nanlts. there are rue ways to address those and has been testing then informed the development of the site mitigation left lane and i don't have these measures committed to memory. but based on the information i have in front of me. some of measures include -- the vapor intrusion. vapor mitigation system that he cited as well as manage to address the soil and stock piles that during excavation and protocols for ensuring that there would not be any limiting ingress and e egress during the excavation of the materials. some are volatile and i'm concerned that's where the vapor intrusion system will address

that. others in the sxoil less mobile the concerns are when the soil is being disturbed. this is certainly if these occurrence can be raised to department of public healing. and we be help to forward the comments that the experts have. testimony is not something the face preclouds the issuance of the exemption for seek with >> thank you very much. i want to recognize commissioner diamond >> thank you i have a number of questions. i will follow up on the ceqa issue but a question for the city attorney what he raised was a willing question are we allowed have a cat x if there is a site mitigation plan are you comfortable that the explanation is a position the city is comfortable with? >> thank you. i think what is confusing both

set of circumstances use the word, mitt gigz but not used in the same manner for purposes of ceqa. the program is a legislative program and outside of mitigation measure. which is had we find when we find potential impacts the way that -- was described is accurate and i support that. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i will move on to other aspects of project. what i like about the project is it -- adding 10 units. increase of 9 that is consistent with the direction that's when we called for in the housing element.

like proceed nothing that direction that's when we are asking everybody to do. there are things i don't like starting with shadow on the play ground. i talked about this with the how doing element as we get denser and we are using sd b to eliminate backyards it is important to focus on public open spaces. that's what people are relying on. i disagree with the speakers who said that shadow is appreciated. and we flif a foggy city this part of the city is in the as foggy as other parts, play nothing the sunshine is something children welcome and graphtate to. the fact we are in order to add the 9 units we are definitely causing the sdrrgz everdrrgz of the children's play ground.

i'm having a hard time getting over it. in the absence of state denialsity legislation we would not be struggling with this. rhyme interested commissioner tanner in pursuing line of thinking you raised. we talked about it before. how do we come to a standard about retention of not just the quantity of open space the utility of the open space. it strikes mow fall in health and safety category and struggling to find the language and standards to apply. makes me unhappy in the interest of adding 9 units is terrific and adds to housing supply we are very much causing

deterioration of a public asset in this neighborhood there is a shortage of open pacism don't like the fact they you complete low eliminated the backyard. you could have done 9 units or 8 units would have been an addition to housing and would have preserved open space even if -- you are argued prior when i disagreed with you. firefighter pistol which is of the importance of backyards. crediting light and air to the benefit all of those aroundful and in this case we are seeing what happens had somebody fill in their backyard. i really dislike that aspect of this. and then. finally. commissioner moore the challenge of bring i stroller up. the reason i don't think that will be a challenge i can't imagine a family with mall childrenmenting to live in the

units the notion of carrying mall children up a stair case or allowing them when they are oldtory go up by themselves is scary. it is scary for older adults. some small pop laying of older adults at 92 like your mother, you referenced may be in great shape and a spill roll stair case 4 stories high is fine near them i would not want my 88 year old mother in great shape but a fall risk. admitted design is limited a mall settle amming of the population. people fit and young and no children in an era we are trying to expand house and family housing call thanksgiving family housing is laughable.

so i don't really like many aspects of this project. i am faced with the prospect of this being a state density bonus. project. and that brings mow to the issue i have the most concern about and that's fire state. we have experts telling us whether or not the fire risks can be mitigated. and i -- you know 91 of us you opinion can substitute or judgment for our fire chief the fire department taik took a limited look tell go to the fire department. state density bonus law is clear that health and safety other 2 reasons why we have the authority to turn down a project. i don't know enough about whether or not this will comply with fire standards. to use that as the basis for turning down.

in a state density bonus environment. i feel like if bee approve it and move it forward i wouldment to add an upon condition this indicate this is if the fire review results in any change to the project which increases the massing or causes bump outs or height i want to come become to us. and mr. foster one of the staff people i talked with everwith, yes. and do you have draft. >> yes. >> the condition of approval a draft states should the fire department during their revouft building permit require change in design, massing or units determined by the za the project shall be brought back for review and approval. >> i that sounds like standard language i'm worry body that. i don't know what the za would

call significantful i think it needs to come back for review. increase in height would push it botch for you feet would trigger the join hearing with partial

bunkham rec. urn section to 95 of planning code. this would do it. and um -- there is in the much else the building could go without doing that. i think this is a unique project to -- be polite. it would be worthy to see it gwen if there are changes to form. i would support this i leave that out there. one thing when we talked to the fire marshall the way they get pair slel requiring a balcony to get a ladder. if the requesting manage to comply with the fire safety like those balcons we may come back. why yea. >> i'm fine if it come back.

approximate it changes and in the come become that is the challenge. if the fire emotionalments bell connies i want to see it gwen. i'm putting out thoughts i'm struggling with this project. commissioner imperial. >> appreciate the comments so far and appreciate commissioner diamond in giving us suggestions on how to move this forward. i'm struggling with commissioner diamond again this is the state density bonus project. and the reason i'm struggling with this with commissioner diamond's suggestion is that the goal of the state density bonus incorporate affordable housing. the fact one is 20%, mi. i'm interested to hear the of

tax recommendation. because in their has been more of like trendses in the inconclusionary units immediate rit income below market rate units are vacant. so again. that's also something i'm also lingering as i look to this project. when it miss to the afford at will this be actually used? or tell continue to be vacant in a long time? i would like it see this project in a more 8 units than a 10 unit. even though it minot have you know an affordable housing on site but it has that balance density that i respect the context and the same time adding units. this is where my thoughts are. you know in terms of this coming become to planning i'm interested on this as well.

i think it is the state there is not the state density project that gives me edgy on the affordability level proposed by the applicant. commissioner braun. i have a question about the idea of adding -- upon the added condition if this project needs chink in height or bulk as a result of the review the fire department or other department. how does this sit i lost in the housing laws. how does this sit in stream lining and is there a 5 hearing limit applicable. i don't remember where this how that functions.

thank you. i have to defer to staff. if there is the 5 hearing limit. this i believe is the first of any hearing we have seen. yes. there an sb30 application submitted. this the first hear and there is an appeal of our cu authorization that might v be a second hearing. >> yes. under -- this an opportunity to correct the record and other matter. ceqa hearings not considered hearings but an appealed be considered a hearing. >> okay. want to makure we would not get to the point where there is automatic approval because we had hearings. with that, of i am happy to support that. additional requirement that

sounds logical to me. you know in looking at the project i share the same occurrence. on the whole this project could be much more sensitivelyly designed. i think the projected really speakings to the tension that is created with the state density bonus law well money and intebldzd and applies a blunt tool across unique situations and had this come in under without the state density fwoens is hard to speculate what this would have looked like. you know the height and if it is true the project need more height and bulk to it men that would trig are the shouldedo study and might be mauler. heard to figure out where this would have gone. may be would have ended up with few are how doing units. this is the tension i see where

you know i'm in favor of adding to the housing ploy and i think the density bonus is intentioned and giving us in this case the middle grounds would have been commroinlts with the local code and may have had you know between the one and 10. that's's frustration approximate getting become to the design of it. it does seem like this was designed mixture myself those eastern vows of dun town through learning windows on every level all the new town homes. and that coming at the expense as we have been saying of a lot of the recreation center and the shadow cast on it. i have the concerns approximate listen to the conversation.

everything everybody said. this is a state density project. i have been listen figure there is an adverse impact based on health and safety ground and i'm not finding it and so, i am holding my nose a bit had i say this. i am going to move to approve this project with the added condition that was discussed. >> can we work out the language of the conditiono we say the same thing. >> sure were you wanted to remove significant and have any. >> may be i can suggest increase. >> increase. >> increase in blgdz volume any increase in building volume needs to come become a balcony not enclosed. >> increase in building

volume, great. >> thank you there is a motion is there a second? >> second. i see commissioner moore. i would like to see that the department med a comment about materiality in its report. spend additional time on working in a more neighborhood friends low exterior. i find i said i find the core 10 total low unacceptable for residential building of this size. and i believe that it needs to be more in context this would be my suggestion. i passport this as well. commissioner diamond. i want to comment on the observation that mr. emblanche made about the fact that if we approve the projects because that's what the state law say its is in conflict with the

findings we need to make under our local cu planning code requirements. i find that so in the next project 18th street. but i'm wonder figure we could insert additional language approximate this condition that was add in the the revised version of 18th street we talk about it being -- whatever the required language is about -- will being compatible. i think we need add the clause that says in the context of state density bonus law n. absence of this i'm not sure we would find this compatible. i know that there is legislation that is proposed. to e eliminate the -- seemingly in conflict position. that the projects put us in where we ask to make findings

about compat at feel this is in project add the same clause in the cu finding being kamm compatible with the neighborhood. we have to say in the context of state density bonus law. >> are you okay with that >> yea i will say, i agree with the language that was worked out and the other condition and then absolutely we should add language you know that to the findings statement you know we're finding these in the context of the state density bonus lu. i agree and as a comment on upcoming legislation and our work, continue to work on the objective standards. i think that is where we need to do work this year. i think that relates to the connection to open space. and trying to find a health and safety connection there. materiality.

finding language this is more objective to be able to describe what we want. and so we get the thing in thes context of the state density bonus law without out or have finds happenings we can't make but have to make. and its frustrating and also a disservice to the public readings fiengdzings and them figure out how alining with the state law. we are all frustrated today. >> director hillous, even with state density bonus law projects i'm hopeful the staff is pushing the architects to come up with designs that take in account the context. that you know what, this project is pointed out. a problem for a number of us in

terms of this and if than i are not absolutely required to under state density law would be noise to see you know the architects trying to responded. with staff assistance. that mack myself the number of units and does so in the context of fit nothing gracious low to the existing environment. joy think in this case we did. you minot like the result this is is a 65 foot height limit district. will mr. macy said you could have had a building on washington where we see state density bonus exceeding height limits. taking it is 9 units allowed by code with 65 foot height limit. 75% coverage allowed you could have a significant building and grappled with that we recognized the park impact is important. keeping that height below 45

feet and minimizing shadow. that causes problems to the neighbor you are then having a waiver concession in the rear yard and a full lot coverage. we did try to make trade off in thes 65 foot height limit lot. you could have ended up with a tall and bulky project. cast as much or more shadow on the park. >> i will add did w wife sponsor on the design we understands may be not everybody we did absolutely work on this we are novelty just turning a blind eye to the architect. >> could have been worse. >> commissioner moore. i have a question for mr. may

did the community center speak to you about distance of children being, way from people looking in the play yard? you have to be careful not to photograph children in the play yard we have large windows looking 5 feet away in the play yard. is that an aspect discussed here? >> i had no discussions with anybody from the community center. i see going down washington to polk there is a school where you see large tarps now protecting the school yard from people walking on the walk electric nothing and the same thing down clay street coming stockton a large elementary school. i'm wondering whether or not that has been occurred and if so i think that needs to be at least noted.

y don't see other comments we are red to vote on the motion. >> i'm going to read the megz and please correct mow if i misexcepted the discussion. there has been a motion seconded to edit conditional use findings on page 8 of the draft motion to add in the cop text of state density bonus law the last paragraph approve with conscience including those read by staff with regards to the fire department review, za review and increase in volume to retaurn to the planning commission. >> does this sounds right? commissioner braun? >> i believe it does sound right >> commissioner diamond? >> great. >> we want to add that staff will work with the architects on the materiality on the main

facades. and staff time with architect on the materiality on the main facade in particular. >> second as well >> great. and staff working on with the architect on the materiality. of the facades. on that motion commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> no. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no. why commissioner president tanner. >> aye. >> thank you, this passes 4-2 and will take us to item 13a and b. 2020-001 sick 10s hd-02 a request to adopt shadow findings in 13b20-001610cua-cu

authorization on 3832, 18th street >> jeff horn, planning staff. upon those exiting do so quietly have conversations in the hallway we have a hearing we are conducting. thank you. >> thank you. the item is request tom modify upon a previously approved c u authorization and make findings of eligibility for individual requested state density bonus project and adoption of shadow findings section 295 for the project located at 3832-18th street. this project was heard by the commission. and the following the sum row of the history. october 14, 2021 hearing planning commission approved 19

room group housing project and conditioned on the reduction in height of building from 6 to 5 story. the remove of the 6 floor require removal of the communal kitchen to acomday 2 relocated group housing rooms the project a state density project requested 3 waivers from planning code requirements for height, rear yard and exposure the proposal required all 3 waivers. the property owner within close vicinity appealed approval. to the board of sprierdzs who up hemmed the planning commission on march 15 of 20 twoochl on december 22 of 22. planning received a notice of violation from the california department of house and community development. stating the city denied height waiver conditioning the project to 5 stories. and in the allowing the sixth

story. under state density bonus law waivers deny federal has an adverse impact on healing or safety and not avoided or the waiver has or has an adverse impact on the property in the register of historic properties or approving the waiver contrary to state or federal law. the project before the planning commission is the original proposal of the 6 story building. it includes a common kitchen ground floor and 19 group housing units and code compliant the property is in the southeast side of castro upper market neighborhoods. within district 8. surrounding properties developed with avator of use ranging 1-5 stores. located mid block on north sufficiented 18th within a residential mixed use low

density district and 40x height and bulk district. the site h is flat with 3, 900 square feet and developed existing 1, 210 square foot 2 bedroom one story over family building. in order to proceed you must grant c u authorization. 253 and 3 where are 3 the commission make findings for and approved the demolition for code section 317 in the initial decision. the project seeks on po veed under density bonus luand under the stay lawsuit developing includes affordable housing required to additional density and wifrs from development standards that may precloud the construction of the project.

r within zoning revving lites density based on lot area and density up to one group housing for 275 square feet may be achieved or up to freen grew housing at the base density for the site. project providing on sight affordable housing for 3 units low income level and therefore entitleed 35% density bonus. or 5 additional units for total of 19. the project is requesting wifrs from height for 2 additional stories height of 60 feet. roar yardrousing from 45% to 12% of the lot's depth and dwelling unit exposure for 9 facing on noncomplying rear yard. includes demolition of the single family home and new construction of sick story 60

foot tall 11, 1147 square foot build with 19 group housing u nitses. 19 bicycle parking spaces and tw class 2 bicycle parking space. include 890 square feet of common open space via grounds floor rear courtyard and are tw private of roof decks including 149 square foot front and 155 rear roof deck. project propotion the group how doing ownership units and 3 units provided on site affordable below market rate subject to the inclusionary housing program. tall are than the properties it would provide set becomes of the upper floor the front and rear. along the side lines provides 4 light list 2 on each side of the building. the project proposes height of

60 feet make its subject to section 295 and shadow analysis required for the project. of on june 15th 2021, the rescue and park commission conducted i public hear manage a scheduled moting and recommended planning find the shaddose would not be adverse to the use mission delores park. exempt? >> california environmental equal act exemption. on april 7 of 23 the department determined the change in the exempt project is in the a substantial modification and no ceqa action before the commission today. department had received a

substantial comment on the project no comments were received at the time of the reports publiccasion. since then the department received 25 letter in support of the project. the housing to the city and making reference to the risk affiliate associated with hcd's letter. one letter in opposition to the project from immediate neighbors and other in the your with a total of 13 and these other persons when are the appellates of the project initial president trump to the board of supervisors. states concerns with mass and scale. from the state density bonus waivers and impacts. group housing unanimous ownership and lack of family sized housing. earlier staff of provides the commission of and the hearing record a revised draft motion modified language to acknowledge

the 6 story height come per seed the surroundings. and to add to the project the project reviews in context of the state density bonus law. the project provide 19 group housing rooms aleaveiate san francisco severe housing crisis and meeting goal and providing housing within a transit rich and well resourced neighborhood. 20% of the group housing rooms or 3 will be on site below market rate the department finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the city's housing plan and not detrimental to persons or properties in the vicinity. in the context of a state density bonus law.

staff recommends approval with conscience. staff is visible for questions. >> now we will have a project experience presentation. you have 5 minutes. >> good evening brian oshg neil for the experience and the sponse proposeed construct a 19 unit 6 story group housing project. the project provides 3bmr units

affordable to low income qualifies for a 35% density bonus under state law. proposal the planning commission e eliminated the sixth floor of the bonus project. some this was a violation and ask you correct it and restore the sixth floor. it was proposed as a density bonus waiver of the 45 foot height limit of under state lua waiver may be denied if cause a significant, director public health and safety impact based on objective identified written standards. any identified impacts must be supported by written findings and based upon evidence funds in the record. denial of the waiver here would not supported by the findings nor could they be there are no public health and safety impacts associated with the project. >> the removement of the sickth

floor removed 2 housing units crediting building code and planning code issues. at best e eliminated group kitchen. reduced bicycle storage and reduced unit size and eliminated all open space. both court and community development recognized the density bonus law does not require an applicant to strip the project to qualityifiy for a waiver. on december 29, 2022hcd issued notice of violation against the city. determined the project qualifies for height waiver and removing the 6th floor was a violation of the density bonus law. directed the city to take corrective action or face enforce am action and that's why we are here today. >> as we explained we believe

this city is unnecessary the city did not act within dead lines and application has been approved as a matter of law. morph sb330 prohibits the city to conduct more than 5 hearings the city held more than 5 hearing in connection with the project. in any event the applicant asks approval as proposeed move forward with needed housing project in a transit rich high resourced neighborhood. the project meets or exceeds all planning standards and qualified for density bonus waiver. and one issue that was raised yesterday by the neighbors that the project is not consistent with the new group housing ordinance that was pass said. and i will note that this project submitted an sb330 application in 2020 and so no new ordinances that were not in affect at the time that

application was submitted can be applied to the project. so we revolvely request approval of the project as proposed. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. at this time we do have organizationed opposition for this item and so we are going to recognize them first and i believe they are joining us remote so give me a moment to unmute. the 3 individuals. then while we are doing that we'll gift opposition 5 minutes we heard this before we'll reduce public comment to a minute. on this item. >> let me figure this out. so -- each individual state your

nameo we know you are unmuted. >> i'm [inaudible] and go first. [inaudible] i will go second. >> cindy wong, going third. great. thank you very much. your 5 minutes are starting now.

thank you commissioners [inaudible] i live next dear to the proposed housing with my family we are here before you oppose thanksgiving project and stated observe, the neighborhood is 4 [inaudible] one unit home several times the density [inaudible]. we finds the projects the [inaudible] and not the community. it is too big for the [inaudible] does not credit the community housing the community needs. we provide comments yesterday by e mail we hope you have them and will sum rise our objections today. the first is the group housing. [inaudible] the applicant went through [inaudible] [muffled] this is where that [inaudible] we feel if this is getting

[inaudible] this starts over and should have the new rules applied to them. the rules facility are not allowed. the requirements are not met and if you electric at the previous rules the applicant added in there within it is zoning add administrator. individually market rate condos defy the purpose of group housing rules. clar clarified -- cover the planning staff finding and state density bonus arguments. >> hello i live next door. i have been a resident 25 years in san fraand 20 in that home. [inaudible] live next door much

easy for you to see [inaudible] and base on the update from the planning staff the [inaudible] [cannot understand speaker] upon

the city d. public healing issued i report that states changes in population and demographic composition compact healing impacts the city's young

and young adult population decreased by 5%. that is a decrease of 3.5 times faster than the nation's rate. just also housing inventory report if 2015 it 2020 the city has developed tw times as many [inaudible] and one -- for a professional -- [inaudible] u are nit. commissioner diamond acknowledged 2 bedroom does not fit a family. [inaudible] the city developed 18 times more studio and one bedrooms. [inaudible].

this it is another where hcd had to step in. we say we will solve the problems ourselves now the state has to step in and tell us we are not doing a good job. hopefully this is a learning opportunity not to do that >> there were in the causes.

this should move forward. thank you. >> u ban environmentalist. i'm speak as a homeowner who lives around the corn for this project. sanchez and hahncox and my kid i need to pick her up you in goes to day care immediately cross the street from this project. i love that i get to be so close to the park with my. upon daughter i enjoy the park and the sun in the morning. i wish for everyone to have the opportunity to be near love low park, transexit so much more and also for folks like my mother who moved out to be close since she was fworn have an opportunity to age in accomplice in a place that does not have more than she needs and close to me in an affordable way.

i'm david sage we own building 233 doorlan almost behind this project. keep are not opposed to the creation of new family house nothing our neighborhood. this huge build suggest in the family housing the projects removes a family house and replaces with with 19 tien units. none are suitable for families. san francisco needs more housing but not housing like this that will destroy a neighborhood. the only benefit of the building this will be an air bnb gold mine for the new ordinance. thank you.

>> hello urban environmentalist. and i am a residents of the mission and live walkable distance from the new project and i again urge to you approve. and to address the comments about -- this diversity of the mission and castro district. it is already suffering because of the lack housing and the lack of place for people to live am people are being pushed out t. is an emergency. i urge to you approve this to help with the housing wagz. situation. thank you. hi i'm max and i would like to address the point about the family housing. it is true that these are small units likely for single adults.

turns out single adults are fastest growing demographic in the 70ss 40 percent were family and 20 were single, did you tells it flipped now 40 are adults and than i need housing. and as it turns out not every housing has to fit all needs let's build this badly needed housing. il be fast. mike chen. agree with the state development department. in findings health and safety i hope this commission approves and you know as a side note if it is the minds of the commission the density bonus is creating projects counter to san francisco values and invite the commission to resunrise and

revisit the density bonus program to encourage project its wishes to support. until then you will see density projects back whether the commission agrees or notville to be approved because of state lu. thank you. >> i'm robin lewis and i live kiddie corn are where this project will be build. i want to stress i'm not antihousing. i appreciate the occurrence. this project is confuse to me. it is only can be built with exceptions. can only be built with the fact that people don't have full kitchens. they have this community kitchen and now i don't know t is just the whole thing is condition fuse and irony is group or

commune housing. and the builders med no effort to understand the needs of community. i really find this troubling. so -- thank you for listening. and -- >> i'm [inaudible] i first moveed san francisco i moveed like a sublet on 16th and delores a couple blocks from this project and a cramped in the ideal situation i prefer to have the option of something like this. we need more this p. mroedz approve and follow state law. thank you. i'm kent you have a tough job and acknowledge everyone in the recommend for hear thanksgiving project again and acknowledge jeffrey horn. helpful this project came around

there was a lot of negativity. that the winds have change are happening. i want to acknowledge you this is tough. but how doing for all is housing for all and this serves a type of personful please approve. we will now to remote callers press star 3. of if you are on web ex use the raised hand function. had is amy i [inaudible]. there is a series issue whether had is group house and if it innocent the density rules don't permit approval of a 19 unit project and the commission does in the need to approve this. 6 store modification.

group housing in the code for a significant time and the board of supervisors clarified the rules but this project did not comply to the rowels they existed previously. group housing is not own and does in the have individual cooking facilities. group housing is residential holings boarding. guest houses andeen though that is including but not necessary low limited to it is limited to the types of housing. and so -- this. the projects and the unists have coxing if sillities than i are not group housing units i urge you it reject this modification. thank you. i'm james i spoke earlier and had to come home i live at 24th and church. i approve this project. i think we need to remember that

san francisco even more than ever is a place of refuge for people had rejected by families and men like myself identify as queer and grew up in oklahoma. this will provide housing for people to come and tick refuge in our stele and be in a wonderful neighborhood where they will feel accepts and the reality of state luand does in the waste more time debating the theoretical this is don't apply anymore. thank you very much. >> i live in 5 -- less than 15 minutes, way from the site and it is sad what in to this. this state law innervocabulary here. we need thouz abdzs of this to comply with [inaudible]. and i think the planning

commission should approve this project. should make pace for more neighborhood and think about how we don't do this again for the project like this. thank you. hi this is eric, i live the north beach. sorry i coon be with you in person anymore i was having a blast. earlier. i referred to actions from the board of spreerzs a clown show. but this is the case where hcd step in the because [inaudible]. please, stop embarrassing our city. please comply with state law. please approve this project. thank you.

>> this is nathan williams. want to echo the project. [inaudible]. >> hello. i again urge to you, pruf this project with the [inaudible] in 19 modest and affordable conditionos in the a one sized fits you will but there are enough had need should be built. highlights state oversight over the san francisco approval process. law recognizes local [inaudible]. say they want more housing but put new housing the b. list. i'm ashamed to say this

[inaudible]. not one commissioner was innocent except for cope will and [inaudible]. in the gentlemen of 21 meeting commissioner tan are was the most concern body adding amenities to the communal pace to make sure there was a full kitchen. in october 21 she contradicted herself and e lim nit the communal space and most bike park. rejections like this are now the most expensive. thank you this concludes your time. last call for public comment. press star 3 to raise your hand. no additional requests to speak public comment is closed and the item is before you >> i will make a few comment this is protect has been before us. it is important to understand had this body did make adjustments it projects i supportd and thought appropriate

at the time and were under the density bonus at the time they were made and the project was approved fwhoi body compliant with the state density bonus law. referenced in hcd's letter settled case law expanded how the state density bonus applies including this project the letter we received in the packet for those members to read. and this change as it went at this time board of supervisors for the pel that was heard and therefore it is become you to to consider this project and consider it in the original form. so i want to make sure that is clear in terms how this unfold exclude why. not the that the body want p prosecute try toed defy state law as time change exclude working through the courts the interception and understanding of how the luapplied changed. that is become before us. thank you all for those who call in the in support or opposition

to the project. and if there are no comments from commissioners i entertain a motion to approve the project. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> thank you. commissioners. there was a motion, i want us to clarify because there is the motion that would be made to adopt shadow findings including that part of the approval? yes y. a motion this has been second today approve the item and top adopt shadow finings with condition and adopt shadow findings on that motion, commissioner braun. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial >> no >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> no >> commissioner tanner. why aye >> that passes 4-2 and on to the

dr calendar. i'ment a break do we want a quick break. >> thank you. commissioners this will take us to the dregzary review and well item. record number 2022-0003158drp at 22 07-31st avenue. >> is your mic on? >> before you begin i think commissioner diamond you want to make a disclosure? >> yes. mr. gladstone are you attorney. so i need to make the same i made on multiple occasions i will not need to will it be over 2 years. shy of 2 years the matter has

nothing to do with the reason what we retained council and therefore i can be neutral and impartial on this case. why thank you. >> can you hear me now >> good evening. president tanner and vice president moore and members of the commission. planning staff architect the item is the public neighborhood ask for dr of building application 2022-1114-6484 to rectify construction to the comply with notice of violation number 2021. to legalize without a per nit

first floor bathroom. roar stairs and sky lights with new parapit wall. dr requestor, 2211, 31st avenue residents to the south of the proposed project is concerned the stair, sun room, sky lights and bathroom constructed without a per hit affect their property. of concern is the location of the stair presents light and privacy issues to the second floor bedroom and may create security. like all unpermitted construction to be demolished. and he is correspond the ground floor may be used as an ad sxushgs constructed boy unlicensed contractor and asbestos may be disturbed. applicant content evertends the project was in the noticed proper low. the alternatives are to, if the stairs to rebuilt like to be built as was located at 180

degree angle went home. alternateively, place the stair on the north side of the property where there would be more set become from the property line and esz impact to neighbors. to date department upon receives no letter in opposition or support. the planning department review of the this proposal conas i remembers support for the project it attempts to rectify a project to conform to the code and residential design guide lines it is consistent with the block pattern and does not adversely affect the mid block open space. empictures to light and privacy are minimal. issues such as asbestos disturb in the use of unlicensed contractor are not under planning purvow. 311 notice extended to account for improperly mounted poster it was noticed properly. a notice of violation is open

and upon planning approval will be route to the d. building inspection for the determination on how to comply with codes. therefore staff recommends not taking dr and approving there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to a code compliant project this concludes the presentation and happy to answer questions you may have. >> now a presentation by the dr requestor. it is should g. good afternoon. president tanner and vice president moore and planning commissioners. i'm the willing own of 2211, 32st avenue. project location ajoining to the south where my 95 year old

mother who are present. who are live here since 1976. i have read the paper. we have a file on my behalf approximate true and correct and i stand behind them. please approve the kempo of the illegal stair case, deck land and wall and don't approve the reconstruction on the property line. thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this [inaudible] challenge. and [inaudible] action on the project sponsor. my attorney will now e laberate. >> thank you very much i'm paul, licensed attorney. real estate broke exert retired member of the city staff department head a long time ago i appreciate hat planning

[inaudible] my old boss. [inaudible] passed away i appreciate that very much. personal history there are 22 former homes built there 95 years ago on the west side of 31st avenue. all the cookie cutter but different elvisions and somewhere mirror images of the other. they do have a defined visual character and consistent realignment a gracious mid block open spachls architect and his [inaudible]. errors you said there were no letter in support thereupon is a declaration in support from a neighbor and stated that work of the notice. was not the point the point was did not send out the prean notice correctly they tried perpetrate a fraud in doing so.

for the record. the homes you are look at now, right? this silent project's sponsor's home the oshjector. can you peek in the mic? >> thank you very much. this is the project sponsor's home. objector's home and this is the [inaudible] home filed opposition other support for my client. the homes have the same in common a front door you see and will they have the front door up a stair case. stair cases on the property line. however in the rear sflon a legal stairway. on the side of the property line.

that's. 19 years ago despite knows they are both admitted property managers went on for years not getting permit or inspections nothing do with with left the city over site out of the equation. here silent side yard that shows where ms. wu lives this is the wall built this is the stairway and the landing and the check they constructed. this is the vow ms. wu has from her am room there. by the fencing.

thank you very much oomph oomph has been going on 15 years. never getting a permit example it would never be in front of you today but for the fact the clines found objection. that concludes your time you will have 2 minute rebuttal. thank you. >> now from the project sponsor.

>> i'm diane neighbor and my husband daveo lee >> sfgovtv, thank you. back there we are the home ordinance and been there for 19 years live with our daughter who is disabled with autism. and we have made improvements overnight years. because it was an asis purchase. and we needed do several improvements. right away to get proper insurance, et cetera . but we have limited funds so we continue to make improvements over time without the benefit permit. yes. we regret we have done it with you permit. we had been under impression

that as long as united states did in the change the footprint of the house or structure things that permits probably were not needed. i have been correctod this and i understands. when we have done. um -- your approval today will not result in a change in the neighborhood open space or footprint of the house. it is just bringing up to code fire codes and earthquake safety. some of the thing this is we built in the past. we had built an entertainment room with permits and thought that originally we were grand father nothing some of the structures we had done before they were represented on the approved permits. but later we found out that was not true. and then start the permitting process again in 2022. and -- final low got plans

approved in november and here we are today. thank you. hi. brett gladstone representing property ordinance. your approval make stewart that work without permit system code compliant although we believe most was code and next longevity of an old building and of course, our existing how doing most affordable and need to increase longevity. your approval will result in a 2 bedroom home this time we'll have 2 bathroom and an entertainment room and the first time instead of roaching rear yard going through kitchen on the ground floor and out, they will be accessed through rear yard from the second instead of the first floor garage and kitchen out to the back. the presentation just now indicates grievances and a lot

not taken care of by planning. there are other forms if than i wish to be heard we are available to discuss them. thought fill nothing the sun room on the rear second floor bedroom was included as in plans but later told this is in the the case and this is before you legalization of the sun room and the stairs. you will hear from a neighbor soon there is a pattern of sun rooms or bedrooms fill in the under the second floor rear bedrooms the requestor has one himself. we don't understand why they would oppose ours. also a pattern over last 30 years for the buildings to have a rear yard stairs from the

second floor and not just the grand jury to the rear yard. removing the original designs that had no access. dr requestor alleged the neighborhood pattern not to have the second floor stares >> not shown photos i like to show you some before you now is -- a building a few lots away. and you will see the first the fill in of the ground floor under the top floor stairs and you will see here what is equal of dr requestor's mother's bedroom on the second floor. you will see here a legally created stairs from the second floor down to the roar yard. not encroaching at all on roar yard open space. there is a building that does encroachom roar yard open space near by. and the clines decided they don't want to endloech is a

build be where a stair was built in the rear yard that is baptist from a second floor into what would be the space in our cline's project. it was done we are not doing that. upon thome talk about it on rebuttal. thank you. members of the public wish fog ment on this cross examine please, in forward. fiare call nothing remote press star 3. we'll start with those in city hall first. >> hello. i'm david and mice to be speak buffer. >> hold on do you have the timer on >> thank you. you may begin. >> laura 2 minutes >> sorry. >> thank you. you in you may.

go ahead. sir jovm i'm a neighbor across the street move in the 2 years. basically when we were looking in the neighborhood around various houses got to see you know the pattern is most of the houses and it is fill in the. there are a number of them this have stairs come down similar. and -- you know upon the -- its almost you know a waste of pace not to have this a missed opportunities the houses it is odd architecture they had originally. so you know, just continuing through the neighborhood. we see those and go to estate sales and same thing. very common pattern and makes sense the way they have dhn around the neighborhood and the way they done this as well to access the backyard from the second floor.

and everything. as well. so. iel. so. that's all i have to add and hopeful low that helps. i'm in support of dr on file. i'm an ash counselant my home property line is 25 feet. i know it is sunset neighborhood well i lived there since 1975. and i knew previous owner 2207. who lived there until she moved a rest home.

she was a kind hearted woman when kept her front lawn e mechanic lay and garage door open when watering her grass i walk by her home often and see her garage floor and did not have any improvements there was no inlaw apartment. the home was on sale 20 years ago and attended the open house. there were no improvements to the garage floor. this home was in 2003. the leagues are responsible for all the changes. and hiring of the contractor 18 years ago she invited me to a party. at that time there were no improvements exempt for minor painting and ordinary rexirs maintenance. about 2 years ago.

contractor give mow a tour of the inlaw apartment on the garage floor and stated he built it and he would be installing solar panels. i specifically have seen the were construction of the roar stairway. but my concern is this it is illegal >> thank you. that concludes your time. any remote callers. public comment is closed and we will have the rebuttal. the d r requestor you have 2 minutes. >> curious about one thing doesn't the public get 3 minutes to comment. >> it is reduced to 2 minutes.

not what your agenda says for the record i have the discretion to reduce the time so i rused the time your time is lapsing now, fair enough. thank you. here is a picture residential design guidelines. roar stairs setback from the side property line and projection is minimized for mid block open space. you have funston similar to this case halface long you heard another case and you insisted on 3 and a half foot setback of a rear yard dak or clear railing if possible. that is important you remember mr. gladstone neglected to tell you showing pictures of

scaffolding of properties in the neighborhood. i checked, none of those buildings have permits. 2 wrong's don't make a right. surprised he would say that. the suggestions planning actions my clients would like to you do. am i done. 30 seconds. why major procedural violations that has been document in the your papers. hope you should have cancelled the vpa for that reason these are material violations. trying to pull the wool or staff's eyes. like you did in the funston property you should get a reading and condition the project. >> thank you.

>> over head. sfgovtv, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. start 2 minute its is running >> thank you. >> first of all, that is the north facing west facing roar window of ms. wu this is the stairs in question. will well is a complaint that this landing will kaz noise come loss of privateace when legalized before you go down the stairs. we offered to remove the translucent panel to preserve privacy for mrs. w xushgs preserve her light. light would go in this way. take that down so this there is a mall barrier of the corner.

the alternativesful is the stairs from the top floor straight down to the rear yard. one alternative. which means encroaches in the rear yard and also means people coming from the rear yard with dirt and mud and other things and on clothes come up through the bedrooms to reach it. loik likewise the alternative taking stairs and put them on the opposite side setback my cloinlt's home will result where people coming in from the backyard will bring in dirt through bedrooms. that's not the case with what has been designed legalized and as i have shown you and you heard from another niche this pattern is common of what is done here. and there hen no proof all the

others are illegal. thank you. commissioners the am item is you in before you >> thank you. mr. grown can you confirm once legalized the proposal would be code compliant. >> yes it would be. why thank you. >> certainly can appreciate there may be issues with the neighbor hopeful low you can resolve and live peaceful low i don't see unusual or extraordinary circumstances with the project certainly can understand you now know you did in the complete the project with permits we don't appreciate butt path toward comlines is the path of going here and getting the permit and dbi and repairs done. i did not find in the dr proposed rem dees anything lead to a different path other than this pregnant of getting the building per notice legalize the work i don't see how remove and

reas an impact on asbestos may be already disturb today is already disturbed i don't support taking dr. commissioner imperial. i'm in your. will same sentiment and appreciate what the dr requestors concerns are. however, i also didn't see any issues and i continuing it is also code compliant. based on the recommendation of the staff as well. so therefore i'm don't take dr and approve. >> seconded. >> thank you, commissioners there has been a motion that has been seconded to not take dr and approve the project. on that motion, commissioner braun. >> aye >> commissioner diamond >> aye >> commissioner imperial. >> aye >> commissioner koppel. >> aye

>> commissioner moore. >> aye >> commissioner president tanner. >> aye. >> very good, that passes unanimously sick 6-zero. we will adjourn in memory offardit fipip it is and elnor johns thank you we are adjourned.

>> good afternoon this meeting will come to order welcome to april 17, 2023 of land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors i'm supervisor melgar chair. joined by vice chair supervisor preston and board president aaron peskin. the committee clerk today is erika major and i would like to acknowledge and thank the staff at sfgovtv for supporting the meeting. madam clerk. >> the board and committee convening hybrid meeting and providing remote access via telephone. public comment will be taken on each item. those in person will speak first and then