sometimes played here. today it is a huge free standing element, similar to the original featuring tall pink columns at the entrance. the field is surrounded by the track and used by high school and college football and soccer. it is open for public use as well. from the supervisor's

office for item ten, case number

2024, hyphen 005356 coa for the property at 220 932 33 whitney street, a conditional use authorization. they're requesting a continuance to november 7th, 2024. with that, commissioners, we should open up public comment, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any or on the one item being proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance, not the project itself. great. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is laura strazza. i'm an attorney for the property owners. we respectfully oppose the request for a continuance to november 7th. we wouldn't oppose a shorter continuance to october 10th, however, this project is code compliant and subject to the protections of state housing law, including the hra and the permit streamlining act. under the permit streamlining act, the planning commission must render a decision within 60 days of the negative exemption determination under sequa, which occurred on august 29th, 2024. otherwise, the project is deemed approved.

i also wanted to mention the request for the continuance is something that hcd pointed out in its policies and practice review of a problematic thing that happens in san francisco, so that neighbors can have further opportunity to oppose the project. so that's another reason why we don't think it's appropriate to have a continuance. all the way to november 7th. thank you. hi, georgia. i don't know why it's continued, but i just think there's the peculiarity of this project is the fact that this is an abatement of an enforcement. is there a difference? i mean, there's questions i was going to ask about if this is what's going to happen in the future, that projects that are supposedly to abate and enforcement can just go ahead he like they never did anything wrong. so i don't know what the deal is with why the supervisor asked for the continuance. it's news to me. i commented on it. i know there's neighbors who commented on it. i don't know if it's because they can't come till till then, but i

think that this is an extraordinary situation because it's not just a project. an hcd should understand that this is the abatement of an enforcement, and that seems like a whole other kettle of fish. now, maybe that's something they haven't figured out, maybe something the city has to figure out, but it's a different kettle of fish than just a project of three units being approved by the commission. thank you. last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you. commissioners. material move to continue. item number ten. second to the date specified to the date specified. thank you. commissioners. if there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to continue. item ten to november. a commissioner brian, has a comment. i do want

to verify something that was raised by the attorney for the project sponsor. if we continue to november 10th, will that mean that the project is approved? there's no point to the continuance being so late. if that's going to be the case. so deputy city attorney austin yang, under the permit streamlining act, the city has a limited number of days to approve a project once the environmental review has been completed, i'd have to go back and confirm the date of the cat x, but it may be based on representations by the project sponsors. attorney. it may be beneficial to continue it to a date before, october 29th. yes, it's november 7th. well the point being is november 7th is outside the 60 days. if august 29th was the cat date. thank yo.

so if i can recommend commissioners, i think we can move the continuance up. so it's within that date. if we find we can we can talk to the city attorney at our own team. if there aren't problems, we'll, we'll we can continue it again. so i'd recommend the 24th as a substitute date. i would beg commissioners do not continue it to the 24th. i just closed that hearing date. it's already very impacted. calendar the 10th or the 17th would be fine, 17th will be fine if other commissioners have other. commissioner moore has something to say. i look to miss body director to give a date that they believe works for this particular circumstance. the 24th is the latest date that that would fall within that period. but if secretary owen says there's a lot on that calendar, i mean, always stuff shifts around as we get closer

to the date. so then we might not have all those items, but it's up to you. it seems like it's a packed calendar, so if you want to move it one week before to the 17th, that could work as well. i would say, before 2020 ninth or 24th, 17th or, on or before 24th, we have to continue it to a date. certain. yeah. okay. so i think the 17th or the 24th is your option. i'm just worried about whether our 24th is going to be a packed agenda. it is a packed agenda. yeah 17th november, 17th october, october, october. october. yeah. so just go with october 17th. yeah i'll say i'll move it to october 17th. that's available to commissioner moore. yes. okay. very good. commissioner, yeah. i just want to say, you know, the idea of continuing it that was raised by the project sponsor to such a immediate upcoming hearing doesn't seem to me to give enough time to resolve the

issues that are the supervisor's office is seeking to resolve through the continuance. so that's why i do support the 17th continuance, october 17th continuance. yeah very good. commissioners. if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue. item ten to october 17th. on that motion, commissioner campbell, high commissioner mcgarry, high commissioner williams, high commissioner brown, high commissioner, imperial high commissioner moore, high and commission president. so i so move commissioners motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and places us under your consent calendar. the matter listed here under constitutes a consent calendar is considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public or staff. so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a

future hearing item. one case number 2024. hyphen 007340 pca public works code planning code fee waiver for the mosaic stairway planning code amendment. members of the public. this is your opportunity to request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar. seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. commissioners. commissioner brown with great enthusiasm, i move to approve item one second. thank you commissioners, on that motion to adopt a recommendation for approval for item one under your consent calendar. commissioner campbell, high commissioner mcgarry. high commissioner williams, high commissioner braun, high commissioner. imperial high commissioner moore, high and commission president. so i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us under commission matters for item two. the land acknowledgment. the 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 lan, 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. thank you. item three consideration of adoption draft minutes for september 12th, 2024. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. i got distracted by the dogs. hi. yeah, i said the thing about staples, but i didn't say take a look at the memo. i said, go out and look at the site

specifically because of what the project is 7200ft!s, 30 foot dep excavation and 230yd!t removed. so, i mean, yeah, i know what what are you trying to correct it says that i said, where does it say it says on the minutes it says, take a look at the memo sent. i didn't staples i didn't send a memo on staples on one of the few things i haven't sent a memo on. i said, please go out and look at the site, which you all should do. since it's not till november. that's all i sai. thanks very much. thank you. you're welcome. last call for public comment on the minutes. seeing none. public comment is closed and the minutes are now before you. commissioners, i would recommend that we make that correction, that the member of the public. i'm just suggesting that we adopt the minutes with the correction pointed out by miss. commissioner imperial move to

adopt the minutes with corrections. second. thank you, commissioners on that motion to adopt the minutes with the correction on item 17 for staples, commissioner campbell high commissioner mcgarry. high commissioner williams, high commissioner. braun, high commissioner. imperial high commissioner moore, high and commission president. so i so move commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. item four commission comments and questions. seeing none commissioners, we can move on to department matters. item five director's announcements, nothing from me. thank you. very good. item six review of past events of the board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday. good afternoon. commissioners. aaron star, manager of legislative affairs. this week, the land use committee considered the establishment of the 555 ninth

street special sign district, sponsored by supervisor dorsey. the proposed ordinance would amend the planning and zoning map to create a special sign district for 555 ninth street. the ordinance models the sign regulations after the c3 zoning district, with two exceptions, the first would allow additional wall signs on the second story facing the internal parking lot, and the second one would allow video signs of up to a certain size and distance from pedestrian entrances. the commission heard this item on july 18th of this year, and adopted a recommendation of approval during the hearing, commissioners expressed concern with impacts of illuminated signs on adjacent residences. as a result, supervisor dorsey amended the draft ordinance based on this feedback. the amendment would only allow signs to be illuminated during business hours. during the hearing, there was no public comment or committee discussion. the proposed ordinance was amended and recommended, as amended, to the full board, then at the full board. this week, the board considered the sequa appeal for the general plan

evaluation, otherwise known as a ppe, for 700 indiana street. the project would demolish the existing vacant commercial storage building and construct a new three story laboratory with approximately 72,000ft!s. the planning commission heard this item on june 13th of this year, and approved the project's large project authorization and shadow findings on esprit park. the appellants were members of the potrero boosters neighborhood association and dogpatch neighborhood association. their primary objective was to the department's issuance of a gpe and their concerns over the project. description and quality. i'm sorry, and shadow and hazardous material impacts. the department clarified. the gpa's project description provides enough detail sufficient for evaluation of environmental impacts. the department also appropriately revised the project's mitigation measures regarding toxic air contaminants as allowed by sequa. and further, the department made clear additional analysis of shadow done after the issuance of the gpa did not

violate sequa. this is because its findings were consistent with the gps conclusion of less than significant, and the eastern neighborhoods area plan eir of which the gpe is based, appropriately analyzed laboratory and biological issues for hazardous materials. staff also spoke about a recent case in san diego that emphasized sequa guidelines. mandate for streamlining environmental review during the appeal hearing, there was no public comment in support of the appeal, and approximately 11 people spoke in support of the department's sequa determination during the hearing, supervisor walton asked the planning department to elaborate on how the department analyzed hazardous materials, whether the shadow studies contained prejudicial, prejudicial, prejudged outcomes, and the department's modification to air quality mitigation. additionally, he questioned the relevance of the san diego court case, the ero explained the decision was precedential even in san francisco, for the

department, staff conduct their work in an objective and impartial manner and ensure that consultants do as well. at the end of the hearing, the board voted to affirm the general plan evaluation and denied the appeal on a 9 to 1 vote, with supervisor walton opposed, supervisor peskin was excused from the hearing. that's all i have for you today. i'm happy to answer any questions. if there are no questions for mr. starr, we can move on to general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. hello. good afternoon again, george. i sent to the commission a timeline that had originally been started by the staff back in 2006, and the timeline starts in 1988,

which is when this whole issue of demolition first came to everyone's attention. so it ends in 2006 from the staff and i continued it, and i'll just run through it real quickly if you have it, if you want to follow along. so in 2007, the section 317 was passed by the commission at that same year, there was a court case, very interesting court case. it's not published, but it's about demolitions and alterations. and i recommend that you can find it online and i've sent it in the past. so it was 2008. it was passed by the board unanimously. and in march 2009, the first code implementation document was published. and that's where the calcs were set. and at that hearing, the staff said they'd be back in a year to adjust the calcs, as the commission had the right to do, and that never happened. since march 2009. so and it also set the r-1 standard at 1.342 million. also that year, the crown terrace appraisal was done and then in

2012, there was the article about crown terrace falling down the hill, because it had been originally requested to be a demolition, the commission turned it down, and it used the demo calcs to be an alteration, and the house fell down the hill and the article in sf weekly, which you can find online, explains how that was done. so we go on to the rh. one number went up periodically through the years. it was changed five times. meanwhile, the demo tracks were never adjusted. okay so rhett came and went. peskin legislation came and went, joint hearings with the dbi and with the bic. nothing ever happened. finally, the values raised to 2.2 million, but shortly after that, the that part of the section 317 d3a is gotten rid of. and that's it. so, october

2020 director hillis announces to the commission that the staff work is ongoing re the demo calcs because the other two things failed. so in the meantime, more alterations, particularly in noe valley. at one point, noe valley is determined to be the de facto demolition epicenter of de facto demolition of modestly sized homes. that was in july 2021. that october, in response to two commissioners questions, director hillis proposed an informational hearing on section 317 in early 2022, but that never happened. so here we are today, and this is where we are. and we have 317. it's still applies to the prior geographies, which is very important. and ongoing projects are coming back on the market that should have been reviewed as demolitions. and they're very expensive. and i'll talk about those in the next few weeks. and i do hope you look at the timeline, because i think it's

all there. thank you. mr. so that is your time. you're welcome. last call for general public comment. go ahead. mr. miss hester, you've been unmuted. yeah. this is sue hester. i would ask the commission to consult with the director about scheduling the meeting for adoption of the calendar for 25, 2025. the new member may not know that they have. the schedule is adopted at the end of the first the prior year around thanksgiving. so we need to know so people on the commission know as well as public knows what days are going

to be available. so i'm asking that you put it on the calendar next week. scheduling or pardon me, next week is no meeting. so a very soon meeting that you put on a calendar that and additionally that you put on the calendar a presentation on the planning commission rules. it's a very important document. and i want to say check your own history for the past two weeks. you will understand. it's huge. so one is set a date in the near saturday in the very near future where you have a discussion of this 2025 calendar and also put on the agenda public discussion and presentation on the rules. thank you very much. okay. final last call for general public comment. seeing none general

public comment is closed. we can move on to your regular calendar. commissioners for item seven, case number 2018 hyphen 014712 cp for the 2025 draft. hazards and climate resilience plan. informational presentatio. hello commissioners and members of the public. my name is danielle neo and i'm a senior planner in the citywide division focused on resilience and sustainability in the commission chambers. with me are two amazing colleagues from the office of resilience and capital planning, orp melissa higby, who's resilience program manager, and alex morrison, who's resilience gis analyst. i'm just doing some introductory remarks and then i'm thrilled to pass to them. i just wanted to share a bit of context that in 2020, i was a new staffer at the planning department, and the hazards and climate resilience plan was one of my first

projects. it was a great crash course in all the pressing hazards that are affecting san francisco. and while it was very sobering to think about climate change and other natural disasters, i'm very glad that we have the rcpi leading this work to make sure that the city has everything in place to be ready for these challenges, and so over the years since 2020, it's been really rewarding to partner with them. and you'll hear soon about with their leadership and our partnership, along with many other agencies in the city, how sf planning can contribute to resilience for all aspects of the city. so i'll be here for q&a. but right now i'm just happy to pass to melissa higby for the presentation. great. thank you so much, danielle, and thank you, commissioners, for your time today. thank you. director hillis and deputy director tanner, for your

support, bringing this item today and your support overall in this planning effort, again, my name is melissa higby. i'm in the office of resilience and capital planning, which is in the city administrator's office. and i'm presenting to you today about our 2025 update to the hazards and climate resilience plan, my goal in bringing this item here is to raise awareness among decision makers in the city about this role of the plan in the city's resilience, and also about the role that the planning department has played in updating it and will continue to play in implementing the pla. so with that, a little bit of background on it, the hazards and climate resilience plan is a city wide action plan to improve resilience, reduce risk to natural hazards and climate change impacts. it includes priority actions like specific projects or plans or programs, and identifies them for strategic funding. we have this plan for a few different reasons. the first one is at the

federal level. having this plan ensures that we're eligible for fema grants, including brick building, resilient infrastructure, infrastructure, and communities, so these are big sources of funding that a lot of departments around the city rely upon, and we need to make sure the plan is updated every five years to continue to be eligible. so that's one of the main drivers at the state level. there's a couple different laws, one is sb 379. so doing this helps us comply with that. with the climate adaptation planning portion of that, and also linking it to the safety and resilience element of the general plan. there's also a state law that provides an incentive for doing this and linking it to the safety elemen, ab 2140, which would allow for a reduced local cost share for public assistance after a disaster, at the local level, again, this is a companion to our safety and resilience element of the general plan and

also our local climate action plan. so it's really an important strategic plan that we have. a little bit more on the scope. as danielle was mentioning, it's really comprehensive of 13 different natural hazards that we face in san francisco. and it includes information about how these hazards are changing as a result of climate change getting more severe or getting more frequent, and we also try to make this data more accessible to the public so they are able to work with the same information that we have about hazards. one of the ways is through a story map online, where the public can toggle on and off different hazards, zoom in to neighborhoods of interest. and become more aware of these issues, again, a little bit about the scope and how we think about climate resilience, specifically in san francisco, this diagram shows on the yellow

side, climate adaptation. so that's protecting people and communities and buildings from the impacts of climate change, whether that's sea level rise or extreme heat. and the right side of this diagram is mitigation or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. so those impacts are potentially not as severe in the future. this plan is more squarely on the yellow side on the adaptation side, but it makes many, many inroads across to the blue side, including zero emission mobility, healthy housing, healthy ecosystems and sustainable trips. so a really trying to work in that middle area where we think of resilience as both the mitigation and adaptation components, this diagram just shows you a little bit about where we are in the process and the work that we've done. so far. we kicked this off a little bit over a year ago. we have an interdepartmental planning team, which the planning department is a member of, they've been

meeting quarterly. we've been making updates to hazard profiles and actions we've been reviewing. fema has new mitigation guidance that we've been reviewing to make sure our update is compliant with that. we've been reviewing new science, like the report here on extreme precipitation, new plans that the city has put out in the last five years, like the heat and air quality resilience plan that you see there, so that's work has been been ongoing for the past year. we also spent about 6 to 7 months doing concerted community engagement events. we've been primarily focused on environmental justice communities and doing outreach to cbos, and meeting them where they already are. so joining them at their existing meetings, presenting at their meetings, and making it kind of a low barrier of entry to participate and learning about the plan and providing feedback to us, in august, we posted our draft plan online, and it's been the public comment period i've been doing

presentations like this one today to commissions to raise awareness about it, and next month we'll be submitting the final draft to caloes and fema. they can take up to six months to review, and we might need to make some revisions based on that. and then we're planning to submit to the board in april. and this is all to make that very important date of july 2025, to make sure the plan, the updated plan is adopted by the board and mayor. and finally approved by fema for that grant eligibility purpose, so now that you've heard a little bit more about the scope of the plan and our process, this is a little bit of a view of what makes up kind of the heart of the plan or the resilience strategy. we have three resilience pillars buildings, communities and infrastructure. there are 17 different objectives that you see here. and what you don't see on this page is there are 74 actions that then slot under each of these objectives. so i've tried to highlight the role that the planning department plays in these objectives. and

actions. the dark yellow arrow, objective six is where the planning department has actions, where they're playing the leadership role in it, and that's around adapting the city's bay and ocean shorelines to current and future climate flood hazards. but there's numerous other objectives around the city where the planning department is playing a partnership role around buildings, environmental health, community resilience, capacity building, just to name a few. so in my next slide, i just wanted to highlight the two actions where the planning department is listed as the lead agency. one of them is the yosemite slough neighborhood adaptation plan, where we have a grant to do more adaptation planning. including vulnerability assessment and adaptation strategy development and community engagement. in this environmental justice community, to line it up to be able to be eligible for future funding to implement adaptation strategies, the next one you see

here, is to develop a sub regional shoreline resiliency plan, per sb 272. so this is a new state requirement. that counties submit a comprehensive shoreline adaptation plan. it's the guidelines are developed by bcdc and they have draft guidelines out right now. so we're reviewing those guidelines and planning for how the city is going to be complying with that, with that new law, there's numerous other ones actions where the planning department is listed as a partner. i'm not going to go into these in great detail, but just wanted to highlight for you, where the planning is partnering around buildings, particularly around flooding and the building code green infrastructure, neighborhood capacity building and meeting housing production

goals. and then in the infrastructure pillar, the planning department is a partner on numerous other strategies relating to planning for sea level rise, including the port and army corps, san francisco waterfront flood study, and also developing and supporting major development projects that can deliver resilient waterfront infrastructure. just to point out a couple of them, so with that, i will that ends my presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. thank you, unless there's immediate questions from commissioners, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. you need to come forward and line up on the screen side of the room. please okay. seeing none, public comment is closed in. this matter is now before you. commissioners. this is only an

informational presentation. commissioner. more i only have one brief question. when you speak about shoreline resiliency planning, we are obviously only one community among a string of many others. how are you coordinating? obviously the deadlines of their their updates may differ from our own. and how are you synchronizing these different challenges? yeah. so all the different counties do have the same deadline, per sb 272, that 2034 deadline. and we are starting to do outreach to other counties to, to start to work on that. and determine what kind of partnerships might be necessary, like san mateo county, we do have bordering shoreline with them, so that's those conversations are really just beginning, as we do have some time to kind of to scope that out and figure it out. but those partnerships are in initial stages in what way is the airports resiliency plan

falling within this timeline? particularly? it's led by the city and county of san francisc. yeah. so the airport does have an action in the hazards and climate resilience plan, their shoreline protection plan, and that is a more near-term project. in terms of the overall sb 272 shoreline protection pla, that has been one of our questions to bcdc, how should we treat the airport, given that they're a city and city of san francisco owned asset located within the jurisdiction of san mateo county. so we are still kind of figuring out some of those questions with bcdc san mateo county and the airport. it's, i think a little bit too early for me to be able to say exactly how we're they'll be treated in that planning proces, but we are starting to identify and work on that. that question. one last question. we have obviously, obviously, several open space initiatives which we

have built for decades, i.e. the bay trail falling under different stewardship of different communities. how is that being addressed, particularly because that is significantly affected by possible shoreline resiliency planning. so your question is about the bay trail specificall. yeah. so the bay trail will be one of the assets that's analyzed under this planning effort, and then, there would be, you know, determine if there's a vulnerability to it. we would be determining adaptation strategies, with the county and with other partnering neighboring jurisdictions as well. the port, the port has a large investment in major open spaces straddling the shoreline. and i'm curious how you're interacting with them. many of these parks are still in planning and implementation, but there could be all in some form or another affected by your your

planning. sorry. can you please repeat the question? was about parks. it's about the port and its open spaces. many of the port properties have significant city wide open space amenities planned already implemented. is that being discussed in your resiliency planning? yeah. so the port is leading, a adaptation planning process in their jurisdiction with the army corps, the flood study, the san francisco flood study, the parks and open spaces are included in that, i know for them, designing with nature has been a big part of that. and ensuring access to parks over time and increasing access to the waterfront has been a big priority, i can't speak more specifically to the to the port's work around around parks, though i can say in this plan, the army corps project is part of it. and we've also identified specifically a

strategy around shoreline planning and parks and designing with nature and trying to ensure that those strategies are maximized to the extent possible. i do want to pick up on your question, vice president, more because i think it is hitting on a i think a big part of this effort, which is one the interagency collaboration that is needed to address these issues. the climate doesn't care whose jurisdiction. you know, it is in terms of the things that we're trying to address. and part of i think what what we hope part of the message comes through today is that the office of capital planning and resilience planning and these other agencies sit together at monthly, sometimes bi monthly tables where we're actually planning together and strategizing together. so we've got the puc, we've got mta. we have folks who operate assets underground above ground that straddle all these lines and trying to think through for each section of the shoreline. how do we plan, how do we adapt? and in this case, specifically, how do we prepare for disaster planning? but there's a whole effort around different levels of resilience planning, both mitigating but also adapting our

shoreline for the future. so i'm really confident and maybe, maybe timely for us to bring some of those items back to the commission to daylight. some of that i'm i'm just asking the question, being totally blown away by the comprehensiveness of your answers. these are very specific questions many of the areas have been involved in for a number of years, so i'm delighted to see how you're doing it. and indeed, layering the many supporting and potentially conflicting issues that everybody has to address here. so thank you so much. i'm very impressed by your work. thank you. thank you for your questions. thank you commissioner williams. thank you for your presentation, you mentioned that you had some community outreach, and i was wondering, what organizations that did you have outreach with in the city and how did that go? yeah so, our approach so i'll

just a little bit of context. last time we updated this plan, we in 2020, we did five standalone workshops and we spent a lot of effort getting people to doing outreach to attend those workshops. the feedback that we heard from the community during that was, we would prefer if you come to where we already are meeting, rather than having us come to a standalone workshop about this issue, so we did outreach to community based organizations. we focused on communities and environmental justice, neighborhoods. we outreach to many of them and offered them a presentation or any kind of other engagement about this that they would like, just so we did 15 different events. so it's hard for me to name all of them off the top of my head, i'll say in the bayview, we went to the bayview climate summit, which had numerous different city agencies there and many different cbos, all in one space for half a day to really engage on climate issues, in the

bayview, we also attended, the port held a workshop about the flood study and we brought this plan to that workshop as well to help reach members of the public in that area, we did a couple different events or engagements in japantown as well, the mission with the with powder. alex, is there any further detail you might want to add on other organizations that we outreach to? yeah, i would add we went to the richmond senior center, to the west of the city. we also went to nikos disaster preparedness council, as well, and got a lot of good input from a lot of organizations that are in chinatown working on disaster preparedness to inform a lot of the strategies that we included in the plan. yeah, in terms of your question was in terms of how how did it go or. yeah. so we asked a couple key questions

was, what are your top concerns around hazards and what are what are your resilience priorities, some of the top priorities that we heard from people, which you can find in the executive summary of the document, if you're interested to look a little bit more, the top priorities we heard from people were especially energy resilience, waterfront resilience, transportation, and earthquake resilience were the top five things that came to came to mind for folks. thank you. sounds like it was pretty pretty robust. i appreciate tha. thank you. thank you, commissioner brown, yes, i have, i have three questions related to this. so the first one is, you know, this plan is referenced, is included by reference in our safety and resilience element. and so i'm wondering maybe more for planning department staff, does it look like there will be any need for initiating any

amendments to the general plan safety and resilience element, or are we does it seem like we're pretty well covered, or is there a process underway to make sure that it reflects what's in this plan? thanks. commissioner brown. so we incorporated the hcr into our general plan by reference to comply with sb 379. and we only needed to do that once. so sb 379 does not have a requirement to do it again and again. and again. if it's there, it's there. and so with this hcr update, it is, there's no additional changes that need to be done. it's considered an administrative update, so any time we choose to update the safety and resilience element in the future, maybe for other reasons, it's totally on the table to consider how we incorporate the hcr. or maybe amplify its lessons or streamline the policies. but so

far, that's not on our work pla. okay. thank you for that. yeah. i just want to make sure that we are paying attention to whether any, you know, new documents suggest that we need to update those policies. so i appreciate that, my other question is about the two items that the planning department is tasked with leading in this plan or identified as leading in this plan. so the first one is the one that's more short term and underway. some of these slow neighborhood adaptation plan, i looked at the website for the project. it says that the technical analysis phase should be occurring in winter 2024 to winter 2025. is that current? are we moving on that schedule right now? it's current. okay, great. it's good to hear that that that is moving forward. and i'm excited to see that unfold, the other plan was the, the subregional shorelines resiliency plan, the sb 272 required plan by 2034. that's a decade away. and a lot of these resilience and climate impacts are happening very rapidly. and

i know that it was mentioned that the state deadline under the legislation. but what's the status of, undertaking that work and funding it and potentially accelerating it. yeah. thanks. that's a great question. so for sb 272, i do want to acknowledge it is a pretty major piece of state legislation that requires all ocean coastline jurisdictions in the state to have a sea level rise adaptation plan that meets a certain set of guidelines, standards, latest climate science, etc. so in a sense, like it's really good leadership from the state to have this type of legislation in the bay area. bcdc is the regional bay conservation agency that will be helping all jurisdictions implement this state legislation. so that's all the context. and we, the planning department, are partnering with rcp to apply to

another grant from the ocean protection council to have the funds to create that plan and comply with sb 272. so actually, our deadline is next friday. please cheer us on. we are going to apply to a grant for $1.5 million for a two year planning process to make a citywide shoreline protection adaptation plan for the pas along the bay. okay, so the ocean side is different. that is, with regulation from the coastal commission. but the bay side is bcdc, and that's where we'll dedicate our funds. as other commissioners have mentioned, the city has done like numerous projects to help adapt and protect the shoreline. and so this grant will help us stitch it all together, fill in gaps, make it consistent, and then make it, comply with the guidelines that bcdc are

creating right now. so there's a lot going on right now. there's like policy impetus, there's grant opportunities, and there's regulations that are being drafted right now. and so i am just because i don't have that much time right now, i want to say that there's a lot of city work that we can build on top of. and i'm glad that we're not starting at square one. okay. so happy to prepare a presentation. more in depth about that later. i'm eager to hear more about this. and i just want to say i appreciate the hard work in trying to meet the grant deadline and good luck to us in getting it. it's and i'm glad to hear all the work and all we see up here, all the work that's happening around, climate resilience is sort of. it's an existential threat for so much of our city. and so i really appreciate it. thank you. thanks commissioner imperial, thank you for the presentation. and thank you for all the inputs. the questions by the other commissioners, i remember a

couple of months ago that i believe it was the port commission, i believe, one of the former staff from the planning now works in the port, adam presented about the shoreline adaptation and i believe the presentation also included the, the opportunity for the federal grant. i believe it was with the americorps, and now when i'm looking into this, you know, to this plan itself, and i understand that this is more just about the plan and i'm also so i'm trying to, you know, understand all of the, the funds that are that are needed for these kind of decline, the climate and resilience plan that we have, i wonder if there's some way in the future for the planning commission to be presented of what are actually kind of like the bigger scope of

this plan in terms of because i believe in this plan, we're talking about the infrastructure and also the shoreline adaptation was also talking about the infrastructure that, yeah, it seems very, you know, it's very robust and very wide, so i'm trying to also understand in terms of like how the infrastructure, especially if we're talking about affordable housing, how much it would impact on that and how much the kind of, the financial toll it may need, in order to be adapted to this kind of, yeah, to, to the kind of standards that we will need to have for the climate resilience. so, i wonder if there's some sort of financial information and in order for the commission and also, you know, to understand what kind of investment that the city needs to have really, for such a broad, yeah, broad plan. yeah. i think that's a really

good question. i mean, i think the, the port army corps flood study has been one of those efforts that's gotten us very far along in understanding the potential costs of adapting our shoreline, so you know that as of right now, has a $13.5 billion price tag, and that's for the port's jurisdiction, and we so we still need more study to determine what are the adaptation strategies and what might be their costs for the entire shoreline, so i think, you know, the conversation we've been having around that sb 272 comprehensive shoreline plan, that can be an important step towards getting us to a better understanding of how much it might cost to adapt our entire shoreline, and i think it will take some time and further study to get to those costs, but i'm sure we can work with, with the port staff to bring those items to the commission, as to when we have them, i think i think i also wanted to point to like we

do have existing analysis. the planning department led the sea level rise, vulnerability and consequences assessment. so there are some counts there of how sea level rise could potentially impact affordable housing, so we could follow up with some more information about that as well. well, thank you for your presentation, director tanner, you have something to add? i don't have anything other than just my thanks to the staff. and this work is maybe kind of what you're getting to commissioner imperial. just kind of a little sketch of, like, many other plans, right, that are layered together and that this, this climate hazard and resilience plan kind of captures from a hazard mitigation level. but there's also the generative work and the creative work of certainly a challenge that we wish weren't here. we wish climate change weren't causing some of this need. but how do we work it for our benefit as a city and make sure that we're coordinated? so i think this is a great example today of the interagency coordination that's happening. it's not always on the front page. it's not kind of the headline work, but it's like the important behind the scenes

work that keeps happening, you know, throughout the day. and throughout the week. thank you. i'd like to add, as my own comment, and a few years back, i was actually invited to be part of the one of the think tank people to look at the your resiliency and existing seismic vulnerability specifically for historic resource, commercial buildings. so i'm really pleased to see that you work really closely with our planning staff to continue to expand the office of resiliency and capital planning to a full spectrum of climate resiliency that we need to address. it's going to be affecting our lifetime. and also our many generations to come. and i also had the luxury when i was sitting on the sfmta's board of directors, listening to the corps of army corps of engineers, and to and the port to present their resiliency plan. and i really want to emphasize that each agency has

their own jurisdictions and their primary functions. but climate change and climate resiliency, like you mentioned, don't compartmentalize us. so i do want to fully emphasize that this is a multi-agency and multi-governmental state and federal level of collaborations, and we cannot move faster than the global warming. so if anything, we can help to facilitate the multi-agency process among ourselves. planning mta puc, dpw, port. i can just keep naming every one of us. please do let us know, sooner rather than later. and i do want to second commissioner brown's question and also commissioner imperial had touched upon about the mechanism of funding, applying grants for

$1.5 million. very important, but i'm looking at this thing as billions of dollars. so we i would i see that i look forward to have that fully adopted in our general plan, and in that i would hope that we can have a more robust set aside capital budget on our biannual basis, looking into our long term range planning. and thank you for your time to presenting to us. please keep us in touch and yes, again, anything we can help to facilitate multi-agency processes, please let us know. thank you. thank you. very good commissioners. if there's nothing further we can move on to item eight for case number 2022, hyphen 009819 env for 3400 laguna street. this is the draft environmental impact report. please note that written

comments will be accepted at the planning department until 5 p.m. on october 15th, 2020. for. information. thank you. jonas good afternoon, president seo and planning commissioners. i'm megan calpin, planning department staff and environmental impact review coordinator for the 3400 laguna street project or the proposed project. joining me today are my colleagues joy navarette, allison vanderslice, and justin grieving, and members of the project sponsor team are also present today. can my presentation please be shown? thank you. the item before you today is the public hearing on the 3400 laguna street project draft environmental impact report or draft eir. the purpose of today's hearing is to take

public comment on the adequacy, accuracy and completeness of the draft. eir pursuant to the california environmental quality act or sequa and san francisco's local procedures for implementing ceqa, no approval action on this document is requested at this time. as jonas mentioned, the draft eir will receive public comment through october 15th at 5 p.m, and the draft eir was published on august 28th, 2024. i will now provide a brief overview of the existing project site. 3400 laguna street is an approximately 1.6 acre project site with frontages along laguna bay and francisco streets in the marina district. moscone rec center is located to the west and upper fort mason is north of the project. site. 3400 laguna street is located within an rm one residential mixed use, low

density zoning district and a 40 x height and bulk district. the existing land use is institutional as a residential care facility, and the land uses in the surrounding area include a mixture of single and multi-family residential, public and commercial uses. the project site is currently improved with five structures of approximately 83,200 gross square feet. the five structures are the julia morgan building, constructed in 1925, the caretaker's cottage constructed in 1928 to 1929, the perry building, the perry building connector, and the health center. four of the existing buildings are currently interconnected and surround a central courtyard. there is a second courtyard east of the perry building on the eastern boundary of the project site. the site also contains a front lawn that is located between the

existing entrance to the julia morgan building and laguna street. the project site has been occupied by the heritage on the marina residential care retirement community since 1925. the project site contains 86 residential care suites, common space for residents, dining and recreation, 26,410ft!s of usable open space, 17 off street parking spaces, and two off street loading spaces. next, i will provide an overview of the proposed project as analyzed in the draft eir. so the proposed project would maintain the current operation at the site as a residential care facility. the project would demolish two of the existing five buildings the perry building connector and the health center, and construct two new buildings, the bay building and the francisco building, of heights not to exceed 40ft. in the same locations as the demolished structures. the

existing julia morgan building and perry buildings would be interconnected to the two new buildings, similar to the existing on site buildings configuration. the proposed project would also renovate the julia morgan and perry buildings. the project would not include any changes to the caretaker's cottage. the front lawn or the rear courtyard. the project would also construct a below grade parking garage with a new driveway off of bay street. a portico share would be part of the construction of the new bay building, allowing for off street accessible loading for residents and guests. the proposed project would also include streetscape improvements, such as bulb outs at both project site intersections and the addition of street trees along the laguna street frontage. in total, the proposed project would add 58,380ft!s of net new institutional use and increase the number of residential care

suites by 23 from 86 to 109, as shown on the next few slides that i'll click through are site line images prepared by the project sponsors, architect showing the proposed project in relation to the project site and the existing buildings to remai. so this is a view from laguna street. from bay street. and from francisco street. next i'll describe the historic statuses of each of the existing buildings at 3400 laguna street, as determined in the historic resource evaluation. so the historic resource evaluation was prepared in 2023 to assess the historic significance of the existing property. 3400 laguna has been identified as eligible for the california register of

historic places under criterion one and criterion three. the julia morgan building was constructed in the jacobethan revival style by architect of merit julia morgan for the ladies protection and relief society in 1925, which later became the heritage on the marina. the free standing one story stone caretaker's cottage constructed in 1928 to 1929, is located in the northeast corner of the site, just north of the perry building. the planning department concluded that the additions and alterations to the site made after 1957, have not taken on historical significance and do not contribute to the significance of 3400 laguna street. none of the buildings on the project site are currently article ten. landmarks and the project site is not located in an article ten historic district. however, in march 2024, the department received a community initiated article ten landmark designation nomination

for the site on may 15th, 2024, the historic preservation commission held a hearing regarding the landmark designation nomination and instructed staff to add the site to the landmark designation work plan on august 21st, 2024, the historic preservation commission approved the initiation of the article ten landmark designation. next steps include one additional historic preservation commission hearing, which will occur on october 16th, 2024, to formally send the recommendation to the board of supervisors, where the landmark designation would be referred to the land use committee and then heard by the full board. this process will run in parallel to the environmental review process that were under sequa, but it would not impact the outcome of this eir. the draft eir concludes that the proposed project would not result in any significant or unavoidable impacts. six impacts were found

to be less than significant with mitigation. all other impacts from the proposed project were found to be less than significant, or would result in no impact. six mitigation measures shown here on the slide on the right were identified to mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level, and with the implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have any significant impacts. to address the impacts requiring mitigation measures, the draft eir also analyzed three feasible alternatives to the proposed project. pursuant to sequa, the no project alternative, the rehabilitation alternative, and the reduced construction alternative. the draft eir contains analysis of the impacts associated with the three alternatives. these impacts are

summarized in the table shown here. the summary is that all of the alternatives reduced the impacts more than the existing project, at varying levels. so today we're conducting a public hearing on the adequacy and accuracy of the draft eir for members of the public who wish to speak, please state your name. for the record, we have a court reporter joining remotely who will record your comments when it is your turn, please state your name and spelling and we ask that you speak slowly and clearly so that the court reporter can make an accurate transcription of today's proceedings. staff is not here to answer comments today. comments may be transcribed or will be transcribed and responded to in writing in the responses to comments document, that document will respond to all relevant verbal comments received today and any written comments received during the public comment period, as well

as include revisions to the draft eir as appropriate. and those who are interested in commenting on the draft eir in writing by mail or email may submit their comments to me. megan calpin, eir coordinator at the address shown on the screen, 49 south van ness avenue, suite 1400, san francisco, or the project email address cpc dot 3400, laguna eir at sfgov. org again, those comments are due by 5 p.m. on october 15th, and we anticipate the publication of the response to comments in the spring and followed by an eir certification hearing shortly after that. unless the commissioners have questions, i respectfully suggest that the public hearing on this item be opened. thank you. very good. thank you. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. you need to come forward.

okay. hi. my name is tanya albuquerque. it's albuquerque. first, i want to object to the timing of the issuance of the eir on two grounds. one is, i think it should have been paused. while the landmark designation is being considered. this is just logical. it includes extensive commentary and suggestions regarding how to protect historic resources. but it was prepared based only on its own assumptions about what will actually be protected. once the landmark process is complete. second, the initial study should have been completed and released before the draft eir. not at the same time. that really jeopardizes the public's ability to comment in any effective way on the draft eir. i understand the initial study

is not required under sequa, but in this case, when it is done, the sequa rules and the code under which it's adopted assumes that it will be the starting point for a draft eir. it doesn't say anything about releasing them both at the same time, and jeopardizing the public's ability to comment. turning to the substance of the draft eir, i agree with the department's conclusion in it that no project is the most environmentally conscientious choice, and as an alternative renovation of existing buildings, any justification for ignoring those two superior options is based on economic arguments that the heritage is asserting without any basis in particular. there's absolutely no data, economic or financial information of any kind in the eir or supporting documentation that support heritage's claims for an economic need for this

gigantic project. for this reason alone, the draft eir fails the sufficiently credible test for agency findings set forth in the california supreme court case laurel heights improvement association, and should not be relied upon by s.f. planning. second, the heritage claims it needs more units to be competitive in the market. but if you look at their permit history since 2010 alone, it has chosen to merge 29 separate units, which resulted in a loss of 16 units, including turning one into a laundry room and in other cases, taking three separate units and turning them into giant luxury apartments. they shouldn't be rewarded with a 58,000 square foot project for the situation that they created. third, they are making a radical and unprecedented demand that you change the orientation of their parcel to treat francisco street as their rear and to get

a variance from rear yard setbacks to build to the property line. don't let them do that. not only would it materially impair the historic morgan mansion by basically making it an ancillary side building, which would be in violation of the historic preservation rules, but it would also violate history. for 100 years, the property orientation has been clear, consistent and relied upon. thank you. okay. last call for public comment. seeing none. public comment is closed, and is now before you commissioners. commissioner moore, i would weigh some of the questions which were raised by the public. thank you very much for going in as much detail. i wish i could read the entire

comments you had. you couldn't finish. the hardest thing for me is not questioning that somebody can consider enlarging their property, that the description of the project itself is hardly legible in the documents that we have. i receive a printed copy, but even if i use my small laptop, i am unable to fully read the extent of the plans of what's intended here. that was missing data about the type of units that they are, the ones that may have been merged, including the incredible increase in parking. makes me wonder. that is a question where i would ask that not only do we show better sized plans, but the existing site plan and the proposed site plan are hardly distinguishable because i think in print the distinction between the colors of what is and what should be is not fully depicted, so that that one can see the extent of what's being describe. what is puzzling to me is that there is a short shrift to fully

justify why a gardner daly building, built in the 50s, and the warren perry building that are being demolished are not worth considering, particularly by age. they are, his a part of what should be considered as a historic building. the fact that they are background buildings seem to be, to me more in respect to julia morgan's significant building than anything that detracts from the quality of architecture that particular mr. daly. gardner. daly has been producing in his entire career as master architect, lastly, i have a question about the increase in parking when one moves into a retirement home, one doesn't most likely drive a car anymore. the only thing i know is that i believe that taking access to the parking garage from bay street, which is a little bit difficult to discern in the plan, creates an additional danger to an already significantly complicated and

underserved intersection at the corner of bay and laguna, where bike lanes are continuously in conflict with cars at rather high speed, turning, including a somewhat not fully comprehensible through lane that continues down bay beyond laguna street. i believe that those i think, director hillis know that. well, having worked at fort mason, it's an extremely dangerous intersection. and i also don't believe that an entrance to parking off bay street, other than a right turn in right turn out, is at all feasible, given that the curvature of the road is alread, dangerous enough as it is, and the. i would ask that the eir producers better readable plans enlarges the depiction of the alternatives that were analyzed,

particularly when it comes to the little diagram, so that people can really fully understand of how they are different. and i think those are my comments. technically, i think the er follows of what we typically do. it just i believe it needs a further examination in particular areas of detail. thank you. no further comment. commissioners we can move on to item nine for case number 2023. hyphen 00921988 42 california street. conditional use authorization. thank steve.

alrighty. good afternoon, commissioners dakota speaker department staff. sorry the item before you today is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317 to allow the demolition of five dwelling units for the construction of a new eight story, 89 foot tall, 41,000 square foot residential building with 33 dwelling units. the project site is a corner lot of approximately 6000ft!s with frontages along california and joy streets, and is currently developed with four buildings consisting of five vacant dwelling units and two vacant commercial spaces. under the housing crisis act, senate bill 330, all five existing dwelling units are considered or are considered protected units. the

proposal includes a total of five dwelling units. deed restricted for ownership at 80% ami, which satisfies both state density bonus requirements for up to a 20% bonus and replacement units per sb 330. the project is utilizing the individually requested state density bonus program, and is seeking a 6.45% density bonus and request waivers from front setback, rear yard dwelling, unit exposure and height. the project is not seeking any concessions or incentives because the five replacement units do not satisfy local inclusionary requirements. the sponsor has elected to pay the affordable housing fee for the additional units. according to the project sponsor, two of the existing residential units were owner occupied until the current owner's acquisition of the site in 2020. the remaining three dwelling units have been vacant since 1976. one of the two

existing commercial units, twins armoire boutique, was operated by a previous owner and was also vacated in 2020. currently, the project sponsor employs two individuals as on site security as a response to break ins. according to the sponsor, one of these individuals spends the night to further their security work. however, both individuals have permanent residence elsewhere and neither individual has a lease or any form of rental agreement. during a site visit, staff met with one of the security guards, confirming this. in addition, the department requested records from the rent board and found no evidence of eviction or buyout. on december 21st, 2023, a department hosted pre-application meeting was held. neither support for nor opposition to the project was expressed during this meeting. the department has received one letter in support and ten letters in opposition to the project. as a response, the sponsor held a virtual meeting on september 5th. on or around

september 5th, i should say, and eight people attended that meeting. since your packet was published, one additional letter in opposition was received. opposition to the project is centered on the proposed height of the building, its modern design, impacts on light, air and privacy, and private views. construction, noise and pollution. the department finds the project in combination with the state density bonus law and replacement units per sb 330, is on balance and consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan compliant with the planning code and the residential design guidelines. the project replaces five low density units with a new building that maximizes the allowed density for the project site, providing 15 family sized units, including five on site below market rate units for ownership, which is a goal for the city. the department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or

adjacent properties in the vicinity. this concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions, and i'll hand it off to the sponsor team for their presentation. project sponsor through the chair you get seven minutes. okay jen psaki good. all good. anthony fauci. thank you. it's on, it should be on as well.

yeah. thank you. all right. perfect. thank you. good. how are you doing? so bear with me. i'm sorry. great. okay so this is florida's. perfect. good afternoon, commissioners steve vardell land use counsel for the project sponsor. can i have the slides? there we go. this slide is an aerial photograph showing the project site within the nob hill neighborhood. the site contains four small buildings with a total of five dwelling

units and two commercial spaces. all have been vacant since 2020 or before. this slide is a summary of the project components, including 33 condos, five on site affordable homes, payment, payment of a $2 million affordable housing fee, a large percentage of family sized units, and ample bike parking. the project requires demolition of the five existing units. california law and the planning code require that rent controlled units removed by a condo development be replaced one for one with permanently affordable, low income condos, even if the demolished units are market rate is here. that is what we propose. the five replacement units will be truly affordable with restricted prices of approximately $365,000 for the three two bedroom condos, 322,000 for the one bedroom and 279,000 for the studio. these deeply discounted

sales prices will be affordable to households earning up to 80% of ami. under state law, the five low income units qualify the project for a state density bonus of up to 20%. the project is also entitled to the waiver of development standards that would preclude construction of the base units and bonus units. here are the waivers we seek are primarily a two story height bonus, as 222 story height increase plus minor waivers of rear yard, front yard, and unit exposure as set forth in the draft motion and in our brief. the project more than fulfills the demolition criteria under section 317 of the planning code. the five market rate rental units will be replaced with five permanently affordable homes. the project increases the number of units on site by 28 net new units and 14 of the 33 units will be family sized. although the five affordable units qualify, the project for a density bonus, they did not satisfy the city's inclusionary

housing law. to fulfill that obligation, we are paying the in-lieu fee of approximately $2 million to the city to subsidize additional affordable housing, off site. we have met several times with nearby residents with the university club at 800 powell street and most recently with homeowners at 840 powell street. all all uphill from the project site. the only major concern has been the loss of private downtown views from these uphill properties. we cannot modify the project to protect these private views without losing many units, and we are not willing to do that. the state density bonus law prevents cities from applying subjective standards like view protection to reduce the number of homes in a density bonus project, which is considered code compliant by the state. let me now introduce the project sponsor, cass calder smith. hello, commissioners. good afternoon, let me see if i can use this. is it this one? yeah.

okay well, sorry. can you hear me? here? yeah okay. so i'll just take you through a short description of the architecture. find my button here. yeah, there it is. okay, so, as you know, it's on california street, really, one of the great streets in san francisco. as we all know, it's really great how it extends up from the financial district. it's got a really interesting mix of very notable and iconic buildings, many of them being multi-unit residential. and it's kind of an honor to do that. my firm's been doing projects in the city for many years, and we've worked, you know, done a lot of urban infill. and so it's you know, we see this as a, as a real contribution to the street. the building is on the left a little bit there beyond the would you please speak louder, please. can you hear me? is that good? okay, so you can see the project on the left as you're looking down.

california. and it's similar to many of the others up on the closed part of the on the right is the new crescent building. and then further down you can see other multi-use buildings. okay, so let me see. and i'm going to go back to here, i guess the words on their blocking a little bit. anyhow, so this is the, the elevation facing california street. you can see the slope, nearby in gray and different tones or other buildings of similar scal. to the right of the building is josé, which is a 17.5ft wide street that goes perpendicular, the design is very similar to some of the context, the way it's been done up there. there's a podium to the building. it's a little hard to see the line in this drawing, obviously. and then there's a number of bays, three that go up and are pretty pronounced to create the geometry of a of a, the bay

window versus the body of the building behind it. and then at the top there's a little bit of action that is the penthouse stair and elevator for people to use. the roof down at the bottom, which i'll show you in some of these other buildings, but is the entrance, which is centered and recessed and somewhat prominent? not in a big way, but pretty notable. and at the same time, because it's on the corner of joyce, it's a corner building, which we've addressed. okay. and then when you turn the corner and look at this on joyce, we've brought the facade around. there's another entrance to the building from joyce. you can see in the middle behind the word, and then further down to the right is the entrance into the to the garage, which is basically subterranean. so we've worked pretty hard with staff to create not just a facade for california, but also for, for joyce. and, and the scale of what's along this

street is, is inspired and ties into the context further down. joyce, which is more residentia. okay. so there is the rendering from across the way and you can see the mix of materials, the unit mix and this and that. sorry here's the materials. pretty rich palette, a little bit of natural materials, pretty, high end and articulated. and then just for context, here's the other buildings. this is across the street. you can see the bays and the podium. the podiums are basically how they deal with the slopes. others, others, others. and that's it. any questions? okay. if there are no immediate questions, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. good. hello. i'm

catherine anderson and i submitted my written comments, but i wanted to make some public comments here. my main concern is looking at this building, they're in a they're on a block. if you go there all the structures in front of the university club are all shorter. they're all 3 to 4 stories. it getting higher as it goes down the hill. so they're all shorte. and what they don't show is in those pictures is the university club. balconies are basically they're building a wall in front of the university club, balconies that house many events for not just university club members, but the public for their private weddings and things like that. and on i am at eight, 75845 california. it's on my side. the buildings are all

taller and i think somebody with planning planned this some time ago because it can't be coincidence. and i think it is for open air and sunlight for all those hundreds of people that are going to be around this building. these pictures don't show that those gray building shapes behind this building were people apartments with windows. and i don't know any of us that have air conditioning because we depend on san francisco air. it's nice and cool, and we open our windows for our air, which means we cannot close our windows to protect us from the noise that might, impose on our daily lives from this building 24 hours a day. if they have something like air conditioning units, i don't know what the windows are going to be as far as glare goes. and it's just extremely high, which somehow they made these drawings. so it kind of blends in, but it doesn't. it's really high and

it's going to affect hundreds of lives for only 33 units. and it just seems ironic and, my main concern is the health of everybody living around this building right now. it's a major thoroughfare for tourists and students and dogs and people walking to work, and the cable cars go by, and it's very charming. and it has this open air feeling, especially on california street between the big hotels and downtown. and i think it was planned to protect this at some point. so that is there are my main concerns and i sent some written testimony. thank you. good afternoon. my name is erica frick. i live at 845 california street across the street. kathy has been my

neighbor for over 20 years. they're and i'm very, very opposed to this project. i would encourage all the commissioners to actually view the project itself. i've been writing letters in, by the way, for three years or since they first sent the proposal, and i'm concerned that my letters might not have been included somehow in this, the building will stick out like a sore thumb. the university club has been operating since, i believe, 1908. that is a historic building that is a historic corner. if you come over that hill where the two cable car lines cross, there we have photographers and tourists there all the time. every single day at that corner, taking photos down the street. their drawings are deceptive. they make it seem like it blends in. no, this is 100ft tall. it will block out the transamerica building from that corner. it will absolutely does not go with this

neighborhood at all. if you're above that area, you can see this is a rolling hill that san francisco has protected for generations of these victorian stair step. all goes all the way over to telegraph hill. it preserves views for hundreds and hundreds of buildings in that whole area, and they're trying to do something that is completely out of sync with the entire neighborhood, with the historic value of that corner, which is beautiful corner. i urge you to go and see what this 100 foot completely out of place building is going to do to our city. beyond that, they have five affordable units. they already have five units there. there is no net gain at all to the city from this in terms of affordability. the building at 875 california street that already went forward is apparently only 40% occupied. it's been there for five years. they cannot sell the units. so what i predict will happen with this is you will have this huge monstrosity that ruins a corner

of san francisco that is important to our tourism, to our residents, to everybody. it ruins the university club. they basically, you know, they have all these events for locals, for what value? i guarantee you these units are going to be empty because the price points will be too high. they only have seven parking places. people who are going to buy these units want parking. so it'll sit empty and it will have many, many disadvantages with no gain to our city, their disregard for us. go look at how dirty this building is, right? how long have they owned it? since 2020. i went out there with my measuring tape the other day to see the impact. it's filthy. it's covered with bird poop. they haven't cleaned it in what, the entire time? they've owned it. it looks like shambles. that's how little they care about our neighborhood. whereas those of us who live here, we do care. thank you. good afternoon.

good afternoon. can you hear me? okay. thanks for the opportunity to speak. my name is bob cohen, and i live at 840 powell. i've been there for 14 years. the nob hill neighborhood is fortunate to have many resident owners who love the city and the neighborhood, who have invested sizable amounts in their homes. we live here, we shop here, we walk the neighborhoods, and we pay our taxes here. the assessment of our property at 840 powell decreased by 21% this past year, according to some realtors. it's because of an oversupply of housing and a decrease in the feel of the neighborhood. this is especially aggravated by the construction of the crescent apartments on the corner of california and powell. just catty corner to where this proposed building is. that building does not fit the charming architecture of the area. it has few views, and after several years, well over 50% of the units are still unsold. we view the proposed

building at 842 california as a potential crescent. it blocks the views from neighborhood buildings and adds to the oversupply. it increases the traffic on a narrow alley that's used to access parking, and the neighborhood grade school. we believe this is going to decrease our property values further and decrease the desirability of the neighborhood. let me put that property value in perspective for you. our property value reduction also affects the city financially. extrapolating my own apartments decrease to our entire building that is likely to reduce the property taxes we pay just in our building by $180,000 per year. we expect the city to do what it can to enhance our community, not to denigrate it. and we'd be in favor of 842 california being a charming building that didn't block views, didn't add to the traffic issues, didn't add to the oversupply of housing in our neighborhood. we've attended a meeting with the developer, and it was clear from the meeting that he has no concern for what his building will do to the neighborhood. as an example, a previous speaker mentioned that

everything on the sidewalk there's security guards in there. they have dogs. they poop on the sidewalk, they don't clean them up. we walk this neighborhood with our children and our pets and thousands of tourists who use the cable cars on our corner. walk by. 842 california the developers response to this complaint from us was not, oh, i'm sorry, that's not the image we want to project. we'll take care of that right away. it was just security people and they aren't very bright. we don't object to a new building at 842 california. we actually welcome it, but we hope the city has the foresight and concern for our neighborhood so as to only allow a new building whose height does not worsen the views from our historic buildings. that adds to the architectural charm of the neighborhood, whose developer has both courtesy for the city and respect for our neighborhood. we strongly urge the planning commission to block the proposed proposed project at 842 california. thank you very much. can you hear me? okay. my

name is doug snyder. i live at 840 powell. i just wanted to give a brief, input as to what we feel. my wife and i, who just recently purchased in the area. the biggest concern i have is that anything within the city, i think the best policy we can put forward is to create win, win, win situations. and that's the way i look at the builder. i look at the city itself, and i look at the residents around right now as it's proposed, the only one who's going to win is the builder, because the property values are probably going to be decreased. so we've talked about the over, amount of units that are there from the crescent to what they're going to be introducing is going to continue to drive down property values. he said. there's you know, the view being the biggest issue. it is an issue, but it's one one of the issues. there's many issues that exist. so by allowing this to go forward as it's proposed, we're going to really create a win, lose lose. we're not opposed to having them

come in and build at that location as a matter of fact, i welcome it. i do find it sad that every time i walk by there with my two dogs, that i'm constantly picking up someone else's dog's droppings that come from because i've seen it come from the security guard, there, they don't appear to have a passion for the neighborhood like we do, but they're builders. they're here to make money. i get that the initial proposal that i saw in their website, which is acme development, was a much more reasonable drawing height level that didn't block the university. what we're really looking for is the win win win. let them build, but let them build something reasonable. let them build something that fits the neighborhood and doesn't block the very iconic crossing of california and powell street. the property values will maintain if the property values are maintained, the city is going to have a significant amount more every year, not only from our building, but for the surrounding buildings. and then, you know, from the standpoint of everybody who lives in the area, we will be pleased. we're pleased that the property is improved. we're pleased that the

city has heard our concerns. you'll be receiving more money for the tax base, and we get to maintain a property value. that's reasonable. thank you very much. i appreciate it, and i hope that you consider to possibly allow something, but maybe not at this level, at this height and this size. thank you. good afternoon. my name is regina scolaro and i am a resident of 840 powell, i am here today and i just want to say that my neighbors are far more gracious and allowing than i am because i originally looked at this project and was concerned about the property value for 840 powell and our surrounding neighbors, but once i really started to dig into the project, what became more alarming to me was, and let's face it, gentlemen, i'm speaking to you. they know that they have

used the density bonus program to their benefit, and not for its original purpose. it was implemented in 1979 to allow more affordable housing throughout the city of san francisco, san francisco is one of the slowest, and i'm sure i'm not. i'm preaching to the choir here, one of the slowest, permitting cities in the countr. that means that we are supposed to have around 10,000 new homes per year to provide affordable housing for the people of this city, and as of today, i looked we have less than a thousand, and the year is almost over. and i would argue that it is because of developers like the people behind me that caused so much friction and thrash for their own benefit. let's make no mistake, there are some units in

there that will be affordable to some, but the gentleman behind me chose nob hill for a very specific reason because of its affluence. right? so they needed to win, and the only way that they could actually get their project put through the system was to take advantage of the density bonus program. and vince actually admitted that on the call that the reason why their reasonable proposed plan turned into went from a four story to an eight story is because they had to take advantage of that program to benefit them, and he also assured me on that call that the city has gone through this with a fine tooth comb, and they approved it. and, dakota, i will challenge you when you say that the esthetic of the building is consistent with the neighborhood, it couldn't be more inconsistent with the neighborhood. looks nothing like the buildings that we live in. and my view will not be obstructed. my view will not be obstructed. but i am here on principle and i see that you

have friends that have looked me up on facebook, and hopefully they all told you how relentless i am when it comes to fighting corruption in a city. and this is a perfect example of that. thank you. last call for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. commissioner moore i live in the neighborhood. not close enough in the 500 foot radius to be of conflict, but everything nearby neighbors have said is actually accurate and true. i experience the same type of neglect of the building over the past 6 or 8 years. it's getting worse,

actually. there were certain improvements which happened when 875 was first built. that was just the time in the armor was closing, and none of the implementing improvements for the california side of the university club, nor the gym were ever really fully implemented. so was the lack of taking care of the cable car shed, which ultimately the supervisor pushed through to do, because that was a part of the condition for approving 875 and unfortunately, 875, also designed by a very well-known architect, robert stern of new york, had a lot of opposition. it tried to sell itself as being more sensitive in its variation in facade and materials than it actually turned out when it was ultimately built, and i know it

is hardly occupied. i am shocked to hear it is less than 50% occupied, and that makes me wonder why we are looking at an at a market rate housing project of this size at this particular location. i understand that there being financial commitments that are being made relative to building on site, for sale units and that there is a monetary contribution. however, the building for me personally raises a lot of questions, and i would like to ask the architect, perhaps to answer a few questions for me. thank you. mr. catherine. thank you. can you hear me? yes, i can hear you, but let me ask you this. yeah, you were mentioning in your project description you're using on your drawings the expression of borrowed ligh. does that refer to nested bedrooms? pardon? i couldn't

hear your question. i said you are referring in your drawings to rooms with borrowed light. is that my reading that correctly, you know, we use that term and it applies. there's light all it's abundant there. and it's borrowed. and actually the, shadow study, which is a little bit related to the same topic, is, you know, is proven to be this the borrowed light, i understand. oh, those two nested bedrooms. and it's a more lyrical way of describing that. there are two units in the basement, the first basement and the second basement that are indeed rooms that do not have sufficient exposure or actually don't have are nested bedrooms. the biggest question i would ask you is the following. to the west facing facades of your units above. i think the second or third floor, as it rises above the athletic club, you're having property line windows.

should the, athletic club, which i assume belongs to or has some affiliation with the university club, ever build another building there? by definition, those property line windows would need to be closed, correct? there's very few of them. i counted 7 or 9 units if i counted correctly, which would be affected by that. do you do you have a correct number, that sounds about right. they're all they're all there's bathrooms and side bedroom windows there. and i think maybe closets. the west. you're talking about the west wall right. i'm talking to the west wall. those are it's the side windows, there may be, there may be bathroom windows. i just want to make sure that the commission, as well as the public, knows that there is a certain amount of change in the building. should the university club ever use its potential ability to build on top of the

athletic club. that building, then, would be, somewhat changed, and the quality of the units that you are trying to bring to market would be changed just by a small amount. yeah yeah, we're talking about bathrooms. maybe a closet, maybe if i might be clarifying that you're submitting it in your floor plan. they are windows of the master bedroom. that's correct. they. yeah. the windows face but the main windows, those of those rooms face south and north depending on which. and then there's a little bit more public exposure as part of the reason for the windows on that side too, is just to help articulate that facade. i don't i don't know how many people like just solid un un fenestrated walls, but that was also part of the strategy. i appreciate your comments. yeah what i'm really actually driving at is that the size of the parcel and the proportions of width to length make me feel that this project is more 12 pounds in a 10 pound bag, because if what you're just

saying would be properly done, there would be a real articulation of the west wall in a manner that would have for those people who are looking from powell street, like 840 powell, etc, into your direction, it would show an articulated wall that really more meets the neighborhood character, because the beauty of what's happening on california street is that the majority of buildings have four sides. when you look at them in your particular case, ultimately you're seeing a you're seeing a blank wall with windows on property line, which sooner or later will disappear. these are just comments. it's not as much a question, but thank you for answering your approach to the design. the height for the public is very difficult for us to fight because under sb regulations, our hands are tied. the only thing i would say is that in this particular locatio, i believe that the building is too massive relative to what has been put into it. it does not show really the neighborhood

character in terms of how the building is executed in its massing. nor is it reflective really, of the requirements for affordable housing being on site in a manner that they really reflect the mixed use character of the neighborhood at large. we're literally two blocks off from chinatown. we're literally one block off sacramento, and clay, which is all mixed income, mostly rental housing. and i believe that these high end buildings, the both 875 and 842 california street buildings, somehow miss the point of why they are not, why they are not really contributing to the to the neighborhood. i believe this building is not designed with the context in mind, and i. i'm very saddened because i've seen quite a bit of your work over the years. this building is not necessarily, what i consider the

best of your work. thank you. yeah commissioner williams. thank you, commissioner moore, for your comments. i'm concerned about the demolition of rent controlled units. i was told that this probably wouldn't happen, by planning staff. i'm not. you know, and it just. here we are. these are rent controlled units, they're being demolished, and i. but i have a question, is there any tenants in these buildings? because we have had, folks claim that there haven't been any tenants, and then the tenants show up and, you know, there's five. this is a big, big there's five, four different buildings here. and it's hard to believe that no one lives there. and so i'd like for you to speak to that a little bit more. and what happened to the people that were living

there? so there's four small buildings. you're correct. with five units total. the, the it's all on one on one lot. and the property was owned by the wiebe sisters from 1976 until 2020. so for what, 30 some years they operated the twins armoire. there were twin sisters in one of the buildings. they each lived in one of the units, and they left the other three units vacant. from 1976 until they sold the property in 2020. and so since 2020, all five have been vacant. so there were before 2020, there were two owner occupied units, and after 2020, there's five vacant units. the reason that the rent controlled units are being replaced on site with condominium units is because that's what state law requires, and the city planning code requires as well, that you can't have a mixed tenure building if you have a condo building. the affordable units have to be condos as well. they're low income condos. they're extremely affordable, but we can't replace we can't put rent controlled

units into the building because it's a condo building. we can only put in low income ownership units under state law and under the planning code as well. i understand that the condo units, i mean, it's not the same as rent controlled apartments. right? and that's what you got here. well, i would, i would so also i yeah. yeah. no, i mean i get i know i understand where you're going and i understand why you did it and but i'm just saying we're we're getting rid of five rent controlled units and replacing them with three condos. right. that that are affordable, five affordable. yes. but my point is, is that, most people that rent, rent for a reason because they can't afford to buy. and even though these are these are affordable, there's only three units, there's five. but i think more importantly for me is that this is sound housing, and it is, you know, complementary to the street to, you know, california street is a very iconic street.

everything there looks like it's supposed to be there when i when, you know, growing up here, when i look at san francisco, i look at, you know, that street in particular, i think of san francisco. when i look at that development that you're proposing, even though it has, three affordable, condos and you're giving some money to the affordable housing fund, it does not look like anything. and i and i, you know, anything that resembles, the character of that particular area. and so, i would, i would you know, i, i just have, you know, issues with that, what i just mentioned, the demolition of rent controlled units, that in the planning cod, basically says not to do that. and also it just just it doesn't it does not go with anything.

it's not, it's not it doesn't look like it belongs there. it just looks like something that belongs somewhere else. thank you. commissioner imperial. when i saw this packet, well, i have been a commissioner here, you know, there are some state density bonus projects that have actually, you know, approved and also approved of in a way that in principle and in a way that also, kept in mind the community input. i think there is a way where you can have a state density bonus project and at the same time have the input of the community. what my issue in this one is that, is that first, when

we're looking just in the context of the neighborhood alone on the when we're talking about the california street, i think that's what also sticks out to me, and second, it it does not honor also the history of that building of itself of 840 to california, there has been projects in the past where it actually also honor the, the, the, the street and also the building in its design. another issue that i have in here, and i think where commissioner william is touching on is the, you know, based on the residential demolition finding that this is a decent, safe building, and that's why you know, a state density bonus project, in a way, can be sensitive in a way of this is a decent, safe current building, and we're demolishing it in a way that is really out

of context, and what we're getting in the city in return is also something. of course, it is by the law, the project is doing it in accordance of what we have in inclusionary housing, and you know, i wish it can be done more, but, you know, our hands are tied on that because it's already a legislation. and also with the state density bonus. i'm also this is more of like a question for you know, for us in more in the planning department in terms of the tenancy history and how we get that kind of information in a way of more tracking. and it seems like perhaps this has gone through the rent board or through the questioning of the former, developer of how a former owner of tenancies. but i'm wondering how do we track the former if there were tenants or how how

did we get to that point as well? sure i mean, and we've, you know, vastly improved this as a result of questions that have come up at the commission, one, to clarify, this requires. right. you've got to approve the demolition of the existing units. that's before you. that's a discretionary action. the reason we're proposing or recommending approval on that is we're taking rent control units. we're getting five replacement, deed permanently deed restricted affordable units on top of the fee that the that the developer is paying. so that is a discretionary action that's before you, but as far as tracking rent control units, we look at all of the city's records. so if there's any rent control or rent board actions or we look through the, the database that the rent board has, we look to voter registration and voter rolls to see if there are registered voters there. we conduct a site visit. we obviously talk to sponsors. it's a public hearing too. so folks can come forward, which we've seen happen before to say that that there are

tenants living there. but again, we've gone through those those processes. i appreciated that the staff did a site visit, actually, and, yeah, it's just for me to, you know, for us to really, think about the, the tracking of the tenancies. but i thank you so much for explaining that, i, you know, that's something that i'm, i'm not supporting this project based on the demolition findings, that this is a decent, safe, and a good building in itself. and we're demolishing it in return of this kind of building. so i think, you know, for project developers who think of state density bonus. really keep in mind the context of the neighborhood and also honoring the building in itself, the design itself is nowhere of what you know, of what this building is all about. so that's where i'm at. thank you. commissioner

campbell, thank you. this is a great conversation. i want to thank everyone for coming out. it's interesting. i had a very different response to this, this proposed project in, in studying this, and i have gone by the site, you know, i, i think it's really helpful to hear the potential impacts to, to the neighbors, and i know this kind of change is hard to, to accept, but i, i do appreciate the observation about how behind we are on meeting our housing quotas and it's it feels irresponsible to me to turn down a project like this. when you think about the fact that we have five aging dwellings here, and this project will provide 28 more, i appreciate this project for its ability to provide more housing. i also think from a

design perspective, it's been very thoughtfully done. i'll point everyone, and i don't know if it was part of your presentation, but there was something in our package that showed the building in terms of its height and bulk compared to all the neighboring buildings. and i thought it it was drawing a 410. and i don't know if you have that handy and it can be pulled up. i think it's a great way of demonstrating how the building actually is quite contextual. there are buildings across the street, but also down the hill that are matching its height, i think also we have to remember when we start to mimic what's there architecturally, it's it gets very i like to call it phony baloney. this is a modern interpretation that respects the facade patterns of this neighborhood. but it has to be new and different. otherwise we're we're mimicking history here architecturally. i also

just want to point out that the materials selected for this project are not your standard materials. i really do hope the project is able to pull these off. terracotta rainscreen cast in place. concrete anodized black metal windows and trim. this is this is this is very elegant and timeless. and i do hope to see those, not get value engineered at the end. if i was a neighbor, i'd be pretty delighted with that level. that's okay. find it in the deck. no problem. so in conclusion, i think you know, if not here where we have a lot of housing to build, and it starts with projects like this. so thank you. that's all my comments. thank you. commissioner brown. yes, first i have maybe more of a just departmental inside baseball kind of question. so we have

this discretionary action before us. that's about the demolition of the existing units that are on site. and if we were to take that action, i really am just trying to explore this. if we were to take that action, the project did not move forward, are there state laws that would kind of de facto, come into play if that action was taken? so it's just conferring 100% with our city attorney. but i believe this is a housing accountability act protected project. it's code compliant, although there's a discretionary action that the 317 q, action that's before you is not based in any objective, sort of quantifiable facts like it's a it's a discretionary action inherently. there's not an objective standard behind this. and our understanding, or at least the direction we've received from city attorney, is

that does still make this a housing accountability act protected project. so denial based on a on a non objective standard in this case would, basically get us into hot water because under the housing accountability act it makes it so. deputy city attorney austin i'm happy to jump in and try to answer this question. the commission needs to consider both the demolition of the unit, along with the proposal for the new project. at the same time, you're not able to parse one action separate from the other, and avoid the limitations of state law. i would just add, though, we, you know, we faced this issue before and what we look at when we come forward and either recommend a project or even bring a project forward is what are we replacing those units? right. it happened very infrequently that we've demoed rent controlled housing or we've recommended demolition of rent

controlled housing. i think the mitigating factors here are one where they're vacant units and been vacant for a consistent time. two, they're being replaced with five permanently affordable deed restricted homes. three you're getting significant, significant increase in the number of units in a part of the city that can that can take that height in density, right? i mean, if you compare this with the context around there, there are buildings that are that are that are, you know, as dense or, or denser. there are certainly others that aren't. so that's what we look at in weighing this and recommending it to you is to, you know, what are all the circumstances that factor in, you know, the request to demo existing rent controlled housing. thank you for that. yeah. and i appreciate the analysis. and i, this is an issue i might follow up on as well. just, you know, i do think it would be a housing accountability act issue to take an action that did not allow the 33 unit project to move forward

on this site, but it's something that we can explore separately, my position on this is, i mean, i'll just come out and say i am in favor of the project. and there's a couple of things that i'm considering here, so first of all, you know, the density bonus here is fairly modest. it's i recognize the concerns that this is sort of having it both ways for the developer. the density bonus is being taken. there's a waiver being used to get the additional height for the building, as well as to increase the buildable area on the project, while at the same time not actually using that much of the bonus itself. and this has become an issue, a surprising issue in other parts of the bay area where some projects actually are coming in smaller because the value that they're seeking is actually getting some of these waivers. and for some projects, not this one, but for some projects, concessions and incentives, but that being said, you know, since this is a density bonus project, the height could have been a lot worse. it could have been a much

taller project, as i understand the ability to apply the waivers for, for one of these projects, but setting that aside, i, you know, i am excited about the prospect of getting five deed restricted, permanent, affordable units, their ownership units, they provide ownership opportunities for low income households. they also ensure permanent protection or at least very long term protection of those units and their affordability, as opposed to resetting every time the tenancy turns over. in a rent controlled housing unit, but beyond that, we are also getting the additional 28 housing units as well, and despite, you know, some concerns about property owners property values falling, i don't think we've found ourselves a particularly affordable city at this point. and getting some additional housing seems like a positive in the long term. and then, you

know, it's sort of just it's an interesting conundrum that we find ourselves in with a lot of state density bonus projects. i'll just close with, you know, the zoning and the height limit on the site was 65 foot height limit, i believe. so we're talking five six story building. was the original intended you know, outcome here with the density bonus. now we're looking at these taller buildings and we have no control over that aspect of things. so, you know, it kind of speaks to the challenge we have with our very carefully thought out local rules. and then what happens with density bonus projects. but that being said, you know, i, i am in favor of the project. like i said, i would actually move to approve. second, commissioner williams, you got some more comments? yes, i do, yes i do. i just want to, you know, a word of caution. just because, you know, i think this sets a precedent.

demolishing sound rent controlled housing, and, you know, very i think a lot of people are very concerned about this, not just myself, and also, i want to lift up that in our, in our housing element. the last eight years, we overbuilt luxury housing by 170%. we underbuilt affordable housing. we only got to 34%. and here we go again, down this path, the good folks in the neighborhood said that a newer development was 50% occupied, that they haven't been able to sell. so, i mean, you know, it's like, you know, i get i get these these i get the state laws and i get where, folks are at with creating housing. but, you know, at some point we have to look at the

housing that we, we are creating and who who is it benefiting because it's not benefiting lower income residents. it's not benefiting, seniors. it's not benefiting a lot of the, the, the folks that actually need the housing. and so i would, i would just you know, i would just say a word of caution. i, i can see, developers and, you know, they're in they're in the business to make money. i understand that, but at the same time, you know, this is a city with working families that need to be able to stay here, and the impacts of a lot of this high end development, it's had impacts we can't, like, look away from that. just because, we want to build a bunch of housing that's, you know. so anyway, those are my comments. thank

you. commissioner mcgarry. i agree with all my fellow commissioners here, i did. i too visited the job site, maybe a week and a half ago, five. it's in considerable disrepair at the moment. so any improvement that can be done there? should be done pretty quick. five permanent units, basically will be 100% occupied. 505 permanent units, if they're deeded, which can only be a good thing going forward in a, in an area where basically, i don't believe there are too many, affordable units, construction is going to be a big challenge because the topography on that hill is basically terrible, the little street on the side is, very challenging for my little ford escape to get down there. so it will be difficult. but i am in favor of this project because, basically, we need these units,

the corner in question. is right now it's very close to blighted. i think it's heading down that direction, i also agree with the facade, the windows on that side that will that will be those windows will instantly be covered up if the neighbor next door decides that they want to take advantage and build themselves. but i don't believe the balcony will be impacted that much, because i did walk around and i kept that in mind. so that might be a little overhyped, also, the building across the road is not the prettiest building either, and it's just as high, if not highe. so i'm in favor of this project. commissioner moore, i have one more. i have one more question for mr. vettel, please, mr.

vettel, again, the height for me is not as much an issue as the amount of units we're trying to put into this building. my question is how will you assign the affordable units relative to location? is that a lottery, particularly we have several units in the below grade basement. and i'm concerned that those two units most likely would be immediately the ones that would be considered to be affordable. yeah, i think the planning staff can speak to the fact that these are these are considered inclusionary units, and so they will require compliance with the inclusionary procedures manual, meaning that there will be a negotiation with the planning staff, with mohcd and us as to the location of the five units within the building. we haven't determined where those locations are yet, and that will be part of the architectural addendum process. the. there is a mohcd has a

lottery of low income homeowners who are looking for a low income housing units. so they will people will be selected off those lottery to go into these units. we won't do that selection process for them. no. that part i know what part. perhaps i direct my question to miss vardy in the building itself, there are some units which are really not as wonderful as some of the others are, particularly because they are below grade, how are we? how is it done? would you explain that? sure thing. and we actually have a planning director bulletin that entirely is dedicated to basically this issue of how we, how we work with the sponsors. after the approval stage as they're working towards their permitting stage to place the units. and it's a combination. the high level is usually it's the lower two thirds of the building is the rules that they need to have an even distribution through the lower two thirds of the building. there needs to be proportionality of the size, the type, the bedroom count of units. so we don't let people choose only the one bedroom units and put them all at the

ground floor. there needs to be sort of this proportional equivalency throughout the building. and we do look at things like, is it a proper one bedroom or is it a nested one bedroom to your sort of earlier consideration? so those are all the factors that we look at and our staff and we have our one of our housing team members here, but we have dedicated staff who do this day in and day out. this is part of their core job is to work with developers at that stage to ensure that those are done properly. and that's also further reinforced by the mayor's office of housing and community development. their procedures manual, and that is cross-referenced within the code. so there's a lot of cross-referencing checks and balances to make sure that that■9's done in a very consistent, but also in a very equitable way in terms of those units. i'm glad to hear that. perhaps sometimes you could give us, aside from this meeting, some insights of how it's done, but i'm glad that there is an independent, overview of that particular aspect. thank you so much. thank you. commissioner moore. well, thank you for such a long conversation here and sharing all the comments. and i

do appreciate that the project sponsor did, it's getting a little bit not nitty gritty, but i do want to appreciate you send us your window details. something that i actually like to see, but, it's really, i wanted to, in my perspective, is that vibrancy to downtown is something that we all really need to champion. and bringing more housing to downtown and our union square in a time like thi, it's not too many people actually would like to take on, and it is a challenge. and to densify our city and an and enabling housing for all different types of income is much needed as well. i do understand to address that, i hope perhaps speaking of based on commissioner mcgarry's observations from now to

actually the building actually going to get built and have people really live there with all the fancy light fixtures and finishes that is proposed. i do want the project sponsor, the developer to be a better neighbors, to keep your sidewalk and whatever all the other things that have been brought up today. clean it up please, for now till then, it might have been six more years down the road, but i do appreciate the articulation to a otherwise fire require rated wall that is blank. and so i appreciate the architect's attempt to articulate it with fire rated glass, thank you very much, i think that we're ready to, open the floor for votes. indeed, commissioners, if there's no more deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to

approve this matter with conditions on that motion, commissioner campbell i commissioner mcgarry. i commissioner williams. nay. commissioner. brawn i. commissioner. imperial no. commissioner. moore, no. and commission. president so i so moved. commissioners. motion passes 4 to 3 with commissioners. williams imperial and moore voting against commissioners. item 11. excuse me. item ten has been continued to october 17th, placing us under your discretionary review calendar. we would like to take a quick break. five minutes. break five minutes. we're going to take okay. good afternoon and welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday, september 26th, 2020. for commissioners, we left off on your discretionary review calendar item 11, case number 2023, hyphen 006047 drp for the

property at 1657 through 1659 mason street. discretionary review, good afternoon, president sue and vice president moore. commissioners david winslow, staff architect, the item before you is a public initiated discretionary review of planning application number 2023 006047 to construct a 920, i'm sorry, 9239 square foot, three story, two unit residential building over an existing garage that is located in the required rear yard of the property at mason street. therefore, the project is seeking a variance which had been heard prior to this hearing and per planning code section 2278, zoning lots in rh districts may receive exceptions for density limits up to six units for corner lots subject to the new units entering into rental or regulatory rental

agreements with the city. this site is 45ft wide by 137.5ft deep, up sloping corner lot that contains an existing two unit, two story building over a basement, which is also set back over 90ft from mason street. the existing building is also a category a historic resource that was built in 1907. the doctor requesters beverly chan and roderick lewis, are residents of 1651 mason street. the adjacent property to the south, and are concerned that the proposed project will have outsized impacts on them and does not comply with residential design guidelines related to siting and massing of buildings to preserve light and air, as well as access to mid-block open space. specifically that the siting of this new construction

will box them in more than necessary. their proposed alternatives are to one shift the three story massing of the residence to closer to the western property line, and to reduce the stair and elevator. penthouse tower really to buy one story to date, the department has received neither letters in support or in opposition to the project. staff supports the goal of providing two additional housing units on this site to add to the housing stock. in a manner that does not disproportionately disadvantage neighbors and adheres to the principles of the residential design guidelines. the extreme topography on the block and contrasting scale of the adjacent 30 story high rise building to the immediate west of this site comprise reasonable considerations for the project location. the addition at this

project location, the adjacent neighbor and doctor requested to the south is located above the subject project site. due to the steep topography and the existing historic building on the subject, lot would also not be compromised by the proposed addition. however, since the proposed addition occupies the entire common lot line of the adjacent neighbors rear yard, it is reasonable to limit the new building to minimize boxing in their open space more than it already is. therefore, staff deems that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and recommends taking discretionary review and approving with the following modifications one. site, the building to abut the west property line by shifting the building massing to reduce the overall building height to the roof by at least three feet. three reduce the stair and elevator and lobby component to the main level of the upper unit. that is, three stories, not four. and four. remove the

roof parapet and provide a minimum height roof curb to also reduce the massing, as well as prohibiting a roof deck on the new building. although not proposed proactively, that would be something that could be obtained over the counter, and i think it would be prudent to restrict it at this point. the last condition would be, something that was brought up in the daca, which was about an existing deck on the existing building, contributing to invasion of privacy in our condition. there would be to add privacy screening between the uphill neighbor, the doctor request, and that existing roof deck. this concludes my presentation. thank you. very good. we should hear from the doctor requester. thank you very much, first i would like to make a quick correction. we actually would like to we agree with the

majority of what mr. winslow has stated, but we do we request further modification, not just a reduction of the stair elevator tower from 4 to 3 stories, but to eliminate it entirely and to create a courtyard between the existing historic building and the proposed new building. and i will start. my name is kelly melendez, and i represent the neighbors directly south of the proposed project. and i want to say to you up front that this project should have never been accepted by planning for review due to the lack of information provided by the applicants and the incredible inaccuracies of the documents. this project also should have never made it through the variance process when it can easily be made to comply to san francisco building code and residential design guidelines. however, since the checks and balances have failed so far, i am glad that we are here before the planning commission today, where our hope is that you will see the clear and glaring problems and reject the applicant's request for approval. the project's sponsor started this process. sorry we

put up sfgov. can we go to the overhead, please? the project sponsor started this process by misleading the neighbors during the pre-application meeting, telling them this was a done deal, only a formality and showing them drawings with a three story stair tower. but submitting drawings with a four story stair tower. this gross misrepresentation was then followed up with a submittal package. a submittal package for planning that for planning review, which had no indication of the neighboring building on any of the floor plans. nothing on the sections and nothing on the elevations. the most impacted neighbor was completely left off the documents and not considered during the planning review. then, when this project was pushed forward with the variance, the developer formalized their request to infill the entire rear yard from the back of the existing two story historic building all the way to the rear property line. this is the south neighbor's

current backyard, and this is what has been proposed. can you. sorry. this is their current backyard and this is what is being proposed. a complete obliteration of their access to light views and air from their backyard, their backyard, which is protected by planning code. all of this while the applicant stated in writing that the proposed addition would not block the neighbors, and when the same project could easily be accomplished in compliance with planning code and no variance even required. this project is proposed on a corner lot where a second building is allowed at the rear yard, as long as the courtyard between the two buildings is created to offset the lost rear yard and open space. the intent of the planning codes 134 h and 134 f is for the courtyard to enhance mid-block open space and preserve light and views for the

neighboring backyards. here is what the south neighbor's yard would look like. even if the developer built four stories, but created a 15 foot courtyard as required by the planning code. i cannot explain how this project has slipped through with so many unaddressed issues, but now is the time to set it right. a two unit building can exist on this site, meet the developer's needs, and simultaneously be respectful to the neighbors. it can also honor in the intent of the planning code. but first you must deny the variance and send this back to the drawing board. thank you. the owner would like to take the rest of my five minutes to say a short word. good afternoon. for over 60 years, mason street has been home to me and my family. 37 years right next to this proposed project, my deep roots fuel my serious concern about its impact. there are significant issues i'd like to

highlight. first, the developers claim there would be no impact on anyone's light and views. this is not true. a 40 foot high structure will box in my rear yard, affecting both my views and the natural light i currently enjoy. secondly, we were shown a three story elevator tower at the planning meeting. plans now show four stories. this inconsistency has eroded our trust. next they falsely claimed unanimous support for the pre-planning meeting as an attendee. i can confirm this is untrue. the meeting was informational, not for blanket approval. furthermore the renderings didn't clearly show how the project would affect neighboring properties, making it hard to understand its full impact. there are also questions of transparency. the owner told me the remodeling was for his son, which i've learned isn't true. the units are occupied by

tenants and i've never met his son. thank you ma'am, that is your time. but you do have a two minute rebuttal. okay. thank yo. okay. project sponsor, you have five minutes. go there's some visual aids. overhead, please. sfgovtv, you. good afternoon, commissioners and president seo, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. my name is elmer lynn, and i am the architect and

applicant for this project. i'm here to just give you a brief overview of the development process for the property at 1657 1659 mason street. from its initial design concept to where we stand today in 2024, the story of the project began in february 2021, when the design brief for the project was first devised. the goal from the outset was to craft a structure that not only met the needs of the future residents, but also honored the unique character and history of the north beach neighborhood from the early stages. the design team worked diligently to ensure that the building would blend harmoniously with the historic fabric of the area, and with the existing two story structure. and while i'm introducing modern standards, after the design brief was outlined, the project underwent a rigorous review process, including consultations and feedback with planning. throughout 20 2021 and 2022. there were multiple revisions

aimed at addressing concerns about maintaining the esthetic and architectural integrity of the neighborhood, as well as adhering to zoning regulations affecting the neighbors and surroundings, we started in february, february 2021. we had a may 2023. we finally had the neighbor notification and meeting process. we subsequently submitted two more revisions to planning. the beginning of this year and here we are today, for the variance, for the doctor hearing in 2023, we notified and held an outreach meeting with immediate, more indirect neighbors to answer questions and listen to concerns, as a result, the final proposal was submitted to the commission earlier this year. represents the culmination of three years of work collaboration with the agency, and careful planning in the 15 months of outreach meetings in the 15 months since the outreach meeting. we did not once receive a request to meet

by the neighbors regarding the project. beyond the two emails requesting dimensions and drawings, which we provided. however, today we find ourselves in a unique situation a neighbor located at the south property line and 25ft above the project site, is requesting substantive changes to our design to address concerns that are uniquely theirs and do not affect any of the other neighbors. chiefly, the owner has raised complaints about an existing roof deck, which is located more than 15ft from their building, far beyond the five foot setback typically required for decks and similar cases, and this is outlined in the current planning bulletin on decks, as well as the residential design guidelines. while we have engaged with this neighbor in good faith, their concerns do not align with the feedback we've received from other neighbors and with the broader considerations of the project. this approved roof deck complies with all the relative guidelines and is set back significantly further than what is normally required. we believe

that the current design represents a fair and balanced solution, and taking into account the needs of the neighborhood and the requirements of the planning code. code as a whole, so today we are here to seek planning approval for the addition. i believe the project has evolved significantly since its inception and now stands as an example of how we can balance the need for growth in our city, along with the preservation of our beloved neighborhoods. i'd like to extend my gratitude to the commission for consideration of the project, and i'm confident, if approved, it will serve as a positive addition to the north beach community. thank you. if that concludes project sponsors presentation, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. you'll each receive two minutes. sir. could you take down the board, sir? board. hello. my

name is john marks. i live at 840 green street, across the street. in 1986, we moved to 899 green street. initially, so i've been in the neighborhood for 38 years, the street has not changed in 38 years until this project came to notice. but i will say that in that 38 years and especially since 1994, the last 20 years living across the street from it, we look at sort of what might be referred to as a gaping hole in the neighborhood fabric, like a missing tooth. and this garage that they're building, the building on top of sort of calls out to want to have something there. and so my wife and i were both very excited, the quality of the building matches very closely with the quality of the existing building. and so we're very, very supportive of the idea of, of this infill project,

especially as it adds housing, to the city as well. and the only other last note, i am an architect. and have an office in san francisco. we do work in silicon valley generally, and i've one 230 some design awards internationally. so i speak with a little bit of background on it. i am excited to stop looking at the edge of retaining walls, which is what's at the existing site right now. so thank you for your time. come on up. yeah. if anybody wants to speak, please come up. please come forward. good afternoon. i'm also a neighbor on green street, directly across from the project. and i just want to share four quick points around my concerns about the project, when i went to the pre-application meeting, i was lied to and intentionally misled by the developer, mr. simon. he

told me that when the garage was built, the, it was part of a plan to add the other three floors above it. and that what they were doing was simply completing that plan. and in fact, all of the required infrastructure needed to support those additional floors was already built and already existed in the garage. and he was explicit in telling me that the existing garage structure would not be touched. and he told me that this was basically a done deal and discouraged me from participating in the process. when i tried to voice concerns, those were dismissed. and then later i found out that, in fact, none of those things were true. it was not a done deal, and that there was you know, a variance that they were asking for, second is during the first phase of the remodel on this project, of the existing two units, he was not a great neighbor. disrespectful selfish, as an example, he would repeatedly park in our driveway and block our driveway, even

though we asked him repeatedly to please stop doing that. it's just a minor example, but i think it speaks to his overall sort of approach and character of just really disregarding the neighbors and their needs and his account of what happened at the pre-application meeting i presented at the variance hearing is not true. and then finally he told me that this was for his family and a family compound. but it doesn't really feel like he's actually there to be a neighbor. and instead it's been, you know, not acting like a good neighbor and just asking for these exceptions. and it feels like he's we should have units there. but it feels like he's overbuilding on the site to maximize profit. thank you so much for your time. my name is jeff simon. i am this bad guy. so because i was not prepared to

talk. oh i'm sorry. are you the project sponsor? i want to respond to some of the accusations. if you're the project sponsor, you can respond during your rebuttal time. yes, i'm the project sponsor. you can respond during your rebuttal time, sir. oh, i didn't know. now is not the appropriate time. hello, my name is daniel. i also live on green, you know, i think a lot of these problems would would get resolved if there was just discussion. and if the building was just reduced to one story, as is being requested. so, you know, a certain number of neighbors have requested and attempted to discuss these concerns with mr. simon. we hope he will engage with us. you kno, i'm about to read some quotes that were spoken by mr. simon at the variance hearing and recorded on your website, except simon said, quote, the addition is only 3000ft!s, the project as

you know, is much larger than that, the additional living spaces is two units totaling over 6000ft!s, consisting of one large tiktok unit value $2.7 million, and the second one being over 3000ft!s, which would go for a unit value of about $5.1 million. reducing one story would not would not eliminate any units, since the second one is two stories. my neighbor beverly, she's been here. she's going to be affected adversely. she is providing affordable housing today, she, you know, for as low as $1,000 a month, so i, you know, i just would like to see us all be good neighbors and support one another, and so another quote here is we accommodate every request and question, that that was not true during the last, during the last, can you see in the overhead there? i'm not sure if you can see that, but during the last s.f, there was parking in the in the street. people in the

neighbor had to walk around the cars that they weren't constructing the projects with the proper protocols. so i think we can build this unit two units. i think it's great within the building code without variances. let's make the second unit like the first one. both you know, single story units. great big. they'll still be beautiful units, let's maintain the floor reductions as proposed. i just leave you with one last quote. just to show, you know, when beverly got petitions, simon said in response to this list of 20 people who signed the petition opposing the project, he said, quote, you know, yeah, you can get people to sign up for anything, even that the earth is flat, unquote. and you can check this is your time. i ask, is this respectful or is this dismissive? thank you. okay. last call for public comment. seeing none do your request or you have a two minute rebuttal. daca requester you have a two minute rebuttal. you're next. thank you very much. we the

neighbors are not opposed to development. it it is correct. this site does cry out for development, but it does not cry out for this development. this development is, from the rear of the existing historic structure all the way full site to the adjacent structure. it makes enormous sense, as proposed, to push it into the west corner where it has a big empty hole. it makes no sense to approve the variance for omitting a courtyard between the existing structure and the proposed that courtyard is in the planning code for a reason. it preserves the mid-block views and light, and it it eliminates what would be essentially a two story wall adjacent to their south south neighbor, eliminating the backyard views light and air for not just this, not just one person, but there are how many units in that? there are four units in that property. there are four units in that property,

and two of units which have access to two levels of the backyard, which are completely blocked off. if the project is built as proposed by the developer, can we have the overhead on again, you have it in your packet. it's a small in your packet. i would like you to please take another look. this is an accurate representation of the backyard current and the backyard proposed. thank you very much. okay project sponsor, now you have a two minute rebuttal. yeah. as i said, i have to respond to some of the inaccuracies we have here. an alternative reality created so many a i don't want to say, let's say inaccuracies. there is a claim here that our stair and elevator shaft is 1400ft!s. it's

really 290ft!s. there is a claim here. it's written. i mean, you can all read. it says like this. it says yet over 1400 square feet of lot area is devoted to the stair elevator, with a total of 5600ft!s. now, let me tell yu something. the whole edition is only 3000ft!s. we heard 6000. 9000 everything. it's only the whole lot of the garage is not even 1000ft!s. it's existing. we have pictures. why are these? i don't know the professionalism, but the same person that made this alternative reality had the guts to say that planning staff approved it improperly, unprofessionally. i don't know the words that we use. it's ridiculous. this is two years or

three years of design work by a team of my architect and planning. i saw the emails, 20 emails going back and forth a packet, and now to say in one week this was unprofessional. it was approved improperly. it's going too far now. talking about my misrepresentations a little bit history. when the tower was built in the 70s, 1970, the people that owned this property, the family allowed them to use the backyard. and at that time that same contractor built for them the garage with rebar and eight foot concrete walls designed for five story building. that is your time. well i think your time is the commission. want to hear the. if they want to hear more, they'll call you up for additional questions. okay? okay. thank yo.

commissioners with that that closes the public hearing. and this matter is now before you. commissioner brown yes, i would like to start with a few questions for staff, for architect david winslow, okay. so one of the modifications suggested, here is addressing the deck, adding privacy screening for the deck on the existing building. and i'm curious that deck already exists and i assume was already permitted. correct me if i'm wrong about that, so it's it seems unusual to revisit something that was already built under a different permit or a

different process. so would you mind just kind of clarifying for me how that deck is relevant to this approval? sure. i think i think it migrates over from the variance hearing. if i'm not incorrect, where the deck is part and parcel of the doctor requesters issue regarding just the overbuilding of the site with this project, as well as the deck that was properly permitted. i think the zoning administrator opined that perhaps that could be solved by simply providing a privacy screen. so it migrated into my recommendations as a whole for the project. i see, and i did see that, i know the deck didn't really come up during the discussion today. i did see in, some of the materials submitted that the doctor requester would prefer a removal of the deck and is opposed to privacy screening, i'm not taking a position on on a lot of the doctor matters at this moment, but i am kind of just processing and making sure

i'm understanding everything right now, okay. and then as far as the recommendation to move a lot of the building mass for the new addition to the western portion of the lot, basically the rear of this lot, does that remove the need for the variance? no, the variance is for encroachment into the rear yard. moving that, i believe it was 5ft or 7ft over. still renders an insufficient by code mid-block. well, the code allows a rear yard to be on corner lots to be to occupy the middle portion, but it would still have the dimensional requirements of 30% of the lot depth. so this would still be insufficient from the perspective of code required rear yard. and if the just hypothetically just exploring this, if the elevator and stair tower were removed and that opened up that mid-block open

space, are we at 30% there or is it still insufficient? yeah i believe it would still be insufficient. the dimensional requirement between the two buildings would be, according to my calculation, 41ft, three inches. it would still be 30% of the lot depth, which would be 41ft. this is significant. this would be significantly less than that. part of that reason is there's an existing building. it's set back 19 plus feet from its front property line. it extends deep. so a variance i believe would be still required given the current footprint of the proposal. okay. thank you for that, so i have a few questions for the project sponsor. either for any party from the project sponsor. but i am curious, first of all, maybe this is more a question for the architect, but why is the elevator and stair tower and lobby required? given the design

and configuration of the site. can i have the overhead? yeah, the stair is to provide a second means of egress from the upper floor of the addition. and the elevator is serving both buildings, both the existing building as well as the proposed addition. so it can't be fully integrated into the proposed addition in order to serve unless we have bridges or, you know, some sort of connecting structure. so trying to avoid that connecting structure, but also trying to play down the nature of the stair, the stair, and the, the elevator are designed in a way that is taking as much efficiency in that tiny little space. that space is less than 200ft!s. it's 197ft!s. and then on three floors, we've brought it up to the fourth story simply because we haven't

gone through a building review on this project. we haven't even begun a mechanical and electrical engineering on this building, simply because we're still the envelope is still at play. even the siting in this discussion is at play. however, there's going to be major mechanical equipment on that roof. and the second means of egress from the fourth story may very well be required, from the fourth story. so we're sort of having that stair tower go approximately to the same height as the addition, simply as a necessary precaution, as a sort of a placeholder for the inevitability that a stair from the second floor be required by the building department. the worst part would be for me to agree to all the all the planning considerations, and then having to come back and make a change in that, later on. furthermore the height of the building, while we would love to acquiesce and reduce the height of it, it's going to leave a bunch of the better roof mandate

from planning for in terms of provisions for solar panels. we have to provide that on this building. we also have to have ac units and ventilation units. that's all going to sit on that roof. and we've figured that the parapet would shield would visually shield all the equipment and all the unsightly ducting and pipes from the neighbor. now we can certainly consider reducing a foot or two, but really by reducing it 3 to 3ft or more, it's going to create an opportunity. it's going to create an opportunity for all that equipment to be exposed. when we get to designing all of that. so it's something to think about. i'm not just thinking about what this building looks like right now. i mean, we have another year's worth of work on this thing, and by the time we've made this into a code compliant structure with stairs with proper egress, with the minimum, again, elevator, as well as the equipment room for the elevator that's typically overhead of the

elevator shaft and all those things that you you're the commission is not not under their purview. we're going to be adding a lot more stuff to this building. and i'd like to be able to design this in a way where we don't need to come back and renegotiate the height of the building later on. i'm i'm again open to making some changes in the overall height. however, the fear is that once the technicalities become the technical requirements of the building become required applied to it. we're going to. we may need to revisit the overall bulk of the building. so okay. thank you for that. i appreciate the response, so i would like to hear a little more conversation among the other commissioners and their questions. and, perspective on this. you know, i would say in general, i'm in favor of shifting, the building massing, you know, to the west property line. it makes a lot of sense to me, the second recommendation about reducing

the height to the roof, through, you know, minor reduction in height per floor makes sense to me as well to reduce the impact on the neighboring properties. the tower that's used for the elevator, i don't really i'm still kind of considering that one, i don't know what it achieves. functionally, if it's three stories, but at the same time, that one in particular i think is an issue for, potentially shading or blocking the adjacent property. and, and then removing the roof parapet, i am a little concerned about removing the roof parapet. might have that issue of exposing the mechanicals. may i address the shifting of the siting of the structure? right now the structure is approximately six feet from a. what i want to say

is about a 50 or 60 story wall of concrete, which is the towers at 1750. taylor. we're at the literally at the back side of the tower, which gets literally no direct sunlight through 23 hours of the day. okay what's also nice is that it's, i think this is not like a debate right now. i think it should be letting commissioners, if they have questions, they shall ask, let me simply contain it in one sentence. the by moving the building towards the west here. all right. although i did see commissioner braun agree to the explanation. so that's why you may call him back up here. i think, commissioner braun, i get the gist of the issue, and maybe other commissioners will have questions, but thank you. okay. so, yeah, on the parapet, i'm still kind of considering that as far as prohibiting a roof deck on the new building, that seems reasonable to me, given the issues and privacy issues, the existing roof deck, i'm. i'm

kind of inclined to leave it as is. so but, i'm not fully settled on that one either. so. yes, that's where i'm at right now. clearly still thinking about this and interested to hear the rest of the conversation. thank you, commissioner williams. yes. did you say that you you're going to have an air conditioning unit on, on your roof? i just kind of but hardly ever see those in san francisco, but hvac. oh, a hvac okay, okay, just wanted to clarify something, mr. winslow. so you guys are recommending that, the overall building height be reduced by three feet? is that is that going to, accommodate the next door? neighbor? is that that three feet? will that help with, the problem they have with the view or the, with the light coming in to their rear, the rear of their

building, not to speak for the next door neighbor, but the overall goal here was to look at ways that this could be adjusted to improve a situation that fundamentally does box them in, and since the variance is being requested for this, we have a lot of discretion in how we recommend that it be improved. so all of these recommendations, whether it's shifting the massing further away adjacent to a higher building, which kind of makes sense, right? you have a high building and you want to build something that's you're asking for a variance and move it closer to that, as well as reducing the height in various ways by both the parapet as well as the floor to floor height and the stair core. we're all in attempt to make this, existing situation of the doctor requesters. rear yard access to open space and quite frankly view can be considered when

we're talking about a variance, improve an improved situation. and these by the way, these are measures that don't fundamentally in my opinion, alter the essence of this project. it doesn't alter the size of the units, it doesn't alter the functionality of the units, i have a question for the neighbor, the doctor requester, will this three feet, that's been recommended by, by planning to the overall height of the building. is that sufficient for, what you guys might think, what what you're looking for or what is most critical is the elevator stair tower. an elevator, which is not required at all on a two story building, not neither for the rear building or the front building. an elevator is not required and is a very abnormal addition to a such a small project. in addition, it is really confusing

that that the understanding of how single family homes, egress and how the stairs work, and that they're waiting till down the road to make those decisions. those decisions should be have been thought through already and on single. i do a lot of single family residential. we don't put any equipment on the roof. these are these are single family homes. there's a furnace in the garage. it's in the attic. it's in a closet. you ducked inside of the unit. there isn't all of this equipment on the roof. and if there is going to be an equipment on the roof, we have a whole nother problem, our biggest concern is the mid-block. the elevator stair tower, which is not required for this type of building. and a stair that could be internal to this two story unit, not external to the, to the to the building, which is also an odd design choice, it's that portion that we object to. they are

putting up a four story building directly in our backyard, and which is in any other condition, a protected area. it is mid-block and it is also written in the code section 134 h and section 134 f. you're more than welcome to put two buildings on a corner lot. we're happy to support that. you're more than welcome to put a four story building in the back of your lo, but abide by the written code, which says, if you're going to do that, take the lost rear yard area and put it in the middle of the lot. create a courtyard. and yes, it is a 30% recommended, but the code specifically says through the variance process that can be reduced to 15ft. 15ft is almost exactly what we have right now between the existing garage and the existing historic structure. it's an it seems like a no brainer, and it's confusing to me why it hasn't been designed this way, so yes, to answer your question,

lowering the four story building by one foot each, it is nice, but it's not the big impact that we're looking for. we're looking for the stair elevator tower to be eliminated or reduced to two stories, something that doesn't. so that it doesn't put up a large wall directly behind two units. backyard access. to answer your question, thank you. commissioner campbell, i have two questions, one is for the project sponsor to understand what the ramifications of lowering the stair and elevator would be for the project or removal. my second is to understand, when we say we want to index the project to the western side of the property line, what exactly are we saying is that just building on top of the existing garages, or is that pushing it even further, or is it just really preserving to are we trying to just achieve that mid-block opening? i just want

to understand which what's the footprint we're talking about. yeah. so the intent with that recommendation was to just further remove that existing massing, opening up an aperture, sufficient for the enjoyment of light, air and view for the adjacent neighbor, but you're open to take further. take that further if you'd like, but i mean, it's a six foot depending on which drawing you're looking at. it's 5 to 7ft of, you know, kind of space. it's going to be a dark canyon. and it's not necessarily, you know, atypical to have a lot line condition like that. for the purpose of this, it made sense. that would be an easy move to make from the standpoint of, addressing some of the concerns that the requester has brought as well through the variance. do you mind answering my first question? yes well, moving the building to the west lot line

would essentially preclude any ventilation windows for any rooms that abut that. right now we have a rear bedroom that we're trying to get some ventilation windows. now, again, we can't put windows that face the property line because they need to be fire rated. they can only be perpendicular. so we just have ventilation windows elimination of that six foot space between the tower and our building means that the ventilation, we won't be able to put any ventilation openings. so extending it to the west face also actually enlarges the building, because basically we've designed the addition squarely over the existing, garage. and so right now we've taken the courtesy by keeping the building set back from each property line, including multiple setbacks at the front or the green street side, something that the south neighbor will never see. we've set it back from the front of the garage, and we've set it

back at the uppermost storey. so this building is clearly behind the profile of the adjacent tower building, which, mind you again, is 50 to 70ft on the west. 50 to 70ft tall on the on our shared west property line. so it's quite a massive monster if you haven't been out there and everything, everything that we've proposed here is generally within the shadow of that existing tower. and then just specifically about the removal of the ramifications of removing the stair and elevator that is creating. we can we can look for a way to reduce the height of the stair tower, mind you, there's still an elevator equipment room that's required in certain amount of space over the top of an elevator. so while we take the we reduce one storey of access for the elevator again serving both buildings, we still need a certain amount of room, so i think a few feet maybe,

maybe, maybe doable. and again, i want to. can you put this on the overhead? i didn't get a chance to go through this. you can sort of see the south neighbors sixth story of her building is well over the project site. i mean, you're talking about and below that is not a bunch of windows and a bunch of bedrooms. it is, the grade. it is the rock outcrop that's underneath that six story. so even if we lower everything down below the height of the existing building, it doesn't really matter because you're just looking at rock and it doesn't interfere. furthermore, our revised elevation showing the, green street elevation of the proposed building shows that the six story of the neighborhood of the neighboring building is completely, it's not covered. the addition is to the right of the south neighbors building. so

i agree, while the existing deck railings that are four feet tall, as required by the building code do cover one minor window on the fifth story, the entire six story is unencumbered. it's not blocked at all. so i think boxing in is a little bit of an extreme description, you know? but in this case, we're talking about the backyard. correct? it's just the backyard. thank you, i have one more. oh they also have a bridge. they have a bridge that's actually higher than the floor level of the six story. so that's may i may i do some housekeeping here? i do understand the tension is heating up in this room, but we do need to respect the commissions. and only you can please refrain from speaking or yelling out from your chair, if

you do have something you wanted to speak, i think we will. there are a few more commissioners who would like to ask questions and precisely when an architect is answering a commissioner campbell's questions, i would appreciate the other side of the, the your i don't remember how do you address you, but i would i would appreciate you do not yell from your chair because it's a really disrespectful from both sides. okay, so please continue. okay. the one thing i want to put on the table is while i agree it's unusual to have an elevator in a building, this size, i do think from an inclusion and accessibility perspective, it is a it is a nice thing to be able to offer to our aging community, as well as those that have disabilities. so. thank you, commissioner campbell. commissioner moore, i have a quick question for

architect melendez. if you wouldn't mind coming up, commissioner campbell asked a few very probing questions. i would be interested in how you would answer them. i'm sorry. which questions? she just asked the, applicant's architect. two questions, and i was wondering. i saw you listening. how you would answer those questions. could you please repose those questions? i will ask commissioner campbell to exactly phrase what she asked. thank you. okay so i asked what would the ramifications of altering or removing the elevator and stair be for the project? and then i also asked about what was my second question. you ask about the necessity. oh, yes. when we say when we talk about, prioritizing the project to the western side of the site, i just wanted a little specificity

around what we're what we're saying exactly, maybe even to look at a site plan. and, you know, specify what we're talking about in terms of footprint of the project. yeah. the concept of pushing the building mass over to the western corner is that that their facade that faces the, the, the towers, has only one window at the very front. their, their, their design is such that the majority of the windows are on the front facade facing greene street, and then they have none on the rear, facing, facing the hillside, except for they do have a small bay bumpout, where they have windows facing front and back. but there is, but otherwise it is blank on the wall that is facing the towers. so pushing it over to the west really does not affect light and air. and even if they do remove that bay to push it tied up to it, the light and air can be accommodated for the front front greene street windows as well as from the back. because it is pulled away from the property line. there

are no fire fire rated window requirements, and it can even be used for the second means of egress. the second means of egress is actually in this type of construction, usually exiting through a window, not through a separate stair. they have a single stair which is what is required. a single stair and typically the. to answer your other question about removal of the elevator tower, i agree that it is true an elevator is an is a nicety, but it is not a requirement. so a four story not requirement is excessive. and then having. so that would be great. if they want to have an elevator to one of the units but not to all. and i understand, accessibility is would be wonderful, but 100% accessibility, seems like taking advantage of this situation and creating a very negative situation for the neighbor. the stairs for the stairs which wrap the elevator there is the top

unit is two stories and it is, confusing as to why that stair isn't internal to that unit. that unit has to leave their their top story, go into the lobby, wrap around the elevator to go down to their first floor, as opposed to having an internal stair. so it would make enormous sense to eliminate that fourth floor stop of the elevator and the fourth floor of the of the stairs to bring it internal to that upper unit. and our push to shift the mass towards the west is to create that courtyard, the courtyard that is in the planning code, in the design guidelines recommended and generally enforced as how to develop a corner lot, a corner lot with two separate buildings. so our our encouragement or our suggestion to push push it to the west is to create the full 15 foot width, which is the narrowest allowed through the variance process for a center

courtyard. okay if i may, as you are standing there, i have a few additional questions. i'm generally in support with department's, recommendation for doctor. the question i would ask you as a residential architect, would you typically build in as many, backstops as the applicant's architect was providing? relative to what i have to have to talk to fire. i have to talk to dbi. et cetera. et cetera. which indeed, in this particular case, creates some of the friction points that we are trying to eliminate. i understand, architect winslow, who has advised this commission for many years, being an experienced residential architect, and he's indeed presenting to us. he is advising this commission on modifications or conditions that we should be following. do you typically build in that many backstops in

order to avoid something that may occur later, or are you prepared when you design a building of what you really need to put into this design? the latter, generally we know all the dbi rules. we know all the fire department rules, we know the exiting rules, we know the height requirements. so when you put forth a planning application package, it's generally fairly clean. and in terms of the response that you get back later down the road in the addendum package, they're usually minor modifications. that research is typically done way before this. and then what is put forth before the planning department is a fairly well thought through actionable project. so it is confusing to me that there seems to be misunderstanding of this type of building. thank you very much for your response, mr. winslow, i have one remaining question for you, the request is

architect mentioned a particular move regarding a courtyard. could you please tell me how that is addressed in the, docto, could you reframe or rephrase what his, request was regarding that courtyard? could you pleas. architect melendez talked about a particular move to respect and maintain a courtyard. right. is that being addressed simply by eliminating the elevator plus stair? so let me start with the basis of my recommendation was, in fact, to enlarge the aperture or the courtyard, by moving the building west to the property line several feet, that enlarges that space between the existing and the proposed building, as well as lowering the height of the building and lowering the stair tower by lowering the

stair tower. elevator tower in my estimation, by a floor, it would bring that to about the height of the escarpment of the rock escarpment that borders the doctor requesters site. and i think that was the intention of you know, if you're going to ask for a variance and you're going to do this, then do it with doing no damage to the doctor requesters property. does that answer your question? yes, it does. okay, i'm going to make a motion for this commission to take doctor and respect the staff's recommendations with the interpretation that you just explained to us. second. if there's nothing further commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with staff modifications on that motion. commissioner campbell i commissioner mcgarry i commissioner williams i

commissioner braun. no. commissioner imperial i. commissioner moore and commissioner. president. so i so move commissioners motion passes 6 to 1 with commissioner braun voting against commissioners. that will place us on the final item on your agenda today. number kill the project. thank you very much. number 12. sir. you're out of order. the projec, sir, you were out of order. yes, i know, item 12, case number 2021. hyphen 004443 drp. hyphen zero two, for the property at 1229 45th avenue. this is a discretionary review. good afternoon. misspoken staff needs to introduce the project first. oh, okay. sorry yeah. okay. good afternoon, president. so, vice president, more commissioners, david winslow, staff architect. again, the item before you is a public initiated request for two

public initiated requests for discretionary review of building permit application number 2020 106 22 dot 2952 to demolish an existing one story, two car garage located at the front of the property and construct a new 2600 square foot, four story accessory dwelling unit with one car garage in the front portion of the lot. this project is seeking approval through the local adu program. the city planning code 207.1, and is within the buildable area, but is requesting a waiver from the density limitations of rh two zoning. as the lot is approximately 25ft wide by 120ft deep, and contains an existing two unit building in the rear portion of the lot that building is a category a, existing historic resource built in 1903. there are two requesters, one

the first, eileen bogan, on behalf of the sunset park side. education and action committee, who is concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the priority policy to maintain the character of the neighborhood, would be a de facto spot zoning to rh three and would not comply with the intent of accessory dwelling units and would provide two little parking. their proposed alternative is to replace the two car garage in kind, limit the height of the proposed adu to three stories, add a deed restriction to require affordability for 80% to 100% ami rental tenants, as well as adding a deed restriction to prohibit the use of the new residential building as a short term rental. the second er requester, peter gross of 1233 45th avenue, the neighbor to the immediate south of the proposed project, is concerned that treating and approving this project as an adu is invalid

because the proposed unit is not, as the law requires, accessory to the existing dwelling unit, the effect, if not the purpose of presenting this as an adu is to circumvent the process of substance that would otherwise apply to residential construction. to date, the department has received seven letters in opposition and one letter in support of the project. staff supports the project as it provides an additional family sized unit to the city's housing stock. it is code complying and meets the residential design guidelines. the proposed adu is shallower than both adjacent neighbors in the rear, and provides a 30 foot deep mid-block yard between the existing rear building. the fourth floor like is also set back 11ft from the front facade to moderate the scale of buildings at the front, this project was subject to a 30 day notification, but furthermore, there is no definition or specified maximum building size

for an accessory dwelling unit in our local program, in response to the definition of accessory on site parking is not required by the planning code per our local adu program, the owner of the property must enter into a costa-hawkins agreement. if the zoning administrator grants the waivers and the lot contains a rental unit at the time of the application. what this means is the agreement subjects the adu to rent contro. the only waiver requested for this project is for density. the owner of the property must also record a deed restriction that includes, but is not limited to, restricting the sale of the adu from the primary dwelling and prohibits short term rentals. additionally, chapter 41 of the administrative code prohibits accessory dwelling units from being used for short term rental residential rental projects. therefore, staff deems that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking

discretionary review and approving. thank you. thank you, mr. winslow. we should hear from the first requester. you have five minutes. sfgovtv. can i have the overhead, please? thank you. eileen bogan with speak sunset parkside. education and action committee speak is a 500 and 1c3 incorporated in 1970. on the overhead is the cover of the state's housing and community development adu handbook. this is a screenshot from wikipedia on adus, this is a screenshot from the american planning association on adus. the apa text states, and i quote an accessory dwelling unit. adu is smaller and independent residential dwelling unit

located on the same lot as the standalone single family home, internal, attached and detached adus all have the potential to increase housing affordability. the key words are smaller and affordability. since the adus are smaller than the primary residence and on the same lot, the concept is affordable by design. the proposed project is the exact opposite. each duplex unit in the rear is of the lot is 400ft!s, the proposed adu is 2615ft!s, and the proposed adu s roughly twice the size of most single family homes in the neighborhood. a 2615ft!s foot building is more consistent with a mega mansion than an adu, the proposed project could be seen as spot zoning and de facto changing the zoning from march 2nd to r3. the scale and massing

is inconsistent with the 1903 historic structure currently on the lot is inconsistent with the current block face and inconsistent with the neighborhood as a whole. in in its indicative of gentrification pressures now facing the west side, the following are two images of the current state of the fair, which is eligible for california register of historic places under criteria criteria three. architecture. as stated in the department's analysis. another photo our realtor.com states the property was sold in 2015 for $650,000. the city struck, structure. website lists the development score of 100 out of 100, with an estimated

untapped value of 6 million. jesus. from the property information map, or pim on this one states that the environmental review has been going on for over two years. also, from the pim at the time of the 311 notice was issued, the project had a status of on hold since december 19th, 2023 staff was unable to explain this, and the on hold date was manually changed to match the date of the first doctor, to repeat the modifications requested are reduced. the height from four stories to three stories include two off site, off street parking spaces, not just the one. maintain affordability on the adu with a condition that rental not exceed 80 to 100% of area median income or ami codify the condition that

no part of the adu can be used for short term rentals, even though this is part of the local adu program. thank you. thank you. that concludes your presentation. we should hear from the second requester. good afternoon. my name is the reverend margo campbell gross, and i'm here instead of my husband who is unable to attend. he sent a text to each of you which i believe you received, but if you don't mind, i'd like to read it to make sure that you you understand what his and my point of view is. treating and approving the project as an adu is invalid because the purpose the proposed unit is not, as the law requires, accessory to the existing dwelling unit. the effect, if not the purpose, of presenting this as an adu is to circumvent requirements of

process and substance that otherwise might apply to residential construction. when i raised the issue with the planning department, its response from cut boat, cut boat and on june the 28th was simply this the planning code definition does not specify a limit or threshold of accessory, and the project has been deemed complete by pc section 207.1. in fact, under both a, the accepted english language meaning of accessory two and b, the accepted meaning of accessory dwelling unit, the proposed construction is not an adu. thus, as the dictionary tells u, one thing is accessory to another when it's subordinate to it. this is reflected in the accepted meaning of adu. chatgpt defines an accessory dwelling unit, referring to a secondary

residential space on the same property as a dwelling. primary dwelling unit. this unit is supplementary and subordinate to the main dwelling. as i say, the planning department has offered no basis for asserting that the phrase accessory two means something different in the san francisco planning code. moreover, not only is the proportion purportedly primary structure here much smaller, but it is unoccupied and unoccupiable as a visual inspection inside and out discloses extensive, extensive work would be required to make the two units code compliant and livable instead of supplementing and supporting the existing structure, the proposed project undermines it. thus, a the only available avenue for material coming and going in the extensive work required would be a three foot wide covered walkway in the proposed building, and the proposed structure eliminates the two off

street parking spaces that exist and have existed until now, leaving it with none. speaking for myself, i completely support my husband's contention that this is not an adu. an adu is a subsidiary to a dwelling that is already there, and the 1903 or 1904 building that is there is completely unlivable for the last 14 years or so. the lower unit has been unoccupied. when it was occupied. and we've lived next door to this one, two, two, nine since 1997. we bought our house, which is the same date in 1997. the lower unit was lived in for a few years and then abandoned because it flooded frequently. i don't believe it's a legal unit and the sewage was constantly backing up. it was a horrible mess and since about 14 years nobody has lived in there.

the top unit where our friend and neighbor kate wall lived until she died a year ago, had no heat for past several years, according to kate waugh, the outside drains leaked gushing water, waste water down the side of the house. the sewage backed up and flooded our neighbor to the west's yard and that was a frequent problem. mildew and mold covered the walls. the unit was infested with mice, rats, insects and raccoons nested under the porch. the broken off downspouts from gutter broken gutters and broken windows. and she lived in this in great distress until she died. i think it was october last year. the plan is for a building to be on our north property line to 24in from our north facing windows, so our dining room will be

completely dark with a four story building 24in away from our windows on the north side. and this building is not congruent with public policy priorities, which stress affordable housing in san francisco. we support affordable housing. we would like to see multiple units of lower income people living next door to us, but not a four story, one family house. thank you. thank you. project sponsor. you have ten minutes. can i get the computer on? sfgov. can we go to the computer? okay good afternoon. commissioners toby morris and morris architects representing the project sponsor, mr. steve porter. project background. this project consists of removing an

existing dilapidated two car garage at the front of the lot in this outer sunset lot and replacing it with a new single family home while preserving the existing two flats at the rear. speak louder please. sorry to by preserving the two flats at the rear to be renovated under separate permit. shown here are a section and proposed site plan through the existing conditions and improvements with the existing structure on the left and yellow and the new adu on the right in pink and the open space between them, equivalent to the 25% required open space between two structures on a lot. in this case 30ft. the lot is zoned r2 40 x, and while mandelman fourplex legislation would allow for dwelling units in this location, nonetheless, this application proceeded that legislation and hence we're using the local adu program. section 207.1, to increase density and add a single family

single dwelling unit to san francisco's housing stock. our proposed new structure will, while taller than the adjacent neighbors, presents a three story edwardian shingled south facade, which you can see in the lower image, consistent with many of the beach oriented homes in the neighborhood and on this block. face it also sets the top floor back from the side to subordinate its presence per the residential design guidelines and best practices. despite current law and hcd's determination that projects of two units or more be streamlined, ministerial approval. nonetheless, local adus were excluded from this benefit, so this project went through the typical neighborhood noticing requirements of pre-ap community meeting 311 notice. and now this these doctors before you. so there are two doctors on the project and my order is opposite of what was

just presented now. but so i'm going to start with mr. gross. the doctor request for his objections focus on one claim that a proposal does not meet his definition of an adu. and when complaint that we are circumventing planning department requirements of process and substance. otherwise applicable to other residential projects. his logic that the proposed structure cannot possibly be an adu, despite full review by planning department staff, housing specialists and the wsa for compliance with section 207.1, simply because the planning code lacks a definition of the words accessory to is false and circular. the planning department defines adus and definitions as being a dwelling unit, meeting the requirements of section 207.1, which is also

accessory to at least one other dwelling unit on the same lot, which indeed we have. and it goes on to clarify that a detached adu shall not share structural walls with the primary structure on the lot, which we do not. the adu definition being established then section 207.1 of the planning code spells out the specific conditions for approval of a local program adu not a state program. a local program adu a detached adu, it says, shall be constructed entirely within the buildable area of an existing lot which this proposed structure does. no part of the structure is forward of the front setback higher than the height limit, nor does it extend into the required open space between the buildings on the lot. no variances are needed, and the proposed proposal maintains conformity of the existing structure at the rear in terms of its compliance with dwelling unit exposure and open space planning code section 207.

c4 then establishes that such an adu is entitled to a waiver of density as approved by the zoning administrator's action memo, which we have on this project. as to the applicant's objections to process this adu application certainly has not circumvented any process. we've had the community application meeting the 311 notice, and now it's enjoying discretionary review by this commission. this adu has been appropriately reviewed and should be supporte. mrs. vokins, doctor, the dear applicant, balkan's objections to the project focus on affordability, size and height, parking, whether the increased density of the lot should be considered, spot zoning, and whether the building will be used for short term rental. i'll speak to each of these in turn.

affordability. the proposed adu is designed as a family home. it has three bedrooms and a ground floor bonus space suitable for elderly parents or an au pair. while this 2600 square foot home, inclusive of the garage, will not be affordable in itself, the program preserves the existing two affordable flats in the site, providing them adequate exposure, open space and access. each modest 680 square foot, two bedroom, one bath flat is rent controlled and will be renovated under separate permit, preserving inherently affordable housing. size and height. the applicant claims that this adu will be a monster home. i find such labels inflammatory and subjective, increasing the density on a small lot while honoring all setbacks and providing mid-block open space by definition, requires a compact and vertical

structure. as proposed, the monster home label also is irrelevant. this is the project that the sponsor wants to build. it's code compliant. it meets the dictates of the regs. it's tastefully designed, and it adds another unit to san francisco's housing stock. i say in our current situation, what's not to like parking the applicant would like to see more parking on the lot. the project sponsor and the city would like to see more housing. we make our choices. ours is to provide housing. spot zoning. the applicant considers three units on an r-2 spot zoning. while much has changed in the last few years, the applicant should become familiar with local and state law. again, this is local law, not state. adus have been legal and encouraged for years. section 207.1 codifies that and provides

for detached new construction adus under the local program. as mentioned earlier, now, fortunately, with the family and senior housing opportunity and the mandelman fourplex legislation, the city indeed encourages up to four units on a lot like this short term rentals. the project sponsor has no intent to rent the proposed adu for short term rentals. this is a family unit, and it's intended to serve a family. and closing the project will increase density and do its small part. i understand one unit to build more housing for san franciscans. so in closing, we ask the commission to affirm the stated review of the planning department of this code complying and sensitive design project and approve it as it is. thank you. thank you. with that, we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this

matter. you'll each receive two minutes. good afternoon. can you hear me? okay wow. you do this every thursday. hats off to you, my name is michael lobo. i live directly across the street from the proposed project and across the street from margo and her husband, peter at 1232 45th avenue. lived there since 1999, when the house was built. we raised our daughter and our son there, and we currently still have our daughter and our son there. one is developmentally disabled, the other with her partner and two children are in a temporary situation. so my point in mentioning that is we're as much committed to this neighborhood in 2024 as we were 25 years ago when we moved in love. the neighborhood. we're also in favor of improvements and building new housing, and

we've enjoyed and seen several 4 or 5 actually on the block in the 25 years we've been there. this isn't one of those, and it isn't one of those, in my opinion, for two reasons already raised. i just want to emphasize them. one, if you really believe that the accessory development unit code and intent was for a project like this, then you're more cynical than i'm willing to give you credit for. it doesn't. this is the building in the back is a dump. at the very least, require the builder to present an acceptable plan to bring that property back online and make it so you can qualify. and accessory development unit. they really intend to do that. do that first. secondly, it is also a mockery of any reasonable

public policy around affordable housing. we monitor what our property is worth. we're in a condo, 18 1800 square foot. this would be well in excess of that, probably 1.8 to 2 million not affordable. thank you. don't make me get this for you. yeah we need to move this as well. excuse me. thank you. thank you. comfy? yeah. oops. hang on. hello? oh, can you hear me? okay, so i also live in the neighborhood. not on the same street. i live around the corne. so the back of my building. my name is caroline strong, and i live on lincoln way. the back of my building. and i have decks and bedrooms out the back. look straight onto the side of the

two unit building that is currently a dump out the back, and that's putting it politely, and i was glad to hear that there is a plan to renovate that, because originally plans were submitted several years ago to renovate that building in the back of the shack, back into two habitable apartments. and i'd really like to see that happen because it's just awful. at the moment, and yeah, i'd like to just support what everybody else says because i don't really have anything in addition, i think that should be done first so that that building is then habitable and is two apartments, which would hopefully be affordable, would be under rent control because of its age. and that's what we want to see in the city, and that's what we want to see in our neighborhood. and to one of miss campbell's points earlier, disabled people and elderly people, we can't afford to live in nice, big, expensive buildings like they're going to build at the front, but we could afford to live in little apartment in the back. that would be under rent control otherwise. you know, we can't

live in the city, the building. and then you could build an accessory unit because you'd have a property that could be lived in, that could then have a property accessible to it. and now i don't know if that's 2600ft!s. i read your website. there seem to be all sorts of restrictions on adu, none of which this meet, but i think i'm just not very knowledgeable about it. you know, there's height restrictions, square foot restrictions, setback restrictions, none of which this building in the front, the 2600ft one comply with. so i'm just not understanding that i rest my case. thank you. hi george, i'm commenting on this because i care about residential flats and this is a flat story. this project is extraordinary and exceptional and the commission must take doctor for example, the view corridor needs to be retained for this project.

the historic cottage, whatever conditions it is historic on the rear can be seen from the public right of way. see this photo overhead, please. at the time of sale in 2015, may i have the overhead? there it is. you see it back there right there. that's the cottage. i'll give this to you in a minute, additionally, this tree is now gone behind the garage. the view corridor is required to be maintained for this a-rated historic project. as the commission has precedent to follow. this is an objective standard. what is the recent occupancy of the two flats in the historic cottage? from the photos, it looks like it's been occupied in recent years. see the air from 2022, pages 18 to 21. they are similar to the photos from the 2015 sale. and you heard that from the neighbors. hopefully this cottage will be preserved if it happens to be knocked down, what would be the status of the adu? would that change as an adu? can

the commission ensure that it won't be knocked down by additional language to the nsr for the adu, regardless of a permit coming by taking doctor, the commission can meet the requirements of objective standards by removing the fourth floor and directing the owners to reconfigure the interior space. the interior square footage allows for three bedrooms on the third floor. there's a bonus room behind the garage, which has space for an office. the adu doesn't require a garage. there is more square footage. there available for living space. this adu is two blocks from the n-judah. maintain the curb cuts for parking. if you desire. the two car garages for the historic cottage, not the adu. because of everything said and the comments submitted by me and others, this project is extraordinary, exceptional and the commission must use their powers under the charter. thank you and take your time to address this issue. and if i may, miss judith, that is your time. i just want to give them this. is that okay? yes.

that is. just leave it right there and then there's something on the back, and that's my time. thank you. okay, last call for public comment. seeing none. doctor request first doctor request. you have a two minute rebuttal. excuse me. eileen bogan will speak, the project sponsor has stated that this structure is the most consistent with the neighborhood that is inaccurate. the photo of the house to the north is more consistent with the neighborhood. most houses in the neighborhood are starter homes. one floor above garage. they are not four floors, most of the square footage in the neighborhood is half that size. it's, definitely not 2600. it's in the 11 to 12 to 1300 range. so the adu is actually double the size of most houses in this neighborhood, now, the project

sponsor made the statement that the adu itself is not affordable, but the duplex units are, which is questionable, that the project sponsor says that the term monster home is inflammatory. i have been at this commission many times when that state that term has been used, it has never been described as inflammatory. and at last week's meeting, commission hearing on 740, sanchez was the term mega mansion. so maybe mega mansion is not as inflammatory as monster mansion, the s there has been a number of legislative, changes both in the city and at the state. i personally have followed that. and yes, we are aware of the mandelman fourplex and melgar as as well as the

engardio sud. however, this project is inconsistent with the most common definition of an adu. whether it's the american planning association, whether it's the state department of housing and community development, it is always smaller than the primary residence. thank you. second request you have a two minute rebuttal. this is the first time that we have heard for several years that the intent is to replace or to renovate the back cottage, how that back cottage could be renovated if this building is built beforehand on the street, we have no idea because there will be this narrow three foot wide breezeway which is contained in the body of the house. how do you get building materials through a

three foot wide breezeway to renovate a house at the back? maybe it'll have to be helicoptered in. i don't know. the other thing that we really object to with this current plan is that it is going to be built. it's planning to be built up against our property line, our dining room windows in our 1904 house, a historic house look out on the will be looking out on the bottom of this four foot story house with with just 24in, it will be pitch black in our dining room and our house is beautiful. we renovated it when we bought it in 1997, and it really is, an incredible shame to think of this ugly house being built right so close and blocking off the possibility of renovating the cottage in the back, the same date as our house. thank you for hearing our concerns. i appreciate it. project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal. thank you. i

just want to underline again this is a local adu, and the code is well set out in san francisco. so i'm not sure what the relevance of state law is in this case, yes. our intent is to build this building. although the, phasing of the renovations at the back could, we could get we could secure permit for this and we could phase that work as well, subsequent or prior, all of that sort of open. the project sponsor wants to focus on getting this adu approved and then also look at the renovation. and any rate, those are bonafide dwelling units. i agree, they're in disarray, right now, but they are on the three r report and in the pim and they're they are legit, the

building from a historical standpoint is a contributor to historic district. it's not an individual resource. and that's why the planning department felt it was appropriate or acceptable to have the adu in front of it. scale the block face has two and three story structures. in a world in which we're trying to build more housing, there should be some openness. i would think, to a 40 foot building and a 40 foot zone, i think that's it. thank you. okay. thank you. with that, commissioners, that concludes the public hearing portion. and this matter is now before you. commissioner imperial, first, my question. i'm not sure if, mr. winslow can

answer this because, in the previous in the past, we've seen projects where there are, a couple of adus, actually, and, and that, that used the local adu program. however, in this project that i'm seeing is that there is a garage, is that something that is in the local adu program, part of the requirement or is your question that is a garage a requirement of a local adu. yeah no, no. parking universally is an accessory and it's not required in any zoning district that i'm aware of anymore. got it. okay and are you aware and i saw in the packet that the zoning administrator, approved the, approved or waived the density requirement, are you aware of what's the reasoning of waiving

the density requirement for the for this adu. so i'm not sure that the zoning administrator has completed the waiver, but that is the request for waiving of density. so for example, when you have an r-2 zoning district, two units are allowed by right in the code, the adu ordinance and subsequent ordinances such as the mandelman ordinance, enable or allow higher densities in those underlying districts. so there's a mechanism in place for allowing that to happen. and that's kind of a through a waiver process, so the only action from zoning administrator's perspective on this would be to say there's two units on the site by the three-i report, legitimately, they're proposing a third one through the adu program, which would require waiving the underlying zoning requirement of two units. okay thank you, i have a question to the project sponsor.

what's the logic of having the adu permits first, then the rear, structure? so they, as was pointed out by the requesters, the unit in the back was occupied when we started this project, and it was occupied by a disabled individual. and the project sponsor committed to her, not to change her home such that she would have to move out. that when he's looking at the property and trying to make it economically viable, that's why he said, okay, let's focus on the adu first. as it turns out, she has passed. and so that does certainly open up the possibility to renovate that structure now. and it is true that the downstairs unit, as far as i could tell, was not

habitable the way it is today. but there are two legal units. okay and in terms of the rear structure, has there been has there been any plans that what kind of, how many units is there going to be? how many floor? i mean, has there been any. so so, everything that we've done with the application that's before you was intent was with the intent of preserving that building. so we provide open space for that building. we provide interior block, rear yard equivalent. we provide access which the san francisco fire department allows to pass under a building to an accessory structure in the back. so everything and we understand that it is, historically significant as a contributor. so we have no intent to demolish that building. and we haven't

been able to renovate it until recently. so that's the intent. fix it up, okay. fix it up. and okay, their rent controlled units. okay. and just to address that, there is this zoning administrator's memo that basically creates that waiver of density. and that's part of the record renovating it or just looking into the through structures, the adu and then the rear structure, which will go first in terms of any, any actions. are there going to be the renovation that comes first or the building of the adu will come first? yeah. so no application has been submitted on the rear structure, i'm expressing intent, but i don't know exactly how this is going to play out. thank you, the way i see this and i'm, you know,

would like to hear what other commissioners would see into this. i again, in the previous hearings that we've had when it comes, you know, comes to the local adu, that's something that i also encourage is to use the local adu program. however, i've never seen an adu where there is a garage. and so i'm kind of leaning into removing the garage, in that sense. and i'd like to hear what other people think, and i also there's the discretionary review also or requester is also in terms of the, the i think the, the fourth floor to remove, so i'm worried about the intensity of this project as a, as an adu unit, i've never seen an ad unit, you know, that is a three bedroom

adu usually a studio or one bedroom, and that's what i, you know, that's what i, you know, the commission has kind of like, looked into it, but this is a three bedroom adu. and then there's also a garage. so i'm. yeah, i think i don't think so. we're in deliberation process at this point. commissioner brown. first of all, i'm glad that the questions have already been addressed about the plans to renovate the rear units. they look like. yeah, they look very uninhabitable right now. and i definitely don't want to lose those, those units. nor is there a legal or. it's a very challenging legal pathway to make that happen. so, yes, i'm glad to hear that they will be renovated. my take on this is that, you know, it is an unusual

kind of situation the size of the adu and, you know, however, in looking at all the legal, regulatory and design guidelines, interpretations that exist, the analysis by staff, i don't see a reason that this doesn't qualify as an accessory dwelling unit under our code, and under the program that we have, the local program, as far as the design of the building itself, you know, i think the step back at the topmost floor, the fourth floor of it is really helpful with mitigating the appearance of the mass of the building at the street, it is true there's not a lot of four story buildings in this street. and looking around, there's maybe 1 or 2 on this block, and, and in those cases, they have also have setbacks. step backs. excuse me? step backs that make it the visual impact of that fourth floor, minimal or even probably very hard to see from

the street. and as far as the question about the garage, i that was an interesting point about the garage in the adu, although there's already some desire to maintain parking. that's been being raised by the discretionary review requesters and i. so i think maybe having the smaller garage is sort of a middle pathway between those two kinds of positions on this, and i will say just stepping back. well, actually, i should address the windows and i, i am sympathetic to the windows on the, you know, this will be on the lot line in looking at whether it's an exceptional, extraordinary circumstance. i'm sorry to say, it's a condition that is very common across the city having lot line buildings built. it's why we don't have windows that are well, if there are windows that are actually at

the line itself, they have to be covered up when a new building goes in or if they, you know, more typically there's a light well or the windows are pulled back a little bit from the property line, as appears to be the case here. and that's entirely in anticipation of the possibility that that a new neighboring building will get built. and so i, i am sympathetic to that. but i it's a common condition across the city, as far as the, the overall situation that emerges from this, of having the three units on the site and having the building in front and then the existing building in the rear, you know, i think to no, no, two situations are exactly the same. but i think to my own home actually, and, you know, it's the rear building. the cottage i rent is in the rear of the lot, built in 1880 to 1890, and i would have hated for the duplex, in that case, a duplex built at the front of the lot around early 20th century to have not been able to move forward, it's a very similar situation with a small corridor going back to the rear of the lot, it has worked very well. the building, the rear building has been

maintained and, you know, renovated. and, it's been, you know, pretty successful. this arrangement since 1905, 1910. so, you know, it's i know that this this can work. it's not exactly the same thing, but i know that this kind of configuration can work pretty well, and so i'm actually going to make a motion, we'll see if it is supported. but a motion to not take discretionary review and to approve the project. thank you. commissioner brown. commissioner williams, is there a second on the motion or no. oh it's a second. okay but we would like to, honor other commissioners comments before we take a vote. so commissioner williams yeah. thank you. this does not look like an adu to me, and i'm just, you know, just, you know, trying to wrap my head around, this adu and, i mean,

i've seen i haven't been on the commission for a long time, but, i have been a builder here in the city for a long time. i mean, for long enough to see this is like. this is to me when i look at this. this is a single family dwelling, and so, like, i'm just trying to figure out what the ramifications are if we, if we start saying this is an adu, a structure like this. what what what is that going to do for the future of people having similar situations like this and building these, building these houses. but but what i want to what i want to like, understand is what's the difference between the process of building a single family home on on this lot and an adu. why? what's the difference there?

yes, yes. mr. winslow. yeah, i'm the only one here. well, the adu program is one of many tools in the toolbox that have been implemented to increase the density on on zoning lots. and so an adu has some limited definitions in our local program, but it's currently is an accessory to another unit on the lot. mainly they go together as a unit, even if they're in separate structures. so in a short answer to your question, there's multiple ways of getting additional density. there's two units there. now it's allowed by r2 zoning. there's a fourplex legislation that would enable four units. who knows what's coming down the pike. there's a rezoning effort on the west side that might enable six or more units, not to let any cats out of the bag. we all know that something's going on, right? we know we need to densify the city

the accessory dwelling unit program, both local and state, were attempts to utilize valuable land that we have in order to densify our city and provide housing. the fact that it's a certain size in a buildable area doesn't. there's no definition that says, oh, it has to be only 850ft!s. that's a state program. local program doesn't specify that. so in a way, this is just an inversion, right? somebody could have built this building by right. however many years ago called it the single family residence, and then come back and put that structure in the back and called that an adu. so i don't know if that helps answer your question. yes, but it does. it does. it's about density, not labels. and sizes, at least at the local program. they, you know, based on based on it's in our r2 or r2. yeah they wouldn't be able to build another. it has to be

an adu. right. or they wouldn't be able to build another structure on the property. currently there's a program through the mandelman legislation in section 207.1. yeah thanks. that would enable for units to be built on this lot. okay. so there is a way there is a pathway to build more density on this property and not take not not label it as an adu. right. but as the project sponsor indicated, i think they applied before that was a finalized piece of legislation. the before the fourplex legislation went into effect, they were well on their way to saying, look, what are we going to do with this, you know, so vacant portion of the front, buildable portion of the lot, right. so, so but they can if this wasn't to pass today, they, they they could go back and do four units. yeah. right. okay, okay. just i just wanted to

clear that up and kind of just and maybe more. i'm not sure. four units plus an adu. yeah. i'm right. i'm also concerned with with the units in the back. i mean they look inhabitable. and i'm wondering if i don't know if this is a question for, for you, but did anyone go back there. did they. did they did planning or is there, is there a mechanism to go back and see if something is actually livable? or is this like a condemned property because it looked condemnable to me. so i'm just i'm just wondering like what? you know, what's going on there. yeah. i don't know that anybody did, nor would be required typically. you know, we're looking at the project in front of us and not necessarily ascertaining the livability of, the existing condition. what we do recognize is that there are two legal units on the site, okay. we don't opine on the

condition or the livability by site inspections or other kind of things. so i was just wondering, because it looked to me like it was like in disrepair. and i was, you know. yeah, it it was really good. well, well, observation commissioner williams, and let's move back to commissioner campbell and apologies. i, my contact lens was a little blurry for the. that's okay, i, i actually really agree with what commissioner braun reflected on earlier. and thank you, mr. winslow, for that added perspective. i think it it does feel like given, you know, additional legislation, this kind of density is inevitable, and so, so generally, i'm, i'm, i'm in favor. i do agree it does not seem like an adu in the way we think about it, but we are we can't redefine that code here from the bench. it's what's it's

what's defined already for us, so i do want to address the concern about constructability of the any future renovations that might be done in the rear yard. i will say generally in san francisco, it's not uncommon to have tradesmen alley that are part of victorian houses. i have one in my own home. it is about three feet wide, we've brought a lot of materials in through our tradesmen alley to do construction at a unit behind our house as well. so if it gives you comfort, there is a way to, you know, we build buildings one part at a time. so they'll bring those pieces in one piece at a time to do any necessary renovations in the back. that's all my comments. thank you. commissioner moore, i want to briefly chime in. we all know that the fire department is actually trying to force widening of those treatments three feet to four and a half or five feet. that's a big, big thing, but i'm not sure if that

applies at the moment. i'm generally comfortable with mr. moore's ability to build sensitive infill housing. he has done many of them, and we had them in front of us, including buildings in the front or in the back of a situation similar to this. the unusual part is the adu request, which i think we are all a little bit stunned about. what worries me a little bit, and i'm picking up on your comments. mr. morris is the less affirmative answer you gave about the rear buildings and i empathize with you. perhaps not knowing, but if i listen to the description of the neighbors, these buildings are not only not habitable, they are also potentially a health hazard when we see insect, mold, etc. invasion into structures. that is more than not being habitable, it becomes a problem for from a health and safety standard point of view. but you as the architect for this particular property owner, not being able to affirmatively say yes, these are basically

scheduled for rehabilitation to make them habitable in order in order for an adu application, you have to have the main building to apply. however, if these two structures are not being planned, at least to your own interpretation as being considered to be redone, i'm a little bit baffled because we are making a we are rendering an approval in the absence of the certainty that these two buildings indeed are indeed the primary residence, applying for an adu that said, perhaps you can think about it. give us an answer. the other thing is, i am very sensitive to the doctor. requesters thought about wiping out all light in their dining room. that is of concern to me, particularly when it comes to residents who have lived there for a long time. most likely do not have the ability anymore to

move. what could be done to enhance the light situation in the requesters dining room? if anything could be done? let me address that first, so i believe that the, southern neighbors windows are 18in from the common property line. so the good news is they've enjoyed that aspect all these years and maybe who knows what the lot configuration was when their home was built. maybe they were on a larger lot. i don't know. in order to preserve access to the rear units, which again, is our intent to keep and to renovate, we need a passageway. and that passageway also takes away from the width of a viable unit on the lot. so we struggled with that, too. and the planning

department felt comfortable that the first floor go to the property line to enable that passageway, not unlike a fence on the property line, and then the pullback occur on the upper levels. and that's what we've done. so from story two three up to sky, there's a little more than three feet between the two buildings. so it's kind of our way of saying i know you don't have a light. well this is what we can do. i acknowledge that that is a common occurrence in many situations like it. the 18 inch, generally speaking, are not sufficient. we all know that 18in barely the size of a shoe. so, that that is still my main troubling to me. i'm not. i'm

not sure what to do, knowing that you under normal circumstances. i'm speaking to mr. morse, i'm speaking to mr. morris that he is sensitive to those issues. i have seen other projects of his where he was the only one who could deliver something that was acknowledging of neighbors and tough situations. i have always watching. i've always watched very closely what you were doing. and you believe that you have done everything five inches six inches that you can do in order to acknowledge his constraint. i mean, we could we could provide another six inches, but that's six inches is not available to us to use, i the first floor is ten feet. a fence would be six. okay. so there's a four foot difference. i, you know, this is this is san

francisco lot line conditions. things are tough. i agree. yeah. another project where basically we are we're stuck with that. mr. winslow, did you think through this in your doctor review? i didn't give it thought, actually, you know, lot line windows are similar conditions that are not protected. and we're getting a unit of housing and similar. you know, i don't have any differing opinions on that reasoning. the only thing we can do is do what is proposed on the upper floor, stepping back and using light, building colors and reflective building materials which help bring light and reflect light positively into this constrained condition. that is probably all we can do. so i don't mean to toot my horn too much here, but the other thing that we're doin, which i think you'll see in these elevations, is we leave the open space at the front of

the building to respect this very neighbor. so our access to that door that leads to the back is fully open to give them that breathing room that they've had historically. so that's part of the intent is to actually acknowledge this. this neighbor. i appreciate you bringing that to our attention. and summarizing that particular move. appreciate that. okay thank you. commissioner moore, i like to share a little bit of just a too few of my comments. i do take a really good look at the floor plans and the than the proposed elevation drawings, it is a very small, tight, efficient floor plan for every. i think every bedroom is less than 160 square foot. the bathroom is only 45 square foot, and so it is with respect to a very skinny, narrow lot and also

respecting the existing infrastructure on the back. this is really a sensible proposed project to add housing to our city. we i mean, i live in the mission, so everything is really dense and packed in the mission. so see this is, mr. morris, you had done the best you can to address a lot of the concerns. and, i think that i would like to open this floor to our vote commissioners. if there's no more deliberations. i just want to make sure. right. there is a motion that has been seconded to not take tehran to approve the project, as proposed on that motion, commissioner campbell, high commissioner mcgarry, high commissioner williams. nay. commissioner braun. high commissioner. imperial. no. commissioner moore, high and commissioner. president. so i so move. commissioners motion passes 5 to 2 with commissioners williams and imperial voting

against. that concludes your hearing today, commissioners. thank you. meeting adjourned. . >> my name is angela wilson and

i'm an owner of the market i worked at a butcher for about 10 years and became a butcher you i was a restaurant cook started in sxos and went to uc; isn't that so and opened a cafe we have produce from small farms without small butcher shops hard for small farms to survive we have a been a butcher shop since 1901 in the heights floor and the case are about from 1955 and it is only been a butcher shot not a lot of businesses if san francisco that have only been one thing. >> i'm all for vegetarians if you eat meat eat meat for

quality and if we care of we're in a losing battle we need to support butcher shops eat less we sell the chickens with the head and feet open somebody has to make money when you pay $25 for a chicken i guarantee if you go to save way half of the chicken goes in the enlarge but we started affordable housing depends on it occurred to us this is a male field people said good job even for a girl the interesting thing it is a women's field in most of world just here in united states it is that pay a man's job i'm an encountered woman and raise a son and teach i am who respect woman i consider all women's who work here to be impoverished and

strong in san francisco labor is high our cost of good ideas we seal the best good ideas the profit margin that low but everything that is a laboring and that's a challenge in the town so many people chasing money and not i can guarantee everybody this is their passion. >> i'm the - i've been cooking mile whole life this is a really, really strong presence of women heading up kitchens in the bay area it is really why i moved out here i think that we are really strong in the destroy and really off the pages kind of thing i feel like women befrp helps us to get back up i'm definitely the only female here i fell in love i love

setting up and love knowing were any food comes from i do the lamb and that's how i got here today something special to have a female here a male dominated field so i think that it is very special to have women and especially like it is going at it you know i'm a tiny girl but makes me feel good for sure. >> the sad thing the building is sold i'm renegotiating my lease the neighborhood wants us to be here with that said, this is a very difficult business it is a constant struggle to

maintain freshness and deal with what we have to everyday it is a very high labor of business but something i'm proud of if you want to get a job at affordable housing done nasal you need a good attitude and the jobs on the bottom you take care of all the produce and the fish and computer ferry terminal and work your way up employing people with a passion for this and empowering them to learn