>> planning commission regular hearing for thursday march 16th 2023. to enable public participation sf gov. tv is streaming this meeting live. each speaker will be allowed up to 3 minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. we will take public comment from persons in city hall first and then open up the remote access line. for those persons participating via web ex, please raise your hand. for those calling in to submit their testimony please listen to instructions carefully.

call and access code 2591680132 1k38 press pound twice. wait for the item you're interested in speak to go and for public to be announced. to comment, you must enter star 3 to raise your hand. and once raise your hand, you'll hear a prompt stating that you have raised your hand to ask a question. please wait to speak until your host calls on you. when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. best practices is to call for from a quiet location and please mute the volume on your television or computer. please line up on the screen side of the room. please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. at this time, i would like to take commission roll, commissioner president tan nnld ner. >> here. >> moore. >> here >> diamond. >> here.

>> commissioner imperial. >> here. >> and commissioner koppel. >> here. >> we expect commissioner are ruiz to be absent for some time. for the night time enter statement castro street is proposed to continue ans to april 13, 2023 for a joint hearing for the historic that we expect to start at 10:00 am. same for the property of 429 castro constitute, a continual use is also expect today be continued to joint hearing with the prehistoric commission expecting at 1:00 am. away for the property at 2861 avenue, also known as 90

through 98 woolsey street, at the time of issuance was suppose to be continued to april 7, 2023 buts the commission that's requested that this item be heard today under the regular calendar. it will be first under the regular calendar. further commissioners under your regular, under discretionary review items, d for the property of 372 dolores street a discretionary review is now being proposed to june 15, 2023. i have no other items wishing to be continued. therefore we should take public comment for these items that were continued. if you're on the line, raise your hand which a web ex. seeing no members of the public requesting to speak at this time, commissioners public comment is closed.

and your continuance calendar is now before you. >> are there any motion to see continue items adding items 16 for the continuance. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner i am pourial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner president tanner. >> aye. jaot motion passes 6-0. placing us this on consent calendar all are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be by a single roll call there will be no separate discussion of these items. in which event the matter should be removed and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 4, case number 2022-for the property of 301tolen street

a continual use item, cua for the property of 4352 biener street. item number 6, cu a for the property of 300 h street. a conditional use item 7. 2022rm, a mandatory discussion airy review and finally item 8, case number 2022, rpf lake street, a discretionary review. please note that on march 9, 2023 after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to today's date by a vote of 5-0 to participate on this consent item, you need to acknowledge that you reviewed and the previous hearing and materials. >> the hearing was reviewed and i appreciate that. >> thank you.

>> members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on the consent calendar item. you need to request any of these items in order for that to be heard today. if you're in the chambers you need to come forward, if you're remotely, you need to press star-3. seeing no members of the public coming in to the chambers, we go to the remote callers. again, you're simply requesting that this be pulled off the consent calendar. in order to review today. >> speaker: i'm calling on the teamsters council 7 asking to you sever item 4 concerning 301 toteum street so we may better articulate our concerns around this item. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners item 4 will be pulled off consent. last call for public comment on any of the consent calendar items? seeing no members of the public

requesting to speak. public comment is closed and your consent calendar is before you with exception to item 4. >> commissioner imperial? >> is also would like to pull item number 7, 603 tennessee street out of consent although i don't have any objection on this but i do have some questions. very good commissioners should we hear at the end of the calendar? >> yes, we'll take item 4 and 7. >> very good commissioners. your consent except 5 and 7. >> move to approve 5, 6 and 8. >> second. >> clerk: thank you,

commissioners on that motion then to approve items 5, 6 and 7 taking discretionary review and approving item 8, commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye. >> cobble. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> president tanner. >> aye. >> that passes 6-0 placing for item 9 land development. >> the planning commission acknowledges that we're on the homeland of the ramadsaoloni. as indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance they have never seeded, lost nor for goent their responsibility as care tickers of this place. as well as all that resign in

traditional territory. as guests recognized that we benefit from leave anding working under traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respect by acknowledging relatives of the ramatushi rhone' community. >> thank you. >> thank you, item 10 consideration of adoption draft minutes for march 7, 2023, this is your opportunity to address the commission. if you're in the chambers, press star-3. seeing no request to speak, commissioners public comment is closed. and the minutes are before you. >> commissioner i am pourial. >> move to adopt the minutes. >> aye. >> >> moore. >> imperial? >> aye. >> diamond? >> aye.

pan--tanner. >> that passes. >> commissioner diamond? >> on february 18, earlier this year, can you hear me? there was a very interesting and worrisome article in the con describing non docktile concrete buildings and large number of them that we have in san francisco similar to some of the buildings that collapsed in turkey and syrian t went on to describe a small working group that has been formed and mentioned brian strong who is the chief brazilian's officer, said that braun was looking at this, and david freedman, so you know, one night way, okay, the city is working on this,

what is the interest of the planning commission in this? and i believe that our interest is two fold which is why i'm hoping director that we can have a presentation at the commission about the work of this working committee. so the reason that i think it's important to us, on every project that we approve, we have to make section 101 finding, essentially say that in an earthquake we'll preserve life. the life safety standard that people get out of the building. and we thened to do it rougely, but i think we ought to step back and be thinking about the building code allows us compliance with the building code is enough for to us say that. and secondly and more importantly, when those 101.b findings were prom gated, they may have been part of prop m in the 1990, the focus waz on

safety getting out of building. and all the work that we've been doing especially recently about resiliency and recovery, i think raises the question about is getting out enough. are we building to the standard that allows people to quickly, move back into the buildings and reoccupy. if we've learned anything from the pandemic, it is that we can't isolate problem and say there are somebody else's issue. we could have said covid and look at the extraordinary impact it's having on us town town and raises questions about how we approach this as a planning department and planning commission. so i feel it would be appropriate for us to just be updated as to what the work is of this working committee and wonder if we can get a presentation. >> thank you, for bringing this item up, commissioner diamond. director harris? >> we'll work with the officers to schedule a hearing.

we are participating in the working group it's mostly being driven by dbi but i'll be happy to ask to do a presentation, maybe we do it at the joint pbi hearing that we're having so we can work with president tanner with that. >> very much appreciated thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> if i may add a comment without make iting a discussion. san francisco is at the cutting edge of seismic engineering, obviously the japan is the lead ner world technology however, we're just right there. so throughout the many many years that san francisco has pursued high-rise buildings and being ahead of the seismic, or including creating it, this article may be cause catches people off guard at the time

when mongering and misleading information is creating anxiety in people's minds. throughout the time that i have practiced in san francisco which is 19 70 through today and including everything that went into eyes mick retrofit, the item of concrete pre1979 buildings that's always been on the expert's mind. and it is in the time, at the time it's not just buildings it is also bridges and other structure which fall into that category of careful evaluation. so while i strongly believe an update would be necessary, i want to just assure that this commission and whoever else listens to our presentation here, that there is nothing to be worried about, only to the extent that we need to stay ahead of subject matter and that is what the city has been doing since the early 70s when this buildings for the first time came on the radar. so that's one some kind of

quietness to how we go about listening to it. >> thank you. commissioner imperial? >> i just want to bring up about what happened, i think in the last few days about the collapse of silicon valley banks and perhaps there are some, i don't want to create fear at the same time, but there is an article about how the collapse of silicon valley bank also affected dot-com projects for affordable housing. sxl it seems like there are still part of negotiations. i'm so as the wake of this kind of what is happening in terms of the banking system. i'm also worried about how it affects our housing element goals in terms of of course the 100% affordable housing to 46,000. of course we cannot predict what is really going to happen in the regional level but i'm

wondering, as we're looking to financial feasibilities of also inclusionary housing, how are we maybe too early to describe what is happening, but i just want the planing to be on radar when it comes to financial as well as the 100% affordable housing as well as other markets and how will that affect the housing element and how will that also at the state react in in kind of, what is going on in the banking system itself. i don't know if that's something being tried right now. again, we don't know how it's going to ripple. >> the direct impact is some affordable housing project that had the bank as a lender so. we can get an update for most to

an extent, there is something important to bring here to the commission, we can do that as well. >> i think just even just knowing because i think, even though it's not our job, we're hopeful every time we see affordable housing and some that are happening and we'll be curious to follow that as it makes its way through the dissolution of the bank. all right, i don't see any other commissioner's hand. >> five projects mentioned all of which have been in front of this commission, that is 360, 43rd avenue, 180 jones, 78 hate, 55clavas which is terle island and 234 vaness.

can you at some point, not at this moment, give us a report on what the implications are on these. some are waiting for tenant improvements. we're a little bit closer for some and far from others. >> definitely, most cds working on the. so we can get that information from them. >> it's close to 500 units, when i quickly do the math and that's a lot. >> we'll give you an update. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay, if there is nothing else, we can move on to department matters. >> we have an implementation hearing coming up on the 27th. we've been working since the adoption and even before the adoption on the implementation,

specifically the items that were laid out in the executive directive. i just wanted highlight two items that were recently in the news, but we'll talk more about them on the 27th as well. the first was establishment of the affordable housing leadership council that was called for in the housing element. we've been work withing most cds and the mayor's office to greet the group into staff it and figure out what the agenda is going forward. as a reminder the goal of the group is to advise the city, 45,000 of the 8 2000 units primarily going to be focused on, finding local state regional and federal as well as the cost to build affordable housing. we do have commitments from 7 leaders to participate on that executive council, fred from

the san francisco foundation, rebecca from the housing exhilarater fund, researcher. louis from veta and silver, malcolm from cdcd and young from the bay area council. as we form technical advisory groups to the executive committee. i just wanted make you aware of that and we'll have more updates on the 27th. you may have also read and liz has been leading this effort for planning that mayor and supervisor safai are moving forward are legislation to reform. the goal is to speed up process and allow for concurrent review. so we may have more information, that may be also the topic of the joint dbi planning commission and we may also talk to you briefly about it during the april 27th hearing. so more to come on both of

those issues. >> thank you. any questions? >> good afternoon, commissioners, joshua planning staff. -- ~>> i just want to call it it's listed as a separate item. but it's part of our housing element implementation. >> do you need to call it? >> let me see if anybody has any questions for director. >> this is part of housing implementation too obligation for funding. >> i'm excite today get this information. >> i'm excited to hear the information, so. >> so does that conclude the director's property? >> yes. >>--director's report? >> yes. >> good afternoon, again. so we wanted to let the commission know that we committed an application for grant from mtc a-bag under

their priority development area in late february. and this will support the over lapse. as a reminder the priority development areas are locally nominated areas by jurisdiction that's are recognized in plan bay area and job growth because they're approximately to transit and location to help them meet their goals for reducing emt and building housing where it's appropriate and improving mobility and the designation is sort of foundational and they dole out a lot of their or almost all of their planning support, so infrastructure support, until 2020, if you remember most of our pda were located exclusive leon the eastern half of the city, if i can have the overhead, jonas real quick.

and for those in the commission in late 19, early 2020. the board of commissioners sub stancingly extended. perfect, there we go, sorry. >> so several new pda's were created at the time including what is called lambbart street

wiz calls much of the marina and an area called central neighborhood. the richmond district the parts of the sunset, forest hill and west portal and then substantial expansions and some of the streetcar lines in southwest of the city. so not surprisingly these overlaps with what we know the well resource neighborhoods, the pda designation came before we launched the update so it was a good precision of what was to come in the housing element. so there is substantial overlap between the pda's and the well researched neighborhood that aren't covered by the pda's but the purple areas are all the overlap areas. you can see substantial overlap. it was submitted to help us

support and related efforts that are identified in the housing element and that were mandated to do and were on the work program that the commission has approved for the department to proceed on. and support and of course the department is prepared to whatever resource necessary to carry out this effort but this additional funding would be welcome especially the timeline that the mayor has laid out. 1.2 million we submitted for 800,000 and the grant funds for the state that we're plan to go use as well. i'll just note, we're hopefully we get the money. we did submit the pda application in 2020 and we're all, i thought we would get nothing. that last time around at the

time mtca bag, decide today fund much more pda's that had not had any planning done for them. and now they're look to go fund new pda's so we're hoping to get something from the region. actually requires a resolution from the city council? in support of their application to show that the city is aligned to support this. but in the case, the effort is called out and it's certified housing element or is on, adopted work program that has been approved that they don't require a resolution, so it fits the bill. they do require us to put it on agendized calendar, to be aware that this is happening in case there are any questions. so that's why we are here today. so i'll be happy to take any questions, hopefully it's pretty straightforward. >> thank you for the presentation and we look

forward to receiving those grants. any questions from commissioners? commissioner braun? >> yes, i was just curious, what is the timeline for grant selection and awarding. >> i think it's relatively quick, i think a couple of months, by early to mid-summer, we would know and the grant funding would be vabl by fall. and also if anything can happen a formal hearing, would it be possible to circulate it? >> yes, we'll be happy to. >> thank you, commissioner moore? >> what does he expect the product? may i ask? >> well the deliverables for the grant are similar to what we would be delivering as part of the overall efforts, it would be rezoning in and of itself, is the key. but the different task includes feasibility and workshops and out reach materials as well as

the hearing processes themselves would be funded t.would also help fund some of the urban design support that we're seeking to visualizations which i remember were part of the discussion during the housing element process. as well as additional modeling that hcd is requiring us to do. >> but there are no strings attached like review or approval on their part? >> no, we promise today submit a package to the commission for approval whether the board approves it, i don't think it's a condition of the grant, i hope not. >> good luck. >> thank you. >> okay, commissioners if there is nothing else, we can move to item 14 board of appeals and preservation commission. >> hi good evening, supervisors, sorry commissioners, aaron star

manager of legislative affairs. this week, we considered the dwelling units, the bowl is to align our adu program. this historic preservation and planning commission heard this item way back in september 2021, most commissions recommended approval with modifications to allow detached adu following the state law parameters. the goal was to incentivize our program to they can add a de tafpd adu instead of pursuing the adu program. the mayor did incorporate this modification into the ordinance. during the hearing there was one public comment in support of the ordinance. chair had a clarifying question on required notice and president kespeskin asked that

only adus are subject to rent control. so our local program is currently 85% of the adu that we approve and the state program is 15% of the adu's we approved. final action was to amend and continue into march 20th because there were substantial amendment so that will likely pass next week. also on the docket were the two mf endorsements as well as the article reorg with other substance i have amendments. both--all of three of these were continued to the call of the chair. and at the full board this week, the village sud passed the second read. sponsored by supervisor ronen

and initiating for the alexander theater was adopted and that is the end of my report. there are no questions for mr. star. as soon as i find that there is a star report.

view impacts. the appellant argued that there were procedure irregularities at the november 10th commission hearing. the appellant argued that there is no written material to represent the and commission hearing regarding the department's amended position. about two and a half deliberations the board voted 2-3 to uphold. tresvina voted against. also heard the historic preservation did meet briefly

and considered, several legacy business registry applications. mandel's on 505th street. pet shop, gura's quality meat at 4909taraville street. castro wine company at 2419th street. and we all moved forward with recommendations for approval. if there are no questions, we can now move on to general public comment at this time. members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the jurisdiction except agenda items with respect to the agenda item, each member of the public may address the commission for up to 3 minutes and when a number of speakers reach the 15

minutes, public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda again. this is for general comment. for items not on today's agenda. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star-3. >> speaker: i'm asking for 303 toll land, i'm one on the tenant. >> 301 has been removed from the consent calendar. hold tight we'll let you know when the time is up. general public comment for items not on today's agenda? >> speaker: good evening i'm andrew with the utilities commission. i want the san francisco be affair of possible pgne delays, i've been hearing it all around my territory, i recover san

francisco to monterey county. i have heard from director hill's staff about some ev chargers delays possibly in the hunter point area. i just want to bring this to your attention, if there are more things that you want to provide, please do so. at this time we're trying to figure out the best way to move forward. again, my name is andrew binge with the public commission. >> thank you. >> seeing no additional request to speak, general public comment is closed and we can move on to item 3 which was pulled off the continuance calendar for the property of 2861 to 2899 san bruno avenue. this is a continual use authorization. >> great, i pulled it off i

just wanted get a brief update on staff where they are going or not going and have the opportunity for the sponsor to report if they have anything to share. >> thank you commissioners. kimberly planning department staff. we're asking continuance to april 27 in order to give the product sponsor and representatives time to discuss tenant plan and relocation agreement. and then also to have time for that to be translated into spanish and chinese languages for the tenants to be able to see and understand whatever plan it is in their own language. so that was the reason for the continuance. there is not been another update until i just spoke with him this afternoon before the hearing. so i will the attorney for the property own inventories give you that update.

>> thank you. >> speaker: good avenue, ryan patterson on behalf of the product sponer. proposed continuance and we worked with the tenant attorney mr. hushband to pick a date for that and it seems reasonable. but happy to provide an update in the meantime. since the last hearing, there has been four developments. the first is the owners hosted a tenant meeting onsite which lasted approximately 2 hours with cantonese and spanish translation. second, they revised the plans to make it more difficult theoretically in the future to

sub divide. third we had discussions with the attorney for some of these tenants and would i like to take the opportunity to thank him for making himself available for our phone calls and emails and other correspondence as well. this dialogue is subject to privilege and confidentiality as settlement so i will not repeat the communications. but i did want to thank him. and i will note that that does add complexity to the situation because of claims that we had to tend to this to insurance and waiting on the insurance company to make a coverage recommendation and appoint their own attorney. so we're trying to work within the con fines of that. to the extent that the commission is looking between an agreement between the owners and tenants, i can make some commitments at this point, but

if it goes beyond construction phase anding planning issues into more of the rent ordinance, per view buy out, that sort of thing, that is something that has to wait for insurance and you know, other forms for that. but, the last update is related to that and that is we've had time to review in much more retail by the planning department and he vision made the day of the last hearing. and the owners are agreeable to that plan. there are three changes that we need to be made to make that work. the first construction time frames that were offered three months per building are not possible. however, we've put time into trying to assess a realistic construction time frame and that looks more like 9 to 12 months per building. so we would want to account for

that in the agreement. there is exhibit c. because there are market rate units and there has been a turnover with people leaving units at this time, it's likely that there will not be as many units occupied, especially by the time we get to the last building construction. so that means if it's possible to do multiple buildings at the same time, because there is more vacancy then it's in everyone's interest to get that sooner than later. let's do it at the same time. and then lastly, there was a provision included in the revised straw that you saw.

as there is significant question when we get to that point. we're also able to commit to paying reasonable moving expenses for the tenants to be moved to their units into the other buildings, the other units. relatedly, i want today address the question from last time, from the commission which was how will it be determined which tenants are offered replacement units and which are not? to some extent that is covered by the department's draft plan it's sequences with the buildings called out in the appropriate sequence. to some extent that will be determined by tenant natural turnover to market units and to some extent that may be discussion with mr. hushmon and his clients.

what you're looking for in the exhibit c plan. but if it is more of a lent ordinance, or buy out and settlement with the tenants that is something that has to involved insurance. so thank you very much for your time and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, we'll go to public comment and then back to the commission. >> very good commissioners. if anyone cares to address the commission, please come forward. if you're in the chambers if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star-3 or raise your hand via web ex. seeing. >> there is two hands, i think. >> there is a hand up but i believe, let's go to our remote callers.

>> speaker: hi i'm the tenant for some of the tenants. i confirm that mr. patterson and i have had some communication. i don't think that we'll have an actual agreement but i'll be glad to update with developments. we can agree on the content of a notice. it will help is their writing to the plan, to understand what the planning department is required and what the owners are proposing. we're at the whim of the owners to the extent that they are

indicating what they agree with. so we're going work with the related items and if there is any questions, i'll be glad to answer those. >> thank you, sir. public commenters will get one minute through the chair. >> one minute is not very much. i'm asking you commission to impose limits on the developers to give a report in writing two weeks before the commission meeting, which is april 27, two weeks before in writing to the public and tenants. please do that. this is a really ridiculous own thaer did some ridiculous changes.

from mr. patterson, question mark. if you didn't, please get something now. and in additionally, application pardon me, presentation for the meeting on the 27th, would extended that. thank you very much. >> no additional comment. >> thank you, if you're still on the line, i wondering, thank you for work withing the tenants that you're working with us. can you confirm that there are folks not accepted by your office. >> i'm representing some of them.

we're in contact with others but it's a difficult dynamic because i, i want to respect the owners so i'm not going to personally go into the building without notice to them. they did have the meeting without knowledge to me. i learned about this tenant meeting and apparently it was a hosted by a lobbyist who was unwilling to give them the plan. but as to your question, i represent about half the tenants, i'm in contact with some. there are others that are affiliated with the onsite property manager. >> thank you for that inside. i guess, i'll make a few comments and in some way directed to staff because we're in a interesting. improved situation.

seems like they're doing something as oppose today nothing, so that's improvement. mainly talking about the attorney which is great for those who are represented by the attorney. you also as a property owner, need to have a plan that everybody. we want to see a plan that offers everything. as far as, i want to talk about everything in this commission. i want to have a conversation about what everybody is entitled. i just want to make sure that that information is translated into the language so that the

representatives can understand what they're entitled to and where to get it. that is of the utmost important and no disrespect to the attorney landlord, he's not representing everybody. so he has to make sure that everybody has this information. those will be my comments. i'm happy to see the things going. if theza has the authority to extend time lines for construction, we can keep it at six months and if you're running behind, you can come and see why you're running behind tha. would be my response to that particular thing. you're responsible and your clients are responsible for. ensuring that we're not having people forced out, but folks may have already seen a

turnover. with that i will call on commissioner moore. >> i would support every aspect that was highlighted. i want to take it a step further, that is actually, it is for us much much more important as a many decades that we have been working on this. that this is done correctly. so when i hear the word buy out, i start to shiver. when i start to hear that mr. bushman was not able to attend and proper lea tend the first tenant meeting, i shook. so time at this moment does not matter to me.

but what matters is everything in front of us is was resolve from a a to z. and it's not differed to to whatever ordinance that may be out there. i have an additional question and that is i would ask, that the amended plans are thoroughly reviewed by the department because as the instructions we gave is that the approved plans are what is guiding how this project moves forward. and i just want to make sure that you have sufficient time and have been given a clearly delien ated set of plans. and that would be at least to protect you relative to your

obligations on your particular aspect. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner diamond? >> i need clarification on the reference to insurance that came up today. i don't recall maybe it came up and i just didn't hear it. so here are my questions. what is the cause of action for which, or what is the claim for which you're seeking coverage and why do we care? it strikes me, just, you know if i'm wrong, just explain to us, you know. you have a responsibility to the building and tenants to get this right and whether or not you get coverage for it, is to me an independent issue and i don't know why it's mutting the waters as to your obligation to the planning department, building department and tenants, can you please address that? >> absolutely, thank you.

ryan patterson for the sponsor. commissioners, you task me with work withing mr. hushman, at the time unknown group of tenants who may not have been representing at that point. in work withing him, there have been communication that are again privileged and confidential that i'm not at liberty to repeat. but those triggered an obligation or necessity to tender them to insurance which creates a somewhat difficult series of events now. if the commission is looking for an agreement with the tenants and the tenants are looking for something that requires assurance sign off. that puts me in a tough spot between the two. but as i i understand it, i think you're looking for more commitment in the construction and phasing and certain limited commitments to the tenants of

relocation, moving cost, those types of things. i think we can do that without insurance getting involved. but for a larger resolution, of the claims made, that's something that we're kind of at the whim of insurance. >> i have a question for the city attorney. >> this was a complicated case throughout throwing insurance on top of it, is this something that should be part of the discussion that the city is engaged in? should it affect the timing? i just don't even know how to approach the subject that he raised and why it's, especially because he can't reveal to us what triggered the request in the first place so. from our perspective as a planning department and obviously, cares deeply about the tenants as with express with the prior two commissioners, what do we do with this information?

and is it just shunted to the side and that's their problem? or do we need to get engaged? >> thank you, commissioner commoned. deputy city attorney. the answer is that whether or not the landlord is going to pays the tenants, what they owe them or their insurance is going to pay is irrelevant to the planning commission determination of their obligation. if the planning commission determines that they would like to wait until there is final resolution between the landlord and the tenants, you are certainly entitled to do that. but in terms of the liability of this landlord, to abide by the laws of the city and county of san francisco that has nothing do with whether or not they have an insurance claim against their carrier. >> thank you, i don't know where that leaves us until we have the full hearing. but, i feel like i it muddies the water and that, you know,

my preference is to proceed with out respect to what they're doing with the insurance and we hear information otherwise, i don't know how the rest of you feel about this. >> i think we see a lot of nods and i think it would be behov mr. patterson. and again that may have ripples to this negotiations that you're having with the represents and maybe unrepresented tenants. keeping tabs on this and whatever mechanisms to have on that, we're going to have to make sure that we have those in place. >> commissioner imperial.

>> yeah, i share with all the commissioners have spoken the frustration in this process. what i'm looking forward, on april 27, i think the public comment there is a public comment to have it in writing if the project sponsor can have, again the details on the, on the i don't know if it's for attorney-client privilege you can have it in writing in terms of what has been discussed. but, that is something that we would like i would like to see beforehand. and if anything, if well, i don't know how this settlement is going to look like but, i hope i have more time to really see through about this what this settlement look like and how this affect the construction phase. i do have a question for us in the planning department in terms of other tenants who are not represented. do we have a community liason

who communicates with other tenants on this? >> you're all clear that you want the plan not just phasing but people plan. so whether they're representative by the tenant or not, that's our intention is to bring you back a phasing plan that is not only deals with the construction but you know, what happens to tenants and gets their opinion and input on to that. >> my only thing is on april 27, i'm kind of worried that there will be tenants represented and some not represented. how, again as in commission we're not just deciding on who is representing but overall.

and for us here in the clearing department, how do we communicate those tenants that are not represented and how are they making their decisions as well and at the end of the day, we're making decision to them. >> can i answer in your question. i wonder, i don't know about the pact deadline and there is an opportunity that we heard that they're trying to translate it, again if they're translating the plan or settlement or a mix of both. and by we, the planning department, the plan that is in the packet, is translated and then distributed to the tenants that's what we can do at the bear minimum and mr. hushman can do whatever he can with thinks tenants. >> with the timing of the plans and working backwards which is also helpful, april 27. >> after we prepare everything. so we've given the applicant

deadline of march 28 to give us the final plan that gives kimberly a few days to be able to incorporate it into a final pact as of 31, we'll need to give it to translation service and they need two weeks to do a full translation and then graphics one week before your packet are published and that's one week before the hearing. so there is, that's the plan though, because we heard loud and clear that we wanted get this document translated in advance and in your packet. >> i think that sounds good and maybe we can get that mailed to the tenants at the address that's they have. >> absolutely and on top of it, we have been work withing hrc, hrc has been part of the community out reach meetings.

so my understand is they have a comprehensive list of every single tenant with everyone's contact information. so we'll make sure that it's get to go people not just snail mail but we'll tacking this in all sorts of ways. also one of our colleagues has also been working very closely. so i'm sure that we will be tapping him to get out the message to all of the tenants. so we're trying our best to make sure that we're not just relying on the tenant attorney. but as mr. hushman mentioned, there are a couple of tenants related to the manager who have a different type of relationship with the property owner. there is some complexities from that. >> that is helpful. ?*fm ms. grande. >> yes, if you want the packet earlier, we need to know so we can.

>> the timeline is pretty tight, so i would like to keep it that is. we're going to hear this item on this day. so whether you're ready or not, we'll look at what you provide. >> the other thing that is important to know, we relayed the deadline of march 28 to mr. patterson, that's the date we're working toward. under the settle agreement, we're allowed to establish deadlines. and if na deadline is not met, we'll begin enforcement pennants once again. --enforcement penalties once again. >> great. and my preference would be to hear whatever we have even if it's not finalized. thank you. >> just wanted echo my fellow commissioners, thanks for the comments. this is a seriously big deal and we're getting tired of the

back and forth and i hope we're all treat thising as with as much urgency as we are. this is still one of the most urgent projects. i don't think it's okay for these people to live in unsafe housing. one more minute longer than they have to be. so we're need 100 percent transparency to get what is best for these people. >> thank you. commissioner moore. >> based on what mr. bushman said today, he has not been fully involved. he does not believe the job will be available by the april 27. so before 4-27 date is

unrealistic. are you still there to restate and confirm that is what you said? >> yeah, perhaps you can mean the relocation or the legal agreement between your clients and property owners, that may be helpful to distinguish that. >> there is the owners spanneding to the owner department and then the aspect which is the sort of relocation moneys and other items for the tenants. mr. patterson has been diligent in communicate withing me. so based on my experience, i do

not see us getting to an agreement na is going to april 27th. i will do whatever i can. what i'm hoping is that the owner puts far in advance. they've indicated certain points today. and then these other relocation, time frames for relocation, can all be ironed out. so that is there is a framework within which we can work that at least will help the tenants most of mono lingual understand

what is currently the, happening so that they can plan their lives accordingly. thank you. we may need to obviously check in with mr. gushman and see what is else is happening. it does make me, just to reiterate my previous point around kind of my hope would be that in addition to to the product sponsor. again let's zoom that they didn't have an attorney and they didn't have anybody helping them navigate, just laying out what we have in the city for tenants and what their rights are and what the responsibilities are.

something that is available to everyone. commissioner diamond? >> physician understand what they just said, i have no patients for that. if we have the ability to start enforcing penalties, starting on april 27th, then if that's what it's going to take, i would like to seriously consider that. it seems that there is more delay. if it's the tenant's attorney who wanted more time in order to, i feel differently about this, but if the reason he thinks he's not going to be ready by the 27th is the project sponsor is not been, moving expeditiously enough to

give them the information. >> i heard it can be march 28 to submit the information. >> we've given the deadline of the 28th. so if we don't receive a document, we'll start the proceedings on the 29th, i believe we'll have to go back to the board of appeals. but cubing off the process if we don't have what we're expecting to receive. >> okay, good point. >> all right, any other commissioners comments or questions on this item? okay, i think we're concluded for this round. >> clerk: we still a motion to continue, please. >> is there a motion to continue this item to april 27th? commissioner moore? >> i move to continue to april 27th. >> thank you, on that motion to continue, commissioner braun. >> aye.

>> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner pim peerial. >> aye. commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner president tanner. >> aye. >> placing us on item 15 for case number 19 for the water front plan. this is for your consideration certify the final environmental report. please note that the public hearing is closed. the public comment period for draft dir ended on april 5th 2022. comments submitted today may not be submitted in the final eir.

>> i'm joy planning department staff. i'm here representing on behalf of my colleagues cherry george who unfortunately is not feeling well but she will be joining us remotely and sharing the slides. joining me in-person is my other colleague from the department lauren beal and deputy director of the port of san francisco. the item before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report or final eir for the proposed water front plan. the water front plan provides goals and policies for the water front. last week the planning commission received a presentation on the plan and

voted to initiate, general and zoning map amendments. there are i will not repeat that information today. next slide. an assessment 6 environmental impact is based on changes that would result on implementation of the water plant components. ther ir determines that the water front plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to transportation and circulation and air quality even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. the eir determined that all leather impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. they studied two alternatives the no alt na and lower growth initiative. they would be reduced under the

lower growth alternative but would avoidable significant and unavoidable with mitigation. >> next slide please. the slide presents key dates in that process including issuance of notice of preparation of a draft eir in august 2020. publication of the draft ieir in february 202 2, of the planning commission in march 2022 and the public comment period for the draft dir which concluded on april 25, 2022 next slide. the department received over 50

comments on the draft dei both in writing and at the march 24, 2022 hearing. seed on the draft dei, rtc includes all comments on the draft dir. the draft eir along with the rtc document comprises the final eir. next slide. following publication of the response to comment, which we described in er ada document that we provided on march 10th

in the pact for today's hearing. it includes minor and noise and vibration section. also addressed the changes to the recreation and hydrology qualifications. the erata includes text changes to provoid a more complete description of recreation al. it clarifies the plans specific policies of safety awareness and compatibility of uses within water recreation.

why plan is not in a significant affect within the scope of analysis by the california environmental actor ceqa. also how they consider potential impacts. they do not change any of the conclusion. do not reflect and do not constitute new information that requires recirculation of the eir under ceqa. next slide.

and with that planning staff request that the they adopt the eir motion before you. certified that it's adequate, adequate and objective comply with the provisions of ceqa, chapter 31 of the san francisco administrative code and planning department guidelines. please note that the motion does not approve the water front project. they are scheduled pending your setering if you canation. this concludes the presentation of eir present sert if you canation and we are available for any questions. >> thank you, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this environmental impact. if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star-3 or raise your hand.

seeing no member from the public, let's go to our remote callers. >> good afternoon, this is richard can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> thank you, i'm helping south end rolling club concerning the environmental impact report. as you know, engage in swimming and human powerboating in the bay in open water as well as black park. and we're, we're concerned that the water front plan. while there is a section in the eir it's only analyze the land space recat the report trying to address this.

are concerns pronounces. we therefore urge the commission to continue this matter for 30 days. or to not certify the eir until this important issue is analyzed. and we believe this can impact the members that serve in the bay commission wz vessels such as water taxis or crew ships but also through currents that will be affected by the projects under the plan, planting some sea walls other elements that will impact our members and this impacts the human health and safety. should analyze, now we have good communication as well as members and the city attorney's

office. and we believe we're getting closer to addressing the concerns. but weener there yet. we believe that the extension to allow us time to discuss this further, hopefully reach an agreement and the agreement would have commitment that these issues would be addressed at the project level through project level ceqa review for projects that are subsequently approved under the plan. those project levels environmental reviews could tier off problematic eir that has been done. but we're seeking commitment would address recreational impacts. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, last call for public comment. again if you're in the chambers, please come forward. seeing no additional request to speak, commissioners, public

comment is closed and this environmental impact is now before you. >> thank you, i do have a few questions for staff. thank you for a great report and for getting this to us. i wanted to follow-up on the comments talk about the problematic nature of this eir and what it means to not have projects future actions and what we may see or other bodies may see and what the community will see going forward from here. >> thank you for the question, it's a problematic eir, we have not analyzed any, physical projects but ceqa allows us to, prepare problematic eirs to ensure cumulative impacts that may be slighted on a case by

case analysis and avoid reconsideration reconsideration. as the project as the water front front is problematic, we only assess potential, environmental impact based on that would, and goals, and replace, relocation of the cruise terminal from pier 35 to pier 50 with no additional trips. >> great, thank you. so restate that, going forward we would see the project reviews coming to maybe this body or other bodies dmending on the nature of that. if there were impacts from a proposed project, would that be

something that would be captured in the problematic or project level review? >> yes, we would look, we would have to look at the proposal and look at it against the eir that we prepared. just like we have for discrimination that's we did not address for eir. we would go through the process that we generally do for all preposals. >> i have a question, you heard from the caller and you can answer this, they're saying we're almost at an agreement. it sounds like water base impact would be reviewed on a project by project basis,--i don't know if the language is necessary because it seems like

the sequel review. i want to give you an opportunity to respond to that comment or elaborate on the discussion. >> commissioners, president tanner, vice president, deputy director of the port. we've been working closely with the swim clubs since the summer to try to address their concerns. we made great advances as it relates to the water plan. there is a lot of good inputs. and water recreation including swimming sb small boating. our commission has looked at those revisions and accepting of them. but we're, and we've also been work withing them and planning staff and the city attorney on the eir comments. and i think we're ready to move forward today. >> great, thank you. thank you, do you want to add anything? >> yes. thank you, president tanner,

members of the commission, i'm melissa, i would like to echo the sentiment that we feel we have had a robust engagement with the commenters in fact, been we were ready to publish the responses we had responded to all the comments on the draft eir back in september or october and the port asked to us to allow for publication. they then modified as a result they modified their policies to strengthen the protections that address the concerns. and document in january and subsequent to that, we received further comments that actually expanded the scope of the concerns raised. so the reason that we have addressed these concerns in and around us, is because they are newly raised concerns. and i want to clarify that the,

what we've, discern is the concerns that relate to water quality that the swimmers may experience are within the pursue of ceqa. and we determined there would be a significant impact due to water construction. and we acknowledged that that could have an affect on swimmers. it's not significant i am pack as it relates to recreation and we've explained in the erata why that's the case. i wanted to say, some of the concerns that we've heard from the relates to the experience of swimming in the bay and how that could change, say if there is ill grass that may be planted, how that could be, not pleasant to swim in. and those are things that are really relevant for the experience for the swimmers. we think that they're best

addressed through continued dialogue and engagement with the stakeholders and the port and not part of the environmental revow. so i want to not over promise what we're going to be locking at. >> certainly beinger that's a helpful clarification. and i want today say for the swimmers understand your concerns and thank you for your diligence in raising them. part of the challenge, ceqa is a disclosure process by which we understand what the impacts may be and try to put it in the future. you don't know exactly what products may happen. that said even if it's not environmental impact, it's still an impact in something that the port and other actors continue to take seriously and be mindful of. and if there are collisions or other confrontation between other users that other agencies will be part of that and hopefully limiting and preventing that, but maybe not

even ceqa related but something that needs to be addressed. other venues that would look to the port and others to continue to figure out how to figure out that the water is great and a good experience for everyone to swim in. your glass is not maybe good for swimming but wildlife. that's a challenge and a rub, that's just part of improving the water quality and restoring some natural habitat. with that, i'll call on commissioner braun. >> yes, i do approve that the statement in the position you just expressed president tanner. and i just want to thank the environmental review staff for working closely to take into consideration the comment that's continue to be received on the eir, we know this has been continued to this hearing. and i appreciate that the time was careful and thoughtful about this and i see how the

sorata document has evolved in response. i believe that, we are at a point where i'm comfortable with moving forward with certifying, certifying the environmental impact report. and also, i take, i just want to put it out there, even if it does not say that there is going to be a project level review, that is simply the procedure that is going to be followed since i'll put forward a motion to approve certification of the eir. >> second. >>. >> clerk: if there is nothing further, there is a motion and seconded to certify this eir report. commissioner braun. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> commissioner president tabner. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> passes unanimously 6-0.

commissioners two were pulled for hearing. a continual use authorization. >> good afternoon, commissioners laura department staff. proposal before you is a conditional use to convert 20% of 108 square foot industrial building. the garage would provide 46 parking spaces to be used as employee parking for raymos maintenance site at 201 toland.

proposal includes interior modification to create an employee break room, security, office, meeting room and restrooms. no expansion of the building is proposed. the only exterior change will be to convert one loading dock, on hudson street to a vehicle entry. the project is located in the bay view neighborhood, the subject parcel spans one entire city block ordered by sell bee street and hudson and inis avenue. both are designated truck routes. the surrounding zoned is also zoned pdr2. this project area is not well served by public transit. approximately half of the subject building including the proposed project area is vacant. the two current tenants are dash mart and sf supply master. this project was reviewed by the bay view hunters point

citizens advisory committee last month on february 1, the committee gave a positive recommendation for the project upon the condition that way mo return to the committee with periodic updates. this requirement was made a condition of approval in the draft motion. the department has not received any public comments on the project. staff recommends approval. the project meets all applicable requirement and would allow an existing business to provide secure parking for employees and utilize a vacant industrial space. this concludes my presentation, i'll be available to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, project sponsor you have a five-minute presentation.

>> speaker: as staff told is to o convert a part of the garage as parking lot. it will include a few back up house for employees as well. the business operates 24 hours a day with approximately 300 employees across overlapping shifts. there are 29 onsite parking spaces across the street but it's not nearly enough to accommodate the employees at the site. there are no more public garages near by and public transit is very limited. so they will provide overnight parking. the remainer of the building will remain storage warehouse use, conversion of the portion of the building is compatible

with the surrounding area. we respectfully that you approve the recommendation, the business owners from remo as well as the property owner is here to answer any questions you may have. i'm also available for questions. thank you. okay, we should take public comment. please come forward, if you're calling in remotely, you need to press star-3 or raise your hand. let's go to your remote callers. >> hi, it's our understanding that part of their business models.

>> [audio breaking] conditional use. that collectively violates. we request that you deny this continual use. thank you. >> thank you. sir? you don't want to submit any testimony? okay. very good. last call for public comment on item 4 for toland avenue. seeing no request to speak. commissioners public comment is closed this matter is before you.

>> thank you, if the attorney can come forward. we heard testimony and i also received a message concerned about parcel delivery, perhaps the use of wamo vehicle, can you address where that is coming from. >> thank you, tara sullivan, i would like to have a representative from wamo come up and speak. but i would like to put up a plan of the site that shows this is the area of the entire building that we're talking about. it's for employee parking only. the site that we're talking about and the approval is to convert into a private parking garage for the employees, back up house for restrooms and break room. this project is particularly small and has nothing to do with the business operations, it's purely to park their employees. >> so this is their employee, and go to work. >> correct.

>> and then i will, if wamo would like to come up and address the question specifically. >> that would be great. >> hi, commissioner thank you so much for the questions. as you know, is autonomous company, our mission is to make it easy. we are permitted for local goods deliberate', but most of our operation as of now, really focus on offering rides to and from location for our riders that are hailing to get around san francisco. so that is being offered on an unpaid basis as well as our employees. >> great, thank you. sorry to interpret you and

maybe ms. jenson, if you can help us the nuance about the moratorium, i understand this is employee parking. to the degree that it's related it may be furthering the business. can you help us understand if we're concerned at all about that moratorium and its concern on this project? >> speaker: i'll jump in and ten turnover to the city attorney. the property value, we really do look at things what is this land category. and i looked at staff, the moratorium is not related to private parking garages, it's to land use which is not what

this application is for. >> and should, in part, maybe for the public that is concerned. we're not approving, we're approving employee parking should we approve this project. >> yes, and we approve land uses, not users. we don't approve the user. >> so if there were to be parcel delivery, is that -- ~>> correct. >> thank you. i don't know if deputy city attorney can add anything. >> ms. watty is not a lawyer but she needs to play one on tv, she got everything i would have said and more. >> i think everything has been said, i want to make a motion to approve. >> second.

>> very good, on that motion to approve with conditions, commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> that passes 6-0. that places us to item 7. for the property of 603 tennessee street a mandatory discussion airy review. >> good afternoon, department staff, item before you is a request for manager review planning court section 415, the change on the site. and tennessee, the site is located within the zoning district. the heightened district on january 30th, 2018, the planning department approved project to demolish an existing

two-storey industrial building and instruct a new six-story building with 24 building aountsz, a grand floor studio and parking. from rental to ownership which completed. the construction of the project is now complete. the sponsor now wishes to change to the back to rental project. and this requires review. there are no choice proposed, the number of belg units and onsite units are the same as the originally approved project.

it's in line with disowning and policies. the department recommends that the commission take the rn approved and this concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner imperial? >> sorry, sorry, you're right. >> the project sponsor here wishing to make a presentation. you have 5 minutes if you care to use all five. >> commissioners, staff, thank you for this time. the reasons, i should have elaborate the reason for changing the tenure. this project is a 24 unit building in the commission bay neighborhood. it's a great location. i introduced myself, ulises. this is a very desirable neighborhood.

the owner had every hope of selling these units. but because of the market changes, the mortgage changes, layoff in the tech industry and housing market changing. the owner is in a bind and we experienced delays in construction because of the supply issues. and pg&e drag lines. the owner found themselves with a cult situation. they actually had a very aggressive market to sell these units. they had a continuous open house until the project was actually ready to be districted. they had open house for the

brokers. they had the m.l.a. listening 2022 and then grand opening event july 20, 2022. it was a very grande vent but after all of this, no offer was written for the project. so the only choice facing the owner is to sell the project. and to sell the project as of rental 1 owner, rental project. so, if, if the owner is not able to sell it, they actually face foreclosure. and that will be terrible for putting units back in the market which hopefully we can do.

so it's in everybody's interest to move ahead and approve this. hopefully units can be on the market. thank you. >> okay, if that concludes presentation, we should open public comment. public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. public comment is closed. this matter is now before you. >> commissioner imperial. >> thank you and thank you for your project sponsor for giving the presentation. i've noticed, you know from the information packet, it has been, it gone through different al and home ownership and rental. that's my concern, is the switching of the tenure of this building in itself.

although i don't have objection on concerting this into rental. in terms of market thising as rental, because it was converted back then. what are your projections at this point? >> let's see, i have something from the realtor. okay and he says, a rental marketing plan has been already been submitted.

and it's waiting this dir to be approved, that's where we are. they're going to market this aggressively. >> how long is the marketing, how long is that going to take? >> actually, this might be explained better by the realtor who is actually on the line or. >> can we call on alex, who has raised their hand. >> yeah, alex. >> alex, are you able to unmute yourself? >> i can also speak to the timeline. >> carlie, the mayor's office is currently reviewing the marketing plan. those usually have a turn

around time of 45 days. so we anticipate that the marketing plan will be approved on march 31 and that's when they can authorize the release of temporary participant of occupancy for the project and the project can start marketing unit. >> can i also ask, when that goes forward, let's say this is sold to another owner. most of this is going forward and leasing those up, there is no, challenge from a pending sale to a potential future building owner imposed by, on the lease up. if a new owner want today switch up to ownership, they would need to come up with the commission to switch back. >> it's not so much about switching back, it's just that we have a marketing plan, we

can forward to the marketing. they may try to sell this building and i'm making sure that that sale does not impact the ability to begin leasing the affordable units. >> not to my knowledge, no. >> okay. >> the new owner would want to proceed with the marketing rate units. so they would have to proceed with the marketing their bmrs simultaneously. >> thank you. >> thank you, i just yeah, thank you for allowing me to pull it off consent. in terms of the vacancy of units, that's something and also, in terms of marketing not just the bmr but also the market rate units of it. so you know, i understand that you are going to sell it. but, yeah. and thank you for the answers questions on that president tanner. >> i'll make a motion to approve. >> take the dr and approve. >> second.

>> very good, commissioners then there is a motion to take dr and approve on that motion, commissioner braun? >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> that motion moves 6-0. that will place us in the discretionary item that has been moved. placing us in the final item. mr. wincelow. the item before you is a public initialed for discretionary review of permit number 2021-11

19-2928 to construct two-storey addition and single family resident. the site is 25-foot wide by 70 feet deep. built in 1947, dr requester karen of the adjacent neighborhood considering does not properly conform to the guideline to articulate to adjacent properties. at the first level only or limit to align with the neighboring addition at the second and third level. to date the department has received no proposed project.

and staff's review addition as it complies with the planning code and guidelines. due to the steep up slope, the second floor is the natural dpraid at the rear. the second floor is setback 3 feet from the southside, while the third floor and it's stepped back additional 15 feet from the proposed rear wall of the floor below. these articulation in conjunction to the relationship addresses the issue of scale access to common mid-block open space and impacts relate today light sufficiently for the design guidelines. therefore staff, deems there are and recommends not taking discretionary review. >> all right, dr requester, you have five minutes.

>> speaker: hi i'm clara dutton i'm the third generation to live in this house. my grandparents bought this house. we're very concerned about how this project is going to impact the light and use of our space of our rear yard. as you heard we're up against the mountain and the sun hangs to the north, so they plan to put three stories which will block our sun. we have some photos to show you how it will block our sun. yes, so we're the code, says balancing the light of neighbors to build while minute liesing the impact on us.

we did meet with neighbors and they agreed to put a setback, but we feel it was not enough. so we don't feel that it's properly balanced. our concerns about sun and our the rear of our house. yeah, i think we can now show you some pictures, my mom who is the owner of the house has pictures to show you how it will impact us. >> i'm not sure how this computer works. >> we'll figure it out. >> the trouble is i can't see the picture. this is our patio receiving

some sun, property is to the left of this picture and they're going to put three stories up which will essentially shade that entire area. >> we can move through all of them. >> here we are. >> this is how we use the space. we really san francisco is very cold in the, in a lot of time. so when there is no sun directly hitting our patio, it's really like hard to actually use the space, it's cold. the sun hits our patio or hits our gaernd for the patio itself for approximately 3 hours a day during between the eco knox, it has to get over our house sxz then it goes behind the housing that are, the apartments that are built on the mountain. >> so here's just more view of it. and here also, because we're up against the mount pib at about

4:00 o'clock or the sun goes. >> sunlight saving. >> sorry, you'll need to speak into the microphone. sfwh. 4:00 o'clock now, daylight saving time, or 3:00 o'clock about a week ago when it was standard time. >> we have a slight time of fiem when we have sun hitting our yard. here's from the kitchen, here's light that comes from our kitchen from our yard and from the back which, if we are to, if it's not just about direct sun, it's also about light when there is not as much light. it's colder in our house, we tend to use the heat more which impacts electricity use. especially on rainy days. here's an image, this is a property that they plan to

extend horizontally and vertically. and as you see, the parts that is shaded, they have a building directly to the south of them that has two stories, not three stories. >> it's only their first and second level, it does not and yet it shades the half of their property, you know, would be shaded by where our patio is. our patio is on the south half of our garden. >> so if you see. the space that is shaded about equal to the space that you see of our patio there because hours is the lot. >> here you can see the shadow of the building na goes back as far as their first story will go back and, but it's on the second level and it's shades more than half of their yard. sol that that shade our entire patio.

>> so, these are just some more images this is also a room that we have on the first floor which would also be impacted would be shaded. >> and we instructed our house, we used to have a room in the entire back taking, which is what they're planning on doing. and it was too dark, our kitchen was very daninger dark and that back room was very dark. so we restructured our house so that we had windows facing south and so, half, show the next one. >> you'll have an opportunity in your rebuttal but your time is now. >> >> you cannot say one last thing, you can see it a rebuttal. >> when you have the buzzard, that's when you have 30 seconds, when you see it the

second time, your time is up. >> sponsor, you have a five-minute presentation. >> do i just pull the u.s. b out. >> you can just take it out now. if you would like to and then you can put it back in. do you have slides you're going to show? yeah, okay. >> i'm not sure how to eject it from this type of computer. >> yeah. it's okay, don't worry. we can pull it out. >> thank you.

>> well apparently our pdf is not working today. my name is seth and i'm working with the owners to realize their dream of a family home. they have make a suitable home to allow them to raise their chirp in the city of san francisco. they want the same rights that their neighbors and dr applicants already enjoy. our proposed vertical addition

are similar to the addition built in 20007 by the dr applicant at 190 corvette, we have a tried to address their concerns. we've included terrace, the setback are greater than the applicant provided their neighbor quh they built. we've demonstrated through shadow study that our proposed extension has no more shadow than would a 42-guard wall surrounding the wau. the shadow study shows that if we were to put a 6-foot property line fence around the yard instead of building the addition, it would limit height light to the neighbors more dramatically than our addition. because of this, we think that

the only extraordinary or exceptional circumstance that our neighbors believe that our client should have less access to enjoy and use their property than they already do because the dr applicants were here first. we don't believe this warrant further changes and respectfully request the commission deny the application and move forward. thank you for your thoughtful consideration. >> thank you. >> that concludes the sponsors presentation. we should open up public comment. this is your opportunity to address the commission. if you're in the chambers, please come forward. you need to press star-3. seeing no members let's go to our remote callers. >> speaker: hello. >> yes, sir. >> >> speaker: i'm lawrence gray, i live at 976 corbin avenue,

i've been there for 50 years. they put their house approved their house about 20 years ago or 25 years ago and at the time i came for you help because it took the sun out of my house. and you helped me. soy lost about, i september about 25% of the sun that i would normally would have but i lost a lot of sun. in the back i used to have a patio where i would grow flowers bbq and do all that. it was never the same. but i do use it now and i appreciate the sun that i do have. now understand next to the suton house, they're going to build a bigger house which i think will block my back yard, my patio into total darkness with little to no sun. so you helped me 20 years ago

to keep a little sun in my back, i hope that you can help me this time, again so i can grow some flowers and maybe sit in the sun for a couple of hours a day. i'm lawrence gray, 976 corbin avenue. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: last call for public comment. seeing no additional request to speak. quer, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> if you can get to the microphone it helps us hear what you're saying. >> you help me, got it. >> yeah so originally, we were

going to build as far back as they want to and they did a discretionary review and you requested we make some changes. we reduced it by 11 feet how far back we went and that's what we're asking them to do. and then i actually talked to a couple of neighbors down the block. and because there is, this house that goes way back and it seems like it must block his north neighbor's sun. so i called the north neighbor and he said it's only on half the property there is a setback of 12-13 feet from his property. so it it's much better that he would have called the whole thing. and he said yes, he only built back just like we did on half of the property.

we, you know, going east west so that we would have sun coming in our kitchen and in our downstairs windows and he did the opposite, he built only on the southside in order to protect his neighbor's light. so we requesting that this project not go back as far on that second level or possibly do more of a setback on that levels our neighbors to the north did. >> i would like to respond to two of the points that why made. one that was six-foot fence would shade such as much as their building. that does logically make sense, we do have i six-foot fence and it does shade us a little bit. we have this lattice on top we're aware of that shade. but as you can see in the pictures, there is a greater

shade created in their patio by a taller building. >> clerk: thank you, that's your time. >> thank you ma'am that's your time. >> and we want to do. trying to make use of our patio and space. >> thank you. >> clerk: sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you, the extension we are proposing while our neighbors have pushed their further to the ining, we moved furtherer to the south to provide as much light on their property as possible. and we don't extend further back as any of theirs. the sun demonstrate that, we will shade their property less with addition as proposed and than we would with a larger yard property line fence. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay, commissioners with

that, this matter is before you. >> certainly i understand the perspective of the neighbors and thank you to the gentleman that called in. it seems comparable house to the neighboring house, in terms of depth and other dimensions, there seems to be a setback. it seems like it's been addressed, provide a comparison, i don't see a really big difference between the projects. i don't see any unique circumstances for this project. commissioner moore. >> i would staff's evaluation of the project is accurate, i don't see anything extraordinary and i move that we do not daik tr and approve the project. >> second. >> on that motion, to not take

the dr project as proposed, commissioner drawn. >> aye. >> diamond. >> aye >> imperial. >> aye. >> koppel. >> aye. >> tanner. >> aye. >> the motion passes 6-0 and concludes your hearing today. >> thank you all, we are adjourned.

welcome to march 14, 2023 meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors madam clerk, call the roll. >> next. mr. president. supervisor chan. >> present. >> supervisor