San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: This webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. As you can tell, the WebEx has made some modifications. So we don't normally hear that. But, okay. Good afternoon. And welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 11/13/2025. 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 roll. 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.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: We expect Commissioner Williams to be absent today. First, Commissioners, on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance At the time of issuance, and as of now, there are still no items proposed for continuance. We can move on to 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 one, case number 2025Hyphen006742CUA at 960 Market Street, Unit Number 421. Conditional use authorization, item two, case number 2025Hyphen007422CUA at 555 Fulton Street, Suite B, conditional use authorization. Item three, case number 2025Hyphen007975, CUA 2238 Market Street, conditional use authorization. And item four, case number 2020Five-eight202 CUA at 825 Sansom Street conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these items be pulled off of consent and heard under the regular calendar today or a future date. Go ahead, sir.

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Drantler. I'm recommending the CUA letter for 555 Fulton Street be pulled off the calendar and amended to include a specific condition.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Mister Dravler, that's plenty. We will take that off consent and haven't heard under the regular calendar.

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Thank you.

[Mark Gleason (Teamsters Joint Council 7)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Mark Gleason, speaking on behalf of Teamsters Joint Council seven. We're asking that item four eight twenty five Sampson be removed from the calendar. Thank you.

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Okay. Very good.

[Alex Landsberg (Electrical Workers/Industry representative)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Alex Landsberg, Electrical Industry. Same thing as he said. Thanks.

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Okay,

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: commissioners. Last call for public comment on the consent calendar. Seeing none, public comment is closed.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners. However, as you just heard, items two and four have been pulled off of consent.

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

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items one and three on consent, Commissioner Campbell. Aye. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president so. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. And, commission president so we shall take up those consent calendar items at the beginning of the regular calendar?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yes, please.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. Commissioners, that will place us under commission matters for item five, the land acknowledgment.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this 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 Ramatujilani community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Item six, commission comments and questions?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: None.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Seeing none, we can move right to department matters for item seven, director's announcements.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Sarah Dennis Phillips, planning director. Not a whole lot of announcements today, but I did wanna make sure both that you as commissioners and the public were aware that we are having the second community workshop in the Fillmore Community Action Plan series this evening. It'll be held at the African American Arts and Culture Complex, between six and 8PM. And for those who cannot join in person tonight, there will be a parallel Zoom event next Tuesday, and those details are on our website. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. If there are no questions, we can move on to item eight, which will also be short as there is no report from the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, or the Historic Preservation Commission. So 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, each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: I have some materials, and I need to put my PowerPoint in.

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

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: If you could okay. Jonas, I'm ready to go. Jonas, I'm ready to go.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Go ahead.

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Code compliance problems at 147 Marietta Drive require investigation. Do they reflect a training problem or systemic corruption? Why is the city attorney, Chiu, characterizing the illegal activities as a complicated scheme in his November 5 press release when it appears city employees enabled the illegal activities? We need answers from deputy city attorney, Kessly Stewart, the head of public integrity unit, and DBI compliance manager, Christopher Verguerra. There's two pictures of that building. One is from June 2021, and the other one is a picture I took. The planning department notice of enforcement has been on hold since 2019, and it's on hold today. Why? DBI complaint for exceeding the scope of the building permit has never been closed. The last entry is June 2021, the same day as the Google picture. The NOV that was issued required a corrective order, stop work. As you can see from the picture, work did not stop. How was the $650,000 building permit issued to comply with the NOV when a complaint in an NOE were open? The last inspection is December 2024. The permit's never been filed, and the special inspections have never been approved. As you can see from the permit, the names of the city employees who approved the permit. In the planning department, it was Moses Corette and Jeff Horn, and I list the DBI employees. A temporary shoring permit is open, and a $1 administrative permit should not have been issued to final expired retaining wall permit. The permit to legalize the unpermitted temporary shoring expired in November 2023. DBI's last inspection was April '25. Last week, inspector William Walsh approved 10 special inspections on November 5. The permit to legalize the retaining wall, expired in May 2018. The $1 admin permit to final an expired permit, which is null and void, should never have been issued. That permit was approved by Inspectors Gonzales and Lamb and finaled by Inspector Calderon. This nonsense, and it is nonsense, needs to stop, and you folks need to do something about it. Thank you

[George Carey (Neighbor, 2310 Hyde)]: very

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: much. Next speaker.

[Paul Wermer (Member of the public)]: Good afternoon. And I also have handouts, which I will let people read. Hi. I'll I'll wait. Good afternoon, commissioners, director. My name is Paul Wurmer, and I'm here speaking on my own behalf, not representing any organization. I was chatting with someone. I have some concerns about the upzoning plan. And I was chatting with someone about how, in fact, I can get the height bonus by adding one unit to a single family home, enabling me to do two four thousand luxury units in a nice location. And I was like, oh, they can't possibly be true. So I went back in and went through the current lead the current draft on the website, and indeed, there is nothing that I can find that prevents that. This is a wonderful opportunity for smart developers and smart real estate agents to game the system. You can buy a property, one or two units for rental, and get the permits to go ahead. You don't even have to buy them until you've, you know, got two customers lined up for the designs that are appropriate for that site. It's almost like a no no lose proposition if you know how much money you can get. Worse, there are a lot of lots that are extremely favorable for nice units all along Fulton, all along Lincoln. Some have views out over the ocean or the bay. Very appealing for luxury flats. There can be a host of less than 10 unit buildings with 4,000 foot units. Very, very attractive under the current zoning rules. Most are not going to be that large because you're not going to get that many in with the upzoning at 85 feet. But the opportunity is there. I'm talking about the Lincoln And Fulton stretch. And of course, when you are doing hundreds of lots with two or three units, you can be into thousands of high end units quickly. No inclusionary housing requirements. Zero. And yet every three units requires point nine to 1.2 below market rate units based on planning's residential nexus studies. And I would urge you, I asked if this was correct of planning staff. And unfortunately, they haven't been able to get back to me. I sent the mail on Monday, and they haven't been able to get back to me. But as I say, I have gone through this carefully. I've tracked the links from the zoning code proposals into the existing planning poll back to the references within the legislation, and I'm pretty sure I'm right. This legislation does not not only does that nothing to address the affordability and availability crisis, it actually aggravates it by incentivizing exactly the types of units the city has never needed because the wealthy can always afford to find what they want. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on, commissioners, to your regular calendar. Items two and four were pulled off of consent. So we'll take up item two for case number 2025Hyphen007422CUA at 555 Fulton Street, Suite B, conditional use authorization.

[Matthew Chandler (Planning Department Staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Matthew Chandler, planning department staff. I did want to note that the published version, the staff report did omit some information. So I have provided some red line copies that I would like to provide. The item before you today is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 121.2, 249.35 a, three zero three, and seven sixty one to exceed the principally permitted use size. The project site is 555 Fulton Street, Suite B within the RTO zoning district, the Hayes Golf NCT zoning district, and the Fulton Street grocery store special use district. While the site is primarily within the RTO zoning district, the special use district specifies that the entire site is subject to the Hays Golf NCT district controls. Under these controls, non residential uses exceeding 3,000 square feet require conditional use authorization. The project proposes to establish a 7,055 square foot arts activity use within a currently vacant Ground Floor commercial space that has remained vacant since the building's completion in 2020. The business, which is doing business as the clay room, will operate as a combined pottery studio and woodworking studio. The project qualifies for priority processing under the planning code section three zero three point two. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA as a class one exemption. And prior to this hearing, the department did not receive any public comment regarding the project. The department finds that the project is necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity and recommends approval with conditions. The proposed arts activity use will occupy a vacant storefront, introducing a new use not currently available within the area and therefore should not displace existing neighborhood serving uses. The 7,055 square foot space is reasonable to accommodate instructional areas, equipment, and storage for materials and projects, allowing the use to operate safely and efficiently. The business will occupy the existing tenant space without making any modifications to its size or the exterior, maintaining the building's design and scale consistent with the surrounding district. This concludes my presentation. I'll be available for questions and the project sponsor is in attendance as well.

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

[Jeremy Shaw (Shawbley Architects, Project Sponsor Representative)]: Good afternoon, president, so and commissioners. My name is Jeremy Shaw with Shawbley Architects. Don't have a full presentation for you today. As Matthew said, this is a change of use, to exceed 3,000 square feet. We're gonna be about 7,000. It's an arts, crafts studio, workspace. And one other thing that, hasn't made it into our drawings or brief is that we have, contracted with Charles Salter to work on the acoustic separation between the residential units above. Be around for any questions you or Jerry may have. Thanks.

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

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Alright. Some handouts for the commissioners.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Go ahead and get started. The

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: proposed CUA letter should include a specific condition to address the expired $49,000,000 building permit for 55 Fulton Street. The current occupancy of 55 Fulton Street is likely illegal. The building permit is null and void. It expired over five years ago. The last DBI inspection was in November 2020. The temporary occupancy certificate issued over five years ago is invalid because the San Francisco building code only allows DBI to issue a TCO for a period not to exceed twelve months. That TCO has been out for over five years. The CUA letter should include the requirement to obtain a certificate of final completion and occupancy for the building permit. Next page. It I just show you why the permits expired. The next page is quite interesting. A DBI inspector, William Waltz, attempted to final that permit 15 times in 2019. And when he couldn't, DBI inspector Kevin McHugh issued a TCO. The real issue, I think, here is you've got a 140 condo owners illegally occupying a building. I'm I'm an accountant by training, but you have a land use attorney there who can tell you if that's true or not. The other issues are, if you were a condo owner there, is your insurance valid? If you're letting out your unit, it's illegal to rent a unit without a certificate of final completion and occupancy. I think as the land use people, you have a responsibility to help those 140 condo owners. Thank you.

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

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. I I appreciate this issue being raised. And I I think I would just say, you know, I I don't want to put this condition specifically on to the conditional use authorization that relates to a large use being authorized at the Ground Floor of the building. But it's if there is actually an issue here with the permits and the TCO, then, that is something that I encourage department staff to look into, especially with the closer collaboration that's happening now with DBI in particular, just to make sure that, you know, all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted on this. But when it comes to the arts activity use and its size, I don't have any concerns about it. And this seems like a much bigger picture issue. It's a building that had a lot of challenges. As we know, it was in the press quite a bit. I had friends who would actually put down a deposit on a condo in that building and eventually gave up on it because it was stretching out for so long and had so many challenges. But nevertheless, I don't have any concerns about the edenosection before us with the conditional use authorization. And I move to approve.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I just wanted to add that I would, in principle, agree with what Commissioner Brown summarized. I do not have any concerns about the use itself. I actually welcome the use after so many years. I think it is community supporting and has a broader draw than just immediately serving the building. However, I would suggest that we reference of what brought what was brought to our attention, contingent that this can be clarified. I think that would help anybody, and I I see the applicant even nodding his head because we cannot approve something having been presented that there may be something not in order and, ignore that. City attorney Yang, do you have any advice for us on that matter?

[Austin Yang (Deputy City Attorney)]: Deputy city attorney Austin Yang, my advice would be that the department follow-up with the agency that's responsible for issuing the TCO and ensuring that the units or spaces are habitable. But I think that trying to control that through the land use process is a little bit of an awkward fit. And I would encourage the commission to follow its usual process in terms of expiration and validity of any approval.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you for that advice. And if we could make that as a footnote to what we are approving, I think we all would at least extend a helping hand to the process that needs to be completed. Secretary, Iona, is it possible to make a footnote to that extent?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And director Phillips

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I'm not sure

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: if a footnote is appropriate. But if it's necessary to be included, I suppose some sort of a finding I

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: think director Phillips will have some So I can

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: just offer that we will follow-up with with DBI as the issuer, and I don't think we need to attach that to the motion today. We we will just execute and report back. Okay.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you. I think that helps all of us and it's to record that we discussed it. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. We will we will put it on our agenda item in the future to address this. Or if, as appropriate, miss Walti will give us some briefings from the commissioners. Thank you.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. 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. Placing us on item four for case number 2025 Hyphen 008202 CU 8825 Sansom Street, conditional use authorization.

[Michelle Langley (Planning Department Staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Michelle Langley, department staff. The project before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to permit a change of use from an existing two story multilevel parking public parking garage with a basement containing 96 parking spaces to the establishment of a private fleet charging use at the upper level with 31 private EV chargers, a public electric vehicle charging location use at the ground level with 18 public EV chargers, and a private parking garage with 31 parking spaces at the basement level, resulting in a net reduction of 16 parking spaces. Both fleet charging and private parking garage uses require conditional use authorization in the C2 Zoning District. Built in 1922, the property is a category A historic resource and a contributor to the California and National Register eligible Jackson Square Historic District extension. The public the private parking garage is to be used as a temporary overnight parking to support a private fleet charging use. These two uses are operationally necessary to support an in house zero emission fleet. These vehicles are dispatched and returned daily from the same site, requiring secure, dedicated charging spaces during off peak hours for fleet turnover. It is expected that most fleet vehicle departures will be in the morning, leaving with a full charge. Fleet vehicles are expected to return to the site in late evening when there is low expected fleet utilization. Locating fleet charging and parking within the same site, unlike other smaller fleet charging facilities, eliminates the need for vehicles to travel off-site to parking depots while not in use, reducing congestion. The private parking garage use and the private fleet charging uses will be separated from the publicly accessible EV charging location use with the upper and basement levels having gates in a normally closed position. The department's, transportation staff reviewed the project and determined that additional transportation review is not required. They noted that the proposed project is expected to generate only a modest increase in short term vehicular turnover similar to the current use as a public parking garage. The proposed project is equipped to accommodate its related EV vehicle trips given its existing vehicular access, egress, and internal circulation design. According to the project sponsor team, the private fleet chargers will be used by controlled number of known vehicles with predictable schedules, minimizing traffic traffic variability. No changes are needed to adjacent loading zones. The project frontage is not along a bicycle or transit route, and all levels will have audible exit warnings for pedestrians and other vehicles. Department staff received one letter of opposition from Teamsters Joint Council Seven regarding the project. The proposed use is compatible compatible with the surrounding area, which includes a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses and is on balance with the general plan and use district. Conditional use approval to establish private fleet charging and private parking garage uses would promote sustainability by supporting cleaner transportation options, reducing vehicle emissions, and enhancing public health. By locating the charging infrastructure within an existing parking garage, all work will be completed within the existing building envelope with no major exterior alterations to the historic structure. Department staff believes the project would be desirable for and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and recommends approval with conditions. This concludes my presentation, and I am available for questions. The project sponsor is also in attendance and will follow with additional details.

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

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Yeah. I figured it out.

[Rainel (Reynel) Cooper (Legislative Aide, District 5 Supervisor Bilal Mahmood)]: What else did it get?

[George Wolf (Neighbor, 2350 Hyde)]: That was fine. Thank you.

[Eric Lentz (Project Sponsor Representative, Tesla)]: Thank you, commissioners. Eric Lentz here, represent as a project sponsor representing Tesla here and taking a bit of a break from my typical cell tower permits that I come in here for. So if I look familiar, that's why. I just wanna thank Michelle for her presentation, but I wanted to just briefly show you just on picture what's proposed here. The existing parking garages, it's three floors. There's a basement and then two levels above. It's important to note that these uses are distinctly separated from each other by floor and also by egress into the building. You see the fleet charging will be at the upper level. The publicly used, EV charging would be in the the Ground Floor, and then the the private parking would be in the basement. And then this is sort of, the the front of the the building you see, there's there's three distinct entrances to the building. So these not only in the building are these uses separated, but they're also separated as far as how the cars enter and exit the building. So the big doors in the front, that's the public EV access. The door on the right actually takes you upstairs, and the door on the left takes you downstairs to to the basement. And so unlike some fleet charging where you have a public and private component, the fleet charging and the parking is on-site versus fleet charging, and then the cars don't have to go drive across town to, like, a depot to to park overnight. Everything happens in in one one building. So just as far as, like, reducing congestion on the street, they're they're charging and they're going in the garage and going out for the day. I do have Michael Hugh with Tesla. He wants to address some of the issues that come up as far as congestion.

[Michael Hugh (Tesla)]: Hi, commissioners. Yeah. We we do expect, congestion to be a main topic of interest by the public. And one item I wanted to speak on actually was just the first slide. The Samsung site was chosen specifically because of that lower level private fleet parking component. And so when vehicles are being charged on the upper level, that lower level access, like a queuing buffer zone for vehicles up to thirty thirty vehicles to kinda wait there before they have to get charged on the upper level. So we have the exact number of stalls, for queuing as we do as as charging. And then my second point is we did do a traffic simulation study of the area around Samsung using real real world publicly available, like, traffic data. And what this graph basically shows is we simulated the amount of vehicle flow that you can get into the Samsung site kind of throughout the day. So areas higher on the line there shows that's when you can have more vehicles coming into the Samsung site or out, and that's when areas of low congestion occur. And then you can see kind of that lower point of the trough. That's roughly between three to 5PM. We know there will be quite a bit of congestion just from the existing road network in the San Sam area. And as Tesla, we don't want our fleet vehicles to be part of this congestion either. We don't want low fleet utilization. So we know that we should dispatch our vehicles in the morning, again, to pick a customer base up. And then they'll be leaving Samsung on quite a full charge and then return to site later in the afternoon, closer to 11PM when we know that we can actually get vehicles to site to charge. So those are the two points I did want to note. And then a third point was the max charging throughput for this site. Again, at roughly 48 charger posts, assuming Tesla can utilize all these chargers for our fleet vehicles, that's roughly, again, at roughly 30 chargers thirty minutes to charge a car, that's roughly two vehicles that you can charge per parking stall. And that's roughly about 96 vehicles that can kinda come in and out of this site to be charged. And so, again, if you extrapolate that or you turn that into vehicles per minute, that's roughly one to two vehicles per minute coming in and out, which if you think about really isn't too many vehicles coming in and out of a site. So thank you.

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

[Mark Gleason (Teamsters Joint Council 7)]: Good afternoon again, commissioners. Mark Gleeson with, Teamsters Joint Council seven. We did forward a letter. I think everyone has access to it and, has, you know, a more detailed analysis of, you know, why we are opposed to this, use. And I just wanna add that, it's our position that, the use is not necessary or desirable. Because first of all, Tesla has not demonstrated why this specific site is necessary when industrial areas, better suited for fleet operations, exist throughout the city. Fleet charging use serves corporate fleet needs, not neighborhood needs. It provides no benefit or service to local residents or businesses. This use is incompatible with the adjacent Jackson Square historic District because Jackson Square is one of San Francisco's most significant historic districts, preserved for its unique architectural character and scale, and fleet charging operations for autonomous vehicles, with con consistent vehicle queuing going on twenty four seven are fundamentally incapable incompatible, excuse me, with the district's historic residential and small small scale commercial character. The use is detrimental to neighborhood convenience and general welfare because the site, along with the Waymo operations, some 20 200 feet away, will create continuous robo taxi fleet vehicles circulating, including, congestion that impacts the neighborhood. Round the clock operations will disrupt the neighborhood's peace and livable livability at all hours. The proposed fleet charging use relies on an inadequate CEQA analysis, because the CEQA analysis fails to examine the cumulative impacts of concentrated AV fleet charging in the area. CEQA requires assessment of the combined effects of multiple similar projects. This has not been done, and there is no mention of Waymo or Tesla in the CEQA analysis. Proper environmental review must be must now analyze concentration of fleet operations before approval, including Tesla robo taxi charging 200 feet away from Waymo's existing AV facility. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners. It's a slight Earthquake. Modest shaker.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: No. No. No. I'm sorry. That was old.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thanks. Thank you for the presentations. I think as long as we are using cars, we need a place to put them and and we need there's a growing demand now to charge them as well as we see a rise in electric vehicles. And I personally can't think of a better place to put cars than in an existing parking garage and structure. So, from a land use perspective, you know, not focusing on the the test the Tesla factor. Right? Like, we've got cars coming in and out. We need a place to put them. And for me, this feels like a very common sense logical use to to accommodate. I really agree with the assessment of staff's analysis, and, I'll just add that I appreciate how, you know, accommodating, and providing more infrastructure, for electric vehicles, I think, aligns really well with, the city's desire to reduce our emissions. And I appreciate the cosmetic, not related to planning, but appreciate the cosmetic, improvements that this sponsor is making. So I would make a motion to approve with conditions.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'll second the motion, for one reason, one reason only. We're here for land use today, not building use. So, unfortunately our land use is why we're here today, not what actually business is like, and it is a parking lot, so it's a parking lot. The scheduling of the hours, the vehicles coming in are actually going to be more more reliable for the neighbourhood because they'll come the vast majority will come in in the morning and on a set and they'll they'll leave in the morning and and come back in the evening, so for that reason I'll second.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you, commissioners. The way I see it, it's there there's part of my head's in a bit at the same time. I'm also looking at in the land use perspective. I don't think we can all put the EV all in the in the industrial areas as well. That means, like, many of it will be in the in the Southeast portion of the city. And I think there has been, you know and I and I think there has been discussions here that appropriate EV is actually more in the downtown areas because of the, again, the the parking spaces that are already available. However, I I still do con I just still do have concern about traffic congestion in general, especially with the EV since the technology is, I think, still not up there yet. We still see it in the in how it's driven. I see many Waymos around my area. And even though there are no passengers, they're just, you know, ongoing driving. So in terms of this kind of like robo taxis, the technology is has yet still to be improved or innovate that I that I do think still contribute to the traffic congestion. But again, what we're deciding here is around the land use. And so that's where I'm kinda like, if looking to the to the to the area, this is a good area. But I'm, you know, but I am concerned about the traffic congestion even though it says that that they will be leaving in the very early in the morning avoiding the traffic and coming back late at night. I guess my only question is what time in the morning specifically it will leave? Is will it leave at 6AM or 12AM as what is you presented?

[Michael Hugh (Tesla)]: Yeah. Our modeling team has shown that we expect vehicles to leave quite early in the morning around six to pick to kind of go access to be there for customers roughly around six to 08:00. So by the time they leave in the morning, we we expect them to be out there before a lot of people driving their normal vehicles actually go out to work. Same with when they come back, they'll be leaving Samsung on a full charge. So the intention is that they don't have to come back at all during the day, and they can come back at night when they're, again, out of battery and there's not many vehicles on the road. So we don't expect there to be much congestion at least at night.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. And I guess this my my my question to the staff, in terms of how do we make traffic analysis when it comes to robotaxis? Has there been, changes in how we analyze traffic?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I would have to confer with our e our environmental planners. All I know at this point is that they're they did not require an additional transportation study, and they were satisfied with what they had reviewed.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Yeah. I think it would be good to to hear in the future some informational hearing on the traffic analysis of robotaxis. Again, I mean, this is inevitable. I think it's gonna be part of the future whether we like it or not. And I think we also need to make sure that our traffic analysis are well equipped with the the impact of robotaxis. Because you see them everywhere at this point, and they're not really many of them that I see don't have hold don't hold passengers, and what's the impact of that in the circulation? But I will vote yes on this as of today.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I think commissioner Imperial had a really good point about bringing more options for electric charging vehicle in downtown area to equalize some of the inequity issues about, usually now our fleet has actually ended up in all the way over in the South side of the city. So but yes, really is a chasing goose topic on traffic analysis on this emerging technology. But definitely, it's really well pointed. I think, commissioner, we are we don't have any further comments. We're ready to

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: vote. Indeed, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Tsao. Aye. That motion passes unanimously. Commissioner six to zero. And if anybody's interested, it was a 3.6 just south of Vallejo. That will place us under on excuse me, on item nine for case number 2025Hyphen006246 PCA. Definitions, family, dwelling unit, planning code amendments.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Stark, manager of legislative affairs. This ordinance is sponsored by supervisor Mahmood. So right now Cooper from that office is here to speak on the ordinance After he presents, I'll finish her staff's presentation.

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

[Rainel (Reynel) Cooper (Legislative Aide, District 5 Supervisor Bilal Mahmood)]: Great. Thank you all. Hello, President Tsao and commissioners. My name is Rainel Cooper. I'm a legislative aide for District five Supervisor Bilal Mahmud. Here to talk with you about item 250,719, the Shared Housing Reform Act. In San Francisco, living in large homes with several roommates is basically a rite of passage. It's a first home away from home for students, recent graduates, and locals just trying to get away from their parents. It's also an important housing choice for residents of all ages, offering affordability and a sense of community. However, unless all of the residents are related or are cooking meals together, this could mean they are illegally living in a space that doesn't meet the definition of dwelling unit. That's because a quote dwelling unit needs a quote family, and the current definition of family in the planning code is based around a narrow set of potential living situations. For those who live with more than five roommates that they don't prepare meals with, they're living in a precarious home that could be subject to investigation by the planning department. The legislation creates a new definition of household that requires members to share expenses and have nine or fewer leases. This helps ensure that this new rule doesn't lead to developers avoiding inclusionary housing requirements that trigger 10 units in a building. This new definition is also inclusive of definitions of family found at the state level. Nothing in this legislation undermines the health and safety codes that govern overcrowding issues, and there are tools to enforce against dangerous living situations. Moving away from a relationship based definition of dwelling unit helps bring our definition better in line with those at the state level and is an explicit goal of the city's housing element. Plus, as the staff report so eloquently puts it, planning's role has evolved to focus on regulating the form, location, and general design of residential buildings, not how many households they contain. This change aligns well with the density decontrol that is proposed for much of the city under the family zoning plan. Supervisor Mahmoud intends to introduce a substituted version of this legislation upon a hopeful passage here at the planning commission. The primary change in this version creates an even more open definition of household for existing buildings, removing that nine lease requirement. This change allows for an even larger universe of existing units to be legalized without opening up a potential loophole for new construction that could allow builders to use this definition to shirk inclusionary zoning responsibilities. The substituted version also modifies the requirements for households to just need one living expense shared and requires that residents have twenty four hour access to a kitchen and bathroom to qualify as a dwelling unit. Our office is looking forward to more collaboration with the planning department and advocates on taking a more holistic look at how the city regulates group housing. At the end of the day, this is all about fairness. This legislation recognizes that today's families and chosen families come in many forms. And if it's good enough for our inclusive values, then it should be good enough for our zoning code. I want to thank Josh Massamore, Mark Hogan, and Lisa Zauner for bringing this issue to the supervisor's attention. I also wanna thank Jay Cumberland and Hope Williams from the Sustainable Economies Law Center, and Annie Fryman from SPUR for their consultation on the legislation. I'd also like to thank Heather Goodman and Julia Guoco Nelson from the city attorney's office for their help with drafting this. And Audrey Marloney, Liz Waddy, Dan Sider, and Aaron Starr from the planning department for their work as well. And also I'd like to thank our co sponsors on the legislation, supervisors Sauter, Cheryl, Dorsey, Melgar, and Chen. Thank you so much. I'll turn it back over to mister Starr, who will go into more, detail about the legislation. Thank you.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Thank you, Reynal. So as, he mentioned, this proposed ordinance is to update the San Francisco planning code to redefine the term family as household to better reflect the diversity of living arrangements in the city. The current definition imposes restrictive criteria on unrelated individuals living together, such as requiring shared meals preparation and living group size to five, which disproportionately affects, affects household or housemate households. So some of the key changes, first, the definition update. It replaces family with household, removing the requirements for a blood or legal relationship or shared meals. Second is the lease cap. It limits a household to nine leases to distinguish from group housing and preserve inclusionary housing requirements. It expands the residential use definition, so it reclassifies small residential care facilities with six or fewer residents as a residential use. This aligns with state law. And then, last with dwelling unit occupancy, it allows group, a group meeting the new household definition to occupy dwelling unit. As the supervisors or as Reynold mentioned, there are some proposed amendments. The first applies to the nine lease rule. The this rule would only apply to buildings constructed after this ordinance takes effect, and it would clarify that lease includes rental agreements, licenses, or other contact contractual agreements for exclusive use of all or a portion of the premises. The second is the access requirements. Households must have 24 access to a full kitchen, bathroom, and private sleeping rooms. There's one on shared expenses, so it clarifies that sharing at least one living expense qualifies as a group qualifies a group as a household. It expands the zoning administrator's ability to issue subpoenas for enforcement. And then there's some clerical simplifications that just streamlines how residential care facilities are included in the new definitions in the code. So, this supports the housing element policy 34, which encourages co housing and shared living to improve affordability and community support. And it also advances implementation program seven point two point six, which seeks to update zoning to accommodate unrelated adults and comply with fair housing laws. The department is recommending approval with modifications. Those modifications include, first, to make all residential care facilities a residential use instead of an institutional use. The second is to amend the definition of household to include single or multi provider households with dependents. The third is to include the sponsor's proposed amendments outlined in the executive summary. And then fourth, is to direct staff to monitor the implementation of the legislation for potential unintended consequences and report back to the commission three years after the effective date. The department recommends approval of the proposed ordinance because it modernizes outdated zoning definitions to better reflect the diversity of San Francisco's households, aligns local regulations with state law, and supports the city's broader housing goals. The current definition of family imposes restrictive and outdated criteria that limit definition of household, the ordinance removes unnecessary barriers to shared housing, particularly for communities that rely on chosen family structures or nontraditional living arrangements. The ordinance also clarifies the distinction between dwellings and group housing in a way that supports the city's shift to more form based density regulation. It does this while preserving the integrity of the inclusionary housing program through the nine leasehold threshold. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thanks.

[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 matter. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment.

[Abby (Planner, Chinatown Community Development Center)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Abby, and I'm a planner with the Chinatown CDC. We're asking that you continue this item to allow more time for public outreach and a more complete analysis. This proposal to remove the planning code's definition of family housing and replace it with a broad generic category of households is concerning. At a time when we all recognize the urgent need for housing that works for families with children and dependents, this change moves us in the wrong direction. By eliminating the category of family housing, the city would lose one of its main tools to prioritize and incentivize those needs. Instead, this proposal could open the door for a very different type of development, shared and corporate run housing, where individual bedrooms are rented out under separate licenses, often without the rights or protections that come with being a tenant in such housing. What is missing in the analysis presented is whether the existing definition of family housing should be retained with amendments. There should be consideration for creating another category of housing that allows for co housing or shared housing that has its own standards and own protections associated with that market. Before we eliminate an important housing category, we should have accurate information, a full analysis of the impacts, and real input from families and communities who will be affected by this. Please continue this item and require a deeper analysis and review before moving forward. Thank you.

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Brianna Morales with the housing action coalition as their community organizer. Though a bit technical, this ordinance does catch up our planning code in a way to reflect how people actually live. And for a long time, it really hasn't kept pace with how we are as a city or even as a state. In San Francisco especially, family has never been one thing. It's roommates sharing rent, friends supporting each other, and chosen families who make this city their home. That's been a part of what makes San Francisco special for years and decades. Right now, our zoning code still limits how many unrelated people can share a home, an outdated idea that simply doesn't reflect how people live, especially in a city where our housing costs force people to find creative ways to stay. Updating this language to household is common sense. It modernizes our code, removes unnecessary restrictions, and help people stay housed in neighborhoods they love. It also aligns with our broader equity goals, fair housing, and inclusion, values San Francisco has prided itself upon. This has been a city that has had folks looking for safe spaces to call home, artists, undocumented folks, queer communities, and dreamers of every kind, and this change honors that legacy. It clearly says that everyone deserves a home here, however they define family. We thank HACC members and other partners for raising this issue for many years, reminding us that equity starts with recognizing how people really live together. So thank you for supervisor Mahmood's advocacy, city staff, and for all those who worked on this. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Final last call for public comment. You need to come forward? Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: So while a household can be considered a family, I do recommend, or in full support of department's recommendation number four, basically, staff to monitor and report back on unintended consequences, possibly not thirty six months, but a little bit more than that. I don't know if twelve is too much, but certainly sixteen months perhaps. My main point of concern here is actual families losing out to commercial entities, or newly emerging businesses, so or business models. So I would suggest we really, monitor this for any unforeseen consequences. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: A very good point. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. You know, on the face of it, I I agree with the idea that this is kind of a common sense change that better reflects the reality of the right of living situations that we have in the city. But as commissioner Maguire is pointing out, the devil's in the details, and, there could be some unintended consequences of this legislation. I wanted so I wanted to kind of ask a few questions related to a few of those, potential unintended consequences just to make sure they are being thought through or addressed. So my first question maybe to Aaron Starr is in department's recommendation recommended modification number three about the sponsor's proposed amendments. There was a note in there, something to the effect of, department's a little concerned about the nine lease limit as far as the possibility of creating a loophole for group housing to avoid having to pay into the inclusionary program. Could you maybe expand a little bit more on what the thinking was about that?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Sure. So it would allow a building that exists today to basically be converted to, be considered still a dwelling unit even though you would have more than nine people living there, on a separate lease. Our trigger for inclusionary, for group housing is 10 or more. So you could essentially quasi convert, like, a large home in Pacific Heights, just as an example, with multiple rooms into a group housing facility, and they don't need to pay into the inclusionary program. So that is a policy choice that, is confronted with you all. And the reason that this being put forward is because, as has been said, this is the way San Franciscans already live. There are already homes with probably more than nine people with separate leases. I know that that was true. When I moved to San Francisco, I rented a room, had a separate lease. There were at least seven people in that building. We shared a bathroom and a kitchen. So it's a very common living situation in San Francisco. So the idea was to provide to not disrupt those households, to not disrupt those people's living situation by having to impose a fee or a change of use requirement, for them.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. So I see. So it seemed like a fairly limited subset of buildings that could be subject to the loophole you identify or a possible loophole you identified. The example you gave was an existing building, that essentially becomes nine sort of de facto group housing units. Or more

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: than nine. Like, ten ten or more.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: 10 or more group housing units when really it should maybe be considered actually separate group housing and inclusionary should apply. I might not be saying this very well. But okay. But but that would be am I right in thinking that that's less of a concern with the amendment for a new building because the amendment is meant household definition. So the nine lease limit only applies to buildings constructed after the proposed ordinance becomes effective.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Yeah. We were concerned that people would take advantage of this and say, well, we're, you know, we're it's it's a single unit. And, you know, an exaggerated case, it's a a single unit with 50 bedrooms. So that's why we came up with the nine lease limit to sort of prevent something like that from happening. So it's sort of an after construction thing, because we don't like to regulate bedrooms in homes, But, we would be able to enforce on it should there be more than nine leases in that and say, this is no longer a dwelling unit. You are now group housing. You have to, convert and pay the inclusionary fee.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Alright. Thank you. That that satisfies my questions and concern about that one. Like, what what I'm seeing is that with that amendment, with that nine lease limit, it does seem to address the inclusionary concern going forward for new projects. But I do see the department's concern about the subset of possible changes where for an existing building, we want to recognize through that amendment that there's a variety of existing arrangements like you said. But it's more about if they kind of convert to essentially group housing. So I think that that's a small, narrow case, hopefully, and something that needs to be part of the monitoring that Commissioner Gary was talking about and the report back on that. So thank you for kind of exploring that one with me. I have two other questions. One of them is, I appreciate you answering a couple questions I had this week about the recommendation about making all residential care facilities a residential use instead of an institutional use. I see that that's department recommendation number one. I see how that avoids the arbitrary drawing of the line at six units. I see how that makes it much easier for the department to sort of distinguish and implement going forward. And I also appreciate your response that we don't currently charge so my concern about this is really around the application of inclusionary requirements or affordable housing impact fees and what some of the implications might be for this. And so I appreciate you letting me know. We don't currently charge the jobs housing linkage fee to residential care facilities. And so then I was asking whether or not we would then be charging inclusionary fees for residential care facilities if they become a residential use. And I'm wondering if you could just kind of talk through a little bit of the position that it might not make sense to include that. I didn't hear today much discussion about this issue.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Yeah. I think one of the things there were a lot of moving parts on this. And so a very obvious thing we overlooked is that if you start if you recategorize residential care facilities as a residential use, once you get more than nine rooms in that residential care facility, you are then subject to the inclusionary rate. I don't think anyone wants to charge residential care facilities an inclusionary fee. So, staff, I believe, would be supportive of, like, you know, exempting them from the inclusionary rate. So stating that here now, and the supervisor is aware of that issue as well.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. I I am in favor of exempting the residential care facilities from inclusionary requirements because we don't currently put those requirements on those units. We don't have the jobs housing linkage fee on those units. It does kind of speak to, you know, again, one of those things that we need a monitor for because this is a big unintended consequence potentially that we hadn't really thought about about. Now suddenly we would have been applying inclusionary requirements to residential care facilities, which are kind of a different thing. I I do still have a concern about residential care facilities in that I in one of the this has been on my mind because two of the cities I'm currently working for for, as per my day job, on setting affordable housing policy and analysis, are encountering situations with residential care facilities where, in one instance, a developer is arguing that because they have the license for residential care facilities, this very large project that has a subset of units that are RCF units, that license covers the whole building. And they are trying to kind of sidestep some of the inclusionary requirements based on it being a residential care facility, based on the subs of the units being residential care facility units. The other units are are 55 and older units or senior units, but their market rate, they're basically housing. And so I I think I would also recommend that we just take another look at that issue as part of this legislation. I don't know if the supervisor could maybe just kind of explore whether any of the language needs to be tightened up to address a potential loophole in which, something's called residential care facility and then somehow manages to have a lot of basically de facto residential units that don't have inclusionary applied anymore. So that that would be my second suggestion. And then third, let's see. Actually, no. That's actually it for me. So thanks for bearing with me in a lot of detail on this. So I could definitely support this, but with the recommended and I can support this also with staff modifications. I would also support Commissioner McGarry's idea of maybe a shorter term for report back on implementation.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: I think we chose three years because it takes a long time for things to sort of work their way through. Maybe three years is too long. Two years might be more appropriate. But I think a year would be too quick.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: A year?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: It was too soon, I think.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Oh, you're too soon. So I'm sorry. How long did you say it would work?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: If three is not if too long, I would say two.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Two years? Okay. Yeah. So two year report back on staff recommendation number four. I would also say exempt I can support staff recommendation, number one, about residential care facilities, but make it clear that they're being exempted from inclusionary as part of that recommendation.

[Speaker 23.0]: Mhmm.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: And then, also just guidance to the supervisor's office to maybe take another look at the language to ensure that the residential care facility exemption couldn't somehow enable other housing units to escape our inclusionary requirements.

[Michael Hugh (Tesla)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I can well, let's see what other The thawer. Have to say before I make a motion. Yeah. Thank you. Okay.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. That was really thorough. I agree with you. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you, commissioners. When I read this legislation, there's part of it that, yes, it does speak in terms of the how people are living in San Francisco. And perhaps this ordinance can actually help address those. My I I think the way I see it as well, and I'm glad that this ordinance has or with the planning staff, you know, amendments to address the difference between group housing and dwelling units. However, I also wanna address whether the the the nine limitation, the nine, lease limitation or nine users limitation, is that also, incompatible with, with DBI code in terms of the minimum occupancy and also in terms of the square footage facilities where it will not encourage overcrowding?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Yeah. I I think they're kinda two separate issues. Like, they they would be compliant with the planning code for having nine or fewer leases or subleases or contracts. But if they didn't meet the occupancy requirements under the building code, they'd be out of compliance with that and DBI would deal with that issue. So they're kind of two regulatory Yeah. Issues separate.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Well, it I don't know. It feels to me it would still create confusion. So how would that how would that apply? So that means that that would have to amend the DBI code as well? Or

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: No. You don't need to amend DBI code. DBI already has occupancy requirements Mhmm. To make it safe for people to live, safe and healthy. So say we were called in to enforce, we would they would say, well, we only have eight leases.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: And we're

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: like, okay, but this seems like overcrowding. Mhmm. And so we might refer that to DBI, and then DBI would look into yeah, this is overcrowded. You don't have the right exposure. There's too many people packed in a room, that type of thing. And then they could enforce based on that.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And then you

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: Planning wouldn't be saying

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: no. And in terms of the shared facilities, is there any kind of guidance on that on this, on this ordinance?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning)]: No. I mean, remember, these are dwelling units. So we kinda look at a dwelling unit as having one kitchen. And then we also have different requirements for group housing. But as I said in the staff report, that's prospective. Like, I want to build group housing. We say, okay, if you're going to build group housing, you need to meet these things. So it's more of this is a a legal dwelling unit, and you have multiple living people living in there who are not related.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Yeah. Okay. I I think they, probably just need for me more clarification on my end in terms of that, how we are making sure I mean, I appreciate what the legislation is trying to do, but I also feel like perhaps there needs to be more look as well in terms of, like, what kind of developments or, you know, if we're truly trying to target because I see this ordinance in two things. One, there is this residential care facilities and then and, you know, substance abuse type kind of co living situation as well. And there are different kinds of co living or shared living situations in terms of, you know, that probably can evolve from this ordinance as well that perhaps needs more public outreach. The one thing that I'm thinking of is around immigration as well and how would that, you know so that's something that I'm I'm hoping that the the supervisor can also, you know, gather in terms of with community stakeholders. But yeah. But the there's still, you know, there's still kind of, like, hesitation for me as to what kind of developments or what kind of that will sprung out from this. But although I see the the potential of this ordinance as well to expand to different kinds of co sharing, shared housing options.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Thank you. Is it Yeah. Okay. Well, there's a lot of thought process here. And I I can I would like to summarize some of these comments, but I would wanna hear more commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Do you have time? So or would you like to go first? I know you're running a little bit in your into your time constraint. Okay.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Well, I, okay. I can go first. Thank you. So, really appreciate supervisor Mahmood's take a initiative to address our evolution of how people live and actually what San Franciscan really had to make ends meet to been living in these conditions. Seems like right now we had heard a lot of some of the concerns, and I also think that it is a great step to address our dire needs for residential care facilities to make it consistent with our state code and our local code. I really support commissioner Braun's comment about exempting the residential care facilities for inclusionary fees to avoid any unintended consequences. And I also support commissioner McGarry's point of, having the report back sooner and, mister Starr suggesting changing it from thirty six months to twenty four months, three to three to two years. That was great. Some of the concerns that commissioner Imperial brought up was a very on point, occupancy safety, something that would probably as a enlightenment to Supervisor Mamu to work closely with our DBI to make sure that we are doing something that is intentionally making sure people are safe in terms of exiting an occupancy density situations. I heard that some comments in our public there are some concerns about continuing to protect our tenant, the tenancy situation. I think that is something that I would like to see Supervisor Mahmoud to further investigate it with our ramp board. So in general, I am really supportive of having this to further clarify and allow San Franciscan have a lot more transparency and clarity of how they can live legally. And that kind of summarized my comment, and I will pass it on to commissioner Namor.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you. I'd like to start just with thank you to the supervisor. I appreciate asking us to consider expanding our definitions. And, perhaps the question I would like to ask is why did not, why did we not expand our definitions rather than limiting them? And the reason why I'm saying that is it is just this morning that we received a rather thoughtful letter by CCDC. Former commissioner, Gabriela Rose is actually the author of this letter, and it raised a number of questions that resonated very strongly with myself. That together with a letter that I also received this morning from, deputy city attorney Yang made me wonder, why we are rushing this because, I believe expanding our definitions would be far more helpful in order not to fall into certain traps that are very clearly outlined in what CCDC are saying, particularly tenant protection. Commissioner Imperial touched on the issue of what the code regulates versus what, any kind of amendments we are discussing here today would do, how many people can live in the unit, together with a number of clarifications of legal background that at least CCDC, questions the accuracy of what staff is asserting in this report, I. E. Drown unit as defined in the planning code can only be occupied by family. As they are getting into detail, they are basically saying it can be family, relatives, and unrelated people. So there is indeed a broader room for interpretation by which we could capture one of what is implied in staff's report and correct that, but we could also potentially capture that particular element of what supervisor's asking for in an expanded definition of adding the word household or adding a broader definition of unrelated people living under licenses or under other type form of agreement in in a single family home. So we are making many, many changes, and I would personally prefer a simpler way by expanding of what we have rather than overturning it. Would we also, in in light of this suggestion, amend the family zoning plan? Would we now call it a household zoning plan? I just said, it crossed my mind because this is really indeed a very strong message that we are sending. And I personally do not believe that the, way that San Francisco for decades has fostered new forms of living together, together with, co housing requires that we be writing all of our regulations, to sound different. I still think we can be sticking with comparable words, except expanding on definitions. That would be my preference.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I will make a motion to approve with modifications, recommended modifications. I'm going to modify the modifications a little bit as part of my motion. So on staff recommended modification number one regarding residential care facilities, I would modify that to clarify that resident residential care facilities would remain exempt from inclusionary requirements if that recommendation was taken. And I would also add guidance to the supervisor's office to ensure residential care facilities being exempt from inclusionary requirements does not inadvertently enable housing units to escape inclusionary requirements. Also for staff recommended modification number four for the department report back on implementation of potential unintended consequences, I would change that report back period to twenty four months instead of thirty six months. Oh, and I also would just say I I think now this is not to be part of the motion, but, you know, I think Chinatown Community Development Center, they they raise some interesting points. I think it's worth continuing outreach just to see if there are other potential issues or definitions that need to be tightened up.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I agree with that. Second. I second. And commissioner Moore, you have further comments?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yes. I would like to just add my thoughts about residential care facilities. Since residential care facilities are mostly regulated, by design, and operation by the state rather than by the city, I would prefer that that entire subject matter would be taken out of the legislation and treated separately, including considerations about whatever we can consider. I believe that it's putting too much into this into this legislation, and care facilities themselves are not living facilities. They do not really cater to the type of people we are trying to capture with expanding our definition of family housing. So I would suggest that my own preference would be, I should say, to leave that entire subject matter under separate legislation. And I do think that we can make a valuable contribution by thinking about that in more detail. We're seeing a rapid disappearance of care facilities in the city, and perhaps we can approach that with a slightly broader, more, focused way of addressing it.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: We have we're ready to vote?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Indeed. There is a motion that has been seconded. So if there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications as modified to exclude residential care facilities from the inclusionary housing requirement and to encourage the supervisor to consider language that would prevent any other projects taking advantage of that exclusion and modifying the report back to the commission from three to two years and to provide consideration to CCDC's comments.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. Did you get that the the issue with the residential care facility, we were trying to make sure there's no loophole around it escaping inclusionary requirements.

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Right.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: What was that? Okay.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Just wanna make sure that was clear.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I thought I added that as well. Yeah. Just to encourage that no, inadvertent provisions to exclude other projects. Right?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. Yeah.

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: On that motion, Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Excuse me. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? No. Commissioner Moore? No. And Commission President Tsao?

[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, that'll place us under your discretionary review calendar for item 10, case number 2020Four-eleven548DRP-two for the property at 2867 Green Street discretionary review.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: Good afternoon, President Zoen, members of the commission. David Winslow, planning staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of permit sorry, planning application number 2024Hyphen11548PRJ. For work that exceeded the scope of building permit to raise the roof of the building of the 3rd Floor by 10 inches. A notice of violation was issued instructing the applicant to legalize by obtaining a permit. The current drawings and other proposed work all meet the planning code and residential design guidelines. And it is my understanding I'm going to abbreviate this report because my understanding is that the parties involved have reached an agreement. And with that, I would invite them to share the details of that agreement for the record. Thank you.

[Deborah Holly (Attorney for DR Requesters)]: Good afternoon. Deborah Holly for Pete Solvick and Becky Christian, two of the Doctor requesters who live adjacent, at 2550 Lion. And, the, so both Doctor requesters have reached an agreement with the project sponsors. And, I just wanted to give Jonas these plans to, include in the record. They're the same plans that I believe you have in your packet, just two changes. And that is a notation that, on the roof plan, that it's an unoccupied roof, and no roof deck is proposed. And another notation on the elevations that all heights shown are inclusive of any curbs or ellipse. So that's it. And I just wanna call out David Winslow for the extraordinary effort he made to help settle this. It's been several months that this has been going on, so we're really pleased that with his help, we could reach an agreement. Thank you.

[Marco Quazo (Attorney for DR Requester #2)]: Good afternoon. Marco Quazo on behalf of twenty eight seventy three, twenty eight seventy five Green Street Condominium Association, also known as Doctor Requester Number Two. I just wanna confirm, what miss Holly, just reported to the Commission, and confirm that Doctor requester number two, has indeed finalized a written agreement with the project sponsors and, Doctor requester number one. We've also reviewed, the revised plans, that are dated yesterday, November 12, including the notations that Ms. Holly mentioned, and we are in agreement with them. And so, pursuant to our written agreement with the project sponsor, we ask that the commission, take Doctor and approve the plans as modified. And we also want to express our gratitude to David Winslow and his staff for, their remarkable efforts in bringing this to a conclusion. So, thank you, David.

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: concludes presentations, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Seeing there's an agreement and no public comment, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners. So oftentimes, even though Doctor requesters and project sponsors reach an agreement, they like it to be memorialized with the Doctor action memo, so that they're not withdrawing their discretionary review. But the commission is taking action to take Doctor and approve with set agreements, modifications, and that will be memorialized then in an action memo. Well, public comment is closed through the chair. Do you wanna give her an opportunity to speak?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Is this a is it Doctor requester number two?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yeah. She

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: can. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Just

[Unidentified speaker (DR party)]: Say because

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Do you mind speaking to the microphone?

[Unidentified speaker (DR party)]: Sorry. There was a a question about the recommendation. It it because the recommendation, I wasn't sure if it was take Doctor or not take Doctor or withdraw. And so

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, so that's what

[Unidentified speaker (DR party)]: I was to whatever it is.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That's what I

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: was trying to explain is that the the the request as it stands, or the way I understand it anyway, is to take discretionary review, memorialize the modifications that were made as part of the agreement.

[Unidentified speaker (DR party)]: I'm sorry. I'm just unfamiliar with the procedures here. And so I just wanted to make sure that, you know, we were open to whatever it was.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: If I could speak to further, confuse the matter. The recommendation was agnostic. We could either take Doctor and record the situation, or basically not take Doctor and accept these drawings and approve them at the staff level honoring the conditions of the agreement as represented in the documents of record for these drawings that we just received. So it doesn't really matter

[Unidentified speaker (DR party)]: to me. Yeah. I I just think I everybody, and I also wanna thank everybody and the work that the the David and his staff did and the parties to this because it has been a long process. And so it just seemed to me that if it was it said it did not take Doctor. Why were you doing all this work? It's a practical matter.

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

[Unidentified speaker (DR party)]: So thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. So we're ready for our commissioner's comment. And commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I'm delighted to hear that there is a settlement, and I make a motion to not take Doctor and approve based on the drawings that issued with the most recent data, which I think is today.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I agree with the way the motion is structured. So Jonas, I heard what you said about, you know, the memorializing this through taking Doctor. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I I would recommend we take discretionary review because these plans were just submitted to us so that you're taking Doctor and you're modifying the project as was submitted to you so that it will memorialize it in a Doctor action memo?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Which is a note regarding the unoccupied roof and that there will be no roof deck. That is not really a modification. That's an addition of a comment. But either way, I can have the motion expressed either way. I took it the way that I believe architecturally book is a correct way of doing it, and that is a verbal modification, not a substantive building modification. It's an addition of a comment.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I'll second that.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I yes. I I I agree with this approach because I don't my concern is I don't wanna find that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. And so I think that this is something that, subject to the private agreement, we're essentially memorializing that we are supportive of this change and staff can approve this at the staff level.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: Just to further confuse. External and extraordinary circumstances can easily be found.

[George Wolf (Neighbor, 2350 Hyde)]: Well

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: An existing non complying structure with respect to height and

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: The commission's not finding any extraps in all extraordinary circumstances in this particular case. So there is a motion, commissioners, that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project with the modifications as submitted on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Hi. You Do you have a Hold on. We have a question.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: To not

[George Wolf (Neighbor, 2350 Hyde)]: to not

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: to take not to take I verbalize this. Please do not take the r and approve as modified based on the most recent set of drawings dated thirteen November twenty twenty.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And it just kinda just show up here today as a physical copy? None of us got any electronic copy?

[Michael Hugh (Tesla)]: I don't believe so. Okay.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: But I I think we would be accepting what's in the record as presented about the private agreement, which were the the two the two changes regarding the, you know, just showing that the roof is unoccupied and no roof deck is proposed and the notation on elevations that all heights shown are inclusive of any curbs or ellipse. And so just to be clear, even though the action is not taking discretionary review, we are including those. Those will be included as part of this. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good, commissioners. There's a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project with the modifications as submitted on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And commission commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Aye.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I do, however, wanted to make a comment for future projects. In in situations like that, when project sponsors are submitting plan in such a really last minute, we should table this item to the next hearing next available hearing because this is just a little bit, out of what we we try to make and retain a consistency to get our commissioners feel confident and, well informed to the latest and current, information. Just consistency with, some of, previous commission hearings, some of my commissioners had voiced that, with any, flood we flooded with, like, over 50 or hundreds of letters in the wee hours before we walked into this room. It it just I would I would highly encourage and recommend our staff to, monitor this and maybe perhaps make it very transparent and clear to, parties involved. I think this is an exception, but, I don't want this become the new normal.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I think I think in these cases, commission president so this is these are discretionary review cases where there's a discrepancy between the two parties. They are principally permitted projects that wouldn't normally come to you otherwise. So it's

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Understand. I think it's just on the premise of any any most latest breaking news moment information that we never get to see until, you know, not even the eleven hours or the eleven seconds. You know, I think we should it's deserved to have take a little pause because, yes, I would like to recommend that just for future. Okay. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Item 11, case number 2024Hyphen005749DRP at 45 Montclair Terrace, discretionary review.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: Okay. Good afternoon again, President So and commissioners. David Winslow, planning staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application twenty twenty four hyphen five thousand seven hundred and forty nine PRJ to demolish an existing single family residence and construct two new dwelling units within the RH1 zoning district. The site is an approximately 61 foot wide by 85 foot deep lateral and up sloping lot. The existing building is a category C, no historic resource. The Doctor requester, Steven Sattler, resident of 2390 Hyde Street, neighbor to the Northwest, is concerned that the proposed project ignores several residential design guidelines, making it inharmonious with its setting. And also concerns that the project ignores geological and archaeological issues. His proposed alternatives are to remove the ADU and bring the project back to the city for planning revisions, revise the roof so that it slopes as previously, and add nuance and setbacks to the overall design. To date, the department has received no letters in opposition, no letters of support. The proposed project is code complying. As a housing accountability project, staff cannot require non objective criteria such as residential design guidelines, nor in this case is the project subject to the small project objective design standards, which passed, I think, last month. This project came in some time ago and an SB three thirty application locked in the rules of the day at that time. The existing building is proposed to be demolished. It is a legal non complying building with respect to the required rear yard. The original plans did show a demolition that was only in excess of our three seventeen demolition, but preservation of the existing non compliant portion of the building at the rear. The current proposal is for a full demolition. The department's CEQA review confirmed that the site is subject to 25 foot, sorry, 25 degree slope requirements, which also include a review of preliminary geotech reports that will require further geotechnical reports and structural drawing review by the Department of Building Inspection. The department staff archeologist also conducted preliminary archeological review and determined that no CEQA significant archeological resources are expected within the project affected soils. Therefore, staff can find no exceptional nor extraordinary circumstance that merit taking discretionary review. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. We should hear from the discretionary review requester. We have five minutes. In what sense?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: We put

[George Wolf (Neighbor, 2350 Hyde)]: up, we put up We put us We switch some slides.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You just put in your thumb drive and upload them.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: So it's, it's up. It's up.

[Austin Yang (Deputy City Attorney)]: Oh, there you are. Okay.

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

[Karen DiGiorgio (DR Requester, 45 Montclair Terrace item)]: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Karen DiGiorgio. I'm here with my husband, Steven Sattler. We live at 2390 Hyde Street, and we're here on behalf of the 2390 Hyde Street HOA and the neighbors surrounding 45 Montclair Terrace that is Block 4, 68 to request, a review of this project. The, we're looking at the letters that were sent through on February 25 and 06/11/2025. And our intent was to try to bring this building into full adherence with planning code requirements and design guidelines before approval, not to block a new construction, but to ensure that the revisions address the repeated deficiencies. And since I have okay. The planning commission identified six categories, at least of the current proposal, that have to be addressed by the architect, the scope, the documentation, the design compliance, the site standards, the unit balance, and the status. And we are respectfully requesting that the planning commission discuss conduct a discretionary review and direct the project sponsor to adopt the staff requested design revisions listed, and condition any approval upon demonstrated compliance with sections 144, two zero seven, two sixty b, and three seventeen, and resolution of the plan check letters one and two. This is just a summary here, and I think you have all of this. You've reviewed this of the project that evolved here, starting with the geotechnical excavation. And the project in 2022 was noted as a remodeling and did not require any other kind of soils analysis. It has evolved, over the past few years to 2024 when it was, there were two application three applications made in June, and the final application was the addition of a second unit to a single family residence and horizontal addition and a demolition of the and then in May 2025, demolition of the existing single family residence to be replaced with a new single family residence. When we received the three eleven notification, we looked online, and we found all of these documents to be confusing. And what we're looking for is some clarification as to the scope of this project. We do not understand and we're confused if this is a full demolition, does that include the back wall? And if it does include the back wall, that there are other contingencies that must be met, and I can discuss those in just a minute. If it's a retained back wall and it's gonna be less than 50%, how does that impact this trial this study? So we're under the understanding that this is, if if it is a full demolition, that DBI has to determine that and they are they permit this. And if it's a tantamount to a demolition, which is essentially a demolition, that would be determined by lineal feet and foundational level and square footage demolition. This where do we go to? Backward.

[Austin Yang (Deputy City Attorney)]: Never mind.

[Karen DiGiorgio (DR Requester, 45 Montclair Terrace item)]: Okay. Never mind. There is a slide in here that says, tenant amount to a demolition calculation. And the sample is this is just a sample of how tantamount to demolition is calculated. So planning identified some submission deficiencies in their plan check letters. They were dimension streets, dimension setback requirements, street trees, and then separate existing elevations and sections and demolition calculations. CUA noticed in plan I'm sorry. The planning commission noticed in plan check letter one that there were a number of issues identified. One being the planning code checklist, the planning code design, the plan set revisions, the demolition CUA, whether or not the rear wall was compliant, the proposed budget, and the additional dwelling unit. I would just like to expand on the dwelling unit here. They have put in a budget of 1,400,000.0. According to HomeLight and HomeBuilder Digest, the average is 5 to $800 a square foot. You're looking at an 8,000 square foot building, which means that this new home would be anywhere in the four point either 4 between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000,000 6,400,000.0 for a new build, and that doesn't include the demo, the new foundation, any other engineering costs that would be incurred. According to this, we would also we're I'm gonna just jump here because you can read the rest of plan check letter two. And in summary, we would like to ask planning to clarify the scope of this project to articulate the setbacks and negative spaces to conform with the planning code and guidelines to follow the natural topography of the neighborhood and to revise the and to look at, clarify clarification of whether or not that back wall is part of a fuller partial demo. Can I just finish my last sentence here?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You have a two minute rebuttal, so, you can finish your thoughts too.

[Karen DiGiorgio (DR Requester, 45 Montclair Terrace item)]: Okay. Great.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: They have a two minute rebuttal after

[Karen DiGiorgio (DR Requester, 45 Montclair Terrace item)]: After this. After this. Okay. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 23.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Yaku Askew, project architect, with YA Studio. Thank you very much. And, the project before you is a demolition of a single family residence to be replaced with a two family residence. The project is fully in compliant with the planning code as well as with the Housing Accountability Act. I can be here available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

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

[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 project. Ma'am, public comment. So people who are not party to the discretionary review or the project sponsor.

[Unidentified neighbor (Montclair Terrace resident)]: Good afternoon. So I'm a neighbor of this proposed project. I live across the street. I have a home on Montclair Terrace that my family and I have lived in for over ten years. I've raised my kids on this street. And for all this challenges of this street, which I'll explain, we love it. We love, the character and, we support this Doctor request. We understand all the neighbors support the Doctor request, including ones that couldn't be here today. I'm not aware of one neighbor that supports this project. The person, the owner of this project, has not lived in the street yet. If they did, they'd know why we we are, asking for this. Send this project back, and the main reason I'm asking for you to send it back is for the front setback. This Montclair Terrace is a small alley that leads into a cul de sac off the crooked street. It's just wide enough for two vehicles and on that narrow alleyway, one side is for parking. So if a car is coming or going, that's it. If two cars come, one has to make way and then we as neighbors, we accommodate that. Now, how is that relevant here? It's because the way the street has been built in terms of the homes are they're all set back. They're all set back at 15 feet or further back as the floors build. And so you have these homes, especially on the West Side, that are set back. And they're set back like me, somebody of my size sitting back, welcome welcoming you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Sir, I need to speak on the microphone, please.

[Unidentified neighbor (Montclair Terrace resident)]: The difference of this project, it's like me getting in your face on the street. And it's just not appropriate. If you guys come to the 5th Street, walk down this street, you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm not asking to eliminate the ADU. I'm not asking to eliminate the elevator they're putting in. I'm asking for them to conform to the setbacks that are characterized this

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: small amount. That is your time.

[Unidentified neighbor (Montclair Terrace resident)]: Thank you.

[Karen Bruhl (Neighbor)]: Hello. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Karen Bruhl, and I represent myself and my husband, Anton Bruhl. We live at 935 Chestnut Street, so we're not really adjacent to this house. But I'm just very empathetic about the neighborhood. These are our concerns. Number one, it is our understanding that the geological report was done some time ago and was not applied to the current plans of demolition, digging, and size and weight of the now proposed building. Neighboring homes could be adversely affected from ground instability and experience wall cracking at the least. Number two, the doubling of square footage by bringing the house out to the curb of the street, out to other property lines, and then up to the height limit with no pitched roof eliminates views, light, and air from adjacent homes and will significantly, significantly decrease resale value of these homes. Number three, there's been no consideration for the project to to fit in with and be an architectural good neighbor to the existing homes on the street. Number four, the architect and owner seem to be gaming the system by including a 600 square foot extra unit and leaving one existing wall to get around some rules. Number five, the city is under great pressure to build housing. But this demolition and rebuild will do nothing to ease the housing shortage. It seems like a very selfish and opportunistic endeavor, not renovation with respect. Number six, due to the size of this demolition and rebuild, the size of the equipment needed and the length of construction time will be a nightmare for tourists and homeowners accessing the curvy part of Lombard Street and the narrow road of Montclair. Thank you.

[John Kelly (Neighbor, 33 Montclair Terrace)]: -Hi. Appreciate your patience. This is a long day. My name is John Kelly. I live at 33 Montclair, right next door to this proposed project. And I just want to read a little bit of a description of Montclair Terrace from Chat GPT. Montclair Terrace steps are tucked in the Russian Hill neighborhood. They climb from Chestnut up to the Montclair Terrace. Because Russian Hill is one of the most steep, picturesque and likely fewer crowds. Montclair and likely fewer crowds. Montclair Terrace offers a vantage point, etcetera, etcetera. Our house has those gardens. And the two women who owned 45 Montclair for over fifty years had the lush gardens that made this a tourist stop. I just I'm imploring you that there is a preservation element to your jobs. You're preserving one of the most significant tourist stops in the city. I mean, I don't know why people come to the Montclair Stairs or the Montclair Stairs or Lombard Curvy Street, but they do nonstop seven days a week. The second piece of this is it's clearly taking advantage of SBU three thirty. You know, at the UP Growth Conference, there are apparently 70,000 vacant units right now. So this proposal is to add 70,001 vacant units. And this proposal, why 1,400,000 I can't even put a new bathroom in my house for that much. This is going to easily exceed $10,000,000 when you take in all the foundation work and the construction of this new home. But oddly, that didn't make it into the proposal. So these people have $10,000,000 to build this house. The son is a CEO, a senior executive of a billion dollar startup. This is all about taking advantage of SBU three thirty to build their dream house on a location that should not exist. And where is Diane? If I was building my dream home for $10,000,000 plus, I'd be here Thank

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

[John Kelly (Neighbor, 33 Montclair Terrace)]: Advocating for that project.

[Speaker 32.0]: Hi. I'm Laurie Collier. I live at 44 Montclair Terrace directly across the street from the house we're discussing. And, I wanna second briefly the comments of my neighbors. Montclair Terrace is a very charming street in a very unique neighborhood. It is a one lane road. Cars are parked on one side. They drive on the other. Two cars cannot fit side by side, passing on the street. So it is, in effect, a one lane road. There are currently 10 houses on Montclair Terrace. That's it. Just 10. Three of them are currently undergoing construction. And with the three houses that are currently undergoing construction, there is always a truck parked in the road. Five minutes, just five minutes. I just need to unload this wood five minutes. But that five minutes, 20 times a day, means you can't get in or out of your home. There is on on 45, there's a red zone right in front of the property. And every day, six days a week, there's a truck a construction worker or a yard person truck, parked in the red zone. And I can't actually get out of my driveway

[Karen DiGiorgio (DR Requester, 45 Montclair Terrace item)]: if a

[Speaker 32.0]: truck is parked in. So I have to go find the guy and ask him to move his truck. And it becomes problematic. And I am saying this because I oh, that's my time. Just I wanna say it's it's an impossibility to live on the street and have them build this monstrosity slash office building. Also, the ADU really is a scam. I mean, they're not gonna rent that out. And I wonder if we have any checks to see. Okay. So they built an ADU. Are they actually renting it, or was it just a scam? I don't know. I would be curious to see if we can do that.

[George Wolf (Neighbor, 2350 Hyde)]: Thank you.

[George Carey (Neighbor, 2310 Hyde)]: Commissioners, thank you. My name is George Carey. I live at 2310 Hyde, which is right above Montclair Terrace on the corner of Hyde And Lombard. I don't wanna take up your time in repeating what has been said before. I think it's been well presented. Just add one element for your consideration. I heard that there were no archaeological, issues with respect to the project. There are heritage trees that are right on the border of this lot. There are huge cypress trees that, from my understanding, have been there since this was the Hearst Phoebe Hearst property, 100 ago. Those trees would seem to me are very vulnerable to excavation on this site to the extent that is being described here. I don't know if that's within your purview, but if it is, I'd ask you to take that into account as well.

[George Wolf (Neighbor, 2350 Hyde)]: Yes. My name is George Wolf. I live in 2350 Hyde, which is directly behind this building and also behind 33 Montclair Terrace. The this project is not compatible with the design guidelines. As to the scale of the building, the pattern of the building, architectural features of the building is not compatible. And all with the design guidelines, I don't see how the planning department can say it is. Montcar Terrace was a private street. It's a very small street, very narrow. The street was developed in the thirties, forties, and fifties. They're they're all smaller scale homes that are about 3,000 feet or less. This existing one is 4,000 something already and also is already the biggest house in this block as far as a single family home goes. At one end is a nice standalone Rousseau house, at the other end is a Gardner Daley house. Now this property is built to the maximum dimensions of this per of this of this lot. This building is gonna be as big as it was Polk Building on the corner of Lombard And Hyde. That's even if it's even bigger than that. And that's a corner home, and it has a big, big rear yard to yard to it. This home is gonna involve deep excavation into the hills. There's going to be shoring necessary to hold this up. There's going to be cranes and excavators here. This is going to be a major project for a little tiny street. It's completely out of with the character in the neighborhood. The existing home is is sufficient. There was a beginning of a remodel to that home, and then it stopped for some reason. We don't know actually why. But this home is big enough for 10 to 12 people. Why do you need a home for 10 to 12? Like, if it's a single family home, that's a pretty big family. It could be a speculative home, I suppose, for other purposes other than being a single family home.

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

[George Wolf (Neighbor, 2350 Hyde)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none public comment is closed and the DRE quester. You have a two minute rebuttal.

[Karen DiGiorgio (DR Requester, 45 Montclair Terrace item)]: Thank you. Given the, comments here about the ADU, it's specious at best, and it's disingenuous. That's this is not an ADU. It's a facility it's a it's a room essentially or two rooms that are built for a nanny, an in law, a guest who's coming to the house. This is not to be rented out for a family. And I think that the architect because by the in the first drawings, they put a two burner unit in there. This architect has built plenty of ADUs, plenty of facilities. He knows that to build an ADU, you need four burners. Why would he put in why would he propose and try to slip in two burners in a in a in a two room, maybe, facility that's 650 square feet in an 8,000 square foot building? This is not going to be rented out. This is going to be used for a nanny, an in law, something like that, a visiting guest. Secondly, and to, mister Braun's comment, the devil's in the details. We don't have any details for this proposal at all. They the architect has refused any of the changes. They will not they they say understood and refused to any recommendations that were made. Not one recommendation was accepted. We feel we respectfully request that SF Planning ask send these drawings and applications back to the sponsor, back to the architect, and ask them for revisions and clarifications based on the planning recommendations and the true intent of what an ADU is for. They did this so that they could bypass this process. That's not fair. It's not fair to the people who have made an investment into this community nor to the design of what it what this was intended for. This is not gonna be an extra family moving in.

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

[Speaker 23.0]: I just want to clarify a couple things. One is that in in addition to a code compliant rear yard, the project has a 10 foot front setback and two five yard, five foot side yard setbacks. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, with that, this matter is now before you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have two questions that are ultimately related. So the first one is the accessory dwelling unit that's being included as part of the project. What program is that coming in under? Is that a state ADU?

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: I believe it is a state ADU.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: It's a state ADU. Okay. So that's enabled by state law. So then that leads to a second set of questions, which I think goes to the city attorney, which is, as I understand it, correct me on this if I'm wrong, because this is now a two unit project and because the ADU itself is legally permitted under the state law, I believe this falls under the Housing Accountability Act. And would you mind just kinda walking through, if that's the case, what our level of latitude is under state law to make changes to the project? What what threshold of needs to be met?

[Austin Yang (Deputy City Attorney)]: Sure. So, Deputy City Attorney Austin Yang. So, Commissioner Braun, the Housing Accountability Act applies to residential projects that have two or more units when those projects are code complying. And to be code complying, it means that it complies with objective standards that were in place and knowable to, the public at the time the application was filed. If a project is code complying and consistent with the Housing Accountability Act, then the commission has and the city has limited discretion to reduce the density or otherwise deny the project. It can only do that if it makes certain findings related to public health and safety by the preponderance of the evidence. And it has those findings also have to be based on standards that are knowable at the time that the application was filed.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: And also quantified. Hence, the reason we've we've the reason we've made the transition from the residential design guidelines to more recently objective design standards is because our residential design guidelines, as I understand it, are not quantitative, quantifiable. They don't fall under the objective requirements under or

[Austin Yang (Deputy City Attorney)]: Well, I would defer to staff ultimately, but there are some standards in the design guidelines that are objective.

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

[Austin Yang (Deputy City Attorney)]: The transition to the objective design standards that the commission made earlier this year or last year was intended to ensure that there were more objective standards that could be applied to projects that submitted applications after the date that the those design standards were adopted.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I my question then for, David Winslow is, you know, one of the biggest concerns raised by the neighbors and that I also see with this project is the setback of the project and how, you know and I think it's both the the bulk and mass of the project, basically, kinda maxing out what's allowed in that envelope or I don't know. That's actually where I'm going with this with you is whether it's allowed. And then also the setback at the front of the property, you know, we often try to use via the RDGs, the the articulation between the facades of the neighboring buildings or or rather, averaging between facades of front facades of the neighboring buildings and their their setbacks. Does this project meet whatever quantifiable, objective criteria we have when it comes to bulk massing setbacks?

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: Yes. As I stated in my case report, so it meets the planning code. And I can elaborate on some of the setbacks specifically. But if we were to, and we can't apply the newly, approved objective design standards because they weren't knowable at the time that this project applied for its SB three thirty

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Could you speak a little louder, please? Thank you.

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: So, yeah. It the the current objective design standards are not applicable to this project. The code compliance with respect to the setbacks in this lot are 30% rear guard requirement, which then allows a two two story pop out such that it's to the 25% rear lot depth, or 25% from the rear lot line, subject to five foot side setbacks from each property line. This has that. Additionally, as I think was mentioned and brought up in the, Doctor requester's testimony, there was a standard about narrow streets. This is a 25 foot wide lane. We have, requirements for that, which stipulate that the building must be stepped back from the front 10 feet from the property line at a height of 1.25 times the width of that street. This does that by virtue of the 10 foot front setback that's proposed to

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: snow. Okay. Thank you for that. You know, I agree with with the the Doctor requester. I I, you know, I think that the the with the the points being made, I'll say. I don't think that this project as designed would comply with our objective design standards that we have today if they were applicable to the project, which is more an issue of when those were adopted relative to the Housing Accountability Act that applies to this project. I also yeah. I don't think the residential design guidelines, that this project complies with them. But they they can't legally be applied to the project because, at least from my perspective and all my understanding and all staff's analysis, because, again, you know, this being subject to the Housing Accountability Act, which is by virtue of the second unit, which is included under state law. So two different state laws have basically tied our hands on this one, from my perspective. And, I guess I would just say to the project sponsor, I mean, maybe my question just to you is, why not why not consider a little bit of, modifications to the project? Why why why is the bulk being so sort of maxed out? Why is the front setback, being kind of maxed out within the building envelope?

[Jerry Drantler (Member of the public)]: Well, I'd

[Speaker 23.0]: I'd say that we, you know, have potential to continue to modify the project, to reduce it from this volume. I think that's something we can continue to look at. I I don't know that that's on the card on the table right now. You know, we're at the very beginning of this process. We're gonna get structural engineers involved and, you know, we have to go through the geo tech reports and whatnot. So, you know, the practicalities of building a big house on this lot are gonna definitely come into play. But right now, this is, you know, to the program that my client was hoping for. And so that's the project that we have proposed, before you.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I I would say it it feels like a little it feels like a little bit of a cynical, approach of sort of really taking everything possible because of the moment in time when the project was proposed and the requirements were locked under s p three thirty. And this home is going to exist on a street with neighbors. And I don't believe I have the ability to mandate changes, but I would certainly forcefully advocate that some of the neighbors' considerations be taken into consideration, the project be modified to be a little bit more sensitive to the neighbors and their concerns. There's no harm in just trying to be a better neighbor, but that's about as much power as I believe I have on this one. And, then I I also appreciate the the concerns about the the geology of the sites. That part is part of the DBI's purview, and this will be there will be additional scrutiny applied to that part of it. So it's, you know, kind of part of the next steps and not really part of my purview here. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Let me pick up where commissioner Brown left off. He reflects my sentiment to the extent that I am not really quite sure why this is a Doctor, because we do not have anything to add. We're basically, as you described, our hands are tied and, just a little bit ironic, that, we're doing something which doesn't serve any purpose at all. From from the Housing Accountability Act, I would like to ask Sacramento, why is a commission being required to look at a project like that when there is not even any kind of housing or unit parity implied here, because that would be a mission that we would definitely joyfully embrace and discuss a project that making contribution that is indeed in line with, supporting unit demolition and advocating for an enlarged unit to help the housing crisis. This unit this particular project, based on the expressed desires that mister Eskew described, seems to be just asking all for itself, me, me, me, me. And, I regret to see that in any of our neighborhoods, and I regret that the, the standards that we are allowed to use are not a little bit more sensitive to the totality of how it comes together for everybody. I happen to know that street quite well. I do not have any friends or acquaintances on the street. However, given the incredible load of traffic on Lombard, on the curvy part of Lombard itself, this street is already really squeezed in as maximally as any street could be. And when one of the residents described her needing to ask some car which is parked on the street to move because she wants to get out, I think that best describes a necessity that this type of living arrangement requires everybody to to work with each other. That doesn't mean that you have to be friends, but you at least need to get along in some form or another. I don't have any objections to a contemporary house. And in principle, I think mister Eskew's work contributes to contemporary architecture in a way that could create a house on that particular street, which would be very pleasant and a good neighbor. But I would agree with, that this particular rendition is far too large, and not really dealing with the subtleties of the total setting as it is, not to talk about the endangered, trees, etcetera, etcetera, which are not addressed. But what surprised me in your own verbal presentation, Ms. Jeske, is the fact that you talked about demolition. This project is not a CU, which it would be if it is a total demolition. You used the word demolition. So if you could, perhaps you could clarify for the commission that what we're in front of us is a Doctor, but you mentioned it being a demolition, which would require a different way of how this project is processed and being looked at.

[Speaker 23.0]: Correct. So the project is a full demolition and new construction of two units.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Is that have we seen a west elevation of this building? I don't I only saw a west elevation which showed the existing building. I don't recall seeing an elevation a west elevation that is the new building.

[Speaker 23.0]: A west elevation of the new building?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: But why then is it not a CU?

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Skuku, do you have it by any chance?

[Deborah Holly (Attorney for DR Requesters)]: Thank you.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Sure. No problem. Good to see you all, commissioners. Corey Teague, zoning administrator. Commissioner Moore, just to answer your question. So when we had the, what was called the constraints reduction ordinance passed, and we now kind of have two parts of the city that kinda operate under different rules in certain ways. We have the priority equities geography, special use district, and then the areas that fall outside of that. The areas that fall outside of that, if you are doing a full demolition, full demolition or de facto demolition, but the project is gonna result in a net increase in units, then it no longer requires the conditional use authorization for that for that demolition. That's why this project, because it's going from one to two, does not it it is a demolition. It's it as proposed, it's a 100% full demolition. But it under the code now, because of its location outside of that SUD, it does not require a conditional use authorization under the code. So I hope that helps clear that up.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yeah. It makes it more confusing. That is all I could say. But while I have you, mister Chi, could you please ask answer a question for me? The project is within the family senior housing SUD. Does that have any effect on any of what we're talking about here?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Not necessarily. That SUD created more of an opt in program for projects to use as opposed to mandatory restrictions on prod projects within that SUD. So to my knowledge, that SUD would not have any impact on this project.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And unit parity does not play a role or asking for unit parity does not play a role here at all?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Correct. Under today's code, there's no provision of the code that would require any kind of parity here. As you may recall, one of the elements that is included in the family zoning plan that's going forward would address some of these issues about minimum densities and unit parity if that were to pass as was as proposed. But under the current code, that is not included in a way that would impact this project.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And the only thing that's left from thank you, mister Tiefe, for explaining that. The only thing that's left for me is to really ask the architect, that is mister Eskew, to look back at some of the issues raised in plan check letters one and two relative to the massing and potential modifications of the shape of the building. Because that is, I think, one of the biggest issues here, because we're having a big, bulky, pretty singularly formed building sitting in the context that creates all the subtleties of, sensitive urban living. And I think while the project has architectural features which I fully support, it is ultimately in the totality of the massing and the lack of response to some of the subtleties that are being asked what the project lacks. And I've worked with you on many, many difficult projects. Not to talk about, we don't, you know which one they are. I I would ask that, this this project needs a little bit more tweaking. And for a single person to have a 7,985 square foot building, in addition to the ADU, which comes in addition to that, which he doesn't, he or she does not have to rent, can't stay empty, but, because there are no walls which require it to be rented. I think that person wouldn't even notice, that there are some tweaks and tucks on the building. Nobody would notice that.

[Speaker 23.0]: Noted.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: All of my questions have been answered except for one. And I think maybe, mister Teeve, this maybe you can help me understand this, is why the rear yard setbacks don't have to be met.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: I mean, this project does fully comply with the required rear yard, which is a 30% requirement. And then as mister Winslow detailed, we allow what we've always kinda called as a pop out, which would allow you to go to the 25% line.

[Michael Hugh (Tesla)]: Right? And I see. Yeah. That makes sense.

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

[Michael Hugh (Tesla)]: Thank you. Sure.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Are there any other commissioner comments? I do not see any. Commissioner

[Paul Wermer (Member of the public)]: Brown?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Given the lack of our ability to mandate any changes to the project, I'm going to move to not take discretionary review and to approve. But I do hope the project sponsor, the client, will take our comments and the neighbors' comments to heart and explore some adjustments to the project. Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's something

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I I have another question, if I may. I would like to ask the architect, is there anything, and I'm not trying to, throw you into some unanswerable conflict here.

[George Wolf (Neighbor, 2350 Hyde)]: Mhmm.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Is there anything in the conversations that you have witnessed that that inspired you to potentially rethink this building in a in a in a in a in a in a particular way?

[Speaker 23.0]: Can you rephrase that question for me? Sorry.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: We cannot there there are two ways with the DRs. I asked this question to comment and make suggestions, which I think we have done in a subtle way without really limiting architectural creativity, etcetera. Mhmm. Is there anything which struck you that anybody said that could potentially be a spark to, we think, the building?

[Speaker 23.0]: Yeah. I mean, I think as an architect, who takes pride in our ability to work with our context that we're working within and, you know, born and raised in San Francisco, I take pride in ensuring that our neighbors' neighborhoods are, you know, vibrant and architecturally pleasing. I don't want to do a project that is not fitting into the context. So we will continue to look at the design of this project and refine it as we can. We need to work with our clients, of course. But, you know, taking to heart the comments that we've heard here today, and we, you know, did hear all the comments from our neighbors as well. I think everyone would like to have positive relationships with their neighbors in the future. And so we are going to continue to work with our neighbors and communicate with our neighbors. You know, we have a construction project ahead of us if all goes well. And we're gonna wanna work with them as best as we can to ensure that everyone's lives are minimally impacted. So that's in, I think, everyone's best interest, and, you know, we would hope to to be a part of that process to make it as smooth as possible.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Would, architect Winslow my main, conversation partner with you on that?

[Speaker 23.0]: What was that?

[David Winslow (Planning Staff Architect)]: Well, only on a voluntary as needed basis. I always provide my available time to bounce ideas off of people. But once a project is approved, it's approved. And I have no power to insist on something that we don't have the power to do.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Commissioner Brown, you made a motion. You hear me what I'm trying to drive at. I'm not trying to ask for particular modifications. I'm asking for an ongoing reasonable discussion between everybody who's involved.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Absolutely. Yes.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Mister Maguire, please. Commissioner Maguire.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd like to stress to the architect on record that basically, one must always get on one's neighbors. My mother's, one of her famous lines, you'll be gone to the next project, but you will leave that one person, your client right now, in close proximity with his neighbors. So if you could do that, take everything into account that you've heard today, and basically, I would add it to your, how would you put it, your community outreach that basically when you leave you've left this project on the best possible footing, not just, the architectural footing, but with the relationships that will be ongoing for a long, long time between the neighbors. So I suggest you take that into account, terrible moral obligation to put on you, but technically we can't put an obligation upon you and that's why we're stressing the way we're stressing here today. But I do hear all the neighbors and they've got serious concerns, so please try to adhere to them. And they're not necessarily straight lines on a on a architectural page, but, you know, take some inspiration from that curvature of Lambert around the corner there and see if we can, come to a satisfactory conclusion. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thanks, everybody, for weighing in.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? No. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes four to one with Commissioner Imperial voting against. That concludes your hearing today, commissioners.