San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission first hearing of the new calendar year, for Thursday, 01/15/2026. When we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. I'd like to take role at this time. Commission President So.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Present.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commission Vice President Moore. Here. Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Here.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Here.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry. Present. And Commissioner Williams. Here. Thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2020Five-nine847CUA at 760 Bryant Street. Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 01/22/2026. Item two, case number twenty twenty five-ten 671 PCA, expansion of limited commercial uses. Planning code amendments is proposed for continuance to 01/22/2026. Item three, case number 2020Four-five242CUA at 2089 Ingalls Street conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 01/22/2026. As is item eight under commission matters, election of officers proposed for continuance to 01/22/2026. I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Move to continue items one, two, three, and eight as proposed.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Second. Thank

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commission President So.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Aye. So

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: move, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, seven to zero. Placing us under your consent calendar. And I understand for item four, case number 2020Five-two411 CUA at 3034 24th Street Conditional Use Authorization. Commissioner Williams, you're requesting that this be pulled off of consent and heard under the regular calendar? Yes. Okay in that case commissioners we'll take that up at the beginning of the regular calendar. Very good that will place us under commission matters item five the land acknowledgement.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: The commission acknowledges that we are

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatush 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 the Rometush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: 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 Ramatush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you. Item six, consideration of adoption draft minutes for December 11 and 12/18/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Move to adopt the minutes.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Second.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you. Commissioners, on that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commission President So.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero. Item seven, commissioner comments and questions.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Happy New Year to everybody. I hope it will be a good year for all of us. I'd like to acknowledge the receipt of a memo from Matt Snyder informing us about the completion of the EPIC report that stands for Interagency Plan Implementation Committee report. I would suggest that the commission ask for a presentation. It is always a really exciting document to see what has happened over the year. And we are asked to ask, and that is what I'm here doing. So please support that we are getting an EPIC report from Matt. Last year, everybody was really enthusiastic hearing progress on major projects and major initiatives, and I think this would be a second great opportunity for hearing something positive at the beginning of the new year. Do we need to make just acknowledge that we would like to hear it? Okay. Great.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. And commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you. Yes. I have a couple of questions for planning regarding our housing element action 8.1.10, the so called breaker switch or trigger. And I'd like to read it into the record. Eight point one point one zero, January 2026, the interagency housing element implementation committee, see action 4.1.4, will assess if the city has approved the appropriate housing units by income level to meet our HNA goals. If the city is behind the pro rata affordable housing production goals, the interagency housing element implementation committee should trigger, one, increase of additional city funding for affordable housing and pursuit of additional state funding two, increase the land banking strategy to accommodate 50% more affordable housing units than the capacity of the sites acquired from 2022 through 2025. The city will implement these actions in consultation with HCD. So I have a couple of questions. And one is, do we have an update from the interagency housing element implementation committee?

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: Commissioner Williams, so the circuit breaker, just to be clear, is defined on how we reach our housing goals by January 2027, not 2026. So we're about a year out from that circuit breaker target. So, no, we don't have an update. We will as we get closer to that point in time, January 2027.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So okay. Because my understanding is it's it's 2026. I guess we'll have to I'll have to research it a little bit more.

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: We'd be happy to provide the full commission with materials from our former housing

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: This regarding the housing element, the recent our current housing element. Okay. All right. But I think it's worth mentioning that has there been any conversation, even though it's not 2027, around housing, affordable housing funding with the state or additional city funding. Has any of those conversations, been had? And has the interagency housing element implementation committee, have they met recently? Do you have an update on that?

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: I don't. I don't. I'll have to get back to you on that committee. And then, you know, the mayor's office of housing is our primary conduit to the state and to the city regarding funding for affordable housing. So we'll be happy to update you. I'm sure they're constantly in communication.

[Speaker 9.0]: Okay.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Do you know who's on the committee? Just curious because I don't know much about the committee, but it's interesting.

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: Nor do I, commissioner. We'll get back to you on that.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Okay. So that would be helpful to understand who's on the committee and exactly what they're doing in regards to affordable housing funding, given the fact the information coming out of the federal government on cutting affordable housing funding across the country and the lack of affordable housing funding in general, whether it's coming from the state or from the city. So I think it's a conversation I think we should keep front and center. And I'll keep asking. And hopefully, could work on that as a city to make sure that we have an abundance of funding for affordable housing because it's in great need.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Williams. So as we open our first planning commission hearing of 2026, I want to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation to my fellow commissioners, our exceptional planning department staff, our partners across city departments and agency. I also want to acknowledge our Board of Supervisors and thank Mayor Lurie for his leadership and for today's State of the City message. So above all, we are here on behalf of everyday people who lived and work and build their futures in San Francisco. The mayor reminded us that this is a city on the rise. Public safety is the foundation of our recovery and economic confidence is returning. Last year alone, 1,000,000 square feet of offices space was leased to AI companies. Our shared responsibility to approach our work with common sense, to strengthen coordination among departments, to remain committed to open dialogue, and to keep our attention to improving systems so they better serve our city. It is a collaborative work and it's about progress. It's about delivering results for San Francisco. I'd like to open our first hearing of this year with a tone of collaborative and positive spirit. Thank you, commissioners.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: If there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to department matters, item nine, directors announcements.

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: Welcome back, commissioners. Glad to embark on another year with you. And I share President So's spirit of collaboration. Really grateful to have you committing to another year of work with our department and our city. So thank you very much. A couple of things. So this morning was Mary Lourie's State of the City address. Two key points I just wanted to call out from that, and I encourage you, if you haven't already reviewed his remarks, to do so. One, he focused very much on next steps towards affordability writ large per Commissioner Williams' comments, both setting forth targets for affordable housing starts and adjacent complementary works at increasing affordability for our families through the family zoning plan, which we are just now starting to embark upon implementation of, through reductions in costs for child care and for education and a number of other measures. So that's very exciting. Secondarily, and much closer to home here in the planning department, Mary Leary announced the launch of a process to begin unifying the planning department, the Department of Building Inspection, and the Permit Center. That move is intended to support housing, small businesses, and economic development by creating a more coordinated, accountable, and transparent system as you move forward from kind of the vision that we create through our general plan and our processes here at Planning all the way to through when buildings are constructed or businesses are opened in our city. We're excited about that. It's going to be a long process. It's about eighteen months, we think, with many measures along the way for public input, including some votes on the charter coming up. So we're excited about helping to guide that process and really making sure the outcome is something that benefits San Franciscans and our city as well. With that, thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: If there are no questions

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Oh, Commissioner Imperial has a follow-up comment. Thank

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: you. Thank you for the update. I have just a follow-up question on the planning process for the unification of I guess unification or merging of the planning and DBI. And whether in terms of the input process for it, will that be something that will be happening here as well in the planning commission? Or how will that take place?

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: We're building all the ships as we fly them. So I mean, there's no plan. We're we'll take public input at any points that make sense.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. And I'm also thinking about I believe next week we're gonna talk about the budget as well by next week. That is correct. And so that's something for me that I'm also thinking in terms of merging this and in the process of the will to do this. And also, I'm pretty sure there's also charter changes that may need to happen that will go through the voters. But perhaps by next week, I will probably have more better comments to put out. But in terms of the departments that we're having for me, again, I always reiterate the equity, the community equity, and how it's all going to the future of it within the planning. So I also want to put that into heart as well when we are talking about these merging of departments. But yeah, but that's something for me that I would like to perhaps we can have more conversation when it comes to budget as well for next year.

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: Commissioner Imperial, maybe two responses to that just while you raised it. One, I think part of the rationale for exploring this change is simply to make a simple, clear, and unified system that actually works better for our partners who are out there as homeowners or small businesses who can't afford lobbyists, who can't afford land use attorneys so that we have a clear and simple system. So I think equity is at the heart of the rationale for this move in the first place, which we're excited about. Secondarily, yes, we welcome more questions next week as part of budget. You will see our budget memo in your packets as of tomorrow. It does not reflect this change. And I will not have better answers for your questions as of next week. So I welcome the questions, and we'll work on answering them together. But just know that this was an announcement today, and so we'll be working on responses to those questions over the medium term. And I won't have better answers in a week.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. No, I totally understand that part. And yeah, I guess I'm just going to as we go by it, we're going to tackle it as it goes by. Thank you so much. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners. Item 10, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. There is no report from the Board of Appeals, but the historic preservation commission did meet last week.

[Audra Morlone, Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Audra Morlone, acting manager of legislative affairs. The Land Use and Transportation Committee did meet this week, but they did not consider any planning related items. On the other hand, the full board had several planning related items. The most significant of them was the appeal of the planning department's issuance of an emergency CEQA statutory exemption for the disassembly and removal of the Embarcadero Fountain at Embarcadero Plaza. The appeal, Reckon Park proposed the project to address an immediate public safety risk by removing and storing the fountain off-site while further investigating the structural deterioration and hazardous materials. The appeal was filed by Dokumomo USA who repres whose representative argued that the project did not qualify for an emergency exemption and required a full environmental impact report. The department responded that the exemption was warranted due to a safety emergency identified in an engineering report. The report cited severe structural deficiencies, failure of a 10 ton arm, hazardous materials, and repeated security breaches. The department also asserted that there was no pre commitment or piece mailing related to the Embarcadero Plaza renovation. Supervisor Chan asked about project funding to better understand how the removal and storage would be paid for. Supervisor Fielder raised concerns about Rec and Park's funding priorities, given that there are Rec and Park facilities in her district that she feels are also in great need of repair. Supervisor Melgar spoke to remind the board of the matter before them, which was whether or not the CEQA review was adequate or whether further review was required. And then Supervisor Sauter, who presides over the district where the fountain is located, stated that after reviewing the materials, he is convinced that the fountain poses a significant public safety hazard and therefore qualifies for the emergency statutory exemption. Approximately 16 members of the public spoke in support of the appeal and 10 spoke in opposition to the appeal. The board unanimously up I'm sorry, ultimately upheld the emergency statutory exemption. They denied the appeal by a 10 to one vote with supervisor Fielder in the dissent. Also, at the full board this week, the ordinance that makes the zoning map changes to allow the construction of a fire department training facility at 1236 Carroll passed its second read. And the ordinance that makes changes to the definition of family also passed its second read. This concludes my report, but I'm always available for questions. Thanks.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: If there are no questions, the Historic Preservation Commission met last excuse me, Wednesday, and renominated commissioners Matsuda and Foley as president and vice president, respectively. And among other action items, they adopted recommendations for approval for a number of legacy business registry applications, Digital Revolution on 9th Street, Rocapoco on Mission Street, Tsingtao Restaurant on Clement Street, Family Billiards on Gary Boulevard, The Book Club of America on Kearny Street, Bullo Shoes on Hayes Street, and the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus on Valencia Street. Commissioners, I don't place this under general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission. On items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Jerry Drantler (member of the public)]: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Drantler. Align Real Estate is the developer of the proposed Marina Safeway and developed 2177 3rd Street. The condo units at on 3rd Street should not have been sold. The building permit issued over eight years ago expired and was null and void. The expired permit should not have been finaled by DBI on 11/14/2025. This is a copy of the permit. You can see inspector Tanada finaled it. It shouldn't have been finaled. Additional building permits issued to 3rd Street expired and are null and void, and a temporary occupancy certificate should not have been issued. The first TCO was issued in July 2020. It's been out there for five years. Under the building code, TCOs should not exceed twelve months. I'm gonna skip the next point. This is the most serious thing. DBI altered the 3rd Street building permit records in the PTS system, and altering public records is illegal. This is the $200,000 expired demolition permit that was also finaled on 11/14/2025. Note, there are no DBI inspections. This is an admin permit that was issued in July 2025, finaled on the same day by the same inspector to final three expired permits. Note that one of them is $500,000 crane permit. This is an illustration showing two snapshots of the $43,000,000 permit. One on May 8 and the other on 09/02/2025. This is the special inspection block at the bottom of the permit. And I've highlighted the things that were changed. So basically, all the special inspections were approved over five years ago, but DBI inserted a new one. And you can see how the two inspections don't align. The same thing is I'm sorry. Is it

[Speaker 12.0]: so

[Jerry Drantler (member of the public)]: the question really is, is this going on? And are you folks going to do something about it? Because I made this presentation at the July BIC meeting, and DBI's response was to improperly approve three permits. Now, there's another aligned project across the street from DBI on Otis Street that's four times larger. And if the commission president will give me three minutes, I can go through that project as well. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Any other additional general public comment? Last call for general public comment.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I so respectfully appreciate all your effort. But I am so sorry that I would like to stay with the rules of the meeting that everyone has three minutes. I'm so sorry, but really appreciate you, though. I would assume you will come back again. Thank you.

[Georgia Schuttish (member of the public)]: Happy New Year to you all. I'm Georgia Shooters. Hope everyone has a good year. I'm just going say something really quickly. Otherwise, I'd give Jerry my extra time. But I don't if you come in through the basement. I just saw it really quickly on my way up here, I didn't really get to look at it closely. These wonderful, wonderful, wonderful historic photographs of San Francisco. I don't know what there's no sign saying the theme is and who did what the story is. But I really recommend everyone go down there and spend time and look at them and sort of revel in the past glory of San Francisco and think about it in terms of the rezoning maybe, too. I just thought that was interesting timing that the rezoning is going to affect. And there's all these wonderful historic photos down there. So I recommend it to everybody. Thanks.

[Tom Radulovich (Livable City)]: Afternoon. Someone lost their sunglasses. I'm Tom Modulovich with Livable City. Happy New Year to you all. What I wanted to talk about was Permit SF and kind of just generally what the philosophy behind it and what I would like you to do with regards Permit SF. There's a few things going on with Permit SF. A lot of it is getting rid of and debugging, you know, like a whole bunch of rules that get in the way of private individuals doing things that they want to do for themselves, which turn out to be good for the rest of us. And getting rid of all that stuff is great. And I have advocated for and brought this department hundreds of pages of legislation that I believe does that thing. And there's a lot more of that left to do. It's a worthwhile approach, we like you to be diligent about that. A lot of stuff people want to do is kind of neutral. We don't know if it's good for the public or not. Maybe it's like, yeah, well, you get to do it. We don't know. Like, we don't need the planning department going through everyone's panty drawer all the time. The one that does concern me is when people are being given permission to do something which actually diminishes or degrades the public realm. This is the commons, the part of the city that we all share. And I've seen a few pieces of legislation go by that do that. And I think those are destructive and I'm asking you to be more discerning about those pieces when they come forward to you. A lot of the focus, and I can think about the pull down grates and shutters, is, well, we have a lot of enforcement actions. And just getting rid of the rule entirely gets rid of all these enforcement actions. You could get rid of 100% of enforcement actions by getting rid of 100% of the rules. But that would create other problems. And I would say enforcement action shouldn't necessarily be the only criterion, nor necessarily should be the cost to the perimeter thing. Yes, some of the things we ask people to do for the public realm to enhance us all are expensive. But a lot of the people that come before you have the means to do this, right? The people who pull permits are often wealthy and powerful people. And those standards, these public realm standards, those are the guardrails, right? They protect the civic life for all of us. And I think we are all better off when those are strong and when those are robust. And those guardrails should especially apply to the wealthy and powerful. Because we hoipoloy, we need the public realm, right? We need streets that work. We need street safety when we walk down it. Rich people, they have other options, right? So I would say, as you kind of analyze things coming forward there's a really terrible tree ordinance coming your way think about how do we protect the public realm? Like, what's the baseline? What are the guardrails that we absolutely need so that we all thrive, so that somebody doesn't gain at the expense of all of us? Because we need you to do that, right? Like, that's why we have planning. That's why we have rules. You're here to protect the interest, the broad public interest. I'd urge you to look at evidence based design. It's an emerging discipline. Lots of great information. Can't explain what it is because I've run out of time. But have folks bring that to you. It'll help you discern what's good and what isn't. Thank you.

[Timothy (Tim) Omi]: Hello commissioners. My name is Timothy Omi. I'm president of the San Francisco Council of District Merchants. I just wanted to I'm here to speak on something else, but I was contacted last night by the mayor's office about joining all three departments. And being a small business owner and having gone through conditional use authorization process, I think that it is such a good move to help our merchant corridors and our small business owners. Because having to get an expediter and go through the three departments is a very arduous, time consuming, and expensive process. And so I'm really excited that we're streamlining this process for the small entrepreneurs to come up. And it's not just all rich people, small business owners just trying to get our foot in the door, and then we've got to go through the three departments. Thank you to the mayor. Thank you to Sarah, and I look forward to helping along that process.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay. Last call for general public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners. Item four was pulled off consent and will be considered now for case number 2020Five-two411CUA at 3034 24th Street conditional use authorization. And I'll take this opportunity to remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices.

[Charles (Planning Department staff)]: Hello, President So and Commissioners. Charles, Department staff. Item number four before you is a conditional use authorization for lapsed permit approvals under motion number 17,928 to establish a restaurant use that would serve no alcohol, no beer and wine, and be located at the Ground Floor of a three story mixed use building. The project proposes no exterior alterations. The subject tenant space has been vacant since approximately 2009, And the subject eating and drinking establishment would be within the concentration limits for eating and drinking uses. There is a history of DBI complaints associated with the property. I'd like to note that the current owners took ownership of the property in 2023. A lot of these complaints and violations predated that time. And as of last week, overwhelming majority of those complaints, which cover a wide range of things from unpermitted work, having a vacant storefront, tiling the rear roof deck, illegal washing machine connection, new roof work, electrical work, work at the ground floor generally. Those complaints have been overwhelmingly abated. And, as you guys are aware, these are life and safety issues and any approval that you guys, might consider today, they would be subject to abate those during the building permit review to establish a restaurant. I believe the owner is here. And if you guys have any questions, I'll defer to Daniel.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Daniel Shebaz (project sponsor representative, 3034 24th Street)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Daniel Shebaz. I'm actually the son of the owner, but I'm overseeing the project. And I've understood that there's some questions in regards to that's why it was taken off of consent. And I'm here to address any of those questions. I do have some paperwork that I prepared. I didn't go modern. I have old school. I apologize. But I only have enough copies for six people, I apologize. So in front of you is the first page is a list of all the complaints that were filed against this building predated as well as after when we purchased the building. And we've closed over about approximately about 15 to 20 complaints during this time. There was a lot of violations in terms of just penalties that needed to be paid for abatement for vacant buildings and stuff like that, as well as just other old violations that we were able to take care of. The highlighted ones are the ones that are currently active, which we are currently working on. And I've prepared the packet in the form just to go over these really quickly for you, just so you understand that we are working towards eliminating these last ones. So the next page is is gonna be complaint number that ends in 757. So that is a housing complaint. This was if you see on the back page, you can see that it was it was the work has been completed, but it falls underneath a building section as well. So we're just waiting to finalize the permit. We're working towards finalizing, pulling a permit to finalize to eliminate this, but the work has been completed up to code by the housing department. You can see it on the second page. The following sheet, it's complaint number 20103085. This is a violation that was and then this was a violation from 2010. The previous owner had done some work in the Ground Floor commercial space, which was out of the scope of this project. This this violation and the one preceding it is 20105213. This is also in relation to that ground floor. We plan to address this with this planning. Once, hopefully, we get this planning approval, we plan on addressing it because it's a ground floor commercial space, which we want to eliminate at the same time. As you can see the following page this is our current application to address the remaining three items. It addresses violations that end in 561 and then 45876451 this is a current application we have with the building department we've received comments which is the preceding page and it should I mean, this is just to show you guys that we are currently actively working to eliminate all of these violations. They were a ton of violations, unfortunately. It's cost us about 20,000 to $25,000 just to remove them. And I just want to be able to show that we're putting our good faith effort to go up there and eliminate all of this. And I can answer any questions if you have any.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: That concludes your presentation. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward.

[Erick Arguello (Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Happy New Year. My name is Eric Arguello. I'm with Cuyahonte Puatro Latino Culture District. I'm its council president. One thing I think is very important to emphasize, the planning department did not emphasize that it's a CU in a special use district, it requires four conditions to be made out of six. I just want to say that we're here in support of the business opening up. We have met with the owner and went through the four conditions that he picked. Now, the reason this is very important for us, for this process to happen, is that it really helps the business integrate into the Cavetu Huatro Tito Cultural District to learn its history, our goals. It also helps to integrate that business so that we can provide supporting guidance to help the business to be sustainable long term. Something that wasn't really highlighted, think, very important for us to discuss this and have a hearing when there is a CU in Cahuatro Special Use District. But we are in support of the business coming in. I know they've done a lot of work to the space. It has a long history of someone dying there. There was a fire, so there was a lot of difficult things that they had to clean up. So we're just here in support, but just wanna emphasize that all CUs with the special use district should be heard in in this commission. So we appreciate it. Thank you.

[Jorge Arguello (Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Happy New Years. My name is Jorge Arguello, business liaison for Cayllenti Cuatro Latino Cultural District. I'm here in support of the conditional use approval for the full service restaurant. Preserving conditional use with a cultural district is essential to maintain both economic vitality and cultural identity. In small community oriented business are key to sustain the Latino character at the corridor while supporting local jobs and neighborhood sustainability. We support Daniel and his family who share an immigrant background common in our district and had demonstrated community committed to begin community oriented business. Their restaurant will contribute positively to the local economy and ally with the values of Cultural District. Thank you.

[Susana Rojas (Executive Director, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Susana Rojas, I am the executive director of Calle Venti Cuatro Latino Cultural District. And I am here in support of the application for Samir and his new business. We are happy to welcome them into the corridor, one of the most economic stable corridors that are out there right now. And we have met with them, and they have agreed to meet four of the special conditions. We are confident that this restaurant will add to the diversity and will help solidify the already strong economy in our corridor while continuing to respect and elevate the Latino culture. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: K. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: I'm delighted to see the community support. I understand why it was pulled off consent. And, I am in support of the project. If it requires a motion, that is what I would ask that we approve this project.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Second. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I just want to uplift Calle Venti Cuatro, the cultural district, especially during this time when our Latin community is basically under attack all over this country. Calle Veti Cuatro just didn't happen. Calle Veti Cuatro and other cultural districts are there because the people advocated for them. And the people of those communities fought for a place here in San Francisco. And so in that spirit, I do want to thank the project sponsor for meeting with Calle Venti Cuatro and honoring, as we all should, our diversity of this city, our different cultural districts. And so I just wanted to uplift that. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners, if there nothing further there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President So?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero and will place us on item 11 for case number 2025Hyphen010672 PCA alcohol sales in movie theaters planning code amendments.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department staff)]: Good afternoon commissioners Veronica Flores planning department staff this next item is the alcohol and movie theaters ordinance introduced by supervisor Cheryl and we have mister Rossas from his office to speak on the item today

[Lorenzo Rosas (Legislative Aide, on behalf of Supervisor Catherine Stefani)]: thank you veronica good afternoon director Dennis Phillips and commissioners as stated I'm Lorenzo Rosas I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of supervisor show regarding this ordinance specifically this ordinance encompasses three code changes first it amends the movie theaters the definition of movie theaters in planning code section 102 to allow theaters to provide on-site beer wine and or liquor sales only as a minor and incidental use Second, it amends the planning code's definition of bona fide eating places adding a subsection that specifically specifically exempts movie theaters from the gross receipts threshold applied to other eating places. Lastly, this ordinance amends the Upper Fillmore neighborhood commercial district to add a provision that specifically exempts the Clay Theater from needing a conditional use authorization. The Clay Theater would need a conditional use authorization for the following reason, the increasing size frontage use size limits during the restoration side, and the general entertainment use where they would have to get an entertainment permit. As we all know, movie theaters are an essential piece of our cultural fabric. They are community cornerstones, gathering spaces, and cultural touch points for the arts. Yet over the past decades, movie theaters have been threatened by shifting streaming habits, the pandemic, and more. And the theaters who have been hit hardest by these tough economic conditions are the small single screen historic theaters, many of which are small businesses and have been forced to close in recent years. In District 2, we have a landmark theater, the Clay Theater, that I personally am excited to say will be thoughtfully restored and will reopen as a theater next year. You will hear about those plans from their project sponsors who are here in attendance. However, when meeting with the project sponsors at the Clay Theater, they let us know that our planning code treats movie theaters who would like to serve beer and wine and who would like to be open to minors the same as restaurants, and our city levels the same punishments for noncompliance. Here's how it breaks down. State liquor laws mandate that if movie theaters who, a, want to serve beer and wine and, b, be open to minors, operate a restaurant as well. Then in order to be defined as a restaurant, our planning code implements the same revenue tests on these movie theaters that we place on all restaurants, meaning that these theaters have to make a minimum of 51% of their gross receipts from food sales prepared and sold to guests. In practice, we are therefore mandating that the newly renovated Clay Theater or any theater serving beer and wine make at least 51% of their revenue from food that they prepare on-site. And I know that the AMC popcorn is $16 nowadays, but that's that's not 51% of their revenue. Supervisor Cheryl recognizes that this is a time where we need to make it easier to invest in and operate these community spaces, a time where we need to be encouraging residents to go to their neighborhood theater, to walk their local merchant corridor, and to support the arts in our city. This legislation will make it clear that movie theaters are not the same as restaurants and that our planning code won't treat them the same. It will make sure that we are doing what we can in city hall to be a partner and supporter of our movie theaters and of the arts. And while I'm particularly thrilled to stop by for a movie at the reopened Clay Theater, it's important that we fix this illogical requirement for all our theaters citywide to benefit. By enacting this ordinance, we will make it easier for for all theaters, but particularly our small businesses, to continue to operate as our cherished cultural cornerstones. And as it pertains to the planning department's recommendations, supervisor Cheryl is amenable to all three of the recommendations. Originally, we drafted the ordinance to include fixed seatings so that the city had an ability to better differentiate between actual movie theaters and restaurants who wanted to set up a projector and a couple seats. However, this concern is addressed by the definition that necessitates one or more auditoriums. And furthermore, we're also open to the third recommendation that will allow for flexible programming at movie theaters and for movie theaters to be exempt from non residential use size limits. We will continue to further conversations with neighborhood theater stakeholders and other community stakeholders to ensure that this recommendation is done thoughtfully should the amendment be made in the board committee process and should this commit committee commission decide to adopt that recommendation. Lastly, I want to include one additional policy matter for the commission here. Supervisor Cheryl is considering adding an amendment to the section pertaining specifically to the Upper Fillmore Street NCD. Specifically, supervisor Cheryl is engaging in conversations with the Clay Theaters project sponsor and the nearby community to expand their beer and wine sales to all patrons, not just ticketed customers. In code, this practice would be a simple amendment on page seven, line 14, changing the language from on-site consumption by ticketed customers to consumption regardless of ticketing. As the project sponsors will detail in their public comment, they see this change as vital to the sustainability and survivability of the Clay Theater as a community art space. And we're grateful for their ambitious vision to restore the Clay Theater as a gathering space for all, a community cornerstone where you can run into your neighbors while catching an independent film. And they want to ensure that all neighbors can gather in this renewed Clay Theater. Even if one friend in the friend group doesn't want to see the movie that everybody is there to see, they can join the others at the Clay Theater to come join for a drink before they move on with their day and perhaps go to Palmer's for dinner. So as you will hear partially in public comment, the Clay Theater sponsors have been able to gain a lot of community buy in and nearby merchant support for this specific amendment, including but not limited to the Fillmore Merchants Association and the Pacific height Heights Residence Association. Supervisor Cheryl wants to express his gratitude to the sponsors, for inviting everyone to stop by and tour the theater and allowing all stakeholders to hear directly from them about the future of the Clay Theater. We're excited to have the Clay Theater back as a neighborhood focal point, and we're excited for this ordinance to help alleviate onerous, illogical requirements for movie theaters in our city. Thank you again, commissioners. I'm here to answer any questions.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department staff)]: Thank you mister rosace again the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to permit on-site wine and beer liquor sales and movie theaters that also operate as a bona fide eating The proposed ordinance would permit certain movie theaters within the Upper Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial District or NCD to sell wine and beer and additionally offer entertainment, cultural, artistic, dramatic performances, or other exhibitions, as well as being exempt from the non residential use size limits otherwise applicable within the district. The department supports the overall goals of this proposed ordinance. It promotes the continued operation and financial stability of movie theaters, which we know we all want to make sure that they are around, that we support them. This is done by expanding their potential revenue and operations. The department does have three recommended modifications in front of you today. We understand the supervisor is amenable to all of them, but just wanted to go over them briefly again. The first recommended modification is within the definition of movie theater, and that is to remove the specific note of fixed seating requirements. Just of note, during the review for the Castro Theater, the department determined that fix seating was not necessary to qualify as a movie theater. So, this recommended modification is really to be consistent with that. The second recommended modification is to remove some of the more specific restrictions within the Upper Fillmore NCD, including the minimum 150 fixed seating requirement and the specific note of the type 41 ABC license restriction. We really want to take the approach of having more global changes, and so we want to remove some of these, what we feel is, unnecessarily restrictive requirements within Upper Fillmore NCD. And in that same vein, the last recommended modification wants to take some of those proposed amendments that are currently only listed for the Upper Fillmore NCD, but actually place them within the movie theater definition, thereby applying them globally to movie theaters throughout the city. Of note, this would allow all movie theaters to equally be able to offer additional programming within the movie theaters, not just the movie theaters within Upper Fillmore. And this, again, just adds more of that added flexibility that we want to provide to these businesses. Further, to support the viability of movie theaters, this recommendation also includes exempting movie theaters from the non residential use size limits. This, again, further supports greater flexibility in how they use their space, or if there's additional square footage adjacent, then they would be able to at least consider the process for that. Again, the goal of this is to make these proposed amendments globally rather than just to a specific neighborhood commercial district. However, any existing alcohol restricted use districts or SUDs would still prevail. So those protections are still in place. Again, the recommendation is that you adopt a recommendation of approval with these modifications, and I am available for any questions thank you

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: thank you we should open up public comment members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter

[Cody Allen (Executive Director, Upper Fillmore Revitalization Project)]: you, President So, director, members of the commission. My name is Cody Allen. I am the executive director of the Upper Fillmore Revitalization Project, which is the project sponsor of the Clay Theater. Let's see if we can get this closer. Thank you for considering this. The Clay is really the cornerstone of our neighborhood. We're deeply invested in this neighborhood, not only through the UFRP, but also all members of the team of the UFRP live in and around this area and are raising our families there. The Clay is historically the cultural cornerstone of this neighborhood. Since it closed in 2020, there has been a void felt on the commercial corridor and in the community. I'm very pleased with the supervisor's efforts to help to make this a more viable project, both for us and for the eventual tenant operator there who could not be here today. This space will remain an independent theater. It will show 500 plus film screenings a year, as well as hopefully other types of entertainment programming, such as author readings, community events, stand up comedy, the occasional acoustic performance, and whatever else we can fit in this very exciting box. So this is a major rehabilitation and reactivation project for the Upper Fillmore NCD area, and I appreciate your attention to this. In terms of what the supervisor's office representative just mentioned about extending this legislation potentially to non ticketed patrons and ticketed patrons, We appreciate their efforts in putting that forward. The Clay is a very unique neighborhood theater with quite a large lobby space that's open with full glass landmarked glass glazing out to the street. We intend to have this lobby space open to general public, not only ticketed patrons many more hours of the day than a regular theater would. So that could be 4PM to 10PM on the weekdays, 10AM to 10PM on the weekends. And we want the space to be a vibrant community space where someone can come and enjoy the Clay Theater when they don't have two and a half hours to spend watching a film. So allowing us to serve an equal type of menu of food and drink to both ticketed and non ticketed patrons help the viability and financial sustainability of the theater significantly. We have done a tremendous amount of neighborhood outreach around this. I hope you'll hear from some of these organizations now. We've garnered support from many neighborhood tenants, including Palmer's, The Snug, La Mediterranee, Little Shuckers down the street, the Pacific Heights Residence Association, the Fillmore Merchants Association. And we keep an open dialogue with all of these tenants, residents, and neighborhood organizations, both on this project and others that we're undertaking in Upper Fillmore. Thank you for your time.

[Timothy (Tim) Omi]: Again, my name is Tim Omi, but this time I'm the president of the Fillmore Merchant Association. And I just wanted to just say we are in support of the proposed amendments. And I think that would really like to highlight just the amazing community outreach that they are committing to the Fillmore neighborhood and Upper Fillmore neighborhood. The project is going to be the heartbeat of the neighborhood, bring in different shows or movies, and have the ability to have a glass of wine and beer at the same time just adds to the dynamic nature of our commercial corridor. To the larger proposed amendment that Supervisor Schell is putting forth, as the president of the SF CDMA, I think it's very beneficial to not have these restrictions on movie theaters. Because what we need to do is inspire people to come to the commercial corridors. And once they come there and they watch a movie, maybe have a cocktail, they're going to go buy a scarf. Or they're going to go out to dinner. I think that we need to have a very fluid environment on our commercial corridors and potentially changing this could add to that and help small businesses grow. So I look forward to hearing how you guys vote on this and I just want to say it's only added value to allow this amendment.

[Griffin Lee (Connected Access)]: Good afternoon commissioners. Griffin Lee representing Connected Access staff. First off, I wish I came dressed like Tim. I'm a millennial though. I'm very supportive of this project and the revitalization and growth of Upper Fillmore. There was a lot of concern and fear mongering over a lot of a lot of this project and a lot

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: of the corridor over the

[Griffin Lee (Connected Access)]: last year or two, but I will highlight and tout the community outreach from Cody and staff for really bringing in the community and showcasing what the Clay Theater could be all about. It's been an eyesore and vacant for way too long. And what's really beautiful about this as well is that, yes, it will increase foot traffic. It will also welcome families. The flexibility of of the space even makes it more community feel and oriented. And they're also making a conscientious effort to preserve pieces and and parts of the old Clay Theater. So please approve this legislation, and thanks to supervisor Cheryl and staff as well. Let's go upperfield more.

[Paul Wormer (President, Pacific Heights Residents Association)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Paul Wormer. In this case, I'm speaking as the president of the Pacific Ice Residence Association. Very much appreciate the outreach from Cody Allen with respect to this project. We absolutely support moving this forward. We have some minor language concerns that I think are not substantive but add some clarity. We have full confidence in CODI and the projects that they are proposing. But codes, of course, as I've learned with formula retail, affect what comes after. And so we're being a little bit persnickety about some of the specific conditions, but we're working with Cody and the supervisor's office on it and have full confidence we will come to a very agreeable solution. I've had good discussions with Cody, and I'm confident it's moving forward. So yeah, full endorsement of this project.

[Lawrence (project sponsor, 331 Shields Street)]: Thank you.

[Carol Brownson (resident)]: So good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Carol Brownson. And I've lived in the vicinity of The Clay in Upper Fillmore for about thirty years. And The Clay has been quite a good part of my life. I remember some wonderful Shakespeare series and The Popcorn Machine. It was so good. But I've moved on beyond popcorn. And I'm looking for community spaces because I keep reading that you old people had better not stay alone in the house. It's really bad for you. Get out and socialize. Where? Think about what the Upper Fillmore looks like. Now, what they're talking about, about the clay, sounds really excellent to me. And I'll just summarize by saying, think about going in and having a discussion about an Irish themed film with a glass of Guinness. Thank you. Oh, yeah, I'm approving the project.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: I have a quick question, either for Ms. Flores or zoning administrator Teague. The question is that the supervisor wants a specific added condition for the Fillmore, which in principle I'm excited about thinking. However, this legislation is proposed to be more generic and addressing similar situations in other neighborhoods. Could you explain of how that can possibly be done?

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department staff)]: Thank you, Commissioner Moore. And just to clarify, were you specifically thinking about the proposed amendment that was just Correct. So with respect to the non ticketed patrons? Yes. Yes. To that, I will say, again, we generally prefer to take the more global approach. So this would be a step away from that. But we do understand that this is the desire of the supervisor for this specific district. And as we've heard during some of the public comments and in the letters that you've received, there is support for this here, again, specifically for the Upper Fillmore NCD. So it's not typically how we do this, but we understand that that is the desire at this time.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: I'd just like to let the rest of the commission know, over the years, the Upper Fillmore has extremely well curated its own district and has been extremely attentive to the subtle details that come up in a situation like this. I'm not saying that there has been a similar incident like this before, But when it came to other projects that were really addressing the rest of the corridor and the rest of the community, this particular neighborhood has always been extremely responsible in asking for things, but also implementing and following through of how you ultimately take such a concession and make it work, rather than let it go out of control. So I'm interested to see an ability for the Upper Fillmore to get this particular added recommendation, but I do not know how it can be done relative to a legislative piece which is more generic. I do not know how to do that. So I'm expressing support, but I'm not sure as to whether or the department can even add a particular comment relative to this particular theater location.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department staff)]: Thank you again. So I forget the page number, but page seven. Thank you. The current draft, as introduced, had that initial proposed footnote specifically for movie theaters. And again, that is the mechanism. If you were looking to apply a specific requirement, additional restriction to a specific NCD, that is the purpose of a named NCD. So that is, if I'm understanding the question correctly of how we would do this, that is how we would approach it in the code. Through the footnote specifically for upper film or NCD. All of the other global changes that would live in or be executed through section 102 for the definition of movie theaters. And then that applies to all movie theaters. So does that clarify for you, Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Yes, it does. And I'm in support of your modifications. And if this is possible, that is the way I would support this project. But I'm curious what other other commissions have to say. And, again, my my my full support is there.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I really like the basic ideas and intent behind this legislation. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have a really narrow definition of what a neighborhood theater or movie theater needs to be today. It's such a great assembly space. And so having a variety of programming that's possible and makes use of the space just as well makes a lot of sense to me. Providing the liquor license options for serving drinks at the theaters, that makes a lot of sense to me. We already have examples in the city of where this has worked really well, except they had to I'm now learning from this have to have the on-site restaurant use under the planning code. So kind of streamlining that process I can get on board with. I think I have a few questions just to make sure I have some comfort with addressing any unintended consequences. I'm coming into this thinking about, well, why did we have a movie theater definition in the first place? What are the issues where, if somebody thinks they're getting a movie theater in a neighborhood and it turns out to be something different, how do we make sure that we are addressing those kinds of possibilities? I don't think we need to always try to foresee the worst outcomes and things. But at the same time, I just want to make sure I'm comfortable with these changes. And so I guess my one question to start is actually about this even up to this legislation, because the ABC license requirements are statewide. So this would still need to be classified as a bona fide eating place under state regulations. Is that correct? Okay. And so then so I'm just trying to understand. In reality, what is sort of the distinction between our definition of sales from food service versus the state definition of that? I mean, how does this assist beyond just not needing a local approval as a restaurant use?

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department staff)]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. Good question. We had to do a little digging on this specific topic as well. And I will say that at the local level, so under our planning code, we have additional a really high threshold for the restaurants and bona fide eating places. And we need to have, as explained earlier, the 51% of the gross receipts need to be food and non alcohol sales. That is through our local controls, our planning code. The state and so ABC they have their bona fide eating requirements. In researching, it is a more general and kind of vague description of what it is to qualify. But they do specifically say a sandwich does not count, or only sandwiches does not count for a bona fide eating place. So we have a very specific metric, whereas the state, they're looking more holistically. And to be fair, we at Planning Department do not know what those specific requirements are or what threshold they would be looking at it as. However, the proposed sponsor would be able to qualify as a bona fide eating place under the state's threshold in however they determine what it would be. Again, the 51%, the higher bar, that is our local definition, local requirement.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: JOSHUA Thank you for helping clarify that. It's really in the weeds. So, again, I think just generally streamlining and making it easier to comply with the state rules while not dealing with ours is helpful. I had some questions or concerns about making sure that our changes to the definitions don't inadvertently result in movie theaters becoming potentially live concert venues that people don't expect to know. Again, trying to think about sort of the extreme versions of this. I think I would just say there two issues I'd like to get a little more clarity and comfort on. So one is just verifying how the definition is ensuring that there's little likelihood that a movie theater is going to wind up being a big nightlife destination that people don't expect to have in their neighborhood or right next to them? And then my other question is, if we do remove the use size limit, what safeguards will ensure that large sort of fake movie theatersconcert venues don't end up opening up or anything like that?

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department staff)]: Thank you, Commissioner Al. I'll start with some general responses, and then may I tap in the zoning administrator as needed. But to your first question regarding just movie theaters, how to ensure that these are still primarily used for film screening for movies, and it's not just being used for all these other additional programming. That question did come up, and we just conferred here as well. So the definition adds or rephrases that the use must be primarily designed and used for the presentation of films or motion pictures. So to your question, we could explicitly note the minimum percentage of programming dedicated to film to have a really clear marker of what that would be. For the Castro theater, just for example, I believe that when we had is it in the conditions? In the conditions specifically, we require the Castro theater have 51% of all programming be dedicated to films. And so that could be up for consideration if you wanted to include that as a potential recommendation. And I don't want to speak on behalf of the supervisor, but I believe they would be amenable. But we can continue discussions for that. So that could be one approach in the concern or the question here of how to ensure that these still operate as movie theaters for film, motion pictures. And then for the second question with respect to the use size limits, This one, again, the recommended modification is to try to provide more support, more flexibility for all movie theaters. For the larger theaters, or if there's existing theaters with large footprints that are looking to expand or merge, in some cases, they were previously authorized through a conditional use, we would have to revisit said conditions for that entitlement to see what could or could not be allowed in terms of expanding the use size. So from a general standpoint, there is still that case by case review, even if this were to apply globally. And I will just turn to see if Zoning Administrator Teague has anything further to add. But that is just something that we need to keep in mind as well.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. And actually, I would say I was wondering, Mr. Teague, about whether this would make your life harder or easier, depending on the definition.

[Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator]: Good afternoon, President So and commissioners. Corey GREGORY Teague, zoning administrator. Thank you for the questions. So just to elaborate a little bit on what you already heard. Again, I think the definition is clear as it's proposed that it's called a movie theater use. It must be primarily for, essentially, a movie theater use. So I don't think there's but there are no kind of specific numerical metrics within the definition or the code to how to balance those other kinds of activities. So I think an example where it went to some extreme, where they're showing films one night a week and the other six nights a week, that would clearly not be meeting the definition. But there would have to be a case by case determination, unless there was something codified to provide a clearer metric for that. So I just wanted to be clear on that. I think that if there was something close, there would have to be under the current language, it would have to be a case by case interpretation. If it's something that's way past being close, it would be an easier interpretation to make. I'm not sure if you asked another question while we were handing off on No, no.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Was basically it. I just wanted because I had the same thought. I didn't see objective metrics for what this new expanded definition of a movie theater is while still being a movie theater. And I was thinking about the interpretation challenges of this definition. So yeah, I appreciate Okay. So that's helpful. I mean, I definitely would support legislation. And I support the staff recommendations. I do support the recommendations that apply some of these changes more broadly to assist other theaters in the city. Except I would also just I don't think it has to go into a motion necessarily, but I would just advise that the supervisor's office work a little bit on making sure that there's some objective metrics for what is still a movie theater in this new expanded definition of a movie theater. I don't want to get into what percentage that is for film programming or how that works exactly, but we just want to make sure this is implementable. And then lastly, on the newly raised idea about allowing on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages regardless of whether a customer is ticketed or not. I support that In contrast to the fact that I usually prefer to have these changes apply citywide, I actually take Commissioner Moore's statements to heart. And I think that maybe this one, we could apply I would be comfortable just applying the Fillmore NCD right now, seeing how it goes. And maybe in the future, it would be appropriate to expand it citywide. But since this is, in a way, introducing a little bit more of a bar use into a theater, I don't want to just say, let's do that citywide because of possible consequences of that. But those are my thoughts. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: SPEAKER Commissioner

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Imperial. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. And Commissioner Braun, you actually questions I was also going to ask about, especially on the non residential use size limit. And it's good to hear as well that this will be seen in a case by case. And this is something experimental. But at the same time, I'm very enthusiastically excited about this ordinance, as well as we're trying to encourage for the movie theater to thrive and for people to pretty much socialize and hang out, a place to hang out at the same time. I think in terms of measuring the metrics for programming, I'd like to I I don't want to create any kind of definition for that unless there is more of a community outreach and, of course, with the supervisor's office. But I'm more supportive in a way that for non residential use size limit and how does the more independent type kind of movie theaters would support that. And also in terms of the programming, again, the way I would see it is more how the independent movie theaters are going to navigate that. And how do you put that in a legislation is something where it can be more global as we try to define things. But I think that it seems like the supervisor's office have done a lot of community outreach and continue to do that, but something just to think about. But overall, I'm in general support of even planning recommendation as well. I guess it's just going to have more conversation in terms of the nuances of how we're going to implement this forward. But yeah, I am excited to see this. And I'd like to make a motion for approval with recommendations.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Second.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And then there's a few more commissioners who'd like to say a few words, including myself. So Clay Theater has been in San Francisco for so many decades and years. And I knew those have been around. I'm fully aware of all the challenges and struggles that you went through. I'm not sure you were the recent owners or the previous owners. But I remember it was quite a challenge to try to figure out how to sustain itself and going through the pandemic and also economic resilience. And also, was really happy to see that everyone come out in full support of what you're about to do. Supervisor Cheryl and Lorenzo have spent a lot of work and time figuring out what works. And I really appreciate that our planning department staff look into what will work for the Clay Theater and also make it more of a transparent understanding of how similar theater of this age and this constraints, how could this legislation be helpful to a citywide approach? And I really appreciate that to make it no more carved out on a particular one case at a time. In a legislation manner, I think it is a really good practice to enable our city to thrive and especially our small local businesses. And I would like to also be able to go in there and see more people of different age group and types have a place of sense of belonging and to get together. And that is really good for personal wellness and mental health. In light of what Lorenzo brought up at the last editions of specifically for this, one to have the ability to serve beverages and food for non ticketed patrons. I think that this is kind of a little bit contrary of making it into a citywide approach, but more like this might have been a good place to test if this is going to work for this particular one. Because like the project sponsor had articulated, the configuration of the theater lends itself the opportunity. And I'm all full support for economic progress for our small local businesses. So for that particular extra addition at the last minute, that one perhaps might not immediately be a citywide approach. Maybe we'll just continue to monitor how this will go and consider it as the future expansion. But overall, I'm in support of the staff recommendations, all three items. And I think that's consistent with Commissioner Imperial's motion like a second. So that's kind of my comment. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I'd just like to say I'm also in full support. The community is together on this one. The community is going to make this work. I have no doubt that it's not gonna work. It's definitely gonna be a total success, and it will be a rollout to the entire city. I can just see that happening. I believe Carl should have if we had done this eight years ago, we'd have a lot more independent movie theaters still in in the city. We lost way too many and that's they're more than legacy build businesses because they they actually touch the hearts of people when they're, you know, six and with the popcorn machine or 60 when they want to, you know, they've grown out of it a little bit and maybe a glass of wine is the way to go or a couple of Guinnesses. Whether you go to that movie or not, it'd be nice to be able to sit down and have as many places as possible to actually meet up and sit down. So I have no doubt that this is gonna be a total success just based on everybody here who has actually spoken in favor, who are the community and basically have built the community. So I would actually go on further and say this should be citywide because it will come up later on as citywide because it's gonna be a massive success.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. I also will echo that sentiment from Commissioner McGarry in appreciating how we are always making these attempts to make these changes more global. So I'm not scared of taking the latest addition of allowing consumption regardless of ticketing to be a more global application. But if not an option, that's fine. But generally, I want this to succeed. I do think movie theaters are a tough business model. So I would also hesitate to apply a percentage. I think if there's some years where there's less screening and more community events, I see no harm in that to the community. We, of course, don't want it to turn into a thumping and bumping till 03:00 in the morning nightclub. But what I appreciate about these kind of amendments is the flexibility. It's allowing small businesses and the arts to thrive and survive in the city. So I'm pro flexibility and not applying metrics to that in general, and then in full support of a more global application of these changes. And I appreciate the supervisor's willingness to continue to work with the community. Those are all my comments.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department staff)]: S. Braun? Me. I just want to clarify if the motion on the floor is considering the additional amendment for the non ticketed patrons. I just want to make sure that we have it correct in the record. Yes. Okay, thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Very good. With the proposed amendment. So, again, Commissioner Campbell. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commissioner President So. Aye. So move. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously seven to zero. And we'll place us on item 12 for case number 2020Five-two 980 CUA at 03:31 Shields Street Conditional Use Authorization.

[Maggie Dong (Planning Department staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Maggie Dong, Planning Department staff. The project that is before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to Planning Code sections 209.1, three zero three, and three seventeen to legalize the demolition and reconstruction of one story single family home located at 331 Shields Street within Supervisor District 11. The building is currently vacant and has history of tenants or evictions from the rent board. This property has previously received building permits for interior remodel work, window replacement, roof membrane replacement, rear wall and roof in kind replacement, and repair of front wall. The subject property exceeded the previously approved scopes of work and has replaced the entire building, which triggers planning code section three seventeen for residential demolition. This project abates planning enforcement case number 2020Five-386ENF for the demolition of the property. A one time penalty of $50,000 has been assessed for the violation. The proposed building will remain as a single family home occupying one story with a reduction in size from fifteen fourteen square feet to fourteen fifty three square feet. The number of bedrooms and bathrooms will remain unchanged, staying at three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The size of the unit will be reduced to comply with the legislative front setback of 10 feet by moving the front wall back. There will be one class one bicycle parking space added and no off street parking space proposed. The project is consistent with the controls of the Arch 1 Zoning District, Ocean View Large Residence Special Use District, and Priority Equity Geographies Special Use District. To date, there has been one phone call received from the department inquiring about the project. There has not been any letters of support or opposition received. The department has found the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan. The department recommends approval with conditions as provided in the staff report. This concludes my staff presentation, and I will be available for questions. The property owner will now follow with a presentation.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Lawrence (project sponsor, 331 Shields Street)]: Good afternoon. Happy New Year commissioners. My name is Lawrence and I'll be going over 331 Shields Street for the CUA application. I'll wait until everyone has a copy of this.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Well, you should just keep going because your time is ticking.

[Lawrence (project sponsor, 331 Shields Street)]: Okay. It'll be a little bit easier if everyone has one. It's okay. Presentations shouldn't be too long. Yeah, how we got the house. So as you can see on page two, the picture to the right, the property has multiple damages with the biggest one being the decay of wood. The property has been vacant for an extended amount of time and had multiple code enforcements violations on the house. The property also had was exposed to environmental elements, has a giant kind of like hole in the middle of the building which allows air and rain into the house. Other external factors are faulty irrigation. There wasn't proper irrigation between this house and the neighboring houses, so water damage caused damage to both houses. On the next pages, you can kind of see how it was exposed to the air. This is how we bought the house with the middle section of the house not even being present. Next couple pages kind of showcases the decay of the house. This is the living room, the entryway. You can see a lot of decay of the wood and how the living room is kind of falling apart overall. What we plan to do with the house, we plan to demo the building and kind of remodel the whole house, making it stylish, fitting of the modern times, and keeping to the original blueprints. Like Maggie said, we're keeping the same blueprints, three bedrooms, two baths. We're not doing anything crazy. We kind of just want to build a new livable home on Shields Street. In conclusion, we plan to demo this building and build a new livable home on Shields Street, bringing in another home to the thriving community in Ingleside. The plan will update the front of the house to a stylish design fitting of the times and keep the original layout of the house as intended of the previous movements. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is done before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: SPEAKER It's interesting to see the history of this house and to read about what's happened here. I sometimes go to Brooks Park on foot and run by this house, and it has stood out for a while. I guess my I don't have any particular concerns about the project itself. It's a pretty modest project. It's actually building a single story, pretty comparable house that's smaller than the existing one. I am curious. I mean, I would just like to ask the product sponsor, why not just go this project in the first place instead of this history of what happened with the violations and kind of exceeding the building permits and all of this. What's sort of the backstory there?

[Lawrence (project sponsor, 331 Shields Street)]: Yeah, great question. I'm a first time home buyer. I didn't really know about any of this like SF planning codes, building inspections, any of that. I kind of just came in, saw a house that I can maybe fix up and then hire a contractor, start doing work. I didn't realize until after the fact of what we did wrong. And then right now, we are trying to fix what we did wrong.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank I did see that there was the fee assessed at the $50,000 And so some of these penalties that we now have in place are being implemented. And so I hope that anyone's paying attention, really. But I hope that folks are realizing that this is actually pretty serious enforcement now. But the proposed project now is being modified to conform with the front setback, and the changes all look kind to me. So I move to approve.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: DUMOULIN: Second.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Yeah. Okay,

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner. I just want to say one more thing, though. Like, I'm kind of to help you hopefully don't get into more trouble is that you should really hire a licensed architect to actually get your set of drawings because the packet that you submitted to us looks more like diagrams. So those are just a little awkward for us to look at. I hope you really do retain a California licensed engineer and architect that know how to do drawings.

[Lawrence (project sponsor, 331 Shields Street)]: We'll definitely do that moving forward. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay, thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions. On that motion, Commissioner Campbell. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president So. Aye. So move. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero. And we'll place us on item 13 for case number 2025Hyphen011323PBS for the property at 555 Beale Street. This is an informational presentation associated with SB four twenty three. Through the chair, project sponsors team, you'll have ten minutes.

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: There we go. Okay. Good afternoon, president So commissioners, director Dennis Phillips. Congratulations. My name is Jesse Blout. I am founding partner of Strata Investment Group. We're a local developer here in San Francisco. We're, frankly, one of the more active housing developers in San Francisco. We've built about 1,000 units in San Francisco in the last four years. And we've got another 1,400 or so in the pipeline, of which this project, which is before you today, is probably our next project to start building, we hope. What's before you today is technically a SB three thirty application. But given the limited nature of the materials in that application, I thought it would be nice to take the opportunity to give you the benefit of the five year history of our work on this project and give you an overview of how the design has evolved as we've engaged with our public partners, the port, and other public partners, as well as the community. As you probably know, this site was the subject of an RFP that the port issued back in COVID days, 2020. We responded and were the successful bidder. We entered into an ENA with the board back in the beginning of 2021. And we've been hard at work ever since. We started with an engagement with the community. And actually, we have had over 75 meetings in various forms over the last four years, many public meetings to the ports, Northern Advisory Committee, Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee, many HOA meetings, many public presentations at the Board of Supervisors, BCDC, etcetera. We even went to the Board of Supervisors back in 2024 for we received unanimous approval of the basic terms. The term sheet for the project was endorsed unanimously at that time. And the public meetings that we've had are all available on the port's website to the extent the public would like to go back and

[Speaker 9.0]: look at some of those.

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: Part of the reason for our success so far has been our willingness to authentically engage with the community and stakeholders through this evolution of the design process. And perhaps there's no better example of that when we look at the evolution of the project from what we call version one point zero, which was our original submittal during the RFP process, to version two point zero, which is where we are today. This is version one point zero. As you can see, it's basically a two tower scheme, very large project, eight fifty units. We designed it literally in our offices and basements during COVID virtually. Didn't have the benefit of any community input, of course, because it was a public it was a competitive process. And then when we launched it, we engaged in a lot of stakeholder input and community meetings. And what transpired from there was significant change to the project. So we went from this massing to this massing. And essentially what that looked like was a reduction in the scale of the project from eight fifty units to seven fifteen units, and a change in the massing from a two tower scheme to a single tower scheme with a real attention to how we create massing that maximizes public engagement and also minimizes view impacts in the neighborhood. And we also took special effort to make sure that we reduced the scale as we traveled from north to south on the site, because that's where the lower density portions of the neighborhood are on the southern portion of the site. So I'm going to now turn it over to Andrew Byrne, who's our fabulous architect from Grimshaw, to talk a little bit more about the design. But I just want to underscore that we launched this project in 2020. It's a large project. We reduced it in scope. And notwithstanding the fact there have been several changes to state law that would actually allow us to go the other direction in fact, if you look at the density bonus law today, we could do 1,000 units in three towers. We are philosophically of the mind that we do what we say. So when we started this process with the community, we felt it was important to really respect and engage and come up with something that addresses concerns, but is also feasible from a development standpoint. And we feel like we have the right blend right now. So notwithstanding we could do more we're sticking to our word and we're excited about this project so with that I'll turn it over to Andrew to talk a little bit more about the design and I'm available for questions

[Andrew Byrne (Grimshaw Architects)]: thank you Jesse it's my pleasure to talk very briefly about some of the design inspiration for the identity and language of the building. It's a very prominent and high profile site, and we're inspired by the opportunity to perhaps represent some extremes of the conditions that exist there on the waterfront and to think about how we could capture the preciousness of the beautiful golden dawn light as it's rising over the Bay Bridge and how we could equally capture some of the other end of the spectrum, the kind of cool frosty elegance of some of the waterfront experience through there and how that might translate through the language. With the industrial rail heritage of the site as well, we struck upon the idea of creating these through lines or threads that were tying the project together. Because of its significant scale and variable massing, we wanted to think about an opportunity to be responsive to context yet still have a unified holistic design identity for the project. And we struck upon the idea of using the thread, the through line, the kind of richness of material reveal as to be something that is a leading edge to create these vertical and horizontal seams tying the building together in the places that can be occupied by the inhabitants. So the you'll see that kind of manifest in an initial sketch here where we've oriented a lot of the outdoor terrace spaces, the inset terraces to the key view alignments and key approach and axial corridors for the project to create that seam in that moment of reveal. And then we've developed the skin or husk element to be responsive to those cool frosty tones that can give a permanent elegance and timelessness to some of the architectural identity. You also see here from this view, which is a key aspect at the corner of Bryant and The Embarcadero looking to the south, an identity for the building that is on the northernmost tip, being something that is responsive to the conditions of the downtown language, being a little bit more clear in terms of its glass form. And then as we move further towards the south, we end up with a more modeled, more nuanced interplay of shadow and reveal within the building that is a little more responsive to the surrounding context. We're really excited about the contribution and improvement this will make to the existing conditions of the public realm in and around the site. Not only is the change of use, I think, a significant step change in an area of the Embarcero that has been under activated for a while. But the prospect of bringing in some retail units and active programming on the ground plane as well as an improved public realm, we think, will really, make a positive contribution to the community and revitalize this stretch of the Embarcadero.

[Wyatt Donnelly-Landau (Assistant Deputy Director of Development, Port of San Francisco)]: Hello, commissioners. Wyatt Donnelly Landauld. I'm the assistant deputy director of development at the port. Strata has been a great partner with the port over the last six years now. We're very excited about this project and bringing it forward quickly at a time when the city needs housing and has a mandate to build housing. We want to support that at the port. It will also be a big economic driver for the port at build out. It will generate $1,800,000 annually for the port, very critical to support the Harbor Fund and the Waterfront. It will also create a public financing mechanism to generate about 60,000,000 to $70,000,000 hopefully for waterfront infrastructure improvements in the area. So we're very excited at the port, supportive of the project, and hope to keep this moving forward. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay. If that concludes sponsors' presentation, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward.

[Cameron Robbins (Operating Engineers)]: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Cameron Robbins. I'm with the operating engineers, and we support this project. This project will deliver more than minimum required affordable housing. We'll also generate much needed revenue to the port that includes an annual ground lease payment of 1,500,000.0 a year and growing. It also includes a 60 to 70,000,000 infrastructure bond generated by the residential development that could go to support the rehabilitation of the piers across the street and also provide much needed sea level rising funding. This project will also bring retail and much needed vibrancy to this location, which will currently which is currently a parking lot and temporary navigation center. The site has been underutilized parking lot for over fifty years, and it is time to put it into productive use and help address the housing crisis. Thank you for your time.

[Brandon Bracamonte (Sprinkler Fitters Local 483)]: Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Brandon Bracamonte. I'm a business agent with Sprinklr Fitters Local forty three representing about a thousand members here in the Bay Area. And I'm here in support of the 555 Beale Street project on Seawall Lot 330. This project activates a long vacant site and delivers six nineteen new homes with 20% or 25% affordable exceeding the city's inclusionary requirements and ensuring public land delivers real public benefit. Strata has a proven record of building housing in San Francisco and is advancing this project through a state mandated nondiscretionary process that provides certainty and speed. It's a 600 plus million investment creating over a thousand union construction jobs while generating millions annually for the Port Of San Francisco and 60 to 70,000,000 for infrastructure at sea level rise adaptation. This is a smart housing, great jobs, and a responsible use of public land. Thank you guys for your time and happy New Year's.

[Javier Nocho (Heat & Frost Insulators Local 16)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Javier Nocho. I'm here representing the heat and frost insulators Local sixteen. We're standing strong with the straddle developer as San Francisco Billion Trades. My brothers before me, they stole my thunder. So I just got to keep it real. This project will be bringing revenue, big revenue to the city of San Francisco. It will try to fix the housing problem that we have. And most important for myself and my local, we'll bring a lot of union jobs to the city, over 1,000. We will gonna be able to spend local, stay here where the families get back on time, home, and we are fully supportive of this. So thank you.

[Joe Sanders (Painters, Paperhangers & Drywall Finishers)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Joe Sanders, I represent painters, paper hangers, and drywall finishers here in San Francisco. And I am here to urge you in joining us in supporting the 555 Beale project along with housing that the city desperately needs. It's part of the bigger seawall project. And working with a responsible developer in strata, it ensures that the work is done by highly skilled local union construction workers with opportunities for new apprentices to come in learning their craft while making a livable wage with health and retirement benefits. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 35.0]: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Trevor Long and I represent the Glazers Local seven eighteen here in San Francisco. I'm here to speak in support of this thoughtful development and how it will deliver hundreds of much needed homes, including a significant share of affordable units for working families on a long underutilized public site that has awaited decades for productive use. As a true public private partnership, it will also create hundreds of well paying jobs, generate substantial ongoing revenue for the port and fund critical infrastructure improvements. I believe this project balances density, affordability, and neighborhood fit, delivering real benefits for residents, workers, and the city as a whole.

[Trevor Long (Glaziers Local 718)]: Thank you very much for your time.

[Bruce Bales (District 6 resident)]: Thank you commissioners. My name is Bruce Bales. I'm a resident of District 6 in the Eastcutt neighborhood. I'm supportive of the development of Seawall Lot 330 and do appreciate the outreach and have attended community meetings with strata And look forward to the departure of the navigation center from our neighborhood. Also, the continued development of port properties. Two items to consider. The building height restrictions were carefully thought out to bring the building height up from the bay. We're now seeing a trend here. That lot is currently permitted 105 feet. And they were going to go into two thirty feet due to the density bond. We're starting to see more and more vision blocking by new developments. So that's a concern. More importantly, the second one is the traffic in that area. Beale in Maine is a traffic issue at rush hour. It takes multiple light cycles to make a turn. For people from New York, people block the box there frequently. It even backs up the left turn lane in the Embarcadero, back on the Embarcadero. So we need to carefully consider the traffic discharge from that property, careful not to come out there at Bryant And Main, perhaps make Beale the primary entry exit to allow them to merge into the traffic better. We'll be talking to the traffic enforcement people on those areas anyway. It's a significant detriment to the local residents to get home. It takes you as long to do the last two blocks as it does to come up from the South Bay at times. Thank you.

[Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Emmanuel Sanchez. I represent the iron workers here in San Francisco. I respectfully urge you guys to support this beautiful structure that would put many craftsmen to work. Thank you very much for your time.

[Rudy Gonzalez (SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Afternoon commissioners. Rudy Gonzales with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. It's kind of a role reversal because typically we have to listen to the comments and remarks and questions from the commission and then wait with bated breath to see how you'll vote. In this case, you get to sit and listen to us, and you don't get to vote. And we can take that up in a separate conversation over coffee if you want to talk politics and land use. But But it's an interesting opportunity. I had 23 women of color who are pre apprentices and part of a program called Sistas with Tools who were here for a civics lesson today here at City Hall. Unfortunately, they had to go back to class, and they didn't get to see this part of it. But we'll we'll brief them later and and roll the tape for them. It's it's interesting because the use is really important. The user has an amazing track record. But I wanna tell you a story around 2021. We were thinking about how do we get more women of color leading in the construction industry, leading in the union space, and actually speaking with their own voices about their needs in an industry that's completely male dominated and oftentimes as an industry hostile to women, particularly when they have to choose career versus family. And we thought the way to fundamentally change that is to find those women, particularly women of color from disadvantaged neighborhoods in the city, and set a table so that they could speak with their voice about their needs. And, of course, we heard things about child care, about the culture of the industry, about what it's like to work close to home so you can manage a family life at the same time. And when I went out, we thought about how do we create a program that syncs up with legitimate registered apprenticeship. I thought we're gonna have people just chomping at the bit to dive into this program. It's innovative. It's the first in the nation that runs concurrent in two languages. It's like, it's all the rage. The first people to step up wasn't the city at the time, wasn't a nonprofit, it was Strada and one other developer. And they seeded the funding to actually launch this innovative program to get more women of color into leadership in the construction sector. It's something I'm very proud of. Jesse and Michael never take credit for it. They typically will will take credit for, like, 96 units of permanent supportive housing at Jazzy Collins, which they did at the height of the pandemic for May a door. Right? The systems with tools that were here earlier are on the side of the power station right now, learning the tools of the trade, where we delivered a 100% union build in workforce housing and the Sophie Maxwell Building for $650,000 a door. So I think it begs some questions about what role does the planning commission play in the approval process, but also what role does the city government play in actually moving projects forward, in actually coming up with innovative strategies to help good local developers who care about the community, who care about the lasting impact of jobs, and care about actually effectuating a change in this industry. And for the benefit of our city, Strata checks all the boxes. We really love this project. We're glad you got to learn more about it, and I think we'll learn more as it breaks ground. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you commissioners. Again, this is just an informational presentation.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I'd just like to thank everybody for coming out, Strata for being an excellent developer. Rudy and the trades coming out in support of this. Your the sisters here that basically will be the future construction workers going forward. Females in construction is really, really hard. We've been struggling for years. We celebrate 3%, but the 3%, if we actually peel it back and look at it, is more like 1%. And the other 2% is basically an efforts there for certain amount of hours on a job site, and those hours become a requirement, not a a mainstay, not a norm. I worked for the carpenter's union. We'd we had a internal audit a few years a few years ago, and we saw the the nasty truth to that. We made an effort. We have female all female cohorts. So basically, females get in there at our training centers, and they learn the hands on tools that will actually put them on the job. We were outsourcing it to government organizations, like, I won't mention them, for years. And that was just a failure. So in order for it to actually work internally, we took it we took it internally. But without partnerships with, like, Strata and basically support from city organizations, but buy in from the developer, the general contractor, every sub on down, it's just not gonna work. So I want to applaud Strata for what you're doing and your commitment on that. I would tell you, I would suggest that you put pressure on your general contractor because your general contractor has overall control and every sub going down. And if you have buy in with your general contractor, all subs will fall in line. If you don't have buy in with your general contractor, you're trying to hit up every sub individually the whole way down, and you will have zero results. How do I know this? Because I live the dream on a daily basis, And there is no results if you're hitting individual subs as you hit them along the way because they all have their proprietary way of doing things. And they've got two to four people on the job, it's just not feasible. And it totally makes sense when you when you're dealing with them individually. Their argument totally makes sense. But if you can get them top down, and that's a that's a requirement before they even step foot on the job site and preconstruction with the general contractor, and it's just a basic understanding. There is no excuses down the way because everybody knew from day one. Everybody knew, in this case, probably a year before day one, the GC arrived on-site. So I wish you well on our time and full support of this. Thank you for what you did.

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

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: I want to linger a few more minutes on asking some questions about the design. I had the opportunity to hear a presentation just on Monday, I think, Tuesday about this project. And I think there was one question that struck me, given that the drawings the packet are not really fully explanatory of what has been thought about. So I'll be asking architect Boons, including Mr. Blauwd himself, to speak a little bit more explaining the land dedication, its size, its capability to deliver housing because the site is unusual, together with the idea or speaking of affordable housing, how you thought about it, the numbers, the percentages, and how it weaves through the project? I think those are important thoughts, which the drawings themselves don't speak to.

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: JOSHUA Thank you. In the rush to get through in five minutes, I sort of glossed over that issue. So I appreciate the question. And before you is the SB three thirty package for just the mixed income component of the project. There's a set there will be a second three thirty application for the 100% affordable project. My brother Rudy mentioned our project as part of the Brady Jazzy Collins, where we did a standalone, roughly 100 unit project there, similar concept. So we'll have, within the project, 15% inclusionary affordable within the six nineteen unit project. But we'll also be doing a separate 100% affordable project that is positioned on Beale just behind the corner. It's a good sized site. We think we can accommodate about 100 units in type three construction, which is what the city prefers. So we'll be partnering with the Port and MOHCD over the next few months and beyond to identify the right nonprofit partner and move that project forward. But all that's before you today is the six nineteen unit project with the inclusionary housing. Did I answer your question?

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Yeah. If Mr. Burns wants to add a thing, I was saying was at least a little sketch done for us to understand. The site is basically 67 feet wide and about 145 or 43 feet long. What can you do when you're wedged between the watermark and the tall element of your own building on the south end? And I think it would be great for the commission to hear your thoughts on that.

[Andrew Byrne (Grimshaw Architects)]: At this point, I'd love to have a plan diagram to be able to share with you, which would say a thousand words. Instead, I'll do my best to describe the approach. What I can communicate, although it's not subject to this application and the designation of this project, the land dedication is an area that we've undertaken a detailed study, and we've produced a massing and unit layout that is compliant with all of the design guidelines and requirements in terms of unit frontage and square footage to validate the assumption around the unit yield within that site. The manner in which we've been able to do that formally is we are up against one of the blank podium walls of the watermark, and we've created a courtyard building which is effectively a c shape plugging onto that party wall that blind party wall to ensure that there's enough light for all of the units and increase the amount of frontage and there's a setback from the adjacent development that we've shared with you today that provides a 30 foot wide access to daylight air and sky to be able to ensure that this is a viable unit to hit the count that Jesse's referred to. So it'll be subject to a forthcoming submission, where you'll see in a bit more detail how that layout works.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Thank you. And just a reminder for for people listening to us, this commission is not approving this project. We are commenting on the project. For me, it was important that there was thoughtfulness. It was not just basic use aside, forget it, and you you thought this through in a context that is extremely important to this commission. We want to create, as much affordable housing but with the caveat that it's livable. And I think in the in the way you sketched it out described it in words, I feel very comfortable that it can be done, and I think it will do this project a great favor. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and curious what other commissioners have to say.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner Campbell? Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I am so excited about this project, and I hope everyone in the city is getting excited about this project. And I love learning more about it. So thank you for the presentations. Subjectively, I like version one point zero better than two point zero, but that's I understand the situation we're in, and it's successful nonetheless. And it was interesting to hear you say, we could have gone bigger. I'd love to see it bigger, get more housing in, but appreciate how how you're respecting the commitments you've already made. We just need like 100 more of these projects in San Francisco. I really don't have any questions, although I thought the public comment with some community concerns around traffic were interesting. I'm sure you have a lot of studies ahead. Are you comfortable speaking to that, and just to comfort the community in terms of what they can expect?

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: Yes. We have been engaging in that discussion. There's definitely a lot of focus on current conditions, just as much as how our project may or may not contribute to that. But we have engaged a consultant can I say who it is? To help us with the current conditions. Because we feel like there is a bit of a traffic issue at rush hour, in particular. And so we're evaluating whether there's some network changes that could potentially be proposed to the city and MTA to see if there's even ways to alleviate the situation now. The speaker did talk about the fact that we have entrances or you referred to the fact that we have entrances to the project both on Beale Street and Bryant Street. The primary entrance for vehicles is going to be on Beale Street, which is what he suggested. So it may not be clear in the drawings. And I've never met that gentleman, so I tracked him down and got his cell phone. We're going to talk after this because it may not be clear in the drawings where the primary access points are for cars. But that is our intent.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. Commissioner Imperial. Thank you

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: for the presentation. And thank you for really going through us in terms of inspiration for your architectural design. My question is, one is going off with Commissioner Campbell in terms of, I guess, I would say, it looks like you've also done a lot of community engagement. But in the topics of the traffic study and also in terms of the topic of with the environmental, knowing that this is close to the sea close to the water. And of course, are times that just recently we have king's tide. And so how are those since this SB four twenty three project, how are those going to be addressed in this process?

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: I'm not sure if that's a planning staff question or a question of me, but I can try my best to answer. I mean, we are definitely addressing sea level rise considerations as part of the project. We are actually and part of that is going to be to seek to bring as much of the project out of the ground and not have a large basement as possible. And you'll see that reflective in the SB three thirty application. One of the things that's really great about this project is that, as part of the public private partnership with the port, we got special legislation to look at allowing the project to use IFD bonds to help with resiliency along that stretch of the embargoed arrow. So I think a couple of the speakers mentioned 60,000,000 to $70,000,000 of bond money that this generate up front. That's because the port will be issuing infrastructure financing bonds once the project is constructed or during its construction to leverage that tool. And the board has committed to dedicating those funds to sea level rise adaptation along that stretch of the embargo. So the project itself will be contributing to the sea level rise considerations.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you for that. And I guess what would be the role of the planning department in that kind of situation as well in terms of the plans? Will there be a plan? Or that will be totally through the port commission at that point or through the port?

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: I mean, we have a strong partnership with the port, particularly in the urban design front, on all of their waterfront and seawall efforts. So we will be engaged. But yes, it is under the jurisdiction of the port ultimately.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And one last question I have another question I have is around the dwelling unit mix. In your base project, it was compliant. And then it looks like in this proposed project, you change it in a way that you're not reaching the dwelling unit mix. Can someone explain why is that the case? I know it's your right to do that, but just wondering what

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: By dwelling unit mix, are you talking about the composition, the percentage of one bedrooms, two bedrooms, studios, etcetera?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: More on the there is a requirement for forty percent two bedrooms.

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: 40%, two, yes. Might ask Will Goodman from my team to come up and answer that question because he's deeper into the details of why the market is not there for that percentage of two bedrooms. I will say that we're not intending to do that with the affordable project. But for this project, I'll have Will answer that.

[Will Goodman (Strada)]: Afternoon. Will Goodman with Strata. So we are using a density bonus waiver on the unit mix. And it's something that we have done on other projects as well. We just find that the market actually is not supporting forty percent two bedrooms. And I will say that unit mix will probably evolve a little bit over time. In units that are two bedrooms and other projects, find overwhelmingly those are roommate units, which

[Tom Radulovich (Livable City)]: is

[Will Goodman (Strada)]: great. They are not likely family units. So

[Andrew Byrne (Grimshaw Architects)]: we like

[Will Goodman (Strada)]: to have some amount of two bedrooms, but we just find 40% is too many. And so that's why we reduced the count.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And just to reiterate, in the affordable project, that will be in compliance?

[Will Goodman (Strada)]: The affordable project is designed for family units, a family affordable project. So as Andrew sort of talked through, we're still in the process of designing that layout and that unit mix, but we anticipate meeting that forty percent two bedroom mix.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And will this be rental or rental units?

[Will Goodman (Strada)]: Yes. These are all rental buildings.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. Those are my questions. I'm looking forward for the third project or the third tower. Thank you so much.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I think a a lot of questions have already been asked, a lot of what's been discussed just makes us keep sounding better for the most part. So thank you for bringing forward this project. And it's really impressive. I'm really picking up on meeting the inclusionary requirements for this project. Also having the third site for the 100% affordable project, that's great. I think the design is pretty thoughtful in terms of the location of the tower versus more of the mid rise elements of this this project and how that relates to maintaining sort of views and access to the waterfront as well. And then to some of the questions that were asked about the design of the 100% affordable project, it's probably six to eight stories in that. And so that seems like a really good fit, given the layout of the existing building and then the tower for this project. So I like the sensitivity that I'm seeing there. I have just some minor questions. So one is one of the concessions for the density bonuses is active use concession to it sounds like something along the lines of the parking is going to be above grade in a podium, and so there's less active use on the frontages. I'm just curious, could you walk through maybe the architect could walk through a little bit more on the transparency of the frontage is, what uses are envisioned on them, and also where the parking access is and what those, especially those ground floor frontages look like.

[Andrew Byrne (Grimshaw Architects)]: Sure. No problem. We've had our challenges with the unique geometry of this site. It's not particularly common to have such an extensive frontage proportionality when it comes to a site. That long stretch of the Embarcadero in particular is quite a significant length. But we've still managed through the detailed planning of the project to subsume the majority of the parking stalls into the heart of the plan and we do have with the watermark cut out in that particular corner of the triangle we do have a couple of internal elevations, effectively, sort of internal lot lines there that enable us to place some of those dark functions within the heart of the plan. And we've been fairly successful in ensuring really good distribution of active frontage, particularly prioritizing the Embarcadero and Bryant Street. A lot of these functions are not always entirely public facing. Some of them, like the retail tenancies, will be. Others will be for amenities, specifically for the unit inhabitants. But they'll still have good visibility and transparency, and therefore street presence and activation. But there are some amenities along the Embarcadero that we're looking at, for example, coworking space that, again, would satisfy those requirements. So I think the majority of, we've we have looked at that waiver for a dispensation but I think that the majority of the perimeter is fairly active and fairly visually transparent and we're avoiding long stretches of dark inactive facade

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you for that. And I'm curious on Beale Street. I do see the retail's position on the corners. That makes a lot of sense. And then you have the amenity space on the Embarcadero in between. For the Beale Street side, which sounds like it's going to be the primary parking access, I guess just the one comment I would have is making sure that since that's also the block that the affordable housing project is on, and it's already I'm sorry.

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: Then the Bryant Street.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I'm sorry, Bryant Street. Actually, that's what I meant to say, But Bryant maybe you could clarify for me then. Is Bryant Street the primary parking access DELL: as well? It is Beale Street.

[Andrew Byrne (Grimshaw Architects)]: Sorry, I'll jump back in. I didn't quite cover that aspect of

[Wyatt Donnelly-Landau (Assistant Deputy Director of Development, Port of San Francisco)]: your Sure, sure.

[Andrew Byrne (Grimshaw Architects)]: Yes. The primary access is off Beale approximately in the middle of our frontage on Beale so not all the way down at the end of the cul de sac there and the affordable is sitting on Bryant between the watermark and our development on the

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. And sorry, I misunderstood the primary parking entrance. And so I just want to make sure that that block of Bryant Street is appealing, given that the primary entrance to the affordable housing building will likely be on that block, currently there's not a lot going on on that block. Other than that, yeah, thanks for answering those questions. I would just note that we did receive a letter from Alliance for Better District six. Sounds like you're probably engaged with them. But either way, that letter is in the pre hearing correspondence on the department's website. There are some good direction and ideas in there. And so I would just draw your attention to it, but not necessarily fully endorse every detail of that. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. I would like to say this is actually one of a really good project under this ministerial informational hearing to start 2026. Not to say whoever is going to come up to the next agenda, yours should look like theirs. It would be nice if yours looked like 30% like this one, whoever is listening, the one online on '14. But I really, really appreciate the effort and the level of respect to the community and also to governance. I really there's So not much I can say. I'm not really asking any question. I just want to like, this is great, you know? And learning that developer isn't always bad. Developer could be has a very powerful position to be in. If you get the right designer, the right community, the right well, not the right one, but all the union trades, altogether, we can make great things for the city. And I'm really aware of that you can actually go really tall and really high and really big, bigger than the one that in your version one design. But you're not. And it is something very much like wish everyone who hear us, urban planners, architects, developers, and really think about you have the ability to shape San Francisco and also shape the future of the city, how you be responsible to be conscientiously looking for something that money is not the end of everything, but money is very important. So you've got to get your numbers right. But by doing so, uplifting everybody, uplifting everyone that needs to work hard and feed their families of our workforce, and also create different types of housing for our future San Franciscan to be able to thrive and enjoy the waterfront. And so, really appreciate that. And I'm not sure about the sketches about the husk, but I guess I get it. I can get some cultural understanding of what the husk in use of in architecture, but that's very well, you got my attention. I would like to say one thing, though, Rudy. I think that one big thing that you can train the sister to actually encourage more women in the building tray I remember when I walked the construction site, my biggest barrier is finding a bathroom temporary one that is just for women. So I just wanted to say it that way. But this is actually thank you for coming here. And I know that every one of you had taken a considerable amount of effort to in your personal life, in your professional life, that your obligation is to meet us here today. I acknowledge that we had canceled the meeting from last week. So appreciate all of you being here. Thank you for setting our bar high for San Francisco for what is good thing to do. We're not like we're requiring you to do, but what is a good informative presentation, informational presentation shall look like. Thank you. And I really hope that my I guess my one question is, when is the groundbreaking will happen?

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Let's go.

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: Thank you, commissioner, for those comments. Well, our hope is I'm looking at Wyatt from the port that we'll be done with the ground lease, the transaction documents, by Q2 of this year. And then we'd move right into completing the design, permit sets, etcetera, with the goal of breaking ground next year. Nice. That's

[Lydia So, Commission President]: our Let's go San Francisco.

[Jesse Blout (Founding Partner, Strada Investment Group)]: Yes. Let's go.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: JOSEPH Thank you for the presentation. It's obvious Estrada cares about things that I care about, a community and collaboration and coming to some kind of a consensus. And so I really appreciate that. There's a lot of things that I could say. I think some of the things were already mentioned. One of the things that I have to comment on is the unit sizes. Men don't particularly have a problem with most of what I see. But it's interesting to understand that you mentioned that the unit sizes are like a cost consideration, right? That this is how it pencils out. And so that's interesting because the city really needs family housing, right? And thank you for putting that affordable housing site to the side. And you're going to make sure that there's maybe three bedrooms and bigger units to accommodate families, right? Because we all understand that two bedroom units are very limited. And so I just wanted to kind of it's interesting to understand that because you are probably one of the better developers in San Francisco, from what I understand. And you're having an issue creating real family housing. And so I think that's something to pay attention to. I'm someone who's been very focused on affordable housing and building family housing so that we can have families also be a part of San Francisco. We need everyone here. And so I just wanted to highlight that. Also, got a question for the city attorney. And this is this is regarding proposition b. That was from 2014. And and it was a voter approval of the the the height limits on on the the waterfront. And, you know, I I know that this is I don't know if it exceeds it or if it doesn't. But how how do can you explain, like, how how is that something that the voters passed in the in in his in his law? How is that conflicting or not conflicting with this particular project?

[Kristen Jensen, Deputy City Attorney]: Thank you for that question, commissioner. Deputy city attorney Kristen Jensen, you're correct. This project is on Prop B land. However, they're also seeking to use the state density bonus. So, there are those who argue that state density bonus trumps Prop B in this case because it's a state law. There are those who argue that the city cannot approve a project that does not conform with Prop B. That's a legal issue that will have to be sorted out as the project goes forward. But you're correct that there is a question mark around that issue.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Yeah. Okay.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you for that. Yeah. I think the state density bonus and SB four twenty three and three thirty have brought with it a lot of controversy. This has nothing to do with you guys. Obviously, you're working within the legal parameters. But as we move forward, think it's going to be interesting to see how this all works out. Obviously, I'm pretty much in favor of the project moving forward. I think it's also important to respect the voters, the people of the city. And so that's where I have a little conflict. But I think you guys have done a lot of good work in ensuring that this project is something that is agreeable with the community that it surrounds and taking in consideration all the other things that you have to take in consider when you're building in a certain area and respecting precedent and stuff like that. So, anyway, those are my comments. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: And commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: There's one thing that I've been thinking out for a long time. I've been in the waterfront environment for many, many years and that has something to do with the West Side Of The Embarcadero. The West Side Of The Embarcadero is a movement corridor that moves at slightly too high a speed to connect the East Side and the West Side. Anybody who has heard me speak about that, there is nothing new here. I think that particularly with a large residential project and with these significantly long frontages that you have on this unusually scape lot, as mister Burn just explained, is over 700 feet. And I think since you do not have a mid block crossing for people from the building to go across, but you basically have to go to either side. That is a long way to get to a crossing that there is some way of starting to slow down the traffic on the Ambacadero and make it more people friendly. The West Side works fine because everything is linearly on the border side, and you can walk back and forth. However, just people coming down Market Street and going to the ferries at the ferry building, it is an act of many lights you may miss because there are two cycles, and you may miss your ferry. And I'm saying we need to find a way to make that part in front of your project, but also particularly on the West Side more pedestrian friendly and less auto and speed oriented. I'm not sure how how many how often the people who I'm talking to are there. I go through everything from going to the farmer's market, coming from the from the West Side, going across the Ambacadero to go to the ferry building, and other crossing points, it is a big obstacle. And I think it would be positive for a residential project not to look at cars just zipping by, but there would be a cadence of the traffic that is more kind of friendly for pedestrians living for people living there and pedestrians being able to cross. I just wanna throw that out. It's definitely probably not an easy discussion to have, I would say it would help your project significantly. Thank you for listening.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to item 14, case number 2020Five-eleven543 PPS 241DoloresStreet. Also, an informational presentation related to SB four twenty three. Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: I'm just gonna use the projector. Okay. I am Ryan Knock. I am the architect and project sponsor for this property. It's at 241 Dolores Street. The proposal is for a new four story over basement, eight unit building and also a new detached state law ADU in the rear yard here's a photo right now of the existing structure there's an existing four story six unit building at the at the parcel The original house was built in 1909, Edwardian style. It has features, nice bay windows, double hung windows. The entries are all off Dolores Street. There's also a central courtyard in the middle that right now serves as emergency exiting for the project and also a supplemental form of light and air into the units. Right now, it's set up where the living spaces all face Dolores Street and the bedroom spaces face the backyard. If you can go to the second page, that's the existing backyard with bedroom rear facing windows. If you go to the next page this just shows the condition of the existing 1st Floor which is undeveloped space there's no plans to currently develop much of this space we might use it for some bike parking and some storage But one of the purposes is to actually get access to the new four story building at the rear yard. There was a preliminary meeting held with the fire department. They confirmed their interpretation that they would need a five foot access way and ladder access to the rear building. So the primary thing happening on that floor is new access to, you know, service the entry and egress for the new units. This just shows the existing parcel. You can see on Dolores Street along the left edge of the page and that central courtyard. It's a very deep lot. The lot right now is well, I think the rear yards I think it's about 180 feet. The actual back not legislative rear yard, but the open space at the back of the building is about 100 feet deep right now. So it makes it a good candidate for some some new housing. Here's an aerial that shows the parcel in red. It shows there's already lots of development happening in this sort of middle space there's parking there's lots of other buildings and housing extending pretty far back on adjacent parcels And this just gives you a little bit more zoomed out picture of the whole block. You can see there's already a lot of housing that's eating right into the middle of the block right now. So we're proposing something similar and, you know, a more modest scale than some of the other projects there. So this is the proposed plan. It is to have a new, as I mentioned before, four stories over a basement. And I can go through the unit allocation a little bit, but the idea here is to have all the bedrooms of the new units face the other bedrooms with the windows offset and then the new living spaces to face the rear yard. And then you can also see the one story ADU in the backyard. The plan for this ADU is to have it with its private patio, but also have the roof developed as some of the open space required for the units. This just shows a section a little bit about the grading. Some of the central court between the building is going be sunken and excavated in order to get the access to the Lower Floor. The 1st Floor is gonna have a lobby and some storage and also an accessible unit on it. That unit will also have its private patio in the back. And it's kind of offset with the spaces at the rear ADU. The kind of sliders that access the private space are offset to provide privacy between the units. Lots of landscaping and patios. And the other floors are a mix of two bedrooms with a one three bedroom at the top of the building.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: That is your time, so very good. With that, we'll open up public comment. Mary, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Good afternoon, Georgia Shutish. I'm glad Mr. Knock gave you those pictures because there was no context in the packet, which is why I sent you pictures. And I've been going by this site for over a year when it was for sale, and I always wondered what would happen to it. And so now we know, I guess.

[Georgia Schuttish (member of the public)]: But I think it raises issues that are no longer dealt with upfront or maybe even at all due to SB four twenty three and no commission or real public oversight. So as you know, the project involves six tenant occupied A rated flats. It's the A rated building, the one in the front. And they're going to do major work to create the legal egress they're required to do by the fire department with the passageway under the crawl space. And if you look at the plans, the door to this passageway is right under that bay. And I think that's a problem. And these are flats, as I said, six to 10 occupied flats. And rezoning acknowledges that flats are housing for middle class families. So my concern with this project and all this work that's going to go on to make that legal egress in the back for those new market rate units is what guarantees can be given by the project sponsor so the tenants will not be displaced even temporarily? Is there a plan protecting the tenants during this major construction and excavation for the egress? And will the tenants be able to live there while that's going on? And if they can't, will they be able to return? If they have to leave temporarily, who's going to protect them? Is it going to be the fire department? Because that's who seems like it's going to have the most role in approving this project. And the project is only viable by creating that big passageway underneath that one part. And it's pretty major. 500 cubic yards of dirt is going be taken out. And as I said, the entrance is right under that first bay. The door is right there, and it's right under that first flat. Another question and sometimes this happens is what happens if the work stops midway and the tenants are there or not? And I just think these are important questions that need to be answered at this informational hearing, if possible. That's the whole point of it. And I'll just say parenthetically, here's SB 423 neighborhoods. I mean, it's the PEG. That's why you're having this hearing, because this is in the PEG, SB four twenty three. And I just think that these SB four twenty three neighborhoods really should be eliminated from SB four twenty three, and that's something that I think the city should work on. If you really want to preserve these neighborhoods, then why are they covered by SB four twenty three, which has no oversight? So that's it. Thanks a lot.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay, last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you. Again, this is just an informational presentation.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. Thanks for the presentation and the comments. I admit, when I first got this packet, I wasn't entirely sure how it worked on the Ground Floor in terms of exiting and from a life safety perspective. I think I understand it a little bit better now. And honestly, that's all something that is not our purview, but DBI, and I know this is SB four twenty three. But, so it doesn't really matter what we say. But I will just say I really appreciated this project. I think it's, I appreciate its efficiency. I think it's an amazing infill solution, assuming it all works from like a life safety perspective. I think it's a great example of how we can really max out sites. And yet this facade is all going to we're like retaining the historic fabric of this existing building. So I just think to think, and this is not too far from my house, that while that will all be retained, there are quietly like eight more units plus an ADU popping up behind it and housing that many more people is pretty magical. So I don't know about the tenant displacement part and if somebody wants to speak to that. But I think it's a great project, and I wish you a lot of luck.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah, thanks. I can't currently speak to the tenant displacement portion of it. The intent is to retain all the tenants. I only found out about this meeting happening on Monday this week, so the owner was not able to actually make it. But I was able to get the presentation together over the last couple of days and make it to this meeting because I know it's important. What I will say is, as you can see, the units access to the front is through these arched stairways. Those will be maintained. The new access will be underneath the bay window. And also the the middle corridor with access to all the meters, that will be maintained. It's also where the garbage is. It's it's kind of in that middle area. So that will be maintained too. So part of the advantage of getting this five foot corridor excavated underneath it is that we'll be able to kind of work around those sorts of existing features.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: That was how I was reading it as well. It seems very surgical in that it's not even really touching those floors above.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah. That's the whole intent. Yeah.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. That's all my comments.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. And one thing that I appreciate that you're building two bedroom units in this. But as I was also I think concerns that Ms. Schood have brought up and I understand. I believe the the plans are already submitted. But it has to go through the fire department to assess the fire safety on this. But I am again, that's also my concern is, where is the entrance and the fire safety on this? It's not in our purview, but I cannot help but think about that. And that's something that I'm just going to point out an issue for me. Another thing is, I don't know if you can speak about I don't know if whether it's the owner or you can speak about the existing tenants on the other building. And how would they try to mitigate that during the construction?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah. I mean, think the mitigation would just be making sure that construction sticks only to the legal permitted hours during construction, having someone to handle directly handle any sorts of issues that tenants run into, standard notification procedures for if any of the services do need to get shut off. I don't necessarily anticipate that in this case because, again, we're going to excavate down and try to avoid things. So that's the main concern. I could see the main issue is just kind of getting equipment in and out and closing off certain areas. But I would like to see about even The backyard space does not look currently used at a high level to me by the existing tenants, But I could see about seeing about maintaining the use of some outdoor space even while this is happening.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: I guess my question will be for the planning department on because the recent tenant ordinance was passed. Will that be applied to this?

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: Right now, what that tenant ordinance applies to is residents who are subject to construction within So their I'll have to get back to you. I think what we're looking at here is just minor construction, I. E, excavation of an existing property, not construction where the actual tenants are. So I'm not sure it'd be

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: a Yeah. I'll just would recommend to look into that as we are going through

[Rich Hillis, Planning Director]: this Yeah. I guess what I would note, Commissioner Imperial, too, is that as part of the rent board and other things, there are a number of protections and resources that tenants have for disruptions per their landlord that would probably be more appropriate than the tenant construction ordinance that was just adopted to deal with construction. So probably more of the city's existing resources on that front, which are numerous.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah, I totally understand. It's just my concern during the construction. And sometimes it can lead to where the tenant may ended up leaving because of the, and I know there will be mitigation measures. But like what are the protections for tenants? And how are they going to be guided by this during the construction phase? So what's the role of we've had these conversations before in terms of the notices that it's put out. And it's, of course, based on the language, depending on what the language of the tenants are. But knowing their rights, those are the things that I believe our department could probably facilitate for the tenants. But yeah, that's something that I would hope the owner of this would be really also consulting with the rep board on this process as well. And so yes, that's I would like just to emphasize that for us in the department as well, too. You.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Thanks. I'll be sure to pass that on.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Thank you for the presentation. The submittal package itself was completely inconclusive to understand the project, but that is probably not your fault. I'm not sure who put it together. I would appreciate if the department makes sure that we can understand the project, which is really, given what's in this package, not the case. So anyway, I like the idea. I think it's a great idea of densification. And I wish that we would carefully examine deeper backyards to really do something which is a light touch, a soft touch, without really disrupting neighborhoods and the feeling of neighborhoods. What I would like to ask you as you move forward, it would be very helpful if you would have like an adjacency plan so that people can see where existing property lines and walls of adjoining buildings are, where are windows, what are people looking at when the garden identifies, etcetera, because in the end, this thing has to also function three dimensionally. Question for you. An ADU, is that a correct understanding on my part, needs to be independently accessible and addressed from the street? Or how how are you handling that here?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah. So the the AD will be accessible independently from the street. So it'll it'll it'll the entrance that the rest of the units in the main building are having. Mhmm. And there will also be an exit. There'll be a breezeway, essentially, through the bottom of that building to the back unit.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: So there will be its own address on the facade of the building?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah. There won't be a there won't be a separate one. The facade will just have a have a five foot door where where the window is in the facade right now. That will be made into a door with a couple of steps down. Fortunately, we have a little space there. The sidewalk doesn't start right at the front of the building. It's back a little bit. And so that pathway underneath the building, which will make very nice for everyone, that will lead to the eight units and then also the ADU at the backyard. And that will go on and the ADU will go underneath the the new building, basically.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Okay. The other question I have is using the roof of the ADU as common open space. Is that the idea?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: That's one of the ideas being explored right now. I think it would be nice to make it, you know, when you're looking back there into the backyard, not to just see kind of a sort of ugly roof and have that be kind of landscaped. So I don't know if it's a living roof. I don't know if we need to use it yet as as part of the open space. I'm I'm still kind of studying the open space requirements. I think we might need to use part of it to meet the open space requirement for all the units.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: The the reason why I'm asking is the green roof is one thing, and that would be definitely fantastic given the densification of the site and really the loss of permeable green on the site. However, and again, this is a question about adjacencies. When a roof deck occurs that far in the rear yard, what is happening all the way to the east and then adjoining properties to the east and how do properties to the north and south as well are being looked into because in most of these buildings, the bedrooms are to the to the back of the building. So that is not explained. And I think as you move forward and make a decision how much of that roof you need or not only have a green roof, it would be interesting that you consider the adjacency in all in all compass compass points.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Okay. Yeah. I'll I'll be sure to take that in consideration. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: And that's all. I think this would be a really great prototype for identification in this type of, neighborhood, and I really think we should be looking at this very, very carefully and exploring that this indeed is the most harmonious way of identifying. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Just wanted to, first of all, thank you for your proposal here. I am concerned about the tenants as well. I'm looking at this and kind of wondering, as far as the fire department, like what kind of things are they going to require from you, possibly fire sprinklers, for example?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah, we did cover that. I could try to follow-up with a bulletin. I didn't know they actually had this. I had a pre op with fire in the building department. And they will not require the entire sprinkler of the whole building. They might they will require the exit passageway to be sprinkler, but they won't actually require the whole building.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So so the front building won't won't require sprinklers?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Correct. Yeah, not the whole building. At the most, it will be the exit passageway, just on the Ground Floor. And we'll need sprinklers to go to the new building at the back anyway. So there'll be some infrastructural work for that. But I think we can combine that all into the excavation and trenching and kind of, as I'm calling it, localized area, five foot plus or minus pathway to the back to get all those utilities back there. Okay.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Good. Because I know sometimes there are unintended consequences when you want to develop something that has an existing structure on it that they make you upgrade the existing structure, which our tenant occupied. And so that's why I asked that question. Yeah. Mean, it's an interesting project. I don't think I've seen one like this so far. I mean, I've only been here for about a year and a half. But it's definitely a new concept. It's a big, large lot, and there's a lot of space. But I was wondering, as far as the garbage is, the garbage area. I know we have a single family dwelling, and we have an issue with garbage. Unfortunately, we got to recycle. You got three cans. And so it's the little things like that sometimes that really turn out to be interesting problems to have to solve. Are you guys addressing that? Or is that something that I mean, I know it's not a big deal, but I was just curious off the top of my head.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: No, no. That's fair enough. So yeah, the existing units will keep their garbage through that central courtyard. Have I don't if the chutes are active anymore, if it's allowed. But the garbage is at the bottom of those common stairs. The front building will keep its existing garbage. The new building at the back, I don't think it's shown clearly in these plans, but there will be a refuse area that will be screened off from the building occupants so that the I do believe that the ref they'll pick up the garbage from the middle space. So, there'll just be an area. They won't have to carry it all the way out to the front. They will have an area that's screened off in the middle courtyard for that you know, those purposes.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I'm sure the garbage folks are gonna appreciate you making that as easy and accessible as possible. Yeah. I mean, again, I think it's very ambitious. I mean, just an observation, this property hasn't had a structure like this on it for its whole existence. And I'm just curious to see how the neighbors are going to react when all of a sudden, if this gets approved. You know. Know as far as the height is concerned, it is two stories?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: The new one is four stories.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: It's four stories, right. So yeah, that's kind of tall. And so it's going to be interesting to see how that all works out. Think we're in a new era with SB four twenty three. And I think there's a lot of questions. And there are going to be a lot of issues that come up because you don't have to go through the scrutiny that most projects have to go through anymore because of this new state law. And so not saying I'm for it or I'm against it. I'm just stating the obvious that people understand. People understand what's happening now. So I would just say good luck. And hopefully everything works itself out and you're able to build something that will be affordable to families.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah. That's the goal. I mean, to make these somewhat affordable. Like, unit sizes aren't huge, but we're trying to get two bedrooms in all of them. The Top Floor one is a three bedroom, so we try to fit that in. There's an accessible unit. To the context, fortunately, mean, any change is little different. But if you look to one side, there's someone who's using the parcel as a parking lot. I think that's to the south side. And to the north side, the adjacent parcel has some sort of structure on the Ground Floor. I'm not sure how much they're using that. They would probably be the most impacted. But then if you go one more up, there's a building in the backyard. And if you go two down, there's a building in the backyard. So there's definitely some context here of buildings going deeper than this one even, and tall too.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: You're not required to make any of the units affordable? Or are you?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Not at nine units.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Not at nine.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah, or it's eight. Think it's eight in the main building and then one at the ADU. Okay.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So I think nine is the threshold. That am I correct? Or is it 10?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: It's 10. Yeah.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: So so we have

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So you you you got right underneath the wire there?

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: We did.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yes. Okay.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah. I mean, yeah. It's it's it's the math that's working out for the owners. This is what they wanted. And the code allows it.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So Well, hopefully, you'll keep the working families in consideration when you go to rent out these properties. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you, Commissioner LeBron.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. On the whole, I think this is a really interesting and creative infill project. It's really exciting to see. I appreciate the comments commissioners have made about concerns about the existing tenants. Even if they're not displaced, it's certainly no picnic, living in a construction zone directly underneath you and behind you for as long as it would take to build this. And so hopefully, there's opportunities, either well, hopefully, opportunities for some sort of rent reductions, whether legally mandated for diminishment of services or just offered by the property owner. We'll see. But either way, it's beyond the purview of this discussion. I had maybe two questions. The first one is, you didn't really get to the back of the packet that you shared.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah, I'm sorry. Ran out of time. Sure,

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: sure. No problem. But on the basement level plan, a little the layout of the patio deck between the ADU and the new sort of middle building. It's a little different from the site proposed parcel plan. And I'm just curious if you wouldn't mind clarifying. I know that this is a preliminary application. Plans might still be changing. But would you mind just kind of

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah, sorry about that. So basically, if you look at if I'm looking at the proposed parcel plan, building built up to 25% lot line over two levels. So that's kind of that little bump out you see I can point it out here but there's a there's a yeah this is kind of the pump bump out here and this is a private patio. Not showing the site plan.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: If it's possible, you mind speaking to the microphone? Folks. Oh, yeah.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Sorry. So there's a private patio that's accessible accessed by the Ground Floor unit. I think I'm calling that a Unit number Unit Number 8. And then there's another patio that's for the ADU that's in the backyard.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah. So sorry if the site plan wasn't fully updated. Again, was on a three day crunch to get the Okay. Presentation

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: And actually, in some ways, that seems like a better option than having an elevated deck

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: that Yeah. The idea is that the one off of Unit Number 8, it will be slightly lower. And then the one off of the other patio will just be a little bit higher by probably a couple of feet. So there'll be a little bit of separation there. And there might be some more fencing or planting kind of put between them. But the whole goal is to make those two areas sort of private for those units.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you for that. I would just say, with a project like this, I'm always looking at the distance between the buildings. Actually, folks have heard this. We've come here a lot. But I live in a rear yard structure with a much taller building in the front. But either way, one building's probably three to four stories, and the other building is roughly two stories in height. And I saw that there's 15 feet between the front and rear buildings in this design, and that seems reasonable. It's a little tight. I literally took a tape measure out to see what the distance was between the buildings and my lot. It's a little tight with four stories on either side, but it seems reasonable. But I would just be kind of my one thought is it's a little concerning to have any further projections, especially taller ones like a deck or something in that space. I don't even know if that would be allowed. But I wouldn't want to further diminish the light that does get into that space between the buildings.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: This Yeah. One Just to clarify, the ones between the ADU and the main building, those are basically patios on grade. So they'll be low to grade.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: And

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: then, yeah, the front buildings, were very conscientious about that distance. Came down to, unfortunately, at some point, like the unit size and the math behind it. Sure. Sure.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. And then I have a question that's almost just more out of curiosity. Mean, this seems Okay, you excavate underneath the front buildings to gain access to the rear yard. I'm just curious. I mean, What are some of the challenges in actually getting construction equipment back there and building the project? It seems like a big challenge.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Yeah. Mean, it's going to be expensive. There's going to be hand digging, all sorts of other things. They are exploring sorts of agreements with adjacent properties for easements for moving equipment back. The building to the north of it does have a large driveway through it. And there's act it's like, I guess, the parking in the backyard. And so they actually have a drive through it. So there's discussions about possibly trying to get an easement to get to that. That would have to be discussed. But if that doesn't work out with an adjacent building and the property owners and tenants, then this will just be a sort of they're going to do it as quickly as possible but it'll just be much smaller pieces of equipment maybe a very small bobcat going back there not huge things know bringing in lumber and batches through it but the goal is is, like, the first thing is we're gonna get we're gonna excavate and get this pathway so that that is where all the materials go through so that doesn't interrupt the, you know, the courtyard in the middle of the existing building.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: So Okay. Thank you for that.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: That's plan.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I was

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: curious. And there's other plans to maybe make it a little bit more efficient, if possible, so with adjacent neighbor access, if that can be worked out.

[Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator]: SPEAKER All

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: right. That's just helpful and interesting to hear. So thank you. Those are all my questions. Just to editorialize for a second, I think that a project like this shows part of why I've often not been a big fan of trying to regulate projects through density limits, because there are a lot of creative solutions to add units onto a lot. This one's, I recognize, a larger lot than usual. But still, I think a form based approach to design makes a lot more sense than density units when we have such an imperative to add more housing in the city. And this is a great example of that. So thank you. Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I like the project. It's very nice. It's an abnormally large lot for San Francisco. When I arrived here in 1990, I lived up on Clinton Park around the corner there. So I know the area well. But I do like the project. I do want to say I'm not a big fan of 423 being used for nine units, anything under 10 units. I don't believe that was its original intent. I guess it does maximize the feasibility, to use your term, in order to make it work. But I'm not a fan of it being used right up to the max. So it's just under the wire to qualify for affordable housing. But I wish you well

[Lawrence (project sponsor, 331 Shields Street)]: with it.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I have to say you show up with more quality drawings instead of what you were submitting. So I wish you luck in the whole process. We understand that this is you haven't even started the application review process. So you be changing a lot of your drawings. So thank you for showing up today. And appreciate the material and the ability to answer all of my peers' questions.

[Ryan Knock (architect/project sponsor for 241 Dolores Street)]: Okay. Thanks for your insight. Thanks, everyone.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to your discretionary review calendar for item 15, case number twenty twenty five, Hyphen005517DRP for the property at 3725 Jackson Street this is a discretionary review.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Good afternoon commissioners.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: If we could just hold on one second. I'm just waiting for staff to

[Lydia So, Commission President]: make Staff change, yeah.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Initial presentation and then you'll get five minutes.

[David Winslow, Staff Architect (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, President So, Commissioners, David Winslow, Staff Architect. The item before you is a publicly initiated request for discretionary review of Planning Application twenty twenty five, five fifty one-seventeen PRJ, to construct a rear horizontal addition with deck at the basement and first level, and a horizontal addition at the side of the third level of a three story over basement single family building. The site is approximately 54 and a half feet wide by eighty five and nine inches deep, a lateral and up sloping lot. The existing building, located in the eligible Presidio Heights historic district and built in 1971, lacks historic significance. The Doctor requester, June Coleman, on behalf of Kuljit Singh of 3800 Washington Street, the neighbor to the immediate south, is concerned that the proposed project would block views and sunlight, as well as intrude into the privacy of 3800 Washington. Additionally, the Doctor requester is concerned about geologic and drainage issues related to the excavation of the project. Her proposed alternatives are to eliminate the 3rd Floor addition and revise the project to eliminate necessary excavation for the proposed subsurface alterations. To date, the department has received no letters in support nor letters in opposition of the project. This project is compliant with the planning code, specifically with respect to height and rear yard setback. The proposed excavation and addition would extend the lower levels, basement and Level 1, to the 30% rear yard line. These levels would be substantially at or below existing grade. The proposed terrace, retaining walls, and railings do extend beyond the rear yard line, however, below existing grade. These features are allowed to extend beyond the rear yard setback when below grade per sec, Planning Code Section 136 C thirteen and fifteen. At Level 3, the project proposes to add five zero seven square feet to the west over the existing footprint of the building, As the lower levels are mostly below grade and the third level is over the existing footprint of the subject property, both immediate adjacent buildings to the east and west extend further into the rear yard than the massing of this proposed project. Geotechnical reports and structural review of foundation design are not in the purview, as you know, of the planning department or to review or regulate. That review occurs after planning approval, and the building design is finalized so that technical drawings can be prepared with the certainty of scope. The Department of Building Inspection will review the structural plans for adequacy when the project does apply for a building permit. The project applies with the planning code and the residential design guidelines, articulate the building to minimize impacts to light and air. And the proposed addition located at least 60 feet to the north and downhill of the Doctor requester will have little to no impact on light or privacy to the Doctor requester's property. Views are not protected, nor is it reasonable to assume that they would be significantly affected, even if this were a legitimate issue. Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Diari Questor, you have five minutes.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is June Coleman. And I represent believe the property owner is Doe Capital. But that's owned by Koljit Singh.

[June Coleman (attorney for DR requester)]: We submitted a lot of materials. So we have issues with the height limitations. And we're not clear that the application actually identifies the height of the building in comparison with the ground. When we met with the planning commission and the architect, they indicated they would provide that information. There's a general representation in the planning documents that it complies with the height requirements, or it doesn't exceed the height limitations. But we were concerned that some of the property may exceed the height limitations at various aspects of the project. I don't want to spend my time on that. You've got that issue in front of you. There's a diminution of value of about 3%, dollars 400,000 if the project goes forward. Again, you've got our appraiser's report in there that talks about that. I believe those figures are on page two of that report. And we do have privacy concerns. If you look at the picture of the property, the adjoining property line is in this area here. And you'll see that there's this large tree right here. The large tree they plan to take out, and that obstructs the view between the two houses. So once the large tree is removed, we believe that at least on the third story, they'll be able to not only overlook and look into the backyard, but also look into some of the windows of the house. And those are really the privacy concerns. Again, we understand that those are not significant issues for you, but they're issues for my client. But I do want to focus a little bit on the stability and seismic issues that we find in this project. There is a regulation that said prior to November that if the slope was greater than 25%, then there would need to be a stability and seismic report. The project was submitted before November. The DRP was submitted before November. So we're really asking that that be considered by the Planning Commission. There is a significant grade where the uphill property. And when they remove that large tree that I mentioned and they're planning, I think, on removing some other trees there's an issue regarding the roots that extend to my client's property and how they will support and stabilize the property and the slope, given that they'll essentially die off without the tree. The other thing that we have an issue with is that there's supposed to be a retaining wall on the back end of the property. That's part of the plan. And the retaining wall will need to have an easement to be built on my client an easement from my client, which my client will not provide. Now, the architect has indicated that they can come in with a large crane and put the retaining wall in. You have to retain the dirt in order to put the retaining wall in. That temporary retention would be on my client's property. And if you look at exhibit f of the engineer's report, you'll see various types of retaining walls. All of those indicate that on the right hand side, which is the upside of the picture, demonstrative picture, that extends into the upside property. And so we think that's a viable concern that the planning commission should consider. Additionally, if they were to bring in a large crane, we don't believe that there's a pathway for the crane to get to drop the retaining wall in.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you. That is your time. But you will have a two minute rebuttal.

[June Coleman (attorney for DR requester)]: Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Lorenzo Rosas (Legislative Aide, on behalf of Supervisor Catherine Stefani)]: May we use the computer, please, with USD? Of course.

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: Okay. Got it?

[Stephen Sutro (Architect for project sponsor, 3725 Jackson Street)]: Hello. My name is Steven Sutra. I'm the architect and sponsor for this project. The project indeed includes excavation for a rear addition at the basement and lower levels and an addition at the top floor that is minimally visible from Jackson Street. The proposed changes, as David mentioned, fully comply with all applicable planning code requirements including the residential design guidelines. The project sponsor team and property owner have met with the Doctor requesters team to discuss their concerns. Many of the issues raised by the Doctor requesters such as drainage retaining walls shoring methods vibration monitoring construction techniques are more appropriately addressed during the building permit documentation phase not this Doctor hearing as we all know these items will be designed by licensed professionals and reviewed by the appropriate city agencies at that later phase this slide shows the existing proposed site plans with the with the property highlighted in blue and the Doctor requester's home in green the d r requester claims the project will block sunlight to their property but this is physically impossible due to the site orientation the project site is located north of the d r requester's property no portion of the proposed addition can cast a shadow on the d r requester's property therefore the property creates no sunlight or shadow impacts at all. The Doctor requester states that the addition will block views and loom over their property. This claim does not align with the existing site conditions. As shown in the site section diagram, the Doctor requester's property is located approximately 20 feet higher than 3725 Jackson. This grade difference ensures that the proposed work at 3725 cannot overshadow or loom over the Doctor's requester's home. In addition, there's an existing separation of over 55 feet between the rear facade of 3725 and the Doctor requester's rear property line with a distance between the two buildings themselves at approximately a 100 feet. This exceeds rear yard setbacks and mid and remains unchanged by the project. These generous separations ensure continued access to light air and openness. Given the substantial distance between the buildings and property lines, the proposed windows and views from the new addition do not create privacy concerns. The project also includes rear yard landscaping designed to soften views and minimize potential sight lines. Together, these elements maintain appropriate privacy and do not impact the yard recursor's enjoyment of their property. This next slide shows the existing proposed front elevations to Jackson Street. The highlighted portion shows the extent of the addition visible from Jackson. The proposed addition is modest and remains largely within the existing roofline. Only a small portion of the addition rises approximately three feet above the current roofline. Given the elevation distance and modest height increase, the project cannot obstruct or dominate views from the uphill property. On the next slide, the DRR requester asserts the project violates code section two sixty related to height limits. This also is incorrect. The project is compliant with section two sixty and two sixty one and remains within the allowable height envelope for the R H 1 zoning. As shown, the building envelope diagram, the design follows the sloping height plane permitted under two sixty one a. No portion of the project exceeds the allowable height at any point on the lot. So to summarize, we're confident that the project meets all applicable planning code does not create impacts related to sunlight views privacy or height the Doctor request is related to construction methodology will be addressed during the building permit phase for these reasons we believe the proposed projects should be approved as designed thank you very much I also want to say that there is indeed a retaining wall that's designed on the rear property line and there's no way that any easement or any access to the neighbor's property would be required to put that retaining wall in place we would use a shoring method as we have on zero lot lines in many instances that doesn't require any physical access or any temporary or any permanent structure be placed on on their site That has not been fully engineered because we're going through a site permit application process, but we work with wonderful geotechnical engineers, wonderful soil shoring engineers, and wonderful general contractors that sequence this all the time. So that gives me no pause. So that should not be a cause for delay here, I think. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Last call. Okay, public comment is closed. Doctor. Requester, you have a two minute rebuttal.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. In total, I really believe that when you have a project like this, which has these questions, which has these slope concerns, it also has drainage concerns. And drainage would run downhill be an issue for the Jackson Street address. But when that becomes an issue for the Jackson Street address, then that creates structural and seismic issues for the uphill property. So we really are concerned about the issues that I pointed out. I know that initially we raised some issues about light and view. But I don't believe that the Jackson Street architect addressed our concerns about visibility into the house and the lack of the trees and their roots supporting the slope. And the issues regarding whether there's shade or sunlight blockage are not really our concerns at this point. We attempted to obtain information about the height issues, and they were not provided. We attempted to obtain information about line of sight from the architect. And that was not provided either. I'm happy to answer any questions.

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

[Stephen Sutro (Architect for project sponsor, 3725 Jackson Street)]: Thank you. I don't think I need the time. But I'm here to answer any questions that anyone has.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you. With that, that concludes the public hearing portion and this matter is now before you commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Vice President]: I believe that the Can you Sorry. Like in any Doctor, I felt that the questions asked by the Doctor applicant were reasonable, but I do believe that many of the considerations that are part of the Doctor are not really issues that are addressed by this commission. That includes views, which really are not part of any kind of planning code, except for specific city corridors of which are about eight or 10. And this particular property is not protected by those few corridors. Geotechnical issues, including drainage, are part of standard practice of architects who have experience in building in situations like this. And Mr. Soultre's work has been in front of this commission many times before. So we have similar questions, but it is within the practice of a licensed architect to not only address them, but he's legally required to have all Is and Ts crossed to answer them properly and within the latest requirements of practice. So I do not have any concerns about that. Further to this, I believe that the addition itself is respectful of the adjacent historic property, particularly because the property is on a higher elevation on on Washington Street or not on Jackson Street. It would probably be more difficult if these two buildings would be next to each other, which they aren't. So I'm personally, comfortable with not seeing anything exceptional and extraordinary in this particular application, and I am, prepared to follow staff's recommendation not to take Doctor and approve. And I can make a motion, but I can also wait till my fellow commissioners have additional questions, but I'm going to make some motion because the case is pretty clear to me.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Second. Second. Okay. So we had a motion. We have second. And then we have a couple of commissioners who would like to make some comments. I'll start with Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I'll keep it brief. I completely agree with Commissioner You

[Lydia So, Commission President]: can take your time.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: More. And I actually can't think of a more modest and less invasive addition that this project sponsor could have done. And I think one very telling drawing for me was A 4.4, which outlines the buildable envelope that this project sponsor could have exercised in terms of the addition. So I think if I lived next door, I'd be quite grateful that so much of the addition is actually submerged. And just echoing concerns around earthwork and water infiltration, I think that is very human and fair and will all hopefully be addressed by DBI, which is just not our purview. So yeah, I seconded your motion.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I mean, given the historical nature of the building that is in question, I could see why they're concerned. And so I would just say that there's some concerns there. I think I think that it seems to me that it doesn't really rise to the level, unfortunately, of an extraordinary circumstance. But having said that, I think as far as the architect and whoever becomes the builder or the engineer or whoever does the actual work and the shoring and etcetera, that they, as much as possible, work with your neighbor or neighbors up there. And consider the fact that this is an historical building and the artist is very unique to itself. And so that's just a comment that I wanted to just make in the record. But again, I think people have kind of my fellow commissioners have kind of outlined some of the things that think that I was thinking about myself. So anyway,

[Lydia So, Commission President]: yeah. Thank you. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: The light problem I failed to see because basically the rotation of the sun kind of takes that out of the equation, but that seems to be a problem. Drainage seems a little weird to me because, you know, it's the person downstream that has to worry about drainage. In this case, they're going to improve the situation. So the retaining wall, I can only imagine, is going to take into account any kind of gathering of water. It's actually going to approve the situation and basically flow it out in a way that basically it will be engineered, that it won't be a problem. Then it comes down to the height. The height, the windows here, are no higher than the windows of the existing house, from what I see. So really, it seems to be down to the trees, and the lack of the trees. But if the individual The trees are not on the Doctor's property. They're on the property of the individual. And it would appear the Doctor's property has, at one time, chosen never to have a tree or got rid of every tree that was on their property. So it's the neighbor. They have to get what they want done. And it does seem modest. And the neighbor seems to have done everything they want to do. And it's pretty clinical. But they've got the view of the trees and their neighbor. But that they don't have the right to those trees that belong to their neighbor. And I sit from I've gone through this, and it seems to come back to that for me, you know. So I find it hard, because everything is, it's upside down on this one. I think it's a perfectly good project, and I wish you well.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay commissioners if there's nothing further there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed on that motion commissioner Campbell.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commission President So.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: So move, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero and concludes your hearing today.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Meeting's adjourned.

[Veronica Flores (Planning Department staff)]: SF gov.