please stand by for the san francisco planning commission meeting of march 2, 2023. >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco planning commission hearing session for thursday march 2, 2023. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming live and we'll receive public comment for each item. each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. when your time is reached i

will announce your time is up and take the next person. we'll take persons in city hall first and open remote access. for those participating through webex, raise your hand and when public comment is called for the item-for those calling in to submit testimony please listen carefully because they changed again. thank you department of technology and sfgovtv and media services. for those persons calling in to submit testimony, you still need to call 415-655-0001. you still need to enter an access code, which is 25942167313. now press pound twice.

that is pound and then pound again. no more access-no more passwords, so all you need to do is wait for the item you are interested in speaking and public comment to be announced and press star 3 to raise your hand. once your raised your hand you will hear the prompt. please wait to speak until the host calls on you. no more star 6. when you hear you are unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. best practice are call from a quite location. please mute the volume on it television or computer. for those attending in the chambers, please line up on the screen side oof the room. speak clearly and slowly and if you care state your name for the record. i ask we silence mobile devices and i like to take roll. [roll call]

we expect commissioner ruiz to be absent for some time on maturnty leave. item 1, case 2022-004869cua. for the property at 3352 steiner street. conditional use authorization. 2a and b for 2019-022404enx for property at 1458 san bruno. there is also a 2c for same property. all proposed for indefinite continuance. they will be renoticing their project at some point when they figure out what they want to do. i have no other items

proposed for continuance so should open public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission on any items proposed for continuance. only on the matter of continuance. again, if in the chambers come forward, remotely press star 3. seeing no members in the chambers let's go to remote callers. >> this is sue. i am asking for continuance on number 15, which is 98 pennsylvania. (indiscernible) on their way to get to the meeting. there has

been various problems with this project, and in terms of the staff report not having adequate information from various people. there is supposed to be a extension of a tunnel underneath (indiscernible) nerks next to the site for the pennsylvania extension for the railroad. that is not analyzed in this report and it should be. there is also misleading plans about this site. the site is surrounded by non improved streets, and the staff report doesn't really deal with those intensively. there is a lot of problems with the site. not the least of which is the planning commission doesn't have adequate information from the environmental document on stuff that is supposed

to happen. the construction is supposed to happen right through this site. i am asking on behalf of (indiscernible) to ask for continuance of this item to have this staff report altered so that sufficient information is given to the commission and to the public on the project itself and the surrounding area. thank you very much. bye. >> hi. this is patricia (indiscernible) our problem is we talked to the people a year ago and (indiscernible) [difficulty understanding speaker due to audio

quality] please contact us. 415-426 (indiscernible) thank you. >> okay. commissioners, 98 pennsylvania was not considered to be continued at this time. if you like, we can include it, otherwise we should consider that request at the time the matter is called. not sure the project sponsor is even here to speak to it. [multiple speakers] >> thanks. on behalf of the project sponsor. the project has been continued twice now since the first hearing once at the request of potrero boosters once for the department. we are ready to speak today. taking time to get here. there is a couple items after us so if we need to give her more

time to get here we are open as well. we are prepared to have the hearing today. thank you. >> i would assume-i prefer to continue it under-consider the item and if we want to continue it that could be a consideration. we can still address the comments we heard today. any other speakers on the continuance calendar? >> no. public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is before you commissioners. >> any other comments or motions? commissioner braun. >> i move to continue items 1, 2a, 2b, and 2c. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to continue items as proposed- [roll call] so moved

commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0. commissioners that place under consent calendar. all matters listed here consitute consent calendar are considered routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote by the commission. there is no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the commission the public or staff so request, in which event the matter shall be removed and considered as a separate item. item 3, property at 667 commercial street. conditioning use authorization. 4, 2022-012037cua. 2050 chestnut street conditional use authorization; 3700 california street. conditional use authorization. item 6, case

2022-003511cua. 268 church street conditional use authorization and 7a and b for 2016-00730dnx and 5 third street. members of the public this is your opportunity to request that any of these items on consent be pulled off consent and heard at the end of today's agenda. seeing no members of the public in the chambers coming forward, let's go to remote callers. >> (indiscernible) first of all, i'm very happy about (indiscernible) >> mrs. boyd, at this time we are just- >> i'm talking about the continuance. okay? >> we are done with the continuance. i'm sorry to interrupt you, but if you are requesting to have

chestnut street removed from consent that is what you need to do. >> approve the (indiscernible) i like the condition to be put on it that should bring back before it gets finalized. >> in order to do that we have to remove it from consent calendar. >> other neighborhood groups as well as our own and we are having a giant meeting next month (indiscernible) with all other groups. thank you. >> are you requesting chestnut street to be removed from the consent calendar? >> i didn't request to be removed, i requested an addendum to be put on the approval. >> for that to happen we need to have it removed from consent. item 4 will be removed from consent and heard later today. >> we'll hear it- >> before the dr calendar at the end of the regular

calendar. you need to come back and make that request again later. item 4 will be removed from consent. let's go to the next caller. seeing no additional request to speak, public comment on the consent calendar is closed and item 4 is removed from consent calendar so the remaining items are before you commissioners. >> any motions or comments on the consent agenda? commissioner diamond. >> move to approve all items on consent calendar with the exception of the one on chestnut street. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion to approve all on consent with exception of item 4- [roll call] so moved commissioners, motion

passes unanimously 6-0. that place under commission matters for item 8, your land acknowledgment. >> thank you. we acknowledge 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 and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. >> thank you. item 9 consideration of adoption of draft minutes for february 16, closed and regular hearing. members this is your opportunity to address the commission on the minutes. if in the chambers come forward or remotely press star 3. seeing no request to speak commissioners, public

comment on the minutes is closed and before you. >> commissioner koppel. >> move to approve minutes from closed and regular session. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. on the motion to adopt the minutes- [roll call] so moved, the motion passes unanimously 6-0. placing under item 10, commission comments and questions. >> happy women history month. it is already march if you believe that. we also ended black history month and tuesday i was privileged to interview mayor willy brown so with all the planning staff present talking about his tenure in san francisco and changes he oversaw and definitely getting wisdom and advice so quite a treat and great to see all the staff. there is a recording out there, so the video isn't exciting. it is the side of my head for the most, but

the audio is good. maybe treat it like a pod cast. that was very exciting and thank director hillis for helping arrange that. i want to ask to see when we can schedule the housing implementation. there is a lot going on and got questions from the members of the public for housing for all plan and how that is unfolding and curious so think it bode good discussion here along with something vice president moore asked which is new legislation in california in place this year related to housing and planning and land use to get a sense of other things we might be expecting so not sure if that is scheduled. >> i believe emory rogers is here and she i believe is take thg lead on scheduling the hearing so may have a date already available, but if not we are close to scheduling one. it will be early

spring. coming up soon. we are all working on it. >> great. i will send questions i have gotten that can maybe be answered in director comments in addition to a longer discussion. the only item i want to bring up is discussion around design review. just thinking about a lot of times we stick to our 5 minutes. i stick to 5 minutes for sponsor presentations. i think for the most part it works fairly well and ask follow-up quelgzs questions but if you see something comes up you think deserves extra time, let me know so we can include more time and if you forget and realize when the projethis here i want to learn more we can ask for additional time during the hearing even before public comment so if you want to be contiguous with the project, dive deeper into design and community outreach and other things that sometimes take up more of the

sponsor energy. just a note there and open to other ideas how to hear about the design and other elements important to the project. >> commissioner tanner, for your and public interest, the housing element implementation update is scheduled for april 27. >> okay. i will send questions to have answered. call on commissioner moore and diamond. >> without having discussion adding a couple thoughts for design review. in the past it was recommended by this commission and former commissions to give large project applicants an independent element in during any meeting to present design even in the process of still being developed so we familiarize ourselves with the challenges and with the opportunities these larger designs allow. f for example, if 3700 california is coming back, which was a very

extensive project, very detailed in design, i think the commission accept for commissioner koppel and myself who were there would greatly benefit together with a public to refresh themselves on what the issues were, what the challenges were and how we best address them. that would be one example. there are many other large project jz think the benefit of the public and ourselves to help listen, comment early on rather then just commenting when it is all most too late. we really are creating hindrances and delays rather then constructively participating. >> thank you for the suggestion. commissioner diamond. >> i want to endorse both of what commissioners tanner and moore said. i was actually here for the 3700 project too. one of the first items i heard as a commissioner, but i noticed recently that

we are-the project sponsors are spending all most all of their 5 minutes on their relations with and interaction with and response to the neighborhood groups and the context, all of which are critical and important but it gives the appearance we are also not that interested in design and that is secondary and yes, i do think of course we have the opportunity to ask them questions, but some of them spent years i millions of dollars to get to the opponent point where they have design and i want to make sure the 5 minute limit does not change the way in which they come prepared to make the presentation, because i like a full on architectural presentation. a good example was the incredible native american cultural center that we heard a few weeks ago where it is a really creative unusual design and all most none of the presentation was on that and it

was all around the need for the project. i am concerned that our 5 minute rule shifts the focus all most entirely to one very important subject, but 59 the expense of oorkt very important subject and as we go forward with some of these projects we will see in front of us, especially in light of the housing element, the design of these housing projects is really important and so i agree with both of you, there are several ways to handle that. i think a critical way is to have information session early on. i believe that what we did with stones town is too late in the process. it feels like they are so far along, when they heard our comments they feel they have done the deal already and we are slowing them down and that is a very awkward position to be in. we need to be able to provide our

input early enough they can seriously give it attention and there same with 3700. i am just wondering whether or not for projects of a certain scale we should be clear in our instructions and staff should be clear in instructions to project presenters that we want to hear about the negotiations and the discussions with the neighbors and we really want a presentation on design and if they feel they need 5 minutes let us know ahead of time so we can grant it. it seems sometimes people show up and they are about to do a 10 minute presentation and we say you got 5 and they are like, i thought i had 10 and we say you have 5 but you can respond to questions. i think they might be getting mixed messages and we should be really clear. i absolutely believe for the larger projects the design should very much be part of the primary presentation. >> thank you. maybe it is something we can add

to our officer meeting as we discuss projects and staff on notice to also bring to our attention this is something we may want to spend more time on or have informational session on so we can join forces and seek out when we need to use that discretion. thank you all for your comments on that. any other commissioner comments or questions? i dont know if you need to respond, but i think you get the message. >> i think the cpc officers meeting is the appropriate venue to vet thampt that. if there are no further comments, we had a meeting with city administrator's office for additional guidance on remote public participation, so i guess last week or the week prior you indicated we will continue the practor of public comment. the city administrator office provided additional guidance that if we are continue to with remote public comment that we

establish a time limit associated with it. but that time limit should be consistent throughout the entire agenda. they used an example of 20minutes. i think that is extremely short. evefen we go for a hour that would be 20 people maximum and their recommendation is if we were to establish a time limit that we actually adhere to it and cut people off who may already be in the queue who haven't had a opportunity to speak. this would not apply to quasi-judicial items such as negative declarations that come before you, and so the board of appeals which is a quasi-judicial body already adopted the policy they are not going to establish time limits because most items they consider are appeals. if not all. i brought this to the historic preservation commission yesterday. we had no issues at the historic preservation

commission nor do i feel issues here with remote public comment. they decided to not set any time limits, so i will seek your direction today. if you would like to impose any consistent time limit. this could change from agenda to agenda, but on each agenda the time has to be consistent for every item. >> commissioner moore. >> could we think about it more before jumping in and having a opinion the? the other quelgz question i like to ask, with the new latest setup from a few weeks ago the pause with you calling on somebody and those people responding is a awfully long pause and i am wondering if that pause could be shortened. >> we have gotten away with that today. thanks to department of technology and media service and sfgovtv working collaboratively we have gotten rid of star 6 to unmute

themselves, so today we shouldn't have all the long pause because they need to hear you are requested to be unmuted and press star 6 and-all that is back to the old way we have been unmuting people and so it is simply they are unmuted and hear a prompt, you have been unmuted and so that is their indication to begin speaking. it should be much smoother now moving forward. >> perhaps we could observe today and see if there is a pattern without nailing it today, that is my preference. >> i agree. i don't-it doesn't seem-i wouldn't have a time limit i would propose but get to know the option and think about it for a bit. >> and the city administrator office will be reviewing this practice moving forward. they were asking us to adopt time frames so there is consistency across all policy bodies but we are far ahead of the game. many policy bodies have not been conducting hybrid

hearings and many don't have staff behind the scenes helping the way i do, so i think it is a very different situation then most, but yeah, so for now i will keep status quo. if there is desire in the future let me know. >> we make it busious agendas where we have more needed. >> very good commissioners. thank you for that. if there is nuther further we can move to department matters, director announcement. item 12 review of past events at the board supervisors board of appeals and board of preservation commission. >> this week the committee considered-land use considered superdorsey article 8 rework. supervisor dorsey made miner amendments. none were deemed substantive. however supervisor pestcon asked the item continued for two

weeks. we would like the ordinance allowing 100 percent group housing paired with another ordinance that prohibit home sf and article 10 districts so the item continued yet again for another two weeks. also on the docket, continued with supervisor ronen ordinance that amend the penalties for code enforcement and planning quode. proposed amendments not yet drafted so the sponsor requested additional week for that. and one item did make it out of committee, it was the village sud to facilitate the development of the village service san francisco native american population. the 6 story, 4100 square foot building include a youth center and elder service, community gathering program and dental clinic and medical clinic and

(indiscernible) you recommended iproval for the sud and conditional use authorization contingent upon the sud adopted. during the hearing planning presented the item on behalf of the mayor office. there were two speaks from the project team and dozen or more public commenters in favor. once public comment was done and all supervisors on the committee appraised the project and asked to be added as cosponsor and sent to full board with positive recommendation and this week there were no planning items at the full board so that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> aaron, did you mention victoria gray? victoria gray was nominated to replace commissioner johns for the historic preservation xhickz commission and moved forward to full board with 2-1 vote. if

no questions--no questions related to the board report, there is no report for board of appeals. the historic preservation committee did meet yesterday and adopted historic context statement rebuilding the city from 1933 through 1943. wonderful report. i strongly recommend the read. it was suggested it be published into a book. also, the historic preservation knhigz initiated land mark deshingination for 2041 larkin street. the church for fellowship of all people established by dr. fisc and dr. thermman. that place under general public comment. [providing instructions for public comment]

>> good afternoon. georgia. last week cua hearing on the legalization of the cumberland ttd raised questions in need of answers. why were there several different sets of demo calics for the alteration? why was the projecktd reviewed as a alteration when three threshold s were exceeded in the 2017 demo materic and forth was closed? why were the (indiscernible) and given the fact one of the findings to approve the variance stated if the variance wasn't granted for the front setback the project could become demolition? why does the 2016 calics show hardly structures removed? why on the 2019 plans the project sponsor

submitted to prove the calics did not cross the threshold prior to enforcement for the demo calics using the article 10 threshold when the property had been downgraded to c after the cad x found no merit? why did another project at 20 radcliffe terrace not have calics measured against article 10? this house is designed in the tradition by a recognized master hc bowman and a rated and contributor to historic district. why was the design for radcliffe allowed to be revised during enforcement just up to but not over the edge of the 317 threshold thereby avoiding a cua? these are the cinds of questions about the application of section 317 for many previously approved alterations that should be analyzed at the staff

proceeds with any reform to the demolition controls. and finally, two over arching questions, why have there been so many alterations primarily speculative projects often selling the entitlements having issues with the demo calics accepted and approved by staff contry to intent of planning code section 317 as stated in the findings in section 317a? and why have the calics never been adjusted per section 317b2d? here is what i said for all of you right there with pictures. here's the 150 words for the minutes. thank you very much. >> seeing no additional members in the chambers, let's go to our remote callers.

>> hello. can you hear me? >> we can. >> okay. this is (indiscernible) regarding the discussion on remote calling and remote public comment. we heard at the rules committee a presentation by the city administrator regarding time limits, however, none of that has been settled by the board of supervisors, so it is still not-it is going to be heard again on march 7, so before you jump the gun to putting anything in place, i wish you would listen to what the board of supervisors comes down with as far as remote public comment and time limits. thank you.

>> go ahead, caller. let's go to the next caller. >> hello, this is patricia boyd again. the other day we had 60 people in our neighborhood that walk our neighborhood, talk to our merchants and we are (indiscernible) i was at a coffee shop a couple came in to give me a report of what they were hearing. (indiscernible) two people, a young girl that was (indiscernible) charming and another lady that was a little older that lived in the city and comes

to (indiscernible) what i heard was people are upset about the new architecture pushed upon us. the fact they feel the master plan from lumbard has been sabotaged and i want you to consider those small districts and their continuity. you will be given (indiscernible) report from us on that and a report from-on merchants and voting on what they want and what they don't. we are not on a board to decide what is best for the neighborhood. the neighborhood tells us. we would like to be a part of this with the department but now i have two issues that are put in front of me in less then a week that we do not know it had gotten to this stage and (indiscernible)

i think we need a better system and contacting the people that are involved in the neighborhood on a regular basis. if anybody wants to know on the board what i've been doing, commissioner moore has been out and seen it and you can ask her questions whether i'm valid or not. thank you very much and have a nice weekday. >> last call for general public comment. again, come forward or press star 3 or raise your hand by webex. seeing no additional request to speak, commissioners, general public comment is closed. i want to address a comment. the direction we received is that each commission can policy body will set their own rules related to remote public comment and until such time the board in collaboration with the mayor office and city administrator office adopts a city wide policy that each commission can establish its own rules related to

remote public comment. commissioners, we should now move on to your regular calendar for item 13. case 2018-017026 for the san francisco environmental framework and general plan introduction. this is for your consideration to approve amendments. >> good afternoon commissioners. commissioner secretary, you are right. today is adoption day for environmental justice framework and excited about that. the framework holds san francisco first policy for environmental justice. as you know, we have been working together with you, with members of the public and with our elected officials to modernize the general plan. you approvered the safety and resilience element, adopted december last year and the housing element adopted in january of this year. today's item is planned to be the last update before the

transportation element is before you tentatively anticipated for 2025. why are we urging adoption? there is currently no baseline for environmental justice across all arms of the city. yet we know there are disproportionate exposures to environmental pollution in concentrated social vulnerabilities. today we seek to address the compounded health risk that are geographically specific. today we seek to fix this gap in the general plan. let's consider adoption. you have before you a fresh introduction to the general plan that strives to embody the rich work from the past few years into a timely succinct vision both true to the past and hopeful for the future. if this work is adopted, the department budget supports a phase 2 to the general plan modernization work. phase 2 with advance more comprehensive

moves but i'm get ahead of ourselves. for today you remember our last hearing for initiation, you heard public comment supporting the framework as a living document. it should be day to day guide informing city action. continually adapted to reflect changing community needs. it should strive and should hold accountable. much work remains at environmental justice. today is a opportunity to take a step forward. >> hello commissioners and thank you to everyone tuning in. our project director lisa chen isn't able to join us today in person but she is available on webex for discussion afterwards. and marie and myself are excited to represent the team and present to you our adoption

proposal. to start, we wanted to take a brief step back and share the big picture of why we are here today and can i get the slides on the computer? thank you. our work is seeking to amend the city general plan and the general plan is the city wide policy document mandated by state law. general plan policy should be designed to guide action with at least a 20 year perspective and as ann-today's hearing this adoption hearing you assess from the facts presented the public necessity convenience and general welfare requirement the proposed amendments. over the past few years the department has been undergoing major efforts to

update multiple chapters or elements of the general plan. today our proposal rides on the coattails of recent adoption oo the safety resilience and housing element. our proposal today is driven by the state law sb1,000 that requires municipalities to analyze data on disadvantdage communities that relabel as environmental justice communities. it also requires us to adopt general plan policies to address the unique and compounded health risks that are faced by these areas. at the local level, the resolutions from this commission and historic preservation commission have called upon the department to put general plan policies for racial and social equity. with today's action at the state and local level, we are driven to propose these updates that the general plan introduction and the new environmental justice framework by reference. the framework will also include an environmental justice community map that designate the

area where policies should prioritize and begin action. since our initiation hearing on january 26, our team has performed a series of miner updates to the content and style of this proposal. it is detailed in full in the staff report and i won't read the slide in full, but it paints the picture of what we added. we added reference to the city work on reparations to the black community. we added clarifying context and descriptions to the environmental justice community map and we did a series of copy editing, readability and visibility. our team developed new material frz the commission and public today and that is indicated on the bottom right of this slide. we developed a new user guide to the environmental justice community map so other city departments can contextualize the map as

the base of their own decision making. it isn't meant to be presciptive but helps paint the picture how it can be prescribed widely. thank you for adding the new materials to the record and e-docket. >> so, we also held informational presentations at environment commission and human rights commission and both of them were very supportive of our work. the interagency coordination with these two groups and staff helped this team reach the point today and alignment with climate metigation and racial and social equity issues. speaking of interagency support we thank all the peer agencies for engagement and coordination over the past 2 and a half years. as part of the staff report we included 2 agency letters of support from the office of resilience and capital planning and

the sfpuc. so, for today's recommended action, just wanted to ground ourselves again that with this action we are refreshing the front door of the general plan, the introduction and also adding this ej framework that incorporate policies to address the unique compounded health risk in environmental justice communities. i'll pass to share more about the introduction. >> good afternoon commissioners. planning staff. just a quick recap on what is in the introduction. starts with the land acknowledgment, which is similar to the way we start each hearing. it updates the historical and physical context and now presented in a more inclusive way. it puts equity front and center by highlighting the commission's resolution on equity. and it incorporates the ej

framework into the general plan. it presents a vision that is based on community input from many planning efforts and that includes the ej framework, the housing element and connect sf and finally removes the duplication of the planning code priority policies. the planning code priority policies still remain in the planning code and will continue to remain in full effect. a little bit about the map, the map shows the cumulative environmental burdens in different areas of the city, and the top 1/3 are in red. those are areas that face disproportionate environmental burdens, and socio economic vulnerability. those-air rus are the ones designations as ej communities. they are often low income communities and communities of color, and everything in the ej

framework is intended to prioritize attention on those communities. there are many type of data that factner to the ej community designation and to help depict some of the data we developed a data portal. it is a website that includes maps that show how the ej communities relate to the data, and that's a example that the screen shot of the data portal. in the screen shot you can see health outcomes, in this case asthma. particularly severe in ej communities so you see the outline of ej communities on top of various data sets. the portal was developed by sf state students working with us at the planning department. we have a soft launch for it stow

it is available. we are still doing cleanup as you always have to do with a website, but we will make it more prominent when the process is over. now danielle will present a bit more about the framework itself. >> thanks. so, while we encourage everyone to read the full environmental justice framework, just here for the presentation we credit one example policy which is in the blue text and underneath is the supporting text that we offer to show the breath of the core policy intention. again, we want to remind everyone this ej framework is a major step to integrate environmental justice and racial and social equity to the general plan and there is groundwork for phase 2 to put the issues in subsequent general plan amendments like the environmental protection element and air quality element. for healthy resilient environments you see here, the

example policy is to invest in resilient public utility systems and affirm the human rights to water power and sanitation. for the next top ic on physical activity and healthy public facilities, the policy is to offer the flexible inclusive programming for all communities. for healthy food access, the policy is to foster climate resilience and invasion in the food system. for safe healthy and affordable homes it st. to insure that housing support public health in alignment with the housing element. the next topic on equitable and green jobs, fostering robust network of work and entrepreneurship. lastly, with empowered neighborhood center ej efforts in collaboration with the american indian community and traditional

ecological knowledge. if approved today it would be a huge celebration of three years of long range planning in collaboration with the community. we hope that you commissioners are supportive of the intentions and process and actual proposal that we shared with you. once our final resolution is transmitted to the clerk of the board, the board has 90 days to act so unique to the general plan amendment the board vote is up or down. they cannot make line edits after transmission and if the board doesn't act in 90 days it is deemed approved without action. we offer briefings to all the supervisors already to provide them the opportunity to dialogue with us and we answered questions, made miner adjustments based on the suggestions such as developing the guide for the map. as you consider your decision, we like to remind you since

you lost saw initiation the proposal is stable with this new user guide and the city attorneys have signed the ordinance. which we also have hard copies of as well. so, this is the end of the presentation. thanks for your attention and thanks to everyone inside the room and outside the room that helped us get to this point and we are available for q & a at this time. >> thank you. >> staff presentation. we should take public comment. [providing instructions for public comment] seeing no request-i take that back. let's go to

remote callers. go ahead, caller. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is an tonio diaz, (indiscernible) environmental economic rights, and i'm here to urge your adoption of the environmental justice framework. i was fortunate to participate in the environmental justice working group convened by the planning department and other city departments to develop this important framework and i urge your adoption so we can make sure that san francisco advances environmental justice for our community. thank you.

>> casey rios, you are unmuted. casey rios, last opportunity to submit your testimony. you are unmuted. okay. last call for public comment. seeing no additional request to speak, public comment is closed. this general plan amendment is now before you. >> great. thank you. i want to thank staff. we had quite the array of folks involved so where they are thank them and all the community members for participation. i have a question. this handout, the map seems the same sapt for the last one. am i looking at it right? i want to make sure it is very similar that there isn't a difference. maybe the last one is

summarizing the most burdened but the first two pages seems to be all most identical. >> i forgot that talking point. the small detail we made is the legend. the red box. we relabeled it before it said top 30 percent of areas, and we changed to top 1/3 of areas. >> okay. >> the three pages are just different versions to look beautiful. >> they do look very beautiful. thank you to those who went into making-i also want to commend the user guide and this map just to reminder that it is something we should be taking out as we do our budget and hopefully other departments as well in terms of allocating resources to the areas most burdened. with that, i will call on commissioner koppel. >> great report. amazing work team, move to approve. >> second. >> commissioners, seeing no additional request to speak from members of the

commission to deliberate, there is a motion seconded to approve the amendments. on the motion- [roll call] so moved commissioners. motion passes unanimously 6-0. will place us on item 14 for case 2021-005938cua. property at 276 grand view avenue. conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon members of the planning commission. alex westhoff, department staff. the item before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section 303 and 317 to demolish a existing 1154 square foot two-story over garage one family dwelling and construct a new 3760 gross square foot 3 story

over garage two family dwelling which includes 2796 square foot three bedroom dwelling units and 964 square foot one bedroom dwelling unit with two car garage and two class one bike parking spaces. it is located 276 grand new avenue in the noe valley neighborhood. block 2764 lot 012 with rh2 zoning. 40x height and bulk and central neighborhood large resident special use district. the project description changed since the project was noticed and no longer requires a cua for the special use district. the department recommended the addition of the second unit when decreased the size of the primary unit. therefore what is in front of the commission today is there 317cu uh. the project is modern in appearance, consistent

with the residential design guidelines, compatible with neighboring properties, and fully compliant with the planning code. both units will have access to the rear yard common open space while the upper unit has exclusive access to the roof deck. overall the department finds the project to be necessary and desirable for the neighborhood since the proposal will add one net new housing unit. department staff received one e-mail in support of the project from the southerly adjacent neighbors and department staff and planning commission received one other (indiscernible) and or demolition projects on grand view avenue. the department recommends approval with conditions and the project sponsor will now make a presentation. thank you. >> project sponsor, you have five minutes.

>> good afternoon commissioners, planning staff, alex. my name is juan (indiscernible) the project architect. 276 grand view is a property in san francisco noe valley neighborhood. it has existing single family dwelling with 1 and a half stories and basement garage on a up-sloping lot from the street. it has historic resource status of c and proposed to be demolished and replaced with 2 new attached dwelling units. the project is designed to maintain the character of the residential neighborhood and show compatibility especially with those in the immediate surrounding residential houses. the sites irregular dimensions steep slope and

multiple easement arrangements between the neighbor and property owner pose design challenge and created the complexity of the current building design. originally, designed as single family rez dntd converted to add the second unit to meet provisions of the newly enacted central neighborhood large resident special use district. the project sponsor a long time resident of san francisco purchased the property in 2020 and currently resides in the existing house. once complete, he and his son will continue to reside in the upper primary unit which has three bedrooms and 2 and a half bathrooms. this unit has a one car garage, lots of storage, bicycle parking and trash recycling spaces in the basement street level. the upper floors and roof deck with directly accessible by interior stairs

and elevator. the primary unit front entrance is directly above an approach from the sidewalk coming up a fully landscape exterior stairs and green roof deck. the rear of the second floor opens to the rear yard common open space. the second smaller unit has a bedroom and one bathroom on the ground level. it too has a one car garage, ample storage, bicycle parking and trash recycling spaces in the basement. the side exterior stairs gives access to the front entrance and ascends to the rear yard to had the common open space. thank you commissioners. the project sponsor and i are here available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. [providing instructions for public comment]

>> hi, good afternoon georgia. i sent the e-mail because i wanted to put this project into context with things that had gone on not only in noe valley but specifically on grand view and i do want to thank the staff specifically mr. westhoff for concluding that this was a demolition and i think if you look at the timelines it is important to understand that. originally this project, this house, which is a livable house as i sent the pictures of it was purchased in 2017 for $1 million. that project sponsor took out a permit which they never acted on, but that fsh for a alteration. at that same time there are been several alteration up there too. one which you had a dr hearing on and the other two which you didn't and two were

certainly questionable in terms of whether they were demolitions and i say the same about the third that you had a dr hearing on that you added a unit to back in 2016-2017. as i said in the e-mail, i think this is part of the speculative frenzy that went on in noe valley and grand view and i guess the point i want ed to make by sending all that information was, could there behave been a paradigm shift? could something else have happened? this is 1100 square foot house livable. could that have been preserved? that is the intent of 317. i'm not saying it would have happened but saying the demo calc not adjusted gave leeway for this house to either be altered as planned and caught very recently

and towards the end of the whole process for this that it was a demo. i wrote to mr. westhoff january 2020 and said what are the demo calc and he asked sping 2022 and by 2023 it was decided it was a demo. a long time there. if the project sponsor is-could they have sent the demo calcs right away as maybe they should have given history of everything that happened or if it was adjusted could the house have been preserved? i'm talking about a alternate universe, but that is what i have been talking about for 10 years. i'll leave it at that. i'm glad they added a unit because that is what you wantment you didn't have to ask. they gave it to you before you asked and that was a recent addition and quhie it

was delayed from the earlier hearing. that's it. i'm out of time. thank you very much. >> last call for public comment. come forward or press star 3. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you. >> thank you. thank you to the staff and project sponsor. looks very well designed project in my opinion and thoughtful and appreciate the graphic. i don't think i have seen that. that was cool. that was a nice use of your time. getting a view. at least of the exterior so thank you for that. commissioner koppel. >> seeing no other comments i'll move to approve the conditions. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to approve this matter with conditions- [roll call] so moved. motion passes 6-0 placing on

item 2020-010275enx. 98 pennsylvania, a large project authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. planning department staff. the item before you is a large project authorization pursuant to planning code section 329 for the construction of a building greater then 25 thousand gross square feet in the urban mixed use district. the project proposes the demolition of surface parking lot and new construction of a 6 story 60 foot tall approximately 74 thousand square foot residential building containing 64 dwelling units, 23 vehicle parking spaces, one

car share space, 64 bike parking spaces and 4 class 2 bike parking spaces. approximately 6800 square feet open space provided by private deck and common roof deck. the on site inclusionary rate for the project is 21 percent. broken down into 12 percent for low income, 4.5 for moderate and 4.5 for middle income. the project is requesting 49 percent density bonus per state density bonus law, and the project sponsor is utilizing the required onsite inclusionary at low income tier towards the application for the state density bonus law, however in order to achieve the boning the project is required to provide one additional volunteer low income unit, so for a total of 10 on-site affordable units in order to

qualify under state density bonus law. the project is requesting three wavers and no concessions. the wavers are to the rear yard, ground floor ceiling height and building height. the project site is located next to a potential alignment of the pennsylvania avenue extension passenger rail projethand the project may run adjacent or underneath the project site. the project is still under study and coordination with the property owners and acquisition of any easements or property necessary for the tunnel bore is the responsibility of the future pennsylvania avenue extension project team. for public outreach the project sponsor hosted one preapplication meeting september 2020 and met with the potrero booster january 2023. the

department received correspondence in opposition to the project from save potrero hill, property owner on the same block and potrero booster. opposition to the project is generally centered around the appropriateness for residential use adjacent to elevated freeway, railroad tracks and potential passenger rail project and increased height and density of the site. neighboring property owners expressed the site should remain commercial in use or industrial in use and should not exceed the height of the elevated freeway and express concerns around traffic, loading, seismic safety and groundwater. similar concern regarding the scale of the project and effect upon potrero hill neighborhood and believe the prior approved project was more appropriate for the site. the potrero boosters expressed they found engagement from the project sponsor team to be late and rushed and level

of detail on the plans and renderings insufficient and sometimes misleading and raised concern about the exposure of the units facing undeveloped 7th street and pennsylvania avenue roithd of way. whether the yunlts are accessible for emergency service and feel the state density bonus waver should be denied on health and safety ground. also raised concerns the foundation of it project could conflict with the potential tunnel bores for the extension and whether the project had sufficiently considered the location of mechanical equipment and filtration needed for air quality and accuracy of the geotechnical report. the department finds that on balance the project is consistent with the potrero hill area plan and general plan. the project will maximize residential density using state density bonus law on a surface parking

lot. the project will increase the city supply of housing with 64 new dwelling units including 10 of which designated on-site affordable rental units. the project sponsor is in attendance and has prepared a presentation. this concludes staff's presentation and i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. john on behalf of the project sponsor. the site is-if we can get the computer screen. thanks sfgovtv. the site is (indiscernible) 2016. which replace a surface parking lot and construct 48 unit project. the project sponsor obtained a site permit for the project in 2018 locking in the 15.4 percent affordable housing. ment in light of the availability of the

state density bonus [speaker speaking too fast] increased housing using the density bonus. the new project proposes a 6 story building with 64 dwelling units. increase of 16 dwelling units. it will have 10 affordable units. that is up from 7 in the original project and we added a single story with 12 feet height to the building. private open space is provided in the rear yard at the podium level and upper story courtyard and roof deck serving all units and we are not seeking exceptional for open space. the site is surrounded by street scape including potential removal of i-280 and improvalment along the caltrain track and bike lanes along 17th street. the northeast and east frontages are particularly challenging to this project.

we all recognize considering the current environment have the caltrain track jz no pedestrian access and these are a couple pictures. so far we proposed-sorry, should the i-280 removal take place the environment will be vastly different and this is a image of the conceptual plans. 2016 hasn't been another presentation since then. at this point not a reasonably for seeable project because of ceqa and it says that in the ceqa document. we had 2 to 3 meetings with sfmta staff during the entitlement process and they expressed we are still just looking at plans. there was no definitive feedback yet. so far we are proposing a landscape wall at grade along the pennsylvania frontage as a middle ground option that serves the configuration today and in the potential future if the freeway were to come down. we will continue to work with

the community how to best integrate to the nearby community garden and this is is adjacent to it. of course we have been coordinating with long range planning staff and sfmta since 2021 and will continue to do so through the permit process, street improvement process, et cetera. 17th street which is the primary frontage will soon be improved with bike lanes. the project will construct a sidewalk where none exist today. that will have stree street trees and all this is ist consistent with the better street plan. walk up units are provided to further activate it. certainly this is a area in transition and the project sponsor is enthusiastic and supportive of all plans. it is better for the project, better for the neighborhood. eliminatesing the parking lot and creating new housing will help build on the housing development on the site or on this block as

highlighted in this image. so, we have been working with potrero boosters and made significant change in direct response to their requests. initially, when we started the reentitlement process the project sponsor and architect met with the boosters showed the old design, took input and made pretty fundamental changes as you see from the two images on your screen now. but then again, when the booster asked for continuance in january we were happy to do it, we wanted to work with them and make sure we could achieve everything we could. we had two meetings, updated the plans twice. eliminated (indiscernible) reduced the parapet height. clarified there are individual washers and dryers in each unit which was always the intent. (indiscernible) added additional freeway details and prepared

photo-renderings to concern about design. there are no request we are aware we haven't responded to. despite making design modifications and going through the formal design review process several members of the booster provided verbal design comments but it is not clear they are shared by the whole group so thought it was inappropriate to incorporate them at this stage of the process but more then open to comments on design as we always are. thank you. here if you have any questions. >> okay. [providing instructions for public comment]

>> good afternoon commissioners. this is the first time i have been here since 2020. this is big deal for me. >> welcome back. >> allison heath with the potrero booster neighborhood association. just wanted to make a quick clarification from the presentation that the boosters have not objected to height in residential use. we have a long history of success with developers and the planning department. our efforts have yielded well designed projects, extensive community benefits and thousands of units of housing. while we recognize the serious need for additional affordable housing, the proposed project raises a number of concerns we have detailed in our letters to you. i should note because of these outstanding issues not being resolved we have not yet presented the project to the full membership. the

pennsylvania avenue extension was endorsed as the best alternative for rail project of major city state and regional significance mptd show tunnels running under or adjacent to the site with pilings as steep as 47 feet. how can 98 pennsylvania projject be built? we have yet to hear from sfcta which was the reason for the last continuance. can i have the overhead, please? secondly, the plans and renderings don't represent site conditions (indiscernible) is obstructed by freeway pillars. code compliance streets can't be built here. the project sponsor has been structed by the planning department the freeway

and existing conditions along the site will remain. the map from the plan shows non existence streets. and here i highlighted the streets that are not there and won't ever be there. with no public right of way and no adjacent code compliant streets it is impossible to provide windows to most of the units that meet dwelling units exposure requirements. this isn't just a code issue, it is serious life safety issues for neighbors and future residents. the facades along the east and northeast side extend over 150 feet with no access for emergency vehicles. we have been told the fire department hasn't reviewed the project. as of tuesday they didn't know a project was proposed. we suspect a major design will be required to comply with fire code and would have expected review prior to this hearing. in the interest of public safety we strongly urge the commission to continue

this hearing to a future date. >> good afternoon. nice to see everyone today. my name is steven (indiscernible) field representative from the carpenter 2. here in opposition to the project with no labor standards ateached to it. i reached to (indiscernible) many times and tried to talk to the team last time this was on the docket to no avail. the carpenter union knows as well as everyone in the city and state we are in a uzhoing crisis and there is is a huge demand for all types of housing from market rate and affordable and everywhere between. there is also a crisis how workers are treated. contractser, developers and end users exploiting (indiscernible) paying for healthcare or

getting retirement plan or using accredited apprenticeship program. the carpenter union wants every union or non union to be treated fairly and hope the planning commission does too. i would like the planning commission to grant a continuance on the project to give the developer time to have conversation on the carpenter union and (indiscernible) thank you. >> if no other members in the chambers let's go to our remote caller. >> this is sue. planning commissioners, you are not ready to approve this project. i have never seen a project that has the number of inconsistency this one has. we don't have real plans if they

are not-adequately showing current conditions-real conditions. there is a decision by the city and others to have a rail line coming through this site, underneath and there is a freeway-it is something from 280. the other thing, i sat through all the hearings on the eastern neighborhood plan. this is consistent with the eastern neighborhood plan potrero plan, but conditions have majorly changed in the past 20 years, 25 years. the plan was adopted 25 years ago. since then, we had flooding in the area-flooding this site. you don't have that information when you have a environmental impact report-a peir

that is basically the information that environmental (indiscernible) do they have adequate information to make a decision on fire exiting? you need to have that information. when you have design information in the earlier conversation in this commission, when you need design information dealt with, it needs to be adequate life safety design. the amount of exposure is outside the window is really relevant. if there is going to be major construction underneath the foundation of this building, because there is a transit extension, that needs to be discussed. you don't have a staff report that really deals with this providing

the information. the fact that they got approval in 2016, this is 2023. i would ask you to seriously continue this and i ask the staff to get information from the fire department at least and have a pictorial representation of what the surroundsing issues are. what the surrounding (indiscernible) works against the surrounding streets. i don't think you have that information from the plans. i know you don't have the information from the plans, so please grant a continuance. that is the responsible thing to do. i ask you (indiscernible) thank you very much. >> last call for public comment. seeing no

additional request to speak commissioners, public comment is closed and the matter is now before you. >> thank you. i want to open with a few questions. one thing we heard is about the rail extension and the i think very well intentioned idea we want to make sure that public investment can correspond to this private investment. i do want to ask the sit a eattorney about the role that future public investment can or cannot play in the deliberation today. we heard a lot about it from the public. >> thank you president tanner. depy city attorney kristen jensen. it isn't appropriate for the commission to consider a public project that may or may not take place on the neighboring property at this time. >> thank you for that. certainly something we are all in intrigued by but something we can't take into consideration today. the other thing i want to confirm is this project is subject to hoz ing accountability acktd which limits to 5 public

hearings, correct? >> that is correct. >> this would be the second hearing that this case had? i want to be mindful. >> this is the third. >> just to be mindful commissioners, if folks are inclined to continuance to keep that in mind. i have a few other questions quhile you are here. one question we got and this is the particular most recent letter from the booster is talking whether or not the freeway we can say we have code complying exposure. the staff report indicated that the project does comply with exposure. could you walk us through that analysis and comparison with the letter? >> just to start, exposure in the planning code is not equivalent to exposure under the building code and similar public right of way as we consider in the planning code does not correspond to what the

definition of a street is in the public works code. so, when i talk about-also, wavers and exceptions can only be to the planning code. we cannot wave building permit or fire or any other codes. so, for exposure under section 140, windows of a unit must face on to a public street or public right of way of 30 feet or wider. a side yard of 25 feet or greater. a code compliant rear yard or open space of-i can't remember the dimensions off the top of my head. there is kind dimensional standards of how you can achieve that. now, when it specifically comes to streets, it has to be a public right of way, as in owned by the city, not a developable parcel. well, 7th street and pennsylvania avenue

are not developed, they are public right of way, so, i think there was a-the site plan shown and it does show-it was a lot-it is essentially the lots, and so the right of ways are shown there even though they are not built. in the 2016 iteration, at that time the thinking was that roads would have been built and so when this project first came back, it had designed to be build a sidewalk along pennsylvania and 7th street with base mentd level units with stoops. a lot of the comments that were in that early plan check letter was relating to these units that would front on to a street that will not anticipated to be built. as it is currently configured the windows are facing public right of way.

>> thank you very much. i have a couple questions for you on behalf of the project sponsor. we had both the letter today from (indiscernible) and i think you had-i read the letter relating to the streets which we heard about and life safety concerns. i also want to look a the letter last month in february submitted. goes over a couple suggestions they have and some you responded to in your statement but want to make sure i heard it correctly. could you talk about for those who are looking at page 66 in the staff packet for today, the commission packet, there is a bullet point at the bottom of it page. one suggestion include amineties like community room, storage gym-was that thought about? >> absolutely. yes, those are amenities that are appropriate in some housing developments and not others. this is a building that is

providing housing. it is building that is going to be able to be constructed and a building in which it will be priced at not having a gym or library which are appropriate in some settings and the project sponsor perception it isn't appropriate. there is different housing for different places and different-this is one in which taking space away for residential units for amenity space was not the trade-off that was appropriate for the project. >> is there car parking? i believe there are space for 26 vehicles. can you talk how you arrived at the number of providing some on-site parking? it is below the parking maximum which we appreciate. >> this is well served transit location. we need to do one below grade story for the purpose of the building

foundation and so-and some parking is in demand in all these housing developments. we are at like 1/3 of the units, but we are not doing double stackers. we put all the space for mechanical, bike parking, all that stuff so it was the leftover we did off street parking. >> okay. since you have to excavate anyway. there are stoops in some street level activity talked about having this facade. for today's condition and adaptable for future conditions should the freeway come down thinking about who knows if that will happen. i don't know if you want to share more about it design at street level. >> just reiterate from the presentation, the pennsylvania street frontage which is not accessible but it is close enough to the community garden that there is benefit from the vegetation along the wall and hopefully opportunities to

further integrate the two areas so that seemed straight forward. something that is not going to-going to be nice in the mean time and wouldn't necessarily impede in the future if the freeway came down. the big iges a, in the efrent the freeway came down do we want to create active front age? it is challenging. the lack of certainty over it suggested that it wasn't a good use of cost and design to start punching holes in that facade. this was that middle ground that we ended up on. >> that goes to the point around melding with the railroad garden and permeable surface to manage rain water and run off. is that discussion you felt you have been able to resolve with the booster and connection between the garden and the property? >> this is issue the boosters clearly brought up. one in which we want to continue working with them on

because we think there is a lot of potential -sometimes the conversations get jammed and there is realty this project sponsor needs to get approval and be able to start moving forward. that in no way means the conversation is cut off. mr. hardy does a lot of projects throughout the city and been in front of you many times. not is it not over, we like to continue to engage on that specific issue because i think there is potential there. >> another thing you mentioned is street scape planning and melding with bike lanes so think having the sidewalk in compliance with better streets to satisfy and prepared when the bike lanes are extended. >> that's right. my guess is there will be further maybe tinkering with that because it bike lane project is in the middle of design close to implementation now. the street scape plan, we got approved a year or so ago so we'll file

the street improvement plan. my guess is there is further coordination. >> the washers and dryers, whether the closet is adequate. could you speak to that if you have knowledge about whether the closet depth is appropriate for that type of facility? >> not knowing the exact specification for washer drying closet the project builds in a washer and dryer to every unit because it so important to residents and makes the units desirable and so we are obviously at the site plan level now conceptual stage, the full intent-to the degree we need to move a wall here or there, that is tbd. >> okay. that was the only questions i think that i wanted to ask. the other was screening the roof top mechanical. seems those are adjacent to the roof

deck so maybe something that would be appropriate for the residents. is that something you are open to? >> absolutely. we are at this stage, landscape architects to be brought on and developing the roof top. one thing that we absolutely verified in the last few months was what you are seeing on the roof top plans is the extent of what we need for that mechanical equipment. that is not always fully figured out by the time we get to the commission. we had that conversation, we looked into that and so now we feel confident what is shown is the extent of what needs to be on the roof and in the next stage moving forward to developing the landscaping. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> i appreciate the issues that the public has raised. thank you. thank you so much. i appreciate the issues the public has raised. i

have similar questions, which rise from some of the observations that i do not address-see addressed in the project in front of us today. i want to restate the largest question is pennsylvania avenue in parenthesis referred to as unaccepted street. that is a ghost street some people jogging refer to it as a paper street. that particular type of street to my understanding does not have a right of way or has a right of way but not a public street. when you look at older maps and studies that have been done on the subject many many years ago and i happen to be one of the people who is aware of it because much happened during younger years there are remnants of land throughout san francisco that total 529 acres of

unaccepted streets throughout the city. that is all most half the size of golden gate park. pennsylvania avenue as well as 7th avenue fall into that category. if you look at the historic maps how they have been updated and brought forward, these streets just remain as unaccepted streets. in 2009, there was a interesting study as i think it originated from uc berkeley where people looked at transforming unaccepted streets into productive open spaces in community amenities, particularly many of the unaccepted streets fell into areas of low advantage communities where freeways cut through neighbor patterns in random ways and there is a lot of leftover land. in this case with 280 coming and pennsylvania did not seem to be the avenue anymore, it

remained an unaccepted street. if i understand correctly, if the city doesn't have a city street it leaves it up to developers to construct and maintain the street adjacent to the properties. a developer so goes the regs could later on apply for acceptance after a warranty period has gone by. how this applies in this case is unknown. even there is obviously the caltrans easement,ing it is a railroad and the hypothetical study of the train extension and 7th street, which cuts right through the middle of the block. open-ended questions have to be addressed by public works. the fire department and the need for emergency

access given particular turning radius and required width . not to talk about the tunnel which at this moment is not a completed project and cannot be brought into how we are looking at the project today. i just want to hang this out there because i believe this particular issue requires a lot of additional answers that need to be further substantiated including the historical precedent. i looked through series of plan check and street design advisory reviews from 2021-2022 and onward, which addressed the projects that were suggested for the site before and it is interesting it is a very technical yet very honest exchange back and forth. i

think in the potrero booster letter i saw "particularly about not to pursue 7th street and not to pursue pennsylvania avenue". if i see that correctly. there were other requirements and some may have been addressed but i will comment on my perception how they have been addressed and there are 10 of them. there is a requirement for a 10 foot sidewalk. there is a request for accessible curb ramps. there is a question about the driveway and garage access with a updated landscape plan and landscape plan that is referenced but not included in any of the submittals we have seen. there is a request about information on on-site loading including accessible passenger loading. questions about street trees, existing

ones and the ones that are required, including street lighting how existing street lighting needs to be either removed or adapted or whatever. there is interesting discussion about the location of a pg&e transformer, which if i saw the applicant's response was supposed to be on 7th street, which seems somewhat far given where the body of the project sits, or it was supposed to be connected to a existing transformer for the 17th street building next door however givethen size of the new building the question is whether capacity it is handled by two buildings at once is (indiscernible) interesting issue is waste collection. i raised that question in the previous discussion about this

project. the garbage room seemed under-sized and too far to the north end of the project in the basement with a door leading outside. the response from the applicant was to consider pulling refuge to mississippi street during garbage collection days, which seems very far north to take a large-a number of cans for a large building and pulling them up 17th street to mississippi street. i think that is a stretch. however, i'm just making observations, i'm not criticizing the attempt to find a solution. i question that that is a right idea. and then as mentioned several times by others, should any project if there is a larger public project, ie pennsylvania extension tunnel should this

project could-take that particular project into consideration, because this project has tunnels and exits, et cetera, and it could kind of-it would be nice to see a project makes a gesture where we can all look ahead together. this is in some way partially answered questions, and the last thing i saw was the street advisory team review february of 22 where there are-there were responses referencing particular drawings. however, since there are so many drawings which start to look all alike, it is very difficult to really figure out which drawing it is. typical architectural drawings there are revisions noted in the title block, so as you move forward you always know what you are responding to and when and in this particular case for

me personally it is a little open-ended and quite vague. it sounds critical, but that is what i'm trying to say here. and finally, to pile up a little bit more, there is one design observation and i'm not at all trying to critique the building. that isn't what the commission is supposed to do. there is introduction of light wells which i thought was a great idea that eliminated the issue of (indiscernible) bedrooms. well done. however, when you look at drawings a2 and a3, this the latest set in the package today, you see that these light wells have windows from the interior corridor where people come from the elevator and go to their units, however these light wells happen to look into the bedrooms, and i think that is a

privacy issue because the light wells are not particularly deep and that is perhaps something that requires a tweak. and those are my comments and i do think this project needs to be more accountable to some of these questions. >> thank you commissioner moore. commissioner diamond. >> can i ask you to come back up? i was curious to know where the review by the fire department stands? >> so, this is at the land use entitlement stage. when building permits are submitted it will receive a full review by the building department and the fire department. usually fire participates with our (indiscernible) to give preliminary

comments. in typical review they did provide preliminary comments with the review, but full evaluation by the fire department will come with review of it building permit. >> in conjunction with the review, did they say anything that made you think the project needed to be redesigned for life safety reason s? >> i believe there was something pulled from the 2021 letter mentioning the units facing on 7th street could be challenging from the fire department. those units have been eliminated so in 2021 the original design had assumed the development of 7th street with sidewalks with units at the basement level and stoops. also, with the parking garage entrance coming from 7th street. many of the back of house was on 7th

street. one of the biggest project changes that happened after we got feedback from public works and other agencies that it is unlikely in the foreseeable future 7th street will be built out, was the project was redesigned so there are no basement level units. none of the entries require access from 7th street. the garage exits off 7th street. and actually the-the latest information from the project sponsor is they are going with the shared transformer on 17th street. so, there was-it is little confusing when reading through the comments, because the earlier versions were also very different design, so yes. there has been initial fire department review, but full fire department review comes with the building department. >> is it accurate to

say that the project sponsor has responded with design changes to the comments that had been provided to date by the fire department? >> yes. i did consult back with our partners. given the revision, and that's why there was not a subsequent review letter issued. some comments like, you are showing a street tree where the driveway is. some of those items were easily addressed from the last letter. >> i'm not concerned about the miner refinements that occur after the fact with the design process, i'm talking about the basic design of the building and whether it meets life safety standards that were provided and to which the project sponsor you

are saying responded with a project change? >> yes. the big change from with the elimination of the sidewalk on 7th street was the big change, and then the second review was on the current configuration with frontage on just like the access only on 17th. >> that was fine from their perspective? at the moment there are no outstanding fire department comments to which the project sponsor has not responded with design changes? >> not that i'm aware of . >> okay. let me ask the same question to the project sponsor. >> thank you commissioner diamond. the only thing i have to add is we are in a unique situation in which a very similar building was entitled and a site permit approved. i think in 2019. that site permit having gone through full fire department review as part of the site permit process was approved, has been issued to

grandfather the old rate, so it isn't the exact same project but a very similar project, very similar configuration along 7th street, fully approved by the fire department as part of the site permit. >> on that point, is that permit still valid? could you build that project? >> yes. >> if we were to turn you down on this projects you have the right to go build that project, is that correct ? >> yes. >> okay. last question is to the city attorney. this is a state density bonus project? what are the limits of our discretion of this project? >> this is deputy city attorney kristen jensen. thank you for the question commissioner. i'm not sure this is straight forward question to answer on the record. as you are aware the state very intentionally limited the discretion of local

decision making bodies when it comes to state density bonus projects, so i would say that those limits are definitely applicable in this case. not sure if you have a more specific question for me. >> i was pushing hard on the life safety issue, because it struck me that that is one area where i was under the impression that we as a commission retain some discretion if we were-if there was a open question about life safety or non compliance with health and safety issues, but it doesn't sound like there is, and so i was trying to make sure i understood that correctly before figuring how to vote on this particular project. >> i think what the commissioner is referring to is the findings one makes for housing accountability act project denial, which is tied to health and safety findings. in this case, i'm not sure whether you're leaning towards making such health and

safety findings, but those would be more relevant to the housing accountability aspect. >> thank you for that clarification. i will leave it at that for now, but i think we need to take into account in our thinking about whether we approve deny or continue the fact that they have a existing entitlement and this one provides at least in my opinion a lot more units and i think a nicer design, so i will be interested to hear what the other commissioners have to say. >> certainly. commissioner braun. >> i do find this project to be tricky and a lot of ways because of its very difficult location that is basically hard up against the freeway. i think there is one question i have. there was a

mention that the filtration, the building filtration hvac has been addressed in the current set of plans. i'm not quite seeing that and just might be missing it, but wonder if there is more information that can be provided. >> thank you commissioner braun. so, what you are seeing in the plan set today are space for mechanical equipment on the roof and then also space in the basement. typically at this stage we spaced it out based on previous experience and then vetted after planning commission approval because of the questions brought up we vetted it now and found the mechanical space on the roof and in the basement is adequate. we haven't fully labeled and showed all the specifications but with respect to your question about hvac and that intended to be in the basement. >> thank you. just having this project up against the freeway, it is allowed within

the plan and but it means there are going to be enhanced requirements and i saw those mentioned as far as the requirements the department of health approval. i just think this project does have a lot of next steps that will have to come through with the building permits and i do sort of wonder about potential changes that will be necessary if the fire department has a different opinion on life safety issues or if in the mechanical drawings the adequacy of the filtration system for a place that is in this setting, turns out to be appropriate. that being said, it seems like to the extend that issues can be addressed for this approval, they have been addressed i just think there will be more vetting that will be coming down the line on e line this project, but-those are my

thoughts for the timebeing. >> thank you commissioner braun. commissioner imperial. >> i see the project keep coming back, even if we approve for entitlement. just because there are let's say one major thing is the caltrain tunnels that look like still under study, and looks like the sfcta also it sounds like still under study as well, right? and do we know in terms of the timeline of that sfcta comments on this? >> i do not know the timeline to finalize and approval a rail alignment. it is still under study, and my understanding is they haven't completed environmental or you know gone to the next stage of study for the project.

pennsylvania avenue extension project team did not provide any comment. >> did you want to add to that? >> we did talk to sfcta and had a meeting with them about this project and basically to alert them there is a project on this site. they are open to go talk to the project sponsor and negotiate or figure out what concessions could be made in the construction if they think there is a issue that might impact the potential for the pennsylvania avenue extension. this project is limited to their parcel. the privately owned parcel and can't extend beyond that without city approval so to the extent the cta needs to negotiate in advance of this project happening, if they think the project will need easement or right of way through this parcel, they should do-we encouraged them to open up that line of communication with the project. you are hearing from the city attorney is

we can't tell this private property owner you cant build on this portion of your parcel because there may be a public project coming up, but we want today make sure the line of communication is open and we have done that with prior projects as well. >> also my impression on this project is that the study of the removal of freeway, i-280 seems the project is designed if there is a removal of the freeway. that is my impression, but in terms of-again, there are future projects in the city where this project is really located that that's why even if we say we approve this project today, it may still come back for a lot of issues or improvements or whatever. this is also my as a commissioner in terms of our responsibility of the state density bonus and

housing accountability act, but there is also the realty that this project will change over time. i am also trying to make a decision whether i should knowing the fact that it may change or accept as it is, but at the same time i think commissioner moore also addressed some of the design issues that you know, what kind of project are we seeing? what kind of project-i'm trying to understand whether this is a ghost project or is this really going to be built. at the end of the day here as a commissioner, i make a decision the project is going to be built. that's my comment. part wants to continue this, but at the same time, even if i voted for yes, i know that this will still come back to the

commission. giving you my thoughts. >> again, if we-i get the concern of the site. it is a challenging site at best, but if there are changes the state density bonus laws don't trump the building code or fire code and if their review necessitate changes to the project significant enough it will have to come back to you for review. it is chicken egg. where we start and design the full project before we do our planning entitlement, but this is the stage we are at. they have a way to go and trying to figure out whether the fire department is okay and building department and resolve those issues. if it necessitates changes it would come back. >> there are a lot of projects talked about. somebody lives next to a freeway-we

put it back up when it fell down. i don't know that's-take the future as maybe 10 or 20 years from now. we'll see what those big projects end up being, how those end up resolving so it is hard to take myself away it could be better in the future if this happens but the future is cloudy at this point at best. i see commissioner moore and diamond hands up. i think if commissioners are inclined to continue i would advice we give very specific direction on what we would like to see change in the project if it is to come back regarding the design or layout or other functioning of the project itself. otherwise, general hesitancy or desire for alignment with public project i don'ts think that is sufficient to come back with something that will be different if for more negotiation along the lines of potrero booster. design comments not tunnel comments because we heard that

isn't something we can consider in our decision making and don't think is ready to be considered unfortunately because that project is still under design and not sure what they would negotiate but we encourage sfcta to do so. if you want specific changes whether you believe it needs to be continued or modify the project and give approval with modification you request, i ask you elaborate on that. i will go to commissioner moore. >> i would like to ask that we differ approving the project partially on the fact if we approve today for the quantities being asked we are deferring value by approving it. i'm supportive of a project on the site, but i'm supportive only as a circumstance that surround the project are realistic

and doable. that means the question i ask particularly the unaccepted street is vetted by you and all agencies who can help with that. i like this to be a honest fully supportive project, rather then pushing something where by state density rules and housing accountability act there is already so much pressure all i can do, speaker for myself, i can only professionally do what i can do and i cannot support something which has too many unanswered questions that ultimately would be in your own benefit to be answered so just differing value by voting gets it over with and come back anyway i think is the wrong attitude. i think we need to help them and help ourselves in order to deliver buildable projects that we are all on the same page given the

basic fundamental questions of how buildings are built and under what circumstance. that is the code, that is life safety, that is planning et cetera. it is not just the one thing or the other. i have one particular question if i may get away from giving my generalized opinion. not a architectural question, but it is for you. this building sits in the air pollution exposure zone updated by the city in 2020 when i pull up the overlay. the 2020 (indiscernible) as far as i know, that requires fixed windows, non operable windows for the units facing the freeway, is that a correct assumption kblrks that is our expectation. >> that means 43 of these units will have non operable windows. >> if not all. yes.

>> thank you so much. appreciate it. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> given we can't use the pennsylvania extension as a reason to continue or disapprove the project, i will vote to approve. i believe that the issues that have been mentioned are all issues that will be worked out in the normal course of events as the project goes through review with the other departments. >> is that a motion? >> that is a motion to approve. >> i second the motion. commissioner braun. >> just one comment that came to mind because vice president moore's comment about the operable windows. so close to the freeway, i think i read there are different requirements as far as glazing of the windows or ability to block noise from the freeway, is that right? >> thank you commissioner braun. the reason we do a noise study for each project is get ahead of the idea

of are there specific elevated noises in the vicinity that requires a different rating of the glass. we have gone through the noise study process, the noise consultant recommended the appropriate gauge or rated windows considering the noise environment around this building. >> okay. thank you. i did run through google maps to find residential buildsings this close to a freeway in san francisco and they are few and far between. (indiscernible) otherwise, i am happy with the answer. also, i actually do agree with commissioner diamond that the specific issues raised i don't have a specific way to address them through this process, and so i also favor

the approval now, knowing that there is going to still be a lot more review with the permitting side of this and that hopefully that can be addressed with the project coming back to us, but otherwise, i am in favor of approving the project as is right now. >> thank you. commissioner imperial. >> i have a question to the project sponsor. there were also comments by the carpenter local 22. are you interested in doing community outreach with them and also continue to talk with the potrero booster? >> great question, and i think this commission has seen before-i'm up here a lot. there is a certain amount of trust that comes with that. commissioner moore in particular on several projects. on this one i wanted to mentioned we have to have a

hearing and vote, we dont always agree but it doesn't mean the project can't continue to fit best can in the neighborhood and i will suggest is she can contact me directly if there is problem with communications so we can-i can help facilitate those type of conversations so there is no-we have a vote, we have approval, don't always agree but move forward and make the best project it can be for the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> comment commissioner moore? thank you. i don't see other commissioner hands up. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. on the motion- [roll call] >> so moved. the motion passes 5-1 with commissioner moore voting against. commissioners,

item 4 was pulled off consent and we'll take up the matter now. case 2022-012037cua. for the property at 2050 chestnut street. conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon commissioners. the item before you is a conditional use authorization pursuant planning code to establish approximately 1200 square foot formula retail julie store doing business as (indiscernible) within the ground floor space of existing 4 stor ea mixed use building in the nc2 small scale neighborhood commercial zoning. 4th x height and bulk district. the nc2 zoning requires conditional use authorization for the establishment of formula retail use. no work to the exterior facade proposed. the

proposed size is permitted in the district. new signage will be processed under a separate sign permit. there are currently 13 vacancies in the 300 radius of the site and 60 existing commercial store fronts within that same 300 radius. of which 13 are formula retail uses. the addition of the use brings the retail uses from approximately 21.67 percent to 23 percent within the 300 radius of the site which complies with the commission guide for formula retail uses. in summary, the project complies with planning code and commission guide for formula retail and on balance consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan. provide desirable service to the neighborhood and bring additional pedestrian traffic into the area. the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. the applicant does

not have a presentation to make but also available for any questions. thank you. >> do i understand the project sponsor isn't going to make a presentation? >> correct. >> very good. we should open public comment. [providing instructions for public comment] seeing no members in the chamber, let's go to remote callers. >> (indiscernible) my frustration is unbelievable. this is a project that i have been a champion of because its was a 24 unit building that was vacant for 30 years. (indiscernible) had to sell it because it was too much work to be done and the residential is being built. (indiscernible)

saying what is the status of the commercial. (indiscernible) then i find out today in between the first (indiscernible) [difficulty understanding speaker due to audio quality] there are not a lot of specifics on the drawings. what i'm concerned about is is the fact is i don'ts want the same thing happen to us and (indiscernible) set of drawings were presented, approved as well as the conditional use (indiscernible) and then all a sudden the drawings change when they got the building inspection. i want to make sure what we are going to get is what we are going to get with this project. i'm very disappointed we have a (indiscernible) not a presentation of the whole project. also

concerned-i want to (indiscernible) including the next door neighbor with the drawings, and i am very concerned with the fact that we are having a lot of robberies and burglaries and i like to sit down with them before we even get started and make sure they have the proper glazing on the window s and stuff like that. i need you to say yes, we approve the conditional use provided they take the drawings back and talk to us first and we can do it very fast if they want to get it through in a week. right now we have been left in the lurch because we didn't know about the drawings -unofficial drawings done just to get the project through. we don't know the specifics on the windows and dont know the safety issues. i believe this is a good project, i just want to make sure it is conducive to the neighborhood,

design is conducive to the neighborhood and on the right track and now we are not on the right track and it makes me very very very sad. what i'm asking you to do is say we approve the conditional use, but we think that the (indiscernible) a solution to the exterior. that's all i'm asking. that's the best i can do with less then--a week notice. >> okay, last call for public comment. seeing no additional members of the public requesting to speak, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. >> are thank you. i i want to make sure this is filling existing vacant storefront. there was concern about funod and window glazing but can you

address if there are significant facade or glazing changing? >> there are no exterior improvements with the project. on may 5, 2022 a project modify the store front approved by planning over the counter, it went under rigorous preservation review, such that it is compatible with the eligible residential historic district. yes, there is completely two separate projects and this project itself isn't proposing any exterior modification. >> thank you for the clarification. commissioner koppel. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners. on the motion to approve with conditions-- [roll call] so moved, motion passes unanimously 6-0 and

place under- >> take a brief break before we head into the dr. [meeting reconvened] >> okay. good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday march 2, 2023. commissioners, we left off under your discretionary review calendar for item 16, case 2022-005429drp. property at 681 12 avenue. discretionary review. >> thank you. good afternoon commissioners. david winslow. the item before you is public initiated request for discretionary review building permit application number 2022-0211.7855 to construct new 285 square foot

accessory structure at the year of existing single family residents. the building is category b historic resource built in 1915. the dr requester pamela fine of 679 12 avenue the neighbor to the north is concerned the project does not comply with residential design principles and insure the scale is compatible, insuring the building respect the mid-block open space, provide architectural features that enhance neighborhood character, maintain light to pront properties. her alternatives are locate the studio within the existing building, reduce the size of rear extension, three, locate the kiln as far away as possible and redesign the extension so it is

in character with other buildings and five, possibly seek variance for locating the studio in the rear of the backyard. to date the department has received no letters sporting supporting and no letters opposing the project. staff supports the project. the one story 285 square foot studio is within the buildable area of the lot and setback 8 foot 8 inches from the north side lot line and 5 feet from the south lot line. 12 feet high the proposed addition is only 2 if i tell feet taller then allowable fence but set back 8 feet from the dr requesting property line. thus the massing is modest and set away from the neighbors not to impose undo burden boxing adjacent properties and the midblock open space or impeding access to light and air. therefore staff deems no

exceptional extraordinary circumstances and recommend approving. >> dr requesting you have 5 minute presentation. >> thank you for your attention to this matter. my name is pamela fine and i live directly to the south of the proposed project. sorry, the slide isn't working. >> sfgovtv, can we go to the computer? >> what? now we are working? should i start over? this slide shows overview of our adjoining backyards. mine is on the lower right and the project sponsors is towards the middle. as you can see, our backyards are adjoining and level to each other.

i'm sorry, this is new to me. >> you should be able to move the slides. >> can you pause the time jonas? >> please do. i'm trying the arrow button, sir. >> i think it might have gotten stuck on the menu and just need to use the forward and back button on the key pad i believe. >> yeah, they are not-- >> just use the buttons here. >> thank you very much. >> thank you jonas. >> this is the renderings of the proposed studio. the next slide, the bright pink line shows approximately the length of the ceramic green

house my garden and note this is not include the additional- >> restart the timer. continue, ma'am. >> and this is another view, overhead from google maps. this proposed building increases the building depth by 50 percent. it would be increased by 85 percent if you include the covered east patio. this does not meet the design guidelines,ic it does not preserve the mid-block open space and it is certainly not in scale with the surrounding buildings. this is a view of my house at night. you can see the effect of light pollution, and now imagine the effect of a glass house that projects outan additional 20feet. the roposal does (indiscernible) there is nothing to prevent the

owner from placing additional light sources and artists are notorious wanting as much light as possible. this is a glass house on zero or .o46 a acre. this hundred percent glass design maximizes light pollution, it has a negative impact on privacy, and per the project sponsor, she said a ceramic is one of the dirtiest of arts, so a glass design is really not appropriate with all the dust and other things. this is a more appropriate location for a glass house. this is also not in the vernacular of greenhouse as described by the architect. greenhouses are not placed in the middle of a garden. they

are certainly not-they would not be placed on a cement pad increasing the amount by 50 percent. this studio should use opaque walls and ceiling with minimal windows to reduce the negative effects on the adjoining properties. this is a more appropriate location for a greenhouse. the proposed 285 square foot structure could--could reasonably utilize the 280 square foot space of the east patio. i do not understand why the project sponsor has not considered this. i do not understand why it is starting 10 feet away from the house and it

just really doesn't make sense. the size of this, the placement of it, and the nature of the building materials are extremely injurious to the adjoining property . thank you. >> that concludes the dr presentation. dr requesting presentation, project sponsor, you have 5 minutes. >> thank you

commissionersism my name is brent martin- >> can you adjust the microphone a little closer? there you go. >> brent martin, the project architect and here with the project owner jenny chen. we will use the overhead here. so, this one story green house studio does meet the and exceeds the code required setbacks around the property. it is setback 8 foot 9 from the north property line, 7 foot 5 from the rear lot line, and 5 feet from the south lot line. the open space of the rear yard 2029 square feet is 86 percent-the studio at 285 square feet takes up 14 percent of the current open

rear yard space. concerns about drainage, the rear yard in this location slope toward the house, and concerns about drainage have been addressed by placing a dry well in the backyard and all of the hard scape and roof drainage will be directed to the dry well. the design does meet we believe the residential design guidelines, and the cubic form is in concert and in scale with the neighbors. the properties have had additions added on to the rear yards in the past. that is very common on properties on both sides and this project does the same and is in scale with that. we did a shadow study to really look at the 12 foot high building and

how far shadows would occur on to the northern property, and it appears that during three months of the year some shadow would go between november, december and january on to the end of the rear yard, but as was mentioned, the addition of a permitable 10 foot fence opaque along that property line would make this argument mute, and cast much more shadow and we are not doing that, yet. a look at the floor plan of the project. shows we have moved the kiln as far as out to the west as possible and will vent according to the california mechanical code. and additional window films and window treatments and low task lighting will be used to

address privacy, light control and landscaping as well to address privacy issues that the neighbors may have. looking-addressing the rear yard open space, and looking at the neighborhood we can see a variety of regular and irregular mid-block open spaces. some of them have rear accessory buildings in those open spaces and some do not. the subject property mid-block open space has quite a few accessory structures and if we zoom in, you can see there are a series of pergolas, green houses, sun rooms and even a cottage, two story cottage in the rear yard mid-block open space. so, we run through a few of those images.

we can see this project of this type and of this scale are not uncommon in this mid-block open space, and even a two story cottage adu type building does exist in the rear part of the lot. and so-thank you. so, in response to the dr form question 3, we believe that property owners have the right to improve their property within the code and guidelines. many options have been considered including a adu that would have taken up more space in the rear yard. the green house studio is a closed structure containing the activity inside of it including the dirt and additional dust, and working in a dark basement or street level garage for

jenny is not a option, and we believe we have addressed the privacy issues by various means. >> thank you, sir. that is your time. [providing instructions for public comment] >> hello commissioners. my name is berry lee, i live next door to pamela fine. i lived on this-in this house

since 1962, my parents are the original owners. i now own the house having bought out one of my siblings after my parents passed away, and i would just like to give history on what it has been like to live next door to pamela fine. i fully support jenny chen ceramic studio project and think it would be a nice addition to the backyard. jenny intends to use for expression of artistic talents. she is an artist. our mutual neighbor has a not in my back yard propensity and has shown to object to what her 2 neighbors want to do in their backyards. like in our neighborhood was once idelic and diverse as there were working class people from all walks of life. white, black, chinese, japanese, arg

tinian, korean, filipino live on the streets. we had houses of 2-4 children which all played on the street and we all got along. as the older generation moved on and houses sold our neighborhood changed and no longer diverse as it once was. it has become gentrifyed. non mitorties are ubmooing in with funds to remodel the houses and changed the denamic of the diverse neighborhood. jenny's family grew up on our street. we went to the same junior high school, presidio and george washington high school and her sister and my sister were in the same class, and the rest of were intermingled with theirs. >> sir, sorry about your time is up. you have two minutes to speak. >> i was told it was

three. >> unfortunately it is 2. >> can i ask for extension? >> you can have 30 seconds. >> in november, 2002 we have a 3 panel green house. she wanted us to knock down that green house on the side of the house to put up a 5 foot fence which compromise the security of our green house and let her kids climb. who heard of a 2 panel green house? we she filed a protest, we came to city planning and then we prevailed and we were allowed to just to repair it. she originally wanted us to tear it down. >> sir, sorry that was your 30 seconds. >> two minutes is too fast.

>> i think we got the just. >> she complains about everything. i want to add one thing. >> that is your time. >> the commission can call up for questions if they need to. >> you go toog call again, right? >> we may, thank you mr. lee. we appreciate your time. >> okay. last call from members of the public. if you are calling in press star 3 or raise your hand. seeing no additional request to speak commissioners, dr requesting you have 2 minute rebuttal. >> the cubic form is low bar for being keeping with the character of the neighboring buildings. this is not a green house. there is no reason for it to be glass. all the accessory structures that the architect mentioned

are either adjacent to the rear of the house, or at the rear of the lot. they do not violate the open space with the exception of the one building that also provides additional housing. again, using this east patio space could minimize some of the more extreme negative impacts of this project. please make modifications to the location and the materials of this project. thank you. >> project sponsor you have two minute rebuttal. >> hello, i'm jenny chen. i am a artist and i think that artists have known we need space that is separate from living to do our work. i think

we learned during the pandemic that everybody needs separate space between their work and living space. i think the design is beautiful and we discussed a lot of different aspects of what to do and worked very hard to keep everything within the boundaries of the property and building codes, so i'm sorry that pamela doesn't find it as beautiful as i do, but i think that we did really work within the boundaries. thank you. >> okay. commissioners, this matter is now before you. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> really illuminating

the issue. i do believe also this is sufficiently large backyard where we are not requiring a variance and for that reason i am in full support and move to approve. >> i like to add it is a charming building and great to see a artist have their space near their home and talk about artists leaving san francisco so think this is fabulous. mrs. fine if there is things you want to do to enhance your privacy you are free to do that. you could put up a fence that complies with code to minimize impacts you may feel from the project. with that, i'll also in support. commissioner diamond. >> i wanted to ask mr. -there is nothing that dr requester from building a 10 foot fence or planting trees along that side of the property, correct? >> no. >> i dont think we

should take dr. >> thank you. that is all the commission comments. >> nuther further, there is a motion and seconded to approve the project as proposed- [roll call] so moved the motion passes 6-0 and place on item 17 for case 2021-001 aket 01drp, 1027-1029 clayton street. discretionary review. there are two dr requesters. >> yes, but there is news. good afternoon commissioners. david winslow, staff architect. as a few minutes ago informed one of the dr requesters has settled. if that is true can

you confirm? okay. let us proceed. before you is a public initiated request to discretionary review of building permit application 2020.1221.1394 to construct three story over basement two residential unit 1985 square feet and 2380 square feet respectively on a steep down sloping vacant lot. since there is only one dr requester i'm going to state that dave ryan, 1026 clayton the neighbor across the street to the east is concern ed the proposed project is out of scale and excessively tall and not compatible with the neighborhood character. cause loss of light and air to the neighbors. proposed alternative is to reduce the building height to two stories over basement and to date the

department received one letter supports and two opposing the project. staff finds the project complies with planning code and residential design guidelines to articulate the building to minimize impact to light and air and design the height and depth of the building compatible with existing building scale at mid-block open space and the street. the project is 3 stories at the street over 2 levels of partial subgreat basement. the site uses the average of the adjacent entitled project to the south and the existing neighbor to the north who has withdraw to base the rear yard depth. the result in the case is the code allows the building code to be slightly deeper then the typical 45 percent of the lot depth. set at the end this is a transitional building to moderate the depth of

the lower neighbor which i believe it does as evident by my report and the settling i believe of the neighbors. by using a series of side setbacks as well as moderation of the depth of the pop-out at the rear. i will skip to the concerns i think are more appropriate to the remaining dr requester. this is a mix of existing 2 and 3 story buildings. this is the north end of a 5 building development proposed by the same developer of the same height. which will augment the context with three story buildings. there is a consistent pattern of 3 story buildings on the opside site of the street and as such not out of scale or character with scale and height of the buildings along this street therefore staff deems

no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and are recommend not taking discretionary review and approving. thank you. >> very good. remaining dr requester, you have 5 minutes. >> i'm going to withdraw on record. >> come to the microphone. >> we reached an agreement. we are officially withdrawing based upon an agreement by the proponent to set back the ground floor deck 2 feet so it 10 feet distance without any change in the physical outline of the pop out. >> great. >> we have the drawing here and with that change willing to withdraw. >> thank you very much, sir. thank you. >> second dr requester, you have 5 minutes.

>> i have copies of the presentation here if you want to share with the commissioners. thank you. >> i'm going to-i'll wait a minute for the distribution. just let me know when you're ready. i am going to jump right into this and say that i would like to see the building reduce the height to support the existing neighborhood. the current project shows a number of stories as three over two basements, and i'm requesting to reduce to match the neighborhood area. there are a number of similar

existing buildings, which are one story over a two to four basement so i'll show examples of that in a minute. let me first of all show you that the building is significantly above the adjacent building here. you can see in blue is the project sponsor drawings and the adjacent building which braungs to the other dr requester and you can see how extraordinary high this is. the project sponsor has also done the same thing at the other end at the south end of the street, so again, sig nificantly higher and these two projects are side by side according to the planning commission.

proposed project buildings are out of scale and excessively tall compared to the adjacent buildings. the project fails to keep the building bulk to the west and as david winslow just pointed out, this is a very steeply sloping portion of the street towards coal valley. out of character with neighborhood examples which recognize and keep the building bulk to downhill. the detriment to the neighborhood character and loss of light air and are views to the numerous dwellers on east clayton is exceptional and unreasonable and impact clayton for a very large section. so, again, you heard about the residential design. this is a very important street. this is clayton street. you hear about haight ashbury all the time but clayton is just as

important and the mansion is down the street from this. there are a lot of extraordinary buildsings. this isn't a backyard project, this is a major section and residential design guidelines i couldn't have phrased better myself. the way it spells out the impact in order to maintain the visual interest of a neighborhood is important that the design of new buildsings and renovation of existing buildsings compatible with nearby buildings and i don't believe that holds true in this particular case. let's have a look at-what are we looking at here? here is how it looks today. you can see there are three story buildings on the left hand side, but on the right hand side these buildings are far smaller. this is actually quite well established and i'll show you a number of examples in the

neighborhood, which show basically what i'm talking about, where there is a steep down slope. this is in the mountain springs area. you see tall 3 story build lgz on the left and nothing on the right, like one story. let me show you another example. belle glade avenue, the same thing again. these are neighborhood areas. you see three story, two, three story on the left hand side and on the right hand side-sorry for my alignment-basically one story. let me show yet another example where you can see there is a very tall buildings on therectomy hand side. again, this is steeply down sloping as mr. winslow pointed out and downhill, maybe one and a half stories on the left side. let me show you a example

on upper terrace, a short distance away. again, i'm just pointing this out. steeply sloped tall buildings on the right on clayton street but this project is disrupting that flow we see here. in summary, extraordinary disruption to the street scape. i have shown multiple examples preserve the streetscape and there is a huge loss of light and air but views. these are massive oversized buildsings so thank you very much commissioners, i'm available for questions. >> thank you, project sponsor you have 5 minutes.

>> good afternoon commissioners. president tanner. my name is jeremy shaw representing the owners of 1027, 2029 clayton street. thank frz the hearing today. also want to thank sylvia and david for helping work through the neighborhood process. project site is vacant lot in the coal valley neighborhood. three years ago in front of you for the project on three parcel tuesday the south of this site. 3 story over basement two unit building to complete the set. one of the dr requesters who withdrew is to the north. because the site slopes 40 feet downhill the structure

proposed at 3 stories at the street and 2 subgrade basements below. unit 1027 is located on the basement and subbasement levels and roughly 2,000 square feet. the lowest floor has all the living space with access to rear yard and elevator provides access to each story. the basement has the bedrooms of lower unit along 2 bathrooms. the street level has the main entry, 2 car and 2 bike garage and portion of the upper unit, 1029. the rear massing (indiscernible) also has a deck that provides the open space for 1029 which is set 5 feet away from the property line. the second story contains the main living area of the upper unit. the rear wall pulled back to 45 percent rear lot line and provides unit equity. the top level includes 3fore

bedrooms along 2 bathrooms. the roof is unoccupied and does propose a penthouse. this shows a portion of the project to the south on the left of the screen and proposed building in color and as mr. ryan pointed out we show the adjacent building on the right. due to the steep slope each house is 3 and a half feet below the others and this reduced about 18 inches overall. if you need any photos of the adjacent building, they are in your packet. here is the rear facade as mentioned. the site slopes down hill 40 feet so have 2 subgrade basements. this is right elevation facing mr. (indiscernible) and setbacks are indicated in

colored siding. the left elevation showing the steep downslope. to address some of it concerns raised by the d are r requesting may be able to skip a bit of this, but this is from showing the configuration of a pop out and then in blue here we re-created the diagram on the left and on the right show how our pop out is essentially one floor below grade and then a deck above with a reduced parapet. that indicated in blue here on the alongitudinal section showing the pop out is well below grade and neighbor garage level. here is rear elevation massing to show the pop out is reduced in height from the previously approved version to the right and then also reduced in size overall. so, we held our

preapplication meeting november 2020 about 6 months after the three buildsings were approved. attended as well as neighbors behind us on belvedere and we had many discussions. project sponsor spoken with mr. barabe many months and neighbors behind asked for higher quality materials and (indiscernible) responded by setting back the rear wall changing (indiscernible) in conclusion, project provides new housing for families in san francisco within a established neighborhood. both units have 3 or 4 bedrooms. this project is reviewed at the planning department and comply with planning code and nothing exceptional or extraordinary. we request you deny

the dr and approve the project. thank you. >> thank you. [providing instructions for public comment] let's go to our remote caller. >> my name is (indiscernible) calling in in support of the project sponsor. i live around the corner from the proposed project, and i wanted to call and voice support for the two unit building (indiscernible) in support of the project in desperate need of housing in san francisco. propose two family size units on a vacant lot. very excited to see it

move forward. i ask that you support (indiscernible) thank you. >> last call for public comment. seeing none, dr requester you have two minute rebuttal. >> thank you. so, jeremy actually pointed out very clearly what a significant size and bulk of these buildings. they are clearly supersized. these are enormous. he used every square cubic - (indiscernible) people every day walk up and down clayton street in the

summer months. these building are not in scale and shape. you just seen the drawings here from the architect himself. they are absolutely massive. i really think these are part of a trend. a trend that is not good for san francisco. we need half of the $1 billion plus revenue the city bringz in is because of tourist. they walk up ashbury and up and down clayton. this is not adding to the character ofstuff or the character of the haight. it is a trend of modern istic buildings that are over-sized for this area. that's my point here. i don't see that he addressed the-jeremy addressed my particular point at all. this adds absolutely nothing to the character or the way the

neighborhood is. i'm asking you to take-do something with this. that's all i have to say. if you have a specific question for me, i live on clayton street, and lots of people live on clayton street and they will be negatively impacted. they will be very unhappy to lose their views. along with all the tourists. >> thank you, sir. project sponsor, you have two minutes rebuttal. >> nothing further. thanks. >> great. thank you. commissioners, this matter is now before you. >> thank you. certainly can see the house is a bit larger then some of the other properties, but as mr. winslow said it isn't totally out of character for surrounding homes. there is a variety of home heights here and i think as this commission knows this is more density that we'll be seeing and happy to see rh

property with two units in it, so that's a nice project to see, so i-i don't support the dr requester because there was agreement made, i think we should take dr to approve the modification of the rear deck of the two feet retraction of the rear. commissioner koppel. >> so moved. >> second. >> very good. there is a motion seconded to take dr and approve the project with the modification pursuant to the agreement between one of the dr requesters and the project sponsor reducing the deck two feet. on the motion- [roll call] >> could you add the word south side of the deck and then i say aye. >>ia gree to that.

the west side of the deck. >> the south side, correct? >> west. the west side. >> west side? >> for clarity, why don't- >> you the adjoining side. >> north is up in the diagram so the left side. >> sorry. >> sfgovtv, can we have the overhead, please? thank you. >> you're right. >> the west side. i need to clarify in the motion the west side. >> very good commissioners, on the motion then to take dr and approve the project as proposed with 2 foot reduction on the west side of the proposed deck. on the motion- [roll call] so moved commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0 and concludes your hearing today. >> alright. we are adjourned. thank you everyone.

[meeting adjourned] >> shared spaces have transformed san francisco's adjacent sidewalks, local business communities are more resilient and their neighborhood centers are more vibrant and mildly. sidewalks and parking lanes can be used for outdoor seating, dining, merchandising,

and other community activities. we're counting on operators of shared spaces to ensure their sites are safe and accessible for all. people with disabilities enjoy all types of spaces. please provide at least 8 feet of open uninterrupted sidewalk so everyone can get through. sidewalk diverter let those who have low vision navigate through dining and other activity areas on the sidewalk. these devices are rectangular planters or boxes that are placed on the sidewalk at the ends of each shared space and need to be at least 12 inches wide and 24 inches long and 30 inches tall. they can be on wheels to make it easy to bring in and out at the start and the end of each day. but during business hours, they should be stationary and secure. please provide at least one wheelchair accessible dining table in your shared space so

the disability people can patronize your business. to ensure that wheelchair users can get to the wheelchair accessible area in the park area, provide an adequate ramp or parklet ramps are even with the curb. nobody wants to trip or get stuck. cable covers or cable ramps can create tripping hazards and difficulties for wheelchair users so they are not permitted on sidewalks. instead, electrical cables should run overhead at least ten feet above sidewalk. these updates to the shared spaces program will help to ensure safety and accessibility for everyone, so that we can all enjoy these public spaces. more information is available at sf.govt/shared

spaces. and if you need a seat, take whatever empty seat if you need to sit down. first of all, good afternoon! and i want to say welcome to pier 70 in the dog pad's neighborhood. dog pat's is in the house. recently voted one of the hises neighborhood in the city. i want to start by telling you a story about a famous san franciscoian, born in