minutes to responded. why a 2 minute rebuttal. thank you, planning commission and madam president for thank you for tick thanksgiving time today to hear all of us out on behalf of this matter. well is in the too much more i could say except had i presented. i put my best foot forward. done my best to reach oust to the community on multiple occasions. there were issues with mailers. soon as the issue and mailers were raised to me and asked i meet there was no delay at all of my phone calls to andy and to maggie with the ccdc, i was prompt with my response and host a call dpaenldz the meeting per request. i roached out to multiple other buildings the gateway, barbary

and host the many meeting and opportunity for the musn't to speak. i hope tht planning commission stands behind the rules set forth as a city and as supervisors in our district and we move this project and approve it with the 3 conscience provided to me earlier. thank you very much for your time. >> okay. that concludes the public hearing portion and this is before you, commissioners. >> thank you, before we go further i want to thank all of our interpretation staff for doing excellent work. we could not do this without you, thank you for your time. and your efforts. and you were becoming familiar faces here. commissioners i am happy to start us off. i want to move to let upon anyone kick us off. not seeing anybody jumping i

will ask a few questions of the staff first, if you could help convince mow that d ph rowels are sufficient to clean the air fit orred out of the smoking lounge. >> i doll my best. reciting the public health code not planning code. public health code chapter 8 subsection a. the layperson version is there are ways the air filtered. there are public helling expert this is work in public health this do the tests. after the fact the permit approved. i will note this consumption lounges river you don't see a lot of them in this chamber, they are reviewed read low by the director of public healing there is extra level of scout neil and the code artic lites.

i resite chapter and versech why describe the machine torthanksgiving happens post construction on going or one time in how does this help? the permit issuance an review the flons review the h vac equipment on a building permit level construction druing set. this meets the merits of when is prosecute poses. once permits typical inspections are conducted boy dbi and public health. as the dispensaries are operating or like one sign off in the future is well a checkup or complaint based. >> i want to i would not want to say something erroneous. my knowledge at the least

complaint driven the if you want to add a condition to have a one year america i can pull update code. we stay in our jurisdiction and let our clothes do their job >> thank you. i have questions for you about filtration. in your slides the image indicated tht vent is based on hai saw venting into the courtyard can you explain that location of vents this would be attached to the smoking lounge >> that is an exterior vent not the vent will be used to exhaust the smoke ownership vapor from the smoking lounge. of the fact it is positioned in the back area of 810 battery this will not be the vent of where this motor vehicle will come from from the lounge. would would this be y. we have not finalides our engineering plan we'll make sure that is in

the one of the access points for this. >> okay. that may be something else to consider thinking about no way it can go in the courtyard is my 2 cents on this. and talk about display case. if you can sit down mr. foster. i was curious to see that the plans as presented have the displays on the window. i thought our regulation we cannot see product from the windows. i walked by the site and it seems like that location would be prime to view if they are glass cases to view. granted if you move them on the opposite with you can you still see it buzz we have transparency requirements how are we understanding compliance with the code if the display cases are near windows. >> sure it is not code it is regulation.

we have like our store front guide lines we have transparency and prescriptional guide lines for cannabis use a transparency zone 4 feet above grid that is the zone that must remain free and clear. 4 feast to grade westbound blocked by obstructions. by virtue of having this case turn their become to the street and show product not to the public and to patrons that is desirable. i had advised the sponsor to push them further away from the window by 4 feet hopefully he has plans that maintains that use. we can work with the sponsor on that. it is a strict active use requirement for the code that is manage we fight for we want to

see in the store fronts. we have guide lines and interests we have a use that is not normalized we are providing private easy to go in there. i note the consumption lounge in the public healing code says that the consumption lounge shall not be visible from the public. hence we asked for a 42 inch pony wall with opaque glass for light and air >> of can you talk about the public noticing we heard about that of the project sponsors own mailer which i think is not required boy code but this one thing what did we sends out and translation policies with notices. >> the 311 notice and met all legal standards definitions. triling walnotice. use is pull friday a preselected bucket office, can best of my

recollection residential and so forth. i think it is short and sweet to not over embellish the english language to other languages is met the law for 311 purposes the sponsor provided additional notification to members staff was in the aware and if there was obviously a translation issue i would imagine that was not the intent and unfortunate. why thank you i'm satisfied. >> another question, please. being you talk about the necessity of the lounge. if it were to not be include would this project still be volleyball. definitely the focus was based on my analysis of the neighborhood. the neighborhood which had a tremendous amount of apartment buildings. and condo buildings. there is in the a lot of single family home there is where

people consume cannabis medical purposes or recreational purposes. one of the big challenges i saw in the area was this we did hear about preschools and children this walk the area and walk by. with the amount of cannabis this is smoked outside and consume thered are not smoking lounge in san francisco this was our presentation to most of the community. most of the community was a bit taken back by a dispensary in their area. and after several months of explanation about cannabis and education a lot of people don't know about cannabis either from different countries or age. and so i did a bit of education around cannabis and benefits. once people had an understanding we were not aware were compelled to have this ability to smoke not in their home to consume not

in their home they could be forced and evictd and kicked out. i think it it is a key part of the dispensary in that your >> key part but is the business still volleyball. i believe tell be challenging. i believe this will draw the community to there versus door dash or something that would be able to come from outside of san francisco and not support our economy. >> i want to point out this is different then and there when you told me you said the lounge you felt the lounge is an add-on and no money would be made on the lounge. no money is to be made we don't charge to come and sit in the lounge or smoke it is not an added ref now benefit but a key benefit to the community. why i will sum raise my comments to say i'm divided here. certainly you heard me say men times i think buffers ned to be

ajusted i have concerns about preschools near boy to cannabis dispense easier we have approved and supported the approval of many that were inform youth serving activities and preschools. that said, that statute luwe are administering today this is a code compliant area and a green zone not even a c u the threshold is bit different. i say i would welcome your thought and whether or not the lounge is amenable and accept believe in this. i could i would support not having a lounge bucked hear arguments for it. if the lounge is there we need to specify the vent thanksgiving courtyard has to be off limit in terms of anywhere this a vents can be connected from the lounge it is this is in the residential area. inform boyfriend to the play area for kids. i would support purke cases 3-5

feet from the window. and plantings it make sure the product is in the visible from the street. those are my thoughts in addition to who staff recommended taking the order to adopt added conscience of approval. and i would add one thing this crossed my mind if there are occurrence around consuming and exiting the if sillity there could be a time limit on the time folks pend there. and an how were long limit to lim the amount of cannabis that can be consumed and create some bufferos the level of it perhaps cannabis one can consume. >> those are my initial thoughts i will turn it over to commissioner imperial.

>> thank you. i think you brought up good. in terms of the my question to the porns in terms of the community religion staff. is the mount religion staff bilingual. >> no. she is not bilingual. speaks english if we need translation we are happy to finds translation for a certain members of the commute if needed and more then and there help to do this. >> i suggest to hire if danielle is going football the liaison to have a translation on site whether on site or as part of if there are complaints or part of communications. perhaps invest on the

translation. >> definitely help to do this. and just yes, thank you. yool and in terms of the actually i am passportive of the on site lounge. i don't have questions for you. i'm supportive of the on site lounge in this area given this the also the size of the space as well. i think it is equipped for this. i do share occurrence of the vent with you commissioner issue tanner. i think if the if us in the staff works with the d. public hasn't and relocating the

venting where it is not you know. it is not close to the courtyard area of the preschool. i think the upon sponsor in putting more then and there what other dispense easier would put in adequate lighting and adding more signs. again in terms of the good neighbor policy, it looks like exit think i in terms of the

china town ymca comment not just the business they okay that is good you provide security or -- community ambassador what about the near by. in south of market there are community ambassador this is walk around i'm not you know well aware about this. but -- you know -- i would encourage the experience to perhaps in the next block or 2 to provide that like walking around as part of the safety plan, too. that is my comments. and i'm in general support and yes we had discussions we had a

lot of discussion about the area around the childcare centers and this we do think it needs to be more than sick00 feet. this is a legislation not in the power of plan and would require further studies as well and out reach. those are my comments. thank you. commissioner diamond. >> thank you. taking dr to code compliant project. correct. where yes. yet issues raised than i are raised boy more then and there

we see the issues are not different then and there when we see which is primary low the sick00 feet and anxiety about motor vehicle in the neighborhood. and -- you know this issue of preschools come up at every hearing. what is the press by which we ask the board to consider wlo they want to continue with the 600 foot -- exclude preschools from 600 feet or change their minds. instead of raising this each time, what is process? >> you can ask yous to propose legislation. you know. to do this. i think the problem is preschools come and go and preschools can you have a preschool open where you have

cannabis. there has not been analysis to show that the buffers help our hurt. right? we are exposing children to these retail buzz they are near it. you know i speak for moiz i have 3 kids they see more cannabis at school than at the cannabis dispensary. i get it but we never had an analysis to show whether that exposure that distance is helping or hurting why keep your comments to yourself or leave. continue. why you know it manage we can recommend or ask. something can you ask. it will impact the zone where cannabis is allowed. it is limited now anyway and if we star to put preschools there

are men tell limit where we can. >> my understanding in this conversation with michael on this subject this one reasons preschools were eccloud if we included them there would be very few spots therapy available for cannabis lounges. i don't have a recommendation about whether or not we had include preschools but i think we should study it so we can -- this question come up every time all we say they are excluded if you don't like it change the legislation. it is come up so frequently i thank you we should be lookinga the this question and coming up with a recommendation. i don't have an opinion about

whether or not we should include them or not but we should electric at this in more detail. you add that we are at a pin we have a lot that are open assuming we are not closing any in a buffer of a preschool part of it going forward. >> the green zone. >> how much we are limiting:second thing is -- when i joined the commission 3 and a half yearsing on we had several proposals for cannabis lounge and i number of questions raised at this time by commissioners who were then on the commission. commissioner koppel and moore were the 2 this i remember most. beg your pardon whether you irrelevant can figure out i way to keep the motor vehicle from going out of the building. and since then we have not seen many proposals for cannabis smoking lounging evers they have been dispense easier a and b but

not c and had restrictions we put restriction this is said no smoke on site. but i have over time become concerned that we are have a lot of apartment dwellers smoking is restricted you ken motor vehicle on streets and public space are we being equal if we are in the approving lounges and saying the way you get to smoke if you own a private residents. this does in the seem right to me. i think in this case i would be in favor of a lounge. but i am continue to have the concerns i had 3 and a half years ago how do we than the motor vehicle is not escaping. i like the idea commissioner continuer you raise about testing after the fact had in prescription to make sure that there is no. and should not be complain

driven i feel like we need more experience as a city and working with d ph and planning. that if we as planning will approve condition bills lounges we have confidence this they come up with a way of ensure no motor vehicle is escaping. in favor of adding a condition to the dr this says that we should test. and men twice 1ace sick months then a year. i put this out for your consideration. >> third is a number of times standard language we put in to the continues and i talked to mr. foster about it and one of the things we included today is that upon each sale the vender should be reminding the purchaser they may not motor vehicle on the streets.

>> it is deeply disturb to me a woman said that it seems like secret money is paid. and i find that incredible low distressing comment. i will say i have no idea why she would make a serious allegation. i know of no reason -- or nothing rise to a serious allegation. i believe that the public should be able to express deeply held pregnancy without calling the integrity of the commission in affect boy making such an

allegation. i did in the want to let this comment go by without remarking to i believe it was uncalled for and each commissioner takes their job seriously. and looks at each case on merits. so -- just to summarize i think we should take dr in order to go forward with the project and add the continues this were hundredsed out to us today plus add in the additional conditions that have been suggested in the comments so far. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner braun. >> thank you. i have a few different questions to start off with. i wonder if we can start with mr. foster. some of these you might not be able to answer but -- expert on these store fronts and the lounges. so, my first on the question of

consumption. and the motor vehicling lounge. i understand we have approved a number of cannabis store there is is on site consumption just not motor vehicling is this correct? consumption includes the universe of vaping, smoking, edibles? i believe i'm not sure why we would ecclude them. why vapors be omit friday consumption. why edibles not consumption not allowod site. i believe. why so lounge would be unique in that regard then. so then a key issue is marijuana smoke has a strong odor. and even far beyond any

potential helling concerns you have a great distance. it is just a mebut this is prominent and notable. i know the sponsor poke and i will give you a chance folk about vent ligz and filtration. this is experience and those requirements filter the odor out of the smoke. i'm curious -- do have you anything to say. >> great question i don't have the sponse to this i will reply upon asking the questions who sorts of guided the cannabis use operations. there have been zero complains

lodged at d ph regarding the lounges there are now and they are well regulated. the h vehicle system are w. motor vehicle versus odor fair question. i did pull upon president tanner i will not roach out [inaudible] but section 8a.6 operating standards. in the wheel how was d ph like any business operation under d ph a bar, restaurant or so -- they can be shut down for any number of reason fist they near violation leaving meat out or not having proper heating and cooling the same public health jurisdiction. of yell that belanguage to the experts not planners i'm a land use planner.

>> xhrp braun said to add-on i know for sure at least i have a list there are upon 7 consumption lounges approved in the city. so you know couple that seen in the area [inaudible] and i know i can peek for personal low i walk by mogrowns every day this is in the the mei smell. there are other aroamace in that part of market. they seem to be able to contain the scent in my experience. there are at least 7 that have been authorized boy the city. >> thank you. the other one is the windows i than i am curious if we were to

put forth a requirement that no no products visible from the street a more extreme requirement than the other stores approved. what does the planning code say about requiring a sort of transparency or manage that is there behind the windows not just a blank wall? i think the code itself with the store 41 guide lines this is the 4 foot down to grade. can you have obstructions of the store front there 4 feet to the top of the floor height needs to be opened. if i'm not able to see behind it that is the intent. i being pass boy on the public right of way and have no idea when going on. it is the line of 4 feeted to

probably 9 or 10 feet above grade. this is the visibility zone. this height depth of 4 feet. the verticality is heard code in the our section 145.1 is hard coded. with this will in minds, i'm curious do we need an additional requirement to push back the case further or do anything would make them not visible from the street. as long as they don't encroach they are compliant with the code i recommended to the sponse a buffer zone of planting other bloinldzs if they want as long they are open during the daylight hours.

it is a tough foil wallow from land use in terms of regulation. >> my concern not so much they seat case it is the product in the cases. and exposure to seeing the product. part of the sponsor will say the back is facing you will see art not when is in the case. from the points of the street. >> okay this is my main concern because of concerns raised about exposure to sxhrn seeing the products. you know and that's why i was interested in the smoke issue and vent ligz issue as well.

this is all my questions. so -- i am generally on board with my fellow commissioners that have spoken in terms we need to apply additional requirements for this lounge to make it cooperate and work better with the makered and address the occurrence that were raised. we try make it a better neighbor for the community. and so -- just to i might be missing things stated here but i'm in favor of taking dr for the good neighbor policy. to -- put in a condition this vent lipgz system stays far from the school and i'm not sure how we frizz that the least not anywhere that vents to the school.

the lounge i ask support the products in the seen from the street. yes and exit remining they may not use on the street and in favor of that. i might be missing manage. >> you got everything on my list. testing for the motor vehicle and i don't know if this is when they can do odzor as well. >> great. thank you. commissioner moore. i want to thank the community for showing up and sharing their thoughts with us. it person for us to hear it. you are in the the own ones who toed in front of us really strong opposition.

mr. foster, how many dispensaries do we have in the city? >> let me dial a friend. commission president. about i think north of 120. >> in the hundreds. just to put in perspective for you. i have been on the commission since we heard the first one. and the opposition to the majority almost all of them have been as verbal and strong as yours today. and some cases there were fewer people in some cases there were more people the opposition is uniform. however, voters approved and legalized the use of marijuana. and we are dealing with regulations that we have to

apply equal low to all. that is not always easy to do because the circumstance in which cannabis dispense easier occur are different. sometimes upon on the ground floor of a 2 story building with residents above. sometimes than i are on the small street away from everybody people very much afraid of crime and uncertainty rising when you have remote locations. special over the years as far as i will remember and there were not more then and there 4 lounges. however, as we are increasing the amount of cannabis retail, we fwta find a place where people can use it. not allowed use it in rental residents not allowed on the street or in the hotel, parks

and open paces and and, and, and can. we are at a point we need to figure out metrics where loufrns are appropriate or not. and as much as it has been a difficult issue for me, not to listen and clearly take in consideration the words of the community, i would share with my commissioners do it is actually a very good location. partial low because it it is low density area where residents are not right on top television as we are many times with cannabis stores. the residents poke to us are either slightly uphill or further away as 7,000 plus units in the golden gateway. we have a critical mass of people in reasonable location

based on topography and distance and will be great low benefitting from the lounge. remember, the golden gateway for those of you who don't are rental units that evict people should there be anything this does in the the fit the regulations. and that holds for you and you should be in the way comfortable of supporting this as a refuge for people had use marijuana and there are a few. that this is near by. i think the industry is strong with self regulating and i witnessed at least 120 plus applications over the years approximate each time people from the industry are there in support and very careful low

monitoring who is having a license and doing what. that given me a bit more confidence. to support cannabis stores and in this case a lounge. as a dr there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. nobody sits with you right on top of the facility and i heard presentations by the health commission in the past that the equipment used is highway low calibrated for the use of preventing odor and meto affect anybody. what i suggest we may be at a point we need to find means to control the community not to smoke on the street. if you are exposed at this time affects are immediate this is

the other flip schtd coin here although i'm not interested and not using the word, pleasing. i think there has to be a self regulation support for of hour we deal with each other mech nothing public spaces when not allowed. i believe this project is addressing all occurrence i believe this the commission additionaling comments to the motion help me to feel comfortable supporting this project. those are my comments. why thank you i appreciate your comments and just you know rolling prup slows. i will read back the list this i think commissioner braun read to see by nods or a comment you put a light on adding conditions staff presented today and include the good neighbor policy. this is in the like building

approval once it is opened after operation of the lounge venting of the consumption lounge to not february the courtyard or notoriety preschool play your. a time limit on lounge patronage an hour. did not hear did that. that was on the list. a sign at the exit remining people they can't smoke or consume on the streets. and ensuring than i cannot be seen from the street and working with staff a buffer zone this pushes the cases back could have other things that comply with guidelines. any comments or additions or deletions. >> i'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with time limit. with this i was concerns around i guess i see folks concerned this folks might be there for awhile and consume a great amount and leave the lounge high

essentially and what that being be like to experience this. we don't need to do it but thinking of ways to responded to the communal concerns expressed. i don't feel strong low if we have the lounge it is up to the prirt to make sure folks are leaving in a manner that it is acceptable. >> i would not know what time period. we don't do this in bars i'm uncomfortable tread nothing this area. >> the there are guide lines for driving urn the influence now including not driving other regulations to take care of it. they are getting out of our territory to put an hour. makes sense. commissioner braun? on this point i'm curious to ask the sponsor.

there are not many lounges in the staechl but what is the practice you know at a bar if you get over served the bar does not let you keep drinking so in a cannabis lounge what happens if somebody seems really stoned. >> just loushg alcohol, driving under the influence is illegal if than i are walking and we feel in our staff would monitor the behavior of our pat roin in the store if we felt member over consumed we'll call them an uber approximate make sure they get home safely and in the ght street by themselves i republican a nonprofit getting people home from fwhrs their vehicles. then years ago. i would go to the bar and drive people with their car back home to the make sure they don't get

in intentionally or buzz they are over served get in their car and drive home i worked with mornings against drunk driving for this and a chain of bars in 17 cities, i will provide this service for the community i will gladly be me driving myself i will make sure this our staff is acknowledging if somebody is behavioring or seems like they over consumed i would not set a limit one glass of wine or 3 glasses everybody has a different tolerance. i think it would take it on a case by case basis if i patron was unable to driveway we would get them help. it it is our responsibility as a business owner. and community member. why and ultimately it would reflect poor low on your business if you did allow people

to leave after overwhelm consumption or driving away. about the smell there are 7 smoking lounge in san francisco if we check there will not be a nuisance commrinlts for odor because of the strict requirements on venn lipgz and exhaust. that can be check said. as part of can be to provide translation as part of the

community religion. >> translation to community. provide translation as far as the community relation program. program. >> in what sense in written do you means. because they have a liaison the concern someone calls and she can't speak their language how will they relay occurrence. it is able to interpret and translate as needed. >> commissionerism material is on call as needed for staff. correct >> may be advisable may be future staff be bithinkling wal. >> a motion? moved. let me -- see if i captured that it was read.

where second. i have is approve take dr, approve with conscience that include the amended conscience by staff. to include department of public healing testing for odor and smoke 6 months after prescription and i year after operation. the venting not be toward the kurt yard or the preschool play ground. no smoke signage and a 2-3 foot buffer zone from the exterior windows of the cases and then finally translation services. >> yes. very good. on this motion commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissionerism roll. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye >> commissioner tanner

>> aye >> this motion passes 5-0. >> we will tick a brief. >> i don't want to leave hanging the question about the study with preschool. is this something staff can look into? >> look as a buffer. if we had a buffer around preschools what that would do to the green zone? i think it would be interesting to bring back map to say if licensed preschools were included what do we have. don't you -- >> a broad are discussion about explosure to schools talk to d ph about their education program that's where you get. why be quiet we are maintaining a hearing here. leave sill 11 low. a broader hearing about this close or when we are doing. >> you know broadly to educate youth about cannabis.

good to have discussions and we heard about the mapping e eliminate that look on the screen. we will send a memo. >> okay. >> with this commissioners the item is concluded we will take a 5 million recess and come become. thank you to the trans lagz staff. and so people know we >> okay. thank you and welcome become to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday march 9, 2023, i was condition fouzed. the request for interpretation is lake street we will take that next. under drical dar commissioners item 12, for the property the 1550 like a discretionary

review. david winslow. the item is a public request for building permit application to legalize the demolition of 75% of existing intory your with you this is exceeded the scope under application 2019. the remove of which i am no from the property and construction of a now stair penthouse not slizable from the strept to a 3 story 2 family building. the dr requestor jerry dratler a neighbor to the north is concerned the project has been hampered by unpermitted construction. inaccurate plans and false costs.

his alternative on revoke all per mist and seek a new master permit for the entirety of the work to construct a third housing unit seismic upgrade work exterioring life safety w to make the fourth floor penthouse safe. repair the stuck open and improved modifications that are consistent with the historic homeos lake street and to the north. to date the department received no levers supporting or opposing the practical. staff supports the project the building permit will include all work of the original permit. 20 then 11076710 which was rerescued and legalize work this exceeded the skeptical of this permit. when a notice of violation is issued the department offers the opportunity to remedy approvable work through a now per mist the

sponsor has been working with starch to correct the permit it complies with planning. liberal design guideline and historic recrew. most of the w is interior including remove of 75% of the interior walls planning code requires a neighborhood notification. when more then and there 75 of walls are removed. the stair pent husband is visible from the public right of way and within the buildable envelope and adds no space staff deem there is are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking dr and approving. i'm joined by with vince antipage the enforcement planner who is familiar with the enforce. and permits related to the enforcement action. thank you. >> thank you.

dr requestor you have a 5 minute presentation. sfgovtv? 2900 duplex on acorn are lot the fourth floor pent house mirror the design on the top of the bay on lake street the arrow calls this out. the duplex is an eye sore on

heavily used slow street the property owner illegally demoed 75% of the first 3 floors the pents house addition i highlighted was present when we move in the next door in 1985. i have been told the addition sits unsupported on when is a third floor roof. permit scope of work includes expanding the penthouse not addressing the structure at problem. the north half on crude shoring for years it is a fire hazzard buzz there are no internal with yous to contain the fir if one was to start. of the structure w in the picture is unpermit exclude not inspect the. why dot proposed plans lack the engineer who's name on the permit? 1550 lake street is one of 2 units the single unit is 2, 852

square feet both are 2, 852 square feet. this is i clear indication that the submitted plans are inaccurate. upon the submitted first floor grounds plan a bedroom approximate lawned row room on the north walt du mrek this don't exist. i took the picture to the windo on the 17th avenue side of the duplex where the orange air over is. i support construction of a legal third unit of housing the property ownerments to legalize a nonexisting basement unit for third unit. let's follow the planner recommendations. the for you steps listed on the slide are all necessary to get this project on a sounds noting. the du mrek could be an asset to the neighborhood encourage it is

an eye soar on the street that is used boy skaters, bikers, walkers and runners the project had compliance problems. the property owners building permit and plans don't address the compliance problems the 2 building permits the planning department asked the property owner to cancel remain outstanding. and the property owner is not responded to the plan check all right comments and the notice of enforcement the property owner has not addressed the compliance on the screen. the building permit scope of work does not address the illegal removal of windows and the 50 thousand dollars permit cost requested is 107 thousand dollars less then and there the same permit the board of appeals revoked. how did the cost decrease 1 where are 7 thousand dollars? for the same scope of work?

the property owner was represented by a rubin genius and rose at board of appeals hearing 20 months ago when the same permit was revoked. these pictureless on the north wall show windows illegal low remove exclude not in the permit scope of work they should be. picture on the right is the enlargement of a window open to create door for the proposed downed unit. the 110 year old floor plan suspect gone. the property owner has a blank canvass to work with. new construction needs to be code compliant. adding a third or fourth unit of housing is not in a position oft property owner the housing units have been demolished the plan are recommending a legal third unit which i support. the level permit and plan deficiencyos this project is

truly extraordinary. and is necessary to discuss the major policy issues this are being over ridden. thank you. >> project sponsor you have a 5 minute presentation. hi. good evening. commissioner. i'm hen chan. we're owner of property we come as a homeowner american dream shattered boy a series of unfortunate events. wore here to pled for understanding and support in guaranteeing us the building permit we need to move forward with our lives. we came to america over 20 years ago with a dream of working

heard contribute to society and success we have been working put nothing hours of hard work and dedication. finally 5 years ago we achieve our dream of purchasing this family home with the intention of renovating it and moving in with my family. we have had set becomes. over the past 5 long years. we have met with opposition and delays cost financial burden approximate emotional distress for our family. the daily stress has been a source of worry and anxiety wearing heavy low on our hearts and minds every day. we have had to ensure that added financial burden of have been to pifor temp refer housing waiting for the permit which scratch our resource to the limit.

we are now in the critical junction obtaining the building permit the way forward it rebuild our shattered life the urgency of the situation condition be over stated. we acknowledged and take ownership of the error this is occurred during construction and permit process. we have taken the necessary corrective action to ensure this we mistake we made are not repeated in the future. the permit are seeking today with correct all the issues that the building and planning department has identifyd and would allow us to move forward safely, efficiently with our renovation project. fully compliant with all the building and planning codes. we understand that the gravity of the situation, and importance of rebuilding trust with the community. we are ded kited take the necessary step its make things

right and regain the public confidence. we take full responsibility for any mistake were made and we will do everything in our power to make things right. moving forward we are fully committed to complay with build pregnant planning code and regulation and we will engage with the building and planning department to address occurrence. grant happening the permit we need will enable us to make our american droll a reality contributing to the beautiful neighborhood that we are proud to call home. we acknowledge that this repair after profit and its impact on our community. and we dope low regret any security instability that our situation may have caused to our neighbors. we sincerely hope our neighbors can forgive us for the

inconveniences, cost, support us as we work to make things right and welcome us in their beautiful neighborhood. dear commissioners we ask for support and understanding as we move forward and plan it work tireless low to earn and maintain our niche's trust. thank you for your time and consideration. thank you. >> thank you. member this is is your town to address the commission on this matter. you need to come forward in the chambers. >> good evening president tan exert planning department staff. ile don't reside to this block some of you will remember me as the project sponsors of the infamous bay removal on this block on 17th avenue after 5

years of a job shut down this commission gave us the opportunity to restore the bay and move forward with our remodel as construction of a new home next door. it would be easy to play him for off the trouble he caused ultmitt low it was a poor decision on my part that opened the door to the chaos. as i told the board of appeals given the opportunity again, i would have made a different decision. i can tell you that all is relatively quiet on the western front. what is before you today is a project that i can assure you hen an evaluated through a microescrow from the planning department of project is compliant with all planning requirements and including residential design guide lines. i will agree, with mr. drat ler this vacant billioneding has

been an eye sore for 5 years and in the current state is a blight on the neighborhood. the demo calculationless needed to be complead 3 times to come up -- with a number exceeding the demo calculation finding i request that you afford the applicant and his family the same opportunity you gave me let them show the neighbors around 17th avenue given the chance they can be good citizens and neighbors. deny the dr and approve as submitted. >> good evening thank you for opportunity to poke with you tone. my name andy taylor. i live at 1600 lake street with my wife, children and we are across the road from 1550, 52.

>> can you move mic closer where you are talking. >> how is this. >> mr. winslow i dp send you an e mail of support so my apologies if you did not receive this. so, my family exit fully support this project we would like to see it go ahead we believe the removal of the chimney and the penthouse proposal has little impact on the neighborhood and the drawings show the mall step would not be visibility from the corner of 70th and lake. as you heard this project is just in a terrible state of reper se. since we move in the march of upon 2020 witnessed attempts to break inform people used as an accomplice to sell drugs and smoke critic is attracts attention. i have made 2911 calls one to stop a large and aggressive man from breaking in the property

with a crowbar and the other when a group of men sat smoking critic play music in that unlit garage. so in the concern state it it is a blight on our neighborhood it does need to be repair exclude occupied to aleve the nuisances. my wife exit strategy low passport this project and hope you will deny the dr tonight. thank you very much. >> anyone else in the which i am ber wishing to speak. go to remote callers. >> good evening i'm stefani and i live cross the street from the duplex for 36 combrers watched it suffer unpermitted demolition and absolute neglect. last few years the house has been inspect. in the tone is an eye sore t but

it is fire hazzard, toochlt for months broken glass left on the sidewalk under a broken window as i remember the other one was with wold [inaudible]. the most of the interior without permits. i poke out against the illegal behavior but nothing has been done the owners submitted false plan and estimates of the cost to do the work. money is not a problem for them they hired the most expensive real estate lawyer in town who report developers i support dr request you take, thank you. >> good evening audrey with land use coalition. i want to point out to you this this dr is not about not am inform my backyard.

anything that intefrs with -- this is about compliance. and upholding the laws and planning code in this town. the upon owners climb that they did not know and than i were just innocent people ownership i did not been this. however as other people testified including people this support it this building upon abandoned for years and did in the do anything other then and there demolish the inside without proper permit. we are asking for to you look at the history of the building. history of the come mrinlts and when they have done without the proper permits and we are not asking for you not to allow construction, what we are asking is to ask and submit real plans not just ones they have submitted. plans with the signature and

rubber stamp of the engineers and architect this drew them. as well as adding units to the site. this should be 3 unit project. as the planner originally design plan are recommend. so first we are having a simple ask. require the owner to [inaudible] submit real plans and river them to build 3 unit this is is not an issue with views, forth floor none of the usual dr's. this is a matter of compliance with the planning and building code. so we appreciate it if you ask detailed questions. as opposed to just, >> thank you that is your time. >> last call for public comment. again if you are in the chamber come forward and call nothing

press star 3. seeing no requests to speak, public ment is closed. you have a 2 minute rebuttal. gi need the computer, please. sfgovtv, can we go to the computer? >> first i think everyone is in agreement the project needs to go forward. the question is what project? so -- why legalize a portion of the illegal work today. when prevents the department and the commission from addressing all of the du mrek problems today? is it addressing only the illegal w on the permit a good use of city resource orb example of a job half done? the total cost april 2022 march 2919 permit is 177 thousand

dollars. can you reconstruct 2900 square foot interior for 170 thousand dollars or 60 dollars a foot? why would the commission approve a permit knowing the plans and the permit costs is wrong. the commission should accept dr to discuss valid citizen concerns. should the department accept plans from unlicensed individuals, without a details review there is no penalty for exceeding the 75% demolition threshold. concern planning policy encourages demolition why not change the pochlts allowing the property owner to reconstruct the illegal demo without constranlts rewards the property owner for legal demo. is this good policy? how will the city achieve housing goals if planning commission refuses to require

construction of a third housing unit. thank you. we make makes in permitting we have been responsive in addressing occurrence stele staff has. we take responsibility for errors med boy our contractor who have been dismissed in gang approval the permit we address and resolve potential violation in coordinating with the city staff. we are truly electric to make amend and complete the unfinished construction. by obtaining the permit. the permit alines with the appellate's objective in the appellate it legalize any work

that was previously done with fellow permit and including the previously approval work from earlier permit in one comprehensive permit. the appellate has expressed a sdoir for the renovation work on this project to process quickly, safety and to be fully build and planning ked compliant we will share the goal export to restore to the former gloer prosecute per mir is compliant and would allow this both parties and city staff desires. we respectful low urge the commissioners to allow project to proceed. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioners condition clouds the public hearing portion now before you. comments or motions from commissioners.

anybody want to take dr ownership not and approve or not approve. commissioner moore. i understand perhaps linguistic difficulties created errors i'm concern body is tht set of drawings in front of us is small inconclubhousive what is being asked for. when i'm concerned is the fact that well is no architect no licensed condition transact are or anybody advising. and as the applicant just said the condition transactor was dismissed. so getting the permit is not enough to deliver this project in a manner that meets all requirements requires understanding about the next tlefl goes from the time of

drawing here to taking it to the type of information that make its a code compliant project. it is that gap that i'm concern body. because i don't have any guard ris to feel we are on the right electronic. i empathize with the things that have gone side way and if swon not vet in the how things work i understand this mistakes happen. butt consequence of the project since it has been around awhile and appealed and the appeal deny today makes a stack and the responsible for us to current stage difficult. i'm interested to hear had you say this is my own reaction struggling with the drawings and a number of misstatements and misinformation. and kinds of leads you down a

rabbit hole and realize this is not when it meant. there is the key plan that is to explain for you how is the u firsts come together like a rubbics cube. i realize in the end this is incorrect it puts the unit that is supposed to be on the first and third floor in the wrong position and you misunderstand the project. this it is just like a certain feeling of unease i have. i talked at length with mr. page who was the person had saw the property. asked about penning permit and perhaps he can explain. it statute state drawings we are supporting the project leaves me uncomfortable. why i wonder if mr. winslow and

mr. page can independent to the level or lack thereof professionals prep and reviewing and submit a history that commissioner moore was peeking to. the deals with the process unfolding what was done wrong approximate to rekt foil this mr. page appropriated of involved with and appropriated a details time line of what has gone of you can explain where this would go from here in terms of the next steps if this project were to be approved presented today? >> sure. the permit before you is the permit to abate the violation. work started without permits planning was not involved when this happened. i'm the enforcement planner and the staff person pressing the permit to abate.

had i came enemy, it was the allegation a lot of work without permits there was one filed without plans that under which i think the on or about everoriginal contractor did the w this permit was not routed to planning. there was a per mist with plans routed to plan and that one was revoked. at the board of appealless. it it is an at the time race of different moving partless. i think there is a concern beg your pardon 2 permits issued not yet suspended or revoked one no plans permit from planning enforcement not personal to the over all spoep of work we don't go revoking or asking the za to sign a revocation letter for no plans anyway the other permit is

the permit that the permit before you is resunrising. society drawing show this is scope approved by planning. the as built condition the unpermitted work this happened to date and if approved this permit would,llow property owner to capture unpermitted work help exclude tie it together. i visited the site and know the drawings are conis partial low the project is abnormal to have 2 different in thes shirr a basement level with stair case its is condition fusing i walked through the site and confirm it comports with the drawings as submitted and deficient they men in how they were prepared >> mr. winslow do you have anything to add the drawing and the professionals. >> without allegations about what is dedeficient it is

interior remodel. not clear whether there is structural work being done. typically dbi intakes drawings and permits. when than i do so they determine their triage. whether or not a licensed professional is required to prepare the drawings. we get them as we get them from routed being routed from dbi the drawings are sufficient low clear they apeer the best newscast world. no. worse we seen. neither are they that. they are sufficient for the work to remedy the issue which is the legalization of demolishingly 75 percent of interior walls. i can't poke to had are they miss thanksgiving is a site

permit to legalize work already under way with this come responsibilities the dbi incurs inspecting electric, plumbing, fire, safety dimensional, light and air. those are all beyond typical things in the planning purvow. we are looking at does this comport with planning regulationless and we have information not guilty drawing its december limited exterior work and replacing windows in kind. and the relocating intoryior walls whether the wallers moving bearing walls in thatef -- to be done or not. that's nots planning's roll it is the building department. you are saying that the next stage that would be parking lot of the development of the further plans.

i think to the project sponsor to the extent this is, proved or some version we gotta go forward with something. i have been to the site getting professionals skill in the san francisco construction would be add sunrised to help make sure that you are able to carry forward your york. thank you. commissioner diamond. mr. winslow you are saying that the level of dethey'll is in the drawings you have within the zone of what you have accepted proposal in our comfortable with i recognize they could be better but >> yea. they are not. they are within the upon zone of acceptance. commissioner moore spoke about transposing units will. 1550 and 15 pooch on one page

there is deamericaation of where 1550 is and 1552 is. and another diagram on sheet a1.3 which is unit diagram. >> do you finish than i retained i licensed condition transactor? >> i do not. could the sponsor approach?

>> yes. could you tell us had professionals are working with you currently? >> we don't have anyone the house vacant for 5 years we have to wait until permit is approved then we find a contractor. you >> no architect you are working with? and you are in the in discussions? you have no architect that you are currently working with? >> we have annual anotherure but not a contractor. >> i see the architect provide the tomorrow buff it has been 5 years i can't have a contractor wait for i don't know how long. >> okay. thank you very much. >> i think the thing i point out you know you need a licenses contractor to pull the permits. okay. >> so -- commissioner diamond,

continue. >> no. commissioner moore. other people hop did the drawings here in the room? why is your architect here tonight? >> no. >> no they are not here. from what i understands is the drawings are done boy a drawing service and until a license the architect or a licensed condition transactor is alined with you no building permit can be issued that is a requirement and adddition the contractor has to have a san francisco business license and so does the architect there are additional steps i think we need to our applicant to be aware of because this approval does in the get you anywhere it miget to you silent build and saying i have

approval but no substance other than you get in the start block and the rest of the things. mr. page? >> >> i'm not sure yet drawing are not stamped the same firm dealing when i see them at the public counter frequently. i think they are don'tune bring projects to this body i'm not sure why this set is in the stamp today hen one consistent firm y. good to hear. i do wonder about because this project has taken long make sure we have stamped and accurate plans or send staff but we need to make sure there are not upon trans posed numbers and things are stamp third degree is accurate plan stamp and guess forward to the next and sounds like long phase to construction.

commissioner imperial. >> this is my concern here is if we approve this it is still going to take time and a blight. in the neighborhood. i wonder if we can take a condition are we alued to take in terms of making sure the sponsor get a licenses contractor and work with a licensed architect? i'm not super if we can require them to hire professionals. >> time line. >> our permits have time lines of associated before they expire i don't know if we can use or discretion to change the time line. i would say? i'm given the challenges of the project i'm looking to see we have stamped plans that don't have errors in them this we would approve i don't know if we have it come become ownership approve with condition the plans come become or had have you. i share the hesitancy you are

expressing as limp is there a way to get a bit further long? commissioner braun. you have an idea? i know you have not spoken yet >> thank you. >> no but i did have a question this might lead to -- but in my time we have never continued a dr application. some this manage had is possible with the direction this we received stamped plans and. >> probably come back on consent the plans an attachment we have defendant's exhibit had before with other items. may be commissioner diamond, up want to chime in. the sponsor wants to speak. >> we used to have the license contractor before to work for

our project and right now i don't know we are waiting for planning. it took 5 years already we how do we supposed to get a contractor next to us to wait until it is finished? is this we should get the permit red and electric for contractor and they pull out and go to the dbi and put the license on it. and start the contract, right? i think this is a question about the contractor this is having the architect with approved license, stamped plans. i think mr. winslow i am defer to you is this unusual. i'm eager for them to move forward quickly i understand why they don't have a left lanesed contractor yet. when do we gain from a continuance temperature is important this everybody knows when plans they are building.

why there was a sign when i would wuk in the db oishgs to submit a drawing on my own there was a sign this said -- we will not accept plans for dwo units or greater the california state practices act and nonlicensed professional can submit dau drawings up to 2 units in this case interior work. happens to be 2 units i'm not sure that's why i'm being caveating this. i am -- pretty sure that this may not require a license the professional to mitt for a permit if a 3 unit building surely. well is a different level.

tamps east drawings. if that's what they're typically do, i think that would be perhaps for you to shed some light on it. perhaps he's just he's plans weren't quite executed the way the form would have liked to finish them executed. perhaps they were yanked off the deck

desk and these people went and brought them forward without knowing. that they're not quite finished. how do we understand the missing stamp on these trunks? it may be because this is the middle is for was for public notice. and for this hearing, i'm relatively sure that the original permit that was filed does have a stamp on it. um but this set you know, with similar just directly to me by email for the public notification. yeah i, actually from my perspective would like to ask that we postponed by a week or two that we indeed gets a drawings, which have a stamp. this project is quite complicated, quite unusual. and i'm not trying to put any unusual difficulties into the way of this africans fully understandable that mistakes have been made. but for us to sit here, i think we need to apply the same types of standards as we do to everybody else. uh huh. and so i make a

motion that we continue. just a week or two. and mr winslow and mr page get indeed those particular pertinent drawings with a stamp and call it a day. i would be amenable to that if the project comes back on consent and that we can see the stay up to plans and other things in the packet and prepared to absolutely prepared to do that again. we have to have a certain kind of level of consistency of how we deal with information to be as clear as it can be, and there are lots of many many back alleys in those types of things, but that is a minimum myself. i also think due to the interest in this project that having such assurance in the public record will be of benefit. fit to this body and to the applicant to move forward. expeditiously as they can with this project, with some surgeons sufficient if you receive those stamp plans electronically. yeah

because essentially, if we do a one week continuance that wouldn't be able to happen, but we could certainly provide them electronically and in the record , yeah, i'm sure the architect they're working with with do that fairly quickly and next week's very light in case it does fall off. so that's perfect. second that motion. commissioner brown did you want to add something? i guess i just have a quick question for the project sponsor. um so you still have you still retain the services of your architect? is that right? so okay, so it should not be. you should be able to very quickly do what we're considering asking, which is to ah, get a set of plans from the architect that is, uh, corrected for the era that's been raised here. name the street number. yes and that also actually has their their professional stamp seal on the on the plans, okay? yes so that's passport quickly. yes okay already have them. it

sounds like mr page staff, but the correction may need to be made on those plans. control okay, thank thank you very much for that. so um, having heard that uh, i i'm okay. it's i don't want to delay this project to work any more than necessary. looks like this is still something that might be challenging to for the sponsor to bring to completion and i don't want to throw another obstacle in the way. but if it's just a week or two, um, continue moments to get the plans, then i'm okay with that. my own. you said one week. quite yeah, i believe it sounds like they can get in order. if they can't continue again, that's great. there is a motion commissioners that has been seconded to continue this matter one week to march, 16th with direction to the project sponsor on that motion commissioner braun high commissioner diamond commissioner, imperial commissioner more commission president taylor i commissioners. emotion passes unanimously five 20 and will

places on item 13 for case number 2021-11909 drp for the property at 26 52 california street, also a discretionary review. thank you. it depends on the sponsor if he can get this stuff together. great. good evening again. commissioners david winslow, staff architect. the item before you is a public initiated request for public discretionary review of building permit application number 2021.11 16 25 39 to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to an and to add a new second dwelling unit. cool add front facade improvements, including new windows, doors, metal balcony, exterior finishes and removal of existing decorative plaster. to an existing three story single family building. existing building is a category

c no historic resource present built in 1922. the d r requester jose amedeo video of 27, 19, sacramento and adjacent neighbor to the north. is concerned that the proposed project should be considered a demolition rather than a remodel of existing and that the existing structure which is non conforming and out of character with the neighboring buildings. should therefore conform to the current front setback requirements. his proposed alternative is to redesign the entire project as new construction and conform with current setback requirements. front setback requirements to date the department has received. no letter supporting and one email opposing the project. staff supports the project as it complies with the planning code and the residential design guidelines. planning code section 3 17. this is under the threshold of tantamount demolition. as an addition to an existing legal non complying structure. the non complying portion is allowed to remain the

addition, sensitively responds to the adjacent site conditions. and they're opposed addition at the rear does not extend farther than be adjacent buildings and accommodates their property line windows with light wells. therefore staff teams there are no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. and recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. thank you. thank you. dear requester. five minutes i'm speaking on behalf of the group of are concerned neighbors. can you speak into the microphone war, sir? okay, sorry. and my name is jay van doren. actually, so, uh, i'm just wondering if you all have the same packet that i do with plans for the packet that's provided to us via the agenda. so we have this letter that i believe you prepared. thank you, um okay, so my name is jay van dorn and i am a neighbor directly behind the proposed

project. and i'm one of many neighbors who, uh, are extremely concerned about the m. project. because. i think there are certain exceptional circumstances involved in this application for a building building permit. we believe that the applicants have quite likely knowingly. um mischaracterized this project as an alteration and rear edition. the demolition calculations included with the plans we received are egregiously underestimated to make it appear that these calculations fall below the threshold of what will in fact, qualify the project as a residential demolition. we have consulted with a local structural engineer, marianne phipps, and you should all have her response to the plans that we have. um you can read that in

more detail, but in brief. after examining the proposed plans and calculations, which we've all received for the project, she has stated that, according to the city and county of san francisco, existing building code the proposed modifications would be characterized as substantial structural alteration. accordingly the existing building would have to be brought up to current seismic code to achieve the required lateral force, resisting elements in the front of the building. the facade will require substantial demolition and reconstruction. the plans submitted do show removal of the rear facade. however they they indicate that the existing front facade will remain with minor adjustments. so the plans don't properly addressed the demolition which will be involved which, as we heard earlier, and this session is a kind of a common problem that um

often what is proposed as a an alteration becomes a demolition just by the fact how much is of the of the walls are being removed so back to planning code 3 17. with this being defiant demolition being defined as a major alteration of a residential building that proposes the removal of more than 50% of some of the front facade and bear facade. and proposes the removal of more than 65% of the sum of all exterior walls measured in lineal feet at the foundation. i believe that's what we're looking at here and, uh as per the determination of our structural engineer. it certainly appears that the necessary work will push this into that category of wrestling, residential demolition. so the demolition of the existing structure which extends completely out to this street,

alright, i'm this is the proposed which is basically should do this. there. we have. existing. so um, yeah. in 1922, they were allowed to build all the way out to the sidewalk. these uh the people who are proposing this project are trying to hang on to that existing 1922 building and sort of have you believed that they're going to be able to put this addition on the back. which is twice as big as the building that goes out to the street and so maintain all of that square footage. and they are proposing to luxury condos and we are all in favor of doing something with this project that will add one other unit to the cities. ah you know the city's available units.

so um, let's see. so basically, we request that the building department planning department and everyone involved with allowing this permit. should require more thorough. um engineering notes and plans and review those with a realistic structural calculations before any permit is issued. if the results do determine that disqualifies residential demolition, then it follows that the plans for the proposed project would need to be changed . thank you substantially and they would have to that is your time, but you do have a two minute rebuttal. completely new building permit. thank you. project sponsor of whatever we haven't seen anything. project sponsor. you have five minutes.

any anything that was submitted because we received absolutely nothing. there's nothing in the packet from the copy if he'd like it, um, mr iona. anyways can we continue with the hearing ? please sir, this is your time that i understand. but this is sort of d. r by ambush. there's nothing in your package. if you would like to be supplied anything. i'm going to give it to the architect for the project. timoney, sir. time is running. you can use it as you please. good afternoon. good evening, president tanner, members of the commission steve williams on behalf of the project sponsors. um i also have the project architecture. tom taylor of taylor lombardo architecture. he's also here with me to respond to any technical issues which may come up and we weren't told anything or given anything. you don't have anything in your packet for us to respond to. there was no brief submitted no sort of response at all. they wouldn't come to a meeting. uh after

being invited by mr winslow. to me. this is a project that gets everything right? in my opinion , uh, someone who's who's often been on the other side of projects with negative impacts on neighbors and neighborhoods. um this project adds an additional unit of housing, but it's also incredibly sensitive to the existing neighbors. and to the neighborhood. um right now. the buildings and outlier if you will, an anomaly on this block. it was built in 1922. it's an example of italian renaissance revival architecture or whatever you want to call it, using arches and columns in the facade. all the other buildings are victorian and nature and were built 30 or 40. some even 50 years earlier in the 18 eighties and 18 nineties, um many of them are listed in here today. many of them are lucid in the city's historic um, survey from 1976. the project complies

with the code needs no variances satisfies the residential design guidelines in regard to the design. the project not only adds another unit of housing that improves the design and the appearance of this building to better fit in with the block face staff made the request about the facade changes. and recommendations. all of those changes were incorporated into the project by the project architect. not only is this building, uh, an outlier and design, it's also an anomaly in its placement on the lot. um if you look at it, it it is. much more shallow than everything around it extraordinarily more shallow than everything around. it can have the overhead please. um, it it's forward on the lot, but the rear lot behind it is virtually empty. um the adjacent buildings exceed this building. by 54 ft. i mean, that's that's

that's longer than the building is deep. um and so, adding a new unit is really the only solution . uh at the rear of this building, which is dark because it's on north side, and it's a dead and under used rear yard space, and so it really brings it up to compatibility and conformity with the remainder of the block, which is all built out completely. um, there this. this project has been really sensitive. extraordinarily so when i first was asked to represent them, i was shocked. there are numerous lot line windows in both of the adjacent buildings. here is a side photograph of the building to the west. there are six or seven lot line windows there, and there are. four or five in the building to the east. and extraordinarily this project sponsor. set up a series of

light wells to accommodate every single one of those lot line windows, which they did not have to do. here's the roof plan. and so there's uh, five different, very large. light wells. to accommodate just and you know, i numerous variety of lot line windows. and so, uh, they did that voluntarily. they also held the rear extension in voluntarily. both buildings on adjacent buildings go back further. they've reduced the height of the building. voluntarily um, and they did a son study, which showed little or no impact on the buildings around them, including on the, uh, building to the west, which

has solar panels. the adjacent neighbors don't oppose this project and did not follow the er. this is a d. r from someone to the north on sacramento street, and we can sense there's been no communication or outreach. we can only assume it's to protect views over the top of the project. thank you for your time. thank you. okay members of the public if you would like to comment on this matter. this is your opportunity to do so. please come forward if you're in the chambers, if you are calling in remotely, you need to press star three or raise your hand via webex. hello commission. nice to be here. thank you for having us, um, in regards to the project on california street has, he says all the neighbors he's made everybody happy. that's quite the contrary. he didn't show the back of the building as well. but the back of the building is quite the eyesore. its full height. it looks into everybody's window on the street up above. and for him to say it's a better design and that the neighbors are good. it's not

a good design. it doesn't match the neighborhood. the back is ugly as can be. what i want to say, is that the proposed edition doesn't meet demo calculations. they're inaccurate . kalac's deficient drawings. another example. like you guys have been dealing with all night tonight in regards to what people are trying to do without them on the property trying to get in addition, this is exactly example. the ongoing pattern of developers using this to do to build mega mansions like you guys said. you need to revisit this project in question is trying to use the front wall and leave that existing just so they can build all the way to the street. they can't leave the front wall with all the with all the steel and what have you there is no possible way of any construction my whole life. there's no way they can do that. the project doesn't blend in with the existing homes and most likely affect our property values. this year size of it. he didn't show the back. he showed the front the sheer size from the rear. there's another edition on the top. you can't see it from the front the sheer size along with the absence of the front or rear yard, there's no yard in the rear and the

rear. we have a beautiful green belt. there's one tree right on the property line on their back. they say they're going to leave it when they route proved down. 16 ft. the tree is gone, and if they root, pronin decided to leave it. it's most likely going to drop into one of our houses. on sacramento street. in addition to trying to oppose, um appease the neighbors, that's all they're doing by trying to leave that tree in the back, which which is definitely gonna have to go. but they're trying to tell the neighbors because of what an eyesore the back of the home is that they're going to leave that tree. um i really hope that you guys consider i'd like to see something there, but not what they're planning. what they're planning is just way overdone with the neighborhood. it doesn't blend in. there's no reason to do what they're doing, going all the way to the back of the property. they're not telling you. they're going down 16 ft. thank you so much for your time. you. any other member of the public. please come forward.

my name is susan mcbride and i'm a neighbor and i live on sacramento street. this has nothing to do with my view. i do not have a view. it has to do with the scale of what they're building on the back. and we do have gardens. in the back between california and sacramento, and they are really important they're important for i know this sounds silly. they're important for birds. they're important for everything that exists. and building what they're doing. they're taking every inch of the land away from this project. in the tree that we're talking about is not just a tree. it's a very large magnolia tree. and it can't be replaced. and if something happens to it, you can't just go get another magnetically so am opposed to the project. okay. last call for public comment.

seeing none project scuse me do your request. er, you have a two minute rebuttal. okay, so i'm just gonna flash this back up on the screen. ah! we just question if there i mean, basically, they want to have their cake and eat it, too, which is maintained this nonconforming huge volume. out to the street, and they claim that they will be able to do that as an alteration. big bring it up to seismic code and current seismic code and then attach, you know, two thirds again that much in the back so we don't object to them doing a project to unit project, but it's just kind of monstrous. the redo is worse than what's existing and it's totally not conforming with the neighborhood. also as both neighbors mentioned the tree and

back cannot possibly survive with they've they've put this 16 ft deep. well that's sub grade. that's up like seven ft from the base of the tree, so it's serious concern for everyone behind. so i'm just i really hope you will like revisit this and make it more accurate structural calculations, senator before granting a permit. thank you. project sponsor. you have a two minute rebuttal. thank you, steve williams again, um the demo calculations are what they are, and they're on the plans. um it's impossible for us to defend. somebody who just stands up and says the calculations are inaccurate without actually pointing anything out there on the plans that sheet a 2.0 2 dash d, um, and again we haven't received anything. yeah in

opposition or. saying what the problems were until the this evening. um the tree will be shown saved. it's shown on the architectural plans. the plan is to save it to get an r burst in to make sure that it does survive. um and this idea that the project is extending into the shared green spaces. just not so um, as i showed earlier, there are only building in their rear yard. let me show this again. ah the adjacent buildings exceed this building by more than 50 ft. and so they're actually stopping short. of the adjacent buildings depth into the rear yard there only building in their own yard. they're not building in any of the shared open green space and the folks that are here tonight . live up here. this is an extremely steep hill. way above these buildings, and so i can

only assume this is about views. um the. drawing that was flashed . that is not the current design by the by the requester. that is an older design that was changed by collaboration between the architects and staff. that's no longer the design, but it's the buildings actually being changed to be more compatible with the block, not less. and i just wish that they had reached out to us earlier because we were reaching out to them without results. this is a good project. thank you. thank you. okay with that commissioners matters before you . mr winslow, could you help me understand a little bit about the rear yard required for this project, and i understand that i believe there's averaging. when you have neighbors that have a great depth as they do. could you review that a little bit for this project? how much we yard is remaining, uh, in this

project? sure. so the basic rear yard and our h two is 45% of the lot depth, but that is allowed to decrease by virtue of averaging adjacent neighbors subject to um certain, um two stories or 20 ft height. firewalls greater equal to or greater than 50% of their width lot with which in this case, um does look like it applies. they are using averaging two extend the building, but not as far as their adjacent neighbors. great thank you for clarifying that and then again, to kind of understand a little bit about our process. at this stage we are having our architectural drawings were not having the structural information that some of the er requesters are asking for at this stage, correct, right? so just in direct response to this exhibit that the d i request is submitted from the structural engineer. basically, it's what it says. is that when you add a second unit

and add a certain percentage of new construction that it triggers. upgrades of seismic and other structural, mainly seismic and other life safety. for the entirety of the building. um completely understandable. and at this point, not necessarily, at least in this site permit drawings. those are not technical drawings that are typically submitted with the planning approvals. so yes, true, but not yet provided . thank you very much. his could go one step further because the allegation was made that just because the structural requirements would be imposed that therefore there would be increased. additional demolition . that's not the case the way the demolition works as you're taking walls out of service, either by removing them in their entirety, not removing parts of them like the sheathing or the interior finishes or the exterior finishes. but the structure of the wall. and in seismic retrofitting. it's commonplace to put a layer upon

another layer of existing stud existing stud wall. to strengthen it, so that's not mutually um. you know disagreeable can do both retain that existing wall and structurally improved building. thank you. i would say commissioners. this is certainly a unique project and interesting project one we may see more of as we have again. more additions of housing units. um the second unit is quite large. but again, that's not against the rules. um, the first unit. the existing unit obviously has no setback, and it does stick out compared to its neighbors, but that's a pre existing condition since 1922 so i don't really see how that is subject to really needing to change at this point in time, so i do not see any exceptional extraordinary circumstances certainly unusual and unique, but nothing that would require taking discretionary view at this time. commissioner braun yes. um, first of all, just note the project sponsor's representative , um the packet was most definitely online and linked to from the agenda for tonight.

because that's how i get my planning materials for these hearings is from the same website. everybody else can review. um i have one question about our procedure. uh, so let's say that the site permit this moves forward to db and, um that's when the structural engineering kind of happens and they look at that. it does our process now, you know, we've been talking about the fixes to our process to avoid the 10 amount of demolitions situation . do we now have a feedback loop in that process in which for some reason, it turns out they're gonna have to demolish more than what was shown in these plans. and then it comes back to planning to, you know, redo the demo, kalac's and approach this as a demolition instead. yeah i think we do, uh, you know, processes accustomed improvement, and i think we have been working on this better communication and with d b. i to wear when they look at something and they know what what is going to trigger us or be triggered by us, um, that they wrote. routed back to us now is 100% certain?

no but in this case is kind of, you know my experience. the demo calix are not even close. and so . if they had to significantly alter something from these plans. in the agenda that db i gets in reviews. i think it would be a great enough delta. that would be a red flag for db. i too realize that they probably wanted to send it back up to us for a recheck. so okay. thank you. i think that's good for everyone with the project coming forward to the planning commission to be aware of the process is improving and with with any luck, we are going to be catching more tantamount to demolition situations before they actually because, um, 10 about the demolition situation, so certainly, uh, but having said that i also know i see commissioner diamond has a comment, so i'm going to pull back a motion to or maybe before it becomes your diamond. i would just piggyback on your comment. just mr williams advisor clients to ensure that if there is any

more walls that need to come down or things that come down, please do not take them down before you get permission from planning from the building department so you don't end up back here as our previous case has in many previous cases today and other weeks, um due to exceeding the building permit, so we would appreciate that. commissioner diamond two comments along the same lines one mr winslow. is it possible to flag this project for? uh t? b i that when they're looking at it, um, that if it doesn't involve more demolition that they should bring it back to you to take a second. look at it. i mean, in theory, i know you're creating processes to formalize that. but they've raised a question. so i mean, i don't want to punish them now because of some letter we got today that says, you know, it will no doubt be tantamount to demolition. that seems unfair, but it does seem like we should be watching it carefully. so can we can you flag that with db? i think so. okay alright. second i'm sorry. did you want to just the

additional information? kind of, uh, proposal of the general idea of flagging when we have demo calix, and they're within 10% or less of those thresholds. that's when we kind of get suspicious like when somebody comes in with 49% and you know, then we right then we make a mandatory letter that goes on those plans. it says. you know, everybody's aware db i project sponsored contractor that if you you know, exceed these thresholds. bloody blah, blah, you know, so, um, that's our typical trigger. when something is close, this one isn't um, but i think we can certainly make an exception and put it in the pts notes for this project to just make sure we're vigilant and keeping an eye on it. i appreciate that. the second question is the picture that i'm looking at. that's online. um up. the facade is significantly different than the picture of the d r requester just showed us. i assumed the current design is the one that was online. so i have no idea

why the d r requester showed us the one they did that. this is the current design in the packet. question for the d r requester was there's some reason you showed us that old or no longer relevant design. show that to you one more time to speak into the microphone. sorry sir. it's hard to hear you the one that is in the smaller package. it was just a bigger picture. with very small, very minor. changes. so there's. so if you can speak into the microphone, it's hard for us to hear you. i this one was a larger picture and i didn't even realize that it was changed because they're so similar, but just to confirm that what we're approving is the one that was in the well, actually, not what? we're approving the one we have to decide whether or not we want to take d r on is the one that's in the packet. right thank you. thank you, sir. thank you, commissioner more sorry. what did you have more questions, mr

diamond? commissioner more. i am comfortable with the project, including the follow up with the department and b. i just to start on a slightly more secure way, how we move in the future and avoid demolitions. i did not want to take the thunder from commissioner brown. you are about to make emotions. i'm going to turn it back to you to do so. happy to do so i take a motion to not take er and approved. exactly and. there's a motion that has been seconded, not take dear and approve the project as proposed on that motion commissioner braun diamond commissioner imperial i more president tanner high commissioners in motion passes unanimously. 5 to 0. i want to say commissioners thank you for an eventful night, but well managed, and i'm very glad that we're all working together. we are officially adjourned. thank you, president tanner, keeping

the order trying well matter.

is r. my name is debra alvarez rodriguez. i'm the deputy director in san

francisco. my background is one in which i have spent the entirety of my life committed to finding solution to poverty and addressing the issues of inequity so people and communities can have accesses to resources and financial freedom. one thing true anode dear to my heart was the power of business ownership in creating pathways to financial freedom. we have still in infancy. we had over 100 entrepreneurs come and start their businesses. some are food trucks. some are restaurants. some are in farmer's markets and so farther. that's an incredible legacy and record to build upon. this was the perfect opportunity for me to come back home, you know, come back to the neighborhood and take my skills and networks and

resources and put it backseat in service of the community. given everything with racial reckoning and pandemic it was time for me and everyone else that had the opportunity to leave and get educated to come back home. we have a opportunity to grow our impact in terms of the number of people we serve and how we serve them. we grow our impact in taking the money we make with our entrepreneurs and circulate those resources back interview the community for community development. the third thing is we have a opportunity to have an impact on public policy in terms of the policies and practices the district has been notorious about interms of inequities. all of those are just the beginning of what is possible in terms of growth and

impact. ♪ [ music ] ♪♪ >> >> we'll implementing several changes to our meeting that's based on requirements set forth by the city attorney and the office of the city administrator for all city charter