participation sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming live and we will receive public comment. each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining you hear a chime indicating your time is all most up. when your time is reached i will announce your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. for those persons participating via webex, you need to raise your hand when public comment is called for the item you are interested in speaking to. for those persons calling into submit their testimony, webex, has thrown a curve ball to deal with so follow these instructions carefully and they will be posted on the stream or television screen. you'll continue to call the phone number, 415-655-0001.

you enter access code, 24815850572, then press pound. you will now need to enter a password and today password is 0105 and pound. at this point, you should be able to listen to the hearing live. we ask you wait for the item you are nrt esting in speeming to and for public comment to be announced. in order to get into the queue for public comment you must enter star 3 to raise your hand. once you raised your hand you will hear a prompt you raised your hand to ask a question. please wait to speak until the host calls on you. so, here is the other curve ball, once you

hear the prompt you are being asked to unmute yourself to unmute press star 6. you must enter star 6 in order to unmute you. when you hear that you are unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. yes. for the first hearing in 2023, we need more complicated then ever for this remote hearing. best practices are to call from a quite location. please mute the volume on your television or computer, speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. finally, at this time i like to call roll. [roll call] thank you

commissioners. we do expect commissioners diamond and imperial to be absence. first is items proposed for continuance. item 1, 2022-001764cua continuance to january 12. item 2, 2022-009366pca for penalties for code enforcement planning and building code amendments is proposed for continuance to january 19, 2023. item 38 and 3b, 2022-009805pca and

2022-0118 sex 8pca are proposed for continuance (inaudible) under the regular calendar we received a late request for continuance on item 12 for case number 2020-010275 at 98 pennsylvania street. a large project authorization. request is to continue working with members of the community and my understanding both parties are in agreement to continue to february 9, 2023. i have no other items proposed to be continued and so we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to submit your testimony related to any of the items proposed to be continued. press star 3 if you are calling in using a phone. you need to-if you are calling in press star 3. if you

are using webex, you need to raise your hand. >> john kaplan with (inaudible) regarding the 98 pennsylvania continuance. i think we had a little of miscommunication with (inaudible) we have been in touch with them today. there is a couple other items to continue working through. i was speaking with mrs. heath this morning. we will meet later this mounth and be ready hopefully february 9 so thank you for the consideration of the continuance request. >> okay, last call for public comment on the continuance calendar. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and the continuance calendar is now before you. >> jonas, just wanted

to ask, i don't know if you mentioned the instructions for calling in and raising your hand would be displayed . should i have seen that displayed now? >> you would not be able to see it unless you are streaming the hearing through sfgovtv or watching it on television. >> great. just wanted to double checkism thank you for your team work on today's hearing and yesterday for the hpc. >> and just-also, the room 400 have been posted this hearing is remote but media service was kind enough to open the chambers and so if anyone comes to city hall they are able to view and listen to the proceedings on the television screen. they still need to call in to submit testimony. thank you sfgovtv and media services for assistance. >> thank you all. commissioner

koppel then commissioner moore. >> i are wanted to make a motion to approve the items as stated. or continue the items as stated. >> second. >> on the motion to continue all items proposed- [roll call] >> so moved, motion passes unanimously 5-0. and will place us under commission matters. item 4, the land acknowledgment. >> thank you. getting my practice finding my webex, mute button and unmute button again. thank you commissioners and public as we are in

acknowledgment. the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. >> thank you. item 5, consideration of adoption draft minutes for december 8, 2022 and draft minutes for december 15, 2022. members of the public this is again your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes. again, you need to raise your hand via webex, or press star 3 if you are calling in. give people a little more

time to do so if they care to on all items. seeing no request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and minutes are before you. >> thank you. is there a motion on the minutes? or discussion? >> move to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to adopt the minutes- [roll call] >> so moved commissioners. the motion passes 5-0. and place on item 6, commission comments and questions. >> thank you. commissioner moore did you have a comment or question? >> i yes i do. happy new year to everybody. secondly, it came to my attention that on tuesday the third of january the planning commission made-the planning department made a presentation to board of

appeals and it included review of state housing legislation including state density bonus sb35 and ab (inaudible)-can the commission get a presentation like it in the ever-changing world of state legislation? it would be helpful to stay on top of what's going on and allow us to hear the same presentation. >> commissioners, sure, we can-i think we have given you elements of the presentation in the past but we can send you the presentation that we gave to the board of appeals and if you would like the same presentation, happy to do that as well. >> the problem for us -good to see you again in the blue lagoon there-things are changing so rapidly we

lose track and this isn't our day to day conversation and as we have discussions on it would help a lot. at least it would help me speaking for myself. >> i would support that commissioner moore. it is great to get a primer what laws are in effect and how things have changed. never seems to get more simple, so it is good to have that. i would second commissioner moore and happy new year everyone. thank you for meeting online. in light of all the weather we are having it prudent. ypt to thank the first respondsers and emergency staff helping our settee and residents through the storm and just hope everyone can continue to be mindful, please use 311 for non emergencies 911 for emergencies and just don't go out when weather is bad if you don't have to. this can help keep yourself safe and keep the first responders having to get out there and rescue

if you need it or deal with other issues. hopefully everyone is staying safe and (inaudible) welcome back everybody. >> okay. if no further commissioners wishing to speak at this time, we can move on to item 7 for case 2021-009977crv for your adoption of remote hearings to allow us to meet remotely as we are today when no commissioner can come into city hall. we should take public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on the resolution to continue remote hearings when necessary. you need to press star 3 or raise your hand. seeing no request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and the proposed resolution is now before you.

>> move to adopt and support the resolution. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to adopt the resolution to allow remote hearings when necessary- [roll call] so moved commissioners. the motion passes unanimously 5-0 placing under department matters for 8 director announcement. >> good afternoon commissioners and happy new year. welcome back. hope you enjoyed the break. two quick updates. lt first on the city wide cultural resources survey work, i want to let you know that we hit a milestone yesterday where we started the field survey portion of our work. obviously

was not the greatest day to start the work in the field but we did start and taking a break today. we started in japan town. we'll move to neighborhood commercial districts throughout the city and we expect this work to take about 3 to 4 years to complete the entire city, but it is bill milestone. we talked about this survey for decades, so it is good to get underway in the field survey portion of it. second, on the housing element, want to thank you for all the work and guidance and direction-all the work you did last year in getting us to an approval. i did want to let you know the appeal period for the housing element eir expired monday before christmas and we didn't receive an appeal, so we'll move next to the board of supervisors. the schedule remains the same, they won't have the need to take up an appeal just to remind of the schedule we are expecting to be

at land use committee on the 23 and full board on the 24 and 31. hopefully signed by the mayor on the 31 and approved by hcd that same day if not the next day. so, that's the schedule. that's all i have. thanks. >> thank you. i have a question if we received any further feedback from hcd? the understanding is the changing we made were response in to the last round of comments and already vetted with them in collaboration with staff but curious if we expect to hear anything from them before the board approves and mayor signs the housing element? >> they certainly could make additional comments. you are right, we did-the changes we made were in response to their comments, so we have set what you all adopted to them for their final comment in review. we hope that is what the board ultimately approved and they can approve it seeing

that we believe we addressed their comments from the last round and that iteration. we are not expecting to hear more, but we could. >> okay, great. thank you. commissioner moore. >> just in case there could be changes just question-would you please keep us posted of what direction they are turning? >> absolutely. we'll let you know and send an e-mail once we get any word from them on changes or their approval. >> thank you so much. >> thanks. >> okay, commissioners, if nuther further we can move to item 9. review of past evepts at the board of supervisors board of appeals and historic preservation commission. the board of supervisors have not met and the board of appeals have no items of interest to the planning commission. the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday remotely as well and

after some experiencing some technical difficulties and getting a very late start, we were able to have the hearing and they heard informational presentations on the african american historic conterks statement and mills act program. i would also like to advice the commission that i received word from media services that in deed this is being broadcast in our chambers and that no one is in the chambers, so i'm glad that our outreach and noticing efforts were heard and no one wasted their time coming to city hall. commissioner, that will place us on general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the

commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public if you like to submit general public comment you need to press star 3 or raise your hand via webex. when you hear that -the indication to unmute yourself press star 6 to unmute yourself. >> good afternoon and happy new year to everyone and thanks for the remote hearing so everyone can stay home. i sent e-mail-this is georgia (inaudible) i sent an e-mail last thursday december 29, which was last year, and i wanted to put a spotlight on the issue of roof

decks. roof decks on the top of the house, not a deck off living space, which is really just terrace or a deck not a roof deck or even a porch, but roof decks specifically. the issue of the roof deck policy which is from august 2018. also the issue of discretionary review more generally. i just hope that the commission and staff would take a little bit of time to read the e-mail and attachments and consider the isues in what was sent in. thanks a lot. be well be safe. bye. >> this is really weird. sue (inaudible) i would

like to acknowledge the (inaudible) we have right now over us, and the necessity of the planning commission getting briefed on the flood plains. there is a map that is used by the city on the hundred year flood map and we got floods in those areas this past weekend. i think a presentation on the hundred year flood map and how it may be effected by continuing down pours in san francisco is adviseable. it is not on your work program, it is not on your calendar at all, but i think you ask the public would be well advised to review

this right now because it is a issue right now. please put it on your calendar. the presentation of the map and the assumptions made-this is relevant because all of the zoning and all of the area plans are predicated on it, and as you review plans next to 98 pennsylvania is one of them. next to a area that was flooded from a freeway, that was something that should be factored into the projects analysis and the environmental analysis. the area plans assumes this. they didn't assume torrential rains and i just think it is really good to have a presentation that is calendared and documented to the public. secondarily, there was a issue of the rh1

zoning--it was appealed to the board of appeals. it was a decision of the zoning administrator that was issued december 22 and appealed december 23 to the board of appeals. the planning commission should have a copy of his decision-his letter of determination as well and it should be made available to the public. i would suggest you might even have presentation of it, because rh1 zoning and how the planning code zones property is at issue at the board of appeals, not at the planning commission. that's weird. thank you very much. >> thank you. okay. last call

for general public comment. again, you need to raise your hand via webex, or press star 3 on your phone. seeing no additional request to speak, commissioners general public comment is closed. and we can move to your regular calendar for item 10. case 2018-017026gpa for environmental justice framework and general plan introduction. this is informational presentation. >> good afternoon. lisa chin with department staff. today's presentation is meant to provide a overview of general plan amendments brought for initiation and adoption in the coming weeks. the environmental justice framework and update to the general plan introduction. we have the full team here today. there is danielle ngo and (inaudible) as well as ann marie

rogers all available for questions. before we begin i want to acknowledge the partnerships and support from other city agencies but particularly (inaudible) sf environment and sfpuc all have longstanding environmental justice programs. next slide. the last time that you have a hearing on the framework was october 2021 and so our primary purpose today is give you a refresher on the goals of the project and process . we'll discuss the back bp ground, community engagement (inaudible) we are not going to delve too deeply into policy context as we are planning to give a more comprehensive overview at the initiation hearing later this month. next slide. first we'll start with the background and goals. this work is

intended to fulfill policy mandates at the state and local level. at the state level sb1,000 requires jurisdictions address environmental justice in the general plans. first analyzing data to determine which parts of the community are impacted by environmental injustice and by adopting policies in the general plan to address health disparities. these requirements are triggered when a city amends two elements of the general plan which we have done recently with seeking resilience element and housing element and then ej policy themselves could be part of a standalone ej element or integrated throughout the general plan. this work also speaks directly to the resolutions adopted by commission and historic preservation commission which calls for general plan policy to address racial and social equity. however we want to emphasize even though we are mandated to do this work we also think the effort

is long overdue. the project launched march 2020 and as we saw the ensuing health and economic crisis following by racial inequality we saw this project a key opportunities to reorients our general plan and work more broadly towards equity. so, our approach is is multi-pronged. first we are proposing to create an environmental justice framework which will be incorporated by reference into a updated general plan introduction. so, the ej framework is meant to provide a roadmap identifying over arching priorities for city agencies and partners to address environmental justice. the framework will also include environmental justice community map which highlight the communities most impacted. these will be accompanied by policies embedded throughout the general plan. you have already adopted a set of ej and equity policies in the

safety resilience element and housing element. and we are now scoping updates for the upcoming transportation element and planning efforts to update and modernize sections och the ren jl pland including environmental protection, air quality urban design commerce and industry and arts and culture. so we opted for the layered approach because we want to insure ej was not siloed so by placing the framework in the introduction is meant to set intention for the entire general plan elaborated in the individual elements. we are also using the opportunity to provide a fresh look at the general plan introduction itself. the introduction establish intent and purpose of the entire general plan and the current document was last updated in 1996 which this was 8

presidential elections ago during clinton's presidency. the current document was aspirational for its time it needs to be updated to reflect current values and concerns. we are proposing to update the language. pulled from several robust planning efforts in recent years including the ej framework, housing element, safety resilience element, transportation work and connect sf and commission resolution on equity. next slide. and before we dive into the ej framework process itself, we feel it is important to ground this work by defining what we mean pie environmental justice. this term has been defined in a myriad of ways by advocates and government agencies. our proposed definition was developed based on a literature review and feedback from community members and city partners. so we define environmental justice as the equitable distribution

of environmental benefits and elimination of environmental burdens to promote healthy communities where all san franciscans can thrive. the second part focus on our role as government which is it to foster environmental justice through processes that amend past injustices to enable proactive and community lead solutions for the future. equally important is the definition of environmental racism. this term acknowledges that too often it is our american indian, black and other people of color communities who disproportionately bear the brunt of environmented hazard and poor health. denied access to (inaudible) of course bayview hunters point is a classic example in san francisco but we do see the same trends elsewhere so for instance the union of concern scientist estimate that black

and latinx residents in california are exposed to 40 percent more air pollution then white residents. and we continue to see similar disparities across a range of health and economic indicators all statistics from san francisco specifically and there are a few examples but there are countless others we could have included on the slide. i'll pass the baton to danielle to describe the process. >> thanks lisa: hi, commissioners. the next few slides we'll share the robust process for community engagement. we are proud of the relationships we built and feel privilege to receive frank and honest commentary. making the framework squarely about environmental justice and social equity we designed a range of activity to reach residents workers and community

leaders most adversely impacted. focus on deem listening, hearing anecdotes and common themes to acknowledge the past harms that have been committed in their neighborhoods as well as identify solutions where government can step in. (inaudible) prior environmental justice work championed by other agencies as well as mindful of participation fatigue egand input and emotional labor we are asking from the community. so, here is highlights over the past 2 years of outreach and engagement. we'll share a full summary of what we heard later this month, and the most robust engagement activity was environmental justice working group. we solicited (inaudible) 10 city staff to work collaboratively on drafting policy recommendations. thanks to our

amazing facilitator (inaudible) build strong working relationships, we received unanimous consensus of policy recommendation. we'll share this policy recommendations as supplemental material and continue to develop these recommendations in future element updates. in addition we enjoyed partnering with second graders, third graders juniors and seniors and urban planning students. just last month we wrapped up engagement with 6 focus groups and hosted a virtual open house and (inaudible)-here are all the wonderful partners for our three main outreach activities. we freak frequently heard about living and working conditions that can be painful to recount to

strangers so grateful for the community trust in us as well as the work to incorporate their feedback into city policy and action. for this hearing we wanted to provide you with a primer on these engage ment goals and our process and as we move forward in our hearing schedule we look forward to inviting our community partners to city hall in person (inaudible) so you can hear from them directly and in person. so, to move on, another part of our work is developing an environmental justice community map. this map highlights areas of the city facing the highest challenges. the state law sb1000 encourage jurisdictions to start (inaudible) a state wide mapping tool from (inaudible) includes 20 indicators to identify the top 25 percent of environmental challenged areas and you can see that in the top right of

the slide. (inaudible) is used to determine funding for state cap and trade and-however it excludes many sensitive areas in the city. you can see the pull out in the bottom right. currently it highlights just treasure island, (inaudible) for the project team wanted to conduct our analysis to create a higher resolution of environmentally challenged areas in the city. our map i will share in the next slides are--analysis that is easily replic able that aligns with related maps from partner agencies and reflect a lot of community feedback. so, with our map we use (inaudible) on the left as our base and after we reviewed over a hundred data sets we chose to incorporate local data additional data on household income, air pollution exposure and social

vulnerability. so, the analysis provides us this final draft map which you see on the slide. you can see we expanded the scope of environmental justice communities. the top 30 percent of environmentally burdened areas. it further includes areas like china town, tenderloin, visitation valley and others and by in large these areas are low income communities and communities of color. we conducted outreach and received positive feed 37 back from partner agencies in the community. in particular, the working group appreciated the opportunity to think collectively across these neighborhood boundaries to think about areas (inaudible) we are happy to share our partner agencies are already incorporating this analysis into our work. last month rec and park commission adopted this analysis as part of the equity zones and puc

is also used it to determine grant funding for green infrastructure. you see the difference between (inaudible) and our main map on the left. so, to wrap up to share the topics in this ej framework. tomorrow we are publishing the draft framework on the website for the public to review. it will cover a range of topics under the umbrella of environmental justice. sb1000 encourage us to have the broad interpretation of healthy communities. to address elimination of environmental burden and provision of environmental benefits. once you dive into the public draft we hope you notice there are many issue areas we are propose to include in the general plan for the first time. so, today at the informational hearing and the team is working really hard to publish the

public draft online tomorrow and incorporate all the public review into the initiation draft. january 19 we plan to publish our draft ordinance as well as initiation that includes the general plan introduction and continue on with the hearings as shown on this slide. again, we are excited to respond to sb1000 and incorporate environment justice in the general plan with racial equity and community voices. we hope this presentation you can see all the groundwork we have done so the framework with set clear intentions for the city to right historic and systemic wrongs, to unit between a community vision and wide spread agency buy in for the actions needed to bring concrete deliverables to the environmental justice communities. thanks. that is the end of the presentation and i'll take my slides down and

excited to hear from you all. >> thank you for that lisa and danielle. if no immediate questions from member s of the commission, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. joining via webex, raise your hand and via phone, press star 3. seeing no request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed. i will certainly advice you if that changes. this is a non-action item so the informational is before you commissioners. >> thank you staff for the presentation. great to track the progress of the work and continuation of the outreach and analysis that you have been performing so thank you. thank you to all the community members who participated at any point in the outreach

. we want to underscore (inaudible) sometimes things are difficult and hard with staff so hopefully through this plarn we can address those difficulties now and also in the future. i'll call on commissioner moore. >> we had a question this morning from the public and i am wondering if the question about flooding and flood control fits anywhere into this environmental burden mapping? i believe that environmental risks include (inaudible) very clear that in san francisco many people are (inaudible) i have to suspect it would fall into areas that overlap with areas of concern. mrs. chin or (inaudible) could you answer that question and as you are looking at new data to

augment (inaudible) >> thanks. this is danielle. i think that is a great question and are thank you for the public commenter. i think that the first thing to come to mind is the safety resilience element recently adopted last month by you all, and that is the element that is squarely about natural disasters, climate crisis, as well as making sure the city is prepared mitigating and responding. that element did include brand new policy that addressed sea level rise and (inaudible) as well as pushing the city to have continued practice for the latest data. knowing these projections are showing non-linear frequency and intensity of these extreme weather events. for the environmental justice framework, there is also a section about climate

resilience and healthy communities that can help sharpen the focus for the environmental justice communities. it is-the environmental justice communities share areas within the sea level rise vulnerability zone and flood vulnerability areas and include a broader definition of environmental hazards as well. >> thank you for your response as i had already said in the previous presentation under resiliency cross referencing each other (inaudible) important because not many people know multilayered multiprong approach you are taking and think the city is really really good in doing it, however cross referencing just for consumers the ease i think is essential and i do consider flooding to be an element of the community environmental justice. thank you so much. it was a excellent presentation and very much

appreciate you. >> absolutely. any other comments or questions from commissioners? >> okay. >> no seeing any. i think we may be concluded with this item. >> very good. commissioners, that will place on item 11 for case 2020-005253crv. 3260, 26th street. this is for adoption of findings. >> yes. thank you. good afternoon commissioners. alex westhoff planning department staff. the item before you have request to adopt findings related to the requested wavers from the development standards for height rear yard and open space pursuant to planning code section 260134 and 135

related to state density bonus law and planning code section 206.6 and affirming and adopted findings under the california environmental quality act. the project includes the demolition of a single story building containing a auto repair shop and construction of 6 story mixed use building with 558 square feet of ground floor commercial and 42 residential dwelling units at 3260 26 street. 12 units will be studios, 13 will be one bedroom and 17 will be two bedroom units. 7 of the units are inclusionary yunlts and all the residential units have access to open space which includes 770 square feet on the ground floor, 520 square feet on the 4th floor and 1272 square feet on the roof deck. the project provides no vehicle parking and will provide 44 class (inaudible) bike

parking spaces. meet the inclusion or affordable housing element providing 7 units on site which is 25 percent of the base density and rest of the obligation will be satisfieds a a payment of the affordable housing fee. the site is located in the mission street neighborhood commercial transit zoning district, which regulates density by a maximum permitted building volume not as a ratio of units to lot area. the amount of density bonus allowed is based on the level of applicability because the project is provided 15 percent of the units or 5 units at low market rate to very low income house at 50 percent ami the project is entitled to 50 percent density bonus or 11.356 square feet of residential uses. under the state density bonus law the project is requesting 3 wavers from development standsards

specifically height rear yard and open space. the height is restricted to 40 feet plus additional 5 feet with ground floor commercial use. the proposed building will extend to 65 feet. the additional height is necessary to accommodate the bonus units. the rear yard requirement pursuant to planning code section 134 is 25 percent and the rear yard proposed is 22.9 percent. the reduced [audio cutting in and out] the open space requirement is 100 square feet of open space per unit and open space proposed is 78.5 square feet per unit. the reduced amount of open space is necessary to accommodate the bonus use: without the waver the project would be (inaudible) constructing the additional dwelling units which are permitted under the individually requested state density bonus program

thus preventing the project achieving 50 percent bonus. additionally, the project seek concession of the bay window glazing requirement pursuant to planning code section (inaudible) do not include glazing on the smaller side of the angled bay window. the department is supportive of the project and recommend approval of findings under the state density bonus program and adoption of the findsings under ceqa. the project sponsor is here and prepared a presentation. >> project sponsor, you have 5 minutes. >> thank you for the introduction and commissioners. (inaudible) pm on the project and representing the project sponsor (inaudible) next slide,

please. 3260 26 street is located near the southern edge of the mission district. (inaudible) in the mission street zoning district with frontage on 26 and shotwell and virgil. the project proposed to demolish the existing one story non historic category c auto repair shop. (inaudible) grew up in the mission district not far from the project site. next slide. owners of the auto repair shop are nearly 4 decades also owned several properties in the city including 3 around the corner but this is the biggest project to date. they are (inaudible) next slide. in place of the shop we propose a 6 story over basement (inaudible) the primary use is residential with 42 units, 12 studio

13, 1 bedroom and 17, bedroom units. just checking alex, still seeing slide 3. >> (inaudible) >> i appreciate that. >> (inaudible) >> no worries. >> could you just scroll back and go through slides 4-6? then we can start with slide 7 and i'll restart. there is the existing shop and the project

sponsor. >> here? okay. >> yeah. just catch up real quickly. slide 5, please. project and first floor. slide 7, please. the partial basement will house residential service including laundry storage bike parking and no car parking. alex mentioned the project utilize state density program to achieve greater density then permitted in the district. as part of the program we seek 50 percent density bonus, three wavers to accommodate including the waver to the height limit including 2 more stories, 25 percent rear yard requirement, waver to open space requirement. (inaudible) would be quality landscape on multiple levels. next slide. we are proposing one

concession. the requirement (inaudible) next. return for the density bonus wavers and concession granted by density bonus program the project is able to provide 17 more dwelling units then able to fit in a by right building. total of 7 inclusionary units and 800 thousand inclusionary fees to the city. the project sponsor design team are lock step (inaudible) beneficial and responsible to local community and greater environment. our project sponsor outline outreach efforts in detail and include our meeting and multiple meetings with members of the (inaudible) cultural district starting september 2020 and more recently with the inner-mission neighborhood association. next slide. several design revisions came out of community feedback, including space for (inaudible) incorporation of

bright colors (inaudible) and adding bulb out to the sidewalk of 26 and shotwell to provide additional public space and increased pedestrian safety. two car accessible loading zone for a safe place for transit and car share vehicle to park without impeding traffic. recognition of the efforts neighbors submitted letters in support which are on file and no letters received in opposition and we completed required 30 days (inaudible) december 14 and no discretionary review request were filed. next slide. one members of the (inaudible) happy to report we were already planning on seeking minimum leed silver certification and minimize environmental impact of the building as much as we can within budget. proposed green features include

(inaudible) just to name a few. next slide. we have nationally focused on exterior for the presentation but also share floor plan upon request. we respectively request the commission adopt these findings. the project sponsor and design team worked diligently together in good faith to design a project compliant with the general plan and planning code and (inaudible) fits in with the local neighborhood and provides quality affordable units to the city. thank you for your time. >> thank you. that concludes the project sponsor presentation and should open up public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission. if joining via webex, raise your hand or calling in press star 3. seeing no request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and i'll advice if there is a late

request. >> yes we have quite a few attendees so folks may be trying to figure how to raise their hand and if they are please look at the instructions i believe should be on the tv screen for you. commissioners i'll start with a few questions and ask folks to jump in. thank you for the presentation. i wonder if you can explain the rear yard programming. overall the concessions waver seems fairly modest, particularly the request regarding the glazing on the bays. makes sense given the architectural style that the windows proposed are conducted so it makes sense that to not have that additional glazing on the side. just curious about the open space planning and also the configuration of the rear yard with the additional units in the back. if you can walk through the concept and that programming and how that all fits together in

the building that would be great. that's to the project sponsor. >> thank you president tanner. sure. let's see what slide is that? alex, can you pull up slide 25? it is in the backup slides. this project (inaudible) shotwell and 26 street and virgil street is a alley so (inaudible) corner lot with the rear yard is a corner and normally we have to go to ground with residential on the first floor but we propose half the rear yard up grade in the courtyard and the other half at the 4th floor common roof deck. we think will be a

nice quality rear yard open space and have different spaces where people can hang out in the building and should provide good views downtown. we have setback or common space from parapets not overlooking below and additional largest open space at the roof. does that answer your question? >> yes, that does. thank you very much. appreciate that. i will call on commissioner moore. >> interesting that you are starting with the conversation president tanner but i wanted to also jump in. i found the reduction from the required hundred square feet per unit to 87 very very acceptable because this is what we call dispersal in space. if you live in the building with 42 units instead of all being congregating in one space, be 87 square feet per unit or hundred square feet per unit it would

still look grand. having the open space in three locations as just described, will make it really all most non-noticeable because the experience how you live in the building and how you go outside are varied and think it is a brilliant solution and happy to bring this to this type of state density bonus building. the (inaudible) equitable treatment of who can live where because there was another project on the calendar today which raised questions exactly surrounding that particular aspect of the project, so delighted for us to see this and hope we will keep good imprint of the project in mind. as we move forward we can learn a lot from this project as it deals with state density bonus requirements in a very elegant manner and happy to support the project including the question

that we are supposed to consider in looking at findings for state density. thank you and delighted to support the project. >> absolutely. i just want to underscore, this is one of the more thoughtfully designed and execute state density bonus projects we have seen and beautiful project and happy to see it. commissioner moore did you want to make your support into a motion? >> if i may add one more comment. >> yeah. >> a number of years ago i asked staff when the commission sees project that are not only excellent presentation style as this one, extremely comprehensively and understandably presented to have a library where we can preach reach back to refer to a example of what we like to see on a project which has not been (inaudible) this

presentation addresses. coming to the motion, i like to make a motion to adopt the findings related to state density bonus. that is the request made before us. >> i will second the motion. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to adopt findings- [roll call] so moved, motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners, item 12 has been continued to february 9, so we can move to our discretionary review calendar but before we do i want to advice you, i just received a pg&e outage alert that my property may be effected so if you don't hear or see me anymore it is because my power is out, but our backup

is the manager of commission affairs, laura lynch, so you will not be without a secretary. commissioners, item 13, case 2021-002057drp for property 2011 filbert street. this is discretionary review. mr. winslow. >> thank you jonas. happy new year commissions, david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of building permit number 2021.002102 to demolish a one story garage and shed and construct a new four story two unit residential buildsing with one car parking. i want to correct something in your packet for the record. in the aerial photographs, there was a

arrow indicating the subject property pointing towards a existing house and that should be transposed to one lot over to the west where the garage is. just want to make that clarification. the dr requester is--excuse me. --dr requester is devon johnson of 3065 buchanan street, the neighbor to the west of the site. who is concerned that the building is out of scale with the adjacent buildings, cuts off acis sess to mid-block open space and exceeds the minimum rear yard setback. the proposed alternatives are to remove the 4th floor entirely and reduce the third floor to the footprint of what is proposed as the 4th

floor. to date the department has received 3 letters in opposition and no letters of support in the project. staff supports this project as it complies with both the planning code and residential design guidelines. the massing is scaled and articulated in a appropriate manner to minimize impact to light and air while at the same time not severely impacting access to or minimize to mid-block open space. the project matches front and rear walls of the neighboring building to the west which intern is (inaudible) by a building-neighboring building existing building four story apartment building to its west. the project contains the rear yard by averaging the adjacent neighbor to the west. the project complies with required front and rear yard setback and scaled to be sign

primarily from the street as 3 story building. as the fourth floor is setback 15 feet from the front and 5 feet from the side that adjoins the dr requesting property. the floor to floor heights are not excessive yielding roof line of the 4th story below the allowed height limit. additionally, the 4th floor decks are setback 5 feet from the eastern neighbor lot line to reduce the impact to privacy. this in combination with dimensions of the deck articulate the building to minimize impact associated with light and privacy. again, the scale and height oof the building at the street and rear detailing materialalty and raised interior stairs combined to make this compatible with character defining features in the district and therefore the design guidelines chblt there are no exception of

stroret extraordinary circumstances and recommend not taking discretionary review and approving. thank you. >> thank you. mr. johnson, you have 5 minutes. >> mr. winslow, can you put on the slides, please? thank you. can you go to the

second slide, please? thank you. thank you commissioners. i'm devon johnson, on buchanan street immediately behind the proposed project. i understand that we need housing. not trying to stop the project just asking for a reasonable modification and plan to explain why this is exception and extraordinary and cause a substantial negative impact to the neighbors. so, i am essentially saying yes in my back yard but asking for a respectfully yes from the project. speaking to the impact of the 3 buchanan street neighbors who's rear yards are effected. the exceptional circumstances are caused by the size of the proposed project, its location and orientation to the adjacent neighbors and also the type of homes of the neighbors. there is

basically 3 drivers. it does cut us through off from the mid-block open space. when you look from the filbert side it is out of scale with the immediate adjacent properties and then it exceeds the standard minimum rear yard setback and i'll talk more about that as well. we understand as neighbors there will be impact from the project, but we are asking to reduce the impact. could we go to the next slide, please? the propose project near the corner creates the exceptional circumstance. my house and the neighbors are all one and two family homes with back yards that are impacted with a loss of sunlight and also get cut off mid-block open space given the size of the lots. also are many corner lots in the neighborhood that are apartment buildings and our situation is actually different

from that. next slide, please. the proposed 4 story project creates 28 foot high wall directly along the rear fence of the three properties along buchanan street. adding that to the proposed limited rear yard setback combines to cut off from the mid-block space and really reduces the light to the rear of our properties. if our residents were in the middle of the block versing the corner, we would be protected by the requirement of neighbors in the back having a rear yard setback. we aren't and that makes this more extreme and creates a more exceptional circumstance. all the green in the middle of the picture is the mid-block this project starts to cut us off from. next slide, please.

as i said, our properties are one and two family buildings with back yards for children play area, gardening and recreation. the diagram to the left shows the proposed lines of the new project which will have a substantial impact on all our yards right there at the location. next slide, please. all these photos are of corner lots within a block of our properties and they are all-the builders in those situations have chosen to build out large apartment buildings fully out in the lot and they don't have open space that are impacted by a neighboring building. again, i want to point our situation is different since we have smaller homes, we do have back yards and do this use them and this project definitely impacts that. next slides please. in the residential design guidelines they are

clear explaining the impact of projects that proceed to the rear lot and give suggestions how to minimize to neighbors including reducing the footprint and eliminating upper stories. next page, please. so, the next point was about being out of scale to adjacent properties. it is a 4 story buildings and sandwiched between a 2 story building and essentially less then 1 story with our 8 foot wall or fence along our back yards there on the left side of the photo. next page. again, the residential design guidelines give good guidance on how to address that and in this particular example, they show a setback of third floor and eliminate the 4th floor. next slide, please. and then the

third point it exceeds the standard minimum rear yard set 37 back. there is exsemgz and that allows this property to be adjacent with the compliance property next door with a much deeper lot, which causes the rear yard setback to be 25 percent and that just exacerbates the existing properties that are discussed. the final page [phone ringing in background]. >> thank you mr. johnson, but that is your time. >> sorry--we didn't get the slides started at the beginning. i didn't start until you started speaking. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay. project sponsor, you will also have 5 minutes.

>> (inaudible) good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. i'm here with project sponsor john strictlen and his architect. the project is to demolish the garage structure and shed and construct a new two unit building. there are no exceptional extraordinary circumstances that warrant the commission taking dr in this case. this slide shows the existing conditions on the block and subject property as well as the dr requester property to the east. the map shows this block as inconsistent pattern of lot sizes and shapes. highlight the unusual nature and size of the lots. it is a (inaudible) with single family house to the west on lot 3. serving as garage and accessory space. in 2020 (inaudible) multi-unit housing. this lot is very small and 20 feet wide and 82 and a half feet deep. regardless of the size the owner remains committed to

build dwelling units. the dr should be denied and project approved for the following reasons: the dr requesting asserts the project block the rear yard from mid-block open space however they do not face a mid-block open space. the slide shows the configuration of the lots on the block along with building pattern there is no true essential mid-block open area. the circle highlight the pockets of open space and how the middle block is constructed with large apartment buildings or rear yard structures. the dr requesting mid-block open space is the subject property. the dr requesting benefited from the lack 06 development on the site and seeks to keep it that way. the dr requesting further staitss the project will severely reduce sun and light to the rear yard. this is not true. the property is corner lot with rear yard fronting filbert street which provides sun and light. this condition is not modified by the

project. next slide, please. again, the dr requesting claims reduce light and air to the rear of the property. it is not the case. the slide shows the property receives ample light and air at the property and will continue to do so after the project is built. next slide, please. it should be noted the project is maintaining front yard setback so will be located in the same position as the current garage. this provides a 7 and a half foot setback along the rear property line to (inaudible) next slide, please. the d rurks requester states the rear yard exceeds the minimum setback. this (inaudible) section 134 uses to measure rear yard setback. this section allows buildings to use the adjacent building depth to measure the average rear yard. this isn't (inaudible) that method used for the project. if the project was required to have a rear yard equal

to 45 percent of the lot depth shown, combined with required 7 and a half foot front setback, a new multifamily residential structure would not be feasible. the buildsing would be 25 feet in depth and (inaudible) this is code compliant rear yard and buildable area. next slide, please. the dr requesting states the project is out of scale and reduced in massing. they are asking for the 4th floor to be removed and third floor reduced. these requests are asking for 2 story plus (inaudible) on the site. it would reduce the massing in half. next slide, please. the outset of design process the building and lots to the east the dr requester lots have been taken into account. we have been working many months to address the concerns of solar loithd and access and resulted in the reduction in mass. two feet removed from the

height. the fourth floor reduced additional 3 feet from the eastern property line for total of 5 feet and 4th floor setback was given additional 5 feet for total 15 feet from the front property line. because of the changes the adu removed from the project. one unit removed. two unit proposed. one 2337 square feet and (inaudible) asking for further reduction will eliminate additional unit and make the project infeasible. this is a code compliant project. one that meets all standards, it meets the housing accountability act and asking for further reduction will violate the state law. the project sponsor modified the project to accommodate the eastern neighbors, shown the requester has not provided evidence to warrant additional changes. please approve the project and design the dr. the sponsor and architect are here if

you have further questions. thank you. >> thank you. that concludes sponsors presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this dr. you need to press star 3 or raise your hand via webex, and through the chair you each have two minutes. again, when-to unmute you need to press star 6. mrs. (inaudible) i sent you a unmute request. i see your hand is raised. there you go. you have 2 minutes. >> can you hear me?

>> i can. >> okay, thank you. i live right back there where this whole building will be erected and i lived here all my life and i do believe a 4 story building is way out of it. they will block me in. i have no sunlight in my yard or kitchen or family room and i'm 71 year old woman and feel this needs to be reconsidered more. it is a-even the building on the other side the building is way on top of the-right next to this project and i'm fearful this is going to expand and get rid of all the light that i have coming in through my back window here, through my yard where i can get sunlight in here. four stories is a big-i won't have access of the corner of filbert street.

so, i really appreciate if you consider this since i lived here most of my life and i-we have always gotten along with everybody. i'm all for affordable housing, believe me i'm a taxpayer in this city and i know what it is like, okay? so, i really appreciate if you would consider this a little bit more on our side oof the--they need to redo this whole thing as far as four story floor on top. >> if that concludes your comments- >> yes, it does. >> okay, thank you. last call for public comment. again, you need to raise your hand via webex, or press star 3.

>> (inaudible) >> go ahead, mrs. miller. >> my name is rhonda miller, the third house on buchanan street, so i'm the third house back. i lived here for probably 32, 33 years and i echo my neighbors. it sounds like everything is legit but it definitely puts a burden and would disrupt our back yards and our living conditions too. to have a 4 story home to me is-i don't know if it is single family person or-it would be too much and would disrupt our back yards or living space, sunlight and i think it is too much for the area where it is in. that's pretty much all i have to say.

>> great. >> thank you for your consideration. >> last call for public comment on this matter. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, mr. johnson you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> thank you. i just want to address several things that the project sponsor had shared. first of all, with regards to the north side of our building, it's a long filbert street and north side so there is no direct sunlight. yes we have windows on the side but the sun comes from the front and rear of the building and southerly direction. this photo she showed helped my case more in showing the sun that gets in my back yard and the lack of it when the 4 story building does go up. also, with respect to

the 2 units, i feel if they were real more authentic about building two units they would have two equally balanced flats. it is a single family home with a very small lesser in-law unit in the back beyond the garage. also, with respect to the building volume reduction, she makes it sound like they worked with the neighbors to help accomplish that. we had absolutely no contact from the project sponsor other then the required meeting they held a couple years ago. i think all those changes were made by request of the planner or the residential design team, but it wasn't shared with us and they didn't ask us what we were looking for. and then finally, she was commenting about it not being financial ly feasible. i'm a little familiar with the cost for doing these projects. was that 30 seconds or two

minutes? >> you have 30 seconds remaining. >> they got the property for only-under $1 million. they got a demolition permit that allows them to completely clean or start over with new construction and are they are not doing excavation, so it a very very inexpensive build and i think realistically it is a very easy project for them to make money, so i don't think what we are requesting is unfeasible. thank you. >> okay. project sponsor, you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> thank you jonas and planning commissioners. no new issues are raised by the dr requester not already addressed. the project is redesigned several times and worked with staff to address the 3 lots along buchanan street. i will note that the third lot

mrs. miller's lot, the development actually mainly open space along her back property line. the building itself extends 1 or 2 feet into her lot. development on small infill sites is expected nature of life in the city. the addition of dwelling units will add to housing stock and provide 2 units. the lot is fully utilized where the dr requesting lot is under developed. it fits the block, and maintain light and air to the property, compatible with the neighborhood. for all the reasons no extraordinary circumstances are established (inaudible) we really respectfully request you approve the project as proposed and again the property owner is here and available i think if he can raise his hand if there are questions for him. thank you.

>> okay, that concludes the public hearing portion of this matter and it is now before you commissioners. >> thank you. staff and the project sponsors or presentation and for the comments from the public. i think we did get (inaudible) i'll say seems like a fairly modest proposal. looks like staff looked at it and provided feedback to the project sponsor which was incorporated into the project. for this project i don't see anything extraordinary that would require us to take discretionary review. perhaps (inaudible) jush being a property with a garage and [audio cutting in and out] within the boundaries and within the code (inaudible) i

don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary and (inaudible) of the nature as we continue to add housing in small scale developments throughout the city. commissioner moore. >> speaking to the context of the last comment, there are many many sites in san francisco where you have small carriage house type garages (inaudible) small portions of lots. i live near one and it was somewhat a struggle to see that what we used to take for granted as just like an expanded rear yard with a small gate in the front is a development site. with that said, i think what i would like to have seen and asking perhaps the applicant to project it on the screen, i would have liked to see filbert street elevation in context. the drawings that is drawings which are

so minimal are not typical what we see in the application so context of the building and elevation and in 3d form is not provided and i would like to see as to whether or not we are see a photo montage which puts this project actually into the context of buildings to the east and west on filbert street. >> thank you. does the project sponsor have any of those images? i don't know mr. winslow if we have access to anything like that. maybe that is a no.

>> mr. winslow--? you are muted. >> sorry. i was answering another question. could you repeat the question? >> you are asking me to repeat the question? i would like to see- >> photo montage. >> an elevation that puts the proposed buildsing into context with the neighbors to the east and west. >> yes. i believe what we have-we don't have exactly elevational drawings but we have in the packet you see shadow studies that depict the adjacent buildsings in three dimensioned which we utilize for the contextual responsiveness. >> i would have like to see traditional elevation to deal with (inaudible) a issue we need to be concerned about. i

generally don't believe (inaudible) this building is extraordinary, but i think you need to understand it in its elevation in context. i where don't see that so makes it harder for me. i would agree that the modifications the building is on the ground are reasonable, however, that particular one issue is still something that remains open and i'm sitting on the fence. (inaudible) is always a issue and again, 429 square feet to 2370 is a big delta. i like some of the other commissioners to reflect on that. >> thank you commissioner moore. any other commissioners care to comment or motions or anything? questions for staff or applicant? commissioner koppel. >> i like you president tanner dont think this is too extraordinary and i wanted to

make a motion to support staff recommendation and not take dr and approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioner braun. >> if no further commissioner deliberation, there is a motion seconded to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 5-0. commissioners, that will place us on the last item of your agenda today. number 14.

case 2020-011896drp. 1130 clement street. this is also a discretionary review. mr. winslow. >> good afternoon. david winslow staff architect. the request before you today is a public initiated request for discretionary review of build ing permit application 2020.1201.9936 to construct horizontal and vurtual rear addition. to add 3 residential units. the dr requester brendan myer owner of 1124 clement the neighbor to the east is concerned the project isn't consistent with urban design guidelines of commerce and industry and out of scale with adjacent buildings cut off light and air and road block use. the proposed

alternatives are to remove the rear portion of in4th floor and reduce the total building height. lower the rear portion to reduce the slope. and to eliminate or require opaque glass for windows within 5 feet of property lines to maintain privacy. to date the department received 11 letters in support and 4 letters opposed to the project. staff review-noticed the project--it complied with planning code but did not fully comply with the neighborhood commercial urban design guidelines to reflect arrangement of other building on the block and respect open space and not significantly impede access to light air nor block use of adjacent buildings. the project is under the threshold of tantamount demolition per code

317 but just barely. by adding 3 units the project maximize the density allowed and subject to housing accountability act. the one story commercial buildsing to the west extends all most the full lot. the shallower dr requesting buildsing to the east contain residential unit and at the third floor over commercial and office space and also it occupies nearly full lot coverage at the ground level. the parapet level of dr requesting residential space correspond to the top of the third floor of this project. project sponsor is modified the original design if you see the plans dated 12-8-22 at the end of the packet reducing the rear extension and providing 5 foot setback and adding building volume on second and third floor to make up for the lost square footage. the filling of

the side setback at second floor and third floor adjacent to levels office and commercial space of the dr requester in this context is deemed acceptable. since the project sponsor reduced the massing at the 4th floor and adding at the second and third floor to meet intent of the urban design guidelines it is staff recommendation that you take discretionary review and approve as modified. this concludes my presentation and i would be happy to answer questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. winslow. dr requester--you have a 5 minute presentation. mr.

myer. >> yes. this is brendan myer, can you hear me okay? >> we can hear you just fine now. >> okay. thanks very much. my name-president tanner, fellow commissioners, thank s for allowing me the opportunity to present my concerns regarding the proposed development at 1130 clement street. my name is brendan myer, my family and i own the building to the east of the subject property. i like to see page 2 of my slide show. thank you. this photo we are 3 story brick faced building to the right of 1130 clement. my family owned the property since 1960's. in 1988 we demolished the

existing 2 plus story unreinforced building and built the modern building you see here today. it was ground-ground floor retail space, second floor office and two story bedroom apartment on the top floor. as a builder, and property owner i am very much in favor of sensitive and reasonable property development but i cannot support the project in the current form. this project was presented in october of 2020. the idea was to construct a 7,000 square feet building with 5 residential units, 4 story and one small commercial unit on the ground floor. i'm not opposing the reconstruction of the property. we did the very same thing in 1988, but i do have two major concerns regarding the property. my first concern is the project is too large and out of scale with neighboring buildings and dominate the mid-block open space. it will deprive my rear deck

and back yards of much needed light air and privacy. i updated renders that show the impact. there are 3 aerial views of the proposed building. my is the brick face building on the right and lower two pictures and building on the left in the north view. the latest version set back the rear top floor 12 feet but it still dominates the mid-block open space and will have a huge impact on light air and privacy of the adjacent buildsings and backyards. this page shows the before and after view of the rear yard of 285, 12th avenue. the proposed building will have a property line wall approximately 35 feet above the grade extending all the way across the rear property line. can you scroll up slightly mr.

winslow? thank you very much. the total building height is approximately 45 feet above grade. page 5, please. this page shows the view looking northwest from my upper rear deck. the proposed building will effectively block our afternoon light and air coming from the west. and finally, page 6 i-this page shows a shadow study at 8 a.m., noon and 4 p.m. on the equinox. the top right shows more in shadows extending over 3 properties to the west while the lower right frame shows similar deep shade in the afternoon across the 3 properties to the east. page 8. page 8 of the list the changes that would allow me to support this project. i would like to see the top floor setback on a additional 20 feet so it might align with the rear wall of my top floor unit.

this would amount to reduction of approximately 400 kwair feet or 6 percent of the gross area of the building. maybe scroll up a little more, please. thank you. page 9, here are views of the building with the additional setbacks. my second page 7, please. my second major concern is how this project is classified as addition rather then full demolition. i believe it is. 100 percent of the existing building is being either removed or relocated upwards approximately 5 feet. under section 317 this project should be classified residential demolition and subject to conditional use review. i feel the project is (inaudible) allowed to proceed as an addition. the planning department is declared

this project application complete and current design is not-current design has not addressed my original concern regarding air light and privacy, my hope is the commission will find the project does not meet the standsards and principals expressed in the planning department code and urban design guidelines. changes can be made including reducing height and bulk that go a long way improving the project and gain the support of the neighboring properties. thank you. >> thank you mr. myer, that is your time. project sponsor, you have a 5 minute presentation. >> good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. my name is (inaudible) the project architect. also with me are the owners john and (inaudible)

thank you for your time hearing our case today and thank you mr. winslow and our planner for guidance. here we have the existing building-existing site with the dr requester on the right. our subject building is 3 stories and 2 units. next slide, please. the proposal was to add 3 more residential units with total of 5 units two of which are family size. the project adds one ground floor commercial space. the proposed addition is compatible to the (inaudible) neighborhood. and shown here are the ground and second floor. next slide, please. and third and fourth floor plans. these are (inaudible) range between 550 to 715 square feet while the larger two units are

about a thousand and 1500 square feet. and we understand the dr requesting has concerns about his light and air. (inaudible) being effected. being in a urban setting we recognize every project has impact on the adjacent properties and we have tried our best to reduce those impacts. and next i'll walk through the concessions we made in response to his concerns. next, please. so, our project was code compliant we made our first revision to reduce impact and address all comments from the design review team. we removed the roof deck in order for the rear house which is next to his third floor deck to be eliminated. we also minimized that first floor roof profile and minimized the front stair (inaudible) lowered the building by 2 feet 9

inches, setback the second (inaudible) by 3 feet for the length of 25 feet and relocate the bay to the other side. staff was satisfied with this revision and deemed the project (inaudible) next, please. after reviewing the revision the dr requester asked for the (inaudible) as well as the rear half of the top floor to be removed. the owner could not accommodate the cut but removed the front (inaudible) that this was not acceptable to the dr requester so dr was filed. next, please. the third and last revision was made after my meeting with the dr requester and mr. winslow. dr requester is adamant on the request for the project to eliminate the rear half of the top floor, however he expressed privacy concerns for the

windows facing his deck and would be willing to accept the second and third floor without side setback if the third floor is reduced so here the brown represents the last reduction which is 14 feet set back from the rear wall and 5 feet from the side. the second and third floors have no side setbacks therefore no (inaudible) next, please. and here is the east elevation which adjoins the dr requester building shown in red dashed line. the blue represent the areas that have been removed from the original project. the green solid line shows the current wall profile at the property line and orange shows the profile setback 14 feet from the rear and 5 feet from the side property line. next, please. and this is the rear elevation showing the similar color representation of the

reduction and wall profile the dr requester is on the left. next, please. the other two elevations show the reduction as well. next. in conclusion, this is a code compliant project and increase density adding 3 residential units, 3 are family size housing. if we reduce the 4th floor it would not be family size. the owners made many concessions to mitigate impact to the dr requester and concerns. as a result the top floor roof is one bedroom and approximately 350 square feet oof building space. (inaudible) design guidelines. we were willing to reduce further to satisfy the dr requester so we request you approve the project as currently proposed. thank you for your time. >> thank you. that concludes the sponsor

presentation. we should open up for comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this discretionary review. if you are using webex, raise your hand and if calling in remotely, press star 3. when you receive a request to unmute yourself, you need to do so. if you are on the phone, press star 6 to unmute yourself. through the chair, you each have two minutes. mrs. everdel. you need to unmute yourself in order to submit your testimony. okay. we'll

try mr. ruda. mr. ruda-- >> hello, can you hear me? >> we can. >> okay, great. thank you. good afternoon. i lived at 285, 12 avenue, which is the property which brendan showed the picture of the back yard which is westward towards the proposed project. i lived here for 24 years and the proposed project has building going into

its existing back yard, so significantly that it will block the air movement into our back yard as well as the light or afternoon sunlight will be entirely blocked by this project all most entirely our whole back yard will be a shadow, whereas now 8 to 9 months of the year we have afternoon sunlight. i suffer from asthma and we are only a block and a half from presidio bullyards one of the highest traffic boulevards north to south and we regularly in the area get soot pollution from that boulevard and the only thing that keeps it from coming down to the property is the air blowing through from

the ocean. the property would block that virtually entirely and secondly-that is in addition to the sunlight. it would block the air flow to the property and that has helped effects on the residents here. the proposed project is larger then any other building on that-residential building in our area other then the one immediately to the west which does not block--i am amenable to the project- >> that is your time. >> okay.

>> this is megan patel, should i speak or wait to be called on? >> go ahead. >> my name is megan patel, the owner of 238 12 avenue which borders the property in question to the east next to mr. ruda. just wanted to reinforce and agreement with all the objections listed by mr. myer. the proposed construction as mr. ruda elberated would obstruct natural light much othf day and air flow from the back yard and back patio and degrade the views from the property which is (inaudible) additionally, we have significant concerns around the potential for damage to the established root system of trees on the property of which we have 10. ranging in height from 15 to 20 feet and love to see tree conservation as part of the proposed construction project. we are

also very in favor of affordable housing in the neighborhood but i also agree the building and proposed property is out of scale with what we see in the current neighborhood. so, in summary i agree with the objections and (inaudible) as a neighbor with similar impact based on the proposed construction project. >> okay, thank you. >> hello? are you able to hear me? >> yes, we can. >> hello board members. , ladies and gentlemen. i appreciate the opportunity to address you today. my name is fay narine in the

cottage behind the proposed condo. i'm a disabled veteran, 71 years old with ptsd, which has been the worst it has ever been the last 3 and a half years. the last 3 monthss i have been improving and concerned the construction will trigger it again. i'll easily triggered by loud noises, lots of activities stressful situations. i also suffer from chronic severe pain and recently have numerous areas of acute pain which exacerbate my ptsd. i also have breathing issues, severe sleep apnea allergies and as tma (inaudible) if that air flow was blocked it will have a strong effect on my

health. most of the light comes in through the skylights, come from the kitchen window. if the skylight or window lose their light it will greatly effect my health by triggering my ptsd further. we are not asking the project be stopped but for accommodation (inaudible) to minimize the impact on my health. whatever you can do to reduce the impact is very much appreciated and i also now have a question. it seems it has been reduced from 25 feet from my fence to 15 feet, is that correct? thank you very much for your time today. >> thank you. mrs.

everdel, i sent you a second request to unmute yourself. okay. looks like we lost mrs. everdel. if she does return and raise her hand i'll be sure to notify you commissioners. last call for public comment on this matter? press star 3 to raise your hand if you are calling in by phone or raise your hand via webex. seeing no additional request to speak from members of the public, dr requester you have a

2 minute rebuttal. >> yes, thank you. the project- >> mr. myer sorry to interrupt you, but before you do there was another person requesting to speak. i guess they left too. go ahead, sir. >> okay. i guess i'm unmuted. okay. the project sponsor suggest the owners made major changes to this project to address my concerns. i don't believe this is the case. they list the following-setbacks, three stories to the east on the east wall, remove the roof deck, remove two stair penthouses, lower the building from 3 feet to down to 40 feet and move the rear bay from east to west. in fact, all these changes were made during the design review process with the san francisco planning department. i was not a party to this process and i

had no real input other then stating my original concerns in november of 2020. most of these changes i believe are mandated by the planning code. the original design of 2020 had the building height at 43 feet and 40 foot zone. the code allows for extra 5 feet of height in a neighborhood commercial zone if there is 50 percent ground floor commercial. this project has 320 feet of commercial unit on the ground floor which equates to only 20 percent of the ground floor area. it never qualified for this special height exsemgz and should have never defined at 40 feet. i aoffered to work with the owners and project sponsor to come up with design we are happy with and offered to may mediation. the owner declined the offers. it was only after david winslow offered to host a

meeting december 2022, two years after our original pre-application meeting i was finally able to meet with the sponsor and have a face to face discussion. from that meeting we have the recent changes. thank you. >> thank you. mrs. everdel i see you unmuted yourself, if you like to submit your testimony now. >> yes. can you hear me? >> we can. you have 2 minutes. >> i'm on the phone rather then the other. i couldn't get it to open. i think what i'm hearing is the same concern i have, which is the looming nature of the project. i'm on the west side of the new development at 1136 clement. i'm a landscape architect and it will effect my property directly and negatively. i have 4 skylights, clear stories and i have a central courtyard

garden we developed all of which will be effected by 4 stories looming over our heads. but even more importantly, the street itself and i think it is indicated by all these people calling in, it is quite a unique block. it has lovely trees, birds, butterflies, it is small scale with one or two-mostly one or two story buildsings, no restaurants and it is quite. adding 4 story unforgiving development which is looming out of scale with the rest of the block is ruinous to the character of the block. obviously we all understand the need for more housing in san francisco and this property will be adding new housing and we are in support of that, we just hope that the planning department will see the benefit of reserving the character of our unique and very real neighborhood and decide to reduce the height of

the building (inaudible) thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> can you hear me? my name is don marron, (inaudible) just spoke her husband and are her caregiver approved by the va. just trying to validate what fay already told you about her ptsd. i personally know the triggers and observe the effect over many years and try to help her reduce as much as possible with those triggers along with her psychiatrist at the va. when her ptsd is heavily activated she becomes very depressed which makes the ptsd worse. we know the construction will be a triggering factor in

our lives and know it will effect our air flow which is not good for her breathing and her lung issues and the light which will activate the depression and the noise which could easily trigger a flair up of her ptsd. we wish to minimize the effects as much as possible. we are doing many things on our own home to reduce the amount of sound that comes through the doors and windows and trying to find another way for the air flow to come in. we just asking you do everything you possibly can to minimize the effect of your project on our lives. and i don't know how this works but my main request is if the rear building-the building will come up sounds like 15 feet to our kitchen. and then the 15 feet will be the bike racks, so we are being really (inaudible) so just wondering could it just be pushed back a little

farther away from our property line and then that could-not certain, allow more light and air flow and little more privacy. i thank you so much for your consideration. thank you. [captioning to continue in a moment]

>> can you share your slide or the project sponsor slide? which slide do you need, ma'am? >> um, number 17. sorry the one that starts on number-not--the second set of slides. there we go. i want to show the site plan

here with the lot coverage. 100 percent of lot coverage is colored in pink and the yellow is 75 percent or less. along clement, the lots are in the mcd zoning district is and most of them are hundred percent lot coverage including the dr requester. our lot is 75 percent and with the fourth floor reduced even further. next, please. and this diagram shows a number of stories in the adjacent building. purple represents 4 stories, orange, 3, yellow, 2, and blue is 1. the majority of the building in the immediate neighborhood are 3 to 4 stories and this is about 88 percent. (inaudible) 3 lots to the west are 1 to 2 stories. next, please. also, in 1987 the dr

requester has requested and received conditional use and variance authorization for sub-standard lot size. the dr requester received many code exceptions to (inaudible) while the client code compliance (inaudible) it would be unfair to the client to (inaudible) >> thank you. that is your time. >> thank you. >> the commissioners may have follow-up questions for both you and the dr requester. at this point, commissioners that concludes the public hearing portion and this discretionary review is before you. >> thank you to staff and those who called in project sponsor. i want to highlight something stated but those who

called in or those participating may not be aware of the housing accountability act which prevents reducing the size compliant with the city code. is that accurate mr. winslow and believe you said that applies to this project? were the commission to make changes we are precluded from changing? >> that is my understanding. i leave to counsel to confirm that. >> okay. mine as well. it doesn't mean the commission couldn't make changes but want to underscore that and the reason behind that and purchase of the act is help to insure housing contribute to the needs of california and

californians. sympathize with those who called in especially the veteran. thank you for the service. who is concerned about the impact of construction and changes occurring but i think as the project sponsor said there is further distance from the cottage and not withstanding construction impacts which are real i don't know a smaller building necessarily (inaudible) noise and things is less. it still would be something that would impact during that temporary period of time. mrs. jensen did you want to address anything with the housing accountability act? >> yes are, thank you. i want to make clear, the housing accountability act doesn't say it the commission cannot deny a project it says the commission must make specified findings to deny or reduce. only if the mission can make the

findings it is appropriate to deny or reduce density of the project so wanted to put a finer point on the housing accountability issue. >> great. i think the [audio cutting in and out] around findings of (inaudible) need to be made to deny the approval of the project; >> yes, that is correct. >> thank you very much. so, with that, looking at the slides [audio cutting out] there is quite a bit of lot coverage, hundred percent of lot coverage nearby i and adjacent to a fairly large scale building. it seemed on the block at least looking at the images in google images, there is quite a little zigzag with shorter buildings and taller buildings and shorter and taller buildings and continuing the transition towards more high density

buildings in this particular block of clement street. i don't see extraordinary circumstances but do welcome comments from other commissioners. commissioners moore. >> i do not see extraordinary comments and (inaudible) seems to be sensitively modified based on staff guidance to tweak the building in areas where it needed to be tweaking. i am comfortable with what is in front of us and actually see this type of building to be more common as we move forward to look for densification. change is hard for any of us and i understand neighbor concerns however i see the building as code compliant and sense tivly executed to be something that has my support and commend the architect standing (inaudible) modifications and explaining to the commission. there is hardly anything that

would change that she did not thoughtfully document and made us understand how these things work with each other, so i wanted to add that comment. thank you and i'm in support and would make a motion to not take dr-to take dr, sorry-take dr and approve the project as modified. yes. i need to turn back to my motion. here we go. >> second. >> i see commissioner braun requesting to speak. >> i just was going to note that we need to take dr the modified motion is (inaudible) >> thank you. thank you. >> did i hear correctly the motion was to take dr and approve with staff proposed modifications? >> you are correct secretary ionin. >> thank you. on that

motion then to take dr and approve with staff modifications- >> staff modifications provided by the project sponsor and referenced in the drawings dated >> (inaudible) >> thank you. >> is that clear secretary ionin? >> if they are already made then we are not modifying anything right? >> they are modifications what had been previously noticed so in a significant enough manner that requires i believe requires the commission to take dr and approve the modifications. >> fine. the motion is to take dr and approve the modifications that have been submitted to the department. on the motion- [roll call]

so moved commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 5-0 and concludes your first hearing of 2023. i look forward returning to city hall next week. [laughter] >> hopefully without rain. >> thank you so much for shepherding through the meeting. happy new year everyone. >> happy new year. [meeting adjourned](mus

>> i started the o was with a financing and had a business partner all ended up wanting to start the business and retire and i did was very important to me so i bought them oust and two weeks later the pandemic h-4 one of the moments i thought to myself we have to have the worse business in a lifetime or the best. >> we created the oasis out of a need basically so other people bars and turning them into a space and when the last place we

were performing wasn't used turned those buildings into condos so we decided to have a space. >> what the pandemic did for us is made us on of that we felt we had to do this immediately and created this. >> (unintelligible). >> where we would offer food delivery services with a curbside professionalism live music to bring spectacular to lives we are going through and as well as employ on the caterers and the performers and drivers very for that i think also for everyone to do

something. we had ordinary on the roof and life performances and with a restaurant to support the system where we are and even with that had terribly initiative and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt had to pay our rent we decided to have an old-fashioned one we created club hours where you can watch to online and or be on the phone and raised over one quarter of a million dollar that of incredible and something that northbound thought we could do. >> we got ourselves back and made me realize how for that people will show up if i was

blown away but also had the courage but the commitment now i can't let anyone down i have to make the space serviceable so while this is a full process business it became much more about a space that was used by the community. and it became less about starting up a business and more about the heart of what we're doing. this building used to be a- and one of the first one we started working on had we came out what a mural to wrap the building and took a while but able to raise the money and pay 5 artists to make a design around many this to represent what is happening on the side and also important this is who we are this is us putting it out there because

satisfies other people we don't realize how much we affect the community around there when he i want to put that out there and show up and show ourselves outside of those walls more fabulous. and inspires other people to be more fabulous and everyone want to be more fabulous and less hatred and hostility and that is how we change the

>> good afternoon everyone. i'm san francisco mayor london breed and thank you all for being here today with a number of our city department heads who are responsible for responding to emergencies specifically as it relates to the severe weather we just experienced over the holiday weekday. i want to start by really thanking our first responders. in fact, we were under the impression and notified by our national weather service that we could anticipate not even a inch of rain and in fact what we saw was within 24 hour period was a 5.5 inches of rain, which is the second largest amount of rain we have seen in a 24 hour period. it had not happen in san francisco in this capacity