>> welcome to the san francisco planning here are for thursday march 23 of 23. each speakerer allowed up to 3 minutes. when your time is reached your time is up and i will tick the next personful tick public comment if city hall first and open up remote access line. fer those via web ex raise your hundred when public comment is called. for those call nothing for testimony call 415-655-0001.

access code: 2598 131 6090 ## okay. you need to wait for theium are interested in and public ment to be announced. enter star 3 to raise your hand. you will hear stating you have raised your hundred to ask a question. wait until the host callsow. when you are unmuted that is your time to speak. best practices call from a quiet location. mute the volume on television or computer. for those live here in person, lineup on the screen side or to your right. speak clear and slowly.

i will ask we silence electronics they may sound off. i would like to take roll. president tanner. >> here >> vice president moore >> here >> commissioner braun >> hee >> commissioner upon diamond. >> here. >> commissioner koppel. >> yes we expect commissioner ruiz to be absent for another month. first is consideration of items proposed for continuance item 1 for the property at 330 rutlbgt a dr is proposed to april 27 of 23. item 2, 4 thirty-four courtland a cu for indefinite conditionance i have nothing other to be continued take public comment this is your opportunity to address the commission on continuance cat dar.

if you are here come forward if you are call nothing press star 3 or raise your hand via web ex. no requests to speak. commissioners issue public comment on minutes is closed. and your continuancical dar is before you. commissioner imperial. >> move to continue 1 and 2. >> second. >> thank you, on that motion to continue items, commissioner braun >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> imperial. >> aye. >> moore. >> aye. >> tanner. >> aye >> that passes unanimously. now consent items here are on consent considered to routine and may be accounted on by a vote of the commission. no separate discussion unless the commission or public or staff requests then the matter will be removed and considered at this or future hearing.

item 3, 429 beale and 430 main a downtown authorization. item 4, at 2675 geary boulevard a cu authorization. item 5. to rezone parse will planning code amendment. item 6, the property of 1300 of this 90 griffith cu authorization. before we take public comment i believe commissioner diamond have you a disclosure? >> yes. >> commissioners, i did in the realize until i walked i told ruth there -- is an investor in the driscoll hotel. joel is an upon friend. i said on a board with him and we have been colleagues on a

number of nonprofits in the past. it the not affect my ability to be impartial and deliberating on this item. >> very good. commissioners. if there is nothing further we had open up public comment. members, commissioner, staff this is your opportunity to request in any of the consent items pulled off and considered at the end of today's agenda. >> okay if you mean are here come forward if you are call nothing press star 3. no requests, commissioners, public comment on consent is closed and now before you. >> there are motions to move the consent. commissioner braun. >> move to approve items on consent 3, 4, 5 and 6. >> second. >> on that motion commissioner

braun >> aye >> diamond. >> aye >> imperial. >> aye >> koppel. >> aye >> moore. >> aye >> tanner >> aye. >> that passings 6-zero and under commission matters telephone. land acknowledgment. ramaytush ohlone acknowledgement the planning commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples . of thank you. >> >> thank you. item 8 consideration of adoption of draft minute for march 9, 23.

members this is your tune to address the commission on minutes. if you are here come forward. if call nothing press star 3. seeing no requests to peek meant on your minute system closed they are before you. >> motion to adopt the minutes? commissioner imperial. move to adopt. >> second >> thank you. on that motion to adopt minutes commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial >> aye >> commissioner koppel >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye >> commissioner tanner >> aye >> that passes. item 9 upon comment come questions. commissioner moore. i would like to see that the planning commission and perhaps together with others ask park and rec about the damage to important tree in public parks

and streets. in my neighborhood, very important history irk park in the middle important trees which frips the p as a space came down and just a heart break. this is my reaction. also along streets where we use trees to lands mark on polk. learning trees have been there forever are all down approximate like to see some response from park and rec about what they are planning to do and how the rest of the city is doing to have the loss of the trees. >> thank you. on this note thank our first responders for helping during the storm and respond topping damage that happened. it it is a scary day. hopeful low we will not see more but lost a lot of tree come some lost lives and damage to property. i wanted to note that on a different topic, we were asked

about scheduling a report on racial equity work we are looking at june. hopefully commissioner ruirz will be back and the upon anniversary. we look forward to that later that year. other comments or questions? >> move to future calendars, commissionersy mentioned the joint on may 11 at 10 a.m. the joint with bic on may 18th had to be rescheduled. we are scheduled for double on may 11. i dot confirmation that will have a joint with them building inspection the the normal 1 p.m. calendar on may 11 there is nothing on the 18th. we can cancel that hearing?

>> moving right along. >> sorry i forgot i will mention we are working with urban land institute on a technical advisory panel. will week of may and last week of may. on may 24 our regular hearing a presentation at part of our hearing. something to look ford. they are looking at downtown the revitalization and future and couple questions staff scope with them. something to look forward tochlt hope to have i discussion with us and also hearing more from the public they will talk with different stake holders and the best minds on the questions gathering to think about our future and hopeful low had our role will be as a planning commission. [inaudible]. add about the taft. commissioner moore. iot only thing i add for those who don't know what it stands

for the urban lands institute professionals and architect, real estate and disciplines than i have for deckeds held discussions about the health and future of cities and than i bring people >> out of town with different viewpoints and experiences to the panelful we had consider ourselves luck tow have such i opinion for us. why absolutely. >> commissioner imperial. >> also. to bring up in terms of we had discussion about the tech assistance communities. and wonder photocopy than i can bring information about the discussion that has been happening as limp wrndz if we can put that as informational hearing and for thome have a presentation. >> sure. >> on that i will send you what they proposed. well say presentation that is the upon recommendation they are regular one more meeting.

tell come back to you and once an ordinance that changed to the planning code will and back. i think it is example good to get army question bunkham feedback before it come red for approval. >> absolutely. if there it is nothing further. item 10. why follow ups from questions at previous hearings. i discussion about trader joe's they came to talk in general public comment not a ton of progress on the movement starting construction supervisor preston called for a hearing that will be held in early april and participate in that and hopefully hear directly from the upon sponsor and or trader joe's. you asked about the concrete building starnlsd. i checked with brian strong, at the city add administrator's

office they are not ready for a hearing they are working doing out reach but said in late summer early fall they may be red for a hearing. and then a question about 4 silicon valley bank in the rep to a few projects affordable housing projects. there are 4 projects that are under construction. in ocd does in the anticipate a change. there may be a different entity the lender. but they are working with the taking over the loans and don't expect change there is one project this has admit start construction they are the upon lendser the construction lendser than i are exploring optionos this had is hope this there am be no delays will as a result. that's all i have. >> thank you. >> if there are no questions,

commissioners. item 11 review of past events at the board i don't have a report for the board of appeal and historic preservation did in the meet yesterday >> good afternoon legislative affair this is week lands use krrz the controls sponsored by the mayor. goals is to aline the adu controls with changes to state law clarifies the press for adu. planning heard therapy in december of 21 and recommend approval with modification. modification to allow detached with the required rear yard following the law program terse last week it incorp ritd that after continued a week. this week supervisor peskin raised issues about the ordinance out of date with state law. tell is. and wanted amend it further. that would required a referral become to plans and the adoption has implications related affordable housing funding.

ordinance employees duplicated the ordinance was forwarded to the board with positive recommendation. the duplicated was amended with changes to state luand rereferred to this commission. the full board this week, the penalties for code enforcement by supervisor ronen passed and had 2 landmark increase designations one for the carnival future at south vaness avenue by supervisor ronen and the other for the of the mural at 2137, 24th street sponsored by supervisor ronen. that's all i have. >> do you know what the changes are therapy not included in the legislation? >> they were changes to like what you can do for the detached rear yard cottage is 16 feet and you are allowed go to 18 feet. there were a lot more changes

over the 22 dwreers is in the this one change. whole thing more complicated >> the develop tom go forward and the file to follow. >> we were going to introduce another but this gives us an already made file. >> great. >> commissioner more? >> thank you. >> okay. good. general public comment. you may address the commission. with agenda items the opportunity will be when the item is roached. each member may address the commission for up to 3 minutes when the number speakers exceed the limit it may be moved to the end of the agenda. before comment i have just

notified by our media service team and sfgovtv that web ex altered the format again and that in order to raise you were hand you not only have to enter the access code and press pound, punned but now press pound 0323 pound. as a -- password to gain access i apologize we literally just found out this . is just to call in not to raise your hand. so there will amend their crull on the upon screen. can you repeat this what is it folks mode to do. >> absolutely jofrment call in or raise their hundred y. to call in, let me pull up my instructions. to call in, to participate you need to call 415-655-0001.

access code: 2598 131 6090 ##. you will then be prompted for a password. and today this pass word is pound 0323 pound. to raise your hand is star 3 as far as i'm aware. hopeful leave this does not cause difficulties for people. and are in instructions on the web page and on sfgovtv crawl will be updated accordingly. >> excuse me. can we provide a feedback to web exabout the excessability on this in and also the prompt they should give us ahead of time like 24 hours ahead >> commissioner imperial. we are sfgovtv works with them. our media service works with

them. you imagine we are not their only clients and they are a general platform. they have accommodated requests for us in the past. we will reach out to them bottom this. in the future. and as you can tell all the platforms are dynamic and change on a whim, apparently. somebody decide third degree was good >> was not us. >> thank you. was not us i guarantee that. >> commissioners this will place us on general public comment. you need to press star 3 to raise your hands. if in chambers come forward. seeing no requests to speak, commissioners, yes or no public comment is closed. and we will move on to the regular calendar for item 12,

67-69 belcher street a conditional use authorization. no audio. good afternoon. americans. the project proposed the demolition of an existing tw store residential building containing 1 dwelling u mitt and state entity bonus program for the new construction of a 5 story, 56 foot tall residentialing building with therein dwelling units. 15 off strove parking space. 40 class one bicycle parking spaces, and 2 class 2 bicycle parking space within the residential transit oriented zoning district and market and octavia planning your.

the project contains a dwelling unit mix of 11, 3 bedroom units 192 bedroom and one, one bedroom unit. 5 the 31 proposed units restricted at 80% ami under the inclusionary housing program and the state and city bonus law. project requires cu authorization pursuant to planning code 209 publicity 4317 and 303 to demo an existing residential building and develop on a lot that is greater than 10,000 square feast within the rt ozoning district. the commission must adopt findings related to the state density bonus law for wifrs from the front set bark requirementless. rear yard requirements and dwelling unit exposure of planning code 140 and height limit set fourth in planning

section 260. the environmental review for the project completed and the department issued a community plan evaluation for the projected. the communities planning sxeflgdz mitigation monitor and reporting program requirements are included in out lined in the staff report. department received from the duboce triangle association. sponsor hosted a meeting with niches and registered neighborhood organizations. and on august 9 of 2021, feedback by the meeting include topics of designering massing. tenancy, affordable and rental rate and over all support for below market rate housing. since the publiccasion the department received a phone call from the neighboring property to the south asking questions about

the review process. and also raising concerns about the height and noted they planed tend today if than i wanted additional feedback. the department finds the project on balanceful consistent with the bonus law, market and octavia plan approximate policy of the general plan it is i total of 31 units most which 2 bedrooms or more. the project will include 5 on sight below market rate units. redevelops an underutilized site. one unit o an over sized lot and will provide an increase of 30 dwelling unit in an area served by transit. department finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with

the neighborhood. and recommends approval as out lined. thank you very much i will be available for questions. why thank you you have 5 minutes. good afternoon. [inaudible]. sfgovtv? can we go to the computer? the image of san francisco is a text europe of [inaudible] walls. jag ed profiles inside out offering pan recommendic views of valand hes herizeons beyond. this project aims to abstract and condense san francisco's street scape feel nothing a contemporary building. this shows the over all massing

of the building in the first image and then allows light to enter in the access to the unit in thes building. . on the third image at the bottom left, it is the rhythmic pattern of bays that credit a reconstruction of the rhythms of the street scapes. you see on the left the existing condition. of the building which is fully built out on the entire lot. and am our proposal has a compliant rear yard matches the roar yard of the adjacent property. this hose the land scape treatment at the ground level with -- on the bottom left a

drop with accessible ramp to the sidewalk and the curb cut for the garage eblt row and 2ent rows america the edges of the property. instead roar yard the land scaped your with a series of mounds and elements. this shows the landscape on the roof top. horizontal surfisters recreated landscape in the city. the 40 bicycle parking spaces and storage for the residents of the building. this is the grounds floor and the gray shaded area is all

space the third space on the left mail boxes and seating. behind the elevator a lounge area then turns into dining and common kitchen your opens up in the landscaped rear yard a used by all residents. this is a typical floor plan, you see the critic that let's light in the middle. building with a land scaped court on the first level. when you go to your unit you are not in a dark double corridor but an out door space. this out door space is described here with the central courtyard and the open areas on the 2 boundary areas this . is a sectional diagram that shows that open access to the unit.

this is one bedroom unit. it it is 7 for you square foot. and all of the units are come picture but we have a broad range this is a 2 bedroom unit which is -- 990 square foot and have you 19 of these. you see it is a single upon large living kitchen and dining area with a place for a desk and saturday your. and then the 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. this is one of the 3 bedroom units 1400 square foot and have 11 of these. and -- this is the material of the building basically the

this -- brick and then -- the bastes building a dark element to credit the sense of floating. you will see that the windows flip flop to provide privacy for all units so that situation where you look in someone else's unit is eliminated by the wait windows are arrayed and view if the street. thank you that is your time. >> any questions i'm happy to answer. >> very good. members this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again if you are here come forward if you are call nothing remote press star 3 via web ex. sfgovtv do you have the over

head? i'm roger i live to the south of the of proposed project at 734, 14th street. and if you look on the -- upon i live at the blue square. so -- my unit looks out on to the existing wall. and -- i have a deck on the rear of the property. which is my living room. my living room looks out on to the the wall. and i have no other windows that are except this don't look out on the light welthe other looks out on a light well i'm concerned of loss of sky view

you see in the lower picture i see a sliver of sky view from my living room alcohol be completely replaced by a 5 story blank wall. this is the relationship of my building we are looking at the massive 5 story blank wall. which i put together this little draings shows the upon current rue of the sky for my living room as the green triangle. which i can bear low see over the top of the existing wall. and my upstairs neighbors see a bit over the top. but they would be looking at a 5 store blank wall. which is of great concernful

which is -- also the prevailing wind come in from the west. which i believe is going to hit this blank wall and blow down and -- make ape windy condition on my deck making unusability. that deck is my living room during any nice day. i sit out doing my work i work from home this is my office in addition to being my living room. this is going to have a big impact on me. and will not only when the construction is done but also during the construction process. noise, vibration. dust, dirt and under mining of upon foundations of my building.

any questions i'm happy to answer. >> thank you, sir. appreciate you. last call for public ment on this item. again if you are here you need to come forward remote press star 3. go to remote callers. upon hi. i'm [inaudible] i live [inaudible]om 7 [inaudible] 47th in the same building as the previous speaker the second level. i have a couple of occurrence this one being the [inaudible] only one mention of a phone call not spicht. i and many neighbors have occurrence we sent e mail in with our concerns. . from the environmental review i have not had response and not mentioned today.

i want to highlight that second is this second level and botch on east facing the property, jaycent and north facing on 14th adjacent, we are losing value of our house. i have a north facing apartment i bought it a year ago. i have a view i see overnight build pregnant wake up to a blue sky every day and this is [inaudible] i'm going to lose all natural light coming in my apartment and natures left and right will lose a vow of natural right to the apartment as well. so you know i appreciate the [inaudible] but i feel like you are devulg the property.

last call per public comment. of public ment is closed. this merit is before you. i will ask the architect i'm not sure if you can around about the blank wall faith the neighboring building. are there ideas. you find occurrence about winds or murals or the current wall is covered with ivy may be that is somebodying to think about. can you address the occurrence about the wall facing the belling to the south? >> we have said we would replace the planting at this level. the truth is that the wall will be highly reflective. it is a material, cambric which is reflective. in some ways tell be archifiying the light.

also if you noticed in the drawings the roar yard actually opens up part of the of view. so it is not as though they would be entirely loss of the sense of openness. >> great. thank you. why commissioner imperial? >> i have a question to the staff. would this be under -- would this be a rent controlled building? or since it is built before 1979? or is there a requirement for replacing a reason controlled unit part of this state density bonus >> thank you. so the san francisco upon rent board will not make that determination i did review this proposal with our internal staff and it is my understanding that

due to the date that the application was submitted and as well as it being in the existing condition there is it would in the need to replace the existing unit. other than na, i don't have more details on the requirements and when it apply d and does not. >> commissioner, i can speak to that. carly, department staff. the repreliminaries units weres apply to protected units. this it is a single unit we would not consider this to be a reason controlled unit t. does not fall in the definition of protected unist in this way. we have also the only other way a single unit considered protected under 330 if occupy instead last 5 years boy a low income household we have questions for records if the upon rent board and the owner sign affidavit to state it has

not been occupy in the 5 years by low income house hold. because is not a protected unit this the replace am requirements don'ts apply. >> the question to the experience seems like no conversation in terms of relocation or what are they like now with the existing tenant. >> thank you. behalf the sponsor there is a tenant upon monthly agreement. than i are, wear of the project and temporary housing from the beginning. than i are appropriated to vacate. this is the project is getting starred y. okay. there sell like a time line for them tom stay and then. >> yes. >> okay. those were my questions. i find this project design wes

appealing and i support the project. where thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to briefly reflect on the kregz of the market octavia plan. this project really exemplifies what the community fought for, for years. ir believe this will this project is careful low craftd and sensitive to not only the setting of the denseification appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood. but architectualy which is more the question of building aesthetics responsive with the street and elements i think make it a harmonious addition in an older building context. historic not to reference to the historic preservation. over all, it it is a lovely blgdz provides employee and -- owner amenities including laundry room and storage and has all the little things we often vice president to struggle with.

you would like to fully support it but i like us to have it inoir memory bank for the correct approach to multiunit housing design, avoiding the bedrooms and finding the way to create light wells and ability to make each unit including the passage to units with the corridor. an exciting responsibles that is our call here at least for me and i hope we will rrm them when we move on. >> it has my sympathy >> it is an exetchary project. excited see this. commissioner koppel >> i appreciate the 80%, mi. i move to approve. >> second. >> of thank you. commissioner braun? i want to add my support for the greg of the house and transit oriented location on a site i have looked at for a long time

and thought. wow, that is surprising this use is there. it is interesting to learn it was a single residential property. the occurrence raised by neighbors about the project, you know the this project did change the result of the use of the state density bonus. you know the base project that was illustrated in the importancy plans to demonstrate how it was deplayed. shows the original intention would had more in the way of the setbacks and shorter. i understand and appreciate the concerns this were raised. however, thankfully there is still will going to be some light coming through the buildings will not [inaudible] and i am in support of the project. >> thank you. >> commissioner diamond. i want to thank of the architect

for his presentation was best presentation wes had in a long time you put it in context. explained amenities. easy to understand. and why we ended up with when we did from your design. thank you and i am in support of this. why thank you. >> commissioners if there is nothing further a notion seconded to approve with conditions commissioner braun y. aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> imperial y. aye >> koppel. >> aye >> commissioner moore y. aye yoochl tanner >> aye >> that passes unanimously. item 13, 1881 post street a c ushgz thgz. ip want to introduce a new planner not before the commission yet. he has been with the department for 9 mobs and work in the d5

and 8 team. ful from chicago. and will a graduate of university of illinois, chicago. where she has a masters inure ban plan and policy. under grad wish wash university. receiving a bachelor in visual communication come economics. before joining the defendant an inturn with the chicago metro agency for planning worked on public and community engagement and lead that agency's future lead ins planning and helping with our internship program. before this a graphic designer in high school math teacher. >> welcome. >> thank you, commissioners. good afternoon. upon planning staff. you have buffer today a request for cu authorization to legalize an existing furthermore well retail movie theatre used at

1881, post street amc stheert this is is within the japantown neighborhood commercial district japantown special use district come 60 height and bulk district. it was established in 2017 after acquiring the use from a previous owner sun dance cinema. the retail accident amc has 900 locations worldwide. 2 currently reside in san francisco. and include the subject property. as an existing business the project will not change the formula retail uses in the vicinity which constitutes 14% of commercial store front and a comparable percentage of total commercial frontage. the project is one of men city wide services in the jeopardy an

town district it remains the theatre used went district and also behaves as a local neighborhood serving bye-byes keeping with the commercial nature of the district. since the packet the department received 2 letters of support from the jeopardy japantown task force and merchannel association. the project provides to preserve desirable service to the neighborhood and surrounding community. the department prides that the project is on balance with the general plan. and consistent with the purposes of the japantown neighborhood/commercial district and the special use district. for these reasons the department is in support of the legalization and recommends approval. with conditions. i will turn it over to the

sponsor and available for questions after. >> project sponsor, you have 5 minutes. >> i can do it in less than 2. thank you good even i'm duane kennedy with city shapers. the applicant on behalf of am c theatres thank you for considering our application to keep it in japantown. thank you to the staff, for your effort in working with us the past 3 years. we read the staff report. find it favorable, thoughtful, and analytical. since we filed the application in 2019, we reached out to 413 japantown residents, 122 local merchants the japantown task force and merchant's association. to date we have not received

opposition. to amc's cu authorization. the only comments we received have been positive and supportive. and in keeping amc in japantown. amc theatre a part of japantown cultural district and i hope the planning commission can support this application to remain. if you have questions i am here to answer them. thank you. >> thank you. members this is your opportunity to address the commission. if you are here come forward if you are call nothing press star 3 or raise your hand via web ex. no requests to speak. public comment is close third degree merit is now before you. are there comments or motion sns >> commissioner braun. >> yes, i have a concern, not

with the approval but the fact that one of the signs exceeds the size alued for on this building. and that will sign was a -- issued before that over the counter lye knight mistake a condition on to reflas where a small are sign. is there a background how that happened or -- i'm curious. about this bit. >> hi. yes. happy to answer the question regarding the signage. commissioners xr the proposed legalization does not include new @rigzs to the existing building, the initial change in ownership in 2017, did involve of the addition of 3amv signs to the building facade on the north, east and west.

and this permit was issued overnight counter. erroneously. and so -- we are aware that the permit was issue in the error. about the signage, the primary sign on post street, which is currently 144 square feet. exceeds the max yumg area required by article 6 of the planning code which is 100 square feet. therefore, does not comply currently, but we recognize that because of department error, we have been working with the sponsor and expressed i commitment to working with our officials to potentially -- legislate a solution that would allow that the theatre to keep the sign. and so -- that is the

conversation woeful have been having but did want to acknowledge that the sign was did have a permit initially. but was issued in error. >> can i ask, i believe the staff recommendation in our motion is it is requires the sign replaced with a sign that conforms is this correct? >> i guess our intent behind this condition was to restate our commitment to working with the sponsor to bring this sign in compliance. and we left it open with an open time frame to work on what that will look like whether it be legislation or bring the sign in compliance. >> okay. that is satisfying me i was concerned we would force them to -- not by this much.

irrelevant and the sign was permitted boy planning. so. i'm fully in support this is theatre has been here for a long time and a part of chains for a long time i'm not concerned about the retail use authorization. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. i wanted to add the same comments as commissioner braun. when i read the staff report and talked to staff this week i was troubled by the notion that we the planning department approved the sign now asking a troubled industry that provides an important use to the japantown mall supported by the residents to spends a lot to fix a sign that met low blocked by a tree anyway. we see from the pictures. i don't understand why we have a condition 6 that says, comply

with the law. we don't add conscience for everything else but comply with the law i'm not sure why we need condition 6 i'm happy top hear you are working on a solution but feels inpresent to me. urn all of the s i mentioned to force this property torn go spend money to reduce the sign. and i also really don't think we condition this is say comply with the law temperature is a general comment and here i'm not sure why we need that condition, period. why commissioners to provide insight on our end. we recognize the theater industry hard hit as many other buildings. post pandemic if you inclined you are welcome to strike the condition from the motion and provide additional direction to staff in terms of moving forward. i know you in we have been in

communication with the board. to see about fix this we have relative to sign controls city wide. however you want to move we are happy to help. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i will say i was at this theatre a couple weeks ago and now it is wonderful we have theatres that are offering a range of move and hes think we should do toefrg encourage the success of the industry. and it is our error. and that's trouble to me. i would like to i recognize an others miwant on add comment says i like to move and approve and e eliminate the condition i don't think it is necessary we don't need to say comply with the law. i would like to convey to staff, my support for your working out however you need to internly to e eliminate the need for them to change the sign. >> i will seconded this motion.

>> and to add to the community supportive of the sign as is. we had their feedback on the this conditional use and sign that they are fine as is. if there is a fix they would be supportive. >> no way to sign nonconforming, is there? >> it is tough the way the code is written but that's when we are looking at. >> i figured. all right commissioner moore. you think the most important thing what the director said the community supports it president district as an over rideings consideration, japantown neighborhood commercial and the special use district. if they are comfortable and in communication how we handle this, that is when i am comfortable with. in addition to this, remember that this is a huge building where any scale of any sign

large or small is almost impossible to discern. you have to go with a measuring stick to figure out is it compliant or not. and for that reason with the tree, i don't think we need to spend time with it other than doing what you said, and considering that discussion about it remains open and be openly received. >> i made my point. >> thank you. i don't see other comments or questions there is a motion seconded approve with conditions striking 6. on this motion commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner diamond. >> aye >> commissioner imperial. aye >> commissioner koppel >> aye >> commissioner moore. why aye >> commissioner tanir. >> aye. >> that motion tass ts passes policing us on item 14, the

property at 4550-70 mission. this is a home sf project authorization. >> good afternoon president tanner and commissioners. gap irrelevant of department staff. the case before you a question for home sf project authorization pursuant to planning code 20 sick.3 and 328 for the demolition of 2 existing 1 story commercial building. the merger of who lots and the construction of the 6 story basement mixed use building, 69 dwelling units which ethic's there one bedroom. 23. 2 bedroom and 10, 3 bedroom. 3, 690 square feet of retail space. twine parking spaces 2 car share and bicycle space the lot is in

the excelsior ncd district and the mission special use district. the proposal is pursuing tier 2 authorize which permits density one story of height and 5 feast ground floor excess of the height limit. in change for providing 25% of on sight dwelling units. the proposal is pursuing zoning modification from the exposure requirement. part of the home sf authorization. in order for it it proceed must be an authorization and adopt approval by the entertainment commission on august give of 20 felony for residential frequents located within 300 feet of

accomplice of entertainment. prior to the submit after of the project the sponsors conducted a preapplication meeting on february 8 of twoochl attended by one public member. the sponsors held 3 additional neighborhood meetings. members supported the project and sdoir for additional off street park and improve ams of the right-of-way. the project responsibleses met and discussed the project with the supervisor's office safai. and today the department has not received in support or opposition of the project. the department recommends approval with conditions. department finds the project on balance, consistent with the general plan and mack myself the use of under utilize lot and constructed 6 story over basement close to public

transportation, commercial corridors special jobs the project increase the housing stock providing 69 dwelling units 17 on site affordable. 25% of the project. and which 3 of which will be family upon friendly units contain 2 or more bedrooms and located near amenities open space and laundry room this is conclouds the presentation and the sponsor does have a presentation for you. protect sponsor you have 5 minutes. >> all right. good afternoon. commissioners i'm jeremy shaw with architects. represents mission street. across is herring ton. thank you for this hearing i

want to thank gabrielle for giegd us throughout press and other staff members earlier on. our site has 2 parcels 12, 510 square feet in eccellsior. in the middle of the commercial district on mission and herrington. the per of san francisco has live leave commercial district and great public transit. this site as an opportunity since 08 when the mission special use district was established. this increased deference irand height reducing rear yard requirements. the. height limp 56 feet affects the the corner and the second lot a 40 foot height and bulk. height limit is 65 feet starting revolve a block down around mission street.

here is our building to have 2 heights and below the 65 foot neighborhood allowable pattern. the project would dem oat existing resdpal tier 2 to construct a new 6 story mixed use 69 dwellings, 3, 600 retail space sxurnd grounds park wraps around herring ton with a code compliant rear yard and a stay park lot used for covid vaccinations and testing. >> the basement has 86 bicycle and 31 vehicle paces. herring ton slopes downhill and the building has a became the excavation will be limited. grounds floor residentialents row on herring ton with a new bulb out.

street trees, loading zone, parking and plaque to jerry garcia completes the scape. retail anchors the corner and nigz can be 3 spaces if needed there is one of 3 open spaces and 3 dwelling units. the second to fifth flowers are similar. each with 14 units and exposure to both streets and rear yfrmd hope sf mix of bedroom units from 400 to a thousand square feet providing varying levels of rates. and hundred dollars real is provided at each floor. the 6 floor is different due to height limits. 10 units and smn common open space and terrace and the 69 units 17 affordable.

our officer has another open space and storm water garden and solar panel array. along with the storm water at the main floor electric car charge thlgd burglar will help climate resilience. the front features different mix of high quality materials. full commercial front with several ententries. the right facade on herring ton showing the continuation of the commercial space residential and mechanical spaces and the garage door. this shoes the 2 facades from street level. main will be stucco with wood resin panels. the street scape with pedestrian feature the bulb out crosswalks, trees and down lighting. the left shows the area for squiff foot height limits.

and our final shows the site broader with several near by family projects online soon. gabrielle mentioned the first neighborhood meeting when the project was on the corn parcel. since then we had several more meeting along with the discussions with the supervisor. upon upon feedback was favor okay generally. stressing we had off street parking as well as increased the street presence. and in conclusion the site long in the making with creation of special use district in 2008 utilizing the 18 legislation created by supervisor safai. . to provide additional density approximate on sight housing thanks. >> very good. members of public this is your opportunity to address the commission. again if you are here come

forward if you are call nothing press star 3. seeing no members in the chamber coming forward. go to remote callers. scott. are you there? scott c. ? >> last chance, scott. go ahead, sir. okay. thank you. i have learned about this project reasonable. i live on the first block of santa rosa avenue since 2016. i'm primary low here to make sure that jerry garcia plaque

does not go away. might be san francisco most legendary [inaudible] and imented to ask about photocopy there is public access to the parks or out door areas in the building. because as a residents i notice there are limited accomplices for dogs to do their business. and i think manage like that could help the neighborhood. that's my comments. >> great. thank you. >> left call for public comment. no requests to speak. public comment is closed this merit is now before you. >> mr. shop i want to ask you mentioned the plaque i'm ais staying will this be something have you to remove and replace. could you talk about that. >> there will be sidewalk work or goal to remove it and reinstall it. is that the city's plaque? do you know who.

>> sorry. who's plaque, who organizationed it. we will our intention to preserve it and returned >> excellent. >> i will ask i think the answer there is not public access to the common open spaces they are from residents. grit y. comments or questions motions, commissioner moore >> the building stepping down to the tot southwest this makes the building emerging denseification context a better building the question i have for is the following, are you familiar with the strength of the restale environment and providing square footage on mission. haconcerned me is, i'm asking a question, du examine the residential entrance on to mission street? i would have been interested in that in order to break the

uniformity of a retail front which we are now experiencing mostly management. and giving ourselves the ability to have the residential nature of the building dominate with potential finding a way of putting where you are community room next to it. i am correspond that a residential building which speaks to a revitalization of the excells your a first newer build nothing i language time should address itself off mission. ir like to get your feed become on that. why sure. a few points. the main attentive there is a dollar 50 store. and up. than i have an option to return to the new building i believe they are planings to exercise and they currently lease about 7,000 square foot and interested

in reduced size so that is a reason we have lesser commercial area than is there now. 2, portions of the site are vacant. a rug shop now it is weird. for the future of retail, your guess is good as mine. iot harder per when older stores a doctor store inflation will make it a 2 dollar store soon. they may not be able to afford the rent once the building is there. that come later in the beginning in i new space and mall and everybody knows me here when the rent reality of that sets in it minot be quite as clear anymore. >> good points about the rentialent row we can compler that the experience you know in

the f. yofl phase of design. i would like to leave that open because i would be comfortable as an entrance more generous and into your face together with the feature like the communities realm closer to the main entrance allows you to gift bodiesing a different feeling over time. >> my thought on this is that due to the separate height limits we need the the elevator close to herring ton which would have then necessarily cut the commercial space in half. which men a desirable thing. may be 3, 600 is too large we can look into that. that's part of town is characterized by mauler stores. >> and that is good to explore. reasons to have it the way it is. testimony is encouraging the store would like to return and the building has a flexibility.

familiar they don't return or it is 2 or 3 uses that is a clever way to have flexibility and support continuing to explore what this looks like. commissioner diamond. i had the same concern had reviewing the plans and spoke to staff about the fact that of course if we were in a vibrant retail environment retailed be best did the sponsor or was the city willing to consider having rshlth all the way down to the grounds. answer i got back from staff was of -- that the supervisor and the project sponsor wanted proceed with commercial. so i understand that, but i'm worried about empty retail approximate hathat means. anything done with the design on the grounds floor to make it

look like active space so that it is sfil it takes awhile to find the right mix it does not look like we are walking by management windows and building beautiful new build and helping to revitalize that portion of the street all are great. and would not want to to be under mined by empty retail. may be it is through the design refinement process i thought commissioner moore raised i good idea. it something should be paid attention to as you continue through the normal part of the design refinement process to think about what the it electric like if it stays empty for awhile? in any event. i would i see commissioner brauvenl i will move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner braun. that is fine. i -- just the retail

conversation interesting points raised once i had not focussed on reviewing these plans. one that is optimism for the retail pace in this case is that this represents a better thanned new retail space with configuration different than what is common along the customer dover. and so -- with that i continuing it is differentiate in the a way and might be able to appeal to a broader mix or users who can't really work with the confines of the existing smaller spaces should a larger retail are want to occupy it. yes. otherwise i'm in favor of the project. >> thank you. i think that's it. a motion and seconded. >> i'm sorry i missed. commissioner diamond made the motion.

commissioner moore second the. >> thank you. i don't know how a missed that. on that motion second to approve with conscience xharn braun yoochl aye >> diamond. >> aye >> imperial >> aye yoochl koppel >> aye yoochl moore. >> aye >> tanner >> aye yoochl that passed 6-zero. and places us on dr calendar. item 15, the property at 801 corbett a dr >> good afternoon commissioners. david winslow architect staff. the item is a public neighborhood request for d religious of building permit 2021-0129-3690. to construct 8 dwelling units in

grounds level parking within the existing building envelope of 4 store, 21 unit building. the project would remove 12 of the existingly 18 space seeking waivers from the colted through adu program. the site is 45 foot wide by 242 deep steep down sloping l shaped lot. through lot from corbett to market street. the building was built in 1962 and a c no historic resource. the dr requestor rorjer dallason a 10ent is correspond the project will aggravate the lack of parking in the neighborhood impact safety and health creating a dangerous situation for roof top elementary school

students with traffic congestion and parking. and significant bodies and remove all parking from seniors and people of color and removing a housing service and disrupt attentives from the construction noise. the alternative noto allow project to proceed. to date it is department received 3 letter in support and 15 opposing the project. the planning department confirmed support for the project it complies with the design guideline and policy adding 8 new dwelling unit to the housing stock. left-hand sides used by [inaudible]. dwelling units seeks waivers for open space and density. for the local, du screening an applicant is required to post

approximate send a declaration whether or not the project will remove service. the issue surrounding removal of service were heard and rejected by a law judge. tenant appeald that decision denied by the rent board commission. the planning code does not require parking and allows for removal of off street parking for use. tenabilities required to be notifies per the screening procedures. the applicant represents none of the parking space are currently used by tenants. a portion of the parking removed an existing noncomplying condition with respect to the rear yard. 25 foot long foergz of the curb cut on corbett will nod serve vehicular access and removed which will add street parking

space. it is project impacts on street parking and vehicular access are based on many assumptions unverifiable nor under the land use control of planning department. street light space parking subject to enforce am of sfmta. the building has been deems not an historic resource. construction and noise disruption due to construction is in the regulated by the planning department nor considered to be exceptional or xoordary. staff deems there are no exceptional or xoordary circumstances and recommended takes dr and approving. thank you. keep am hear from the dr requestor. you have 5 minutes.

i'm unable to hair my graphics. i did -- i will try to share. share content. hold on for a second. are abling to seat graphics y. i'm not see it.

i'm roger dawson eye i was the first heard under the new legislation. the am judge refused to hear arguments he had no other cases to reference he will leave to others to determine. when we asked for an appeal we were shut down upon by the proland lord contingant we did not get a fair hik we open you will be objective and make the right decision for the good of the neighborhood and city. this graphic shows the location of the vehicle in our garage every car has an management space it is difficult or impossible to maneuver in and out of the space or get in and out of the car with another parked next to it. there are 2 space by residents of other building they are difficult to park in with adjacent space open they are only used for long-term storage

the vehicle ordinance only drive cars once every 2 month. the paces that proposed to relocate us to accommodate the adu plans. these are pictures where the current tenabilities are park negligent fronts. the front pace they keep the space in the middle blocked to get in and out of vehicles. this picture shoes [inaudible] spot this they share and park in the since 1992. . the space next to them never used for parking they are seniors and serious mobility issues. forcing them to cope with another car placed next to them will make it difficult to park and get in and out of their car. this picture shows the truck and my vehicle with open space that allows to us to back and up maneuver. attach is this space tenants drive vehicles to load and unload, way from the street and protected from the rain. the adu would remove this space

and force most torn load and unload on the street. am the worse spaces in the garage program the maneuvering aisle is narrow and gets narrower down the garage normal maneuvering aisles are 22 to 25 feet in parking lots it is this point there is 15 feet of [inaudible] available. peters proposeed add a stair well that reduces maneuvering aisle to 11 feet 5 inches. no vehicle would be able to navigate in and out of this space without difficult the tenants suffer 12. 8 inches between them to try to open the doors. this photograph is cut and paste show handwriting it would electric like with the 2 vehicles close together.

this shoes my parking place and open space that allows 92y back up and maneuver out of the garage. joe proposes to relocate neil in the middle of the worse spaces where the narrow maneuver i'll is might have ability impeded by the building wall likely impossible for me to p my car. this photograph shoes how much space i need to gh at the time and out of my car. my door takes half the pace in order for me to enter and exist. as a senior with severe [inaudible] joint pain and right knee in need of replacement i can't ford getting out is painful. [inaudible] planning commission has discretion to rowel this adu project inspect of the rent board we ask you require

accommendation for seniors with disabilities most adversely affected by the project. [inaudible] supervisor machine man's office agrees not having access to parking during long construction is denial of housing service this project should not be approved informs thereupon is prove he locked down garage space and promised lose in a block walking distance for seniors who can't walk far and younger attentives the same but within 3 blocks. for myself and [inaudible] p. all of us seniors with issues should be stip lit in the writhe our parking place will be usable. thank you, sir. >> get in and out. >> ask this not be approved >> that is your time. project experience you have 5 minutes. good afternoon, commissioners

i'm joe peters on behalf of the sponsor am i'm a residents where i live instead same apartment for 18 years. throughout the time i livid here i worked increase the husbanding stock of the staechl i managed approvals of thousands of units that passed throughout planning commission for some of thank you is in the the first time you seen my face. this is a market rate prshth sponsor is one of the largest owner/diverse of fordable housing in california. however, your approval does not hand on the back grounds of myself or the sponsor but the project. as proposed, corbett is compliant with zoning and planning code and the planning department's residential design goals. historic resource connected and no historic resource the

department determine today is xechlt from environmental review. the department transportation staff reviewed the project on july first of 21 and determined additional review is not required. the adu project comneed the rent board process the skwuj ruled that all tenant objection in religion to the project are denied including those with regards to parking, the storage room. laundry access and the alleged commoning area and that land lords proposed adu will not result in reduction of service for the tenants. the judge's decision in favor is detail in the air 28 page ruling the decision appealed. and the rent board commissioners voted deny the appeal. upon i will have you know this process with the rent board set our project become by 10 months. san francisco has a severe housing shortage i don't need to

tell you. the root cause of unaffordable and degraded quality of live for so many p. found in the planning code the city seeks to achieve few are parking spaces our project will replace a vacant portion of the existing garage with 8 new rent controlled units within the neighborhoods seen very new orleans apartments in the last few decades. those who rent p negligent garage guaranteed a space upon completion the fact there are yours of the project where there are no one p suggest a lucks to those still ping there. since we purchased the building we have 4 gone rent from parking with the foresight that we'll be planning adu's in this building. we have not rented new parking space since 2018.

we only have 5 residents park thering today. upon completion there will be 6 the sick remaining you see from mr. dauon's images in the exact location as they exist today. sheer walls from the seismic upgrade don't allow for the walls or confines to be moved. the drive ice the same we are prop vieding a turn area for the further space to turn n. when the tenants park in the the garage, they did have a car next to them. so they were able to use the spaces. there are benefits to the tenants live thering this the project will provide. jay? i don't know how to do this?

sfgovtv. . this shows what the proposed approximate grounds story would look like a lot of benefits to the tenants such as a newly added accessible parking and breeze way at the center of the building. there will be life safety the project add a new fire exist on dixie alley 7 of the existing units to upgrade nonconform to conforming. improved laundry large exert a better location with more minutes this afternoon existing 1. new trash room. dedicated car share space and a construction liaison for the duration of construction to mediate concerns. i acert benefit of adding unit

to the deplead housing stock is greater than the preservation of parking we lie on to you agree and deny the dr. >> thank you very much >> members this is your opportunity to address the commission. if you are here come forward. call nothing remote press star 3 or raise your hand via web ex. come forward, sir. i'm on the board of [inaudible]. we provide public supportive housing. >> if you could speak up. you will know there is little low income housing in the city i'm luck tow live in this building. the rent i way is 2500 below for a 1 bedroom. market rate the now rents because they are open to market rate will be 3-foush,000 per unit i don't think that will be

affordable for lower incombh people. tell allow little income to move to a nice district that would push more out to other areas of the city. i think my concern is the rent access ability. >> thank you. if there is no one else here go to remote callers. >> good afternoon [inaudible] land use coalition i agree with mr. winslow the questions and come mrinltss raised regarding the construction noise and traffic are not relevant to the commission. however, i do believe that the displacement of tenants [inaudible] because they are not able to use the [inaudible] is jermaine to the mission of the

commission it is a discretionary body. disabled tenants seniors with mobility issues cars are their life line itch understands that this time cars are not being will celebrated however n. this case we have seniors people 65 and older some have and [inaudible] than i have to pay rent month low to have their garage. now this than i are old they are forced out because of the new configuration of the garage. i understand that because they are able to use the garages because the next door garage was management. keep in minds the blgdz was

built in 1962 standards of garages were not the same as today's standards. and i do understand that even with building code when something is in the up to code, dbi often asks the owners to bring it up to code. now in this case, it is more important to keep the approximate [inaudible] in place requiring the project upon experience to reconfigure the bodiesing so the tenants will [inaudible] and can use the cars. >> thank you. >>. i still on? you are next caller, please.

next speaker, please. >> hello? >> hello >> this is [inaudible]. go ahead. >> i am [inaudible] corbett [inaudible] and 3 years. i am [inaudible] with the management [inaudible] the building and i agree to the additional adu. and they had a professional to carry out the project and support [inaudible] minimize [inaudible]. and i am [inaudible] agree to the additional adu and i'm supporting that. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon honorable commissioners i'm a resident on the 800 block of corbett avenue. i'm speaking more to concerns that i have on the path to the neighborhood. there is a variety very [inaudible] live negligent neighborhood and additional homes while [inaudible] parts of the city like perhaps there are vacant offices where they can be converted. this area is already um -- and and this project of when the approximate during construction. a narrow road. on any begin day. not students, school bus. public transit and delivery

strategics is grit people don't have car in this neighborhood a lot of people do because well is no supporting retail or services in the area. a lot of people still have cars. my ask and concern is why was not there further investigation or impact or circulation review or why was that not done or may be they can take a look at that because i feel this will urth impact the area where the parking space all are limited. people will search for park. people block garages like where i live. something to occur. thank you. i'm sean. i live at corbett avenue. i live directly adjacent to the

propose the project from dicks alley. i'm a 21 year resident of the building next door. am my around everconcern is the dixie alley. it is a public street unpaved. municipal code sefktz public works code say this is is a public right-of-way and am there are starnsd provided to the commission in i letter. my concern is this this it is indirect transfer to the neighbor. the ask the city is considering allowing the developer prosecute pose landings in the right-of-way. they are requesting to allow a substandard bike look code section 138.1 table twot standards is 12 feet. prosecute posed is 3 feet 4

inches. i'm concerned that the applicant is not consideredave variance for reduction in width as a za ruling is not made. and i'm concerned as a neighbor this development is not supporting the city's long-term policy of period of time connectivity. the alley way intended be a connection with market and corbett avenue. however if they allow a landing in the right-of-way and they allow substandard bike look in dixie alley, tell prevent future development wife right-of-way improvement on dixie. this is inconsistent with the charter 8a.115 transit first policy. the pedestrian area enhanced to [inaudible] the pedestrians. i hope the commission will

consider my letter raising issues. >> thank you. this is your time. left call for public comment. seeing no requests. . mr. because dallason you have a 2 minute rebuttal. >> i'm here. are you are. >> yes. >> i don't see you there. very good. you have 2 minutes. >> okay. we tried to stop adu at the rent board despite new legislation by this project the developer was able to gain system within the law. because he is in a business rep with the rent board commissioner/lawyer an owner of the management company over seeing the project. all of you here have a

discretion to rule we require accommendation for seniors with disabilities. jacob surprise mandelman office agrees not access to parking for a period is deknife housing service. this project should in the be approved unless there is proof he locked down garage space with lose in a block walking distance for seniors who cannot walk far and the young are tenants the same with a wider radius. for myself and [inaudible] all of us seniors with mobility issues should be stip lay in the writing our park space usable to maneuver our vehicle in and out and open our doors wide to enter and exit this project approval specify and upon be contingeant

upon this. losing the housing park deny this project good of the neighborhood. project sponsor you have 2 minute rebuttal. >> we deemed the system in regards to reason board process. i believe roger roger asked he be recused and eves. he was not there that day. i will independent to the concern of dixie alley.

come we go to the computer. it our understanding this the occurrence fall under dpw and not the planning department or planning commission. once the project received frufl is our intent to work with dp away and i design that applies with codes and apply for encroach am permit should one are required. we ever proposing to make privately funding improvements to a public space. dixie al senot accessible. lacks oversight or landscaping it is an over groun public land where trash is dumped. we are propotion units to be accessed by the al sdpe fire egress on life safety of the residents of the building i'm happy to answer additional

questions. thank you very much. project is before you. >> i have questions to the sponsor. there was the -- discussion from the dr requestor temp refer parking can you poke to that. >> sure. i believe this is beyond requirements we would have to adhere to i'm willing to work with the tenants. those that do have a noed for their cars to help find parking within the vicinity of the blgdz. granted that could be pun anup hill pass there are so many parking spaceis understand they are disabled and they do have a need for their car. i get it. >> absolutely. thank you. >> prosecute mr. winslow the drive aisle and the compact parks how they are labeled they are compact ping.

do you been is the drive aisle code compliant and size compliant with codes. and they are restriped. they could be come upon pliant with previous dimensions this are not today's standards >> to my knowledge, the typical code compliant building department i believe code compliant pace this is is an existing condition that may have predated that requirement. but from a common sense perspective, you know a typical parking stall ranges from 7 foot 6 inches to 9 feet. by 18 to 20. typical area fors backing out is 20, 22-24 feet this is subthis. it has been working for 60

years. so not surety plans indicate there is change in that condition whether or not it it is currently compliant with the building code. >> look and compare what would be required today with what the existing condition is. thank you for that. thank you, sir. i would say for my comments you know i understand the concern and the need for folks to have vehicles and use vehicles. i have a parking pace and have a vehicle i understand this. and this condition is crediting a challenge ping space are tighted, and the backum 15ish feet and standard is 22. it is a tight parking space. but what really is changing that existing vacant spaces are used and space moved to accommodate the adu's are well thought out and laid out.

it created a challenge who are park and don't have compact vehicles but i don't know it rise to level i want to reorganize the project. other that then and there removing an dshgs adu there is nothing we could do given the way the wallers next to the spaces. not like they restroip. there are barriers and i don't know if they being be removed to accommodate. despite things discuss in the the written dc it seems parking is the issue that many of the dr requestor and the others are concerned with. ping cars in tight areas is a challenge i then and there well also. i don't think it merits us taing taking dr.

the last thing is hai understand that you know the units men at today's market rents will not be the same rents that currents are than i are not dispolicing anybody through creating new units that higher income people live nothing the other units there and rent control is in tact and conditions to go with the projects in the units. i will call on commissioner moore. this is the first time the legislation requires us to look deeper. i spent time look at the park situation including the legislation to look at substantial reduction as a condition which tenants who are protected would be affected. california regulations read tht minimum size of i standards pace is 9 feet and 18 feet long.

however, park spaces within enclosed garages a dimension of 10 feet and 20 feet long the minimum size compact 18 wide and 16 feet long. in the 60s design does not provide for parking spaces to meet those requirements and not even a compact space would legally fit here. looking at the dimensions in front of us the p space individual low are 7 foot and 9 inches. he is in a space 8 foot something the possibility of parking 2 car next to each other in the current column grid does not make it possible to park 2 car no matter what you do you

can't park a minicooper does not meet compact standards. what we should acknowledge legally by california standards. the garage you can legally park one car. the pace is small are twhn he has the legal interception would will will cause reduction. and i did roach out to mr. [inaudible] who error carefully explained it to me because this project was legislation. this said, i think that we have to look at a 3 year construction time begin fact this project needs to excavate.

means the entire ground parkingly level will not be used during this time. and reduction of stress on the tenants who are indeed for us to be considered. this is basically the call of the legislation. as to whether or not the judge properly understood this we got a letter yesterday from the lands use and planning of the tenant union explain to all of us carefully, that the detail dimensions were not properly discussed in fronts of judge and so the technical knowledge of when entails to understand was completely left out.

this pits mow in the position to say unless there are written and agreed upon agreements how the standards will be treated during and after construction expecting a space within the column, i believe i cannot passport this project or encourage you to take dr in order to fully realize our responsibility to provide the conditions that are addressed in the legislation. >> that is tenant protection mobility impair excludeelder opentenants who are affected boy this construction. and at this mobile home the project has the benefit of adu and this is all fine. but that cannot occur at the xejs of what our obligations are. here we need to support the ad you's but we need to balance

this with our full responsibility for the tenant protection. that is a difficult task. because none was in front of us today is fully addressing that. that is my observations. >> thank you. why commissioner brauvenl >> that was a great run counsel i think the when is come to the parking question, this was helpful. commissioner moore, because the my perspective has been the property owner should not be nielthed move forward could refill the entire parking garage wrenlted space in which case there might be space but most would have cars next to them. but if than i are compicture and mauler they create a different situation. i guess to continue the interrogate the ping question, i

would put this pose this question. may be out there but the upon upon eighty-one potential solution i don't know if the sponsor is interested but the fact the adu is going in the garage space that face on to corbett not the drive aisle down the hill there is the picture shown 3 spaces there used to parks 2 vehicles and a motorcycle. and upon i will ask the question first. if that remember is it possible to have a phasing construction plan that garage remains available for a long are pitchered time until the potentially if there is turn over the turn over and those who have parking spaces. you know. free up have to be 2 parking pace fist there are 5.

. possible to build out the units on the market street side and later you know on the one bedroom on corbett and preserve the grand jury in the interim? >> yes. to answer your question that is manage we did put a letter in the tenants i'm sorry dinot nengz this is the first consideration to see how to get on sight parking during construction. i laid that we will explore with contractor once we have one, to the feasibility if this can occur. that would be the ideal way to operate. >> that's fine for during construction. i guess i'm asking shoe finish construction and you have 5 tenants who have parks as a service with rent. upon who have a right to p in the garage. the issue sub this the spaces that are offered in the garage

upon completion are narrow to be difficult to use. compact space are not compact cars they are regular size spaces. my question is if you near this situation account that cobet garage remain a garage until those you neated the extra 3 space in the garage. >> possibly. it was my understanding this this issue was something that falls under the rent board why we pent 2 hear and an appeal to go through the dimensions were looked at ad nauseum i encourage i'm talking down to fractions of an inch. i don't know who's drawing you are resorting to. we had a company. do as built drawing by way of bring nothing laze and scanning without question what the

existing confines of the spaces are. the parking spaces at will be there in the future are ones that have always been there so, >> sir i think commissioner brun exit would add rising we have a broad discussion. i think if you could answer the question about what i hear you saying could the 3 spaces that have external exits parking space until a time the tenants who are parking publicly vakatd the units over all and you could turn it over i believe that is where you are planning to have recycling and laundry room >> that is below. >> okay. i think the idea to create a compromise that could keep the adu's and also the parking is that accurate? commissioner braun. >> yes. >> i'm exploring the question. i don't know if this is what i will move to do i'm curious how far that could play out.

how would that impact the project is that feasible or not in your project design? >> as far as i electric at the plans today without construction drawings and phasing drawingis would say, yes that , is possible the spaces are at grade and accessible. and you are right it is disconnected with the majority with the rest of the construction of adu on the market side street of the building. from the way it sits today, yes this it is an option. >> in the 23 paged decision this the judge issued there were facts recited the end and condition conclusion and this related to the ping service. 5 units 7, 12, 14, 15 and 16 have ping as a service they play additional rent. mr. dawson's unit number 15

moves from number 11, 7 foot 5 inches to number 4 this is 7 foot 9 by 18 feet. unit 7 keeping the same space they currently occupy and renumbered. to prosecute pose space 2 moving from 10 foot 8 wide space by 18 to 10 foot 6 by 182 inches decreased unit 12 move friday 17, 9 foot by 18 foot space moved to space one a big are space 10 foot by 18. unit 14 is move friday space 3 with 7 foot 10 inch space by 18

to the new space five in the garage 7 foot 9 and by 18 deep. i believe that covers the 5. the net result is 2 of the units have slightly narrower spaces one has a wider pace and the other 2 i the same. that's how the ruled on the net not really decrease of service from the existing wlo they comply with the current standards or not they are retaining the same area sxushg tillity y. thank you for this. that will is helpful to hear the exact numbers that informed this decision. thank you. >> so with this information and with the fact that again, you know if this project is not approved the existing space could be rented out by other vehicles would create a similar

situation again. at this time i'm inclined to not take dr but curious to hear other statements to with respect up on other things dixie alley walk and i'm excited to see this as afternoon improvement there are few pass throughs in the your never approved except the occur bet side and you know it is should the rest of this alley be improved would be noise to have a separate way to get from corbett to market opposed now having to go down a hill ownership roromain or hopkins. the other matters raised regarding traffic and construction impactless. as said, those are common impacts from projects this come before us and not under our

purview. so i'm sympathetic to the significant noise concerns from excavation and appreciate that this project will bring 8 new housing u mitts in the pace this currently is caverness and empty and i am in favor of this idea. why thank you. commissioner imperial. >> i have a quest on the car ping space you mentioned because i'm wondering i'm looking at the sizes in the blueprint and it does not -- i'm unless i'm reading wrong but you know the motion that the rent board did in terms of the parking spaces to tenants -- the the sizes are not reflected in the -- i'm

trying to wonder if the blueprint we have is the correct. >> the question the same i have. no dimensions on the spaces. may i ask the sponsor. >> the sizes are upon 7 foot 9 inches by 10 inches. and mr. winslow read social security the looking at the drawings i believe. >> right. where the lines are drawn is indicative of ping spaces. the striping is not actually where the striping is today. so the measurements this mr. winslow is quoting are of if you were to go and take a tame measure and measure them. those are the measurements. >> this is a reupon striped condition as drawn. the stroiping in the drawing system just indicative there

stroiping there. not to show that is exact low where the painted stripes are. >> yea. in a way so with those stripings the changes the rent board made -- in terms of the -- there are 3 attentives people sdwablts and so i'm trying to the image visualize in the blueprint we have in here in terms of their accessibility. i'm not sure if we can victim updated blueprint with the sizes mentioned during the rent board decision on the rent board hearing the argument there is in the much reduction that is not when we have in front of us. are you looking at the sheet a?

110p? yes. this is the a future conditionful some have p space differents this will be going, way. where the adu's are if than i measure the current today with the p being pace it different than the relocated pace. >> this a110p is not for the -- this is the 6 remaining space >> remaining not existing. when mr. winslow saying this person is parking healer today and the new space is difference of this much. existing space may not be reflect in the this could be the new adu is and men has a width of whatever. but when they moved to the new pace it is the deference with the current pace and the proposed pace. >> okay. >> the reason we went to the rent board to determine whether

there was a loss of service. they were getting a diminished pace. law judge who worked for the rent board said, no. this is the reason it is before you because they determined based on the new park, that there was not a diminishment of service. so you have discretion but that's where the machine man ordinance sent this to the rent board and determined, no there was not a diminishment the paceings were equal to the spaces the 10 believabilityas have and may be changes but workd and there was not a diminishment in services and it is before you. that legislation caused this to happen >> and there is a 20 page determination from the rent board law young and appealed to the rent board this says that. >> i was awear of the ad u

legislation we were getting in terms of the and i believe mr. dawson e mailing us for a year about this customer bet avenue. this some -- i'm aware of the legislation tells and in terms of again my issue is the tenants with upon disabilities either how the reason board made this decision in terms of reduction in services and the reality in access ability of this. and -- again the issue this i'm concerned is during the construction this now the project experience is still in the word or i believe you are promising it work with 10aments to have temp refer park and for us or me i would like to see that agreement in order to support the project.

it is end of the darrox i am here in terms of making sure that during the construction and after the construction the remaining tenants have that if rights or housing service. irwould loishg to see more agreement with the sponsor and tenants. i will work with the 10 annuals to find were if interim ping during construction. i will nut in writing i'm happy to do that. as for the existing and future continues, of the parking garage if i may show. would it really help in aiding understanding. this is the parking plan today. and when i toggle this is an

over lay. you see what the 6 pace remaining. you see also the hatched lines here approximate here. these are sheer walls for the seismic up grid that occurred prior to the ownership and these other exterior walls of building which are structural. had i toggle they don't move. the pace stay in the same configuration as they are today. you mentioned there are 3 disabled tenabilities. i'm curious to know who the 3 are i know 2. and those 2 tenabilities park in this area this will be remaining unchanged they p there today and in the future.

i'm sorry. can you move the cursor. are than i in spaces 6 and 7, 8 and 9? it it is in the do you meanation i believe -- you are saying nay are in the spaces that will remain. why ychls for example this is the space today. this is the future. and as relating to i'm unaware of a landlord's responsibility to make building configurations to the changing needs of tenants. these are i'm proposing are the existing conscience today. so -- as attentives become disabled i'm a human, too. i have disabled family members. but as a landlord i don't know

if i'm poseed change the construction and configuration of my building to the changing needs of our tenants >> what i'm asking about the interim construction. i'm talking about the agreement in terms of the construction what are the agreements that how are you going to relegate or -- you know in order for them to continue their thougz service for parking, when is this agreement? >> sure. during construction. if you can define help providing financial resources, looking on craig's list for renting pace what is does this mean. so this is an item this did not come up at the rent board they are considering of the fact the construction period is in the a period this should be considered for a whether or not there is or not a reduction in housing services but help to answer. one thought i have is obviously

this is an front we have limited ping what if there is in the a space with walking distance for a senior. i'm help to pifor an uber roadway to get from the buildings where this space is. in the everyone we can't put them in the building during construction. typically, you know in terms of my -- if there is a reduction of service and parking as part of the rent. a tenant guess to the reason board for reduction in service even that of course the judge will have to go to the previous rulingos that. so, yea. i guess for nus here in planning we are not rent board. it is also with our policy objectives and protection for tenabilities, it will for me good for me to see that football

everofficial hardship or official is up element or helping them. you know especially for people with disability dependant will be affected on this. this is had i would like to see. and this and -- also again in terms of the you know for the future parking spaces, i may, yea i could see in terms of difference with the relike of the parking of the existing tenabilities with the new parking pace. thank you. commissioner koppel yoochl good healthy discussion here. i am based on the rent board's decision and the judge's comments and when we heard thank for sponsive to our questions. i am actually pretty confidence in moving this forward. so i want to move to not take dr

and approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioner diamond, comments? i was going to say i'm willing to accept the deliberations of the alj and rent board and their 20 page discussion where they went over this in detail on parking the question i had had to do with the letter from the school crossing volunteer. could you come up. the letter said she was writing on behalf of the school but no letter from the school i saw in the package. raised a concern about the safety of the kids. so could you talk to me about your plan during construction. uh-huh and ren sure if you have a school to make it safe for kids. >> absolutely. the roof top school autoentrance is across the street.

and it does provide a significant amount traffic 2 times a day. i did not get this same all right you did i did not have the opportunity to responded. i'm theme now. and throughout the 2 years we have been since we filed for the permit i have not heard from the roof top school despite the fact i roached out to them to the principal and vice principal multiple times and made postings to their property. we will be in construction, right. we will work with sfmta to determine a kruck management and transit plan. also, of the major of the kruck for the project will be taking place on market street side. we have spoken with multiple contractors. granted there is a retaining with you there. testimony is much more practical the location is -- closer to the

street where we do load and the frontage we have on the market street side is longer than 100 feet with no curb cuts and no driveways. where we could apply for a parking permit and have a lot of our loading help from down there. there is little of the construction this will happen in the corbett street side. the finished condition of our project will no longer have i 25 to 30 foot curb cut with open garage facing where had school activity in traffic takes place. tell be president curb cut will be removed. there will be a street facing adu with a tree in front and other land scaping to soften the environment from when it is today and looks forward working

with sfmta to have the there is a dedicated crossings guard but there will be something else additional this will be needed to ensure safety of the children. why okay. i already seconded the motion. i don't think we had take dr. but think it it is i'm glad to hear you are willing to work with titail we require that buff i long-term developer and land lord. i'm hoping you feel the opinion to make sure what contractor you select is made aware there are is a school with kids. and >> absolutely and safety come first and that they need to make sure their employees are aware of the fact kids don't listen to crossing guards and this. just as a san francisco --. developer contractor you will make sure they all are aware of

that. >> absolutely. thank you. >> thank you. i see commissioner braun and moore's hands. did you have comments why i think to the pile on the point of the, wearness you know i think that -- first. with construction there are people paying attention to this. and may have been obvious i wroit 311 with the best of them. i want to make sure that the point that the construction not interforeing sidewalk or a publish for the bus line or with the children at the school. i know this is required anyway. and you will w with sfmta but this it is under a motorcycle row scope typeset is everyone's interest to make sure that is fulfilled. i think there will be

construction activity and i understand about the market street side. this is not an easy way to acsthaesz building. with the wall 2 layers of walls there. and then -- and also my last xhint is i'm okay with not taking dr on this item but one of the comments, you know -- there again are a lot of people paying attention to the project and any diminishment of housing services provided to tenants allowed have ping spaces clear you could easily winds up before the rent board again. just if is a cautionary note despite my interested in not taking dr. >> thank you. commissioner moore. i like to restate my concern.

regarding information provided in the drawings that shoes the existing condition regarding wall and dimensions of future park space. the applicant knew that is the most difficult, for to consider and since general low the public is still not very nimble in using the new legislation including how the department wos it, i will vote against this project and while i support the idea of adding ad you's the work for others to come forward requires more thoroughness than when i see the design is fine, i object to not being able to full competence honest low vet what the dissensions are. because that is our responsible and i don't have sufficient information to support you were

application. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> that is all the comments. >> very good. there is negligence further a motion and secondeded not take dr and approve on this motion commissioner braun y. air >> diamond >> aye >> imperial >> no yoochl koppel yoochl aye yoochl commissioner moore >> no. >> president tanner >> aye >> that motion passes 4 television 2 with imperial and moore against. commissioners through chair we will hold off a second to reopen general public comment given the issue with the log in to the hearing and so if there is i member of the public when wishes to speak to general public comment, this is your opportunity to do so. again raise your hand via web ex or press star 3. if you are calling in. seeing no requests,

commissioners general public comment is closed and conclouds your hearing. why we are adjourned. thank you. >>

>> shared spaces have transformed san francisco's streets and sidewalks. local business communities are more resilient and our neighborhood centers are more vibrant and lively. fire blocks and parking lanes can be for seating and merchandising and other community activities. we're counting on operators of shared spaces to ensure their sites are safe and accessible for all. when pair mets, firefighters and other first responders arrive at a scene, they need clear visual access to see the building entrances, exits and storefront windows from the street. that means parklets should be transfer in the areas above inches above the sidewalk level. it's best if these areas are

totally unobstructed by transparent materials may be okay. you can check with fire department staff to make sure your site meets visibility requirements. emergency response crews and their equipment need to be move easily between streets, sidewalks and buildings, especially when they are using medical gurneys, ladders and other fire fighting tools. that means that parklet structures need a three foot wide emergency feet every 20 feet and 3 feet from marked parking spaces and emergency access gaps need to be open to the sky, without obstructions, like canopies, roofs, or cables and should always be clear of tables, chairs, planters and other furnishings. emergency responders need to use ladders to reach windows and roofs to buildings and the ladders need unobstructed overhead clearance and room to be placed at a 72-degree angle against the building. clearances needed around the ladders to move equipment and people safely up

and down. so not all parklets can have roofs ask canopies depending on the width of the sidewalk in your area. please make sure that your electric cables are hung so they are out of the way and (indiscernible) to the structure, they can be pulled down by firefighters. cable connections need to be powered from an outdoor reciprocal in the building facade because hard wire connections are much more difficult to disconnect quickly. these updates to the shared spaces program will ensure safety and accessibility for everyone, so we can all enjoy these public spaces. more information is available at sf dot gov slash shared spaces.

[music] san francisco developing programs specific low to increase the amount of affordable housing throughout the city. >> the affordable housing bonus program provides developers to include more housing for i have low, low, moderate and middle income households. this program does not rely on public subsidies but private developers who include it part of their project. under california density bonus law. housing prejudices that include affordable on site may be request a density bonus. it is an increase in the number of housing units allowed under zoning laws and based on affordable units being provided. >> however, the state law does not address all of san francisco needs does not incentivize

middle income housing. associating the city is proposing an affordable housing bonus program for higher levels of development including middle income u firsts providing a stream lined application review and approval process. >> how does the program work in it applies to mixed use corridors in san francisco. and offers incentives to developers who provide 30% of affordable in projects. to reach 30%, 12% of the units must be affordable to low income household and 18% per minute nap to middle income households. >> in exchange developers will will build more and up to additional 2 stories beyond current zoning regulations. >> 1 huh human % affordable will be offered up to 3 additional stories beyond current regulations.

each building will be required conform to guidelines ensuring meets with the character of the area and commercial corridors. this program is an opportunity to double the amount of affordable housing and directly address the goals established by twenty 14 hosing element and prospect k paddled by voters last year. pacificly, prop circumstance established a goal that 33% of all new housing permanent to low and moderate incomes this program will be the first to prosecute void permanent affordable projects that include middle income households. to learn more about the program visit

>> the time is 10. . 01. good morning, secretary fuller. call the roll. >> good morning respond with here or present. thomas harrison. >> here. >> hartwig-schulman. >> here. >> vice chair hartwig-schulman. >> mogannam. >> here. >> christopher simi. >> present. >> we have 4om