1.3.1 and 3.2 they are addressing the broader inclusionary but this just focuses on tiers. >> changing to inclusionary tiers and their requirements. >> that is fine. >> i think that would be better. >> change it again ms. tong. >> feel i'm in a classroom. >> alright. so, the suggesting and staff maybe we should read our changes back into the record because it is pretty significant moment we are in and making changes on the fly and then we could have a motion to make the changes or should the changes be read? >> i think they should be read into the record and motion made to reflect those amendments that were read into the record.

>> great. >> could you read them slowly? i printed them out because i came in as powerpoint and want to make sure i catch everything you are saying. >> certainly. you want me to read it or staff read it? >> i'm sorry. >> we can read it. so, for 1.1.2 we decided we will not change this one. we can move on. 1.2.6 we add affordable. the city will target 500-2,000 affordable units in the rhna planning period and

revisit strategies as appropriate. 1.3.3, it will now say, assess inclusionary tiers to address financial feasibility to of housing development to increase (inaudible) housing project inclusionary requirements do fot impede or undermine state density law and reduce staff time and need for specific expertise. changes to inclusionary tiers should improve or maintain average affordability of inclusionary housing units. changes to inclusionary tiers and requiremented retain or expand the percent age of units required including with consideration to rents purchase prices and hoa fees. we decided we are not changing

7.1.1. and for 8.1.5 we are revising the last bullet to say shall consider community engagement in alignment with implementing program area 4.2 and areas that may be disproportionately impacted with displacement risk beyond priority equity geography. 8.1.6, will say in alignment with provisions and purpose of the housing crisis act of 2019 government code 66300 any city adopted rezoning or development control shall not impose to constraints to developmentf of (inaudible) a new governmental constraint is city imposed requirement including but not

limited to process fees or design that increases the cost of development not in effect january 31, 2023. requirement adopted to specifically protect against a threat to health or safety. and this is last one, 8.1.10. the second bullet we are changing to increase the land banking strategy to accommodate 50 percent more affordable housing units then the capacity of the site acquired from 2022-2026. >> thank you staff. >> thank you very much for tracking all that. >> commissioner koppel. >> thank you to everyone involved. especially our little dream team of

instantly getting our edits up on a presentable format. great job everybody. i got 3 decision to make. i can make them in one motion though? let's do this, i move to adopt ceqa findings, mmrp and general plan consistency findings, also approve the recommendation to adopt housing element 2022 update and amendment to the general plan. as amended. >> one very small correction to the last one that we were looking at. if we could get sfgovtv to put screen up again. so, it says by january 2026 the interagency housing element

implementing committee and at the end it says the period that are looking at is sites acquired from 2022 to 2026 implying it would go through 2026 so do we want to say to beginning of 2026 or through 2025? a period that allow a committee meeting in early 2026 to be responding to the right period of time is what we are trying to correct. >> i don't know the answer to the question but i think the answer is yes. [laughter] >> can you clarify your question is for the interagency housing element implementing committee shall meet january 2025? >> i think suggesting just the change made in the last bullet. to change the time period they are looking at to be through 2025. and

therefore they meet in 2026 and look at what happened over the preceding 4 years. >> that is sensible. >> understood. >> i think that is what commissioner koppel meant when he ampd mended rchlt >> hundred percent. three, approve the initiation to make further amendments to the general plan. >> second. >> if no further deliberation, i think we landed on a motion that would adopt ceqa findings and mitigation monitoring and reporting program, adopt a resolution adopting the housing element 2022 update as amended and read into the record by staff and conforming general plan amendments. and then initiating possible amendments in the future. on that

motion- >> before we vote, i want to-before we vote because i want to recognize staff that have put in many cases years into this effort. miriam is online because she is sick today and has a broken leg and kind of got to this point where we are at but james and malena who have been there from beginning (inaudible) not here but started this effort, josh and lisa chin from our city wide division, wade, nep, deborah and liz white, reanna and liz (inaudible) (inaudible) who is not here and shelly (inaudible) and our wonderful city attorney andrea and audrey. >> let's break protocol and give everyone a round of

applause. [applause] >> any other comments? >> no. >> (inaudible) >> on the motion- [roll call] >> so moved commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. congratulations aeb everyone. [applause] >> this will place under the discretionary review calendar forim 9, case 2022-003765drp. for property at 110 32 avenue. discretionary review that close out the 2022 hearing schedule. >> good evening. david winslow. the

item is public request for discretionary review. to construct third story horizontal addition to 3 story single family dwelling. the dr requester-sanford gar finkal the adjacent neighbor to the north is concerned the proposal will significantly impact light and privacy. the pr posed alternatives are separate the west facing roof deck from northeast facing area with short wall or parapet attached. to condition the northeast portion of the roof as on ocpayable roof deck. three, elil name doors to this portion of the roof and four use glass on the lower floor new windows.

the department has received no letters in support or in opposition to this proposal. staff confirms support for this as it not only complies with the planning code but also residential design guideline articulate building to minimize impact to light and air. the project propose s a 200 square foot rear extension to third story setback 8 feet 4 inches from the property line over existing roof deck. the remaining portion of the northeast roof deck at third floor is minimally visible by proposed addition. new guardraid proposed to be glass with distance between the edge of the deck and rear wall of the requester being approximately 20 feet. adequate to insure access to light. and the deck location and distance do not also seem to pose undo burden therefore staff recommend not taking discretionary review and approving. thank

you. >> thank you. >> dr reest requester. >> thank you commissioners for the opportunity to listen to my request for discretionary review. my name is sandy garfinkal and been in my residents for 49 years, and my connection rear yard connects to the applicants, so the back of my house, my bedroom kitchen dining room is 20-my windows are 20 feet from the north elevation of their house. talking about 3 windows, but

to get in perspective, what i'm talking about is correcting their building application. their building application states that the buildsing application expired and the planning department asked them to do a new application so they referred to the new application referred to the approved permit application numbers--the approved application numbers say replacement of all windows in kind. there 3 windows 20 feet away that face me that are fixed absecure glass. all i'm asking is stay with these building

permits, no changes, nothing extraordinary, just keep the three windows the way they are. they want to change the location or the size that's fine. but, the new application does not say that they were replaced in kind. we have a dilemma. i tried to resolve it with the owners and their architect. i hired a consultant, a frnd of mine to talk to them. she walked through with them. the architect and he seemed receptive and now they shut me down and won't discuss it. so, all i'm asking for is the status quo. the application they referred to says replace the windows in kind. there is 3 windows that face me. that is all i'm asking for. do you have any

questions about anything or-? oh, the planning department mr. winslow said that they don't enforce any private agreements between neighbors. that's fine, but the permit says replace in kind, not anything interaction and reasons why. it is permit says replace in kind. that's all i'm asking is to replace them in kind the three windows. the other stuff they can do what they want. please ask me any questions any reason why not or why. >> you have a minute left and we'll ask questions when we are have our time. thank you. >> very good. product sponsor you have a 5 minute presentation if you need it.

>> good evening. members of the commission, sam call the architect in the represent the project sponsor. this project started maybe 3 years ago before pandemic and it was a permit to add the sularium to the top of the roof and it was approved and due to the covid and everything construction didn't start until beginning of this year. and then there is a neighbor that filed a complaint and inspector came and said your permit is expired so you need to renew this entire permit. basically we resubmitted the same design as we did before and went through the whole process of doing

neighborhood notice and getting a preapp meeting with the neighbors, so we come to planner saying everything is okay accept now our neighbor decide to file a discretionary review saying that he's losing his light and shadow casting on his property, but in the package that i prepared for the commissioners, i have studied the shadow during all times of the year and i think that the planning staff sees that there is really very little impact to [no audio]

>> if you are calling in or online you need to raise your hand or press star 3. seeing no request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed. you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> i don't understand--i asked the architect to discus it. i'm not talking about anything accept 3 windows that the original permit said would be replaced in kind and i did hear him answer that question--was i wrong? shadows the

window-anything else they want to do is fine, but the original permit said replace the windows in kind and they can do anything they want but i think there are 3 windows involved and i want them replaced in kind. he can change the location and change the configuration but i want what's on the permit. that's all. i didn't hear him address any of that. thank you. >> project sponsor you have 2 minute rebuttal. >> members of commission, sam cong. i just want to say that the project sponsor application on the dr was very clear about all the issues that were brought up regarding shadow and privacy and all this.

now he is changing his argument on just windows. why spend a lot of time addressing those issues that he specifically brought up and i think that you are here to make a determination if the requester argument is justified or move on with the project so appreciate your consideration. thank you. >> thank you. mr. winslow i want to make sure i understand correctly. there is renovation to the house. you can see it is substantial. that includes sularium and also includes replacement of additional windows given the look of everything and the dr requester you are saying you replacing windows with absecure windows or not? hearing different things and not sure-i want to make sure

that-maybe ask the sponsor are you replacing the absecure windows or not >> the windows would be replaced whatever was there before, so if it is clear window it is clear window absecure window it is absecure window and we made some concession in our design to eliminate some glass rail balcony that overlooked the neighbor's property, so that he will maintain more privacy. >> i did note that. mr. winslow sounds like for the dr requesting part of the concern the way the building permit described it didn't include the specific language around like for like window replacement even though it sounds that is the intention. am i understanding that right? >> looking at the permit history there was a permit number 2021 that was probably referred to as original permit that indicated replacement

of windows in kind. that might been the permit that was expired before the work was done. you reapplied for a second permit that is 2022-o32911 whatever it is we are talking about here. that might have changed those windows from that original permit which is well within the right of somebody to apply for a new permit so the permit we are talking about is the current one regardless of the 20- >> my question does this permit-in the packet where it says the project response he says will install absecured glass and he said he intends to do like for like but it is just the permit doesn't have the same language, is that what--? >> if i look at the drawing on this permit it appears there is replacement of windows

not in kind and you can clar ify this. i'm looking at sheet- existing windows becoming enlarged. >> let me clarify. the original permit which expired was for the sularium addition only and subsequent to that we took out permits to do interior alterations and then we also took out permit to do the facade renovation and also replacement of all the old windows with new claded windows so it was a new permit that includes this new work with the window replacement. the original permit didn't have window replacement. >> okay. that is part of the confusion. there is multiple permits and some permits have different

items on it the others. i wanted to make sure what we-what we are talking about today. any other comments questions or motions from commissioners on this item? commissioner diamond. >> is there disagreement here? >> it sounds like they are disagreeing it sounds like one of the one permits does not state the windows will be replaced in kind but we just heard testimony that is the plan. >> you want 3 windows that currently have clouded glass or absecured glass replaced with absecured glass, is that your plan? >> architect-didn't catch yourf name if you can respond you intend to replace absecure windows- >> what we intend to do is whatever the glass that is on the

existing windows if it is clear glass we replace with clear fwlass, absecured glass we replace with absecured glass. >> are the windows going in the same place? >> most are in the same location. >> i still not understand what the disagreement is. >> i think it is written for like for like. >> i guess a bigger question, are there exceptional extraordinary instances that make this a dr eligibility action in the first place? i'm not seeing--they privately agree to do this but don't see this as (inaudible) >> privacy and shadow and light were for issues of the dr. is that correct? >> that is correct. that was the-

>> that is reason for the dr. other questions came up and while (inaudible) the dr requested stated he could accept everything else other then clarification on the windows. he shifted the question but question was answered so if we feel there is no issue with shadow or privacy as the department actually opined on then i think we are ready to make a motion which i'm prepared to do and that is, do not take dr and approve as proposed. >> second. >> no more further deliberation there is motion seconded to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. on that motion- [roll call]

so moved commissioners, motion passes 7-0. congratulate on a productive year and look forward to our recess and seeing you in the new year. >> happy new year and happy holiday. we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

how's everybody doing, huh? just good. just can i get a big round of applause for our band here? the guy gabriel brass band. alright if there if you are less than this tall, i want you to come over here filling this spot here. everyone getting nice and cozy. i want all