San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission regular hearing for Thursday, 05/08/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is up, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission President Soe?

[Lydia So (President)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commission Vice President Moore? Here. Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner Imperial?

[Lydia So (President)]: Here.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Commissioner McGarry? And Commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you, commissioners. We do expect Commissioner Campbell to join us shortly.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Items 1A and B for case numbers twenty twenty four hyphen zero zero zero three four three CUA and VAR. Conditional use authorization and variance are proposed for continuance to 06/05/2025. Item two, case number 2023Hyphen011606CUA at 935 Gary Street. Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to June 12. Further, commissioners, your short agenda just got a lot shorter under the regular calendar. Staff is requesting continuances of both items nine and ten for case numbers 2020Hyphen009640OTh and 2024Hyphen00818OTH for the Racial and Social Equity Action Plan and Community Investments Toolkit and Priority Equity Geographies. They are requesting a continuance to June 12, commissioners. June 12. With that, we should open a public comment on your continuance calendar. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar, only on the matter of continuance. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Imperial. Move

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: to continue items as proposed.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue, I have all items as proposed. Commissioner Campbell.

[Gabriela Pantoja (Planning Department staff)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And commission president Soh. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Hey, Jonas. I'll also continue item one b.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, Commissioners, I'll place this on your consent calendar. All matters listed here under here under constituted consent calendar are 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 these items 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 three, case number 2025Hyphen2372 PCA, interim housing in hotels and motels, planning and building code amendments. And item four, case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero zero eight three three CUA at 1222 Harrison Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that either of these two consent calendar items be pulled off of consent. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to approve items three and four.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve your consent calendar items, commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commission matters item five, land acknowledgement.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, or 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 their ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first people.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Item six, commission comments and questions. Seeing none, commissioners, we can move on to department matters. Item seven, director's announcements. Item eight, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Appeals. There was no Historic Preservation Commission hearing yesterday.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. In contrast to last week's long report, this will be a short one as there were no planning department items at the land use committee. So at the full board this week, supervisor Dorsey's ordinance that would have meant entertainment uses in the South Of Market District passed its second read. The Alexandria Theater Special Use District passed its first read. Two landmark designation initiation resolutions, one for the Chula Abbey early residential historic district and one for the Al Alert Alley early historic district, were adopted. And there was a hearing for an appeal for a tentative parcel map at 2 To 4 Addison Street, but that was withdrawn.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: So that's all I have for you today.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Thanks. Good afternoon, president and senate commissioners. Corey Teague, zoning administrator. The board of appeals did meet last night and heard four cases, but none of them were of interest to the commission.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you for that report. Are you sure? 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 fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Jerry Drantler (Public commenter)]: Mister Ayona, I have handouts. And I also have my 150 words to be included in the board minutes, commission minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Drantler. The Controller issued a public integrity review update in August 2024 that falsely reported that all eight recommendations from the controller's 2021 DBI public integrity review have been implemented. I'm gonna talk about two critical recommendations that have not been implemented three and a half years after the report was issued. On the next slide, there's a table that shows,

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I think a little problem here,

[Jerry Drantler (Public commenter)]: that, all eight recommendations were implemented. And that's simply not true. The report, had two significant recommendations. One, control reports to identify red flag activities by DBI inspectors. And the second one was to increase penalty fees to encourage code compliance. Those two recommendations were not implemented. Recommendation three B, monthly review of same day and out of district inspections is under review. It was not implemented. Why? There are no DBI management control reports that monitor for inappropriate or improper activities by DBI building inspectors. Time doesn't permit me to go through them. And DBI is not allowed to increase penalty fees without a fee study. And the 2024 fee study report scope of work specifically excluded review of fines and penalties. So it couldn't have been implemented. As you see on the next slide, DBI is considering fee increases three and a half years later. This is totally unacceptable. There's no excuse for it. What makes it worse is the city covered it up. The reason I'm bringing it to your attention is that there is a task force. Hopefully, I know one of you is at least leading it, that is going to deal with the issues of merging the two departments, and you need to be aware of the systemic corruption that exists at the Department of Building Inspection. Thank you.

[Georgia Shutish (Public commenter)]: You still had time, but that's okay.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: It's I'm done. I'm done.

[Georgia Shutish (Public commenter)]: Good afternoon, Georgia Shutish. I sent you two emails about those two properties in Noe Valley. And for the one for Clipper Street, which you had the Doctor hearing back in January and had that crazy thing with it's a demo, but it's not a demo. It's a demo, but it's not a demo, which was total insanity, frankly. I did not include the sales history, for 411 Clipper like I did for the Elizabeth project, and I think that's, And I think that's, important. If I could have the overhead real quick, please. Okay. So it sold it was listed in on Halloween on 2022 for under a million dollars, which is something I haven't seen in Noe Valley in a while. But anyway, it was the pandemic. But then it sold before Christmas for 1.625. So again, that's part of the frenzy of people taking advantage of the remodeling and alteration and the demo calcs. Because originally, I think they were just gonna do it as an alteration, then they decided to do it as a demo, and then they decided to do it as a DBI alteration. And so now you see it's for sale for that. And in the meantime, it apparently, according to the neighbors, it has been fixed up, and it's been made livable. And that's my whole point in these two emails. It's the livability of these houses. The one in Elizabeth was remodeled out of existence, and that was a livable house. Just like now, the Clipper Street one is a livable house. And we haven't seen the financial feasibility studies yet to understand what this all means in terms of new housing. So like I said, the Elizabeth one is now for sale for 9,000,000, and I think that project manipulated the demo calcs. And that's why Noe Valley was declared the epicenter of de facto demolition by the staff because that house was in the middle of all those other houses being done. And now with the Clipper House, it's now a livable house. You saw the pictures, both sets. I don't think anyone could deny that they weren't livable houses. And to me, that represents the problem for the neighborhoods in the priority equity geographies because there are a lot of livable houses there. And I was gonna talk about that, but that thing was continued. But I'll talk about it in June. So I think the livability issue of housing and the demo calcs, which are still in in existence for the PEG neighborhoods, they haven't been changed under the constraints reduction ordinance, is very important in going forward. And that's why I keep harping on adjusting the demo calcs. And I'll leave it at that, and I hope you got to look at those two emails because I think they tell a lot of stories. Thank you very much. Have a great day.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Your last call for general public comment. Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

[Rashida Orr (Neighbor/Public commenter)]: For the minutes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And we can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners. As previously stated, items nine and ten have already been continued, placing us on item 11 for case number 2024Hyphen002087CUA at 788 Arkansas Street, conditional use authorization. Please note on 03/06/2025, after hearing and closing public comment, you continued this matter to April 10 by a vote of six to one. Commissioner Campbell was against, and then again continued from April 10 to this date.

[Gabriela Pantoja (Planning Department staff)]: Good afternoon, president Soh, commissioners. Gabriela Pantoja of department staff. The case before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 209.1, three zero three, and three seventeen for the demolition of an existing two story single family residency and the construction of a four story approximately 4,348 square foot single family home with a four eighty six square foot studio ADU. It also contains two parking spaces, two class one bicycle parking spaces, and approximately 1,500 square feet of usable open space. The subject property is located within the RH2 zoning district, 40X height and bulk district, and priority equity geography, SUD, and within the Potrero Hill neighborhood. It was developed in 1910 with approximately two bedroom dwelling unit, which is currently occupied by the property owner and applicant. On 03/06/2025, the commission heard the list of conditional use authorization for the demolition of the existing home to then construct a new single family home. After hearing the item, the commission directed the project sponsor to explore the addition of a second dwelling unit, the subject property. And in response, the project sponsor has added an accessory dwelling unit under the state ADU program, at the garage floor of the proposed residential building. The studio ADU, will be approximately $4.86 square feet in size and be accessible via an interior common hallway along the South property line. The accessory dwelling unit will contain a full kitchen and be required to meet all requirements of San Francisco's health and safety codes, including the building and fire code. And to date, the department has received eight letters in support of the project and none in opposition. The department finds that the project is on balance and consistent with objectives and policies of the general plan and the Portra Hill area plan. And we recommend approval for the following reasons. The project will demolish an existing age sound to a family residency, which is considered generally more affordable, but will add a second unit at the site. The project will provide a multi unit residential building that increases the rental and ownership opportunities for middle income households and promotes multi generational living within the space. And the project will provide a family size dwelling unit and an ADU that both have access to family amenities, including laundry, off street parking spaces, and usable open space. And this does conclude SAS presentation. I'm available for any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Project sponsor, this matter has already been heard. So you have three minutes.

[Richard "Dick" Hunt (Architect for 788 Arkansas Street)]: Excuse me. Dick Hunt with Huntail Dunes Architects. Eitan Fraser, the owner, is here. Really, we're just here to answer questions. We responded as best we could to the comments that came from the commission directly and would be happy to go more deeply into any of that if you have questions. I certainly appreciate the direction that Gabriela and staff gave us throughout the entire process, and I think they got us to a point that that we hope we can approve it tonight. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, do we receive one minute? Last call for public comment? Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. I just want to acknowledge and thank the project sponsor for taking the commission's direction modifying the project to include the ADU in the house. Modest as it is, I'm pleased to see that, you know, if there's gonna be an addition to housing here, despite the fact that the sound existing home is would be demolished with the project. And, you know, my, hope is that that ADU could either be rented out to somebody or maybe serve a function someday for an au pair or or in laws who, you know, are visiting. So it seems like a good functional addition to the home itself, and I appreciate that. I I would like to ask, pose a question to staff and maybe miss Wadia. You know, I have a lot of sympathy for the project sponsor with the as we heard the last hearing, the recommendation by the department to deny the project came pretty late in the process. And so I'm curious to hear, sort of I found that very disappointing. And like I said, I felt for the project owner on that situation. So what changes has the department made in its processes to try to avoid such a late determination that the project is going to be recommended for disapproval?

[Ms. Wadia (Planning Department staff)]: Joamin, I think a couple of things after the hearing, in talking with staff further, I think there might have been a little miscommunication or sort of misrepresentation of what our communication was on this project. So a, I I have sort of less concerns that that message, didn't come early in the process. I I don't believe at this time that it was an eleventh hour communication. But separate to that, sort of at a more macro level, it is the direction to staff that as part of their first plan check that happens, that they are not only doing sort of a very technical black and white code review, but they're also reviewing projects for design, they're reviewing projects for policy. And if there is anything that would sort of raise the red flag that would preclude our ability to support the project, that those issues should be identified in that first plan check.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that. Well, so, you know, this project at this point, it does have my support. And, yeah, again, I appreciate the changes to it.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Brown. And thank you for bringing up all the follow-up issues to carry on from last time we read this item. And I do appreciate the project sponsor and their architect to, take our recommendation and incorporate it into your project. I also thank you, the staff, for continuing to diligently follow-up with this project. I think, moving forward, I genuinely just love to see, San Francisco, particularly in that area, Patrol Hill area, to have a continued diversified, neighborhood and communities. And thank you for committing your generational living in our city and in particularly in Patrol Hill. So I wish you the best, and I'm in full support of approval of this project today. And, hopefully, you will get it built and have your family moved in soon. And Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: This project, had my support last time, so obviously has my support this time. Had my support last time, has my support this time. So I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion. Sounds like there's a lot here. No no other comments. So, yeah. Motion to approve with conditions. Alright.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Rashida Orr (Neighbor/Public commenter)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president so?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commissioners, that'll place us under your discretionary review calendar for items 12 a and b. Case number is 2022Hyphen009794DRP VAR at 1153 Guerrero Street. You will consider the request for discretionary review, and the zoning administrator will consider the request for variance.

[Trent Greenan (Planning Department staff architect)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Trent Greenan, staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary re review of building permit application 2022.05130.4235 to construct an existing enclosed three story rare stair and porch that occupies the rear yard of a two residential building two unit residential building. Sorry. Planning code section one thirty four requires the project to provide a rear yard, therefore variance is required. The existing building is a category a, historic resource present built in 1885. The Doctor request for Paul Orr a 7055 To 57 Elizabeth Street, the adjacent property to the east, is concerned that the proposed project has numerous building code violations and hazardous conditions and construction practices that are creating imminent hazards such as lead dust and debris to be released, as well as potential fire hazards. The porch is an illegally enclosed structure and poses a significant risk due to its structural inadequacies. The proposed alternatives are deny the variance and remove the illegally enclosed rear porch or two and two, require construction of a code compliant rear stair that follows section one thirty four rear yard requirements. To date, the department has received 19 letters in opposition in the form of a petition and no letters in support of the project. Staff recommendation, we generally support the proposed reconstruction of the rear stairs and porch to meet current structural and egress requirements. The porch appears to have this historically existed in the same configuration and footprint for many years. The full lot coverage of the house appears on both the 1919 and 1935 Sanborn maps. Therefore, it is an existing non complying structure which may be repaired without a permit. However, replacement requires a variance. Work has exceeded the threshold of repair. Therefore, variance has sought to rebuild the structure to current building standards. The previous applicant on behalf of the building owner was Rodrigo Santos, whose drawings were for a shoring permit to support the existing structure only. New drawings have been prepared by licensed architect to adequately and accurately describe the proposed scope of work to the confidence of staff. The current scope of work is to rebuild the porch and stairs in kind to current building code standards, including fire rated wall assemblies on property line conditions. The historical appearance and function of the porch appears to have been generally enclosed as an unconditioned space serving as access to egress stairs. The north side at the upper level facing Elizabeth Street is enclosed only by an open wood lattice. To allow the continued use of this existing non complying porch with the reconstruction of a safer structure is appropriate and within and with proper permits and construction addresses the Doctor requesters concerns of structural risks. Therefore, staff recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, we should hear from the discretionary review requester. You have five minutes.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Thank you. Can everybody hear me? Good morning. Yes. Good morning. Alright. Fantastic. Thanks for taking the time to,

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: sorry I'm fine.

[Lydia So (President)]: Can you identify yourself? Are you the project sponsor or the Doctor sponsor?

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: I'm the Doctor Okay. Applicant.

[Lydia So (President)]: You're the Doctor applicant. Okay.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: I don't see the Doctor, the variance team here.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. Thank you. Just wanna make sure.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Okay. Fantastic. Yeah. Please, I have comments and letters, here that can be shared with the commission. I have seen maybe seven different renditions or reiterations of these drawings. Long and short is that through an NOV, Santos and McKern and their LLC have repeatedly, applied for this project in various different forms, with lots of inconsistencies in drawings. And so I have included several letters from myself and neighbors, or a neighbor, including a letter from Robert Santos that was to the building department saying that structurally unsound. And I understand that I have some drawings here. I don't know if if I could point out I

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: think, if I could point out some things in the mic. The bottom

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: bottom line is

[Lydia So (President)]: Well, police speak directly to a

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: mic I'll just cut to the chase and state that I think some of the potential solutions here could have been thank you. Could have been that the people asking for the variance could have, and did at one time, present to the community the second part of the drawings there, dated 08/21, with an open space rear staircase built code compliant, for which all the neighborhood did review and at least 30 people signed off on approval. But they never submitted it to this commission. Why? I don't know. Furthermore, I would state that this architect's particular rendition or revision of these drawings are completely inconsistent with previous stuff that we've seen. Their details I could,

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I don't know. You know, I should be

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: seeing this, but this represents my house and

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: my Sir, I need to ask you again to speak into the microphone.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Right here at the main entry of my house. This is my main house and my tenants entry and egress to our homes. This they're con talking about constructing this rear porch at the property line going up. One second. The variance is based on the fact that there was an NOV, they're going for a variance to build in kind what was there. Trying to just skip through much of these comments to important things

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: like,

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: I don't know, can you see this? These blue lines represent what was there in its original. It was just a rear back porch. It was later scabbed over with additional wood with no interior conventional framing at all. It's structurally unsound. There's letters even from the various structural engineer Santos stating that it's all dilapidated dry rotted and everything. They further went on to jack up the back of the house and disconnect this back porch, leaving as a freestanding rear porch. During that process, they tilted the entire rear porch towards my home by four inches. I complained. I came to this commission. You requested that a structural engineer, a senior building guy go down and look at it. And I don't know. I have, maybe it's best with the limited time I have just show you pictures. Which you all have right there. That's my staircase enclosed in the tarp after many complaints by myself is my entrance. The second pictures here are of the structure literally falling onto my property, damaging my property. Could have killed somebody if they were there.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, sir. You that is your time, but you have a two minute rebuttal.

[Owner at 1167 Guerrero Street (name not stated)]: Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: We should hear from the, project sponsor if they are here. If not, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You each have two minutes.

[Owner at 1167 Guerrero Street (name not stated)]: I draw your attention to this picture.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Ma'am, you need to speak in the microphone, please.

[Owner at 1167 Guerrero Street (name not stated)]: Certainly. I draw your attention to this picture here with the narrow staircase leading into the backyard. Three times in the last four years, an intruder has come up those stair stairs and broken into the house next door to me.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Cannot hear you. Owner

[Owner at 1167 Guerrero Street (name not stated)]: at 1167 Guerrero. I can't see what's coming up those stairs because of that tarp, that closure, that enclosure. I can't see the stairway from my house on Guerrero, from the back of my house. So I can't see who's coming up. And with three break ins in very recent history, I don't think that it should be replaced, these sides, on that on that staircase, because it's a security issue for us, on Guerrero. That is direct access to our backyards there, and we can't even see who's coming in. So I request as a property owner of thirty three years at 1167 Guerrero that that wall not be replaced so that we might have a better security profile for us. Any questions?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment.

[Neighbor (read letter from Roger Miller of 55 Elizabeth Street)]: Good day. I just wanted to read this from Roger Miller who lives at 55 Elizabeth Street. He couldn't make it here today, so I told him I would read his letter. I am writing in, to support the analysis and recommendations of mister Paul Orr, my next door neighbor at 57 Elizabeth Street regarding the problematic external closures external, closed staircase at 1153 Guerrero Street renovation project. I have lived in the neighborhood for thirty three years. My family and I strongly feel that the existing enclosed external staircase structure at the property is far too monolithic and clearly detracts from the residential character of the neighborhood. It also does not provide enough space between buildings to prevent the spread of a potential fire. The solution recommended by mister Orr for an open external staircase would provide much more light, open space, and building separation along the already built out residential block of Elizabeth Street. In addition, this solution would facilitate any future maintenance activities at 1153 Guerrero, such that they would not encroach or damage the adjacent property at 57 Elizabeth Street. I urge the planning department to deny the request for a variance that would allow the external staircase to remain enclosed. It should be rebuilt as an open external staircase for improved neighborhood aesthetics and reduced fire risk adjacent to the properties. Sincerely, Roger Miller. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Final last call for public comment.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: I think there's one more coming here.

[Rashida Orr (Neighbor/Public commenter)]: Hi. Thank you. I'm sorry. I have an accent, so hopefully, you're going to understand what I'm saying. My name is Rashida Orr. I live next to 115355, Guerrero Street. So dear Commissioner Diamond, I am willing to address ongoing issues surrounding the building permit application mentioned above as a professional senior project and construction manager with over forty years of experience, I believe is everyone best interest to result this matter and allowed this project to be processed. After reviewing multi set and structure engineering and architectural design five twenty seven iteration from this developer and associated party, I have concluded that the Planning Department has to predetermine the Statue of the Propierde 1153 And 1155 Gyro Street despite its legal rail porch. It is still considered an existing historic structure. This determination seemed to overlook the violation in San Francisco Planning Code Section 100 and three-one 134, Subsection 102A to 102A 20. Given the limited resource available to the Planning and Building Aspections department over the past two years, I find it is increasingly fruitful for myself and my neighborhood to continue constanting that this property should adhere to the same open space ordinance that will have follow with the building of home at Eugene Department to consider this point.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, ma'am. That is your time.

[Rashida Orr (Neighbor/Public commenter)]: Okay. Thank you so much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Final, final last call for public comment. You will just write just making sure no one else wants to speak under public comment. Okay. With that, public comment is closed. And now you have your two minute rebuttal, sir.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Yeah. Commissioners, once again, thanks for taking the time to listen to me. I've been building here in San Francisco for forty two years, including the building that we're standing in. Yeah. I was saying that I'm we've been building here in San Francisco for forty two years, including the building that we're standing in right now. The bottom line is me as a Doctor applicant have been frustrated with the seven different reiterations of drawings that we've seen. The fact that this commission called for inspectors and senior structural engineers to go out there on behalf of DBI and report back to you, never saw a report back. Rather, what I saw was that the builder continued building on the interior of this house without a variance. When they lifted the house, it rendered all the existing floors and stairs unusable. They've continued to build in there. The only thing they haven't really changed is the exterior skin of the three walls. Per these details, being a professional builder, I don't see how they're gonna accomplish that. But at the same time, I I realize things gotta continue and get built. I'm just stating that this should have been torn down because it is a complete tear down no matter how you try to disguise it with smoke and mirrors. And they should have capitulated to the same thing the rest of us in the neighborhood did, which is to erect an open space exterior staircase. That's it. With that stated, I'll accept whatever you do. And he's basically building a spite wall alongside my house, which they'll never be able to maintain. I would like to know, by a show of hands, if anybody that's here has been to the property and looked at it. I know I met with David Winslow, who basically agreed it was a complete tear down.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, sir. That is your time.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: With that, commissioners, this matter is now before you. I will actually, before turning it over to you, call out for the project sponsor in case they've arrived late. Seeing not, is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I I do have to say that I do know mister Orr. Paul? Yes. Yes. Paul has been a member of Local twenty two for as long as I've been a member of Local twenty two and a lot longer.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: That's correct.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I do not believe I have a conflict in this, but I do want to let my fellow commissioners know that I've just realized that I know mister,

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Paul or

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Paul or Paul or Paul or Paul or Paul

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: or Paul

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: or Paul.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Known each other for multiple years.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you for the, disclosure.

[Deputy City Attorney (name not stated)]: Just to clarify on the record, commissioner McGarrett, sounds like you're just making a professional disclosure of a professional relationship between yourself and the Doctor requester.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I haven't seen mister Orr since what, 2010?

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: It's been a while, Sean.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: But I just realized that

[Lydia So (President)]: Yes. So it's a professional

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: disclosure. Disclosure. Yes. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: So thank you. And commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just to the Planning Department, just curious what the Doctor applicant has mentioned, that it was a complete teardown, or looked like a complete teardown. What was the analysis of did somebody went down there from the billing department? And what happened after that? Because it's kind of little cloudy to me what what actually happened, after, somebody apparently from from the building department, went down there.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: I'm happy to try to respond to that Mhmm. Commissioner Williams. So this was originally before the commission and myself as a variance because it had been determined to basically be a replacement project and not a repair project. So that determination was made. You know, DBI has had enforcement activity there for the last several years and issued an NOV in 2022, a stop work order. So BBI made the determination that this was essentially a replacement and not just a a repair. And also because it is a replacement and not a repair, that's where you you kinda get triggered into the variance world as well. Because if you're just doing repair, that's fine. Mhmm. But if you're essentially replacing, then there's the provision of the code, then anything you kinda voluntarily remove and then put back is subject to current code. So that's that determination has been made already before anything got to us. What's changed is when this was heard before, there were concerns about the accuracy of the plans at that time, kinda based on the history and just the those plans.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Mhmm.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Not so much about what was being proposed, but what was the true existing state. And there were comments from commissioners about not being comfortable with the plans at that time. And there was a request that, that planning staff do another inspection with DBI and that new plans be drawn and just ensure that they are more accurate. And Mhmm. I I wasn't part of that myself. I know mister Winslow Mhmm. And DBI did do another site inspection. Obviously, there's a new designer involved. There are new plans that were developed to respond to those comments and were reviewed by by planning and determined to, you know, meet that requirement and respond to that request. What's actually being proposed isn't really different except for the clarification that the walls will be fire rated because it is I mean, it is a replacement. So the new the new structure that will be there because it is on the property line will have to be fire rated. So that's one of the main differences that's, between kinda what you heard before and what's here now. It's just the plans have been clarified. There has been site inspections done. Again, mister Winslow is not here today, but he was the staff person along with DBI who did that inspection.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Mhmm.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: And, you have updated plans before you.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. I I just got a question too about the the, if it was an open stair, would would it would it still require a wall? It seemed like it kind of it kinda was on the property line

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: and so. Sure. And, obviously, this is a building code requirement, not planning code. But, yes, if it's on the property line or within a certain proximity, even if it's an open stair structure, it's gonna require a certain level of firewall.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: So so what whatever happens, there's gonna have to be a firewall there.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: It I mean, it depends on the design of the stairs that are put in there. Yeah. I mean, the way they're designed now essentially to be at the property line. Right. There's an assumption there'll be some level of firewall. I can't speak specifically to if there's alternative designs that would work with the configuration of the existing building that could prevent the firewall, I think that's a level of analysis I haven't been part of.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Mhmm. I don't

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: you know, so I wouldn't be able to speak to that specifically. I don't know that's come up at all.

[Trent Greenan (Planning Department staff architect)]: I think the, analysis was that the the structure has been there for, you know, over a hundred years, as an enclosed structure, and built to the property line. And so at the property line, it would require a firewall, whether it's fully enclosed or not.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I've worked worked in the city for a long time, and I've seen a lot of these, right, that they've gotten enclosed over the years. Yeah. I'm just one thing that struck out to me is what I heard, the presenter, say was that the rest of the community kind of was held to a different standard as far as having to have an open stair. I don't know if that's true. It's what I heard. And, you know, it's been my experience too that, you know, obviously repairing and building in kind is kind of keeps you under the radar or out of the radar. And and once you once you tear down a stair or structure, then it triggers all these other things. And so I'm guessing that's why the, the property owner has decided to to go this route. So, I mean, you know, I I I I actually I I understand that the the, the, the issues that the Doctor, requester has, has put forward as far as the wall. Having said that, there's always been a, there's, has there, excuse me, miss,

[Jerry Drantler (Public commenter)]: mister

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Orr? Has there always been a wall there?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Sir, again, I'm sorry, but you need to speak into the microphones.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Okay. Sorry. My family bought our home in '64 during that period of time. The open staircase has been scabbed onto not after a hundred years. Anybody who knows building knows that the original building was built eight feet back, had horizontal siding. The rear porch has vertical siding. It was tongue and groove boards that were just sort of scabbed on. Mhmm. It was not always enclosed like that. People can say what they want. Those of us who actually build know the difference.

[Richard "Dick" Hunt (Architect for 788 Arkansas Street)]: Yeah.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: But more importantly, I would also just point out to you in the packet that I gave you, the latter half of the packet is the developers group drawings by Robert Santos on 08/22 where he shows what it would look like as an open staircase and what would be firewall and not firewall. If that would also help to answer your question. Okay.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I I I don't know. Oh. Do you want you want to Oh, you you were gonna pull it up to show show us?

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Sure. Go ahead.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Under

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: a previous reiteration set that was submitted to the community, but again, not to this commission on their pages. And I'll try to pull this up and show you.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Is that a six?

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Yeah. Starting at a 1 point zero. Mhmm. You can see 1281. Yeah. Here would be firewall. Right here would be firewall. Right here would be firewall. This is, again, not the set that's been presented to you. This would be firewall. Right? The rest of it is open space staircase. When one looks at, this would be Elizabeth Street old elevation right here. This is what their at that time, would have been their proposed new elevation.

[Lydia So (President)]: To facilitate this Q and A situation between my fellow commissioner Williams and mister Orr, the fundamental question commissioner Williams has asked I'm sorry,

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: I'm having a hard time hearing you.

[Lydia So (President)]: To facilitate this dialogue, I like to emphasize that commissioner Williams is asking a basic simple question of if those wall and closing that staircase had been existing.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Uh-huh.

[Lydia So (President)]: And the answer would be yes or no instead of going into details of Yeah.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: The answer would have

[Lydia So (President)]: been no. The

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: answer would have been no.

[Lydia So (President)]: It had never been exist in your answer.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: It it exists now. It wasn't original to the house.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: I'm so sorry. I'm the project's spouse.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you, mister Moore.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you for that. And, do do you need a little minute to calm yourself down a little bit? I can

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: go into the house

[Lydia So (President)]: if that's okay with you guys. I like that. Can you come in front of the podium and speak? You this is the please identify yourself and you can catch your breath a little bit too. We can take our time here. Okay. Alright.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Okay. Thank you. I'm so sorry. I did run the whole way.

[Lydia So (President)]: So basically, you are the representing the project sponsor.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: I'm the architect for this project Okay. And have done the drawings Okay. With my team to manifest the drawings and done the code analysis.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. Calm down a little bit. We just try to figure out whether we can give you five minutes or three. So you you have five minutes.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Oh, thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Yeah. Take your time.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Okay. Good afternoon. Commission members, thank you for the opportunity to bring in this project to you today. My name is Kyle Brunell, and I'm an architect representing the owner for this building. What we have provided for your review are documents consistent with the requirements of a site permit, not a full addendum construction permit. We are requesting the right to build and have not yet provided the detailed information for how to build. We have a category a historic building constructed in 1885. The Sanborn map from 1919 indicates the existing building footprint in the proposed reconstructed building envelope has been there for at least a hundred and six years. It is assumed the existing egress stairs for both units existed within the envelope proposed for the variance consideration. And it was presumably part of the original construction in 1885, though we don't have a way to verify that definitively with the documentation. An architect is bound by the practice act to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public as well as their clients. We are also required to follow the due process outlined by the application, applicable planning, building, and fire codes, and we are not allowed to create a less safe condition when working on existing buildings. Existing fire life safety features are to be maintained and when feasible, improved. Pardon me. Our project is requesting entitlements to rebuild the existing stair and its enclosure in its current location with upgrades to its envelope to increase the safety of this egress path and comply with the one hour rated construction at the property lines. We consider the proposed aesthetic art architectural articulation of the building's exterior to be consistent with the historic expression of the rest of this building and the city's historic preservationists concur. We are requesting variance because the existing nonconforming building envelope requires one if we are reconstructing more than 50%. Due to the poor condition of the original stair and its enclosure, more than 50% of the original construction was in need of reconstruction. Thank you for your time and attention and we appreciate your consideration.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Brown?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: You know, I, yeah, I've been giving this a lot of thought. And I was on the commission at the time we have some newer commissioners, and I was on the commission at the time that we first heard this item and raised the concerns about the drawings and versions of the drawings and the involvement of Rodrigo Santos in the project. And that's why you know, that was a big part of why we want the project sponsor to, kind of undergo some additional scrutiny on this project. I I see the point being raised by the Doctor requester and the community. What I'm also seeing is this is sort of a different situation with the fact that this building backs right up to another property line at its rear. And so with the stairs, the stairs would inevitably in be in pretty close proximity to the neighboring property to the to the east. And I'm also hearing the concerns raised about the adjacent property to the south as well and and the sight lines. It sounds like even if even if the stairs were open, there'd still need to be some form of firewall at that property line as well. It might be very difficult to come with a design that would actually open up sight lines from the the southern property. I I think which is what's sort of standing out to me with this is, again, the fact that this backs up to property lines. There's going to be some egress stairs one way or another on this property. And in general, the replacement of an existing very decrepit wall with a fire rated wall seems to me on the whole to be actually a positive in a lot of ways. And I'm also cognizant of the idea raised that these stairs were, even if they've been in place for a very long time, since at least 1919, I recognize they probably weren't they may not have originally been built as fully enclosed. There's so many properties in San Francisco that appear to have had sunrooms and and enclosures of stairs built and seemingly around the twenties, teens and '20s, to Commissioner Williams' point. But either way, it has been in place for a really, really long time. And I'm not hearing anyone saying when I moved in 1965, it was not enclosed. When I moved in you know, thirty five years ago, it was not enclosed. So right now, I'm I'm leaning towards not taking Doctor and approving for all all these reasons, you know, the enhanced fire safety, the fact that this backs up very close to the property lines, and and what that means for needing some fire safety as well. The existing, wall that's, there right now. I know the variance has been triggered, but, in many ways, it's replacing what was there before. So that's the direction I'm I'm leaning right now, but I, I'm curious to hear from the other commissioners who've raised their hands.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you, commissioner Lebron. Commissioner vice president Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: In the absence of mister Winslow not giving us a verbal field report of his visit to the site together with inspectors, and there was nothing really in the staff report, which would make me think that he found something extraordinary and would be recommending against approval. I believe that particularly the unveiling of the historic background of the building is essential, and I think mister Guinan clearly indicated the resources he has used together with preservation staff to identify those resources. That is, I think, where credibility comes in. And as to whether or not, and I'm speculating at the time when the Doctor applicant moved in, the stair was enclosed or not, is not really an issue because things sometimes disappear, and people at the moment do not have the time to properly rebuild them or leave it inconsequential. I believe that the way the remediation of the decrepit stair is happening is credible and indeed designed by an architect who knows what she is talking about. And just like Commissioner Brown, I believe that my initial question when we heard this project in the past have been have been more than satisfied. And I think the due diligence, by continuing it, seeing another architect, not to mention the previous one, bringing it forward in the manner that other projects come in front of us gives me the confidence that this project has the ability to be approved with conditions. And I'm making a motion to do so, To not take Doctor and

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Second.

[Lydia So (President)]: I I do have a question. I I really respect everybody's conversation here. In light of, what is given to me today, This is the packet that mister Orchis provide us. I I don't think this is the same as what has been submitted in our docket.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Correct.

[Trent Greenan (Planning Department staff architect)]: This was just recently provided, so it's pretty

[Lydia So (President)]: good to me today. Without spending extra amount of time of everybody's time here, but I just wanna have an understanding of what is actually proposed to be built here. Because with the new architect's drawing, it was proposed in the sheet a 5.1 on the new elevations. The back egress stairs is fully enclosed on both levels. But what was also given to us by that structural engineering drawing, a two point zero, it was proposed to be open stairs. Like so I wanted to see if anyone can answer that,

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: the architecture. So also just for clarification, those the only plans that have been proposed as this part of this application is what was in your packet. The the plans that were provided by the ER requester Okay. Are are are not the plans that were submitted by the by the applicant.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: So may may I So

[Lydia So (President)]: can someone clarify with me what is going to be billed anyway?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I need to put to the record that the printed out package had the drawings that are being distributed by the Doctor applicant. So they are in the package, but they are part of the history of the project. They are nothing that we are considering because by having a new architect, those drawings are superseded. That that is what was wrong in the past. So we're not deciding on those. They're just for information purposes only.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Yes. So the only the only thing that is actually in front of the commission in terms of to consider, to approve, or deny, or modify are the plans that were in your packet for the hearing.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. Just because then the plans are in the packet, but then also in the docket, I'm looking at it right now, there's also inconsistency. This exactly same drawing that I have question with, a two point zero by this structural engineer, whatever that is, RS Engineering, is not the same proposal for the same docket of material proposed by Pencilbox Architects. So I just wanted some clarification here. I'm looking at the docket absolutely. What's 222022Dash009794DRP. Just want some clarification.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Present. So the the architect is right there.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: She's wearing

[Lydia So (President)]: Please.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Okay. For clarification, there were two structural engineers that were previously part of this project. Neither one of them has been hired to actually manifest the addendum drawing set. We do not yet have a structural engineer who has who's ready to do the envelope as designed because we haven't gotten approval. And, generally, I try to proceed cautiously before hiring a structural engineer so that we get the entitlements for the enclosure event. So those other two, that's for history. From the context, I was brought into the project some months back to help get some clarity on what makes sense, and I'm I'm doing my best. But neither one of those structural engineers, I think, produced any documentation that made any sense.

[Lydia So (President)]: So why is it in our docket?

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: I think it's because this is a continuation from the last few years, possibly, but I I don't actually

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: I don't actually know.

[Lydia So (President)]: So, staff help me out here. What am I supposed to look at that actually is telling me what this current state of the current consultant for this current state of project? Because there's no delineation of this is history background context, and there and then this is from page whatever whatever to here is what is current.

[Trent Greenan (Planning Department staff architect)]: It would just be the architecture pages, which would be relevant for planning review and approval. So any if there are you know, the structural drawings included are just for reference, but there are no way required for planning approval.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. So basically, right now, can someone state on a record what is the, proposed configuration of the addition of these stairs?

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: The the sheets that are dated 02/12/2025 are the only sheets that are being presented and requested for approval.

[Lydia So (President)]: Can you point me to that particular sheet?

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Right hand corner just underneath the the name of the sheet itself, code diagrams, project number, and then the date. 02/12/2025.

[Lydia So (President)]: So if I'm looking at the docket, I wanted to it's I'm not just doing it for myself purpose. I think for clarity for clarity's sake here, which sheets are representing your proposed

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: There are 11 sheets. Of your identified on cover sheet a zero point zero under the drawing index, and they've spanned from sheet a 0.1 to a 6.2. Sorry. A zero point zero to a 6.2. We do not have structural engineering yet for this project.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. So is so can you just verbally describe to me what is the configuration of the enclosure of your new proposed design for this? Because I'm I'm I'm scrolling up and down of the docket. I'm trying to get

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Maybe the the code diagrams would give you a phone picture?

[Lydia So (President)]: I'm not I'm talking about the enclosure of the actual shape.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I'm talking about the enclosure

[Lydia So (President)]: of the actual shape. I'm talking about the enclosure of the stairs. It's not the egressing it's not the egress code.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: The the enclosure is the property line to property line to enclosure that was previously part of the 2019 sandstone map enclosure.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: You can use the overhead to 1919. Ma'am, you could use the overhead to show the plans.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: The existing and the Yeah. So this is it. So this probably did you what was previously did you say, to the best of our knowledge, we were on

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Please speak into the microphone so we can hear.

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Whoops. Sorry. To the best of our knowledge To the best of our knowledge. I spent a number of hours measuring the building, and I have a number of photographs representative of measuring existing conditions. And to the best of our knowledge, the representation of the existing and the repetition the the representation of the new other than a a code compliant rise and run stair configuration for egress compliance, is matching what the original was that we could see was constructed on-site. So I can't actually represent something that I don't see. And this was the closest that I could tell was the stair configuration that had been more than 50% removed, based on what the openings were in the original framing, and then the additional shoring that was provided to maintain the safety of the enclosure of the original, occupied space on the interior. So this is our to the best of our ability, the representation of existing conditions.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. So so you will basically, the a the sheet a 5.1 on your set is what you propose to do? Yes. That's correct. That's perfectly my question. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I think it would be nice moving forward, maybe mister Winslow is not here today, to really help us to really when when we have a case that is this has a history for years and we have more than half of our commissions had not seen the original case, it would be nice to have, like, a big identification mark in the docket saying that despite all the different renditions of versions of from different engineer, different architects, but this is from from the very back page, the last 10 pages of the 250 pages of docket document, this is the version that we are evaluating moving forward. This will help us tremendously, not for just us, but also also anyone who wanted to talk about this case on all sides. That will really helpful. And I think that right right now, I observe from a lot of the public comment coming in today is really about, beyond what my commissioner had mentioned, the technicality about whether this thing is exist or should be this is how it's being constructed. It's actually also the construction conditions right now. It's imposing a lot of undue stress to the neighbors, the debris, the inability to actually see and feel safe for intruders coming in. There are pictures showing that not just construction debris ended up on their stair steps, but literally sheets of shingles are literally dropped on their entryway to their house. So I don't know if the project architect can actually reflect that to the to your client about the the the respect for the neighbors during construction. This is kind of scary to see when someone would show up in front of me to talk about a picture where stuff that Lily just sits over their over their stairs. They can't actually get to their house. And how long has it been this way, and how many more it will become that way, let alone about noise and other inconveniences that anyone will have to endure during construction. That's typical that you gotta have to deal with construction, but to kind

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: of

[Lydia So (President)]: being behaving in this kind of way, it doesn't makes anyone to be a good neighbor. Right? So I really want everyone to do their part to continue to allow a better community. Right? I hope that you really reflected to your team. But in light of whether we are taking this Doctor right now, The evidence and the effort that was presented by this new architect, and I am agreeing with my fellow commissioners where I am supportive of not taking this Doctor. And so that's kind of my comment. But please be really well behaved con contractor in construction. People should not be living like this.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: John, just call the question. Call the question. I I

[Lydia So (President)]: think we have

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I didn't hear a second.

[Lydia So (President)]: You did? Someone seconded that emotion.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yeah. I didn't hear

[Lydia So (President)]: it. I don't know. Like, someone do you want to say something more?

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Can you quickly follow to

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. Please.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Alright. Answer the commission. Listen, I I came here knowing that you

[Lydia So (President)]: Do you mind speaking in front of microphone? Thank you for hearing purposes.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: I came here understanding that you're just gonna pass this today. It was, you know, predetermined the last time I was here. There's really as to your point, yeah, it's unsafe. It's been unsafe for me and my family, my grandchildren, my tenants for years. There's nothing that this new architect has got in her proposed drawings that address any of this. Rather, she said that she would present that to you in the future. So basically, you're having conceptual drawings of what they would like to do. Right? There's no details in here of how to construct it, the structural elements of it, the safety of it. And I accept that at this point because I'm tired of this going on for years next to me. So please just go ahead and pass this. And let's get to the next stage because this is ridiculous. They've made a mockery of this city, the Department of Inspection, the Department of Building. The very fact that I stood here and told you that they've continued building without your variance, I don't know if that registered in anybody's head here. So it's just frustrating. This is a conceptual drawing that you're about to pass. It has no details. She does have certain sheets that call out elements of nonstructural well, there are details that will then later be included in the structural set, I assume. I say it's impossible and not physically doable.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank thank you for your sentiment. And then, there will be another process after this. I think this would we're taken into your comments seriously, and, our zoning administrator is here. He hear it loud and clear.

[Paul Orr (DR requester for 1153 Guerrero Street)]: Yeah. Let's get it built. Doesn't matter what the rest of the neighborhood is.

[Lydia So (President)]: I really appreciate everybody's have, respect to everyone here, and I really appreciate everyone's making time here today. And, our vice our vice president would like to speak, and then also our zoning administrator would like to speak after her. Please.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I was actually going to ask the zoning administrator to please explain to the audience what is expected at this level of approval. Because to my experience, that is quite extensive. This is a typical set for planning commission approval because it touches on all of those things which are under our jurisdiction. However, the structural details on the implementation of the project are not in our purview. So, mister Cheek, would you be so kind to

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Sure. Absolutely. And that's actually exactly what I was going to speak to, which is I completely understand. A lot of these cases when there's history, there's, like, there's dealing with the past and the frustration of the past, and then there's trying to separate that out and think about the future, like, what's going to be the result. So I completely understand the the concerns about what's happened at this property in the past. But in terms of what you're looking at, you're looking at the same type of architectural plans that pretty much every project before the commission provides. Like, we don't get the structural drawings because, as the architect pointed out, they're typically not done until they know they can get the architectural set approved. And the structural is the purview of DBI and the building code. And, I mean, the the understanding with the way that the system works is that the structural are not gonna be approved. It's not gonna be constructed and inspected and finaled unless it's constructed in a way that meets code and is meeting those minimum safety requirements. So I'd I'd just make that point. There's nothing unique to this project or this proposal in terms of the level or type of plans that you're reviewing now relative to what will actually be built.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Making sure there aren't any other further comments. Seeing none, commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to not take Doctor and approve the project as proposed on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Kyle Brunell (Architect, project sponsor representative for 1153 Guerrero)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved. Commissioners and motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero. Zoning administrator would say.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: I will close the public hearing for the variance and intend to grant with standard conditions. Very good.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, commissioners, that concludes your hearing today.

[Lydia So (President)]: Alright. Meeting adjourned.