San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 07/31/2025. When we reach the item you are 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 reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued 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. Excuse me. At this time, I'd like to take role. Commission president So?

[Lydia So (President)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commission vice president Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Present. And commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance. There were no items proposed for continuance. However, we have received a request from the sponsor team for items 14 a and b for case numbers 2024Hyphen002799CUA at 906 Broadway, CUA And VAR, for the conditional use authorization and variance. And they are requesting a continuance to 10/02/2025. Further, commissioners, under your discretionary review calendar, there is a request for item 16, case number 2024Hyphen011548DRPHyphen02 at 2867 Green Street, from staff to be continued till 10/09/2025. I have no other items proposed for continuance, and so should we we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on the items proposed for continuance, only on the matter of continuance. I need to come forward. Seeing none, Are you coming forward, ma'am, to speak? Microphone, yes.

[Julia David (Public commenter)]: I just my name is Julia David. For item, excuse me, 14 a and 14 b. I wanna say I am in favor of continuance so the neighborhood can have more time to convene, and would like the developer to revise the 2AM provision in the next iteration of this proposal. So we are I am in favor of the continuance for 14 a and 14 b. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Last call for comment on the continuance calendar. Come on up, folks. If you intend to speak, you can come on up and line up on the screen side of the room.

[Inga Flores (Public commenter)]: Hi, commissioners. My name is Inga Flores. I just want to clarify. Does continuance mean, like, continue to revise?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Continuance simply means it won't be heard today, but at a later date. And the proposed continuance date

[Inga Flores (Public commenter)]: I'm in favor of the continuance, mainly because so I live at 904 Broadway. I am right next to the church. If you've never been to that neighborhood, let me paint you a picture. There's an assisted living facility. There's a daycare. There's a fire station and a police station. There's a lot of first responders, including one of my roommates, that require rest. And, generally, like, the neighborhood has begun to change with this project because of the parking situation. The parking is already hard in San Francisco as it is. It's a nightmare to find parking on the days where the event is being held.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, ma'am. I mean, with all due respect, we're only taking comment on the matter of continuance, not the project itself.

[Inga Flores (Public commenter)]: That's fair. But I would like for this to be heard because, obviously, the the project itself has caused disruption. And so the further we continue pushing it out, the more time that we have to prepare as a neighborhood for this. So thank you.

[John Wong (Public commenter)]: My name is John Wong. I live about two blocks away from the 14 A 14 B. I concur with the previous speaker, with a smooth continuance and I considered, the entertainment proposal upset the neighborhood, primary residential. There's a senior citizen housing on top, and top of the tunnel is a health center, and a scoop below that. So I have a vote for a continuance.

[Brandon Beasley (Public commenter)]: Hi. Brandon Beasley. I live at 41524.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Sir, could you raise the mic so you

[Brandon Beasley (Public commenter)]: can speak into it? Thank you. Excuse me. My name is Brandon Beasley. I live at 1524 Mason Street, which is about a half a block away from the proposal. I'm in favor of continuance. I think this needs to be discussed further. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Final last call for public comment on the continuance items. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your continuances are not before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: We move to continue items for a and b, and, item 16 to the dates as noted.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: 14 a and b. Yes. Yep.

[Amadeus Olegata (Planning Intern)]: Second.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And how about the others?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. I got

[Lydia So (President)]: that too.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There is a motion that has been seconded to continue items as proposed. Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (President)]: 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? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. And we'll place this under your consent

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Jonas, really quick, on item 14 b is acting zoning administrator. Move that to the date proposed as well.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Indeed. Thank you. That will now place this under your consent calendar. All matters listed 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 one, case number 2025Hyphen001427CUA at 1488 Lombard Street, conditional use authorization. Item two, case number 2025Hyphen002753CUA at 1499 Webster Street, conditional use authorization. Item three, case number 2025Hyphen004852CUA at 2,059 Chestnut Street, conditional use authorization. Item four, case number 2025Hyphen003679CUA at 1720 Fulton Street, conditional use authorization. Item five, case number 2025Hyphen004536CUA at 811 Sansom Street, conditional use authorization. Item six, case number 2025Hyphen003645, CUA at 5299 3rd Street, conditional use authorization. Item seven, case number 2025Hyphen004505CUA at thirteen oh three Larkin Street, conditional use authorization. And finally, items 8A through D for case numbers 20Nineteen-twenty3623E and x-two OFA-three, OFA hyphen zero four, and VAR hyphen zero two. For the property at 130 Townsend Street, large project authorization, office development authorization, and variances. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these items be pulled off of consent and considered under the regular calendar today or at a future hearing. You need to come forward.

[Mary Jo McConnell (Public commenter)]: Good afternoon. My name is Mary Jo McConnell. I am a resident at 88 King Street, which is one block away

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: from the post. Which which item would you like to be pulled off of consent?

[Mary Jo McConnell (Public commenter)]: 130 Townsend Street. I'm sorry. I don't have your docket in front of me.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. 130 Townsend Street. Very good.

[Mary Jo McConnell (Public commenter)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: When we call it up, we'll call you up to speak.

[Mary Jo McConnell (Public commenter)]: Thank you very much.

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

[Mary Jo McConnell (Public commenter)]: It's a little difficult to hear and understand how these proceedings are conducted.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I understand. Very good. So items eight a through d will be pulled off of consent and considered at the beginning of the regular calendar?

[Lydia So (President)]: Sure. Commissioner Campbell has a disclosure to make.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Okay. I see that one of the items you just listed, item number three at 2059 Chestnut Street is involves my employer. I have not worked on this project. It's actually through our Oakland office, and I it does not impact my ability to be impartial on this project.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. Thank you, commissioner Campbell. With that, I'll take last call for from members of the public to request that any of these other items be pulled off of consent? Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners, with exception to items eight a through d.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to approve items one through seven.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items one through seven on consent, 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 and will place us under commission matters for item nine, the land acknowledgment.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I'll be reading the land acknowledgment. The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone who are the regional inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we are that we benefit from the 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.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. Thank you. Item 10, commission comments and questions. Okay. Seeing no comments or questions from members of the commission, we can move on to department matters. Item 11, director's announcements.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Good to see you again. I don't have a whole lot to report today, but I am as this is our last commission hearing before the August recess and before the start of school, We are it's our opportunity to say goodbye to some amazing interns that we've had supporting our community equity division and our citywide division in the planning department. So I we're here to not quite say goodbye, but you're here to say goodbye and to acknowledge our amazing interns, Chris, Christian, Amadeus, and Alyssa. Miriam Chion, who leads our community equity division, will, speak to each of them. And James and Oscar, thanks for being here as well.

[Miriam Chion (Planning Department, Community Equity Division)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Miyeom Choon, planning department. As our director said, we're very fortunate to have our young professionals working with us and helping this summer. We do hope this summer has been insightful and productive, a productive experience for the four of them. But most importantly, it has been a great opportunity for us, the staff and community. They have provided us a window of opportunity to look into the future through the eyes of our future leaders. They have worked on hard question, sharp analysis. They have engaged with community in difficult conversations. They have walked the streets to see the vacant space, the challenges, the opportunities. They have raised tough questions in our staff meetings. They have challenges to think harder, to explore deeper, and to walk lighter. They have brought hope and trust, for our city of San Francisco and the generations to come. I will go through some of their bios, and then they will share a very brief reference to their experience here. So I'll start with Christian Parker from Compton, California. He's part of our HBCU initiative, which our equity council supported and shaped starting last year. He's returning to us, from last year as part of the Black to San Francisco program. So it has been, quite exciting to see that the program is having continuity. He's a recent graduate of Morehouse College, where he majored in psychology with a minor in Spanish. He, he's on his way to the master's program in applied psychology at the Chicago school, moving closer to his goal of becoming a therapist with his own practice in the coming years. Christian is a great listener. He loves food and music, and he's also on his way to spend a fantastic time with his family, which he values so much. Alisa Kawano from Los Angeles. She's currently completing a master's in urban planning at Harvard University Graduate School of Design. She holds a BA in urban studies and a BS in environmental policy with a minor in sustainable design from UC Berkeley. He has been with us before at SFMTA with the BIPARKING initiative. Alisa is very passionate about well designed public spaces that foster stronger communities and respond to climate resilience. She has a sharp eye to understand people and places and make those connections. She also loves our California Coast, rock climbing, and crocheting. Christopher Melgar was born and raised in San Francisco. He earned a bachelor's of arts in political science with a minor in international relations from San Francisco State University. He's been spending quite a bit of time with our various organizations. He is of Honduran heritage and enjoy exploring the diversity of foods in our city. He probably has covered the most community meetings than staff and other fellows. He enjoys, long walks and weightlifting sessions. Amadeus Ollagata is also San Francisco native with a background in policy advocacy and social work dedicated to advancing equitable community and economic development. He holds a BA in social welfare from the University of California at Berkeley, and is currently pursuing a master's in urban planning at Harvard University. He's a proud son of indigenous street vendors, and brings a unique and grounded perspective to reimagining San Francisco that truly serves, the most underrepresented community. Amadeus, still working with his parents and supporting his parents, is interested in connecting housing, resilience, public health, and design. He's a great bridge between sharp analysis and community dialogue. And he's a great Otavalo musician. They I'll now let them share some of their own experiences.

[Christian Parker (Planning Intern)]: Hello, commission. Hope all is well. I want to thank you guys for this opportunity, for allowing me to come to this hearing, first and foremost. And I wanna say thank you for, the or to the planning department being able to work under James Papas and Miriam Jeon. They allowed me to work in the, community equity division, as you guys already know. And, I was able to work closely with, two planners, Oscar Grande and Arianne Wiley Green. I was able to help out on the mapping of asset mapping for the Mission District and helping to gather information for future toolkit for the Bayview for the Bayview area. Sorry. A little nervous. So yeah. But I think this was a great opportunity to allow me to see how the inner workings of the city goes about. And thank you, guys.

[Alyssa Kawano (Planning Intern)]: Good afternoon, members of the planning commission. My name is Alyssa Kawano. I wanted to start by saying thank you for having us here. I feel really grateful to be in this space and to learn from all the work that's been done before us. This summer, I've been working on a studio based project looking at the Harry Bridges Plaza and the Market Plaza just in front of the Ferry Building, exploring how these spaces can better support public, life, respond to climate change, and feel more connected to the waterfront and the city around them. What stood out to me thus far in my internship is how much care and collaboration it takes to make change in public spaces. There's design, but there's also deep layers of history, community relationships, and long term stewardship that have to come together. Moving forward, I hope to keep working in working in that space where design meets systems, and where climate adaptation is rooted in everyday life. And I wanna continue listening, learning, and contributing to places that serve people more meaningfully. Hopefully in San Francisco after I graduate. Thank you.

[Christopher Melgar (Planning Intern)]: Hello, planning commissioners. I also wanna say thank you guys for highlighting, our experiences. This is, this is really cool. My name is Christopher Melgar. I'm one of the interns with the community equity division. And during my internship, I worked closely with Oscar to support key initiatives in the mission community. One of the projects that I contributed to was the mission action plan, where I help prepare meeting materials, take notes, co facilitate discussions, and conduct outreach. I also worked on a project supporting mission partners and navigating the planning process. One particularly meaningful experience to me was walking the 16th Street corridor with the team. This really opened up my perspective about how vital community engagement is in shaping our neighborhoods. I now see my city through a new lens and have a deeper appreciation for the role of cultural place keeping. As I move into my master's program and future career, I hope to use policy as a tool to bridge the gap between our city's priorities and the needs of working families. I'd like to give a huge shout out and thanks to Miriam, Oscar, and everyone in the community equity division at planning. I'm truly grateful for their leadership, guidance, and the opportunity to be a part of impactful work. So thank you, guys.

[Amadeus Olegata (Planning Intern)]: Good afternoon, planning commission. My name is Amadeus Olegata, and I've been working with the community equity division under the guidance of Miriam, Oscar, and James. My work has involved creating an asset map for the mission for the 16th Street Mission Corridor where we're identifying the existing infrastructure in areas for opportunity in and around the corridor. The goal for these maps is to initiate stronger partnerships between city and community leaders to make better informed decisions for the 4 16th Street. I've learned how important it is to work in partnership with community organizations, meeting community where they're at, and translating those needs into strategic actionable plans for the well-being of current and future generations that reside on 16th Street. It's been an honor to work in the neighborhood that I grew up in and where my parents continue to work in. And I will use the skills that I've learned this summer and continue to advance urban development initiatives in San Francisco and around the world. On behalf of the interns at the planning department, I just like to say thank you for the opportunity.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: That may be with that. Yeah. We can can you give them all a round of applause? Thank you all for your bravery in speaking up here as well as the hard work you did with for us for the you know, over the summer and beyond. We're incredibly lucky. I think we also feel incredibly grateful that planning has been able to host not just interns of this caliber, but help foster the future generation of planners and other disciplines, forward so that we, you know, we're really helping to build not just equity, but the reality of our youth and their future into what we're looking forward in the long term visions of our city. It's been really great. Thank you all so much. And, Miriam, James, Oscar, again, thank you for fostering this opportunity for our team as well.

[Lydia So (President)]: Yeah. Thank you for taking the time to come here. And I always get really emotional hearing young, inspiring future generation to speak so passionately about the area that you really invested in your career and your goal and your life too. And, this is the best place to learn, and I hope that you take your experience and, make an impact to anywhere you go. And, especially, I'm really personally touched to actually this study on 16th Street. I, Casa Altaeronte is my Muni stop. That was where I come here, you know, how I get to here. And I just felt that with the leadership of our planning department head and also Mariam and Oscar's team, this is amazing work that you have done and kinda give us another hope of the future for San Francisco. And please come back and help us. Okay? And now I'm gonna pass on I think a lot of my commissioners like to say some really nice words to you and send you off back to school. Commissioner Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you to all of you. You are amazing. If I had the power, I would hire all of you. But I do hope that you have forged the relationships by which you would ultimately consider coming back. I think it's an honor to hear the sincerity and the depth of your commitment, and I wish we would have met at the beginning of your internship so you would know a little bit more about process and what we are doing here. But I'm glad to meet you now, and I wish all of you the best in your careers. Thank you.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Two, I wanna thank you guys for, you know, your contribution to the planning department. And, it's just great. It's great to see such a diverse, group of of individuals. And and so, I I hope you guys learned, some good lessons here. I know that you're all going to do great things, so hopefully you'll come back and do them here. You had some great role models, And so good luck to you, and hope to see you guys again. So I'll probably see some of you are from here. But the two folks that aren't from here, good luck to you. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commission, I'm here. I'm sorry. Commission, Abrahund.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I just wanna thank, thank you as well and share my gratitude. Thanks for coming to the department and sharing your skills and your fresh perspective. It's a really valuable thing to have, and I hope I'll echo Commissioner Williams' comments that I hope I will be seeing all of you either at the department in the future or at least out and about here in San Francisco. So good luck to you, and thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I share the gratitude of my fellow commissioners. Like vice president Moore, if there is a budget, it'll be great if you can be on on board with the staff. But we're we're very grateful, the planning department, and for me as a commissioner to have interns that really contribute and in the process of what's going on in the time of what's happening in the planning department. So, so thank you, and also good luck to your future endeavors. I believe I met Amadeus in the third in the, in the African American patrol district walk. And hope you learned a lot in that history as well. I hope you come back. And, again, thank you. And thank you for the staff as well for leading them, directing them, and hopefully, we also get that kind of introduction in the future as well. But truly appreciate your contribution. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd also like to thank you for all your hard work with the City and County of San Francisco, and I just wanna wish you well in all your future endeavors. Thank you again.

[Lydia So (President)]: And is it still on that you guys are gonna give a presentation tomorrow at about 1PM or so? Is it the same group of young planners?

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: At tomorrow and I didn't is it open? Can we announce this? Yes. Okay. Tomorrow at 01:00, in our in our offices at the planning department, The the young planners who are here who you heard from a couple weeks ago when they were doing their historic resource presentations are gonna give their final presentation. So happy to forward the invitation that anybody wants to come or just come to our offices at 01:00 tomorrow.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to item 12, review of past events at the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. I have no report from the Historic Preservation Commission as they did not meet yesterday.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. The sun is finally out just in time for your summer recess. I hope you get to enjoy or get a chance, for some rest and relaxation this August. And perhaps this weekend, you'll be able to enjoy the sunshine, a daydream, or walking in the tall trees going where the wind goes. This week at land use, the committee considered supervisor Melgar's ordinance that would amend the controls for unauthorized dwelling units and create a more robust enforcement mechanism when those units omit are omitted from the plans. The planning commission considered this ordinance way back on October 17 and recommended approval with modifications. Those modifications were to first remove the proposed reporting program from the ordinance, instead work with DBI to expand their expanded compliance control program to include misrepresentations on planning applications. The second was to modify the language related to planning department investigations so that the planning department considers information provided by neighbors, but is not required to conduct interviews with neighbors. The third was to amend the definition of a UDU or unauthorized dwelling unit, to include a ten year limit. The fourth was to amend the applicability of the proposed penalty fee to only apply to significant mis representations on plans and have the planning commission define what significant is. And then finally, it was to remove a reference to the planning department's property information map and replace it with a more generic term. Supervisor Malgard did modify the ordinance prior to the hearing to accept most of the planning commission's recommended modifications. Those that were not included were the recommendation to amend the definition of UDU to include a ten year limit and to have the Planning Commission, determine what a significant violation was. Instead of that recommendation, they included similar guidance already in the code that the ZA uses to assess fees. There were no public comments and no significant comments from the committee members. The supervisor did request the item be duplicated to address some concerns she had heard during her outreach in the last few days. The item was amended to make one non substantive change, and the amended ordinance was forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation. Next, the commission considered supervisor Melgar's ordinance that would remove the use size cap in about five neighborhood commercial districts and make other changes to allow subdivision of larger spaces into smaller spaces. Commissioners, you heard this item on July 17 and recommended approval with a finding that the supervisor should conduct additional outreach. At the hearing, the committee members were joined by supervisor Connie Chan and supervisor Mandelmann. During public comment, there were a few people who spoke against the proposed changes, especially from the North Beach neighborhood. Supervisor Connie Chan had questions related to how this ordinance interacted with all other recent changes to the code, stating that she thought more time was needed to understand how this would impact her neighborhood commercial corridors. Of particular concern was how it would impact parcel delivery, service uses. However, as staff informed her, this use is not typically allowed in neighborhood commercial districts and, due to its industrial nature. Supervisor Mandelmann said that he understood the reasoning behind the change, but was also concerned about how this change would impact the Castro District, especially given the pending rezoning. He requested that the Castro's maximum use size cap be left in the code. Supervisor Cheyenne Chen asked that the ordinance be duplicated and made a motion to maintain the Castro's use size limit in the code. The motion passed unanimously. The item was then forwarded to the full board with no recommendation as a committee report. Then at the full board, the non complying unpermitted and accessory structures that was sponsored by Supervisor Ingardio passed its second read. Supervisor Malgar's UDU legislation passed its first read, as did her use size limit ordinance, passed its first read on a two to nine vote with supervisors Connie Chan and Cheyenne Chen voting no. Lastly, the board took up the appeal of the tentative map for the project at 1979 Mission Street, also known as The Monster or marvel in The Mission. The project proposes to subdivide a 57,325 square foot parcel into three new lots measuring approximately 24,700, 18,700, and 13,800 square feet. It includes the demolition of existing commercial buildings and the construction of a nine story residential building with 136 units of supportive housing. This project was submitted under AB twenty one sixty two, which allows for ministerial approval of supportive housing developments. The planning department determined the project met all applicable requirements and issues approval accordingly. The tentative map was subsequently approved for compliance with the planning code. The appellants, were an association of adjacent neighbors and representatives from the adjacent elementary school. They appealed the subdivision not on the grounds of the sub that the subdivision was approved incorrectly, but because the proposed project, which would provide supportive housing for people with drug and alcohol addiction. The hearing, discussion centered less on the subdivision itself and more on the broader challenges facing the neighborhood, particularly the deteriorating conditions around 16th And Mission. Several policy disagreements emerged during the hearing, both among the supervisors and between the board and public commenters. Key issues raised include enforcement practices, resource allocation, EMB versus NIMBY perspectives, and the state's sober living requirements. Public testimony and board dialogue underscored the urgent need for the city to take more effective action to address public health, safety, and quality of life concerns in the area. While the conversation was candid and illuminating, it became clear that the proposed tentative map on its own would neither improve nor worsen the existing conditions at this intersection. Ultimately, no direct action could be taken at the hearing to address the immediate neighbor concerns, but the discussion reinforced the broader need for coordination intervention. At the end of the hearing, supervisor Fielder gave her final remarks and ended by making a motion to deny the appeal. That motion was passed unanimously. That concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. If there are no questions for mister Starr, we can move on. I don't see the zoning administrator here to provide you with the report. 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.

[George Shutish (Public commenter)]: Sorry to pick up my mess. Hi. Good afternoon. George Shutish. What I'm gonna have miss Drayonan give you after I'm done speaking is a copy of a January 2015 email to former ZA Sanchez regarding, quote, remodels that seem to turn into demolitions in Noe Valley. I wrote that in January 2015, so ten and a half years ago. And I wanted to look back on that. And what was happening then was the increase in expensive homes that were dramatically different in size and appearance from the original house. And I raised the question of how do you solve this problem? Because at that time, I really didn't know anything about the section three seventeen dimocals. I just saw these houses disappearing and this change and this dramatic increase in prices, three, four, five. Ultimately, in recent years, a house sold for $9,000,000 had a $7,000,000 increase. Okay. So it's a list of projects. And I could actually stand up here for a half hour and go through a whole bunch of projects, and it'd be boring. But it would be illustrative of the problem of these changes in these houses and the price increases. You know, no facade, no rear walls, no interior. And there were also projects that were mergers, de facto mergers of pairs of flats, and they've just multiplied since then. So in this email at the time, I listed neighborhoods like the Mission, Inouye Valley, and Bernal Heights, and I said, affordability is probably lost there forever. But I said, that did not mean that it couldn't be preserved in the neighborhoods that are now under the priority equity geographies. And frankly, the previous housing element never implemented the policies to preserve homes as starter homes. That was in the policies to preserve these smaller homes as starter homes for families. And that really never happened. So now I'm concerned that the priority equity geographies, as I highlighted ten and a half years ago, the neighborhoods like the Portola and the Excelsior and the Bayview, which are recognized as vulnerable, will not be protected. And that's why I say that the calc should be adjusted. Section three seventeen still applies to the priority equity geography neighborhoods. And on the back of the email that I sent to mister Sanchez and his reply, it's from set the staff analysis for s b nine, which clearly states your own staff said they're they are worried about people cashing out in those neighborhoods. So that's on there too. And I also think that s b four twenty three should not be applied to the private equity geography neighborhoods, and the city should lobby to get that away from those neighborhoods. Four twenty three is pretty dangerous, I think. And originally I was going to give this out with a toolkit that was continued, but that's okay. You can have it now. And there's my 150 words for the minutes as well. And that's it. Thanks a lot.

[Mary Jo McConnell (Public commenter)]: Once again, my name is Mary Jo McConnell. My comment is how do you expect people who are uninitiated to these proceedings to be able to participate in this? I stood up here to speak to 130 Townsend, which I have now discovered as was eight a, b, c, and d on the agenda, and we've gone past it. So now I have come down here without having had the opportunity to address this?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Not not entirely true, ma'am. We we pulled it off of consent, and it will be heard under the regular calendar right after this item, general public comment.

[Mary Jo McConnell (Public commenter)]: Okay. Again, initiation to policy and procedure. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, there are agendas on the table from members of the public.

[Mark Bruno (Public commenter, St. Vincent de Paul Society)]: My name is Mark Bruno. I'm president of Saint Vincent de Paul Society in North Beach. We've been asking for almost a month now from the planning department for a tally of the number of housing buildings, buildings with residential units that are also on the zoning map. As the planning commission meeting here July 17, department representative Lisa Chan said meeting state housing requirements to all of you is about advancing our vision of affordability. That has been our North Star over the past three years of outreach on rezoning. This language mirrors the language of the mayor's original press release on June 22 and mirrors two of the eight goals in the city's general plan consistency section one zero one and also mirrors the 63 page report you were given on July 10 from the planning department. So affordability is a big deal. That's why we're here. It's not to advertise payments to Nepal, but because affordability and those people who are in those affordable units, I think, are being ignored by the planning department. I don't know how else to say it. Whether it's deliberate or not, it doesn't matter. The effect of obfuscation is the same, not allowing the public to know what former Director Rich Hillis told me right outside here in the hall. It's easy to get how many buildings are, housing residential renters and also around the planning map. So to to refine this with Lisa Chen, she, generously wrote to us on July and said in her email, the closest resource we have at planning is the Rentport's housing inventory. Owners of residential units are required to report their units on the registry. So we wrote back and said, fine, that's a great way to do it. All you have to do, I'll quote what I said, sure, please cross reference the buildings on the rent board registry with the up zoning map to tell us how many buildings are subject to up zoning and also on the housing registry. I don't there's nothing cloudy about this. Up zoning map means those churches there and those theaters there and those commercial buildings there, those office spaces there are all subject to possible up zoning. We're not interested in those types of buildings. We're only interested in those types of buildings that might be on the upzoning map and also include affordable housing units. But Lisa's point, which is a good one, is we don't know that exact answer, but we can tell you from the housing registry how many are on the upzoning map. Since then, we've never gotten an answer. Where's the answer? If affordability is really the city's North Star as a planner Chen said here, and if they've been working on it as she also said for three years why can't this information be provided to the public prior to your vote? We believe it should be. Thank you so much.

[Asia (Public commenter, Build Affordable Faster/TODCO)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Asia, and I'm with build affordable faster, a project through TODCO. And I want to emphasize that we need clarity around s p 79 and what those impacts will be for the city. I also want to ask how does this interact with our RHNA numbers And, also, if we can get a map of the areas that will be infected affected by the impacts of SB 79. Thank you.

[Peter Stevens (Public commenter, Build Affordable Faster/TODCO)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Peter Stevens. I am also with Build Affordable Faster project of TODCO. And I just wanna reiterate what my colleague is saying. SB 79 is really the elephant in the room. If it does impact San Francisco, we really need to know what that means. We would love to see some sort of map created as well as, you know, maybe a policy stack that describes how it interacts with our local zoning efforts. And, it'd be great too to also understand how it interacts with our RAN numbers. Thank you all.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Paul Wertman. If I could get the overhead, please. So I was before you a while back on a conditional use opposition for the Fillmore Nordstrom Local. And one of the key issues we raised was the issue of traffic impacts and access to transit.

[Paul Wertman (Public commenter)]: And it was said, oh, that's an SFMTA responsibility. And it was said, oh, planning doesn't deal with those things. That's SFMTA's responsibility. Director Hillis, then Director Hillis came out and spoke to me afterwards and said and I was saying, wait a minute. That's not right. Because I actually spent a lot of time looking to see what the issues were for a CU. And I'm a bit surprised that section three zero three is pretty clear. And I've highlighted the relevant sections in yellow that traffic and accessibility are critical considerations, and they should not be adversely affected. So I don't know. I mean, has the zoning administrator issued some sort of interpretation that says that this really doesn't apply on bus stops and so on or transit times? Is it that planning staff was totally aware of this segment when they're writing the reports? You can understand why I'm frustrated. Because I was told by many of you and by planning staff that, no, this doesn't count. And that's a real problem when we're trying to build a system of governance where one can have confidence in what the commissions do. Because it ignored one of the key factors. I understand I absolutely understand that the mayor's office feels it's critically important to get Nordstrom in place, because hopefully they will come back to San Francisco. I'm not sure that's the case, but that may be the case. Using that as the basis for an argument and saying that that was overwhelming would be honest and address substantially why this is being ignored. To pretend it doesn't exist, to me, is very disturbing. I feel betrayed. I feel that planning staff cannot necessarily be trusted to do an honest case report. Because I laid out these issues clearly in my letter that the case planner was copied on, that you were copied on, and this was all ignored. And that really hits my ability to trust the actions of this commission. And that's a problem with lack of trust in government. And I just wanted to make that point because we're going into some really difficult issues going forward. And if we don't have confidence in what the planning department is doing and their ability to integrate issues of land use in terms of buildings and building use with issues of land use in terms of transportation and accessibility and transit, then we've got a real problem. Thank you.

[Unidentified public commenter (uses captioning)]: Hi. I utilize the captioning, but the captioning is situated in such a way that people are allowed to stand in front of those, and we can't read it fast enough. And it also lags behind what y'all are saying by enough time that it's hard to keep up. So I came to speak on item seven and you've gone past that. Is that still on the agenda for today? What's what's I I'm confused.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Item seven actually was approved on consent.

[Unidentified public commenter (uses captioning)]: So I'm waiting for to see your reply. Okay. Was approved on consent. I wanna object to that. I'm I live there. I've lived there for three years, and it took me five years on the waiting list to get in as a senior. And so I spent ten years on y'all streets as a homeless person. I used to own a business in Texas, and I had a lot of assets. And I tried to sue a major corporation, and I ended up being stalked out of my residence, which was a homestead. So I have a lot of experience with dealing with grief and BS on the streets of San Francisco because I'm not a drug user. I'm not an alcoholic. I was a working professional. I have a doctorate and a post doctorate degree. So I want you to know that they held multiple meetings to tell the residents there that there was gonna be some renovations. They did not say one single word about the fact they were gonna remove the restriction on age. Currently, it is for seniors, right, and disabilities, but now they intend to remove the restriction on the age so that it will be open to anyone who's low income. Well, there's problems with that. I see people who are very fragile and that, like for example, one woman who's bedridden because of knee surgeries gone wrong. She's not unable to lock she's unable to lock her door. So I have a lot of experience with the homeless low income people in San Francisco, and I think that by the time you get to be 62, you have a certain amount of maturity and reputation that they can track. And I I object to the concept that a thirty five year low income drug user can end up in that building because the people are very, very vulnerable. So I would I would like you all to consider not approving that, but asking they also did not inform any of the social workers around the city that they were gonna make this request. I went to Curry Senior Center, I said, have you all heard of this request? Which they posted on the walls, but see people walk past those thinking, oh, this is about the meetings I've already been to. I don't need to look at this. I spoke with a number of people, they had no idea that that restriction was going to be used and their neighbor may be a low income drug user in the room next to them next year. Okay? And so they didn't come here to speak because they didn't know. One person did come here to speak, and I'd spoken to her. That's my thirty second warning.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That's actually your time. It's up. Thank you. Yeah.

[Unidentified public commenter (uses captioning)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Aris Sedgwick (Public commenter)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm just, again, asking the same thing. On the consent calendar, everything was already heard?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, on consent, we don't hear them. They just get approved unless we receive a request to get pulled off of consent.

[Aris Sedgwick (Public commenter)]: Okay. Well, I'm on, I guess, agenda item number two. I'm a Western edition Harlem of the West Fillmore resident for fifty one years. And I actually sent them a letter just trying to get an understanding more. We've been in the field more, you know, waiting for years for, you know, development and construction to happen for African Americans that was displaced. We continue to get displaced. Our Safeway was just closed. I was rallying around trying to get some understanding on that. I did meet with Miriam one time, and I thought it was we have a better relationship in the planning department coming to the Fillmore and getting a better understanding. American Realty, we've been reaching out to them for years and trying to see what's going on. Every time something closes, they expand their buildings. They expanded the from the cleaners. They expanded the the hair store. They expanded a watch shop and a clothing store. So we just need some help and get in touch with American Realty because now you're the diocese center is expanding. So everybody's building economic development on top of a community that's been trying to get redeveloped since redevelopment took it from us. Right? And we've been reaching out to Patrick Seto, who's the CEO right now standing in from his father of American Realty. I've sent letters. I've been to his office. You've had Park Alliance, which is now, you know, a multi corporation that failed. They had to land outside of, American Realty on Gene Settle Plaza. But the community just hasn't had a chance to really talk with American Realty and the CEO of that government. So we're trying to get a hand on what we can do from the planning department. Our supervisor, unfortunately, it was his campaign office. He hasn't been able to bridge relationship with him, our former supervisor, Dean Preston. Nobody's came to the Fillmore to really explain the next steps and what we gotta go through as African Americans in the Harlem West. Unfortunately, our successors, Mary Rogers, Reverend Arnold Townsend, a lot of those elders have passed away. We're trying to pick up the ball because nothing was established. So if I can just get your help, Aris Sedgwick. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I'd like to make a comment from the general public comment. First, I would like to follow-up on the SB79. I think I've requested before whether there can be some form of information in the SB79, the process. Where is it in the in the state legislation and also some form of information to the planning commission in terms of how it's going to be impacted?

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Commissioner, we'll bring that information back to you when we regroup in September. It is my understanding that that continues to be at committee and to be amended. And so we are not in the practice of continually analyzing a bill as it is changing. When that bill is stable, we'll get back to you and and let you know.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So it's not yet approved or were you

[Lisa Napoli (Public commenter)]: No.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: It's not yet approved.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Got it. Okay. And I just wanna also comment on the last public speaker around the Wes Fillmore. And and I guess just wanna comment on, you know, people's understanding what the consent calendar is. You know, perhaps when we're going through the consent calendar, commissioner secretary Ioannoni, perhaps we can, you know, have more a description what consent calendar that means that there is no discussion by the planning commission and that people can comment on the consent calendar to take it off more clearly so that they're not being part of the general public comment and that perhaps we can actually hear those comments that they, you know, that they wanna speak about. So, yeah, I I think it's just for us to have a more clear communication to the public when they're coming here so that we could actually hear them, not just during the general public comment. That's all.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioner Imperial. We can certainly look into clarifying language and making it more clear for members of the public. I I can understand it can be a confusing process.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I wanted to follow-up on SB 79 too. Thank thank you, Director Phillips for, responding to that. But I I was just curious about, is San Francisco Planning Department considering that we're going through the up zoning and considering the impacts of SB79 to the upzonings? Is there are you taking any kind of position? Are you have any any anybody from planning the planning department been, in conversation with state legislators or trying to figure out how all of this is going to work out. Because it seems to me, from what I understand, and I know it's not done yet, but SB 79 will basically, forgive my wording, trump everything that we're doing with the upsonings. And so it's concerning. And so I just wanted to see if what what if if anything, if, what the planning department what what's your stance on it and what what moving forward, has there been any conversation with with the state?

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: So, conversation with state legislatures happens through the mayor's office for all departments in the city, so we do defer to the mayor's office on that. And, you know, unlike yourselves as commissioners, our board of supervisors, our mayor, the planning department, we're regulators and analysts, so we're not in the practice of taking positions, I think. And I'll defer to Jonas on your ability to

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: do so.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. So so there's there's no position? What about and I know, again, I know it's kind of premature. But given the impacts of SB79 that are possible, And given all the work that's been done around the EPISODE, it's just concerning. That's all. And as a commissioner, it would be helpful to understand how all of this is going to play out if in fact this state law is passed. And so that's where I'm trying to get at. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: In response to that, I think the ability as the commission to be involved and submit a recommendation or a position, you would have to request that it be calendered on the agenda for discussion to occur and then to come to some sort of a consensus as to what you want to convey. But it would have to take an action by the planning commission, not necessarily an individual commissioner.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you, Jonas.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, we can move on to the regular calendar for items eight a through d for case numbers 2019Hyphen023623ENXHyphen02OFAHyphen03, OFAHyphen04, and VARHyphen02 for the property at 130 Townsend Street. Commissioners, a large project authorization, office development authorization, and are before you and the acting zoning administrator will be considering the variances.

[Vincent Page (Planning Department staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Vincent Page, planning department staff. The matter before you today is a request to extend by three years the performance period of a mixed use project that was approved on 09/02/2021 through motion numbers two zero nine seven two, two zero nine seven three, and two zero nine seven four. The approved project includes a four story vertical addition to the existing landmark building at 130 Townsend Street, which is located within the Article 10 South End Historic District. It also includes new construction of a separate six story building behind the proposed addition, new construction of a separate, I'm sorry, a total of 81,201 square feet of office space, seventeen fifty nine square feet of retail space, and seven eleven square feet of production, distribution, and repair. In order for the project to proceed, the commission must grant amendments to conditions of approval related to validity, expiration, and renewal for the large project authorization, such that the authorization would be extended by three years to 07/31/2028. The commission must also make a determination of compliance under planning code section 322 to correct conditions of approval related to two office allocations that the project received under motion numbers two zero nine seven three and two zero nine seven four. Specifically, the correction is to clarify that the validity period of the office allocations was eighteen months from the effective date of their respective motions, not three years. This correction is requested by the department as administrative in manner and will have no effect on the project that was already approved. The Department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the central Soma plan and the objectives and policies of the general plan. The Department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to any persons adjacent to the properties in the vicinity. This concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Matthew Reed (TDA Investment Group, Project Sponsor)]: Good afternoon, commission commissioners. My name is Matthew Reed, and I'm with TDA Investment Group. We are a, fiduciary fund manager for Taft Hartley pension funds, and, specifically, the Northern California and Southern California Laborers Union. To give you some context on our involvement and the sponsor of this, we were a lender originally on this, during the original approvals. Subsequently, due to market conditions, the property has come back to us, and we are the, we represent the trust which currently owns, the asset. Before you today is our request for the three year extension of the currently approved and previously approved entitlements for the project that's located at 130 Townsend. We're not seeking any changes to the entitlements that were previously approved. We're just simply asking for a three year extension. We believe the project, as designed and planned, will bring a great long term value and vision for that area. The project, as Vincent described, is comprised of two mid rise buildings located at Townsend and then the property in the rear at 50 Stanford Street. It encompasses, approximately 80,000 square feet of office and retail and fully respects the historic context and architectural rhythm of the area. The Northern Tower will deliver almost 50,000 feet, and the South Tower about 33,000 feet, each carefully planned, to remain under the small office allocation thresholds. Additionally, the project will activate the streetscape with about 1,700 square feet of retail. We believe the project at Townsend is more than just a commercial endeavor. It's a long term investment in San Francisco's innovation economy and architectural heritage in that area. While the past few years have presented undeniable challenges in the office development, space citywide, we are seeing some renewed momentum in that area and believe that this is the right time to be making the the extension for these entitlements. Market indicators are pointing towards a gradual but steady recovery, and we're optimistic that given this extension, the project will play a key role in that recovery. We sincerely appreciate the city's partnership and commitment throughout this process. The collaboration between our teams and the city agencies have been instrumental in shaping the project that aligns with both the urban fabric and the future needs of San Francisco. Given these dynamics, please consider this extension to allow us sufficient time, to, engage a new developer for the project and, lend on that project and bring it to fruition. We appreciate your time. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Unidentified resident of The Towers (near 130 Townsend) (Public commenter)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. This is my first experience coming to a public hearing, but I felt this very important for me to take time off of work today to talk about this development. This is the first time I heard of it, and we live in the the property that's located at Kitty Corner from the ballpark. So we're kind of in the shadow of the proposed development. If I may, can I read a letter? I'm not sure how this works, but I wanted to mail this, and it felt important to come in person. My wife and I are very much opposed to the proposed project to modify the double height historic building located at 130 Townsend, raising the height to 65 feet. I'm not sure what good this is going to do, but I want to make my point. The project would impair the even skyline, block our best views, reduce our overnight, sorry, afternoon sunlight, and the warmth it provides, and creates an impediment to our television radio. We have, a So I'll continue. Mark Twain famously described this visit to San Francisco saying, the coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco. The proposed addition would cast a shadow over our condominium before the sun sets, effectively reducing the limited sunshine that our unit already enjoys. We are located on the 4th Floor of the condominium complex, locally known as The Towers. Evaluating the floor plan of the proposed development with the help of Google Maps and some Photoshop tools from the plan views, we can see that the proposed construction will effectively tower over the local buildings.

[Matthew Reed (TDA Investment Group, Project Sponsor)]: I did a little

[Unidentified resident of The Towers (near 130 Townsend) (Public commenter)]: Photoshop work. The building is higher than anything that's around the vicinity. My point about the sunlight is oriented the right way. We're the building right in the direct shadow of the proposed development. And lastly, I wanted to show this is, the view from our unit. I don't know if you could see it, but that's Sutro Tower there, that little thing in the distance. This is like our last remaining landmark that we could see. So I would lose that we would lose that view. Not just evaluating a high fence from a next door neighbor, but rather a massive 65 foot visual obstruction that will cast a shadow, not just over our unit, but over all the units in that section. In addition to reducing the pressure sunlight, the proposed building addition will effectively cut off completely our views of Mount Sutro. And what's more, the building extension will effectively block the analog television radio signals that we enjoy.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, sir. That that is your time. Yeah. You can submit that the documents you have if you'd like.

[Unidentified resident of The Towers (near 130 Townsend) (Public commenter)]: Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Where do I submit?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Or you just leave them right here. I'll pick them up.

[Mary Jo McConnell (Public commenter)]: Thank you. My name is Mary Jo McConnell. I am a resident of 88 King Street, a 235 unit condominium complex, one block from the proposed building site. This project is on a very small footprint. It extends one large block in an alley. I do not understand when building is going to be occurring, where the large equipment is going to be placed. I can only imagine the impact of the dust and the noise and the congestion of a very small footprint build on my neighborhood. I also ask you to imagine my neighborhood during a Giants game. I ask you to imagine 40,000 people descending on my neighborhood and parking and the congestion and now we have a big build happening on a small footprint. I cannot imagine how this is going to be accomplished. I ask you to imagine the noise and the congestion, how it will impact many people in my condominium complex. Also, the adjoining adjoining Brannan Complex, which is two blocks from the proposed site, which has many, many condominium units there. And there are multiple condominium buildings in between both of those locations. Townsend Street is incredibly congested during rush hour. And I ask you to imagine what having construction workers being parked in that area, project managers coming to that area, heavy equipment, deliveries of supplies coming to that area. And I ask you to imagine what Townsend Street is going to be like during rush hour, during this build. I also would like to hold up and forgive I am new into this process. This is a graphic of the current amount of commercial space available in my neighborhood. So I ask you, what is the value of a new project being built to offer premium office space when this much commercial space is currently available. I don't know if my words have any meaning since apparently this project has already been approved in 2021, but I felt like I needed to come down here and speak my piece. And I thank you for your kind attention.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment on this item. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Oh, god.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner to vice president Amor.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: What is in front of us today is not the approval of the project, which was approved in 2021 under slightly different circumstances regarding the need for office space than we have today. But that said, does not automatically reopen the discussion on the project per se. The only thing we have to consider in doing that with justice to all, as we have other, requests for extension, is to open up the consideration for extending the time frame by an additional three years. This project was approved in 2021. In the rush of getting it built, apparently, things changed faster than anticipated. And so the applicant is asking us today to extend the term of implementation. And I'm making a motion to do so because that is what we typically do.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There's no further deliberation, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve, the requested amendments on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Sorry. I had a comment. I had my my hand raised, but unfortunately

[Lydia So (President)]: Woah. Sorry. Yeah. I'm calling you Okay.

[Brandon Beasley (Public commenter)]: You're calling

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: All right. I just wanted to acknowledge the the folks that came out, the neighbors. And just to acknowledge that there is an issue with commercial space. And there's a lot of vacant commercial buildings downtown. And I think you made a good point. And so, but unfortunately, this is just an extension of what's already been approved. But I just don't want that point to go unnoticed. And maybe as time goes by, it won't be conducive to continue on the commercial path of office building at this location, and maybe there will be something else that could be profitable as well that the developer might consider giving, you know, giving what's happening with the economy. So that's all. That's all I wanted to add. Thank you.

[Brandon Beasley (Public commenter)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there is nothing further, there is

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: a motion that has been seconded to approve the requested amendments on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Mary Jo McConnell (Public commenter)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Acting zoning administrator, what say you?

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Thank you. Close public hearing with an intent to grant the variance, which simply extends the validity period by three years along with standard conditions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. Thank you. Commissioners, that will now place us on item 13 for case number 2024Hyphen008053CR v for the small projects amendments to the citywide design standards informational presentation.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Trent Greenan, staff architect. Pleased to be here this afternoon to present amendments to the citywide design standards. This is an informational presentation and these are amendments that include, standards for small projects. So if you have the laptop, great. So as a reminder, the citywide design standards were adopted late last year in November, and they have been used for implementation of HAA projects since that time. And just to remind you, these are projects that construct two or more units and this would cover a whole range of different state and local, housing programs. Without the standards in place, sponsors would only need to follow the planning code. So from the outset, the document was intended to be a living document that we know that it have to be updated periodically. This would be sort of the first update to that. The original standards were based more on denser housing on corridors. So these are starting to address a smaller scale residential development. So we're proposing that the applicability of these standards would apply to projects that are either or are in residentially zone districts and they're either 55 feet in lot width or less or 55 feet tall or less. So following up on the adoption of the standards last year, the department has worked to develop these standards in collaboration with, some neighborhood groups and the American Institute of Architects to develop these standards, that again will address, the more sensitive conditions that these, smaller projects may exist in. And then also as a recap, the design standards are broken down into site design and architecture. Site design addresses the overall massing of the building, how it sits on the site, includes things such as, ground floor setbacks, upper floor setbacks, modulation, and so forth. Whereas architecture is more fine grain and addresses the facade of the building, things like articulation and ground floor treatment. So the standards that we're presenting today will all be within site design. Looking first at single lot massing. So we're looking at sort of a typical San Francisco residential lot of roughly 25 feet by a 100 feet in-depth. And so you can see illustrations on the left sort of illustrate the standard itself and then the right shows the context of what this would, the impact would be on the neighbors. So as with all the standards, we like to provide flexibility on how the standards can be achieved. So sponsored sponsors can sort of choose their approach. The first approach would be that the building could be built to full height up to the 55 foot lot depth. But that at that point, between the 55 feet and the 70% depth, 70% is a required rear yard. So that's the area between that we're requiring some massing reductions to take place. So the first option is that you can see there's a sort of pop out there that has five foot setbacks on both sides that extends up three stories. And you can see how that plays out in the illustration on the right. And then the second option is, you know, we got feedback from the community, architecture community that, you know, that pop out may not always be advantageous for programming of the spaces and so forth. So, another option is just to go full width, you know, projecting five feet beyond the 55 foot lot depth and go up three stories. Now, of course, there are instances where building to the full building envelope per code would not have impacts to, your adjacent neighbors. So we're sort of calling out instances where no massing reductions would be required. For example, the illustration on the left, if your neighbors are already extending completely to the rear yard line, then you can build to the full building envelope because there's little or no impacts to your neighbors at that point. And similarly, if the one of your neighbors extends out to that rear yard line depth and the other is shorter, you don't need to provide massive relief to the deeper neighbor. And the illustration on the right is demonstrating a corner condition where the the full height of the volume could extend out to the the streetscape or the sidewalk, and then the setback aligns with the mid block open space and respects the the shorter neighbor. And then looking at multiple building massing, a lot of this is carried over from the SB nine design standards. I don't know if you recall those were adopted a few years ago. Those can no longer be applied because the state does not allow program specific standards. So like all of the other state programs, these guidelines these standards, sorry, will capture all of those, including SB nine. So s b nine allows for multiple buildings to be built or two buildings to be built on one lot or subdivided. So some of the principles here are that you need to have a, you know, generous enough space between the buildings that provides livability to the new building in the rear, but also reduces impacts to the neighbors. So we're suggesting 30% of lot depth is the length of that space between the two units. Similarly, the building in the rear, we need to keep the scale of that building as low as possible. So we're required to be no taller than 20 feet tall, with no roof features like roof decks or penthouse that would increase the the scale of the building. And then for the building in the front, when it's it's facing a smaller building in the rear, we'd have to step back at the third floor to, again, provide a little more relief and to make that usable open space, you know, more of an amenity. And then finally, parking. You know, there are issues with inserting parking into existing streetscapes. So, the priority here is to reduce, the impacts to the public realm when, new parking is introduced. Some basic principles when there's an alley present that the parking should be accessed from the alley. The sidewalk should not be warped excessively, you know, which impacts the pedestrian experience and people walking on the sidewalk. The new curb cut shall not remove more than one on street parking space. And then finally, the when snout garages are present, their scale should be reduced. So those are the handful of, standards. We are tweaking some of the other standards already adopted. We'll bring that to you next time, but those are more sort of refinements based on lessons learned since they've started to become used for implementation. So our next steps is taking what we hear from you in the public today, we'll further incorporate that feedback and we'll continue outreach. Any neighborhood groups, we're happy to come and discuss these and present these. So, we're hoping to have these adopted later this year by the by you, by the Planning Commission. And then, you know, since it is a living document, we'll continue to make updates as, as needed in the future. So that's the presentation available for questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment to members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter.

[George Shutish (Public commenter)]: Can I make sure that it works? I I don't wanna show the overhead.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: SFGov, can we go to the overhead, please?

[George Shutish (Public commenter)]: Okay. Good. Alright. So hi, Georgia Shutish. I sent that to you all on Tuesday, I guess, on the twenty ninth. So I thought I like the staff memo. I appreciate what mister Winslow and mister Greenan wrote that they're trying to be sensitive, and I think that's very important. In my email, I highlighted this block with these buildings, and I wanna look at Building A. That was done in 1964, And it's a six unit building. That's great. It's two levels above garage. But, you know, when I read the rezoning and I see 18% r four and I think about that across the city in every residential neighborhood, not just my own. And I looked at that and I thought, woah. That's big. That's trauma. That's trauma that's gonna be induced on people that live there already. And I know you're concerned about that, or are are they concerned about it? And that would be allowed, I think, under the R4 zoning. Now the other thing I wanted to point out was Building B right there. That's 323325 28th Street. It's two three bedroom flats. You can see those plans at DBI. I went to see them. It's a very livable pair of flats built in 1975, I think, or '78. Building Building C was built in '78. It's a good template for housing under the rezoning. No garage. You put a unit on the Ground Floor. You have two units and then you have one on the Top Floor. There's your 40 feet in height because that building is 10 feet at the garage level, eight and eight. So you could do that with four levels and you keep the yard. The yard is 45%. That's family friendly. That makes people want to live in the city with their children in a three bedroom flat. I think most people could live in a three bedroom flat with a dining room. Building flats like that as I described, and I really recommend you go look at those plans, are affordable design for the occupants. And just the same as is when you preserve existing flats and housing by adding an ADU. Preserving the mid block open space, that's climate friendly. Yards, even dirt absorbs carbon. If you go to 18%, like this building number a, across the city or even like, you know, 30% of a block, you're gonna lose that. So I think the r four unit mix is important. The allowing the maximum unit size is 4,000 square feet. Imagine a 4,000 square foot unit in a building like Building A and then two other units. 4,000 square feet is maximum unit size is kind of crazy, and it's certainly not going to be affordable. So that's it. That's my 150 words for the minutes. But I think that's a really good example, and I really suggest the staff look at that building, 323325, 28th Street. The plans are up there on the 4th Floor of DBI. It's a good template.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, miss Sheena.

[George Shutish (Public commenter)]: I know. And here's the 150 words. Oops, sorry. 150 words for the minutes. Thanks.

[Monica Morse (Public commenter)]: Hi. So this is verbatim from the San Francisco planning website. San Francisco is known for its neighborhoods and the visual quality of its buildings. Neighborhoods are made up of buildings with common rhythms and cohesive elements of architectural expression. These neighborhoods make San Francisco an attractive place to live, work, and visit. It is important that the design of new buildings and renovations to existing buildings be compatible with nearby buildings. A single building out of context with its surroundings can be disruptive to neighborhood character. So I wanna say thank you to planning for all these years for upholding this principle, and I wanna say thank you to the planning staff that just has worked on these important design standards for smaller scale multifamily buildings that will transform our West Side neighborhoods. My name is Monica Morse, and I'm a resident of District 7. And as we heard a few weeks ago, these small scale buildings applying density decontrol are the only economically feasible ones to be built for the for foreseeable future, and we can expect them from Sunnyside to the sunset. And to be clear, this won't be infill. There were houses there. In fact, some of the most affordable housing in San Francisco, it is also family housing, which will be demolished under mayor Dan's demolition plan. These are very important standards that are being proposed on these buildings. And to correct the record, it's under 65 store feet story buildings, I believe, fit adjacent to one and two story single family homes that are there today. The front setback and front step backs are important to not dwarf nearby buildings. So what we need to do is refine where these building standards will be used. For example, Ocean Avenue, Dewey, West Portal Avenue have single family homes and are now proposed to be upzoned and treated as corridors and will be, upzoned to sixty five and eighty foot buildings. So here's what we're asking for. Number one, apply these important standards to every street, every road, every corner, not just interior neighborhood lots where there are single and two story single family home today. Many number two, there are many Westside neighborhoods that have detached homes, so please develop objective design standards in these detached neighborhoods to address side setbacks and step backs. Number three, please clarify how these new ODS all these, objective design standards relate to existing planning code on setbacks that have been laid out for for generations. Number number four, please add guidelines on cladding and fenestration to ensure these buildings fit the patterns and rhythms of our neighborhoods. We don't want a repeat of the Richmond specials. And finally, again, finally, again, we ask this every single time. Please apply the preservation design standards, which are very thoughtful in category a neighborhoods, which include eligible historic neighborhoods. These are right in the line of demolition, which will happen. And I would just say again, when you see the plan I hope folks are still listening. When you see the plan that comes due in September 11, please consider removing density decontrol. It is kindling for this demolition. Thank you.

[Lisa Napoli (Public commenter)]: Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Napoli, and I'm from the West Side, District 7. I've been involved with a sort of local urban development project converting a parking lot into a neighborhood Town Square and, trying to revitalize the adjacent business corridor and fill empty storefronts. We're not opposed to adding housing in our neighborhood, but we really want to be thoughtful about it. I consider myself pretty well connected to my community. My dog helps me with that. And I find most people are just really unplugged from the details of the upzoning plan. And like Monica, in my experience, density decontrol is is new and it's complicated, and most residents don't understand it. On the West Side, we already have increased density with the four and six plus legislation that was passed two years ago. But, again, it does create an environment to unleash demolition and makes that incentive there I think somebody used the term, you know, come in and cash out. You know, packing as many units in as possible, edge to edge on a lot, and going as high as will be allowed. So in our residential neighborhoods, that means multifamily buildings, ironically, won't be for families. These will be tiny studio and one bedroom apartments packed onto a lot, obliterating most of the existing green space, and towering over adjacent one and two story houses. Not exactly where I want to live. And I love San Francisco. Density decontrol will destroy communities and neighborhoods, displace tenants, families, seniors, and demolish some of the most affordable family housing in the city. I think there will be unintended consequences. I'd like to advocate for, objective standards for detached districts where side setbacks and front setbacks are necessary. And beyond site design standards, I'm also interested in standards on fenestration and cladding, hoping the materials are consistent with neighborhood design to avoid jarring changes, and in another public commenter's word, respect the architectural rhythm of a neighborhood. To echo a couple of those brilliant interns, care and collaboration is needed, and it's vital that neighborhoods are engaged. Thank you for your time.

[Robert Fruckman (Public commenter)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Robert Fruckman. I live in District 5. The planning department must do more to more more analysis to support the new design standards. Several housing element programs require this. The proposed changes, like the citywide design standards that were adopted in November, reduce the buildable volume of lots. These design standard changes are constraints on new development. Housing element program 8.3.1 requires that new design standards not constrained development. Program 7.1.1 requires no new constraints on the rezoning. And 8.1.6 requires that new constraints on housing development be offset elsewhere. The city needs to evaluate the new design standards for no net loss under SB three thirty. And per the housing element, the city must evaluate the financial costs before offsetting the added cost to developments. Further, because the new standards reduce the feasibility of housing, San Francisco's rezoning target should be adjusted higher. The citywide design standard set back the city on its progress toward accommodating 36,000 new units by 2031 under the rezoning. The recent feasibility analysis by Century Urban shows that projects in San Francisco are mostly infeasible already. The city's wide design standards do not help. Further, I am disturbed that the planning department mandates compliance with the citywide design standards on its project checklist. There is no mechanism in the planning code that requires projects to comply with design standards, only design guidelines. Board file 250,701 changes this, but that file has not been approved by the Board of Supervisors. It appears that the city has put requirements on projects with no legal basis. I could be understanding differently, so I would appreciate a correction if I am wrong. My question is, how will the city address these issues? Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment on this matter. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this informational item is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thanks to department staff for your work on on this next round of the objective design standards. As some commenters have noted, you know, this is this is sort of the next step. The department and commission addressed larger projects first given the larger impact they have. And now it's great to see this going back fairly quickly to do this next round of the smaller project standards. I have a few specific questions, but just out of curiosity to the point raised by the last commenter, we're already I guess my question, first of all, is we are already applying the or are we already applying the objective design standards for the larger projects that have been coming through the department? It sounds like there have been some lessons learned already. So what's sort of the status of their implementation?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Yes. The standards are being used for implementation of projects currently.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. And so that's all been codified at this point for application of those standards? I know we can't apply our design guidelines under for those projects. So Mhmm. The standards, though, are moving forward permissibly.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Yeah. Upon adoption last year, they were in effect for HAA projects.

[Peter Stevens (Public commenter, Build Affordable Faster/TODCO)]: Right.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: In response to a couple of questions, I'm gonna call out that it's important to know that these are an overlay to the planning code. So for example, in RH1D, where there are side setbacks, those would continue to be maintained. If it's not called out in the standards, the planning code prevails.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That's a fair point because those standards in our planning code are also objective standards. Correct. They're just not part of this, which is about codifying the the, residential design guidelines. So I appreciate the clarification. Okay. So now I have a couple of specific questions. So well, first of all, just to note it, it's a very minor thing. There's there's a typo in, S. 7.3.1. So Okay. Just put it out there. Sorry. I could've just emailed about that one. And then for the I was a little confused about the multiple buildings massing that's been shown. I guess my first question is showing that the rear structure on a multi building lot can go to the side lot lines. I'm trying to just understand how this interacts with the the hybrid ADU rules because I remember those being before the commission. If I'm remembering correctly, you know, that dictated that there would be four foot side setbacks. And so what is the different paths that are happening here? I just need some help understanding the difference between what this is dictating versus those hybrid ADU rules.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Well, it's correct that the state ADU does require four foot setbacks from all property lines. So if you're doing a state ADU, you have to use those. But if you're doing another program, for example, that doesn't require the setbacks, then these would prevail. So it depends on which program you're using.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. That's very helpful. And I actually do you know, I'm in favor of having this go to the side lot lines for a rear structure. It's a situation I personally live in, and it it works pretty well. So I have no concerns there. My other question is about again, this is more just for my own education on the multiple buildings standards.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There has

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: to be that minimum 30% of the lot area between the buildings. With our other requirements, what happens when there are decks, stairs, or entryways in that space? Again, just drawing from my own thinking about this than where I live. It's a nonconforming, you know, much older historic kind of setup.

[Christian Parker (Planning Intern)]: But

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: still, there's additional space occupied by stairs and decks in that area. And I'm curious with these what would be the case if you know.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Right. And we are allowing projections for January to come into that space. Right? So bay window, certain decks, and so forth. But, you know, large deck structures and so forth would not be able to infringe on that space.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. So there could potentially that space could potentially have a little more of those allowable, uses in there. But, yeah, that seems reasonable. I only have one other question. And that is the idea of facade materials articulation was raised. I'm struggling to remember what we put in the, off off the top of my head, what we had in the larger project standards around those issues. But what is what's been your thinking about any of those factors for the objective, the smaller project objective design standards?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Right. Well, the new standards are not sort of all inclusive for, small projects. Right? So they just call out the site design. But the rest of for example, the architectural standards still apply for small projects. Right? So, you know, we had measures for articulation. You know, there's a remember we call we provide a lot of different options for achieving that. You know, we gave a lot of attention to fenestration, and that's one thing we actually are gonna are working on for small projects. You know, is, you know, in a residential district, is a smaller percentage of fenestration appropriate than on a commercial corridor? We think probably, yes, it is. So that's one thing, we're working on. Terms of materials where, you know, those are tough because, you know, either you take a very contextual based approach where you look at patterns and say which, you know, you know, x, y, and z could be used if you're on this block and kind of a slippery slope maybe. Right? So it's pretty open ended as to what materials you can use currently in the original adopted standards. So there's just a couple that are not allowed.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Yeah. I think that I understand the issue with the materials. The the fenestration and and articulation issues seem more readily addressed and, kind of critical in a lot of ways. And so I'm glad to hear that there's still work happening for there or other coverage by other requirements. I really appreciate the response to the questions and hearing what else is kind of still being worked on. But I for me, not being totally Wisconsin designed, but, you know, this this seems reasonable and and it seems like it's on the right track to me. But I really appreciate the further information.

[Jeffrey Eve (Project Architect, 1025 Ashbury)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you, sir. Commissioner vice president Amor.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you for bringing these, expanded, guidelines forward, and thank you for everybody who was commenting. I hope that the recording will could provide additional inspiration to tune it a little bit. I I have, two specific, technical questions, not necessarily in the order of importance, but just because I have open page small project parking. Gervais shall not be permitted where warping of the sidewalk exceeds 20 of the sidewalk. Since warping of sidewalk is typical in almost all neighborhoods, at least where I live, it's everywhere, and it goes all the way from the building line all the way to the edge of the street, wouldn't it be perhaps better to talk about a minimum width of unobstructed sidewalk instead of giving the recommendation that you have? It will be interesting to retrofit, it's almost impossible, but I would suggest that we rephrase S8.2 to point out the minimum widths of obstructed sidewalk. The other thing I have a question about is S83. A new curb cut shall not remove more than one on street parking space. That really, though, depends on the widths of the street, because on very narrow streets, you need a proper ability to turn into your garage, and that may sometimes require a space and a half or some other adjustments. It is really the width of the street or actually parking on street on either side of the street that impairs movement into a garage. So I suggest that that is examined a little bit more technically relative to street width and how the street is used. Under small project multiple building massing c seven, I have a question, and that is actually addressing more the width of access to the rear building. The fire department has been pushing for quite some time to increase that width from three feet to four feet plus. I'm just raising that as an issue because building in the rear of a building will potentially be either support or impaired by that by that width of what the department is pushing for. It is my understanding that the four foot rear setback, as well as the side setbacks, a question that Commissioner Brown raised, has more to do with the fact that the fire department needs to access the rear bedrooms. And to get to the rear of the building, it is not just sufficient to have a four foot setback from the rear property line, but they also have to get to the rear, not from the adjoining property, property on which a building occurs. That is what that's captured in ADU legislation, and I think that was the reason why, at least on one side, a four foot side back had to be provided. Bedrooms being facing the rear, the fire department will not access these rear bedrooms from the adjoining property, but from the property on which a fire occurs, which means at least on one side on one side, there has to be an additional four feet. That is my understanding of the code, but I I am not I'll suggest that you examine that further. Otherwise, I'm in support. Glad you are working through it in the way that you do and appreciate the effort. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. Commissioner Campbell?

[Alyssa Kawano (Planning Intern)]: Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I struggle with these a little bit. I I understand the need for these, and I appreciate that you've built in flexibility. I do agree with the public comment earlier that that at the same time, we're it it's constraining. So at at a time when we're trying to, like, max out housing, we're also trying to balance that with creating quality of life and open space. So I appreciate I appreciate the challenge. I guess, you had mentioned earlier on or I read somewhere that this has been socialized with the AIA and architects that sort of deal with these projects, day in and day out. Could you speak a little bit more with, the feedback you got and how that was integrated and what that dance has looked like?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Sure. We've had, I guess, two or two or three work working sessions with them, where, you know, we present something and they they provide feedback and, you know, oftentimes we find a middle ground. I think, I won't speak for them, obviously, but I think we sort of, and certainly in terms of massing, I think we've come to something that has been agreeable, for everybody. I mean, the, you know, the amount of massing reductions from the overall allowable envelope are in the neighborhood of six to 700 square feet of a 7,000 square foot maximum building envelope. So it's I think it's important to know that they these are minimal reductions in mass, and we're not, you know, chopping off whole portions of the building. So I think, you know, I think that's been acknowledged by the AIA. And, and, yeah. I mean, I think they'll hopefully, they'll come and speak to it next time. But, it's been a, you know, a successful collaborative effort and

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: And knowing that this is a living, breathing document, we'll continue to to see where we you know, we're hit hitting other pain points along the way if it becomes problematic. Right?

[Sandra (Sandy) Gasser (DR requester, 1000 Ashbury Apt 1)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Awesome. A few very specific comments. The in section c seven, where we're doing multiple buildings and we're preserving the 30% open space, It feels like that might preclude the creation of detached ADUs. And I know that we've, in the past, seen projects come through here where the ADU is, like, taking over the entire yard. So I guess I I a question around, is this going to trump will we no longer see those because we're requiring the 30% open space based on some of the state the state laws? Or will we still see some of those and this gets applied in other circumstances? Can you help me understand that?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: I guess it remains to be seen.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Okay.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: And, obviously, that's something that, you know, if we see projects coming in or, you know, we're getting feedback that, you know, it's just not feasible to do those for the 30%, You know, obviously, we can take a look at it. But I think, you know, so far, it's been sort of pretty well received in our outreach.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: So would would I guess to answer my question, will will we still see projects come forward that where an ADU is taking up the entire backyard? Or would this would these standards actually come into play?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: These would apply.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Okay.

[Jeffrey Eve (Project Architect, 1025 Ashbury)]: Mhmm.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And there's a section s six one eight that talks about, the rear 25% of the lot shall be unstructured at and below grade to allow for in ground planting, which means the way I read that is we're not gonna allow people to build bunkers, under their yards. Is that Mhmm. A fair summary of of that? And I'm if so, is is the intention there so that we preserve greenery and allow plants to still be put in in those backyards and maintain some green scape, or is there another driving factor there?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Correct. It's to sort of maintain green space in the in the common sort of mid block open space by not completely structuring or paving over the

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Got it.

[Lydia So (President)]: Open space.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: If somebody wanted to build a bunker and then put, you know, an intensive green roof system on top of that and you had no idea there was even something under there, is that are we opposed to that?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Building a bunker with the if if it has green around top.

[Brandon Beasley (Public commenter)]: Bunker and

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, Planning)]: log in it.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I just wonder if some of that language could be tweaked.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[Sandra (Sandy) Gasser (DR requester, 1000 Ashbury Apt 1)]: And then

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: my last comment was about the snout garage, which was a term I'd never heard before. So thank you. I now I know what that those are called. And I wondered if the eight foot height limit is a little too prescriptive. Oftentimes, there are opportunities to make stronger alignments aesthetically. And is there any flexibility in there if, perhaps a slightly taller garage might look actually better?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Mhmm. Well, there's no flexibility in the standard. There's flexibility in how we rate the standard, obviously. So, you know, if we feel that a little more height would provide flexibility, it's we'd certainly look at that.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thanks. Those are all my comments.

[Lydia So (President)]: Very, very good observation and comments. Really appreciate it. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Just a couple of questions. I've noticed that we're letting folks build out the rear yard a little bit more. And, I'm just wondering how, you know, what what standard or what what do you look at when you make that determination? Like, how much how much rear yard is is healthy or how much rear yard is is necessary, you know, for for a healthy environment in your in your residence.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Right. Well, as with all of our standards, they're they're sort of based on years of applying our discretionary design guidelines. Mhmm. So that's you know, those are applied on an individual project by project basis. So a lot of these are sort of you know, comments that we've provided over and over in the past. You know, frankly, the concern is more for when you're looking at the RDGs and the standards, it's more looking at impacts to your your neighbors. Right? But, you know, the code, you know, the code dictates a minimum open space or rear yard, but it also requires minimum open space requirements. So we're not really modifying that.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Thank you. I was just curious because growing up here, we've been accustomed to having some kind of a yard. And I notice in a lot of the jurisdictions, they're shrinking that pretty dramatically. And I'm just wondering how that relates to you know, a a a healthy environment as far as, without that living having less green space and and less of a yard. Mhmm. If there's any any kind of studies or anything being done around that. Just just

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Well, Well,

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: a code requires a 30%

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: rear yard.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: So we're certainly not going into that, you know, minus allowable projections into that. Okay. So these do not are not more permissible than the codes.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: And then I noticed that you haven't anticipated, or at least not on these drawings, multiple lots. Like say people are somebody has a vacant lot, and then they have another and they they wanna join a few lots together, or you know, because that that happens from time to time.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: And how is that gonna work out as far as the standards?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Well, they would still need to meet the the standards Mhmm. Even if they subdivide a lot or combine lots. So the the new lot would have to meet the the standards.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. And then in the RTO districts, how is that going to be with and there could be some businesses in the front, and then you know housing on top and I think you touched on it a little bit but I wasn't really clear on how how that's going to all work itself out

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: well it would apply to all residential zone districts so that the rear yard requirements of the underlying zoning would be maintained.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Mhmm. So this this is basically just the rear. Right? There's not there's no frontage?

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Correct. These standards are addressing the rear.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just the rear yards. Okay.

[George Shutish (Public commenter)]: All right.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I think that's it. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there are no other comments, we can move on. And for the benefit of the public, items 14 a and b were continued to October 2, I believe.

[Lydia So (President)]: Yeah. It's October 2.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: October 2. And so we will take up those matters then. Placing us on item 15 for case number 2025Hyphen004305CUA for the property at 863 Carolina Street conditional use authorization.

[Charles Enschel (Planning Department staff)]: Good afternoon, president Tsao and members of the commission. Charles Enschel, planning department staff. The proposed project includes a code compliant roof deck approximately 450 square feet in size. In 2018, the planning commission approved a conditional use authorization under motion number two ninety nine or 2,099 pursuant to planning code sections three zero three and three seventeen to demolish a single family residence and construct a three story, two unit residence. Condition of approval from the 2018 motion eliminated the roof deck and the rooftop penthouse. In May 2020 in May 2025, the project sponsor submitted an application under the new owner to install the roof deck or construct a roof deck. Since that time in 2018, we've now updated our roof deck policies, our residential design guidelines, and this is a project that is otherwise permitted over the counter today, if not for that condition of approval number six. So the department finds that this project is code compliant, consistent with the residential design guidelines, and objectives and policies of the general plan. The department also finds the project to be necessary and desirable and compact incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, such as two other or three other roof decks within the vicinity and not to be detrimental to the persons, of adjacent properties. Therefore, the planning department recommends, approval subject to conditions. Today, I have the engineer here, Aravind O'Neil, and he'll be present to provide a brief presentation. Jonas, can you share Aravind's screen?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Aravind O’Neil (Project Engineer, 863 Carolina)]: Thank you, commissioners. My name is Aravind O'Neil. I am the project engineer. And I don't have a lot to add to what Charles had already outlined. Basically, we feel like this is a good design and it's in keeping with the current planning code requirements as Charles had mentioned and it is compatible with other roof decks in the neighborhood. There's currently six roof decks that we've identified in the adjacent vicinity. I think the major point of contention originally on the original proposal was the stair penthouse and there was an elevator originally going up there. And we feel like what we present here with the retractable skylight is a good is a good option that mitigates that. So there's there's no stair penthouse. The the thoughtful design here is both compliant with the planning code requirements, it's setbacks, it's respectful of the neighbors, and it's providing very valuable outdoor space for the for the occupants. It's a lovely it's a lovely view line out of here and basically comparing it to adjacent buildings, it's set back from the from the from the street, it's not very visible, and it is both an opportunity for me as the engineer to allow the structure to express itself, which is always fun. So we have a floating stairs that takes you up to the to the roof deck. And again, this retractable skylight is a is a nice feature that draws light down into the space as well. So we feel like the the goals of this design are, really compatible with the neighborhood. Here's an example of the building of the street, and that was approved, I think, in 2021, and it has a roof deck. And then there's adjacent, as I said, six adjacent properties in the vicinity that have similar roof decks. So I'm happy to take any questions if anybody, any commissioners have technical questions, And the project sponsor himself is also here if there's any other questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If that concludes, your presentation.

[Aravind O’Neil (Project Engineer, 863 Carolina)]: Yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: For me, this this deck looks pretty small and modest and not very impactful. We haven't heard any community opposition come out, for the project. And for me, personally, it's very, striking that this if this were to come forward today sort of independently, it could be approved over the counter. And so, for me, I I have no concerns, and I I make a motion to approve.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I I just have a question on on the the the sliding skylight. I this is the first time I've seen that

[Charles Enschel (Planning Department staff)]: and Oh, I'll defer to the engineer.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yeah.

[Aravind O’Neil (Project Engineer, 863 Carolina)]: Yes. There's two different versions of operable skylights. Mhmm. One is hinging and one is retractable. And it's it's been used quite regularly in in more recent projects because it precludes the need for a stair penthouse, which is always a problematic visual intrusion. And it's it's also very elegant because when it's closed, it's a beautiful skylight, a beautiful source of light. And so it really solves two problems in in in one fell swoop. It's operable, they can be manually operable, but most of them are are remotely operable. There's a button that you you press, and there's a manual override as well.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: It's just just for my information. How about the I was trying to figure out like the safety. I mean, you're going to have an open well and like, you know, with from small children and stuff. What what are the safeguards around this skylight?

[Aravind O’Neil (Project Engineer, 863 Carolina)]: So when the skylight is closed, the stairs that goes up to it, there's a glass wall on one side of the stairs. So it's it's like any other open stairs at that point. Mhmm. When the skylight is open, we do have a guardrail on the outside that inhibits anybody falling off the side of the building, and then there's a a guardrail as well on the inside if it's a retractable skylight. Mhmm. And then if it's a hinging skylight, the skylight itself hinges up, and there's a handrail that's also attached that provides the continuing handrail up to up to all the way up

[Gurinder Grewal (Second DR requester, 1035 Ashbury)]: onto the roof deck. Mhmm.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Just concerning to me, I was trying to again, because I haven't had an opportunity to actually see one of these in operation. And so just something that I that was concerned about just looking at it is like envisioning, you know, a little person, you know, running around up there and there's no guardrail and, you know.

[Aravind O’Neil (Project Engineer, 863 Carolina)]: No, absolutely. And that's all part of the design is that if the skydite were open and there's someone on the roof deck, there's still a guardrail in place to inhibit anybody falling down.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. That's reassuring. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Campbell. I have a question about this.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I think this CUA was just really poorly timed. Right? Because you all got the approval. There was this condition. And then meanwhile, we the landscape changed and the rules changed and now it's compliant. This is something that would have been approved over the counter. Is there a what would how could we streamline this so that these don't this when the when the code changes and something becomes compliant automatically that they don't have to come in front of the commission?

[Director Phillips (Planning Director; Acting Zoning Administrator)]: Commissioner Campbell, your question is fortuitous. We've noticed this in a couple other projects that have come to us for z a interpretations or other. So we will get back to you. Staff right now is researching the it it is more complex than it should be, but doable. And so we're researching the ways that we need to amend that so that projects don't have to come to you just to be compliant with today's rules. So we'll get back to you. Great.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I'm in full support. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good, commissioners. If there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Miriam Chion (Planning Department, Community Equity Division)]: Aye.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commissioners, that will place us under your discretionary review calendar. Item 16 for Green Street has been continued, placing us on item 17 for case number 2024Hyphen011261DRPHyphen02 at 1025 Ashbury Street. This is a discretionary review.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Good afternoon, President Sewell, commissioners. David Winslow, staff architect.

[Gurinder Grewal (Second DR requester, 1035 Ashbury)]: Apologies. So, there was a request for a continuance, And so, we have documentation.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. We'll hear from staff, and then you can make your request for

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: a continuance.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Oh, I'm sorry.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, Planning)]: David Winslow, staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application twenty twenty four-eleven thousand two hundred and sixty one PRJ to construct a new third story addition over a two story above basement single family residence. There are two DR requesters. The first, Sandra Gasser of one thousand Ashbury, apartment one. This across the street neighbor to the west, who is concerned the project will block her view of the park, the horizon, and forever and permanently alter her enjoyment and source of light. Her proposed alternative is to simply not allow the third story addition. The second Doctor requesters are Gurinder and Crystal Gravol of 1035 Ashbury Street, the immediate neighbors to the south of the project. And they're concerned that the proposed project does not incorporate appropriate setbacks and will impact light, air, and privacy. In addition, the proposed addition does not fit the scale of the buildings at the street, other homes on the block. Their proposed alternatives are to A, provide a setback from Downey Street, which is the primary frontage, notwithstanding the address being Ashbury. Provide a side setback from the shared property line. And incorporate a roof hatch instead of a stair penthouse to the roof deck. To date, the department has received one letter in opposition of the project and one letter in support. The project proposes a vertical addition over the existing footprint of the house. This would bring the subject property within the approximately the same height of its two immediate neighbors. The immediate four story building to the north occupies almost its entire lot, except for a wide and deep side setback adjacent to the subject property. The immediate neighbor, Doctor requester number two, uphill and to the south, is a two story over basement building on a corner and through lot that has exposure on all four sides. The project has been reviewed against the residential design guidelines. And the RDGs do stipulate projects have a responsibility to complement the scale of buildings at the street and step with the topography. This project complies with those guidelines. The RDGs also stipulate respecting the existing pattern of side spacing and articulating buildings to minimize impact to light and privacy to Although the adjacent buildings have side spacing due to their placement on their respective lots, there is no discernible pattern of side spacing which the guidelines are intended to reinforce. No additional building articulation to the proposed addition is necessary to maintain adequate light to the uphill neighbor as the existing wedge shaped setback continues to provide access to light and air. Doctor requester number one demonstrates the potential loss of some view from across the street. However, protection of views as we know is not meant to preclude the exercise of reasonable development rights. Upon additional analysis through the STR process, the deck at the front did appear to pose some privacy issues that are remediable. And the project sponsor has made modifications to ensure adequate privacy from users of the roof deck by setting that deck back and providing a five foot six inch high obscure privacy screen. And those are indicated on the plans that are at the very back of your packet. Therefore, staff deems there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that merit taking the discretionary review and recommends approving as modified to memorialize these changes. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. With that, we should hear from the first Doctor requester. You have five minutes.

[Sandra (Sandy) Gasser (DR requester, 1000 Ashbury Apt 1)]: Thank you. I have some papers to give you. I'll leave them here. I actually brought packets for the commissioners, but if just one is fine, I I have others. Would you like the others? Okay. Okay. So, good afternoon. It's a pleasure to meet all of you. I am Sandy Gasser. I live directly across the street from 1025, and I've lived there almost forty years. These handouts show you the daytime and sunset photographs of the view from my bay window, which I've enjoyed for that time. And a copy of the architect's drawing is also provided to clearly show that my view will be completely blocked forever. This discretionary review process has revealed that blocking a neighbor's view is not a reason to decline a building permit. Construction is prioritized for the benefit of building owners, contractors, and investors. There seems to be no concern for nearby neighbors whose quality of life is permanently altered as a result of construction. Now, born out of my personal experience, I clearly understand that those with the resources and interest to build are valued and hold the power. Nearby neighbors who are forced to live with the long term quality of life deficit created by the construction are devalued. This is not right. No meaningful compromise has been offered by the homeowners or architect. Thoughtful neighbors consider the well-being of those around them by reconsidering their self interests. If the impact on neighbors had been considered, the proposed construction would be very different. Compromise is offered for very important reasons, to provide an amicable solution and to minimize resentment. Living in harmony is preferred by everyone. When neighbors make choices at expenses at the expense of others, it's very disappointing, has lasting effects, and is very telling. This matter comes down to choice. The opportunity to change the proposed construction remains. The extent of the compromise I can offer is only construct a clear glass deck on the exist existing roof, change the orientation of the stair penthouse to minimize view obstruction, and carefully select the items placed on the deck. A well designed plan to build out laterally to provide additional living space is also possible. The planning commission and urban development really must review the current policy that construction has on the light and views neighbors enjoy. San Francisco residents want and need meaningful and pleasant spaces to live. Please preserve and protect my view. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Second, DR requester. You also have five minutes.

[Gurinder Grewal (Second DR requester, 1035 Ashbury)]: So should the continuance be addressed first or

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You should make it part of your presentation. Make it part of your presentation. Alright.

[Gurinder Grewal (Second DR requester, 1035 Ashbury)]: 10 copies. So it's gonna follow along with the pages. I've gotta have those Okay. But go ahead

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: and get started and I'll hang up.

[Gurinder Grewal (Second DR requester, 1035 Ashbury)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for taking the time today to to address this

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Would you speak into the microphone, please?

[Gurinder Grewal (Second DR requester, 1035 Ashbury)]: To address this matter. Thank you. So first of all, as you see on the first page of of the handout there, my wife and I met seventeen years ago in law school with the dreams of moving to San Francisco. And we moved to San Francisco, and that's the home that we purchased there. And we renovated it. And so those are the two pictures before and after. And so we are not blockers, and we just wanna make sure the correct procedures are followed, and specifically, that's section three eleven D7H. And that's a mandatory provision of the code which states that the each side elevation shall include the full profile of the adjacent building in the foreground of the project including the adjacent windows, light wells, and general massing ing to be illustrated. And so the mandatory nature of shall means that it is not optional. And so this was part of the continuance as well. And you'll notice on the in the submission set, from mister Winslow, the original plans in the three eleven notice do not, include the two windows that, you'll see, on the following pages. That's the unrepresented windows, page three. And NORS are both included in the, the revised plan set that's dated July 15. And so what we what we're asking is a continuance of this hearing on the one hand to be able to include those adjacent windows to the property as is mandated by section three eleven, d seven h. And in the alternative, if the planning commission, doesn't is not following that mandate, then it's to recognize that the consideration of these windows is very, very important. And this project did not have any design review comments. And I think that's very critical, especially for a project of this size. And part of that reason is without representation of the light well and these windows, the project seems to not impact the the property. And as you can see on the following page, on page four, where it indicates setback allows light, not that it's a requirement to show that there is an impact. I mean, the the code is mandatory that it shall include these windows. But I am pointing it out that we're not just here and we didn't file a Doctor for just to do it and just to be a blocker. The the rules matter. The process matter. We went through it ourselves. And that that picture there shows you the light coming in through the only light source in that room. And so what what we are asking is that the the the commissioners send this back and require the plans to include the adjacent windows as is required by section three eleven of the code. And what I will also point out and and this is a secondary argument. What I will also point out is that the lack of design review comments, and it it impacted the ability for the planning department to do an adequate job of considering those windows, which is which is required. As the adjacent property owners, the impact to us is very important to consider. And the issues I mentioned earlier about potential setbacks, those are very minor considerations that could be considered, if there was an appropriate, design review with a team. And what I will also point out is in at exhibit, at exhibit two is a scenario of 229 Downey, which is a project that was most recently completed across the street. And that is an example of appropriate design review comments when considering impact to adjacent property owners. And that was not done here, presumably because the plan did not comply with the code requirements. And so, you know, we'll also point out that setbacks are are very common. And if you turn to page six, you can see a property across the street where setbacks were required. And again, we are not asking the planning commission to require setbacks here. What we're requiring is compliance with the code to represent the windows so that an appropriate design review process can occur with the design review team for appropriate consideration of this project. And you know, the the the scale of this project and and everything was improve everything that was approved, including, an encroachment on the property, variance from, the rear yard setback lines, all of that goes into and also the approval of a penthouse, which was discussed earlier today. All that goes into the issue here. And and coming back to the light well, the penthouse that was approved also is directly above that light well. So we ask that the code be followed, and that those windows be represented in the plans according to section three eleven.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. That is your time. You will have a two minute rebuttal. Project sponsor, you have ten minutes.

[Jeffrey Eve (Project Architect, 1025 Ashbury)]: Good afternoon, commissioners and planning staff. My name is Jeffrey Eve. I'm the architect for the proposed project at 10:25. I I will I have a little presentation here, but I did wanna address the question about including the windows on the 03:11 notification. We did have to go through this notification twice because there was a snafu in the planning department where the first notification was not properly mailed. So in the second thirty day notification, it was mailed again out to the residents. In that notification, all of the adjacent properties, window openings, etcetera, were included in the drawings. So I do want to make that clear. I'd like to start out my presentation today with a quick overview of the site and its existing characteristics. The site is a through lot with Downey Street on the West Side, Ashbury Street on the East Side. The area of the site is about average for the neighborhood, but the site has a vertical drop of over 17 feet between Downey and Ashbury. The nature of the sloping site is such that the existing single family home is a two story facade on the Downey Street side and a one story facade on the Ashbury Street side. Here you see the two story facade on the Downey Street side, and this is the one story facade on the, sorry, the one story on the Ashbury side, two story on the Downey Street side. The building to the north and downhill is a four story building, which is 16 feet four inches taller than our building. The building to the south and uphill is nine feet eight inches taller than our building as measured to the eave of their sloping roof. Here you see in the images, this is the Doctor requester to the south. This is the four story building to the north. The building to the south uphill is nine feet eight inches taller, as measured to the eave of the sloping roof. If you take into consideration the hip roof and roof deck enclosure, it's even taller. We feel that the comments regarding view, light, and air from the Doctor applicants are rooted in the fact that our building is underdeveloped compared to the two adjacent properties. In addition, the adjacent property to the south has two areas where the roof eaves overhang onto our property overhang onto our property, a condition that could have been addressed during the remodel two years ago, but was not. We only mention this because we've designed our proposed project to navigate around these encroachments as a neighborly gesture and to avoid requiring the neighbor to address them as well as to take away, any developable square footage that we might have the opportunity to to, to take on. Here you see the example of the photos of the eaves overhanging the property. As mentioned, the site characteristics propose a challenge and limit the development of the residence within the existing building walls. The basement and 1st Floor level above above Downey are difficult to develop into habitable and useful rooms. Only the front facade is eligible to receive windows to provide natural light, ventilation, and code require egress for bedrooms. This means that over half of the floor plan at each level is not eligible to be remodeled into rooms such as bedrooms, living rooms, and family rooms. The only opportunity for the development of the site is with a vertical addition. The inclusion of a roof deck into the design is intended to address the minimal open space that the property provides due to its natural shape and slope. This is similar to other properties in this area, including the Doctor applicant neighbor to the south where the at grade open space is insufficient and where roof decks have been added to the buildings to allow for the enjoyment of fresh air and sunlight. The proposed roof deck has been set back from the property lines with the additional measure to provide a taller, obscure glass screen on the south side to reduce any issues of privacy between the two buildings. The roof deck will be accessible from an interior stair with a stair enclosure, which has been designed to be in the center of the plan with a low ceiling height to mitigate the potential to be seen from the street level below. The stair enclosure will allow the use of a stair rail chair lift to allow the elder members of the family equal access to the roof deck area. Several examples of similar roof enclosures exist within the neighborhood, and this design feature is not unique to our project. Photos of these examples have been included in your Doctor analysis. Prashanth and Sheikha, the homeowners undertook this project because they love living and raising their son in this special San Francisco neighborhood. In addition to their family, both sets of parents will be moving in with them to enjoy the grandson's childhood and to allow Prashant and Sheikha the opportunity to take care of them as they age. This generational living situation is widely accepted as having many benefits for all members of the family, and they're excited to provide this opportunity to their parents. Throughout the Doctor process, we have made several attempts to address the concerns of our neighbors with what we feel were reasonable revisions because we want to be good neighbors and we want to have good relations moving forward. Unfortunately, these changes were not accepted, and it feels as though the goal of the neighbors has been a complete removal of the vertical addition and a restriction of our reasonable rights to develop the property in such a way that Prashant and Sheikha may enjoy the same benefits of the of their home as others do. I thank you for your time. I have a few three-dimensional model images to show you just to give you some context. This is a image of the model view from Downey Street. This is a image, looking south on Downey Street, so uphill. This is another image on Downey Street, looking downhill. So these images are a tent. I want to show you how they fit within the existing adjacent structures, and they're they're no higher than the adjacent structures. Before I show you that one, I want to show you this is the image from Ashbury Street. So again, this is, taking the one story, and now the new proposed project would be a two story, and well within the, context of the adjacent structures. The last image I wanted to show you, because these windows have come up quite a few times, these are the this is the view in a model. You can go into the adjacent structures, and you can create the view from those windows. And so I wanted to make sure that we see this. These are the two windows that are facing our property. And you can see here the outline of our property, the proposed structure. And then these are the two windows from the same room, same bedroom that face Downey Street. So this this room has four windows. I forgot the calculation, but I did put it in my Doctor comments. So it does have quite a bit of natural light and ventilation from these four windows. And I would just say one more point before I I seed, the the distance between the two structures is almost 10 feet. So it's not like a three foot yard that's separating these two structures. There's quite a bit of distance between these windows and our proposed, proposed addition. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. If that concludes sponsor's presentation, we will open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You will each receive two minutes.

[Jennifer Starkweather (Public commenter)]: Hi. Thank you. I have some letters here that I'll write there. My name is Jennifer Starkweather. I live at 271 Downey Street, which is the backside of this proposed design. And I am speaking in support of the discretionary review of this property, October. As you've heard, this is a unique property that spans both Ashbury and Downey Street. And I live directly across from the proposed project on Downey. There are two primary elements in this free model that will directly impact the neighbors on Downey, including myself. First of all, this is a one way street. It's a bike route, a designated bike route, and a play space for lots of kids. In the current proposed design, there is no setback and a stair penthouse, which extends above the roof line of the adjacent buildings. And just to, you know, just to kind of also share that the, the large building on the north side from the proposed design is a multiunit building, And the new remodel or the building on the south side maintained the original footprint when they remodeled their home. So the lack of a setback and the proposed stair penthouse on top of the roof deck of this three story home will both impact the amount of light that is cast on this narrow one way street and the amount of light that reaches my home and those adjacent to me. The three stories don't include the roof deck and the underground garage. There's only one street light on this upper portion of Downey, so lighting options are minimal in this area. As well, the lack of setback and stair penthouse are not in alignment with the design aesthetic of the surrounding home. A roof hatch rather than a stair penthouse would allow more light to illuminate the narrow street.

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

[Jennifer Starkweather (Public commenter)]: Thank you for listening.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. First Doctor requester, you have a two minute rebuttal if you want it. No? Okay. Second Doctor requester, you have a two minute rebuttal if you want it.

[Gurinder Grewal (Second DR requester, 1035 Ashbury)]: So I would like to address the fact that the project sponsor's presentation, first of all, it showed old pictures of our home, which were initially also provided on the plans. And even with the updates to the new version of the home, none of the presentation identified the issue with the light well and the two windows that are not represented on the plans as required to be represented on the plans according to the code. And so the presentation simply doesn't address those, and it and it underscores the the necessity for a RDAT review that is appropriately done with all of the windows represented. That did not happen here. And I think that given the impact on the community, especially others on Downey Street, as well as ourselves, I think it is worth a review. Also, the other thing I'll point out is as far as sizing, this is a 3,600 square foot home, 3,686 as proposed, previously 1,900 square feet. It nearly doubles in size. Certain measures could be taken to, reduce the massing of this project just in a minor way that doesn't impact the overall enjoyment of the house. And the last thing that I will say is no other homes on Downey are two are three levels above the garage as this would be, four levels from the street. No other single family homes are that way. This is a single family home. It does not promote the city's, interest in enhancing housing in the city. In fact, it creates a massive single family home that doesn't consider the impact on the other residents of Downey Street. And so and and the last thing I'll say is Downey Street is also a narrow street, and I think that's what, Jennifer was going to get into next before her time was up. And so, it's important, I think, for this to go back, comply with the codes, show all the windows, consider the issues with the penthouse, and consider the impact, and do this the right way. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal if you want it.

[Jeffrey Eve (Project Architect, 1025 Ashbury)]: I'd like to point out that the, sorry. The images that I'm showing, these are the these are the current that's the that's the current image. I took those, you know, for this meeting maybe four days ago. So, we do have all the current information represented on the drawings. We have current information represented in the model. I'm not sure what more we can do. I just wanted to address that. Thank you.

[Brandon Beasley (Public commenter)]: Okay. With that, commissioners, the public hearing portion

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: is closed and this matter is now before you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I have one question.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Mister Winslow, I have a question for you. I have never seen an adjoining building with a roof overhang which limits the buildability of a structure. This is completely new to me, and I think it creates a question for us that is almost unanswerable. Could you please get us into the right understanding of that particular violation? Oh, I'll try.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, Planning)]: Certainly, I'll try. It is a interesting situation that the Doctor requesters overhang the property of the subject property. But I do contend that that does exist pretty frequently in this city. I would just urge you to walk down any of our older streets where cornices are bound. And they wrap around and oftentimes do, in fact, encroach over adjoining property lines. Nonetheless, that situation, whether it is or isn't prevalent, isn't really of issue here. Nobody's contesting it. It doesn't play into the facts of the Doctor, except for one thing. The specific location of that eave that covers the so called light well that mister Grewal talks about is something that we did take into consideration in our design review. And in fact, there is a design review. If I could just deviate into re answering that question before it's asked or responding to it. A planner, any planner in our department opens up a set of plans for their review. They review it against the code and any applicable guidelines. They have a sense of autonomy that enables them to do that. If there's a question that they can't judge or assess, they come to a design review meeting with RDAT. This apparently was not that case because it was pretty straightforward. Secondly, design review occurs when a discretionary review is filed. That's my role. I look at it and assess it for our compliance with the guidelines. And thirdly, the design review in this specific instance was determined in that a a light well, if it's covered, is something that we don't protect. We don't require anybody to match or otherwise not set back or modify their building accordingly. Because it's already compromised by their own, in this sense, roof. So hopefully that answers your question and some that you didn't answer. But

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I would like, mister Eady, architect, for the, applicant restate that the overhang of the roof limited your ability to basically enlarge the home at that particular portion of the building. Is that a correct consideration?

[Jeffrey Eve (Project Architect, 1025 Ashbury)]: It was part of the consideration. Yes. There is portions of that area of the lot that are closer than we're in the nonbuildable portion of the lot, but it was part of our initial design strategy to avoid having to redo those roof eaves. Yes.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: It's a very important consideration, and it somewhat leaves me sitting on the fence. I've never encountered something of that severity, and I'm very curious what other, my fellow commissioners have to see and what they're observing.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just just to be clear, the DER request for number two, what what would remedy your your concerns? I mean, as far as I mean, I've heard what you said. But given everything that's played out so far, what exactly would remedy your concerns around the project?

[Gurinder Grewal (Second DR requester, 1035 Ashbury)]: I think well, I would like the review process to occur so that we can have that engagement and do that with a residential design review advisory team. But I do think that a matching side setback is one that would limit the impact of the light well as as well as removal of the penthouse, which is directly over that light well. And so and and and even if there is a matching side setback that is enforced by the commission or after a residential design review with the team with comments is enforced, it will it will reduce the square footage of the home by around 170 square feet. That brings it from 3,686 to 3,515. And so this is still a very sizable property. It's a property where, where the entire family can live. They currently live there. And again, it doesn't impact housing because it is a single family home where we're not increasing the units, in this property.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Mhmm. Thank you.

[Gurinder Grewal (Second DR requester, 1035 Ashbury)]: Thank you.

[Christian Parker (Planning Intern)]: I appreciate

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: that. Doctor, question number one. I'd like to give you another opportunity to to come up here. What what would what would satisfy you as as far as, what's proposed today?

[Sandra (Sandy) Gasser (DR requester, 1000 Ashbury Apt 1)]: Thank you for asking me again. Well, I said it in my statement, which is, and you can see by the photographs, a picture has a thousand words. I don't need to say anything more, except that the view will be blocked forever. And it would be one thing if I moved in a year or two ago, but I've been there for forty years, far longer than the folks across the street from me, and have enjoyed the view every single day from my living room, multiple times a day. What would help, I think, would be what I stated in the end. Ideally, no 3rd Floor. I see it as a 3rd Floor. And roof deck. Bring the roof deck down on the existing roof, glass like many of the other neighbors have. And I would that would still preserve some of my view. As it's proposed now, it'll be gone forever, the entire thing, because the new structure fills that entire space between the two adjacent buildings, and that would be gone. So I know that the architect did offer lowering the building, the proposed building down by one foot four inches and asked if that would be adequate. That was absurd. One foot? Really? That's really not much of an offer. So that's what I those are my words. Thank you very much.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I just I like to give folks that came out an opportunity to be heard. And unfortunately, it's like, here on the commission, views are cherished. But at the same time, we can't deny a project based only on a view. And it's really hard as a commissioner to sit here. And I understand both sides. I understand this gentleman wants to build this the folks want to build their dream home, and you're going to lose a good portion of your view, all of it. And so here we

[Lydia So (President)]: are. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: No. Obviously, I'll never know a neighborhood as well as the folks who've lived there, especially for forty years. I'm somewhat familiar with the area of Pass Road On Foot when I live closer to it on a regular basis for many, many years. And it is a it's a wonderful area. But as far as making decisions about discretionary reviews, the standard for me is very high. The standard of something being exceptional and extraordinary, for me that's a really high bar. And I think through whether there are circumstances that differentiate a situation so much that it should be applied essentially citywide in any similar circumstance or whether or not it's a circumstance that really doesn't exist anywhere else in the city, in addition to all the other criteria for determining whether something is exceptional or extraordinary. And so I'm just sort of approaching this from that perspective. First of all, I want to say I think I do have sufficient information to make a decision. I know there was the request for continuous and to continue to work on this. But ultimately, the commission is the authority on these matters. And so this is now before the commission. And I think that the information provided, for me at least, as a commissioner, is sufficient. We do have a set of plans that show neighboring windows. There's also been information presented as part of the discretionary review application. All this information has been brought before me for consideration, and I'm taking it all into account. So to me, this project is adding a floor and a deck. And in this context, that's not especially exceptional or extraordinary. And I do want to acknowledge the points being raised by you from across the street about losing the views. But that is, unfortunately, a situation that occurs with many, many, many projects across the city. And, you know, not, as Commissioner Williams noted, not something that we block projects over. But I understand the concern. I do. The issues raised about the desire for a side setback and the adjacency of the properties, I don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary in the circumstance there either. You know, that by virtue of that setback, an existing setback being on 1035 Ashbury, that remains in place even with this project moving forward. There's no pattern, as architect Winslow said, of pattern of those side setbacks across down the street or in this area in general. And, you know, if if the windows were lot lined windows, we would be talking about them being blocked entirely. I mean, if this is a lot lined to lot lined situation, they would go entirely. But, you know, I I I don't see an exceptional, extraordinary circumstance there. As far as staff review of the project, it has been reviewed carefully by staff twice now, especially bringing forward as a discretionary review. That is how, the issue with the DEC has been identified. And I do agree with staff's assessment that the DEC positioning was not in conformance with a lot of our past practice on this and guidelines on this. And so I do agree with the, modifications for the deck placement design. And so I I'm gonna make a motion to take discretionary review to approve the project as modified with the deck placement and design as staff as recommended.

[Jeffrey Eve (Project Architect, 1025 Ashbury)]: Second.

[Lydia So (President)]: Well, thank you for well, thank you for coming here today. I know that it's the middle of the summer. And, I once again, I I really appreciate commissioner Braun articulate the fact that we, as a commission body, we're looking at, design well, discretionary review cases across the city, with the judgment of level of, severity or, consistency. So, I am in agreement with my fellow commissioner, Abrahn, and also my fellow commissioner, Vice President Moore, brought up the fact about the encroaching of the neighbor's eve on the the actual, project sponsor's lot. That actually, I gotta have to say that the project sponsor could legitimately request the removal of the encroaching eaves, but they chose not to. So, again, I am gonna be retaining the a consistent message here that I really hope that everybody be a good neighbor. You this is San Francisco. We have a community. We were able to live here. It's a great opportunity to continue to be a good stewardship with your neighbors. And I do recall, the project sponsor did mention that at the second round of three eleven notifications, he had complied with issuing documents that indicated, the requested location of the window. And I look through the drawings that are presented to the docket. It seems pretty clear to me that I believe I can read them. So I really want to emphasize that I really hope that people could be just really be be nice and good neighbor to each other. I think that we can go a long way with that. I really do. Can you please that's kind of my comments for today. And I think we're ready for a vote unless my fellow commissioners like to further elaborate. Okay.

[Brandon Beasley (Public commenter)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: a motion that has been seconded to take discretionary review and approve with staff modifications on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Nay.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes six to one with commissioner Williams voting against. And that concludes your hearing for a good month. Enjoy your breaks.

[Lydia So (President)]: Have a great summer break. Thank you. All

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: that we do too.