area ratio it increase far in exemption to rear yard and exposure and seeks benefits from the city but provides no additional benefits to this city. this would be a terrible precedent moving forward. we need housing that is affordable that meets the needs of the families in the neighborhood. the city should require this site to be 100% affordable housing and to the left is the kings hotel which is an affordable sro. pleadings--

please get this right and vote no on this housing. >> public speaker: good afternoon, i'm the director of filipino heritage and i'm here to urge this commission to please vote no on this project. this proposed project is located within a cultural district and goes against actual community housing needs and priorities moving forward for community development. this housing lacks building units and family design. it's completely out of place in the immediate location and surrounding neighborhood. this project 1010 mission project is the first time that it's out of touch with the actual community there. 1010 mission street is the address of the community center next door and important cultural hub for the filipino community serving

multi-racial family and the majority of the people would not be able to afford to live there. i was surprised that this was recommended by the planning department. there are no family size units in this project. we have seen market race units in the south of market that does not serve what affordable housing needs are. we ask that the planning department and the planning commission respond to the reality that there is an over abundance of teeny units and studios to one bedroom and this does not meet the needs of the families. we need planning to do its job and plan for complete neighborhoods. we need well planned projects and we need affordable housing to meet the needs of the community. housing that is affordable, that

fits working families and properly designed to take in consideration the environment and context. thank you very much, we ask that you vote no. >>clerk: seeing no other members to speak in the chambers, we will go to remote callers. >> public speaker: hi, commissioners. i live in the market for over 20 years originally as a director in the studio and now executive director of the filipino american foundation which is at the actual 1010 mission street. i oppose the project, just by

the name and it is absolutely misleading. it's an american development foundation and is a touch stone for community when maybe highly sense # -- subsidized and this is not for families and seniors. we do not need more tiny expensive units. these market rate sro units especially was supposed to have worked and to have community turn into this place where there are sro units next to it that are going over $2,000 to rent

and while we are trying to support this community with our culture and relevant services to low-income to a marginalized community and we need housing that fits this community and meets the needs of the community and our people. we ask the commission for children and families and seniors in our community and vote no on this project. i think all of you can really see and hear how many of us have been working and living in this community and watched it change. there has been so much change at the low-income folks that are part of this community. >> thank you. >> thank you. >>

public speaker: hello, i will be reading a letter. dear commissioners, i am writing on behalf of equity center to oppose the 1010 v mission street development which is before you for approval. i am urging you to vote no on the project. the equity center bec is located at 10 mission street has been serving the market center since 1999 and next to the proposed development. it serves older adults and adults with disability and local immigrants greatly impacted by the recent housing development. these individuals are often priced out of the housing market and eventually displaced from the neighborhood. 1010 v street development with sro units of the structure which will be built in the parking lot with

20,000 square feet, each unit is 200 square feet. if the developer's response to meet the young single working individuals and not a development that needs housing for families and able to move into decent and affordable dwellings. i'm urging the san francisco planning commissioners to vote no to the 1010 mission street development. you need to prioritize the housing needs of the low-income housing working class residents. you failed to address the issues and the cries of the low-income community for many years. i urge the commission to be a part of the solution.

>> >> public speaker: hello, commissioners, i am opposed to this item and we serve mostly immigrants and english and language learners and working families who have been struggling to stay in the city due to the high cost of housing. this project does not serve them. this project is next to

the community center and this project address is already an existing address and will never house the families that we serve. the people who come to our community space come there for services and serve students in the affordable housing above. we need affordable housing. we need family size housing. we need housing that fits in this community and meets the needs of the community. this project does not serve them. we ask the commission to support children, families and seniors in our community and vote no on this project. thank you. >> hello, i'm the current managing director and been involved in soma in the late 90s

and we stand in solidarity with the filipino community neighborhood in saying that we need affordable housing and we don't need market housing. we have programs for the seniors and we see first hand from our participants that they need family housing, not housing that's catered towards wealthy single workers. we urge the commission to vote no on this project. thank you.

>> public speaker: this is another example of staff that need to know how to bring the right type of housing to this area. the sro's from old buildings were literally cement in the port and we have a lot of sro's in chinatown south of market. but now we have a new sro that is going to be aimed for our main tech folks we have a bunch of

projects coming through trying to fit these spaces into upper income standards for our developer. i ask that you listen seriously to those who have spoken today. ironically, you have a mix of asians. you have the takahashi which is japanese americans, chinese americans on bernard and here you have filipino americans. it's time to buckle down and start looking seriously to this equity analysis. public speaker: hi, commissioners. my name is carolyn, a san francisco resident and president of the filipino american development foundation. i am opposed to the 1010 mission

street project and urge you to vote no. together with all the voices that you have heard, my voice is simply to amplify those voices and to get you to vote no. 1010 mission street is the community center address. this is a slap in the face to the filipino community of san francisco, a city that i love, that i have lived in since immigration over 50 years ago. please vote no on this project. thank you. >> public speaker: good afternoon commissioners, my name is jennifer, i am here to share my support for this project. i have been living in san francisco since 1980. i am a third

generation san franciscan and have seen much change throughout this city. much of what i am in support for. the definition of an sro is a single room occupancy, a form of housing typically aimed at residents at low or minimal income, etc. i want to reiterate that this will create permanently affordable homes at market rate homes. as well as the gentleman sharing on the project sharing the unit and nature of the size, they will be affordable. so let's not be scared of the change and try to be involved with this project as much as we can so we can share what works for the community. i think this will be great. it will keep eyes on the street

continues to better the area. i think it's a wonderful thing. thank you so much. >> last call for public comment on this item. please come forward or press star 3. seeing no additional comment from the public comment. public comment is now closed and this item is now before you, commissioners. >> >> commissioner theresa imperial: i have a question to the planner on the study on the wind current to that? >> so it's identified there are two out of 40 criterion are exceeding about 11 miles per hour, and looks like the average is about 12 miles per hour # at

the south side of the mission street. what i'm hearing is the average of 12 miles per hour and what time is that too? >> rebecca salgado, planning staff. i believe it's on mission street.

>> for what time in the day will that be occurring? >> that will be 15% and 12% of the time respectfully for each location. i don't have the time of day in my analysis. i believe it is in the full study. >> it says pretty much the whole day. that is what i'm interpreting here. that's one of the main concerns for this project for me as well, and in terms of the also because i'm also familiar with the filipino cultural heritage district and was the staff aware as well with the study for the

cultural heritage district and was that also considered when working on this project. >> in terms of the design of the project? >> the design of the project and also the use of the project. >> certainly, we are aware of the chest was recently adopted by the board of supervisors and met with the filipino district to talk about putting, making the use of the family district kind of more relevant and kind of expanding what it does. so that's part of the chest implementation that we are working on. so, yeah. >> okay then. so yeah, i guess my main point here is that we've

seen about group housing and how there are discussions on group housing that is particular in some areas but perhaps not in some areas like in subtle market and whether the department is also being active in terms of looking into the projects that are under the filipino cultural heritage and with the chest as well in terms of group housing. i'm not really detailed in terms of what are the goals of the chest in the housing in the filipino district and are those also being taken into consideration. thank you. you can sit down as well. in terms of the context of this area, there is a community

center that i am very familiar with and i know they do the food pantry. many seniors go that answer. that's why one thing when i first read about this project, i thought about the wind because seniors really struggle in wind, and i remember even walking down here on south van ness, the wind there is very high. you don't see seniors walking that way. even on 7th street it's pretty high as well. so looking into the criterion and how this is for seniors is alarming. and many exceptions here i find it not agreeable in terms of the rear yard as well.

this is, i always pass this and this is a very tiny lot area that having an exception on a rear yard, i think this is, i will not agree to that. so those are my comments. as of now, this is not favorable to me. >> >> commissioner gabrielle ruiz: thank you. i have a couple of questions for the project sponsor. i know of course these questions will probably be hard to answer, but if this project were to be approved today, how long do you think it would take to construct this project and have it on the market? >> this one is actually a little bit simpler for most projects. if it's approved today we are probably 9 months to get a

permit to begin construction and they build it themselves. we are probably looking at that point starting construction on an 18 month project in that vicinity. from now maybe two 1/2 years. >> okay, so this question might be harder to answer but in two 1/2 years, i know it's dependent on the market, how much do you think these market rate units will go for? >> that's hard to say. these are going to be for sale units. these are not rental units. we are talking about sale prices. we have what the bmr units are being sold for and that's close to market rate. of the 13 dmr units 7 are at low-income and selling about $275,000, three are at moderate income 105 ami,

about $400,000, probably with a we are looking at and to finish it out 30 units about $500,000. that's probably what we are looking at in terms of what the market rate units are at the upper levels. >> thank you so much. >> just from my personal opinion, that's incredibly expensive for a very small unit, and i believe the opposition to this project is really representative to seems to be a trend of market rate micro unit housing being proposed in soma. i acknowledge that these are not going to be rentals that these are going to be for sale, but the opposition in comparison to what is the need for housing based on eli populations and the surrounding area who are not

homeless yet living in over crowding conditions similar to what this project is proposing. and that we simply and living in those conditions because we as a city do not seem to be providing what is affordable. i know we all know this but it's really important to continue to voice this and say out loud and especially in spaces like these that we as a city are just severely under producing affordable housing for our extremely low-income population such as families living in over crowding conditions which was mentioned by one of the commenters today. and i really want to honor the concerns raised by those who came today to make public comment and acknowledge the advocacy for many community members to -- who work on the

central soma plan that there are not to be any sro's and encourage affordable housing and this was not from the advocacy preferences. because this block is not included in that plan, i don't think we should not consider whether or not this is necessary for the community considering the placement of the project, sandwiched in between tenants who are very vulnerable and a community center with participants who are not going to benefit from this particular project. i know we can't put a final price on the market rate units, but just as an example of the housing units that go for rent are extremely expensive at ridiculously high rates. i have family members living in sro's very similar to this one in very

old conditions, i might add, with rents still set at very expensive rates at about $1300 a month and that was the going rent during the pandemic when we saw the rent prices drop. so, this idea that this type of housing project are a need, are affordable by design, and strategy to address our housing crisis is i believe is a really disappointing reality in san francisco. that this city is so expensive that we feel the need to propose housing projects like this to what i perceive to warehouse people who can afford these prices for the temporary until they are off to something better and then what happens to these types of units. do they potentially have the future as

many sro's that i see in these very poor conditions and see families living in these crowded conditions because we fail to produce appropriate affordable housing units that we need. i'm going to end it there and say at an i can't see myself supporting this kind of design. >> i do want to recognize many in opposition today. on the first look, i never like to see an empty lot and i know this is an area sensitive to our project sponsor. can you give us a little bit more context? >> yes, first of all we are surprised to see this level of opposition. this is a soma

filipino district and we did reach out last year, the filipino foundation and the community center next door. we had some friendly conversations and discussed the address issue that this is 1010v versus 1010 and we had conversations and the last communication was sending them the latest plans and they said thank you and we'll let you know if we have questions. we have not heard anything from them and filipinos are good at indicating issues with a project. yesterday, to the planner, ms. salgado and not us has since heard about opposition to the project. we know the neighborhood we are in and we are absolutely open to further conversation about this. we've been in the entitlement process for 18 months. we at least hope that the commission if there is

concern with respect to this opposition would give us the opportunity to work with them now that we all are aware that there is an issue here and at the very least grant this continuance to give us this time and space to figure that out understanding that this is a sensitive neighborhood. thank you for the opportunity to provide some background from our perspective. >> vice-president kathrin moore: is there anything else, commissioner koppel. >> i have a question. you outlined four elements and wind that are not compliant to the planning code, is that correct? >> we actually do like to support projects that are compliant and we always seek as you all know ways to make projects compliant. the asking of four not under any purview

where you have waivers and exceptions is a very difficult for me as well, not only in a reflection of what i fully agree commissioner ruiz and commissioner imperial said, but also it exacerbates the problem in this neighborhood. were you aware that you tried to take three rows of windows in the adjoining and there are eight windows and by the community center there are four windows. there's no kind of attempt to create small light wells to leave those buildings without the impact of those windows. i don't know what is behind those windows. it may be corridors or bathrooms, but because we are impacting affordable housing and

community center, i'm very concerned that this type of oversight makes it a very difficult building to support in its form. let me go through a couple of things to see if you have answers and see this all in one. i looked at the ground floor unit opening up to jessie street and realize that there is typically we ask ground floor units that are accessible from the outside to be either where the entrance removed from the frontage have a porch with a depth to add privacy or five feet away to create steps to create a separation from the street to a small unit regarding privacy. i do not see that here. the rear unit is really small

and the door to the unit would have to be a glass door in order to let any amount of light into the unit. as i realize that this project does not show a basement, there is a real absence of normal building support function that normally houses a basement such as trash bin, storage, laundry facilities for 57 units, including the mechanical system which i see in this case on the rooftop. when i look at the rooftop drawing, i see that this is not even an equipment housing and not screened nor has a penthouse and it's right to the open spaces of this particular

communities. i find it acceptable that we all know how noisy rooftop equipment is. so in majority of cases in large of residential buildings, we are looking for equipment in closure or rooftop penthouse to house mechanical and with the open space next to it, i do not find it particularly a good design solution. i wanted to ask about the design of the community room i found very strange given the fact that it has double doors opening to the storage. i do not see a correlation between storage of bicycles and the community room. the community room i understand is for reading, for birthday parties, perhaps watching a sports game together, but not a double door opening to a bicycle

room. so as i nitpick to the project aside from the fact that the stairs from the second to the third floor don't work, this project just from the way it is designed and not being code compliant has a number of issues. do you have any comment on the windows or on any of other things that i was pointing out? >> sure, thank you, rebecca salgado, planning staff. i can start with the question about the light wells and the windows. planning staff did work with the architect to modify the light well on the east side to have the new building step back by three feet from the lot line starting at the second floor, and also to cut away slightly

more towards the center of the lot so that the new building wasn't directly adjacent to where that light well cuts out to the lot line. that was our way is to give them more light and air. and on the question of the lot line, there we didn't have a light well cut away, but i think that's a different situation also because that building to the west cuts back right past those windows and so it seems that any windows that are cut out there are going to be part of a unit that faces north where there is still access to light

in and air. >> but you do not know what is going to be there. >> to the request about the unit 101, there is going to be more light cut out. we weren't sure it would meet building code requirements. because we wanted to make sure of the configuration of the unit of the site and to be sure it was compliant with fire code and we had a project review meeting and other agencies, dbi and fire indicated that arrangement was sufficient to meet those codes.

i agree the windows are smaller to be preferred. to address your question as to the lack of a basement and how that takes away from the necessary functions of the building being that it is a basement, there is a trash room on the ground floor that each unit is intended to have a washer and drier unit and there is not a need for a laundry room as well. the equipment on the roof, i believe the intention is for it to be screened. i'm not sure if the team considered it, i understand your concern about the noise that the equipment would generate and how that would impact the experience on the common open space on the roof. >> i think that's all the comments i have.

>> there is one additional element should this project be approved, i think we would need a notice of restriction because the two upper floors which exceed the height of the adjoining building also have property line windows on both the east and west side in their own need they are putting windows there. my main concerns are the project is not code compliant. the project asks for more than it gives. i'm wondering about land use and adjacent fees to this particular type of location. that would be questions that i would leave open. >> to answer your next question,

a point of clarity on the fee to be far and instead of being to be able to buy development rights in order to get the allowable far, this is within the allowable far. there are options for paying for that for the tdr if you build on-site affordable units you can get conditions to use that area. it is not in non-compliance but using affordable housing and to clarify what that code issue is about. i wanted to offer that on the record. >> i think it's important that you mention that for all of us to know as a baseline. in answer of what this deal of

affordability are and would i be able to afford a 350 square foot unit and the answer would be no. >>clerk: commissioner diamond would like to request to speak. >> i'm sorry. i did not see that. please speak. >> commissioner sue diamond: thank you very much. i have a few questions for staff and comment too. a number of members of public talked about the desire to see 100% affordable housing. maybe this is a question to director. given the very nature of this site, is it feasible for 100% affordable housing. can you flush that out a little bit? >> commissioner, i don't know, we would have to talk to them

about their criteria. generally they look for a larger site to get more for the dollars that they are putting into it, but we have not had discussions about this particular site. >> okay. >> then my second question. i need more clarification. that it is not group housing but that it is in each unit because it's sro's, they don't need to typically meet our typical dwelling units. so what makes sro's opposed to studio. what is it about each unit that makes it sro's that gets them out of this unit requirement and mixed requirement? >> rebecca salgado, planning

staff. the planning department defiance and sro that is an up occupied room of maximum of 350 square feet. it's basically maximum size of the occupied room that qualifies it as an sro. then it can be group housing or it can be a dwelling unit. in this case, it's a dwelling unit because they are proposing to have a kitchen, meeting the definition of a kitchen. >> thank you. now i have a question for the project function. >> i recognized that by stacking the same kind of unit on top of each other, you are getting construction efficiency to keep the cost down. did you look at the possibility of providing not only sro's but one bedrooms and

two bedrooms in this project? >> thank you, commissioner. the moment that this is no longer 100% sro building, the unit mix requirement of i think in the c 3 district, it's 15%, two bedroom, 10% three bedroom in the c 3 district. so the moment one of the units is no longer an sro, it significantly changes the character of the project with very high requirements for or significant amounts of 2-3 bedroom units required which obviously seriously impacts the efficiency of the build-out on the site of this size when you are trying to include those unit sizes. to answer your question, this is 100% plan of sro's from the beginning for that reason.

>> okay, generally there are a number of things about this project that are appealing. you are providing 57 units and not doing a traditional rear yard or putting a courtyard in the center that creates more light for the units to this design. but there are a few things that i think require more work in my opinion. one is i'm concerned that there haven't been enough community meetings. i too was surprised today by the level of opposition because i haven't received many letters from groups that were concerned about this project. i know you had one in 2021, but i think it would be

beneficial to have time to meet with the groups that presented today to see if there are changes that don't undermine the economics of that development project but still can address some of the concerns that were raised by the neighbors. in particular, how the community views this seems to be one that would be an excellent topic of discussion. i too would like to know more about the comfort exceeding the ground level and about the comments about the seniors next door and the timing and what you try to do to minimize that. if it's hours, whether the community center is in use or if it's a small number of days i will feel differently about that. i think we need more data on that particular issue.

i also think it is worth exploring that can be changed. if it's not economically feasible for the housing that is needed does not get build at all. i would like to move to continue this project to allow the project sponsor to spend some time thinking about these issues. i would like to ask the project sponsor how much more time they need. >> you echo my thoughts exactly in terms of the outreach. we'll come back with more data on the wind, and we studied cumulative conditions for the wind. these two exceedences occur within the development area. this project

happens to trigger it right now but the analysis is that these two exceedences will occur with this area and will take a look at this. i think considering we are completely caught off guard here, i would suggest a month because this is something we need to spend a little bit more time with rather than just a quick fix than a week or so. i would suggest a month and i'm open to commissioners and what you think is appropriate for that outreach. >> do you think you have enough specificity from the comments that you know the issues to work on. do you have any questions to discuss before we see where this might go in terms of a vote? >> i don't think so. i think the key issue here is we have to make a reconnection with the filipino community and you have been very specific with your concerns and we've got that information to take a look at in the coming weeks. thank you for the offer, but i think we know what our marching orders are.

>> okay, i would like to continue for one month. >> second. >> if there is nothing further, commissioners there is a motion to continue this to with month that will put us to october 17th. >> >> commissioner gabrielle ruiz: no. >> commissioner sue diamond: [roll call] that motion fails with commissioner ruiz, imperial -- vote against.

>> i can make a motion to not approve. >> second. >> >> vice-president kathrin moore: that would have to be a motion of intent. >> it would be best to be a motion of intent to disapprove. that would allow staff to go back to draft a motion unless you want to articulate the findings now as to why this commission is disapproving this project. >> you are saying make a motion to disapprove? >> to disapprove and continue to give staff the opportunity to draft the motion. >> okay. >> vice-president kathrin moore: i would like the motion to be such to be yes or no. i would like to see the motion to be addressing what this commission intends to do with this project.

>> i would like to ask the city attorney. >> this is deputy city attorney, i'm sorry president moore, i couldn't hear your comment. could you repeat it for me? >> i would like to have this project to have a motion that is basically only reflecting what the commission wants to, why the commission wants to disapprove the project rather than an a motion that has to be asked again. >> the purpose of the motion to disprove is not to put the motion back out for a vote when it comes back to the commission but rather to give staff an opportunity to draft a motion that will then be adopted. i think the secretary's recommendation is to simply the

give the staff to fully state out what is stated. >> so for the motion to have comment for setting the foundation why the project is denied. >> i see commissioner imperial has her hand up. >> >> commissioner theresa imperial: i think we have had discussion around the racial and socio equity as part of this and the filipino cultural community and the chest community as well and as far as the rear yard exposure and reduction of the wind current, those are findings that we don't find it

acceptable. given that this is a very small lot, around there is no proper information given to us in terms of wind information and also in terms of the cua for the additional base floor area ratio limit we do not find acceptable that the additional below market rate will not suffice as our deemed as affordable in regards to this neighborhood and that should be accounted for as far as the racial social equity. >> was that a motion, commissioner? you are welcome to make the motion. >> those are the reasons for the findings for the disapproval. >> vice-president kathrin moore: are there any additional comments, commissioner on your part? because there are

difficulties to the bernard project we are giving you bullet points without being fully able to formulate a full and mature motion. >> right. i'm understanding that these are just indicators of findings for disapproval. >> exactly. >> >> vice-president kathrin moore: i would add from my perspective that market rate sro's as a land use is incompatible given the exact location where we are. under any other circumstance, that this project would be interesting with minor tweaks, but because of the basic adjacent on both sides where we do not allow sro's, this is a project proposed for the wrong site.

>> so this is a motion to disapprove now, not a motion of intent? am i understanding it correctly? okay. the maker of the motion would need to say yes. >> yes. >> very good, commissioners. >> >>clerk: there is a motion to disapprove with the findings articulated by commissioners ruiz, imperial and moore. >> second. >> >> commissioner gabrielle ruiz: aye. >> commissioner sue diamond: no. >> commissioner theresa imperial: aye. >> commissioner joel koppel: no. >> vice-president kathrin moore: aye. that motion fails 3-2. >> now if there is no alternative motion to simply continue until you have a full commission, essentially it's a de facto of disapproval. >> i'm not hearing a motion to

continue. >> i will make that motion. i make the motion to continue until we have a full commission. >> the likelihood of the 29, would -- how about december 1st? >> that's fine. >> >> thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue to december 1st. >> commissioner gabrielle ruiz: no. >> commissioner sue diamond: aye. >> commissioner theresa imperial: no. >> commissioner joel koppel: aye. >> vice-president kathrin moore: no. >> that motion fails 2-3. >> i think that's all we can do.

>> commissioners, that will place us on item 13 for case no. 2021. 13. 2021-002738cua (j. horn: (628) 652-7366) 485 duncan street - southeast corner of noe street; lot 027b >> good afternoon, president moore, commissioners. the item before you is for a conditional use permit to allow for construction of a single family residence and new construction of a two family dwelling. the project site is located in the valley neighborhood in the southeast corner of duncan street. the parcels within the

immediate vicinity consist of residential single and two family dwellings of various design and construction dates and 2-3 story building of mixed architectural style. the project site is a corner lot with 80 feet frontage on duncan street and excess of 25% of the noise frontage and the rear lot contains one story garage single family dwelling that fronts on duncan street. due to the slope on duncan street, the portion of the adjacent street to the project is closed to vehicles. the proposal for the demolition of the existing 1124 square foot, one story garage, one story family dwelling and new construction of 1176 square foot

and the existing building on duncan street will be removed and the new building will be along with the new curb cut. due to the down sloping nature of the lot, the new building presents two stories at the new frontage with three lower floors being located beneath the street level. unit one is a 3313 square foot two bedroom dwelling that has access from noy street and the upper section of the upper level and garage providing 1 off street vehicle parking space and one class 1 bicycle parking space. unit two, 1413 square foot two bedroom unit with a separate entrance from duncan

street with the rear portion of the basement and the floor basement level. the project is compliant with the planning code and what's found to be consistent with the residential design guidelines. the project respects the 45% rear yard requirement and that the lower basement to level is a 136 projection that projects 12 feet into the required rear yard. the department and commissioners have received correspondences mainly to opposition to the project as well as support for the comments in total have received nine correspondences in support and opposition to the project and one mutual comment. the majority of these comments to duncan street and noy street immediate to the project and relative to neighborhood compatibility of the building design and massing and the addition of a dwelling unit to

the city's housing stock with the construction and as to how the height was calculated to the project and as to the planning code determines the height maximum for this project should there be any questions and had by the commissioners. overall the department finds the project to be on balance consistent with the objectives on policies of the general plan and the demolition of the existing dwelling unit and will provide additional dwelling to the city and will provide two family size multidwelling and the proposed building is consistent to compliment with the neighborhood character with the contextual and yet contemporary design and found to be necessary and compatible with the surrounding

neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons and adjacent properties to the vicinity. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> >> project sponsor, you have 10 minutes. >> >> thank you, commissioners. i will be here all week on behalf of the project sponsor. the project proposes the demolition of an existing 1124 square foot home and garage located on the duncan frontage of the property. proposes a new single at 1313 square feet and 1430 square feet. the project is

to make it more consistent with the planning code by combining the rear yard and more consistent with the development on noe street and maximum density allowed by zoning. >> thank you, john, my name is barbara and my husband and i own this property and we have lived in this neighborhood for 25 years and raised our kids here and we have owned this property and not planning to sell the house. we have done a lot of community outreach before we applied for a permit and this hearing. i would like to point out that all the immediate adjacent neighbors who would be mostly impacted by this project are highly supportive of it and for the additional unit and aesthetic improvements for safety. thank you all for listening. >> thank you, commissioner. the project will create two new units. you will see this

building as having to be built to the hill and a lot of that square footage is built into the hill and that's not really reflective of the true usable spaces of the unit and the other one 1400 square foot unit which is a great size for a family and code compliant and sits with the surrounding context. let's start with noe street that is two stories consistent with the partner on the block and the building is 22 feet tall from the curb and 8 feet five inches from its immediate neighbor and to be clear, the planning code directs the height measurement from the entire depth of the lot if there is any confusion about that. there is two story building on the block. from the rear and this really tells the story of the project. the project is barely distinguishable from its

neighbors along noe street. the rear pop out and deck match those of its neighbors and the rear deck matches its neighbor required by code and the roof # height is only eight 1/2 feet tall as you look at the current image. the building is being demolished and creating a 24 foot separation with that rear yard. no roof deck is proposed. it's a flat roof. i will mention based on this project, i understand there is exhaustion with construction on this block of duncan. it must be a very desirable block to live on with so many people interested in it. this is a future home. this is not something that is just here for investment. they are waiting to move into this house once it gets built. it's also important

for them too. that said, they will continue their outreach with the neighborhood and we have a construction management plan prepared, construction dust management plan to prepare. so rick will continue to work with their neighbors throughout this process. this is to demolish this home and consistent with the code compliant rear yard and down to the neighbor on duncan street with the additional dwelling on the site consistent with the policy and maximize allowable density. we respectfully request your support. thank you. >> very good. we should go to members of the public for public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you are here, please come forward. if you are on the phone, please press star 3.

public speaker: i have lived on duncan close to 86 when i moved there. there were seven people who lived there for decades prior to that. one of them was ms. doolittle who built that house in 1949. my other neighbor born on the street in 1908, told me that lot was the hill was the lot and some day they would build on it and that day i guess is now. can i have the overhead, please. i'm the neutral person. this is the street taken a picture from the front of my house on the sidewalk. there is ms. doolittle's house that is now owned by laura and her husband and this is the lot. i can understand why it's going to look so massive. it is massive. i'm glad the decks are solid. if it had been glass, it would be worse with all the glass on that

corner. it's a very prominent site. the thing about the lot is this is the front of the house is the rear of the house and the rear of the house is the front of the house and that's why the problem and the reason people are upset about it. i'm upset but i knew it was going to happen. i choose to believe that they will live there. i hope i am right. in 2014, you had dra o 358 which is a copy of it. you approved that house because the people said they were going to live there. as far as they said this is what they will do. i hope you get to talk about that. i don't know where this sidewalk is going to be with their property line. you saw the steps are there from the other side. i don't think we need that other set of stairs be we need something because all that green

is going away. thanks a lot. >> my name is ross camp. i actually live just down the hill from where the residents are looking to build this property. and i'm here to object to the proposed layout that they have suggested. and many of you have received e-mails and there is 12 in the objection of concerned residents at duncan street. it's not just me. 418 duncan objects, 425,

434, 435, 436, 438, 442, 448, 449, and 457 duncan objects. these are all of the objection that you have in your end box from e-mails that are concerned. they keep wanting to talk about this as the impact to knowing and they live on duncan all these other years because they seem to be overlooking. when we look up this very steep hill, we are going to see this ginormous billboard going up which is the current structure 1124 square feet with one of the units that is 3,000 square feet for a two bedroom? that's necessary? i'm all for more housing. but let's scale this back. they talked about extensive outreach to the community. i have never heard

from them until she found out i was not in favor of the project. neither do any of these other neighbors. none of us heard from them. my request would be at a minimum that you would kick this back and force a conversation between the residents. >> seeing there are no other members wishing to speak. that is your line is unmuted then you may begin speaking. public speaker: hello, my name is john, i live at duncan street born and raised in san francisco. i oppose this project. this building is massive and will tower over the block. it does not follow the local topography and violates the rbg. the structure on the north space

is 33.80 feet above grade at its rear facade. the status should be performed to the proposed structure that tall. i dispute the project sponsor an assertion with the application and would not be impacted by this proposed structure. the sidewalk on noe street is a popular destination and this infrastructure will reduce the significantly panoramic sidewalk. this is not in the public interest. the two units are highly asymmetric and less than 50% of the larger units. i live in a four bedroom home 2,000 square foot home. the building should be reduced in height as well as depth to better fit the

neighborhood. it is a travesty to build a new house like this. we need more homes. thank you. >> public speaker: hello, my name is george. i also live on duncan street in the middle of the block down the hill from this proposed structure. i'm also looking for this proposed structure at 85 duncan street. the project and the other example of an over sized home that is being built here in our neighborhood, especially on this block and it's worse that it's at the top of the hill which collapse the downhill and looks like this massive over size box like structure that doesn't fit into the neighborhood. i have concerns. the height of

the building is too high and as you measure it from duncan street where they do it because that's where the impact is and you will probably see this building is probably larger than 40 feet high which will exceed the legal limit for this neighborhood. secondly, the cost could be significant because it's at the top of the hill and will cause shadows on the downhill property. >> and the door that may impact

other properties and cause flooding and causing of drainages with old water pipes and should be environmental impact study to make sure that this is being controlled property. >> thank you, sir. your time is up. >> >> public speaker: hi. when you consider it, it's not that bad but it's really big. i'm hoping

we can actually see the true height of this. i'm very concerned about the percentage of the rear yard because we are losing a bunch of open space and it doesn't look like it's following guidelines. so yeah, i think it's way too tall and too high and completely over bearing. thank you. >> hello, good afternoon commissioners. my name is andy' greenberg calling to express my support to the project for this project. the proposed building will be a welcome improvement to the neighborhood. it has a pleasing aesthetic and will add an additional unit to the housing market in san francisco. the proposed development is effective and great to the aesthetic to the house on the

lot. the new construction will also add safety features to the neighborhood as the upper portion of the lot is often used for illegal activity currently like drug use, drinking and other things. having the construction there, the finished construction will eliminate these problems. thank you for your consideration. >> hello, i hope everyone is having a great day. my name is hilary and i'm an adjacent neighbor and would like to express my support for this project. i'm excited for their home and also speaking on behalf of my partner who is supportive of this project. i just wanted to layout three reasons that we are really supportive of this. the first is, it increases

housing stock and they are adding an additional unit which is what we need in this city and the aesthetics to the building and they are beautiful and would be a substantial improvement to what they are doing currently and finally will increase public safety. there have been a number of people coming down our dead-end stealing packages and using this as an escape route. i hope the plans as approved are submitted. thank you so much. >> hello, am i on? i'm in

support of this project. there is a view as i mentioned from n noe street over duncan. i would much have a building than a patch that is there now and i believe it is true that it's a family situation. i have to admit that two bedrooms in a 3300 square foot is a little big, but i think they have a right to build and they are adding a unit. thank you very much. >> last call for public comment. press star 3 to move forward. seeing no others to speak, this item is closed. i take it back, there is one last requester. two more.

>> go ahead, caller. >> hi, i'm the neighbor in noe valley for 20 years. i have reviewed the project. i'm actually a design professional engineer and i understand the plan and construction method. this project is not an extraordinary project that require some kind of excavation and foundation that we have not seen all over the city. i commend the project sponsor for coming to the city because it is to scale and that doesn't mean it is over developed. i want to also express that the public is not protected. in fact the way the project is rear ending the

frontage back to noe street makes the corner much more uniform and secure for the neighborhood and honestly you can walk five feet over and still enjoy the panoramic view. i'm in full support of this project. thank you so much. >> hi. i have lived in the neighborhood since 1980 and i walk almost daily to whole foods and by this place. i know the vista is lovely but also really disgusting now and i have seen two homeless people climb out of there and i have seen multiple drug deals go down. it's a mess there and would really be nice to see this develop and there are two great houses there from

the city of san francisco. we walk past there all the time and you will still be able to see that view and they have been working really hard on this piece of property for a while, and that they are from san francisco. i know they are very dedicated to the neighborhood and wanted to make this thing work for everyone. i think it looks like a beautiful place. so i'm in big support of this. >> final last call for public comment. seeing no others wishing to speak public comment is closed. the item is now before you.

i apologize, commissioners, they have two additional late requests to speak. should we take those callers? >> please. >> go ahead caller. when you hear the line is unmuted, that is your queue to begin speaking. >> we'll try the other caller. public speaker: my name is jean hearten. may i speak? >> yes. >> okay. i live at 449 duncan. hello, the name is jean hearten.

i submitted a letter early on. >> you need to turn the volume off your computer. that's what is causing the delay. >> >> my name is jean hearten, i live at 449 duncan. i submitted letters to the commissioners, however i have an additional comment. in looking at the conditional use authorization information on the planning side, it's obvious that references made solely to what's happening on noe street, and it seems incomprehensible that the code doesn't allow for only one type of project to be considered for purposes of compliance and design guidelines. and it's obvious

that if you look at the duncan street side, that it does not comply to code in terms of respecting topography. it's going to require except the excavation. the face of the project on duncan doesn't comply with these guidelines either. so in paying attention solely to noe street, i don't think that adequate attention has been given to the project overall. thank you. >> okay, caller, i have unmuted you for the second time.

>> okay. that might conclude the public comment portion of this hearing. >> >> i have a question. >> i received an email from ms. -- asking about the corner of duncan street turn from noe. that is difficult to describe from the drawing. if you can explain that. >> sure, i may do a hand off after introducing the procedural matter for the planning department's review for the private lots of the property. the plans before you do show

improvements that are proposed to be made to duncan street. there is that sidewalk. currently there is kind of over growth that extends over the property line. the street has been vacated on the far side there is the encroachment of stairs, wooden planter boxes that are done by the owner of these buildings and the project plans seems to be similar which create a planter and not retain a fully flat for connection with the property line with the public right-of-way. if the sponsor has any comments on the methods and means and plans for that, i would invite them to speak. >> thank you.

>> sf govtv, can i get to the computer please. this sidewalk has been pretty important because it's in bad shape. what we are proposing is the concrete planters that would be in the public right-of-way that would be in the encroachment process for sf dpw and there will be some cut back for over growth obviously which can take place at the same time on the property. that's what's been proposed from the beginning. >> this is basically a steep sidewalk with proper scoring or small steps to get you up duncan

street down to noe, is that correct? >> i don't want to speak to how comfortable it is to wall up # -- walk up these steps. there is steps, yes. >> >> on the other side of the closed off street there are actual steps and that is more appropriate walk up the hill. >> that's the question of grading and how to do it but this is nothing unusual. thank you for explaining that. this is not to be used by cars in this particular block. thank you. very important question for me to understand the project. i have one other question. my understanding is that there is a street from which you take the address is in deed the street and if this project is primarily

a noe street. >> the planning code provides provision for lot situations for a sponsor to request determining which side of the lot they would like to be considered the frontage. with the demolition of the building, this is not a square lot, it is rectangular with a shorter depth and 28 feet and on the left of duncan street which is oriented more typically with the width being the frontage. this project is actually bringing the lot into conformance with the rest of the homes that exist onto noe street. with that rear height measuring height from the center of the lot at the noe frontage.

>> thank you for the explanation. >> i will have my other commissioners say something here. >> another question for you, mr. horn. this is actually expressed in terms of the height. as i'm looking at the height it says it's in compliant in terms of height in bulk and i'm trying to understand that in the drawings. the total measurement of the building of the height, can you give us the measurement of the height of the building is and also how is that in connect in the duncan street? >> thank you, jeff, planning staff. to continue the conversations in front of the building the height of the beginning of the line of the lot, the planning code has

special provisions for down sloping lots especially this one for finding 60 of the motion, but so the project is within the rh 2 zoning district which has a typical height limit of the frontage upfront with a height limit of 40 feet of a required setback. when a lot has a rear property line, 20 feet below the elevation of the front property line, the cap for a maximum height is restricted of 35 feet throughout the entirety of the lot or the buildable area of the lot. so measuring from the height for this building, it reaches a maximum of the 20 feet for the remaining of the flat roof and towards the rear of the building that flares up to 28 feet. which is from the planning code we see as the maximum height for this lot. >> you would account at the

second basement or third basement, is that what i am hearing? >> from the curb level to the front of the building, the height does not reduce what is the down sloping and from the planning code enacted to acknowledge from the property of the lot is to have a height cap of the building, but there is no tearing down requirement of the code. okay, i think i'm getting it. i think as i'm reading through the e-mails and also from the vantage point, it does look like it is and from the address onto duncan, i understand the project sponsor is trying to reorient the building on this, and looking at this steepness of this hill. so that's kind of my

concern as well in terms of the height in bulk. so trying to understand as well on that. thank you, mr. horn. in other aspect of this to i find this difficult because it is code compliant but at the same time i'm looking at the size of the unit that 3130 square feet i do find it quite large. >> >> can you say something to that? >> the large building, that includes the garage.

when we exclude that it's 2545. >> this thick line is the separation of the lower level unit. this is included in that 2655. it's storage, laundry, it's mechanical equipment. so you remove the garage, you are down to 2655 and you remove this, i don't know the square footage. we are below 2655. if we go now to the

upper two floors of the plans. this is the street level plan. we have one living room combined with the dining and kitchen area. so this is the one main living space shared living space, and then we go to the second floor and what you will see is we have a master bedroom, another bedroom and office. ultimately 2313 is the total floor area. we are not at 3313, it's a relatively normal size two bedroom unit. >> i wish i can see the livable space because sometimes the architect will put the livable space square footage and something that if you are trying to argue that this is relatively average size, then perhaps, i would like to see the livable space. >> the livable space 2655.

>> the lower level is 400, you are at 2255 of true livable space in this unit. >> and the second, the upper unit, that's about 1413 square foot? >> the secondary unit? that is 1400 square feet, but if you want to get to livable area, we are down to 1228 square foot. >> thank you for that. >> thank you. >> going back to your previous question about addressing. the department of building inspection is responsible for identifying addressing especially new buildings. they have an entire information sheet on how addressing works. you have to request it from them. it's only after the permit to the construction is issued. the exact is a maintained now from

the project. it's not up to us or the project sponsor but dbi's determination. >> vice-president kathrin moore: the post office determines this. >> if anyone wants to know how that is done. >> this is project code compliant and i want to make a motion to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. there is a motion to approve this with conditions. >> [roll call] >> so moved. commissioners, that item passes 5-0. >> commissioners, for you and members of the public, we have just received an email indicating that the

discretionary review request for project sponsor 445 liberty street have reached an agreement and the requester is withdrawing their dr. we are down one case. >> i appreciate that. thank you very much. >> commissioner now we will move on to item 14. >> 14. 2020-006679crv (l. hoagland: (628) 652-7320) 1196 columbus avenue/2568 and 2588 jones street - north side of columbus avenue, >> excuse me. can we take >> >>clerk: welcome back to the san francisco planning commission

hybrid hearing for september 15, 2022. we are at item 14. >> 14. 2020-006679crv (l. hoagland: (628) 652-7320) 1196 columbus avenue/2568 and 2588 jones street - north side this is a request to adopt findings. >> good afternoon chair moore and commissioners. i'm with planning. a quick housekeeping item, we have just handed out two packets for you. one is my best knowledge of autumn of the public comment received to date under the management of this.

a couple members of the public asked that i make sure we include all comments. the project before you is 1196 columbus avenue and jones within the bay street neighborhood. the project would demolish the existing vacant commercial one story building and construct a six story 65 foot tall residential building with a maximum height of 74 feet. with a total of 56 group housing rooms. the project includes 56 class 1 and 4 class 2 parking spaces which is four times the amount required by the planning code for class one and two times the amount required for class 2. the project requires no off street

parking and no loading and includes laundry facilities and ground floor community room about 750 square foot. it does have a full kitchen. and there is common open space at grade and there is another area on the sixth floor. there are 46 units, nine are under the space on the requirement code. it requests two waivers, one for height and the second one for rear yard and not including any concessions pursuant to law. it would permit a density bonus project of 22% of the number of units and this is a lot that regulates

residential density permitted per lot area. with ten additional units at the inclusionary rate of 58% and two units at the 110 ami level that is low moderate and middle respectively. in addition to those 10 amr units include the balance of the total units of affordable package at 30% that is to be approximately $335,000. regarding environmental analysis pursuant to ceqa the mitigated negative declaration was issued this year. there is a signed mitigation monitoring and reporting program otherwise known as the mrp included as your sole attachment a in your packet.

onto the public comment and outreach and in the meeting in january 2021, the project sponsor conducted an in person meeting and on site visit with the option for of a virtual attendance. and there are 15 letters in opposition with 79 signatures opposing the project and loss of view and construction related impacts related to the project. based on feedback this week, the project sponsor has agreed to install

kitchen units. that language is now before you. it's the second paragraph that i can read into the record if you would like. it is prior to the hearing september 15, 2022, the project sponsor modified the project such that all 56 group housing rooms will provide additional cooking facilities to include a two burner stove and under counter refrigerator and microwave oven. this project is found to be balanced and general consistent plan. we very much support this and will add 56 group housing rooms and well designed project and we look for your support. i will be available for questions during your deliberations. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, you have five minutes. >> good afternoon commissioners. great to see you again. this is about 56 unit housing residential building that should

be noted are apartments and not condominiums. with three street fronts, the year yard is the courtyard that spans the rest of the block to bay street and ground floor at jones and columbus. the building features a ground floor with community uses, two residential units in the rear yard, four floors and 11 units and top floor with ten units. the building was designed to be sensitive to context with articulated massing to break down the scale to be more compatible with the neighbors. it's a very strange trapezoidal

site that makes it very difficult to develop and some outdoor rear yard space. so you can see that in this illustration with the green area is the outdoor space, the rear yard, and it's adjacent to the mid-block open space of the north beach apartments purposefully aligned in that location. the sidewalks will be landscaped. the sidewalk will be widened on jones as well as a bulb out on bay street. as mr. foster mentioned, the overall building height is 60 feet from columbus avenue and 65 feet from bay street. these are the floor plans. the first floor plan on the left you

can see from the rear yard and along bay street. the large community room on the corner of jones and bay in the upper left corner and we have to have a fairly large transformer room because we can't put it in the sidewalk in this location. the middle plan is second through fifth floor and the plan on the right is the sixth floor and you can see the chunk taken out at the corner of jones and columbus. so at the hearing july 28th, the project was continued as we were asked to meet with the neighbors of north beach place. so we did reach out and made a good faith effort and did a sidewalk with

the neighbors and had a zoom meeting. the topics that came up at that meeting was about the height of the building, a couple of property line windows, the location of the rear yard, the neighbors didn't want the rear yard adjacent to their courtyard and suggested putting the rear yard on the corner which we indicated the planning code would not allow. they were concerned about the impact of the use of the rear yard on their space. they had a number of concerns about blocking views from the number of units at 1150 columbus and expressed concern about not having any on-site parking. the shadow was a specific concern of shadowing into their courtyard and especially because there is a climbing head start children's play area in the courtyard and i will show you that and the quality of air and noise during

construction. this is a study we put together. basically there will be no additional shadow on the play area. so that's important and for most of the day until 3:00 in the afternoon, there is no shadow at all and after that time for about half a year from the beginning of march until about september, there is some additional shading into the courtyard. so, in summary the project utilizes the density bonus and it increases more than ten because only five units would fit under the zoning cap and we are adding 20 units and the affordable units increase from 10 plus two extra units and i will close with that. >> thank you.

>> members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you are in the chambers, please come forward. lineup on the screen seed of the room. -- side of the room. if you are on the phone, please press star 3. you will each have two minutes.

>> >> public speaker: thank you, commissioners for the opportunity to introduce our community. my name is chris stars and i live at north beach apartments adjacent to the housing project. north beach is a low-income housing community of chinese, black, hispanic, muslim, lgbtq, working families with school aged children, new americans, seniors, disabled and retired adults. this is a diagram of our building at north beach place.

>> this is a diagram of our building at north beach place and this is the 1300 square foot rear yard and barbecue island for the occupants and their guest to congregate. the red lines depict the living room and windows of our residents. the black shape is the 65 foot con cave building with 33 windows looking down on us. you can see the configuration is a acoustically similar. the rear yard and the wall bounces to the acoustic to our apartment windows. some seniors residences

are 14 inches from the yard. the height of the building will change the weather and temperature of the complex by blocking the afternoon soon that warms our apartment saving on electricity and at the same time, it blocks the predictable and steady breeze that event let's our home. this is our home. it is 17 years in the making and there is a combined history here. >> that is your time. public speaker: [speaking

foreign language]

>> i'm the interpreter. >> interpreter: hello, everyone. i'm the resident of the community tenant association. it has over 2800 members. most of our members are low-income seniors. we also have many members living in sro units. our mission is to defend the rights of no low-income tenants throughout san francisco and to preserve more affordable housing. recently we learned about the proposal of reconstruction of 1196 columbus avenue to restore this building with 56 housing units within the building. each unit can occupy three people at most.

>> the units are transitional housing and also the tennant units require a minimum of 55% ami. as such, we can see that this proposal is not beneficial at low-income families and workers in a community. cta is opposed to the proposed project at 1196 columbus avenue. san francisco has enough housing. we don't need more affordable housing. we want the planning commission to face the community needs and changed the proposed

project for affordable housing for more vulnerable low-income families, workers and seniors in the community. thank you. >> >> public speaker: thank you, my name is mark bruno. i want to say that i find it quite remarkable and hopefully i won't personalize this too much but find it trivializing for architects to suggest what the objections are have to do with views. this is not what this is about. your employees, mr. foster miss spoke when he said there was a public outreach in february 2021 and august of 2020 and august 22nd, they met with the adjacent residents without

mentioning the year. the year was this year. do you realize that these people and the developers and architects have been working on this for three 1/2 years, but the first outreach was less that a months ago. the school which is part of the complex is called -- they teach people from age 4-11. you have this in your package. three schools wrote to you even though it is immediately adjacent to the development within 20 feet. our teachers and families have not received any notices and no community meetings and no outreach and no notice. the point of notice is to help

individuals most affected by the project and find in neighborhoods and this project suffers. finally i want to give you this -- it basically shows, we have a stake in this project and we deserve to be heard. thank you.

>> >> public speaker: we have to stop meeting like this. i'm asking again that you consider the design to buildup this building. it's not right. it's going to cutoff our air. we hardly have air. the people that are going to be on that wall, we are going to be blocked out. it doesn't matter what this man says, we are not going to have light. this is not affordable. we are low-income seniors, children, retired people. we all work very hard to be

there. we pay very little money but we also make a lot, we worked our whole lives. this is it for us. we are not going anywhere else. they get to look down on us with their very expensive dorms. this is not right and you know it. all i'm saying make this so everybody is included, not just them, everybody. that's all i'm asking. that's all i ever ask. you have seen it and looked at it and you know what the place looks like. you know my place is right next to it. figure it out. be kind to us. you are going to get old some day. you will see.

public speaker: thank you commissioners for hearing our dilemmas. please put yourselves in our shoes. we don't agree with this building. as you know there is a crisis of affordable housing for low-income families and seniors. these units are built for people that can afford rent anywhere. they can afford rent that they can go anything where in the city and they can rent it. we could not. these rentals are going to disturb not only the peace and quiet but they are going to disturb the views and the air

and the children that they already are there in the community. the property management will not have control over them because these are kind of like short-term rentals that once they make certain noise, by the time we've made the complaint, they are gone, new ones come in. also they are planning to make racks for bikes and people in the units are going for walks and i'm afraid they are going to be hit with bicycles that they are going to provide for tenants. they are taking everything away from us. they are not playing fair. they are liars because we didn't have time to prepare. they have

better education than us, but yes, but we are here saying put yourselves in our shoes. like the lady says one day you are going to be old and you are going to see this time that we are begging you guys to do that. >> thank you ma'am. your time is up. public speaker: hi, my name is susannah on behalf of the team. we would like to address our concern about the health issues for the young children when they play outdoor which are dust and noise levels during the demolition. please consider this matter for our young children. thank you.

public speaker: good afternoon commissioners. mr. hayes. we want to be clear. we are in favor of affordable housing on this site, but we are concerned that this over larged group housing building will be right next door to the most vulnerable in north beach residents and children in the center. we support the letter from teresa, and in favor of the conditions she recommends. should you decide to do this project, we ask that you require conditions in the letter and the following. you can see those on page 2 of the handout if you have it. first, prohibit short-term rentals, two, shield neighbors

from noise and other impacts from gatherings in the rear yard perhaps noise and sound proofing walls and prohibiting smoking and from fire grills and no construction earlier than 8:00 a.m., not on weekends and accommodate the programs. also distribution of hepa filters and mitigate the mass that would block air and ventilation and sunlight and mitigate the sound perhaps in consolidation and enclosure. please include these. thank you very much.

public speaker: good afternoon. a resident of north beach. the adjacent neighbor to the site in any part of the process removing rather than enhancing, giving to this community. this is really painful. for me to think of how this will affect the existing residents and living across from

this building. we know these are just rooms. this is not about the housing community need which is family housing. we have tons of sro's, we have hotels across the street on bay. we have so many families crammed into the sro's because it is the only affordable housing and we are not building affordable family housing in north beach with so little space to build. this project is wrong. this project will do harm, and i'm asking you to not adopt the findings because if you actually look at all of those general plan objectives, it's quite contrary to what the reality of this will be. it's impact on not only this immediate community, but our larger community in north beach.

so please, please just deny the project and let's get some real housing that really meets our needs in north beach, chinatown and fisherman's wharf. thank you. >> public speaker: hello, commissioners. thank you very much for your time. my mom lives in this house are in north beach place. i would like to be an advocate for my mom and the disabled and senior community. this building will change the weather temperature within the complex by blocking the afternoon sun that warms our apartment and will also block

the breeze. all windows on one side of each unit during the construction, all windows will be forcing to have them locked. we have lots of medical care professionals who visit our unit as well as guest who are required to keep our spaces open and we will be forced to keep them closed which is a huge detriment to the health of our community. this is our home in 17 years of making. there is a combined history here before we came here. we all came here with terrible tasks from racist hoophobia and have kept us from realizing our dream and we have violence and

wars and holocaust and veterans of wars and there is so much trauma for those with english as a second language and some even fear authority because they know what they are racing from and trying to escape from. there are residents on oxygen, in wheelchairs, many use walkers and canes, there is residents with cancer. thank you very much. please deny this project. thank you very much. >> >> last call for public comment. seeing no additional requests

speakers, we have no callers wishing to speak. >> >> vice-president kathrin moore: commissioner ruiz? >> commissioner gabrielle ruiz: i am still thinking and i want to acknowledge that a letter was sent this morning by a planner of the opposition letter from eta and i want to say that no, it is not a position letter from the organization itself. i would assume we don't have a position and i was not aware that my colleague was involved. so i don't believe it will impact my vote today. >>

commissioner imperial? >> commissioner theresa imperial: thank you. we received a lot of e-mails and letters from the nearby building and in their e-mails write extensively about how it may affect their access to light and also air. would perhaps mr. foster, can you describe how much it would impact the access to the light and air to the adjacent property? >> sure. thank you for the question. nick foster, planning staff. we are not dealing with a promulgation case and not subject to the planning code and there are no shadow findings before you. outside of the c 3 zoning district section of the planning code per ceqa analyze public open spaces and parks and so

forth and for purposes of ceqa we are also not dealing with that. we are analyzing shadow findings and taking project sponsors, shadow graphics and evaluating where the actual shadow may or may not be. the only other tangible metric i can think of is the san francisco school district does have a school on the site and may be sensitive sites. we at the department have a policy for purposes of ceqa analyzing what the shadow may be on that part. it was not on the list. my review and my analysis of the shadow of the graphics, basically paints a picture where the majority of in the actual

shadow impacts is on the low winter sun at the later part of the day when no children will be utilizing the playground we are talking about 530-730 p.m. i know my kids are home by then. i think it's 1150 columbus. that property is casting the most shadow on the property itself during the position with the sun angle because it's right in front of it at the high noon. so when the sun comes around from the morning and cast its shadow and comes around from the east, south to the west and eventually the northwest especially late summertime is only that portion. in terms of impacts on the building mass, i would argue actually the u shape configuration steps back. if you flipped the open space and put

it on the corner as suggested by some commenters, by that very nature you are going to have close to the property line which will cast an additional shadow and we think it's a good u shape inclusive of the shadow being pulled back. in terms of the air quality, i can speak to some of the required mitigation measures and that the does include tier four equipment required that is basically the most environmentally sound and absolutely baked in the mitigation measure. plus there are building code controls their including the building code section 106a 32.6 which is the governing body construction dust control. there is the compliance with article 7 of the san francisco code of water to be

used to be reclaimed water and construction dust control ordinance which is article 22b of the san francisco health code. so those are the construction impacts, shadow impacts to light and air by pulling away from the center courtyard and matching open space and matching accordingly to the two adjacents, the project does a good job. >> thank you for that explanation. i do have a question to the project sponsor. are you aware of some of the comments in terms of the noise or in terms of the -- i just received this in our e-mails to requiring such measures, noise curfew, sound proofing wall, prohibiting smoke, fire pits. have those

been discussed during your outreach meetings with the neighborhood, and what are your comments on those? >> sure. thank you. i do want to back up and say that the preapplication meeting we did mail to everybody. >>clerk: excuse me. you all are out of order. >> this has been a difficult process. in terms of some of the issues that you mentioned commissioner imperial, of course the building has to meet serna acoustic requirements under the building code which we will obviously meet. we have spoken with the owner and there will be no smoking in the building. there will be a barbecue pit in there. it will not be charcoal but electric or gas. there is a curfew time in the courtyard and

relative to what mr. foster is saying, if the building was designed to what the neighbors were requesting, it would provide a six story wall right on their property line rather than open space to allow air to the flow and light to come into the space. i know they don't believe that. these are physical facts to the way the sun moves. they can think i am lying, but i am not lying. >> then there is also distribution hepa air purifiers and other filtration equipment. i just want you to be aware of the asks. >> this is new information to us. i'm not sure i will be able to get through this.

when stan, mr. hayes read the letter, that was the first we heard of those particular asks. okay. the letter was to the planning department two days ago. this was the first we heard about it. i can speak to the owner about that. our building will meet the current code, etc. it's something that could be done but we haven't been asked it. >> there is a request to include condensers on the roof and enclosures. >> we do have solar panels on

the roof and there are small condensers that can fit under the solar panels and they sit on the roof and certainly won't be seen from anywhere. given san francisco weather, i don't think we are going to have a lot of air-conditioning use given its location, but even so, yes, i know there is going to be climate change and we'll probably use more, but they are i believe successfully hidden in the middle of the roof. >> i think the comment is about the sound. >> we will find the lowest an acoustic for the sound. we do have to have them somewhere.

>> it also should be noted as an all electric building. it is an incredibly efficient way, environmentally sensitive way to cool and heat the building. there will be no gas in the building. that should be noted as well. and we will have the solar panels on the roof to provide additional power. >> thank you for the information. those are my comments for now. >> commissioner, if i might provide more answers around shadow. we have a different standard here in terms of whether there are objective standards in the code and as it relates to shadow, there are no objective standards. that is a really important distinction and impact to understanding shadow

and concerns to the density and bonus project. i want to clarify the standards related to shadow. the second point that a member brought up around short-term rentals. the city has a short-term rental ordinance and pretty stringent ordinance as it relates to housing and the understanding that the owner has to live in the unit the vast majority of the year in order to rent out a couple months of the year if they are a short-term rental. the concern about this being a short-term and airbnb, this is not allowed. i would be happy to provide more answers. >> it can be rented for 30 days? >> i can give you some specifics

on that but most importantly, a building of this size would have to come to this commission. there is an inherent checks and balance there to come before you if the sponsor decided to make any of these units ilo's. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> vice-president kathrin moore: thank you. it would be great if you can refrain from having conversations on the floor. we are trying to do our best. thank you for keeping your expressions to a minimum. public speaker: i remember hearing about a project to this address and it was a hotel and what i remember from the neighborhood is we want housing. and we want affordable housing. and we want affordable housing.

there is ten units of 55% ame. i wasn't speaking when you were speaking. can you please do the same for me? >> so there is housing there and very low affordable housing on this site. i'm not sure but maybe the city attorney can clarify if this is housing eligibility act. >> deputy city attorney responding to the commissioner. my understanding is this this is a code compliant project and state density bonus project. as a result you have to make the required of health and safety finding if you are going to lower the density or deny this project.

>> so i'm in support. >> vice-president kathrin moore: commissioner imperial. >> you can go first and then i will go after you. >> vice-president kathrin moore: i understand that this project is surrounded by intense emotions. this project is the third time for me. that said, we all rolled up our sleeves in the past to really keep this project within the reasonable limit of adjacent that will be difficult to achieve. no such place is an example of what we should be doing in other parts of the city. however north beach place can't be an island and there will be challenges no matter where. it can be across the street and anywhere. we are trying to understand how we can

best minimize any conflict that are arising and appreciate very much that you all came to speak exactly to what's bothering you. it's kind of putting your hand on an open wound because this was really where the dividing line is. there is a lot to fight for, but there is also something to be gained. this project in a physical appearance is a project that i can support. there are details in this project we have questions. i'm going to be asking our applicant, mr. pearlman to answer the question for me. the commissioner brought up the issue of hvac equipment. i have not seen hvac equipment hidden

under the solar panels. why does this project not have more concentrated equipment in one part of the roof. there must be reasons for that. >> the condenser for the heat pumps on this are approximately 14 inches by 30 inches, and about 18-19 inches tall. this is a very small compact piece, the condenser that sits on the roof. we can sit those fairly close together and with the slope of the solar panels we can group them underneath which will be better for the condensers as well. so, to get 56 of those or 57 of those, is not that challenging in terms of location, filling up space on the roof. it doesn't take up a lot of space.

>> do you have experience with equipment for other projects when we know there are 56 of them that they are not collectively creating a hum, that is? >> yes, these meet the code for an acoustic performance, but i'm not an acoustic engineer. >> do you think that would be better with a combined structure? >> that would be better than having six feet off the roof and very large footprint like an office building. >> thanks for that answer.

>> have you thought about the challenge of giving the open space of this enclosure. a wall is difficult because if you are talking about open space as a way to potentially an acoustically shield the yard. >> the major wall that faces into the courtyard which would be a wall facing east, we can have trellises on that wall and grow plants as far as we could, a couple of stories or two so conversations in the yard could be muffled. there are small trees in there as well. as far as the potential, as we do a rain screen style wall so there

is separation from the material fortunately solid wall with some spaces in between so that would also be able to slightly breakup some of the sound. >> can you explain the situation on smoking, can we ensure there is no smoking on the patio as well? >> yes, the owner has said that in the manual for people who live there, that no smoking would be allowed on-site. other than that enforce, obviously someone might smoke on site, but the building will be a non-smoking building. so there will be no smoking in the rear yard or in the building. >> thank you for explaining that. there is no smoking where i live but rarely someone doesn't obey and that becomes a

matter of more mutual enforcement. >> about no noise before 8:00 a.m. the applicant will speak about it. >> mr. cassidy is the project owner. public speaker: hi, i have been building for 45 years. this happened on broadway and venice. this is normal working hours

7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. no work on sundays. you are going to go to more months. this was supposed to be built on 18 months and could be more months. that's what happened on broadway. >> are you anticipating that you would be doing work on sunday as well? >> no work on sunday. >> just monday through friday? >> no, mondays, sometimes saturday when it's interior. >> okay, this is very important. i was literally two feet away from the project site and people that come to the site get up and 4:00 to drive to work. at least i learned from that that i may feel comfortable that if they start at 8:00 or