San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 10/16/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is 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. At this time, I'd like to take role. Commission president So?

[Lydia So (Commission 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? Here. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here. And commissioner McGarry? Present. Thank you, commissioners. We expect Commissioner Williams to be out today.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, item one, case number 2021Hyphen005878CWP for planning administrative codes, tenant protections related to residential demolitions and renovations is proposed for continuance to 11/06/2025. Item two, case number 2025Hyphen002242CU 885 Liberty Street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 12/04/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Move to continue items one and two as proposed.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Braun?

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And commission president Soh. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Placing us under your consent calendar, all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item three, case number 2013.04 530CUA Hyphen 0 2 at 1301 Venice Avenue, conditional use authorization. And item four, case number 2025Hyphen004595, CUA 2847 Mission Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that either of these two consent calendar items be pulled off of consent and considered under the regular calendar today or a future hearing? Seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of Ramaytush Ohlone,

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Item

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: six, consideration of adoption draft minutes for September 25 and 10/02/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to adopt the minutes.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner Campbell. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Item seven, commission comments and questions.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: In June 2024, when this body considered the, objective standards, for housing density. There was a comment made about single access doors, single access stairs as a new typology for housing. And yesterday, the, California AIA picked up that subject matter and is advocating architects to weigh in on the benefit of single stair design, as a point of as a single, access point, to broaden and give more variety to housing design and actually promoting density at significantly larger cost reductions. Anybody who is interested in reading that, I'd be happy to forward that to Jonas so that you can all share reading it. But I think that is a right direction, and I ask anybody who is active in the AIA to weigh in and support that. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Seeing no further requests to speak, we can move on to department matters. Item eight, director's announcements.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Not a whole lot to report this week. I did wanna make you all aware, also in a way of soliciting input on on where else we need to go, of some of the tours that the planning department has been taking to connect with our community partners, even as we do active projects, just the kind of relationship building and understanding of the projects happening on the ground in some of our communities. About a week and a half ago, an inter divisional team from our citywide division, our community equity division, myself, was able to do an almost two hour tour with many of our partners in the Tenderloin, understanding both their housing and social efforts as well as some of their physical public realm improvements that they're working on and that we're collaborating with them on. This week, we were able to do a similar tour with our partners in the Mission District, which was really fabulous, and one in Fisherman's Wharf as well. So we'll keep doing those. I think what's been really great is not just hearing from our partners about their priorities and the work they're doing so we can understand how we can help them, but the fact that as a department, we are breaking down silos and and and attending in an interdisciplinary fashion. So we've got folks from, all of our divisions. Current planning coming too, although they've got a lot of projects on their plate right now, which is something we're dealing with. And then the only other thing I was gonna note, just because I think these kind of opportunities, sharing opportunities, understanding from other cities and countries is a part of what we always wanna do. Tanya Shiner from our environmental planning division was able to speak at the United Nations University in Tokyo. They had a Japan US leadership summit a a couple weeks ago with housing, smart cities, land use, all as and and sustainable cities as a key component of what they wanted to talk about. And she was able to learn a lot about what is happening both in partner cities in California who attended and in cities in Japan, which was fabulous. And also able to present on our family zoning plan, on our downtown efforts, and on permit SF to a international audience and and got a whole lot of good feedback. So thanks.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: That's great.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: If there

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: are no questions, we can move on to item nine, review of past events. At the Historic Preservation Commission, there is no report from the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Appeals. The Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday, and they adopted recommendations for approval for two, legacy business registry applications, Gasparais Pizza House, an Italian restaurant on Geary Boulevard, as well as the Waterfront Restaurant and Cafe on the Embarcadero. Further, they adopted recommendations for approval for the adaptive reuse of historic buildings. They heard several Mills Act applications. And maybe more significantly, they, adopted the Russian American historic context statement and recommended landmark designation for the Alert Alley Early Residential Historic District as well as the Chula Abbey Early Residential Historic District. If there are no questions, commissioners, we can move on to the 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.

[Unidentified member of the public]: I never come here, right? But now, it's clear enough that the planning commission is being used big time to implement. Let's stick to San Francisco here because the future is about local. We solve the problems locally. Otherwise, it's overwhelming because the entire political system has been taken over by politicians blackmailed because they fell in the trap, which has made of them pedophiles. And worse, institutionalized child trafficking, of which why, for example, the mainstream media never talks about not important enough? So my suggestion is for you to keep doing what you are doing, but pay attention because you have no future enforcing whatever you are told to enforce, which is the worst ugliness you can imagine, that is to touch the kids. You, ladies, are being used big time, made absolute fools of, especially as your instincts, as mothers, should bring to your mind. So guess what? The future is beauty. So beauty wins. No matter how hard it's going to be, it's going to win. So if you keep working for ugliness, guess what is your future exactly? It's not beautiful. I think it's more like about an institution in which you'll be trapped no matter how long it's going to take. So pay attention. I won't come back because look, I've got enough to do with

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

[Unidentified member of the public]: It's your decision now. You can always fake implementing stuff, you understand? Or at least get ready because the big change is coming. Again, it's going to be beautiful, but you might not be part of it at all. Have a nice day.

[Georgia Shutish (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon, Georgia Shutish. I sent you an email the other day. It was about Block 731 And 732 out there on 19th Avenue. 731 had eight pairs of flats, some with UDUs, is proposed for 65 and 85 feet. When I was looking at that block, I discovered across the street, Block 732 19th Avenue, there were two projects side by side. One was a demolition, approved as a demolition by the building by Board of Appeals, not by the commission in 2008, and one was an alteration completed in 2019. The alteration used form d b DBI three and the demolition used form six. So on the overhead, please, the computer, please, SFGov. You all have okay. So this is the one that had the alteration and there it is in October 2017 on 19th Avenue. Here it is in February. Okay? These are Google Earth photos. I just stumbled on them. So it's kind to me, I look at that, I don't know what you think. I know what I think. I think about the Supreme Court decision about pornography. You know it when you see it. When you see something like that, you've gotta think it's a demolition. That's what I think. That's what I wish everyone else thought, but I don't know that they do. But anyway, here are the demo calcs for it that I got from the DBI records. So, as you can see, the b two b calcs, that's the linear feet, were forty seven and eighty four, and the b two c, the vertical and horizontal, were, sixty and forty five. Very close. Today, this would gotten a warning letter. Okay. So next, here are the demo calcs for the twenty eight thirty day street project that you had at the beginning of the year. They crossed the threshold in the vertical and horizontal. And while you approve this at a CUA hearing on February 13, they got an alteration permit. They didn't get a form six, they got a form three. And the project was just recently approved by DBI on Tuesday. So what's my point? Why did DBI staff make a determination that needed form three and not form six? But compare the demo calcs with 19th Avenue for the removal of the horizontal and vertical for Day Street. Day Street shows greater removal. Then you look at the two photos. It looks like a demolition. A demolition is a demolition is a demolition. I don't understand why the planning commission is ceding their authority to DBI staff, technical services. There's no definition of demolition in the building code. It's a violation. The calcs themselves, which should be adjusted, are an objective standard. There's something you can measure. That's it. Thanks. Have a great day.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for general public comment. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. Commissioners, that'll place us under your regular calendar for item 10, case number 2025Hyphen007439 PCA and MAP. For 1236 Carroll Avenue, these are planning code and zoning map amendments.

[Rebecca Salgado (Planner, SF Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Rebecca Salgado, planning staff. The project before you today would amend the zoning map of the planning code to change the zoning use district designation of the site collectively known as 1236 Carroll Avenue from production distribution repair two to public. The proposed ordinance would also change the height and bulk district designation of 1236 Carroll Avenue and assessor's, parcel block number 4852, Lot Number 1, from 40 x to 90 x. The project site is bounded by Carroll Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, and assessor's block numbers 4851, 4853, And 4876, and consists of approximately eight acres of vacant city owned property. The proposed zoning map amendments would facilitate the development of a consolidated fire training facility for the San Francisco Fire Department. The proposed zoning map amendments will allow for the construction of necessary training facilities at the project site for effective firefighting, including live fire training, classroom training, equipment training, and other forms of training. The proposed facility is will consolidate and replace the fire department training facilities currently located at 649 Avenue N on Treasure Island and at 2310 Folsom Street. The proposed fire training facilities would be permitted as of right as a public facility use if the proposed zoning map amendments are approved as proposed. The planning department has received one public comment regarding the proposed ordinance recommending that the site of the current fire department training facility at 2310 Folsom Street be made available for the construction of affordable housing. The proposed zoning map amendments and fire training facilities were presented to the Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee and meetings on 05/01/2024, 08/20/2025, and 10/15/2025. The committee voted to give a positive recommendation for the proposed zoning map amendments and fire department facilities. The department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. The proposed ordinance will allow for the construction of training facilities necessary for effective firefighting. The facilities would be the site of initial and ongoing firefighting training and are thus an integral component of the city system of firehouses, crucial for maintaining and expanding the fire department's prevention and fire fighting capabilities. Based on the findings contained within the case report, the department recommends that the planning commission adopt a recommendation for approval of the proposed zoning map amendments. The department supports the proposed ordinance because it allows for the consolidation of fire department fire training facilities into one location, whereas training facilities are currently split between two locations in the Mission and Treasure Island. The construction of the new fire training facility will provide an upgraded training campus for firefighters and emergency medical technicians to meet the evolving needs of emergency responders in a twenty first century urban environment. The proposed ordinance would not displace any existing uses or result in any introduction of incompatible uses. This concludes my presentation unless there are any questions, and the project team also has a brief presentation of the project. Thank you.

[Garrett Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: Good afternoon, president Sohu, commissioners. My name is Garrett Miller, San Francisco Fire Department Assistant Deputy Chief for Earthquake Safety Emergency Response Projects, and I'd like to briefly address the importance of this project to the fire department. We're pulling up the presentation. Thank you. Well, since 1866, the San Francisco Fire Department has been protecting

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Excuse me. Vice President Moore would like you to raise the microphone a little bit so she can hear it.

[Garrett Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: Sorry. It's on TV. Apologies. Okay to proceed from there or start over?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Well, no. Just keep going.

[Garrett Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: Got it. Since 1866, the San Francisco Fire Department has been protecting lives and property. And today, we're an all hazards agency. We extinguish fires, mitigate behavioral crises and medical emergencies, and affect technical rescues. The current training facility was built in 1954, and most of our training occurs at the formal naval facility, which is planned for demolition. At the new division of training, all of our SFFT firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics will begin their service. They'll take on the mission and values of the department and return throughout their careers for skills maintenance, updates, and professional development. This project is truly essential for our department and for our city. And with that, I'd like to introduce Scott Moran, the project manager from Public Works.

[Scott Moran (Project Manager, San Francisco Public Works)]: Alright. Thank you, commissioners and, thank you for having us here. Scott Moran, public works project manager for this project. This project is located in the Bayview District and the, this rendering shows the site relative to where it is. It's It's just west of the former Candlestick site of the former Candlestick Park location and just across the slough from Hunters Point. This the site is outlined in red on this, pardon me. Under on this rendering and shows the current uses around the space and the planned future developments. Directly east of the site is the California State Parks headquarters. Their existing headquarters are there and they're planning to eventually build a state park visitor center with a parking lot and access to the future bay trail that will be built. Directly to the west is the Prologis site. They have potential plans to build a future building that may be up to 40 feet tall and occupying the majority of that block. Directly across the street to the south is Candlestick Point Development. This is the the far northwestern point of that large development, mixed use, and directly across the street will be high density housing. The site itself is made up of 26 individual parcels and three paper streets that will eventually be combined into one large parcel that's about eight acres in size. Legislation was introduced by the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Walton introduced it in July and there are two connected pieces of legislation. One is for the vacation of the paper streets and the other is the planning code map amendments for a zoning change and a bulk height change. They are purposely introduced together because when the street vacations happen, the zoning and bulk height change would apply to those as well since it's combined into one larger space. And we're specifically here today for the planning code map amendments review. The street vacations, this shows the streets on the the site. They're currently paper streets. They've never been built. They were planned, but never built. They are now landlocked, and they would also be difficult to build as accessible streets with accessible sidewalks. The site itself has very steep drop off on the west side, about 15 feet in elevation change. And also on the north side towards Armstrong, it drops off about 15 feet. The existing zoning is a combination of production, distribution, and repair, PDR two, and public. The proposed new zoning would be to change it all to be public to better match the planned use as a public support facility. The bulk height change that is proposed is to change it from 40x to 90x, specifically to be able to accommodate the two tallest training structures. One is a training tower that is a simulation of an office building and an apartment building on one side and then the other is a simulated communications tower used for rescue. This shows a rendering of the site as it relates to the other potential future developments. The two taller buildings are purposely placed as far north to the back of the site as possible. This rendering shows the sections of the site, one looking at the top, looking down Carroll Avenue toward the east, showing the taller buildings on the left hand side compared with the future development of the 65 foot tall high density housing across the street on Carroll. At the bottom shows the the buildings related to the future development on the West hand side. This is a rendering showing the overall site with the two taller buildings at the back of the site. As part of our design, we have done extensive outreach to the community. It's a listing of the different ones. And on August 20, the Bayview Citizen Advisory Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the planning code map amendments be approved. The legislation exists of the two elements, the street vacations and the planning code map amendments with the zoning and the bulk height changes. If the, commission recommends approval, this will allow this important project to continue forward. Thank you very much.

[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 item. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And these planning text and map amendments are now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thanks for bringing this project forward. You know, I I don't really have any concerns. It seems like this serves a critical need, and is a great way to consolidate and reinvest for the future in our public safety services. So this seems like a reasonable location for the project as well. I guess I just have one question I want to make sure I'm clearly understanding. So for the activity that would be happening, you know, as was pointed out, the Candlestick development does have the high density housing right across the street. And I'm curious about what kinds of activities will be located on the site, and in particular closer to those housing units versus farther away from the housing units. Just trying to think about if there are any noise or, I don't know, like, live fire impacts that are happening right up, you know, adjacent across the street from those folks or not?

[Garrett Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: Yeah. It's definitely something that's been considered from the inception of the design process. And so that was the intentional, placing of the classroom and administrative or office structures towards the Carroll Avenue side. And the training structures are more than 300 feet, from that property line, from that sidewalk, back into the facility more towards those industrial activities along Yosemite. You can think of it as sort of a community college or a trade school for firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics. And there certainly is a component about live fire training. We think that's essential to adequately preparing our firefighters. But 80% of our calls in the fire department are medical. It's a huge component of our organization. And in the training of firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics, there's a great deal of classroom training, policy and procedure, medical knowledge, treatment and skills, using tools, driving fire apparatus. And so, those instances of live fire training are sort of the capstone elements of the firefighter component. So, in the overall scheme of our operations, which are generally Monday through Friday, eight to five, they are a very small component. And we don't feel that they're going to significantly impact, the community. And we've done significant environmental studies to assess the means that we're conducting those operations, to make sure that we're staying below the stringent thresholds in the area, and also because of our great concerns about the community's health and the health of our personnel. And so, taking appropriate measures to mitigate excessive sound, mitigate exposure to any sort of hazardous materials or other exposures that people might have, because our folks are right there in the room where the live fire training is occurring as opposed to several 100 feet away where the public exposure might occur. So I think we've taken very reasonable steps to to mitigate any of those exposures that might occur.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the the thoughtful approach and, this has my full support. Appreciate it.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Delighted to see this coming forward. I think it has been tossed around for a long, long, long time, particularly for those of us who have been working on Treasure Island. This goes almost like fifteen, sixteen years back that that particular facility was substandard, insufficient, meeting the needs of a growing community on that location. Not to talk about Folsom Street, where you're being boxed in from all sides. I love the support you have received in your public hearings with the community. I think an extremely convincing project. I've been involved in Bayview Hunters Point for many, many years, and now with Pologis and housing really coming to set a real pattern for Bayview Hunters Point, I'm delighted to see supervisor Walton support this and pushing this forward. I make a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval, but we have still several people on the roster. It's such an exciting project.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Second.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd like to congratulate I

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: think I'm not sure.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: You. Sorry. I'd like to congratulate you on finally consolidating your training. You've been spread out for years, and this facility basically has everything you need and the ability to expand on what you need as well. So I wish you godspeed in, getting it up and running. And for the neighbors that are there and the future neighbors that are there, you will have active people there on-site, basically Monday through Friday, not just training, but with the equipment to actually jump out and avail of any help they may need. So I congratulate you on it, and I wish you well.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. Indeed, godspeed it is. Right? And thank you. I really appreciate to have assistant deputy chief, Garrett Mueller, to be here with us today and also a amazing project manager and DPW are here today. And like my fellow commissioners have spoken, this is a long coming progress, and we're delighted here to support you to update our zoning need for the new training facilities our city desperate need. We need more firefighters and our essential services and emergency support to help us to protect us for future natural disasters. And thank you so much. And I also wanted to know what happened to the existing facilities. Because my daughter, when she was young, she always loved to go over there in in the mission and see the firefighter hose down the towers. It's

[Garrett Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: Yeah. The existing facility is still in use. There will be a decision with leadership of how to proceed with that facility once this is constructed. We're not expecting completion until late in 2028, so there's a little time to work on that. But we have significant needs for additional land because of the expansion into the community paramedicine program and our medical response. And because it's so centrally located, it's a great facility for day to day training for our in service personnel. Although it doesn't meet all of our needs for recruit training. And we've just grown so much in the last seventy five years that, personally, if I think that there's an opportunity to maintain that tower, we will get good use out of it. But if not, the fire department will put that land to good use because we have a lot of needs.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Great. Thank you. And then children can go to the new facility and see bigger, taller tower and

[Garrett Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: We look forward and we've had a lot of interest from the public, about visiting that facility. Actually, just last Saturday was our annual open house. That will be the focus of the Neighborhood Emergency Response Training, the NERD activities that go on. That will be the the prime location for it. So there will be good opportunities, I think, for the public to engage with us there.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Right. And thank you for your presence today, and you have my full support.

[Garrett Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: Thank you very much.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And commissioner Moore, would you like to add more to

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I wanted to make one brief comment. The public's concern about electrical vehicle batteries is increasing. I know it will be significant challenges for everybody in every fire department across the country, across the world, and I want to just acknowledge that this is a very timely, moment to bring this facility also right next to Pologos who will be a very large consumer, end user of electrical batteries. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. I think we're ready to vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Indeed. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh? Aye.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. And places us on item 11 for case number 2025Hyphen007349 PCA for legacy businesses and neighborhood commercial districts. This is a planning code amendment.

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planner, SF Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planner, SF Planning Department)]: believe Calvin from supervisor Chan's office will is here and will present first.

[Calvin Yan (Aide to Supervisor Connie Chan)]: Good afternoon, President So and commissioners. My name is Calvin Yan. I am here on behalf of supervisor Connie Chan. I'm here on behalf of her to read a letter that she has written and asked me to read it onto the record.

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

[Calvin Yan (Aide to Supervisor Connie Chan)]: Okay. Dear commissioners, for the past few months, my San Franciscans have been questioning whether they will be part of our city's future or whether they will be left in the past because of the upzoning plan that has that this body recently approved. This question is amplified by many small business owners, especially those whose families have contributed to our city for generations. These small businesses have persevered despite having to deal with rising pressure from predatory landlords, which includes faceless corporations and billionaires who aim to monopolize neighborhood corridors by buying up blocks of commercial properties and keeping them vacant. Therefore, I was greatly disappointed when the Small Business Commission simply approved the upzoning plan without any policy recommendation that would help protect our small businesses nor suggestions to to utilize long standing tools such as conditional use authorizations to provide the public an opportunity to discuss land use priorities. As currently written, the upzoning plan will allow significant speculation real estate investment, which will put tenants, especially those who live in rent control units and small businesses, particularly those that have been operating their businesses for generations at great risk of displacement. After a conversation with both former and current planning directors and staff about the upzoning plan over the past two years, I am at all I'm not at all surprised at the recommendation against conditional use authorization as a way to protect legacy businesses. Unfortunately, the message this sends to our neighborhood is that planning department is not working in the best interest of San Franciscan. We have a fundamental disagreement about the role of that legacy businesses play on our commercial corridors in our neighborhoods and throughout our city. Planning staffs or recommendations continue to treat businesses as just commercial entities and fail to see that legacy businesses and long term businesses support the defining characteristics of our neighborhoods. The goal of this legislation, file number two five zero eight zero eight, before you today is not simply to protect businesses from closure, rather it is legitimately using a zoning tool as it is intended to regulate how land is developed to balance community needs, protect surrounding uses, and mitigate negative impacts. I continue to work collaboratively with mayor Daniel Lohrey and his team on further amendments to his proposal as indicated in my previous letter to you, which in included constituent concerns from stakeholders such as protection for our small businesses and possible inclusion of conditional use authorization for legacy business displacement. I also want to personally and publicly express my gratitude for commissioner vice president Catherine Moore and commissioners Teresa Imperial and Gilbert William for standing up for San Franciscan citywide and for your courageous votes against the proposed upzoning plan. Your insights and the reason for your votes have helped all of us greatly with making progress on amendments to the upzoning plan. Therefore, at this moment, I respectfully ask for your support as I always do while my legislation comes before you, and so that we can continue the conversation. Thank you for your time and consideration. And additionally, commissioners, I do wanna add that in response to a lot of in-depth engagement with many community stakeholders, and frankly listening to the Small Business Commission who did not approve this legislation. We are considering amendments to the legislation, including an exemption for other small business from the CUA requirements, an extension of the program to include more businesses, including community anchoring businesses since we recognize that they also contribute greatly to our commercial corridors. Thank you.

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planner, SF Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Lisa Gluckstein, planning department staff. I'm here presenting on behalf of Audrey Maloney, who is out today. The ordinance before you would require a conditional use authorization, or CU, for any new business that wants to that seeks to occupy a storefront previously occupied by a legacy business. This requirement would apply across all neighborhood commercial, neighborhood commercial transit, and Chinatown mixed use districts, regardless of use type or underlying zoning. Since the staff report was submitted to you all, we received two letters of support, including from the Telegraph Hill dwellers. To provide some background on this ordinance, on 09/17/2024, former supervisor Peskin introduced the same concept as an interim control. These controls expire on 05/12/2026 unless they're replaced by permanent controls as is proposed by the ordinance before you. As of today, no applications for a CU have been submitted under these interim controls. This legacy business CU requirement also applies under permanent controls in a few other districts, the Mission Street NCD, Pacific Avenue NCD, Polk Street NCD, North Beach SUD, and Calleventi Cuatro SUD. As a note and correction to the staff report, we did not mention the North Beach and Calleventi Cuatro SUDs, and I wanted to correct the record on that. Those legacy business controls are not before you today, However, just the, extension of the interim controls that apply in NCDs and NCTs citywide and the Chinatown mixed use districts. The small business commission reviewed the proposed ordinance at their regular meeting on 08/25/2025. While they expressed support for preserving legacy business, they voted three to one to not recommend the legislation. Instead, they encouraged exploring tools beyond a conditional use requirement, permit streamlining options, and a nexus study to explore new developer fees to support displaced small businesses. The department strongly supports the intent of this legislation. Legacy businesses play a vital role in preserving neighborhood identity, culture, and economic diversity. However, we do not support this ordinance for several reasons. First, a conditional use authorization is the wrong tool for this particular issue. Land use tools like CUs are designed to manage development impacts, things like use intensity, neighborhood compatibility, and physical changes to a site. They are not well suited to address economic and operational impacts that legacy businesses face. Further, the application of a CU to specific businesses creates implementation challenges for the department. CUs control uses and planning review is typically not required when, for example, a restaurant replaces another restaurant in a district where that use is principally permitted. However, these legacy business controls would require planning review during such a change from a legacy business to another restaurant, a legacy business restaurant to another restaurant, which is not generally part of planning's review practices. Additionally, the ordinance could result in several unintended consequences. It adds regulatory businesses regulatory barriers, excuse me, for small businesses trying to open. It may discourage landlords from leasing to legacy businesses looking to relocate or expand because they know that the space will be more challenging to fill when the legacy business leaves, and it could lead to longer vacancies harming neighborhood commercial corridors. In short, this proposal may undermine the very goal it sets out to achieve. For example, one business, Phaedrus Auto Repair, asked to be delisted as a legacy business because of CU requirements in the Polk Street NCD. The business owner had planned to vacate the space at the end of their lease and felt the legacy business controls in place were unfair to the property owner. Instead of creating new burdens for businesses, planning recommends focusing on direct assistance strategies, which have proven to be more effective. That includes financial tools like grants and rent relief, stabilization programs, and technical support for legacy business operations. These tools directly address the financial pressures that legacy businesses face without creating new retroactive regulatory hurdles. To summarize, the intent of the ordinance to protect San Francisco's unique small business ecosystem is clear and important. However, the department believes that the proposed CU requirement is a misapplication of a land use tool to what is fundamentally an economic challenge. In practice, it may actually undermine the purpose of the ordinance in the first place. For these reasons, planning recommends disapproval of the proposed ordinance and encourages the city to focus on direct support strategies that are proven to stabilize and sustain legacy businesses in a more equitable and effective way. And one one correction as well on the resolution that was included in your packet, we recommend making a few small changes, to the language included in that resolution. So just to read these into the record for you all, in the initial text of the resolution, we'd like to change the word consistency to inconsistency, so making findings of inconsistency with the general plan. And under the section three zero two findings specifying that the planning commission finds from the facts presented that the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare require require the denial of the proposed amendments pursuant to the planning code as set forth in section three zero two. And then finally, in the last section, adding a clause and be it resolved that the proposed ordinance is inconsistent with the general plan. And then I also wanted to correct for the record, I believe supervisor Chan mentioned that the small business commission did not make any policy recommendations along with their approval of the upzoning plan. There were some policy recommendations that the Small Business Commission did make along with their approval of, the family zoning plan, and, we have those I don't have those on hand, but, I believe Carrie Bernbach is here from the Office of Small Business, who can speak to those recommendations should you have any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. That concludes staff's presentation. We should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward.

[Peter Stevens (Build Affordable Faster California)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Planning department, Peter Stevens with Build Affordable Faster California. We are in favor of supervisor Chan's legislation. We believe that legacy businesses have invested a lot in our communities, and it's only fair to step up and provide some protections for them. Thank you all. Have a great day.

[Kristen Evans (Small Business Forward)]: Hello, commissioners. Kristen Evans from Small Business Forward. We forwarded an email last night. And I never know if you actually get it and can open it and read it. But I thought I'd read it into the record in case you didn't receive our message. It says, Dear Planning Commission, Small Business Forward writes to you to support Supervisor Chan's proposed extension of conditional use hearing requirements for sites with displaced legacy businesses. Throughout this process of engaging with your body to identify a pass for small businesses, small business protections from upzoning, we've all learned the tools allowed by state law are extremely limited. It is our opinion that the proposed extension of this local ordinance is an important and necessary measure to remain in place until state legal reform can take place to allow for municipal provisions for commercial rent control and the right to return for commercial tenants. Ten Ichi, a forty plus year old legacy sushi restaurant, family run and operated for decades, was unceremoniously displaced last year and has not been able to successfully relocate. This has led to a loss for the community it served. Forced displacement is patently unfair and anti progressive towards small business workers and owners who drive their income from these businesses. Displacement also deprives the community of a beloved and inherently more affordable serving small business. And it should be the priority in the policy of San Francisco to discourage displacement of successful long term businesses in exchange for long term storefront vacancies. Approximately 90% of San Francisco small storefront businesses rent their spaces. The landlord leasee relationship is no longer fair or equal if it ever was. Lease arrangements have become long documents filled with legal ease, and capital rich landlords are increasingly willing to leave spaces vacant for long periods of time based on their nonreliance on the property to meet their own basic income needs. They frankly are rich enough that they can leave those vacancies open for years. It is Small Business Forward's position that this CU requirement remain in place until state law has changed allowing for more equitable commercial lease terms, lease exit provisions, and rights of return. Sincerely, the steering committee of Small Business Forward. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is not before you commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Before commissioner McGarry, I'm if you might I would like, Carrie from the Small Businesses Commission. Would you mind read us into the record of what was, the small businesses recommendation or consideration?

[Carrie Birnbach (Office of Small Business)]: On the family zoning plan?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. What was Lisa was mentioning, would you mind just sharing with us?

[Carrie Birnbach (Office of Small Business)]: Yeah. So good afternoon, commissioners. Carrie Birnbach, senior policy analyst with the Office of Small Business and commission secretary to the Small Business Commission. The commission voted to support the family zoning plan with a vote of four to zero and made the following recommendations, to codify a notification process to commercial tenants in the Office of Small Business when a development application on a rezoned site is submitted to the planning department, to track small business displacement under the rezoning plan, to codify incentives for development projects that include warm shell build outs in new commercial spaces, to explore statewide advocacy to support commercial relocation assistance, and to explore incentives for development projects to make contributions to a small business mitigation

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: fund. Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd like to concur with the Small Business Commission on the on this legislation. We're the planning commission here. We're not we deal with land land use. We don't deal with who is going to rent or who is not allowed rent for whatever reason. Basically, I believe San Francisco should be open for business. I think there is adequate provisions, in the family zoning plan to actually help with any displacement and right of return. And I would agree, with, the department, to adopt a recommendation for disapproval on this, and I'd make that motion.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I like to disagree with commissioner McGarry's summary. I believe that this is not a land use tool, but that this is a preservation and a business protection tool. I I believe this is historic preservation tool, historic in a sense that sense of place and urbanity have created unusual small businesses which are typical for the richness of diversity in San Francisco and require the Commission's protection in order to further the vitality of small business, and enabled commercial corridors. San Francisco was the leader on inventing or creating the legacy business legislation, which has gained national attention, and cities across The US have replicated this particular innovative tool. For us in under the threat of upzoning that is happening at significant scale and speed, I believe that this is one way to make the impact of upzoning less consequential, particularly for those of us who believe that our neighborhood commercial corridors are our main streets, are basically our homes, are our sense of identity. I am not in support of the department's recommendation. I support the legislation as it is, and I do think that as time goes by, we can develop and enhance legislation to find other means of protection at this particular time. Nobody has come forward all the way in the twelfth hour, and the train is leaving the station. One particular question I have is the departments bringing forward changes in today's hearing that typically are given to us at the minimum by Monday or Tuesday ahead of hearing, and there's no written paper copy handed to us either. I find that imposing, and I find it somewhat worth noting because I hope that we continue with the practice of having changes for weighted decisions being given to us before we come into this room. This is not chiding you, this is inquiring and suggesting to please do it differently. We're making weighted decisions, and any changes, however small they are, are typically announced and given to us ahead of the meeting.

[Lisa Gluckstein (Planner, SF Planning Department)]: Yes. Thank you for raising that, commissioner Moore. I appreciate that sentiment, and it is certainly our intention to provide you with as much notice as we can. We realized that there were some inconsistencies in the resolution which do not change the overall message of the resolution. The resolution is clear that it was recommending denial or making a negative recommendation around this proposed ordinance. But frankly, given that that recommendation is not frequently made by this commission or the department, we didn't change some of the language, some of the boilerplate language in the resolution. And so those small tweaks reflect those changes just to be consistent with the negative recommendation that we are making. Mhmm. And it was flagged to me very kindly by the city attorney just now, which is why I made those recommendations to you all verbally. And I apologize for not having the written resolution

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: for your consideration.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: It's okay. It's okay. I mean, as I said, I just like

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: to ask that we don't don't repeat that. I also like to put to the record that the commission, and I assume perhaps it was last minute, received men letters from Small Business Forward, heritage as a heritage, mister Henry Kamilowicz, who is the president emeritus of San Francisco Council of District Merchant Associations, and Telegraph Field Dwellers, all very, very eloquently written letters in support of supervisor Chen's legislation. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Director Phillips, you have something you wanted to chime in?

[Director Phillips (Planning Director)]: I did just wanna respond to commissioner Morris' comments. And, Lisa, thank you for providing a response there. But since I think your comment especially since you made the point that it was not intended to be a chatting of staff, I wanted to reply on a departmental level. And just note that it is always our goal to provide you information ahead of time. And we really appreciate your understanding that mistakes will happen, and we will correct those mistakes when we're aware of them. And and allow us that understanding back as well. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. I have a question. For me, I've forgotten your name. But I'm it might be related to the legacy business registry and and small business protections. My my question is, if if there's an intention to address the challenge of involuntarily displaced legacy businesses, I'm curious if if a business let's say business closes for whatever reason, but they don't ask to be taken off the legacy business registry as, you know, the department cited an example where they proactively did that themselves. Does that business remain on the registry, or does the city remove a business once they're no longer operational?

[Carrie Birnbach (Office of Small Business)]: Apologies. I'm not the legacy business program manager. He's out of town right now, but I believe they would remain on the registry unless they're actively taken off.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Alright. Thank you for that. And then I I have a question for mister Yan. Thank you very much for being here. I really appreciate your presentation. I'm curious about two things. One was, was there just really curious. Was there a consideration of extending this legislation or any other legislation dealing with legacy businesses to, not just storefront based businesses? Or what was sort of the logic behind focusing on storefront based businesses?

[Calvin Yan (Aide to Supervisor Connie Chan)]: At at this iteration, it was operationally expanding existing legislation that is interim happening that was introduced last year. But, certainly, I think supervisor Chen would entertain and see if there's a possibility to expand that definition. Certainly, supporting businesses in the city is something that we that's in our interest. So if that's a suggestion, I think I will bring that back to the supervisor.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: In all honesty, I I also don't support the legislation, but I am you know, I think that when we are talking about legacy businesses, I would hope that there's you know, we're able to, consider the full range of them and not just the storefront. I understand the reasoning behind wanting to prioritize storefront based businesses because they have a place in the community and are very visible. But I want to recognize the many, many great businesses in the city that are not necessarily storefront based. My other I guess actually, no. Those are my questions. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think that I'll just say one of my concerns with this legislation is partly that as we just heard, you know, a business stays on the legacy business registry most likely even if they close for reasons other than being involuntarily displaced or having a landlord, you know, want to get a higher paying tenant in there. You know, it it seems like a really sweeping approach to an issue in which many, many businesses don't close for that reason. And and yet the next business would have to go through a conditional use authorization process, not because of anything to do with the merits of their own application, but because a business, a legacy business, happened to close at that site previously. So I really do appreciate the intent behind the legislation. I see how it's trying to create a disincentive for, you know, a landlord trying to push out a a business through whatever means. But I I just I just disagree with the with the approach. I mean, even when it comes to, you know, protections via and based on land use, we've even seen with laundromats. You know, the business model doesn't work. Laundromat closes despite the many efforts we've had to try to protect them and keep them in place. And then there's, you know, a further process to get the next tenant in there, when there was no viable path forward for the laundromat. And that was just based on a use, not a business. So unfortunately, I don't support legislation, but I do appreciate the intent. And and I'm excited to see where else we can go to protect legacy businesses. Yes. Would you Yeah.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Like to see Oh,

[Calvin Yan (Aide to Supervisor Connie Chan)]: I just wanna clarify. The legislation does have exemption provisions, excluding any spaces where there has been vacancy for more for three years

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Yes.

[Calvin Yan (Aide to Supervisor Connie Chan)]: And or other small businesses who has requested to remove themselves from the registry. So they're a mechanism to really prevent vacancy to be taken up by a new business coming in.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And those are those are fair points, and I am glad that that those parts are in there. But nevertheless, I I do I don't support the legislation. And I don't know if there was a second for commissioner Mercari.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Second.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Did you second? Okay. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you, commissioner Braun. Commissioner Imperial?

[Carrie Birnbach (Office of Small Business)]: Thank you.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. This I I think the issue of legacy business has been in conversation in the commission for quite a long time. And I think the commission here really struggles as to how to protect the legacy businesses and how to protect it in a land use way. As I understand, legacy business is not in a land use, but more a program of small under a small business program, which becomes an issue when we have neighbor corridors, cultural districts, and that's when the programs the program itself also addresses the land use issue in a way. And I remember with former director Hillis, we've had this kind of, like, informal conversations about what to do with legacy business and how to in a way in a way the protection from displacement. And you know, it seems like the the the department and it seems like this is how the department is tackling it is through the relocation plan, through assistance program, which the small business, I think, provide, but not enough. And, you know but I think the, you know, one of the the thing here that, that the department cited is the Optum Bar. Like, that case went to the commission, and we were struggling with that. I remember that, because it was, you know, a very beloved bar. And, again, there was practices by the landlord in itself. And I think there were also some provisions, I think, in other in other NCDs where COA is needed, especially especially if it's the the legacy business has been displaced. And I think we didn't really question the matter of displacement of the previous OPTIMBAR. And I think that's one thing that in one thing that we don't we don't know how to address in terms of, like, the in a way, how landlords or real estate in a way, pick and choose businesses that also at the same time, we have here the planning department in different NCDs of, like, conditional use of how we address the community needs, the the, you know, address the the the, compatibility or desirability, in the neighborhood. So I think that's how we're struggling here in the planning commission. And I do think that one thing is addressing the relocation. Assistance is one good thing to support small businesses, but how to address the speculative activities is something that it seems like we're it's almost like we're out of control or we don't have anything to say for our commission. And so I appreciate what the small business forward is doing because they're trying to, reform in a way of the state level about the commercial rent control. There's no such thing as that. The right to return, there is no such thing as that as well. And these and those are the struggles of many of the small businesses when the rents have jacked up. And that was the issue with the Aptown bar, and that was the issue with other businesses that they can't negotiate with their renewing of their lease. And so, I mean, we have this kind of, like, and that was something that I was addressing to in the family zoning plan was like in terms of the demolition. And one thing that I can think of right now, if we're really serious about land use control, is attaching a legacy business as a historic part of the historic control. But, you know, I I, you know but I understand what this legislation is trying to do is really to address the speculative nature when it comes that affects the small businesses and legacy businesses. And I think we do have some obligation to address that. And the CUA in a way is the one form that we can have. But, you know, maybe there's something also to address on how to make sure that legacy businesses are protected in a land use where there's some codifying in terms of historic building or preservation in a way. But I I think there's a lot more that need to be helped for legacy businesses. But as for now, I would support this legislation because we don't have there's not that much of protection and there's and the relocation assistant is still needed to be funded more. And so any help for the businesses, I would support, and I would support this one. Thank you. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: What I would like to say is that I think right now, I'm after hearing everyone comment, and also thank you, Kelvin, for being here today, on behalf of supervisor Chen, and thank you, Lisa, thank you, Carrie, to be here. I think it is to me, it's like we all are in agreement of we need to help small businesses, old and new. We need to keep the vitality of what we have currently, we have in our neighborhood and our, fabric of our districts. But then also, we also have a lot of vacancies, and we also want to keep the city to continue to thrive And freeze dried everything is not gonna be a really good approach to enable future resiliency, adapting what the current economy is, supporting our businesses, and attracting some new businesses to be actually coming into San Francisco instead of going to some other neighboring city, which I'm not gonna name it, is also very important because we want them to come here. Right? And then we want we want everyone to have a thriving activated storefront for every corridor, Valencia, Polk Street, North Beach. Well, you name it. Right? A marina and everything. And I think what what I'm hearing today is, like, everyone's trying to do what we can do to make it work. But, however, I do think that these new additions into our consideration on our families only plan and also some of the things that we talked about with this at the small businesses office is very proactively helping our small businesses, the existing one and also the attracting the new one to come forward to. And so how I do think that right now, the since because this ordinance specifically stated that it really is for a vacated space, If a vacated space used to have a legacy business, then a new business has to apply for conditional use. But right now, I think we're in year 2025. I really think that, we should focus on carrots rather than sticks for, keeping our businesses old and new to thrive and survive. It is a tough one to navigate, and it's a challenging thing for us to grapple with. But I do have a high respect to my fellow small businesses commissioners. I trust that they also are expert in their trade, and I do consider their recommendation highly. And so I really wanted to strongly encourage people to utilize other revenue other avenues such as, like, rent relief and grants and these existing technical assistance services that we have in the small businesses offices. Those are, to me, more relevant in more proactively helping to support our existing legacy businesses and also our future businesses, old and new, again. So, I actually will be in support of, the motion that came in front of us by my fellow commissioners and that is second. So, oh, commissioner Campbell, would you like to say something?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I just wanna quickly add. I wanna echo that sentiment that you just shared around carrots versus sticks. And I I'm I'm echoing a lot of what some of my other commissioners have said in terms of supporting staff's recommendation, in terms of this legislation. For me, being a city of yes and being transparent and being predictable, it can't happen when we have CUAs and discretionary reviews on all of our projects. So just like as this is like I'm hitting my one year mark on this commission and I feel like I'm growing increasingly allergic to them because I'm seeing how hard it is on our project applicants and small businesses to, to get things accomplished. Things take so much more time and so much more money, and they end up in this maze of processes. And so for me, when if we're gonna add the conditional use authorization to anything, I think it has to has to be for such a good reason. And I'm not convinced at all, like many here at the desk, that this is going to help legacy businesses. I think it's actually gonna create a lot more more headaches. So just wanted to add that and pile on a little bit to that carrots versus sticks.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you, commissioner Campbell. Can we yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There's nothing further, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for disapproval with the corrections read into the record by staff on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? No. Commissioner Moore? No. And commission president so?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes four to two with commissioners Imperial and Moore voting against. Commissioners, I will now place this under your discretionary review calendar for items 12 a and b. For case number is 2024Hyphen010293DRPNVAR for the property at 55 Retiro Way. You will be considering the discretionary review application, and the zoning administrator will be considering the request for variance.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. David Winslow, staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of, planning application number 2024010293, PRJ, to construct a horizontal and vertical third story addition with a roof deck to an existing single family house. Planning code section one thirty four requires the subject lot maintain a rear yard equal to 30% of the lot total lot debt lot depth. The proposed addition is partially located within the required rear yard. Therefore, a variance is requested. The site is an irregular shaped corner lot. The building itself is also a category A historic resource as a contributor to the eligible Marina Corporation historic district. The Doctor requester, Deborah Holly, on behalf of the owners of 12 Rico Way, the property to the immediate Southwest of the is concerned that the approval of a variance for the proposed project would be detrimentally would be materially detrimental to the property of 12 Rico Way by reducing light and air to, the small deck and nursery at the 3rd Floor, as well as adversely impacting their privacy. Their proposed alternative, alternatives are to not expand the degree of nonconformity by granting the variance. To date, the department has received two letters in opposition and 14 letters in support of the project. The project does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to scale and at the rear end privacy and light. The existing building is legal non conforming non complying, pardon me, with respect to the rear yard. And any allowance to increase that non compliance is especially scrutinized for its impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed addition is setback from Rico Way frontage to align with the upper floor of the adjacent neighbor at 12 Rico Way, as well as being set back six feet from its mutual property line, which is the same distance that the Doctor requester's upper floor is set back as well. However, the proposed addition is both increasing the height by about one foot eight inches and proposing a roof deck on the roof of the new portion of the building, which is requesting a variance. Therefore, these two expansions seem to pose an unnecessary increase in the building that do affect light and privacy to the adjacent neighbors and the degree of nonconformity with respect to the rear yard. Therefore, staff deems there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and recommends taking discretionary review to maintain the existing roof height and limiting the roof deck to within the buildable area. Thank you and this concludes my report.

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

[Deborah Holly (DR Requester Representative)]: Okay. Could I have the opening? All right. Hello president. So vice president Moore commissioners and zoning administrator Teague I'm Deborah Holly and I prepared the Doctor application for John Ward, who until several days ago was the owner of 12 Rico Way, adjacent as you can see on the image. If this project had not been looming over him, he would not have uprooted his life by selling his home at a loss. He was worried about the outcome today. Although Mr. Ward is no longer the owner, the concerns raised are still still meritorious, because the project would adversely impact the current and future neighbors at 12 Rico Way and 7 Costa Way the neighbors on the other side. This project proposed proposes the expansion and of an existing extremely large nonconforming single non compliant single family home in this RH3 zoning district to allow an even taller bulkier single family home within the required rear yard at the expense of the adjacent neighbors. As Mr. Winslow stated, the proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to scale and at the rear and privacy. Additionally, it would significantly reduce sunlight to the small 80 square foot, 12 Rico Way deck and adjacent windows and the sun rooms at seven costs. So the seven costs away units, multifamily building, the subject property 55 Retiro Way contains an existing forty three forty gross square foot, single family home and approximately a 196 square foot, open space at the rear. The proposed project would expand the current building envelope of the existing, non code compliant home to create an even taller 4,831 gross square foot single family home. It would add two full additional bathrooms, a powder room and new roof decks totaling four ninety six gross square feet as well as relocate, relocating the kitchen to the top. The proposal, to increase that non compliance and expand substantially into the required rear yard should be which, I'll show in this image. Thank you. Where was I? Would, so that would, increase the existing noncompliance and expand substantially into the required rear yard shown here in red. You should highly scrutinize this for its impacts on the adjacent properties. The requested variance has not met the required findings and has not demonstrated the required hardship to allow the ex ex to allow expanding the building into the required rear yard. Please take Doctor and disapprove the project and deny the variance. If that's not an option, I, for you, I urge you to require this modification, which is just asking for a reduction in the, large kitchen proposed on the 3rd Floor and either, reducing the size of or eliminating the new powder room proposed. This would still allow a huge home, of approximately 4,500 square feet and would somewhat reduce the impacts on the adjacent neighbors. Thank you very much.

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

[Gedas Ulinskas (Principal, Gedas Ulinskas Architects)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Good afternoon, mister Tighe. My name is Gedos Yolinskas. I'm principal at Gedos Yolinskas Architects. This is Meredith Brown. She's the project architect. Meredith will walk you through the details of the proposal. I just want to say that the owners of 55 Rittero Way lived at that address for about four or five years before they contacted us to improve the property. As mentioned before, it's a very unusual corner lot. It does not enjoy access to a traditional mid block open space where combined rear yards allow access to light and exposure to open space. Rather, its rear area faces the sheer side wall of the adjacent neighbor. And for that reason, many of the living spaces are dark and very constrained. The objective of this project is to create living space that actually has more light and exposure and allows them more usable space similar to what their neighbors enjoy in a way that is, we think, sensitive and mitigates the impact. So I will let Meredith walk you through the proposal. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If we could have the overhead, please.

[Meredith Brown (Project Architect, Gedas Ulinskas Architects)]: Thank you. This is a rendering of the proposed massing. So I'll just skip to the description of the challenge that we faced with this property. Geddes mentioned what the clients are looking to resolve with this redesign. I wanna mention that we are trying to increase the additional outdoor space available to the owners. So we've proposed two roof decks where they are able to enjoy light and air in a way that is in keeping with the neighborhood. This is not an outlier where there are several homes in the surrounding blocks that are predominantly three and four stories and have roof decks similar to these. And I wanted to also discuss the challenge of the rear yard setback. So because of the unusual five sided shape of the corner lot, strict interpretation of the planning code would actually enforce two rear yard setbacks, which would severely constrain the potential for any expansion of the property. The setback eliminates nine feet of buildable width on the 3rd Floor seen here. And, this on its own is a bit of a challenge, but there's also the need to set the massing back from the street in order to respect the historic character of the neighborhood and to keep the expansion subordinate to the original structure. So respecting both of those constrains us, by about 18 feet altogether in the width of what's allowed. The allowable expansion in that definition would be approximately 370 square feet, which was not enough to meet the client's needs or to justify the significant cost of undertaking an expansion. And so therefore, we seek a variance in order to build our 3rd Floor extension within the rear yard setback, which would allow us a modest increase of a 121 square feet to the 3rd Floor expansion. As the Doctor requester mentioned, their main concern is the proximity of the proposed massing. And as you can see here, the massing is set back from the 12 Rico property by a minimum of six feet. And at the 2nd Floor deck, which was a primary concern, the massing is primarily set back by nine feet three for a total of over 10 feet of separation between the property and the deck in question. The 12 Rico neighbor also submitted some sun studies that describe the sun being affected by a few hours in the mornings at this deck. But by the afternoon, this deck will be, fully shaded by its own 12 Rico weight structure and not by the proposed massing. Our proposal does not affect the protection of mid block open spaces. And the proposed scale is in keeping with and the datum's complimentary to the adjacent buildings. The 3rd Floor facade has been brought in line with the 3rd Floor of the neighboring home at Rico Way. And we feel that what we show today is the result of a good faith compromise, having made significant modifications to the plans in response to feedback from the neighbors and from the planning department since initial submission. From these negotiations, we've earned support from the neighbors who appreciate the family's community involvement and their desire to improve the neighborhood. We would be very happy to also have your support in moving forward with the proposal.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this discretionary review, as long as you're not affiliated with either the Doctor request or the project sponsor.

[Robert Rogers (Neighbor, 7 Casa Way)]: Just going up there. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Robert Rogers, and I own and live in the Top Floor apartment at 7 Casa Way, Apartment 5, which is which is right here, immediately next door to this project. I moved here last July, and from the very beginning, my home has been a quiet private space. One of the things I love most about it is the natural light and sense of privacy I get in my living room. It's where I read and relax most of the days. The proposed project will change that entirely. The new stairwell and roof deck skylight entrance, as you can see here, it's right here. It's directly it's not within a few feet. It's directly underneath my two windows, my bedroom window here, and my living room window right here. And so when you come up on the skylight from the stairwell, you're literally right in my window. What that means is every single person walking up the roof deck would pass directly outside my window right there. I would see their faces. I would hear their conversations, and they would be able to look right into my home. It would feel as if a public doorway, had been built in front of my private living space. I wanna be clear. I'm not opposed to neighbors improving their property, but this particular design with the skylight right right here, just right in front of my windows, and my living room window, is far beyond what I think is reasonable. It takes away something fundamental, my right to privacy inside my home. It would force me to put up blinds and get them up or feel like I'm being watched. It's not a small inconvenience to me. It's a permanent daily impact on how I live. I'm simply asking for fairness. There are other ways to create roof access without placing a stairwell right outside a neighbor's window.

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

[Robert Rogers (Neighbor, 7 Casa Way)]: Okay. I urge you to deny this variance. Thank you.

[Beth Marcus Lukrich (Owner, 7 Casa Way)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Beth Marcus Lukrich. My husband and I own three apartments at 7 Casa Way, which is located directly next door to 55 Retiro. And we have owned those properties for the past twenty five years. There are a total of five apartments in the building. Number four is our family's apartment, and Apartments 1 And 3 are both long term rental properties that we rent out. The other two are owner occupied, one of which is Bob. We are opposed to the proposed project at 55 Retiro Way. The granting of such a variance will be materially detrimental to our property, for the reasons I'll mention below. And I just wanted to interject, it was mentioned at the top of the presentation that letters of support were submitted by, I think, 10 or so neighbors, which I read, and none of those neighbors are directly impacted as we are by this building expansion. Item one, the reason we're objecting is the project would cause significant adverse light and air impacts to all five of the apartments at 7 Casa Way. The proposed project would significantly reduce the air and light at the rear of 7 Casa and adversely impact balconies and rear windows of all units in the building. In particular, the project would have adverse impacts on the light and air for two sun porches in Apartments 1 And 3, and severely limit sunlight for both porches, leaving them with almost no sunlight for the majority of the daytime hours. These sun porches, which I have an image of I don't I don't know if this probably doesn't pick up phone images, but the sun porches have always provided long term tenants with small but highly enjoyable sunny warm spot to enjoy a cup of tea on a cold day or an atrium. Are we

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

[Beth Marcus Lukrich (Owner, 7 Casa Way)]: Oh, that's my time?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yes. Oh

[Beth Marcus Lukrich (Owner, 7 Casa Way)]: my goodness. May I submit this in writing later?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Of course, you can.

[Beth Marcus Lukrich (Owner, 7 Casa Way)]: Okay. Sorry. I'm sorry. I went over. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And Doctor. Equestria, you have a two minute rebuttal.

[Deborah Holly (DR Requester Representative)]: Thank you. Just wanna make a few quick points. Number one, the, project sponsors architects, talked about the program for the building of increasing light for their clients. That would be great, and suitable if this were a project, you know, in the suburbs that, was not increasing the project sponsor's light at the expense of the neighbors. So it's important to consider context here. They said that, oh, the sunlight is only reduced for a few hours in the morning for the 12 Rico Way small deck. Well, that's that's substantial for the residents of 12 Rico Way because it's the only usable open space. So that'll that'll make a daily difference for that resident. There were, there was a mention of a good faith compromise, on this project. The only change that I'm aware of is that a large stairwell penthouse was originally proposed that would have added more bulk to the top of top floor. And so that was changed to a sliding roof deck for a sliding skylight for for access. And that garnered support of a neighbor across the street who's, I think, a 100 feet or so away. And the the people that wrote letters of support are distant, you know, a 100 feet away mostly, I

[Unidentified member of the public]: think they're

[Deborah Holly (DR Requester Representative)]: and would not be impacted. So nothing to lose. Thank you.

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

[Meredith Brown (Project Architect, Gedas Ulinskas Architects)]: Thank you. I'd just like to respond to some of the other neighbors who spoke. Mister Rogers commented on the proposed skylight. I just like to show an example of a similar condition on another project. And, as Deborah mentioned, this solution is proposed in order to avoid adding additional bulk to Initially, we proposed a stair penthouse, but that was visually very imposing to all neighbors. And so in order to reduce the imposition, we did change our design in order to provide something like this. As you can see, there's a landing at the top of the stair and that will be nearby to mister Rogers' window. However, the rest of the stair, you would not be at a height that you would see his his property at all. I do believe that the window on the property line can't necessarily be protected. And then the second window at the bedroom is set back a few feet from the property line. I'd just like to reiterate that, we have attempted to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. And, what we're doing here is trying to provide a more livable home and improve the, the value of the property, for our clients and for the future users.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. With that, the public hearing portion is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Zoning administrator. Corey, you have a comment.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Okay. Thank you. First of all, just like to say good afternoon, president of zoning commissioners. Nice to be up here with you today. Happy to bat first and just address some of the variance issues. And I think it's helpful, at least for me, to almost scorecard it a little bit because I think there are there are issues on both sides of the ledger. I mean, I I do think, you know, when you when I'm considering a variance that we have to make the five required findings, the three big ones are, you know, essentially, there's exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that aren't typically faced by similar projects. That's gonna and then second, that that's gonna cause, you know, real practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship that is not created by the applicant or the owners themselves. And then that the project itself is not gonna have, you know, be materially injurious to adjacent and nearby properties. Three big ones. And in here, there's no question that there are some exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. It's unusual in cap lot, unusual size, unusual configuration. And then on top of that, it's a category a resource with, like, multiple frontages, which means any vertical addition is gonna be pinched a little bit. So you're kinda pinched in the rear. You're pinched around the edges. So that means anything you wanna do vertical, it's gonna be a challenge. Right? Especially anything of size. There's no question about that. And then as was raised, you know, this isn't facing onto a standard mid block open space. Right? It's a small, tight area back there. And that's a positive on that front, but, of course, that bleeds into the other issues of it's very tight back there. And and you do get into some of these more privacy issues, which is really a function of the residential design guidelines. And I think a lot of what the commission is gonna have to consider is is the design overall. And that will influence my decision a lot, especially on that finding number four. If there's, you know, determination of what is a design that is not gonna be materially injurious to the neighbors, what's the design that meets the residential design guidelines. I think on the other side of the ledger is that even though you have these constraints, the existing building kind of already accounts for those in some ways. Right? It's an existing building that already covers the majority of the lot. It's, you know, over a 4,000 square foot single family home in an R H 3 District. You know, technically, this could accommodate three standard units in an ADU, you know, just by number. And and then you are dealing with the privacy issues and just the context of the design. So to me, those are kind of the balancing issues. I think, from my perspective of the variance itself, I think, obviously, this the department has recommended lowering the height of the addition and removing the uppermost roof deck for for privacy concerns. And along with that, I I I think there is something here for some variance. I think that where I'm leaning right now is that that third floor is proposed to be ex expanded a little bit to the west to kinda match the footprint of the 2nd Floor. I think it's an extra three feet, three inches. And that you know, the the usability of that space I mean, obviously, any space is usable here in the city, but, you know, it's not serving a a direct function that's not already served by other area. So I think that might be an area where, along with what the recommendations from the department, depending on how the planning commission responds there, I think maybe shaving that off a bit and providing also a bit of a setback for that front terrace along the Western property line. Again, just to really capture any privacy issues there. It would be something that I would consider, but I'm obviously interested to hear what the, what the commissioners might have to say on this as well.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. K. I have Jenna Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Quick clarification question too. My understanding was the recommendation was to not do the the vertical 3rd Floor addition, but that's not is that do I have that you you're saying the addition's okay, but the just the roof deck. Apologies. I think I misunderstood the recommendation. Thank

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: you. Yeah.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Thanks. No. The recommendation was to lower the height of the proposed addition and to remove the roof deck from the, portion of the, the proposed addition that extends into the required rear yard.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Can we look at drawings just so I could the project sponsor maybe

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: could you

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: do you mind pulling up those drawings so we have clarity on this?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You need to speak to the microphone.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I think what he's describing is that the deck would be constrained to this point. K. And then just let the overall height of the expansion be limited to the existing.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I see.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: And by roof deck, I mean that my recommendation specifically just to clarify on that. Was the roof deck on top of the proposed addition, not necessarily the roof deck at the The terrace. Yeah. The terrace at the on the roof of the 2nd Floor.

[Meredith Brown (Project Architect, Gedas Ulinskas Architects)]: Thank you for

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: clarifying. Microphone because that was inaudible. I'm sorry.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Just to be clear, the recommendation was for the roof deck to be pulled back from the roof of the addition, not necessarily on the terrace, which is at the 2nd Floor.

[Unidentified member of the public]: So Mhmm.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Yes. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Is what's being shown on the screen

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: So yeah. What would it look like? What your recommendation would look like?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: That's required rear yard. Yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I think everything to the left of the pen on the upper roof terrace, the one that's 399 square feet, approximately is what's being proposed to be removed from the proposal.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Mister Winslow, could you take the drawing and draw it in place? It is really with pen, without pen, and a compass.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: If I had the proper metrics at my disposal, but I will try.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Let's see. I I have a

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: So

[Garrett Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: now if I can borrow your drawing,

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: assuming that this is correct, assuming that this red line depicts what the required rear yard line would be, That this area here, this roof deck would be simply removed from the top of that building.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Okay. And from the vertical addition?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: That's only from the vertical addition. We're fine with the roof deck on this terrace of the existing

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: On the front side.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Portion of the building.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Yeah. And Don't go away. Well, okay. So I guess my yeah. Maybe you could stay there. It's kinda nice having you there. But you can come back up here too since we don't need the projection necessarily. I think for me, this I thank you, mister Teague, because I totally agree with that that summary. And this it's a very strange sight, and it seems like nobody no neighbors have those setbacks either. Like, everything is sort of piled on top of each other. We'd love to see the project sponsor be able to capitalize on the developable, space above and go vertical. So just finding that sweet spot where we're not compromising the light going into the neighbor's yards and and and try to think of of the big picture here. So I I quite like the compromises. It sounds like the Doctor requester is also comfortable with losing that square footage. I'd be curious to hear how the project sponsor feels about that compromise if there's if there's any response to that.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: So our clients are not in town at the moment. We haven't had a chance to discuss the suggested modifications with them.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I see.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: We do know that it's very important to them to have adequate ceiling heights at the proposed expansion. So we're not able to commit to the modifications at this time, but we would like to continue exploring it and discussing it with them.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: My other thought was do people ever ask for variances on the front side? So if if it's getting kind of complicated and gnarly on the rear side, do we ever make exceptions for added square footage on the front side just to help balance

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: it out?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: I mean, if there was a front a required front setback, that might be an issue. In this scenario, they're not putting they're not pushing the addition off the frontage because of required front setback. They're pushing it off for preservation

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: reasons.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: That's why I was saying, like Got it.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yes. The the

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: lot is kinda squeezed on both sides because around the frontages is It's not

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: a front setback.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: It's a

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Right.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Historic. Okay. And that's nonnegotiable.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: It is negotiable, but it has been negotiated.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I'm I'm in favor of the recommendation. I'd love to see the project move forward with these compromises as requested as recommended by planning staff.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Is that a motion? No. No. I'll make

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: a motion.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: It's just a comment.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: It's yeah. It's a comment. But I'll make a motion. I mean, it looks like some other people wanna talk. Okay. But Alright. Yeah. Motion to take the Doctor with the staff to propose modifications.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. Commission Lebron.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That was that was helpful. I think I have two outstanding questions about this. So, mister Winslow, the the property on losing my street's here on Casa Way. There is that window, as was pointed out by the neighbor that they have that is exactly kind of essentially right where the stairs for the access to that uppermost deck exit. I'm curious about to me, that seems a little tricky. It seems like a lot line window in a way. And so what's sort of standard practice for that? Because in other circumstances, we might want the deck pulled back three to five feet from the property line. What's your read on that aspect of this?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Yeah. I'll just give you the cut and dry and offer my condolences to the verdict that I'm about ready to say is, property line windows generally are not protected. That doesn't mean we don't give them some consideration in our design, especially if there's a possibility of mitigating it in some fashion. This is not probably unlike a situation that comes up fairly often both in discretionary reviews and board of appeals hearings where the issue is one of privacy vis a vis decks. And our attitude collectively at the department is looking at it and seeing, if you could stand there on that deck and be holding a drink and having a good party and looking directly into your neighbor's window, that's probably something that we want to have a conversation about. If it's more of a space where it's the landing of a stair going down to the rear yard from a deck, or in this case, the landing coming up from a stair to a deck, it's not likely that somebody's going to be standing there inhabiting it and carrying on. And so we kind of put it into that category. If it's a transitory space and it happens to pass by a circumstance like a window, regardless of whether it's a property line window or not, then we kind of defer to that's okay. That situation is probably less a lack of privacy intrusion and more just a function of daily life in the city. That said, the drawings don't, in my opinion, clearly depict that window location vis a vis that situation. So I wasn't able to really get a good analysis of it. But nonetheless, we know that if it's a transitory space, it's by that window. It's a property line window. They can put curtains on that window or whatever. But if there's additional negotiations, we wouldn't be mandating them from a standpoint of privacy. Right? Like, put a wall in front of it. No. We weren't going to do that. It it's not something that rises to that level of concern.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: And if I could just add to that because there are a lot of projects that involve decks that, are appealed to the Board of Appeals and never come before the commission here, so this issue comes up a good bit there. And so I wanna echo mister Winslow's take there, which is we we do typically distinguish between landings and access stairs and the the deck itself, and especially when there's a clear separation of those spaces. Because typically, we are gonna ask for decks in most situations to be set back from those types of property line situations, three feet, maybe five feet in egregious situations. But if the landing itself is already three feet and it's just the landing and the stairs, so it's just about access and it's not about the actual deck itself itself, that has been pretty consistently upheld by the department and the board of appeals as being adequate for that kinda meeting that similar kinda setback requirement for the deck itself. And in this case, it's a little more it it see it goes even further in the sense that not only is the stair and the landing on the property line, the entire kind of access corridor then runs away from the property line to the actual deck itself. So while you could have people standing there, it's clearly not designed to be used for long periods of time. It's really an access corridor and landing. And so just wanted to confirm that that it's also this comes out on board of appeals and we've kind of taken a similar position with that as well. But property line windows are always challenging. There there's no question about that.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for the architect. Let me did you do you have any drawings or plans that depict the location of the window that's being discussed? I'm just trying to figure out where it is relative to where you're having the stairs and and the the walkway to the deck on the uppermost floor.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Oh, can you speak into the microphone, please?

[Meredith Brown (Project Architect, Gedas Ulinskas Architects)]: This is an elevation of the property line shared with, 7 Casa Way. So this area of this wall is, the blind wall. And then, in hatch hatched lines are the, the neighboring windows. So these two windows are set back on a separate face of 7 Casa Way. And this is the window that we've been discussing, in mister Rogers' living room. And there's this, rectangle here, which is depicting the approximate location of the skylight. Sir,

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Are there and but that's my understanding is that's the only window on that front. Front of the right. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Sir, you're out of order. If the commissioners have questions for you, they'll call you up. Okay, please?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. For the architect, could you just show again? So so where the stairs come up and they reach the uppermost, they actually hit that that walkway to the deck. You're saying that's on the right side of that box you were just pointing to?

[Meredith Brown (Project Architect, Gedas Ulinskas Architects)]: Let me show you the plan and just with the understanding that the window at mister Rogers' property is approximately here. So his window is, adjacent to the top landing of the stairs. And then, as they mentioned, you travel this catwalk to the congregating deck, which is down here.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Mhmm.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Again, the subject window is approximately here.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that. This is tricky. I mean, I I I I'm curious to hear if commissioner Moore particularly has to say about this. But, you know, what it's unfortunate that that window is that the where these stairs are heading is kinda right where that window is as opposed to, you know, a little bit forward of it. I can see the challenge with where the deck is located. You know, on on in general, I'm not especially concerned with privacy impacts on on especially lot line windows and I like, the balance struck and what, say, mister Teagan also said about, you know, it's kind of a question of just how close the the space most likely to be occupied versus transitory is located relative to the window. But it is a little it's a little disturbing to me that the the window is right. It's so close to kinda where you approach on the way down. Besides I mean, right now, I'm I'm I'm I'm comfortable with the design.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I guess the one thing I would consider is maybe eliminating some more of that 3rd Floor encroachment into the rear yard that kinda sticks out where the powder room and the kitchen extend. And so that's that's sort of where I'm at. I'm a little on the on the fence, but largely supporting the motion that we have.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Appreciate the department's analysis of what the issues are. I think since we all share uncertainty about the seven cars away window situation, I will be asking the people from the five apartment building who spoke but didn't file Doctor to explain the situation. If you wouldn't mind explaining how those windows relate to the future expansion on on regarding the roof deck. Do you have a picture by any chance?

[Robert Rogers (Neighbor, 7 Casa Way)]: Yeah. I can go with, I think, the one I had in there earlier. Just can I zoom, I guess?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yeah. Just there you go.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And then slide it down. Yeah. There you go. Okay.

[Robert Rogers (Neighbor, 7 Casa Way)]: Yeah. I mean, just to me, it's it's only one window and then entire area that's The bedroom window is not really that affected at all because that's the bottom of the stairs.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: One window.

[Robert Rogers (Neighbor, 7 Casa Way)]: But when you get to the top of the stairs, boom. Yeah. That you're you're just there.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: That's your living room.

[Robert Rogers (Neighbor, 7 Casa Way)]: What's that?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: That is your living room.

[Robert Rogers (Neighbor, 7 Casa Way)]: That's my living room. Yeah.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: That's where

[Robert Rogers (Neighbor, 7 Casa Way)]: I spend most of my day. And that's just, to me, I'm like, can can you do something? Can you figure out another stairwell, another location on this entire deck? And they said that, yes, they've looked at different designs, but I

[Kristen Evans (Small Business Forward)]: I I think they've more.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you for explaining that. I think it makes it very clear that the concerns expressed by commissioner Brown are indeed warranted. Let me make another comment, and that is that the owners of the apartment building on Casa Street spoke about the impact on the majority of units, relative to fitting boxed in. Excuse me. I I would like to have zoning administrator hear what I'm saying. We'll we'll we are in an RSV neighborhood where higher density is basically buildings which are occupied by more than a single family home. And I'm concerned that in the time of densification and really struggling to maintain unit count, that this building is already rather large. This is nothing new what I'm saying here. I'm saying that with reference to what we are supposed to think about, that a single family home in an RSV is already significantly large, and I'm happy for those people who own the home that they indeed have something in this location, of 4,500 square feet or thereabouts. However, that starts to infringe and create situations that are impinging on people who live in higher density homes, particularly with the living room having a, stair all of a sudden appear with the roof deck, I start to really think of what my responsibilities are and what I'm not at all opposed to seeing a smaller roof deck with the stair not impacting the seven car doorway building. I believe that we can make accommodations for this building to find a next generation increased value for current or future owners. I believe we need to do that in a manner that is zero impacting to others. So the proposal by the department to hold back to the wheel yard line, as architect Winslow showed on the overhead, is number one of what I support, but I would ultimately suggest that we find another way of moving the stair and its landing in some form or another, and I'm not deciding how that is done to be less impacting on the 7 Castle Way. I think that is our responsibility for maintaining the Castleway livable and comfortable for those who live there. So there is support for a modified plan, and if Mr. Winslow could perhaps, together with zoning administrator, spell out how we could achieve that, it may help us to support the rest of the recommendation made by the department.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Tony, administrator?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Sure. Thank you. First, I do wanna acknowledge that we're talking about this land the privacy issue and the landing and stairs not being part of the deck. I have to acknowledge that this is a little bit unique in the sense that you have the window right there. Like, there there there is that. So definitely not trying to undersell that. I think the challenge for property aligned windows for us, from a design and kind of a land use policy perspective is that they're a little bit different than a light well. Right? In a light well, there's give and take. Right? You have some open space. We have some open space. And collectively, we have a large open space. With property aligned windows, it's just kinda take. And that's nothing against the buildings that were built that way. It's just that's that's kinda what it is. Right? And so we're always trying to balance that too. Like, what are the fair impacts between property owners? I I think as mister Winslow said, we we still always try to see is there a design solution to address it if it can be. Right? Because we don't wanna act like it doesn't exist. It does exist. I don't know that I'll I'll leave that to mister Winslow to speak to. I don't know if those and the project sponsor if there were design solutions looked at. I don't know if you can reverse the stairs or if that puts the landing in front of the bedroom window instead of the living room window. I'm not I'm not sure about those details. But if I could, for the project sponsor, if you could bring the plans back up and if you could pull up the, proposed 3rd Floor plan. This is a one zero three. Just to walk through that for a moment. Great. And then yeah. If you can just scroll down a bit because I can't quite see it there. But if you have the plans with you, essentially, again, this upper Floor is gonna be common common areas. You're gonna have a kitchen, living room, dining room. And cross section c, which basically runs along the line of the half bath in the center there, you know, the the proposals take the 3rd Floor and extend it, like, three feet three inches to the west. And that would match the 2nd Floor footprint below, but it is kind of a, technically, a rear expansion. And that's what I was kinda speaking to before. Like, that that notch there, I understand it aligns with the 2nd Floor, but it also creates space that's not really resulting in in a new usable room. And since that's, like, going further into the required rear yard, that's where I was saying from the rear yard perspective in terms of minimizing or reducing the massing overall, I would think at a minimum, I would wanna see that pulled back to that line and basically retain the 3rd Floor. I should say retain that cross section c line distance. And then similarly, that wrap around terrace is great. Like, we support adding up usable open space because right now, this probably doesn't really have any. I mean, it has the rear yard, but that rear yard is pretty deficient in terms of usable open space. But similar to how we treat other kind of property line decks and terraces and stuff, again, I I I would as part of the variance, I'd wanna see this terrace here along the Western property line, you know, have some type of setback there three to five feet along that terrace line too to provide that additional privacy and spacing there. Those were the kind of changes I was looking at on top of what was already proposed in terms of reducing the height and reducing the the upper roof deck. I just wanted to be kind of clear about that perspective on the plans so we were all on the same page there.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Mister Winslow?

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

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Listening to your comments and concerns about the property line window and vis a vis the stair and the landing, if the proposal if the staff proposal to reduce the height of the building of the proposed addition is by about one foot eight, that's roughly equivalent to two to three risers, three treads that would reconfigure the stair in such a way well, necessitate reconfiguring the stair, a to b, obviously, lower, but also to landing, I don't know, depending on where the window is in relation to that landing, at another location. I think not necessarily being able to discern and work it out here because we're obviously working with words and not drawings, But hearing that concern and if you include some kind of resolution or finding to work with the project sponsor to mitigate that concern, we could certainly do that. But I think it's also there will be changes to the plans if you adopt those recommendations. And those might result in hopefully lessening that condition. And if not, there might be other ways of lessening that condition by continuing to work with the project sponsor.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. That's a good comment. Okay. Commissioner McGarry. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Braun first, and then McGarry.

[Unidentified member of the public]: I

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I am curious if commissioner Campbell, if you would entertain two changes to the motion for further modifications to the project. So one would be what, mister Winslow just said about, you know, working as part of the redesign of this to try to the department should work to reduce the impacts or or direct visibility to that window on the side. I keep forgetting the street name. On the Casa Way side. Because, yes, that is very hard to visualize and do here in

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: the abstract, and I kinda was wondering, oh, if the roof height was this high,

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: is there a way to push out so that the stairs actually land further out and then shift over? But if you're reducing the height, yeah, there's a lot of moving pieces. So that's one. The other thing I'm curious about is whether you would entertain also what mister Tighe was just saying about on that 3rd Floor addition not extending past that line c on the plans and pulling back from the the property line for the, the terrace on the 2nd Floor.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Does that need to be added to our motion, or is that part of your

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yeah. That's a good question.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: So, obviously, I'm that that's where I'm leaning. I I do think that it's appropriate and helpful. Like, if that is the position of the commission, then you should also take that action, because you're taking that action, reviewing it through a different lens. So there could be appeals, etcetera. So if the planning commission feels that that's what you would do even if there was no variance, then you should definitely take that action. That would be my recommendation.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I'm comfortable with adding this the the setback aspect that cuts back to line grid line c. For me, I feel less strongly about the stairs and well, actually, maybe we start with if the reduction in the height, how that might compromise the design. I don't know if you have that kind of head height to give up, in terms of floor to floor.

[Meredith Brown (Project Architect, Gedas Ulinskas Architects)]: So the current ceiling height in the dining room on the 3rd Floor is about seven foot 10. So the modest increase in the ceiling height for the proposed expansion is just to provide a more generous ceiling height of greater than eight feet.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: But do you have I think the reduction is what did you say? We'd need to make up one foot eight inch to reduce that many ride. Right?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Yeah. My recommendation was, I believe one foot eight, and that was based on the existing roof height.

[Meredith Brown (Project Architect, Gedas Ulinskas Architects)]: So just maintaining existing ceiling heights.

[Beth Marcus Lukrich (Owner, 7 Casa Way)]: I see. Okay.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I guess my my instinct is to not penalize this project because it isn't densifying with more units. It's r h three, which means it can be up to three units. It's not a minimum requirement. So I I don't wanna penalize these folks for this project sponsor for taking advantage of their developable rights to the height that they can capitalize on for this property. And in the past, there's precedent for us not not making a lot of accommodations for windows on the property line. It's not a light well. It's a window on a property line, and you do that at risk in the future. So I guess I'm less inclined to add that to my motion.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I I think, commissioner Campbell, you have a point where I actually wanna ask, where is the property line between the skylight, this project sponsor project over the, the Doctor requester's properties because is that right by it's like this is thing is like, what do you do? Where is the property line? And also, what happened to windows when the windows are like right on built right on the property line?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: So the the my plans, which are the three eleven plans, I believe, revised, don't show in plan view the location of that property line window situation. It's shown on an elevation. So it's a little bit hard to piece together from a plan view. But the best that we could do was to look at the, as Meredith showed, the elevation. What do you do in situations where you do have property line windows? When when a project proposes to build up against them, the onus of the onus to remove that property line window falls upon the property line window owner because they're an existing non complying condition with respect to

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I'm looking at a letter in the packet. I think it's in the packet in a PDF is page 71. There's a rendering that shows the window right right right the right next to the parapet wall of the proposed project. So I don't know who generated this rendering. This one.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: So renderings I'm gonna caution everybody. Renderings are great. They help visualize things. They're not records they're not instruments of record. They're not necessarily accurate. They're nice, illusory things. So

[Kristen Evans (Small Business Forward)]: Absolutely.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: We can try and judge things on them, but we can't base final decisions solely on them.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: So my question is really I just want some clarification. Where is those window that is in your neighbor's where is it? It's right up against your your client's property line?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Yes. It's right on the property line.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Even though your drawing doesn't show, but rendering shows. Okay. Alright. Thank you. So and then, typically, what do we do to windows that build right up against a property line?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: So we don't do anything. But we don't, you know, preclude development because there's a property line window. However, if, let's say, for example, the project was required to put a fire rated parapet that occluded that window. That might be referred to, you know, the building department that would then put a notice on the property that has the property line window to remove that window.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Because it's kind of a

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: It's filed

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: coming into conflict with a proposed thing. It's a non complying existing condition.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you. And Commissioner Veron?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I think that was it. Thank you.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: My question is 7 Casa. I'm looking at it here. It's a four story building. Is the fourth story part of the original building, or is it itself an extension? Because it is set it is set back up top?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: If you, can you come up and answer? Thank you. Thank you. So then you can speak in front of the microphone. Thank you very much.

[Beth Marcus Lukrich (Owner, 7 Casa Way)]: Yeah. My husband and I have owned the building twenty five years, and that's definitely all original, the Top Floor.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'm just looking at the front of it, and this you've got the garage. You got two two living floors above that, and then you've got a which looks like it was an original building, and then you have this setback with a squared up the 4th Floor looks like it's

[Beth Marcus Lukrich (Owner, 7 Casa Way)]: it's Yeah. The

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: itself. Is that is that

[Beth Marcus Lukrich (Owner, 7 Casa Way)]: original? Balcony might have been added later, but the original structure, the the 5th Floor or the the Unit number 5, which is there's garages, then 12, 3, 4, and then Bob's unit on top. Gotcha. So that's that's was all original All original. Built. Yes. Yes, sir.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: Thank

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Lamar?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: The the one comment I like to make is we're living in a city where we densely build fifty, seventy, eighty years ago, and some property line windows, which were respected throughout those years, were always there until we change the definition of what property line windows mean, particularly also with respect to fire protection. However, in the end, where the rubber hits erode, I'm looking for people to act in a neighborly fashion, particularly when it comes to something as inconsequential as moving a stair over just a little bit in order to let a living room in an older neighborhood, with the building itself being an A rated contributory building, live peacefully into the future. That's all I have to say. Ultimately, you're gonna be neighbors. In the city, if you can't be neighbors, you should be living in suburbia.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: So we have a motion?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: We have a motion. I have not heard a second. Okay.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: What was your motion again, Amy?

[Carrie Birnbach (Office of Small Business)]: My motion was to

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: take the d r with the staff proposed modifications as well as the adjustment to kind of grid line c there in terms of the footprint of the overall vertical addition.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Can you repeat that last portion of your motion? I didn't get that the first time around.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Grid line c.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Am I

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: saying it right? Yeah. We're we're we're pulling back the the footprint of the vertical addition to grid line c.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Correct.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: That sound right?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Yeah. If we want to, we can be specific. So I believe that is to maintain that setback off the western property line of at least nine feet three inches. I think that's what grid line c does. It's nine feet three. So we can be clear on that.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, SF Planning Department)]: He had also recommended except that.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Right. But I don't know if that's what they want. Yeah. That might not be what the commission wants to do. Sure. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Okay. Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to take discretionary review with staff modifications, including pulling the vertical addition back to grid line C or, in other words, retaining the nine foot three inch setback on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. Zoning administrator would say you.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: I will close the public hearing on the invariance. I intend to grant with same conditions while also additional conditions for setting back the terrace along the western property line.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Alright. Meeting adjourns.