San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission regular hearing for Thursday, 01/29/2026. 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. At this time, I'd like to take roll, Commission President So. Present. Commission Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Present. Sorry.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Here.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: And commissioner McGarry. Present. We expect commissioner Williams out today. First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance, item one, case number 2025, hyphen zero 04243 c u 8655 Brotherhood Way, conditional use authorization has been withdrawn. So we should take public comment on the continuance calendar, only on a matter of continuance. Okay. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And commissioners, the matter has been withdrawn, so there's no action required on your behalf. Commission matters, item two, the land acknowledgment.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I'll be reading the land acknowledgment. The commission acknowledges that we are on the ancestral homeland of the Ramatushaloni who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working under traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Rama Tushaloni community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. Item three, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 01/15/2026. Commissioners, I will simply note that we will be exchanging what was what is before you and submitted to you in the minutes under Georgia Schutich's comments and replacing it with her 150 word submittal, which we received late, but nonetheless, we'll be amending the minutes in that fashion only. 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 Your minutes are now before you commissioners.

[Lydia So (Outgoing President/Commissioner)]: Commissioner LeBron.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Campbell. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Lei Vu (Project Architect, 49 Chula Lane)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commission President So? Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So move, Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. Item four, Commission comments and questions. Okay. If there are no comments and questions from members of the commission, item five, election of officers in accordance with the rules and regulations planning commission of the Planning Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected at the first regular meeting of the Commission held on or after the January each year, or at a subsequent meeting. The date shall be fixed by the commission. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to adjust the commission on the election of officers. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed.

[Lydia So (Outgoing President/Commissioner)]: Well, good afternoon everybody. And it is has been a very very amazing journey that I have been having the opportunity to serve as the President on this very important commission. We went through a lot of important milestones in the last eighteen, nineteen months. And I really appreciate the work I had collaboratively with all of you. And then, I would also like to take that opportunity in addition to thank you everybody and our staff and our other department agency and the public and the community really truly thank all my commissioners. Commissioner Braun, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Imperial, Commissioner McGarry. Today, would like to share some thought that I have is that I always felt that the progress and change is much needed for our city and our city is coming back. And, I would like to also continue to advocate for progress. And also, it's very important how we conduct our commission to have that culture that we should be fair and appreciative of everybody with respect. With that note, I would like to continue to be the beacon of cultural shift. The thing that we typically do, the thing that what you think things should be, whether it's written or not, the tenure legacy is something that would perhaps deserve a better look at how we can shift the norm that you have seen in this past. So, with that, I would like to hear some motion or nomination to nominate some of my fellow peer commissioners to step in to try this. And perhaps Commissioner Campbell and also Commissioner Moore to be the Vice President. I would like to hear some if some anyone would have to motion for Commissioner Campbell to be the President and Commissioner Moore to be the Vice President. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Commissioner So, thank you for your service. Excuse me, the last year's stewardship, last year and I would agree with you and I would like to officially make that motion for Commissioner Campbell as President and Commissioner Moore as Vice President.

[Lydia So (Outgoing President/Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Any additional nominations?

[Lydia So (Outgoing President/Commissioner)]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I just like to take the opportunity to thank outgoing president so for an element of daring optimism that sometimes eludes me, but I think you have done that in a masterful way. And I think that tone, I think, is appropriate and hopefully will inspire as how we move forward. And thank you for your sense of humor, and thank you for a job well done.

[Lydia So (Outgoing President/Commissioner)]: Thank you. Appreciate you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: If there are no further nominations, there is a nomination to elect, commissioner Campbell as president and commissioner Moore as vice president on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner, then President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McCarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So move commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Congratulations to our officers. If you want to do a quick seat change, we can make that.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I'm the lucky one who doesn't have to move.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Commissioners, that will now place us on department matters. Item six, director's announcements.

[Dennis Phillips (Planning Director)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Welcome, President Campbell. Thank Thank you for continuing to serve, Commissioner Moore. Commissioner, so, so much to say. But maybe I'll just leave it here in addition to the gratitude you heard from your colleagues. Just a real expression of shared optimism. I really loved your remarks about part of our progress is also trying to move forward in dynamism as a commission. So, thank you for seeding us with that as body and a group working together. It's really amazing. So grateful you're still here. Okay. A couple of things just to update folks on. This week, the planning department had the pleasure of hosting John King, our retired urban design critic for the Chronicle, to come in and speak to all of us about his perspective, having looked at our skyline, our buildings, our public realm over the last oh god, how many years? There was a joke that it was since the 1920s, but that was not correct. So that was a real great opportunity. We look to do more of those. I think one of in addition to it being a great opportunity, it was a packed room. Everybody forewent their lunch. It wasn't even one where you could brown bag it. And that's the kind of planning team we have, right? Where they're always learning and listening and I'm really grateful to be a part of that team. Additionally, I wanted to let you know that next week on February 4, just so we're updating the public as well, there will be a community conversation on the recommendation of District 3 landmarks under our historic preservation group. It'll be an online forum that is parallel to the physical in person forum that was held on January 28 on the same topic. So just we have multiple ways of people learning about the recommendations and giving their feedback. And then lastly, just to alert you all, we had a conversation on budget last week. We'll be coming back to you on February 12 to give you an update on that budget. And at that time, we will be able to include the changes about the unification of the Permit Center and DBI and how those new positions will be represented in our budget, as well as any mayoral requested cuts to our budget, which we're as we're still learning about them and working through that in the budget. But again, I am very confident that the headlines that we gave you last week in terms of no layoffs, continuing the work program will all remain true. So, we'll be able to give you those details on February 12. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. If there are no questions for the director we can move on to item seven review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. There is no board of appeals report and the historic preservation commission did not meet yesterday.

[Audrey Maralone (Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Dept.)]: Good afternoon commissioners. Audrey Maralone, acting manager of legislative affairs, and congratulations to president Campbell and vice president Moore. This

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: week,

[Audrey Maralone (Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Dept.)]: the land use and transportation committee had several planning related items. First was the code corrections ordinance you initiated this ordinance on September and then voted unanimously to approve the ordinance on October 23. Since that time the department and the city attorney did notice several unintentional changes in the proposed ordinance, and therefore amendments were presented to the committee to reflect those corrections. But none of those proposed amendments were substantive. There was no public comment, nor were there any comments from the committee members before the committee voted unanimously to adopt the amendments and send the ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation. Next step was the ordinance that would make it easier for movie theaters to sell alcohol for on-site consumption. You heard this ordinance just a couple of weeks ago on January 15. You voted to approve the legislation with a host of recommended modifications. Those recommended modifications were to first, remove the fixed seating requirement from the definition of movie theater. Second, remove the arbitrary restrictions within the Upper Fillmore NCD, which includes the 150 fixed seating requirement and the type 41 ABC license restriction. Third was to apply the proposed changes consistently across districts, which includes allowing all movie theaters to offer a broader range of programming without needing to establish a separate entertainment use, and exempting movie theaters from the non residential use size limit. And lastly, you recommended that within the Upper Fillmore NCD, to allow movie theaters to serve alcohol for on-site consumption by non ticketed patrons in addition to ticketed patrons. Supervisor Cheryl's office presented on the item and asked the committee to include all of the commission's recommended modifications. Supervisor Chen spoke of the fond memories we all have of our neighborhood commercial districts when they were destinations for entertainment and community gathering. She believes this legislation will help support small neighborhood theaters citywide to thrive, while also ensuring appropriate controls are in place for properly regulating alcohol sales. Supervisor Velgar also spoke to emphasize the cultural significance of theaters to our neighborhoods, and the importance of ensuring that they can adapt their business model to stay competitive with the streaming service culture. She questioned why allowing alcohol sales to non ticketed patrons was being limited to just the upper film or NCD, which I believe there was conversation had here. Supervisor Cheryl's office responded. They said that the Clay Theater is unique in that their lobby is a gathering space more so than other theaters where a ticket booth or counter is front and center to the theater's entrance. That being said, their office is looking at the Clay Theater as a testing ground for allowing alcohol sales to non ticketed patrons more broadly in movie theaters. And if it's found to be successful, they would be open to expanding the allowance to theaters more broadly. There was no public comment before the committee voted unanimously to approve the amendments and continue the ordinance to the committee's February 9 meeting. Continuance is strictly because the amendments are substantive. Lastly at land use committee this week was the ordinance that would allow the parking of up to two vehicles in driveways. You heard this item on October 23. You also unanimously approved the ordinance with a host modifications. Those modifications were first to specify that parking for up to two vehicles is allowed in driveways that formerly parked formerly acts provided access rather to enclosed parking. Second, to restrict parking in driveways to those that provide or previously provided access to screened parking. And third, to state that parking in the front setback is not considered an addition of parking that would trigger compliance with front setback, landscaping, or permeability requirements. Based on those recommended modifications, the department's been working with the sponsor and the city attorney to reorganize the legislation to better define allowed driveway parking. For example, the ordinance has been amended to specify that parking is allowed between an existing curb cut and a parking area already authorized by the code. It was also amended to explicitly allow this type of parking where a garage has been converted to an ADU. Staff presented those amendments to the committee and asked for their support in moving them forward. There was a robust discussion among the committee members. Supervisor Melgar spoke to state that in her district, many of the sidewalks are much narrower than the actual right of way. She wanted to understand if people who do not block their sidewalk with their car, but technically park in what is officially the public right of way will be ticketed. This brought up an interesting enforcement question for our department that we are sure that we can tackle. We are also going to be relying on using common sense to determine whether a public way of passage is being obstructed versus being too prescriptive about what is the public right of way. Supervisor Chen spoke on the level of danger that curb cuts and driveways pose, excuse me, to pedestrians and cyclists. She worried that allowing garages that have converted to ADUs to keep their curb cuts will make pedestrian paths more dangerous. The department responded that we, of course, want to ensure we don't create more dangerous pedestrian ways, but we also don't want to create a disincentive to increase our housing supply by forcing the removal of curb cuts for these garages that are converted to ADUs. We did point out that if a garage is converted to usable habitable space for an existing dwelling unit, the curb cut would still be required to be removed. So, this is only if it's going to create new housing. One member of the public spoke in opposition to preserving curb cuts in favor of making pedestrian pathways safer and greener. Supervisor Melgar responded to the comments on pedestrian safety, especially in relation to curb cuts, by agreeing that the city does need to improve our bike and pedestrian infrastructure. However, that we do need to acknowledge many people in the city still rely on their cars. Having these cars parked within someone's private property, rather than on the street, where a vehicle can also be a hazard cyclists is a good trade off, especially given that it incentivizes housing production. Finally, Supervisor Chen acknowledged that although she has concerns with pedestrian safety, she believes legislation is a common sense ordinance that reduces frustrations by residents who rely on their vehicles while keeping the public right of way clear. With that, the committee unanimously voted to accept the proposed amendments and send the ordinance on to the full board with a positive recommendation. And finally, at the full board this week, supervisor Mandelman initiated 27 separate landmark designations. All of the proposed landmarks were identified through the family zoning plan. This is considered phase two for District 8. This list includes private homes, churches, a firehouse, and a former brewery. And that concludes my presentation, but of course, I'm available for questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners. If there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Unidentified public commenter (Bernal Heights demolition concern)]: Good afternoon. Congratulations, and thank you about the minutes. I'm to show those photos that I sent again, if I can have the computer there. Okay. So that is the rear of 'forty five Bronte as it was. Actually, the neighbor brought that, and I made a screenshot of it. So that says it was at you had your hearing last June 2024. Okay. I'll make this go fast. There it is today, or when it was a week ago when I took the picture. That's the same rear. And here's the whole house. Maybe it was dilapidated, but as it was said, it was lived in until did this start at two minutes? No, I'm so sorry. Did you start my time right, I think?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: I did start your time, yeah.

[Unidentified public commenter (Bernal Heights demolition concern)]: You didn't start my time yet?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: I did start my

[Unidentified public commenter (Bernal Heights demolition concern)]: Oh, okay. So there's the house as it was. And dilapidated,

[Joy (Labor representative)]: but it had

[Unidentified public commenter (Bernal Heights demolition concern)]: been lived in until 2021. So there's the whole lot, the same basic place. You can see that rear wall. And here's the rear wall close-up. And that's that. So, tantamount to demolition. Anyone looking at that would say, That's a demolition. I don't see how you can say, That's not a demolition. That's all that's left is that. And they're not going to use that in the new building. And so, I don't know if you remember that project, but it was said that it could be approved in Bernal Heights, even though there's no demolition. This morning, if you saw it, I sent another email with the Bernal Heights SUD language. I don't know if this house would have qualified for the subsection three I's, but I think the point I want to make is, this isn't an abstraction. This is, I want you to see it, it was an abstraction when you viewed it and approved it, but I don't think this is an abstraction. I think this is a demolition. And I think I just want to make the point again that tantamount to demolition is the same as demolition. If you look up the word tantamount in the dictionary, it's the same thing. It means having equal force, value, effect, etcetera. Equal or equivalent. So when you look at the definitions in Section three seventeen, it doesn't say anything about Tannamount demolition. It says it's a major alteration that exceeds certain values. At the hearing, it was said that this Guernerle Heights SUD prohibits outright demolition, but not TTD. There's no TTD in the code that's in the code implementation document. I just think that it's all the same. This is gone now. It's that's the way it is. But I think looking forward, I hope that this will remind everybody that the definitions are the same. Thank you very much. How do I get rid of this?

[Jerry Dratler (Public commenter)]: I'll take your word for you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ionan. I'm ready. Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Dratler. 30 Otis Street, The Chorus, is across the street from DVI's office. It, like the Marina Safeway, is an aligned real estate project. It appears that over 400 residential units are legally occupied, and the tenants should not have been charged rent. The $134,000,000 building permit is null and void. It's expired. And also, it's illegal to charge rent without a certificate of final completion. And this permit has never been finaled with the CFC. The last DBI inspection recorded on the permit was almost four years ago. It looks like this project has been abandoned. Here's a copy of the permit as of January 16. You can see the last inspection was in 2022. You can see numerous special inspections have never been finaled. The first 30 Otis Street temporary occupancy certificate, TCO, should not have been issued in February 2021 because there are safety issues. And most importantly, five building permits were open and never been finaled. So you can't issue a TCO. The three tower crane permits were opened were opened, excuse me, and improperly finaled in August 2024 by DBI Inspector Chew. I'm not going to go through these. But basically, code enforcement at 30 Otis Street is unacceptable and needs to be fixed. Now the tenants have remedies because it's illegal. And your deputy city attorney can tell you what those remedies are. The last slide deals with and I apologize because I added a page request that one of the planning commissioners make a motion to request the planning department and the Department of Building Inspection make a joint presentation to the planning commission in the next ninety days explaining the lack of code compliance at 30 Otis Street. This isn't some window or fence. This is big time, serious code compliance failure by both DBI and the planning department and it needs to be addressed. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you next speaker.

[Unidentified SOMCAN representative]: Good afternoon commissioners, my name is that you feel and I work with some can a member organization of the race and equity and all planning coalition. We would like to thank commissioner Williams for bringing up two weeks ago on January 15, the housing element action eight point one point zero which is located on the single sheet being passed out also known as the affordable housing circuit breaker. This is located on page 136 of housing of the housing element 2,002 update, and I printed it out for your convenience on the single sheet of paper. It states, if the city is behind the pro rata affordable housing production goals, which it is, the interagency housing element implementation committee should trigger, one, increase of additional city funding for affordable housing in pursuit of additional state funding increase the land banking strategy to accommodate 50% more affordable housing units and the capacity of the sites acquire from 2022 through 2025. The deadline for this is now January 2026 and the planning department is listed as one of the agencies responsible for this. Would like to reiterate commissioner Williams questions from two weeks ago. What is the part planning department doing around this and what is the interagency housing element implementation committee doing around this. The affordable housing circuit breaker is one among over a 100 equity actions in our housing elements and I've included those on the packet that was passed around. These are directly pulls from the housing elements in some of these actions are overdue. We do not want to see the affordable housing circuit breaker be another action that the planning department and other responsible city departments conveniently continue to ignore. Just as we did with the tenant protections ordinance rep will continue to watch and ensure that the planning department and the city implements all of these actions. We could start with the first one point one zero point two quote include affordable housing investment needs in the annual city budget process since departments are putting together their budgets now. We look forward to working with planning inappropriate city departments to ensure that the affordable housing circuit breaker and all of these equity items, especially those that are overdue are carried out as listed in the housing element. Thank you so much.

[Theresa Dulalas (SOMCAN)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Theresa Dulalas and I'm with Somcan and I live in the Somma Pilipinas District 6. We're here today because San Francisco is not meeting its affordable housing goals. And frankly, the city is running out of excuses. We're we continue to fall behind on deeply affordable housing production. And while the city falls behind, working families, seniors, and immigrant communities are being pushed out of the neighborhoods they built. This is not theoretical. This is happening right now. And under the housing element, there is one circuit breaker that matters most. Affordable housing must be real, measurable, and delivered. That affordability circuit breaker is being triggered now this week. It is written in our own housing element that the city needs to actively look for affordable housing funding and land back sites for affordable housing. We refuse to let the city continue to drag its feet. If you do not act, affordable housing gets delayed again while displacement accelerates. So, we want a real answer. Who will be accountable when the city misses this requirement? Because the community is watching and we also need to talk about trust, communities feel pressured and suspicious, especially with up zoning moving forward. We have sat across from developers who promised affordability and community benefits, and then the final projects didn't even match what was promised. So, let's be direct. If you increase density without guaranteed affordability, you increase displacement. We are demanding transparency, enforceable commitments, and real affordability, not slogans. Commissioners, we are respectfully urging you, but also challenging you, to press the planning department for clear timelines, real accountability, and real results. We do not want to keep coming back here to remind the city of its failure.

[Kristen Evans (Small Business Forward)]: May I have the overhead? Thank you. Kristen Evans with Small Business Forward, also a member of the Race and Equity Planning Coalition. I just wanted to direct your attention to the fact that I sent an email yesterday. I was not here on January 15, but I watched the recording on SFGOV TV. And I have to say I was really, really concerned about the exchange that I witnessed when Commissioner Gilbert Williams brought up this action item that is clearly laid out in the planning in the housing element, which as I understand is a legally binding document that we've all agreed is how we're going to conduct approaching housing in our city. That we have the director of the department essentially tell him that he was mistaken and incorrect about the date of the circuit breaker. Now, understand there's another paragraph that you often reference as a circuit breaker, but this particular paragraph is very clear and explicitly laid out as being a January 2026 deadline. Small business workers make between 30,000 and $80,000 a year. Most of our neighborhood commercial corridor employees can only afford units which are $2,000 or less. Affordable housing isn't an abstract nice to have. It is essential for our small business workers to be able to work and live in the city that we all say that we value diversity, that we value having economic equality, that we value we have to put our words to action. So, I want to make sure that it's very clear that Commissioner Williams was correct that there was a deadline for January 2026 that the director incorrectly corrected him as to when that deadline was to take place. I want to be very clear that I'm also a member of the community and looking for action and accountability through this commission of our approach to housing in the city. And then, I will also be returning to this commission and this body to remind you of the commitments that we have in the legally binding housing element. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, public comment is closed. We can move on to your regular calendar commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Imperial? Yeah, I

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: just want to say something and I guess thank you for the public coming in your public comments. And it seems like the, you know, the exchange that happened two weeks ago, you know, it looks like we need to pay close attention to this in terms of the interagency housing element implementation committee and it looks like the responsible agencies are DBI, OEWD, planning and controller. Are these I mean, I don't want this because this is, you know, just a public comment. But guess, Director Phillips, if do you have any response and in terms of like updates on this implementation committee?

[Unidentified Planning Department staff]: Yes, happy to speak to that.

[Dennis Phillips (Planning Director)]: Thank you, Commissioner. So, the interagency housing element implementation committee, as you mentioned, includes staff from the planning department. Mostly team members that worked on our housing element and our family zoning because they're the ones most closely in touch with the detail, as well as, members from our new and and broadened community planning entity, which includes community equity and our former citywide planners, along with representatives from OEWD and MOCID. One thing to note, we work together all the time, as you well know. But per the housing element and per January 2026, we've started formal meetings under that rubric so that they have that name on the title and will continue to have that formal meeting. We're in the very early stages of convening, so we've had one meeting there. There's and at that meeting, we just discussed the significant work already underway across the city on affordable housing and cost reduction strategies. The primary resources that we're drawing on from the past are the Affordable Housing Leadership Council and the recommendations in that report from the Affordable Housing Leadership Report. OEWD and MOCIDI's current analysis of EIFDs, which is a tax increment structure to allow, funding to flow into, construct affordable housing. That work was initiated at supervisor Malgar's direction, and OEWD and MOCD are currently working on a report, which I understand should be available soon. And we discussed the progress of that report. And then there's been new input, the San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund, SFPAF, which you all may be aware of, sent a great letter after the adoption of the family zoning plan in late December, highlighting key leadership council recommendations from that Affordable Housing Leadership Council report that I referenced that they think are key to move forward on and recommended a few additional strategies that we're looking at and considering. So that work is underway. I think the other thing just so you all can note, because it was referenced by the commenter today, within that section, there is a note that saying the committee will assess if the city has approved appropriate housing units by income level to meet the RINA goals. And if the city is behind the pro rata affordable housing production, we should speak. So the committee did look at those numbers. I'm not going to recite them well because I don't have them in front of me, but I'm happy to follow-up with email to you all. Because our market rate production has been very low, we actually are meeting our affordable housing pro rata goals vis a vis how much market rate production we had. So we have not missed that trigger. If affordable housing If market rate housing speeds up, obviously the ratio changes and we might be in a different situation. For now, because we've had so little market reproduction, we have not met that trigger.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Just wondering, can we have it like an informational hearing on this in terms of like the assessment that happened by the committee? Is that something I'd like to call on the commissioners if because I again, I mean, I'm glad that you have an update, Director Phillips, but I think it will be good also for the public to understand the assessment that happened.

[Unidentified Planning Department staff]: We're happy to do so, Commissioner.

[Dennis Phillips (Planning Director)]: As noted, it's a simple math problem, so it'll be pretty quick, but we're happy to do that.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah, but thank you. And also, again, I think just kind of like from last week, like it will be good for us to having like an update, informational hearings about the housing element implementation, about this committee as well with these different agencies. And I'm also wondering about the timeline of this committee as well in terms of producing all of these objectives. I mean, are these objectives that the committee triggered to. So that's one thing that I hope the committee could give us some updates on that and also for me to understand the timeline that we're trying to look into. Yeah, and again, I mean, I understand that many of it will be around funding, but what is the city doing in terms of advocating for state funding? And this is more like for the public to understand where we're at on affordable housing. So, so those are my comments, Director.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thanks for the update, Director Dennis Phillips. Now that you've had a little time to digest the question and kind of explore this, it's good to hear that there has been progress made with the Housing Element Implementation Committee process. You know, I think clearly the other week, it was a confusion of her terms. It's a little wacky that we've been using this casual term in two different ways in circuit breaker. And so, I guess, at least for myself, I'll try to be more specific and precise. But, you know, I want to echo some of what Commissioner Imperial said. I would be curious to see the data. If you email the updates on the production numbers by income level, that would be great to see. You know, I am I would also support the presentation of some of that information to the commission. You said it was a pretty quick update probably and pretty straightforward. So I would like to see that because I sort of understand this more as the production sort of being annualized within income level and whether or not we're keeping up with that in terms of housing unit production within the income categories. And so the ratio question of market rate to affordable housing production has me a little confused. And so I'd you know, I'd like to learn more about where things stand. And, yeah, I just look forward to seeing the results of these conversations that are going on. I know that the funding question is a big question that extends well beyond even just the planning commission, but, you know, we do have oversight of the general plan and so this is part of it and I look forward to hearing more. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I I would like to echo the need for wanting to hear more, but I'd like to make stack it up a little higher. We are not the only ones in California struggling with the issue. I'm sure you are talking to, like, cities of equal size of what they are doing. It would be interesting, and this is not an Olympic way, this is basically what can we learn, to briefly take comparable cities who have similar issues as we do and see what they are doing in comparison to the question of the circuit breaker. They are all under the same type of requirements, and learning from Las Vegas would perhaps be the best way of doing it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, we can move on to your regular calendar for items eight a and b for case numbers 2024Hyphen011443 P C A M A p and c u a at twenty two forty five to twenty two fifty five post street planning code and zoning map amendments and the conditional use authorization.

[John Dacey (Planning Department staff)]: Good afternoon president Campbell and members of the commission. John Dacey, department staff. There are two items before you related to this project at 22452255 Post Street, Assessors Block Number 1078, Lots 20 And 21. The first item is an ordinance to amend the planning code and zoning map to create the 2245 Special Use District. The subject property is located within the NC 3 Zoning District and 95 Dash 240 Dash R Dash 4 Height and bulk district. The special use district is to facilitate the redevelopment of the Holocaust Center, which is currently located at 2245 Post Street. The SCD would allow exceptions from non residential use size limits, floor area ratio, bulk limits, active use, street frontage controls, streetscape improvements, awning and marquee controls, signage controls, and impact fee deferral through conditional use authorization. It would also potentially allow for the Planning Commission to authorize as a conditional use of plan unit development. These exceptions are intended to support the long term viability of the center while providing adequate security measures along the street frontage. The second item is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to pending special use district planning code section 249.26 and section three zero three and board file number 251,144 to grant the exceptions from planning code allowed under the proposed SUD. These exceptions are intended to support the long term viability to accommodate expanded cultural, educational, and archival programming while also providing adequate security. The project includes a demolition of two adjacent buildings and the construction of a four story approximately 60 foot tall building operated by Jewish Family and Children's Services that includes rooms for public exhibitions, a lecture hall, library offices, conference spaces, and an archive center. The proposed project would include no vehicular parking, 14 class one, four class two bicycle parking spaces. The project also includes the construction of a bowl bout with security bollards, the removal of four street trees, the addition of two street trees, the lengthening of the existing 40 foot long passenger loading zone, and the mergers of Lot 20 And 21. Since the publishing of the case report, the department has not received any letters in opposition. Prior to the submittal of the applications, the product sponsor conducted a pre application meeting and has met with operators from the adjacent medical condo building. The department does find that the project is on balance and consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. The project will maintain a longstanding community institution within the Western Addition neighborhood and help preserve an important part of San Francisco's history. The center was established by survivors of the Holocaust with the goal of increasing awareness about Jewish history and the causes and consequences of antisemitism, racism, and discrimination. The PRO's SUD will permit the development and expanded space that better fits the needs of the center, allowing them to host more visitors and strengthen their ability to deliver robust programming, permanent temporary exhibitions, and vital community resources. I do have two things to read into the record. One, a substitute ordinance was introduced to the board on Tuesday to make non substantial changes to the proposed ordinance, only clarifying the exceptions that may be granted in the proposed SUD. In addition, there were some changes with the family zoning plan that went into effect on January 12. The project's height in bulk district was changed from 65A to 95240R4. And there was also an admission into CEQUA findings in the resolution, which I want to read into record, adding the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the MND. And the record as a whole finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment with the adoption of the mitigation measures adopted are contained in the MMRP to avoid potentially significant environmental effects associated with the project. The planning commission hereby adopts the FMND and the MMRP attached hereto as exhibit D and incorporated herein as part of this resolution by this reference thereto all mitigation measures identified in the FMND and contained in the MMRP are included as conditions of approval. In conclusion, the department recommends the commission approve the proposed ordinance, adopt the resolution to that effect, approve the conditional use authorization as well. And this concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you have, and the project sponsor has prepared a presentation for you as well. Thank you.

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

[Karen Payson (Architect, JFCS Holocaust Center project)]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Karen Payson. I am the architect for the new building for the Holocaust Center. The JFCS Holocaust Center founded in 1979 is now, and now one of California's leading resources in Holocaust education. Currently occupies a two story building of almost 6,400 square feet at 2245 Post. In 2024, the project sponsor acquired 2255 Post to merge it with 2245, create a larger site for its new home, and that is the subject of this planning application. The site is across the street from Mount Zion Hospital and is flanked on both sides east and west by medical office buildings. Although it's zone NC3, there are no residential or retail uses on this block. Due to the non residential size limit use size limit, this project requires a conditional use authorization. An earlier proposal designed for the 2002 And 45 Post site only did receive a CU from this commission almost two years ago, actually eleven one year and eleven months to the day. Shortly afterwards, JFCS acquired 2245 excuse me, 2255 Post. With the expanded site and approval of both the CU and the SUD, the Holocaust Center will be able to host its current programming on-site and expand its offerings to the public. Key elements of the SUD will allow the center to stay on-site in the event of future growth and to implement necessary safety and security features while maximizing transparency from the street. The Holocaust Center's current home hosts a portion of its archives, its administrative offices, and the Talber Holocaust Library, but its educational program is mostly conducted off-site. The as the State of California has recognized the importance of promoting Holocaust education, the center's reach has grown and its programming has expanded to include multiple forms of education and community outreach including the California Teachers Collaborative. The proposed building is designed to welcome the public. It will be a state of the art facility that will accommodate on-site educational programs, public exhibitions of both its own collection and traveling shows, lectures, film series, and events and a larger professional staff. The 1st Floor will have a two story street facing lobby with two galleries and a lecture hall. The 2nd Floor will host three galleries and a small cafe for snacks and coffee. The Tauber Library meeting rooms and administrative offices will be located on the 3rd And 4th Floors. The Lower Level will host the Holocaust Center's archives and visitors room in addition to utilities maintenance and storage and employee spaces. The sidewalk is very narrow at this site. It's only 10 feet wide. We propose a bulb out which would allow for groups of visitors to gather as they enter or exit the building and also provide enough space for security bollards, bike racks, trees. An application for street improvement permit has already been submitted to DPW. Finally, the Holocaust Center will serve the public with a great variety of programs, events, and resources relating to the Holocaust and the Jewish experience. The entry level will be a welcoming space with transparency to the street and finished with warm natural materials. The interior light atrium which will also be visible from the street and acts as the heart of the building will be clad with the same stone as the post street facade. The proposed new building for the Holocaust Center will be an asset for all of San Francisco and beyond, offering educational programs for students from all over Northern California, as well as for teachers from all over the state. And its archive and library will continue to be an important home for Holocaust research. Thank you for your consideration.

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

[Celia (Nearby resident)]: Hi, my name is Celia and I live a block from the project. And I just wanted to find out about like construction vehicle coverage of this area and the noise impact that this is going to have on residents here.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I essentially don't really have any concerns about anything that's before us today. Has my support. You know, the SCD was necessary because of the zoning district partly because of, my understanding is the height and bulk district that this was in and now with the revised zoning, that component of what kind of needed some additional attention. Special treatment for the SED is now actually not even really in play anymore. But even before that, before those changes were brought to my attention by staff, you know, the physical form of this building really does fit in well with the area that has a large variety of kind of larger scale institutional and commercial buildings. The, you know, use itself seems like a good project. I hope to be able to visit this when it's all done. It's an important facility. And so, this does have my support. On the question that was raised by a member of the public who lives nearby as far as construction impacts, there are obviously going to be standard requirements as part of the construction of this project. Those sit a little bit more in, you know, the Department of Building Inspection and oversight of that. But even so, I am curious, I don't know if any members of staff or the project sponsor team have any comments about construction plans at this time? Like equipment staging, vehicles, that kind of thing.

[Karen Payson (Architect, JFCS Holocaust Center project)]: Commissioner Braun, you stated it very well. There are protocols that are regulated in the city of San Francisco and as well by the green building code as well by LEED and we are required for to design this building and build this building to qualify for LEED Gold Certification plus six points as we're demolishing buildings. And part of that whole program includes protocols around construction, around noise and dust and debris. And we are expecting to work with K Hill Construction and they are an extremely responsible and deeply experienced firm who worked a lot in San Francisco. So, we expect to be good neighbors. Construction is always annoying. I deal with it. We all deal with it. We live in the city and work here, but we expect to be good neighbors in implementing this building.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And, you know, along with that also comes, you know, specific hours of operation as well, and I agree, you know, nobody loves being close to a construction site, but it is a temporary impact and I have confidence that this is going to be over soon. I'm sorry, No, my time for public comment is over. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I also strongly support this project and legislation as well as putting it as an SUD. You know, the Jewish community has does history in this area, in the Fillmore area, and so this is a good opportunity and it's actually I think it's timely. In terms of the, you know, of the concessions, you know, I also support all of this. And so, thank you for the architect as well for presenting and giving us, you know, the context of the design. It's really beautiful. So, thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I'm in full support of what is in front of us. I also am really interested that using the SUD mechanism to create the extra security that is necessary for this building. I would echo Commissioner Braun's comment. This is actually a building perfectly sited because it sits in an area of light buildings. It's actually a quiet area, yet it is not inactive. The only question I would like to ask the architect is, you are not providing parking, which obviously we all welcome because it so much increases building costs, including security. How are you anticipating that people will who attend events would be parking? Because we do I do not know exactly what buses are running other than the ones going down California Street, but we are on post, which is a few blocks off. How are you anticipating that people will be able to come to the building and park their cars?

[Karen Payson (Architect, JFCS Holocaust Center project)]: It's a very fair question. So, it is well served by transit. There's the Gary Street rapid bus rapid transit a block away. There are buses on to this. The but in terms of events, there are a couple of issues when there are school buses for example, because that's a really that'll be a lot of people coming at once, but they're coming in a large machine. So, there are neighboring parking lots whom we with we have good relationships with the owners and so the ownership is negotiating for parking for off hours, for special things like the bus, but particularly for off hours events. Also the parent agency which is Jewish Family and Children Services has its own parking garage a block away. And that will also be involved in helping to reduce the number of cars that are looking for parking on the street.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you. I love the answer. I do like joint parking strategies. And even if it's a block away, some people do not want to hear that, but I'm glad that you have foresightfully taken that into consideration. I think the building is very respectful. I think it's a very grounded building that is not screaming for attention. I love the balance between transparency and openness, but it is a solidly built building, and I look forward to seeing it completed. Thank you. I'll make a motion to approve with conditions.

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

[Lydia So (Outgoing President/Commissioner)]: Commissioner So? I really like the design of the building. It's perfectly fitting the purpose of its use. I wish it was built sooner rather than later. The drawings are really clean and succinct. It really shows that you got the right architect to do the right job. Really appreciate it. And I really look forward to learn more once the building is open because I think we can all have a better peaceful life if we have better understanding of everybody. So, you have my blessing and I hope all the funding is secure and get it all go out there and get it built. I mean, full support I was actually wishing to motion this. So, I'll second it and second it. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Everyone wants to make the motion. It is a it's a soft looking building with hard materials. It's a nice design. It will be very welcoming to address the parking. Cahill Construction in their collective bargaining agreements, they provide parking. So every construction worker on that will be parking in those lots within a mile away, walking. They'll get there at five 05:30 in the morning and they'll be leaving us, you know, at two 02:30 in the afternoon. So, that's the construction. So, basically you're down to deliveries and takeaway. There's no probably no better company in town that can get that done as expeditiously as possible, as quietly as possible as in a bit of they will not disrupt the neighbors. They'll do everything they can. So, I wish you well with this. I look forward to people going to work. I look forward to the local hire on this, apprentices starting their careers on this. It's a phenomenal project and I wish you well with it. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Sounds like unanimous support. There's no other comments. I think we're ready for a vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Indeed. There's a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion commission well, adopt recommendations for approval for the code amendments, map amendments and, approve with conditions of conditional use authorization. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commission President Campbell.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. Six to zero. And we'll place us on item Nine for case number twenty twenty four hyphen zero one zero seven three nine. See you a for the property at 1732 Terrible Street conditional use authorization.

[Kurt Boateng (Planning Department staff)]: Good afternoon commissioners, Kurt Boateng, Planning Department staff. The project before you today is a request for a conditional use authorization pursuant to Planning Code section three seventeen to remove an approximately nine fifty six square foot dwelling unit located on the 1st And 2nd Floor of an existing two story mixed use building containing one residential unit and a Ground floor commercial space. The proposed project would merge the existing residential unit with the Ground Floor commercial space currently operating as Parkside Day Spa and convert the former dwelling unit into accessory office and break room space to serve the existing commercial massage use at 1732 Terrible Street. For context, the subject property was originally developed in 1925 with Ground Floor commercial space and a dwelling unit located at the rear of the Ground Floor on the 2nd Story. Permit history confirms that the site contains a legal dwelling unit and Ground Floor commercial space. Historically, the dwelling unit was accessed through a hallway extending from the Ground Floor Street entrance to the rear of the unit as shown in exhibit view of the packet. Permits filed and approved in 2011 misrepresented existing conditions and failed to disclose the presence of a residential unit in order to establish a ground force spa use. Since that time, the property has operated as a massage establishment with the dwelling unit being utilized as a break room and accessory office space. The Planning Department opened an enforcement case in January 2017 in response to a publicly initiated complaint regarding an illegal massage establishment. The investigation revealed the unauthorized removal of the dwelling unit. A permit application was filed and approved by the planning department in March 2019 to correct the violation and restore the dwelling unit at the site. The permit remains on file and is pending the submittal of additional information prior to issuance. Furthermore, the Department of Building Inspection through our report states that the authorized use of the property is a one family dwelling in a commercial use at the site. The department's recommendation that the commission deny the project is grounded in the objectives and the policies of the housing element of the general plan, which call for the creation of new housing and discourage the loss of existing units to address the city's longstanding housing shortage and affordability crisis. Approval of the project would result in a net loss of housing in an amenity rich area of the city, further burdening the city's overall housing supply. Accordingly, the department cannot support the project and find it's neither necessary nor desirable, is incompatible with the surrounding community, and conflicts with the intent of the general plan. That concludes my presentation, and I'm also available for questions after.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. With that, we should, excuse me, take project sponsors presentation. You have five minutes.

[Peter Petruzzi (Architect)]: Hi. My name is Peter Petruzzi. I'm the architect for representing the owner.

[John Tom (Property owner, 1732 Taraval Street)]: My name is John Tom, I'm the owner.

[Peter Petruzzi (Architect)]: So the history of the building is very clouded. I've been dealing with the city on this for over five years now. And actually building came back and said to me, we would have a good substantive argument about it not being a dwelling unit. Somewhere along the line, the unit, whether or not it was there, disappeared, there's multiple conflicts in the drawings over the years. To separate it now, the unit is in the rear, which has some issues with exiting for fire. The separation requirements would mean to actually dissect the building. Any separation between living and commercial space now requires two hour separation from the ground up through the roof. It doesn't really create a great livable unit. You'd have to go down this long hallway to place it in the back and it would basically create the commercial space would become ineffective. You'd lose at least 12% of square footage, 50% of the existing rooms that they use for the spa would be cut in half. And it got hung up between the pandemic, the city moved, drewings got lost, all kinds of things happened, but we've been diligently trying to solve this problem with planning. Any questions?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: No. Does that conclude your presentation?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: If so, 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.

[David Villalobos (Representative for tenant, Parkside Day Spa)]: Good afternoon commissioners, David Villalobos. This is the commercial space and I'll be speaking on her behalf because there's a language barrier. We keep talking about removing an existing dwelling unit. A dwelling unit does not exist there. According to our research it may have existed at a time where business owners resided in their place of business and this the last time it was used was we believe in 1968. These current property owners removed nothing and so the fire department actually mentioned that in order to create or build a dwelling unit at the rear, it would mean taking a substantial amount of square footage away from the commercial space and create an easement, a fire rated easement so that the tenant could access their unit in the rear. So this is this is not removing an existing unit. If we if removal was approved here today, it would be on paper only because there's nothing there physically to remove And she would lose her little small storage area, her little bathroom for her for her employees and a little break area. I've actually seen it. It's so tiny and they use it for their business. So, it would be a hardship for this lady and her workers for the property owner to be made to create and build a little dwelling unit on the rear which would be so, so tiny and destroying the commercial space. I want to thank you for your service to our city and for your time today. Thank you so much.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I just want to comment on the dwelling unit. It says that there was a residential eviction happened as of breach for lease as of 2001?

[Kurt Boateng (Planning Department staff)]: So anytime we deal with residential removals, we request records from the rent board and essentially that's just justification that there was a tenant there at the site. So it's kind of standard procedures that the Planning Department requests all types of records, whether it be rent boards or voter, we go through voter renter voter rolls to basically verify if tenants ever existed.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So I guess my question is, as of 2001, there was a residential unit, it looks like it and then the front is an office or a commercial use, is that also the setting

[Kurt Boateng (Planning Department staff)]: That on is correct. So I think based on going back to the permit history and query of the site, there was a dwelling unit located at the rear and on the second story and then there was a commercial site located at the front. Between 2011, a permit was approved over the counter but misrepresented the site not showing a dwelling unit and showing it as accessory office to the commercial space. So I think that's kind of how this project has been carrying forward essentially.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Sounds like, okay, I just want to clear that fact out that there was a residential as of 2001.

[Kurt Boateng (Planning Department staff)]: As far as planning department staff, there has been a unit there and there is legal documentation, permit history from Department of Building Inspection showing a legal dwelling unit at the site.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay, thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: You're welcome.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have a question for department staff as well. So the, there was the permit that was approved in 2019 to abate the 2017 violation, which sound like may have also been discovered as part of the illegal massage establishment at the time. So can you speak a little bit more about that 2019 permit? Was that to restore the residential unit? Am I getting that right?

[Kurt Boateng (Planning Department staff)]: Yes. So in 2017, there was a public initiated complaint. There was, at one point, an illegal massage establishment, which has been evaded. A permit was filed in 2019 to correct the violation and essentially restore the unit at the rear of the site to basically abate the violation. Since then the permit's kind of been in the filed pending process in pending additional information to basically push the form, put the permit forward for issuance.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay, so at this time there are plans that have been approved by the Planning Department Correct. To restore the unit including building the fire rated walkway to the rear?

[Kurt Boateng (Planning Department staff)]: I can't speak to building and fire where the planning department has approved the permit for

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: the restoration department. Correct. Yes. Yes. Thank you. I do have one question for the property owner. You know, so Commissioner Imperial noted that there was a eviction of a residential tenant in 2001. We've also heard from your team that somebody that this has not been lived in since the '60s, so I'm curious. How long have you owned the property?

[John Tom (Property owner, 1732 Taraval Street)]: Since 2001.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Since 2001.

[John Tom (Property owner, 1732 Taraval Street)]: Yes. That's the eviction that we had to the tenant refused to move after we bought the property. That's where that eviction came about. And But

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: where was the tenant living if there was no residential unit in 2000

[John Tom (Property owner, 1732 Taraval Street)]: He and basically used utilized the whole building. And that's the only method I knew how to evict. And we did it ourself. That's where that eviction came about.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Yes. I come down on the side of this of, you know, of wanting to deny the application, you know. There are already plans ready to go for the residential unit to be restored. All legal records show that there has never been, you know, an authorized removal of a residential unit in this place. We know that there was somebody living on-site. So even though the physical form of the building possibly is in question, you know, who knows? It's not clear exactly when or if the walk way, the hallway to the residential unit, the rear may have been removed or who did that. But either way, we know it's also you know, it has been in residential use in the I want to call it the recent past. It was twenty five years ago now. But it has been a residential unit and so I also just have a hard time justifying from the general plan perspective and the housing element perspective the removal of a housing unit from this property. And so see that Commissioner Moore has some questions but

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: have

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: you already make a motion?

[Jerry Dratler (Public commenter)]: I'm ready

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: to make a motion. Yes, I'm ready to make a motion to deny the conditional use

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second. Conversation.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Vice President Moore? I'd just

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: like to add that it's extremely difficult to get into histories which are as long winded and as complicated, particularly when building plants do not clearly document the history of how this very old building was used over time. I mean, what I do regret is that it takes us that long to rectify something which would have addressed and resolved even prior to the new owner buying the building. That's kind of like a stop and let's do it right at the time when he bought the building. But I am just saying this because in the end, I think the necessity for maintaining and reinstating housing is what drives us. Commercial spaces can be reconfigured. And I think even in this particular layout, things can be done to still maintain a viable business. So those are my closing comments.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: I 'll jump in here. I completely understand the logic for denying this request. We are working so hard to create more housing and to preserve housing, and we certainly do not want to set any sort of precedent for the community that it's okay to remove housing. But I think reinstating this unit is not going to be easy. Look, I'm looking at the plans, and I concur with the project sponsor. We're talking new storefront. We We have to build a rated corridor. It's going to impact a small business. So, I mean, it's really a it's a huge undertaking for a small business and a property owner. So, you know, denial means we gain back a housing unit, but I do worry it also possibly we lose a small business in the community. So, we're because that's also important. I think small businesses are vital to our neighborhoods. So, I would support a more reasonable compromise. You know, when I look at the map, the family zoning map, this is a very strong development opportunity in the future. Could the addition of a minimum of one unit at this property being reinstated upon the sale of the property, so that this business can continue to use this, not have the burden of doing all of this construction, and know that when the time is right, and it is inevitable that this property will be redeveloped, that at least one unit is put back at that time. So I would be in support of a compromise like that, putting it out there for consideration.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to deny the requested application. On that motion, commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So move commissioners that motion passes five to one with commissioner Campbell voting against. Commissioners, that will place us on item 10 for case number 2025Hyphen001987CUA at 61 Royal Lane, 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 a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections two zero nine point one, three zero three, and three seventeen to demolish a 534 square foot unauthorized dwelling unit that was constructed in an accessory building and to construct a new three story building with one dwelling unit and one accessory dwelling unit using the state ADU program, bringing the total to two new residential units. The subject property is located at 61 Royal Lane within Supervisor District 11, the R H 1 Zoning District, and Priority Equity Geography Special Use District. The subject property occupies two parcels and shares one lot one lot number. There's an existing detached single family home on the south end of the lot that will remain unchanged. A separate lot line adjustment application has been filed to document the two lots and to adjust the lot line to meet current code requirements. The unauthorized dwelling unit in the accessory building is currently vacant. There was a buyout agreement filed in 2020, and the unit has been vacant since 2021. This unit previously received planning department approval to legalize the unauthorized unit under the unit legalization program per planning code section two zero seven point three, but the building permit was, not issued. The project proposes to construct a new three story building with two units, two bicycle parking spaces, and one off street parking space. The main unit will be 2,172 square feet and occupy the 2nd And 3rd Floors with four bedrooms and private decks. The ADU will be 826 square feet with two bedrooms and occupy the 1st Floor. The project is consistent with the controls of the R H 1 Zoning District and priority equity geographies special Use District. To date, there has been one phone call received, inquiring about the project. There has not been any formal letters of support or opposition received. The department has found the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood 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 presentation and I will be available for questions. The project sponsor will now speak on the project.

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

[Alex Nieh (Project Architect, 61 Royal Lane)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Alex Nieh. I'm the project architect for the project.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Could you lift the microphone just a little bit? Thank you.

[Alex Nieh (Project Architect, 61 Royal Lane)]: I think the planner covers most of the information. I only want to mention that we provide 10 feet front setback on the Ground Floor and 2nd Floor and actual 10 feet setback on the 3rd Floor, which is much more than typical on that street. Other than that, I think she has covered everything. I'm here for your question. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (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. You need to come forward.

[Morna Estandian (Neighbor, 61 Royal Lane area)]: Good afternoon commissioners my name is Morna Estandian and I live at 69 Morse. I do work for the city and county of San Francisco as well and I oppose the approval of 61 Royal Lane. This project involves a demolition of existing structure that already includes an authorized unit. Given the issues with sanitation, rats and failure to maintain the right of way given by the current property owner, we are deeply concerned about approving a much larger and more intense development for conditional use. The owner of the property has demonstrated the following. One, negligence in repairs and maintaining the vegetation. The vegetation got so out of hand while taking care of my property, I met face to face with a coyote hiding in the brush. Rats, mice started to roam the property coming into my property. I fear while during the building who run out of the means and knowing construction is a stop and go process. Because he has kept the upkeep of the property, I have currently called law enforcement to remove squatters. Now for the owners of 20 Royal Lane who could not be with us today. The owners consist of one person working for state funds, the Department of State funds. One

[Fanny Hui (Neighbor, 26 Royal Lane)]: is

[Morna Estandian (Neighbor, 61 Royal Lane area)]: a contractor of DOE and the other is self employed. The construction of a three story home with such close proximity to their properties will significantly impact their right to privacy, looking into their living room directly, the construction will process likely to generate significant noise that will have an impact and the ability to work from home, potentially disrupting their productivity and livelihood. I also share this comment since I work from home one to two days a week. It would interfere with phone calls and video conferences. It would make it difficult to concentrate and meet deadlines. I also share this comment. Thank you.

[Fanny Hui (Neighbor, 26 Royal Lane)]: Hi, my name is Fanny Hui. I live in right across 61 Royal Lane. I'm at 26 Royal Lane and my husband and I live in the house for over thirty years. If the project approve, it will be right in front of a house very, very close. It will be take away our privacy from our living room. And then I want to show you the picture. This is the trees and the plants are really nice in front of our window. If the project approved that all the trees and the plants around the area will be all gone. So this will be make our life not that peaceful because we retire at home and we want to keep this environment green and nice and the fresh air. And the privacy is really important for the neighborhood. Thank you.

[Joy (Labor representative)]: Good afternoon, Department Commission. My name is Joy. I'm the labor one of the labor there and I represent the 11 of labor. First to start it, I want to share a little tiny map just to save you the idea. You can see a little bit triangle, they try to Can

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: give us a microphone, please? We can't

[Unidentified public commenter (Bernal Heights demolition concern)]: hear you. Okay.

[Joy (Labor representative)]: So it's a little bit triangle, the one lot, they will try to build divide the two lot and build the two building. But anyway, so I want to start it. I'm concerned about it. So this I'm very concerned about it is a straight. This is very, very narrow and straight, only have 11 feet.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So this is my

[Joy (Labor representative)]: Okay. So they have electrical port there. I use a measurement tape side by side. So 11 feet, what does that mean? So for the public vehicle, normally for van, you need 11 feet. For one van, accelerate parking space. Standardized parking space is nine feet. So we have a lovely, we have a garbage can here.

[Theresa Dulalas (SOMCAN)]: So the garbage

[Joy (Labor representative)]: can is three feet. So it's no way have anything happened. So fire truck emergency, you know, cannot go inside a little tiny place. No access. So for the safety and for the I'm very concerned about the project. I think it is a beautiful architect design. I love the house, but location, location. We put it on the safety in the first place. That is I want to mention about it.

[Theresa Dulalas (SOMCAN)]: So you can

[Joy (Labor representative)]: see some another port.

[Lei Vu (Project Architect, 49 Chula Lane)]: You can

[Joy (Labor representative)]: see the electrical port just there. So there's no way you can drive to go through the and also the road is a very broken road and uneven digging a lot. So you just dump in there. And no public service and over labor by themselves, we clean the street by themselves. So I just want you know, let the commission know that is our concern and, you know, for the safety, privacy and all of all.

[Morna Estandian (Neighbor, 61 Royal Lane area)]: Thank you.

[Julie (Neighbor, 1158 Naples Street)]: Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Julie. I live at 1158 Naples Street, back of my property where I've been since 1983 is directly in front of the proposed construction. And to summarize, regarding public safety, privacy and neighborhood character, the safety impacts are significant. Royal Lane is extremely narrow, dead ended, creating limited access for emergency vehicles. Increased density and additional residential units would further strain fire, ambulance and evacuation access posing unacceptable risks to residents and first responders. Second, the project would substantially harm the privacy of adjacent neighbors. The proposed height, massing, window placement would directly overlook neighborhood hood homes and outdoor spaces resulting in loss of privacy and inconsistent with the established residential pattern of this alley lane. Third, the proposal is incompatible with the existing community character and the culture of Royal Lane. The street has historically consisted of low density single family homes, introducing a multiunit structure of this scale would fundamentally alter the neighborhood fabric and set a precedence for over development on a street that is definitely not designed to accommodate it. For these reasons, we urge the planning commission to deny approval of the 61 Royal Lane project. It is in my view this three story building does not address affordable housing in San Francisco, and at the very least, I urge the developer to under to change the physical form so that it's not vastly oversized for the property. Thank you, Commissioners.

[Wang (Neighbor)]: Hello, everyone. My name is Wang. I'm living in 57 malls. I'm in the same page as everyone else. The place is too small. The street is too small for such big building over there. It's three story high and overlooking to everybody. So I'm totally disagree on that. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes, I have a couple of questions for department staff about the project. So, the first one is, so we're talking about the demolition of an existing unauthorized dwelling unit but for, you know, our purposes it's also rent stabilized housing unit and so and it is vacant but this is I believe subject to the Housing Accountability Act. So there's replacement and relocation provisions involved. Relocation is not an issue since it's vacant. But under the replacement provisions, does this mean that the one of the two housing units if rented would be subject to rent control? Now I also want to acknowledge, I do want to acknowledge you know we can't definitively say that the prior unit was rent stabilized. It looks like since the rent board have to weigh in on that, but

[Unidentified Planning Department staff]: As a second unit, an ADU, we require them to file a Costa Hawkins agreement. It's just part of our conditions when we have an ADU.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: So, it would be a rent stabilized housing unit as part of the replacement. Okay. Yes. Alright. Thank you for that. So, you know, it again, it and then this is proposed as a rental project. Is that correct?

[Maggie Dong (Planning Department staff)]: The main dwelling unit will be own will be owner occupied. The ADU will be a rental property or rental unit.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Well, it's one of those situations where the property owner might choose not to rent the unit. But at the very least, you know, if it is rented, it will be subject to rent control. So, you know, I'm comfortable with that. The other consideration here is about the project itself. There have been a lot of concerns raised about the sort of built form of the project, its scale relative to the streets and the width and the existing development pattern. Again, as a Housing Accountability Act project, you know, I believe what matters for us most is whether it meets our objective existing criteria, and per staff's analysis. Am I am I correct in understanding that this does meet all the applicable, existing zoning requirements and planning code requirements?

[Maggie Dong (Planning Department staff)]: Yes. This project does meet all the objective design standards because it is adding two units. Yes.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. And then on the on the life safety kind of requirements, So it is a narrow street. There will be subsequent review by the fire department. Is that correct?

[Maggie Dong (Planning Department staff)]: Yeah. So this project right now has only gone through planning review. There may be additional comments from other agencies as they do their review down the line.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. You know, I I hear the the concerns that have been raised by by neighbors. And so, you know, as far as the actual scale and composition of the project goes, the project itself is subject to a state law that, you know, kind of limits the ability to adjust the project as long as it meets the existing regulations that we have under the planning code. So the one question before us is whether to remove the unauthorized dwelling unit in the former garage. You know, for me, I think that this it's a I understand the concerns about the street width. It looks like it's probably an unaccepted street by the city. But, you know, I think the project, being three stories, by having a setback 10 feet from the street itself, as well as further kind of step backs at the top, it's a reasonable, fit for the site from my perspective. This triangular site in a sort of mid block area is pretty unique. But there is the new parcel for this project seems like a pretty reasonably sized parcel and condition to me. And then also as far as making sure that this project is safe, that it is going to be reviewed by the experts at the fire department, that is a next step in the process. And if it's found that just that it's not possible to build this safely and have people live in it safely, then that is going to be addressed by the experts in those areas. And so, this project has my support and I make a motion to approve with conditions.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: We had a project comparable to this one, not quite the same, on a small lane that comes off the curvy part of Lombard Street a few months ago. We had similar discussions. What for me personally is missing in this particular submittal is understanding the building better in context. And that is either a plan which puts a proposal into the surrounding blocks because understanding the neighbors' comments, kind of like I hear what they're saying, but I would like to kind of see how that plays itself out three dimensionally in a sketch that simulates the setting. In addition to that, and that is probably something that will be looked at by somebody else this if this project moves forward, The nature of the lane shows something that is an unimproved street with no curb, gutter or sidewalks, which makes it more difficult to really understand accessibility because you are not you don't have the normal barriers which define the proper widths of driving area. It's a lane which was not from the pictures we saw in particularly good context based on the photos. So those are additional questions that next time around, when we have something, one, I would always suggest that owners who have questions send the letter to the commission secretary so that we can understand your concerns ahead of time. Number two, when the department takes in a project like that to always ask that the three-dimensional context in which it occurred is more properly documented. In principle, everything being equal together with the fact that this is a project coming under today's rules and as a Housing Accountability Act project, I am interested to see reasonable densification in situations like that. And I will support this project other than asking the department to better help us and yourself to establish a solid basis by which we make the supports. That's all. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell I'm sorry. Commissioner McGarry. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commissioners, that'll place us under your discretionary review calendar for items 11 a and b. Case numbers 2024Hyphen00Red

[Amy Campbell (President)]: now.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: 0926DRP VAR. For the property at 49 Chula Lane, you will be considering the discretionary review and the zoning administrator will be considering the variance.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Jonas, we have a disclosure from vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I'd like to make a disclosure. I wish to disclose that I have a professional relationship with the attorney for the project, Mr. Scott Emblich. I do not believe that that relationship has any impact on my ability to be impartial in this matter, And I ask that the minutes reflect this disclosure. Thank you.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, Planning Dept.)]: Good afternoon, President Campbell and Vice President Warren, fellow commissioners. If you tried in vain to read my case report and were confused, I'm here to explain it. I apologize. There were some typos in there that didn't make sense to me upon rereading it after I published it. So, here we go. The item before you today is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application twenty twenty four nine twenty six PRJ to construct a vertical addition and a deck to a two story single family building. The site is an approximately 26 foot wide by 85 foot deep key lot with the existing building being a category A historic resource built in 1880 due to its location within the California register eligible Chula Abbey Early residential Historic District. The building itself is considered a non contributor, but nonetheless being in that district it is considered an A. The Doctor requester Deborah Holly on behalf of Lewis Cobo of ten to twelve Abbey Street, the immediate neighbor to the east is concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to light, air, scale at the street, and would cause unreasonable impacts by further shadowing the rear yard of Mr. Cobo's building and backyard. Furthermore, the project would cause adverse impacts to the eligible Chula Abbey Early Historic District. Their proposed alternatives is to reduce the height of the building to the height of the addition, apologize, to no more than 10 feet and increase the side setback on the east side to reduce shadow impacts and visibility of the addition. To date, the department has received no letters in opposition and two letters in support of the project. The project complies with the planning code and as modified with the residential design guidelines, specifically design the building to be compatible with the scale at the mid block open space and the street and articulate the building to minimize impacts to light and air. To comply with the residential design guidelines related to scale at the street and mid block open space, light and air, and privacy, the department's design review staff had recommended four things, three things really. One, setting the addition back 15 feet from the front building facade. Two, reducing the overall height of the addition with special consideration to the east side. And third, setting the deck back from the east side by five feet and eliminating the property line window on that east facing wall as well. The predominant scale of buildings on this narrow alley is two stories. This combined with the key lot condition of adjacent properties fronting Abbey Street and their small rear yards led staff to recommend those means as mitigating the massing impact on the adjacent neighbors. The project sponsor responded with an asymmetrical gabled roof, reasonable means of accommodating the reduction of height provided it were sufficiently low to begin with. Staff had recommended that that plate height, the wall height basically, it would be no higher than seven foot six. The current proposal which is the last set of drawings in your packet reflects the revised drawings which have been changed to that height of seven foot six along with the corresponding roof height above that, in line with our recommendation to reduce the massing adjacent to the rear yards at Abbey. Therefore, deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review and approving. And I thank you. I'll be here for questions.

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

[Luis Carlos Cobo (DR Requester, 10–12 Abbey Street)]: There was a letter in opposition, believe. I'll just yeah. That was Good afternoon members of the Commission. My name is Luis Carlos Cobo. I'm the owner of 10 Abbey Street. I have lived in Mission for over a decade and in 2023 my wife, Kathrinlina, and I moved to Abbey Street to raise our two children and two dogs. I'm here to oppose the vertical addition at 49 Chula Lane. Their proposal to lift their east wall, which is right on my property line, from 16 to 27 feet, will severally obstruct light and air. Specifically, it threatens the habitability of 12 Abbey, a legally permitted studio unit at ground level whose only windows face this wall just 20 feet away, as well as the visibility of my backyard, which spans those 20 feet between their wall and 12 Abbey Wall. Because of the slope, the floor on that unit sits lower than 49 Chula. Standing in that studio, you can only see a sliver of sky and by three p. M. As of last weekend, the sun is already hiding behind 49 Chula. With an 11 foot wall increase, that sliver of sky vanishes and the unit will be cast into permanent shadow. The recent six inch height reduction of her body sponsor does nothing to mitigate this impact. Most importantly, there is a matter of consistency. My neighbors previously requested a variance to expand into their backyard, explicitly arguing in the variance that this was the only way for them to expand without impacting their neighbors. That variance was granted with the condition that further expansion would require a new variance and therefore a new hardship. Increasing a home square footage for luxury does not constitute legal hardship, especially when it directly contradicts the reasoning they used to gain their previous permit. I support my neighbors' wish to have their dream home, but not as the expense of my family's light and air and the viability of a neighboring home. I ask you to require a 10 foot setback from my property line. This would align with the standard for narrow streets and preserve the basic access to air and sand that 12 Abbey and our small yard requires. Thank you.

[Deborah Holly (Representative for the Cobo family)]: Good afternoon commissioners, Deborah Holly for the COBO family who live at, oh if we could have the slide shown, yeah, who live adjacent and to the East of 49 Chula. As you can see in the aerial, the subject site is a key lot abutting the Abbey Street rear yards. As Mr. Cobo just explained, the project would significantly impact his family's backyard and the studio unit. The added vertical massing extends the full width of the Cobo slot. The project would add a third story to a 2,222 square foot three bedroom, three bath single family home to create a 3,000 square foot home without adding any additional bedrooms or dwelling units. This is the maximum size permitted without requiring CUA approval. The proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to scale since it's inconsistent with the predominant two story massing of the buildings on Tula Lane in the Tula Lane Abbey Historic District. Slide three. Project does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to the protection of neighbors light air and open space. We're here today because unfortunately the project sponsors were unwilling to set back the third story from the Cobo's rear yard, resulting in the 27 foot blank wall without any relief. This slide shows the existing east wall of the two story 49 Tula Lane building from the COBOs backyard and studio unit. The addition of the proposed third story would block out light and open sky and would greatly reduce the total amount of sunlight reaching the rear yard and studio, particularly in the late afternoon. The project sponsors complied with the planning department's request to set back the deck from the side, but we're unwilling to set back the vertical addition at the East property line. And there are many opportunities to shift the massing to other portions of the property. As you can see in this slide, we requested that the massing of the new 3rd Floor be set back 10 feet to the west, as you can see in red. The blue areas are opportunity areas where that mass could be shifted. Also, fourth bathroom, the powder room, could be removed from the plans.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Ms. Holly, that is your time, but you will have a two minute rebuttal.

[Deborah Holly (Representative for the Cobo family)]: Okay. I'll finish in the rebuttal. Thank Thank you very

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

[Lei Vu (Project Architect, 49 Chula Lane)]: Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Lei Vu. We are the project architects for the vertical addition at 49 Chula Lane. We've worked with Laura and her family for the past three years.

[Morna Estandian (Neighbor, 61 Royal Lane area)]: Thank you,

[Lei Vu (Project Architect, 49 Chula Lane)]: please. Appreciate opportunity to

[Theresa Dulalas (SOMCAN)]: present the Excuse me,

[Amy Campbell (President)]: could you please speak more into the microphone so we can hear you?

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

[Lei Vu (Project Architect, 49 Chula Lane)]: Sure. I'm going to start with some site some of our site constraints for context. 49 Chula Lane is north facing on a narrow 14 foot street. To the west, 51 Chula Lane spans their entire lot depth with 13 property line windows. They and my client's existing bedrooms rely on the current open space for light and air. Here. To the south and east, my client borders three and four story properties on Abbey Street. Between my client and the Doctor requester here at 1012 Abbey, there is over close between fifteen and twenty feet between his lower build out and more than 25 feet to his upper two floors. So I'm trying how do I move this down? Can you help me figure out how to scroll down? Oh, there we go. Thank you. This is 51 Chula and you could see from my neighbor's open space, those are his property line windows. This is looking south from their open space towards 30C Abbey Street which is three stories. And this is the Doctor requester's three story unit, three story structure to the east. This massing model shows that our site constraints by building up rather than out, we preserve essential open space while remaining compatible with the surrounding scale. We worked with the planners and as David said, we lowered the east property line height down to seven foot six. And overall, we decreased the ridge height two foot two inches. We shifted the ridge west away from the east neighbor's yards in order to mitigate afternoon shadow impact. With the lowered seven foot six plate height, our new average midpoint at the slope is 29, nine feet nine and three quarters. In this east elevation, the that is more than 10 feet below the building property, the building permitted height. We stayed within our 2nd Floor footprint, so we are not within the 30% encroached rear yard requirement. And with the 15 foot setback at the front, we are not obstructing the sun access plane. We worked with the family to increase their livable space. The project increases they have two young children who currently share a bedroom, a daughter aged eight and a son aged five. The children need their separate bedrooms. Parents need dedicated home offices. And the family needs more functional common space. We added a new communicating stair at the Ground Floor at the end of the garage to keep the existing bedrooms intact. Relocating the common space to the Top Floor, we were able to add a second bedroom so the children are on the same floor, just a floor above their parents. The existing kitchen cannot support a family of four. It's tight. It has limited storage and only 30 inches between the range and the sink. When you go up to the 3rd Floor, we've combined all of the spaces and it's a modest seven forty two square feet with a we relocated the dining and the living and we were able to improve the functionality of their kitchen. To confirm the minimal impact on light and air to eastern neighbors, we conducted a full seasonal sun study. The data confirms at the winter solstice at any time and from 9AM to 2PM year round, there is no impact. Any solar change is confined late afternoon after 3PM and is minor as shown here. The full sun studies are included in our January 15 letter brief. While the spring fall equinox and summer solstice show some minimal late afternoon shadow, the Doctor requester retains unobstructed light from the north and the south. The condition is not being modified by the proposed project, which sits to the west of the Doctor requester. Let me conclude by saying that our proposal is accompanied with five support letters from our immediate neighbors at 51 Chula Lane and other neighbors on Abbey Street and around the block. And some are here to speak on our behalf. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Jonas P. Ionin (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 discretionary review request. You'll each have two minutes.

[Brad Davis (Neighbor)]: Good afternoon. My name is Brad Davis. I've lived in the neighborhood since 1981. I own the property at 9 Abbey, about a 150 yards from this proposed project. I will tell you this is an absolutely historic district. Chula, I believe, is the narrowest street in the city. It is one block. Abbey runs perpendicular one block into Chula, essentially is ending at Mission Dolores. I am not aware ever of approval being made to add an addition to any of the properties on either Abbey or Chula Lane. I wanna be clear at the outset, the proposed project does not materially impact my own property, but our neighbors just a year ago had a proposal done to add a story to their building. It would have blocked our light. It would have blocked our view all the way up to Buena Park. This area is defined by consistent scale and pattern. Most homes are two stories with a limited number of long standing three story buildings. That consistency matters. It creates predictable light access, usable rear yards, and a shared expectation for how density is handled on this block. The concern here is not change or development. It's precedent. Approving an additional story that significantly increases rear yard shattering would establish a new baseline for what becomes permissible across this entire neighborhood. Once that precedent is set, it will be cited repeatedly. What appears to be a single project becomes a pattern, and that pattern has permanent consequences for this historical neighborhood. Loss of rear light is not a subjective concern. It is measurable and irreversible in dense neighborhoods like this one. Light access is one of the few remaining protections for livability, and once it's reduced, it can never be restored. There's also a broader market consideration. Buyers in this neighborhood like myself are paying a premium based on reasonable expectations around scale and light consistency. And when those expectations become uncertain, it introduces risk and risk affects confidence in long term Thank property values

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: That is your time.

[Brad Davis (Neighbor)]: As a whole. Thank you very much for your time.

[Kristen Colombano (Neighbor)]: Hello, my name is Kristen Colombano. I live at 31 Abbey since the year 2000. And I've reviewed the project and the plans and I think it's a small impact that it's really sensitive to the neighbors and that it will improve our neighborhood and the properties. So, I'm in support.

[Patricia Port (Neighbor)]: Good afternoon commissioners. I am Patricia Port. I am also a neighbor who lives on Abbey Street and I own my property. I have lived there since, oh dear, '86, 1986. We have had quite a number of very good neighbors. Laura Pierron and her family have been excellent neighbors. As you have heard, they have made a number of changes to their plans. They have reached out to the neighbors. They are sensitive to what it is we are looking for and what we want. From my perspective, this family needs more space to raise their children. I believe it is the policy of the city of San Francisco to encourage families to stay here, to live here, to raise their families here. I think this project would be a step in that direction. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, last call for public comment. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and the discretionary review requester you have a two minute rebuttal.

[Deborah Holly (Representative for the Cobo family)]: May I have the overhead please?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: SF gov. Thank you.

[Deborah Holly (Representative for the Cobo family)]: Just a quick point about this RH 2 District. If you can see on this map, most of the units around the property, subject property are multifamily. They're adding quite a bit of space without adding an additional unit. And they are they need they're saying they need room because their kids share a bedroom, but they're not adding a bedroom. They're making a bigger kitchen and living area and some additional storage and adding one bathroom to the so for a total of four bathrooms. We are asking for some pretty reasonable changes that could make everybody happy. There's quite a bit of opportunity if you see in the blue area. Those are areas where they could shift some of the massing. They could get rid of the powder room and stick with three bathrooms, or they could relocate the powder room either in the lower box to the left, which is a currently contains a deck over the first story, or shift and they could shift part of the kitchen or powder room to the upper block, which is there's plenty of space, and it would be sure, it would be closer to 51, but they they would still enjoy a significant setback. So we're asking, you know, for some creativity here to make my clients happy just as other neighbors have testified they're happy with the plans because they're not impacted

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. By That is your time. Project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal.

[Laura Perry (Owner/Project Sponsor, 49 Chula Lane)]: I'm Laura Perry. I am the owner of forty nine Shula Lane.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: I've taken a look well, first

[Laura Perry (Owner/Project Sponsor, 49 Chula Lane)]: of all, let me just say that we have spent a long time

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: trying I cannot find hear the you. Would you mind speaking a

[Amy Campbell (President)]: little bit more Yes. To my

[Laura Perry (Owner/Project Sponsor, 49 Chula Lane)]: We've taken a long time to try to find the right design to accommodate neighbors. We live in a very tight neighborhood, very close to our neighbors. And we want, we very much appreciate, getting along with our neighbors and wanting to make adjustments to try to make, it comfortable for all of us living in these small spaces. And, our intent with the design was to come up with a very creative solution that balanced the interests of our neighbors along 5151 Chula, who fills the entire block and has 13 windows facing our yard, as well as the Abbey Street neighbors, whose rear yards all bound our our property line. The proposal that that the Doctor requester has shown would have two challenges. One, the proposal to build out over our existing deck would build into the rear yard requirement, so it would require a variance. And then the proposal to build along, closer to the western property line, closer to 51 Shula Lane, would impact the light and air of 51 Shula, and that was, in fact, the basis of the variance that was granted in 2009. I was the owner at that point when we, asked for that variance. It was to build out the ground floor. At that point, the only, proposal that was being considered was a ground floor expansion, and the alternative was a horizontal expansion along the western property line that would have impacted 51 Chula. And so the zoning administrator adopted our, rationale that was in the application, finding that, fifty one Chula's interests were to be protected, and so therefore the variance was to be granted. So again, in this project, we considered fifty one interests as well as all of the neighbors' interests in in our design.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: That is your time. With that, commissioner, this matter is now before you and the zoning administrator.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: I'll get us started. I know this street well. It's close to my home. Not too close to be a conflict, but close. In fact, I would go down this street with my kids on the way, taking them to their preschool every morning. We called it the Skinny Street. It's an incredibly charming and beautiful spot in the city. I find this addition to be incredibly thoughtful and very modest in nature. If anything, it's kind of putting it at a similar height to actually some of the buildings on an adjacent street, which I think the architect demonstrated pretty clearly. And when I look at the drawings and I hear Mr. Winslow's description, it sounds like there's already been a lot of compromises that have been made in this project and a lot of cooperation with the planning staff to get us to the solution that we're seeing here today. It's completely a code compliant project. And our job here right today is to find exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, which I'm struggling to see. So, I'm inclined to deny the discretionary review. Open to hearing other commissioners' thoughts on this. And I see Vice President Moore oh, sorry. Teague. Hello.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Thank you. Congratulations, President Campbell. Good to see you all. Yeah, I just wanted to touch base on kind of the variance role here because this is a little bit of an unusual situation in the sense that the scope of work that's proposed itself doesn't trigger a variance. It's in the permitted buildable area. But a standard condition for variances similar to a standard condition for Planning Commission decisions is that you know, the zoning administrator can can authorize kind of minor changes after a variance is granted, but more substantial changes even if they're in the buildable area. If they may not be consistent with the original variance or they could have impacts on the surrounding neighbors, the zoning administrator is authorized to either require additional notice or require a new variance. So in this case, there are two reasons why it was determined that the variance was actually triggered in this case. One is because the original variance was kind of granted on a partial rationale of going horizontal was the appropriate option at that time. And obviously now the proposal is to go vertical, which is kind of a different rationale. And as Mr. Winslow mentioned, when the project was first submitted, was determined that it wasn't consistent with the residential design guidelines. So we were looking at a proposal that was going a little bit against the grain of the original variance and then also was determined not to be consistent with the residential design guidelines. So that's why that determination was made that the variance was also needed. That's why I'm here. That's what I'm considering kind of separate from your discretionary review, just to be clear. But as was mentioned, the project has changed in terms of it has been revised since that time. And obviously, you've heard all the issues so far that you'll continue to deliberate on. But I wanted to just be really specific about that and be clear that, you know, for the Planning Commission, it's a discretionary review, just like any discretionary review you would have. But for me, I'm reviewing the variants kind of in context with the original variants, but also looking at the context today to ensure that this proposal is still kind of in line with the spirit and context of the original variance. I just wanted to provide that kind of clarification since it is not a typical trigger for a variance, especially a variance to be also here combined with a discretionary review.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Great. Thanks for the clarifications. Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you, President Campbell, for giving your personal expressions about the street. Having you say that makes me really actually more appreciate what actually has been done here. I consider the project in front of us actually very sensitively addressing circumstance. We do all live in extremely tight situations. This is a 26 by 85 foot deep lot, which makes it really very difficult. It's almost like shoehorning something in and trying to not make somebody notice it. So one question I had is, and I made a call to Ms. Gordon yesterday. I'm avoiding to pronounce her second name because I know I'll screw it up. So to speak about this is a category A historic building, and I ask her about the windows on the upper floor, the ones street facing windows. If you wouldn't mind going through that conversation with me, I would appreciate it. It's one, the materiality of the windows and it's two, the window expression itself, which I find very much not responding well to the circumstance it sits in. My concern about my question is, do our window guidelines apply since this is a street addressing street facing windows? And while I really appreciate the 15 foot setback, which makes it harder to see them, that still does not eliminate the fact that this is a category A rated building. Could you speak to that?

[Patricia Port (Neighbor)]: Yes. Thank

[Unidentified Planning Department staff]: you. Certainly. Elizabeth Gordon Junkier, Department Staff. I'm one of the preservation managers for District 8. Yes. So you have a historic resource review in your packet. This as Mr. Winslow indicated, this is a project that's in the California register eligible Chula Lane District, which means that the impact analysis was reviewed through CEQA, the lens of CEQA. Overall, I should state upfront, the determination was within that analysis that the project would not constitute a significant unavoidable impact on the district, which is what the CEPA required. But we did outline that overall the fenestration, both the patterns and the materials used would be inconsistent with the guidelines. But specifically, rhythm and the solid to void ratio pattern of the windows would be inconsistent with the neighboring properties And with the framing, the wood clad framing, aluminum clad wood framing would contrast with the traditional wood frame windows within the district. So, it is governed the project is governed by the guidelines, but the CEQA analysis determined there wouldn't be an impact to the district.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I found that particular analysis important to me, and I personally would like to encourage us as a commission to look at that and potentially take this particular aspect of the project forward. Since this is really a larger issue, I think we would do well to consider that.

[Lydia So (Outgoing President/Commissioner)]: Commissioner So. I live in the mission. I know how tight things are and I know that everyone's trying to make it worked. And it shows that it's evidence that the homeowners here is really trying to do her best job to keep her family here and have her children here, hopefully her, you know, next generations and also retire here with the dignity and also grace and also with the neighbors too. And I really echo President Campbell's message about this is actually quite, you take a lot of step to pretty much appease all the neighbors respond and request and I really appreciate zoning administrator Corie T's explanation of how you interpret these things into compliance. I would like to motion to do not take the Doctor and approve this project. Second.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I would like to ask that the comments that I made are being considered. Mr. Winslow, can you guide us through that? Believe it is important that we that take that next is not basically impacting the realization of the modified building as it is, but I think we'll add something that is really important.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, Planning Dept.)]: Yeah. I think through the course of the review of this project, both preservation staff and design review staff commented on the, in particular from my memory, the shape of the windows underneath the gables as kind of something that was not supportable from a residential design guideline, apropos of the pattern of windows in the surrounding buildings, trapezoidal triangular windows versus just regular rectangular windows. It came out in the HRR report as more relevant to the historical analysis than I think the design guideline recommendations. I think we, from the design guideline standpoint, thought, I hope correctly, that the setback of the addition of 15 feet, even though the peak of that roof and the windows are pretty high, but the narrowness of the street plus the setback might render those windows not visible from the public way. I hope that's the case. I don't know that that's the case. In a degree of safety, I would, you know, all things being equal, I would prefer those windows just being normalized, you know, rectangular windows of some sort rather than kind of a strange shape that's introduced into this district. And I think out of due caution considering that it is an eligible historic district, that's probably the right recommendation to make at this point.

[Lydia So (Outgoing President/Commissioner)]: Oh, my motion stays.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Then I was just going to weigh in as well on the variance itself, not kind of why the variance is here but just on the matter of the variance. I think the project sponsor kind of touched on some of the points that were germane to the original variance which is the nature of the lot but also the adjacent property to the west which is essentially full lot depth and has the property line windows. There was a desire to kind of respect that even though property line windows are protected. But there was a desire to respond to that in a way where the horizontal addition at the Ground Floor on the rear was on the east side of the lot away from that neighboring building to leave that gap. And it created essentially an offset. Like the building on the Ground Floor goes into the rear yard on the east side, but it's actually not as deep as it could be on the west side.

[Albert Arrutia (Engineer/Designer, 727 Madrid Street)]: So there's

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: a little bit of an offset there. And the actual amount that that addition back then went into the rear yard was not a significant amount. And I think that's important here because you still want to kind of honor that offset for the same reasons. And if it is going to increase, I think the Doctor requester mentioned there's not a bedroom increase. I believe I'm reading the plans correctly, it's going from three to four bedrooms though. So while I do agree that it would be a great thing if it was adding another unit here, like a lot of the other buildings here, it is at least an addition that is gonna expand the habitable area in terms of number of bedrooms. And ultimately, you know, the proposal is not really going to exacerbate the previous variance. And this is definitely a case where I would be looking to the Planning Commission to help ensure that there was consensus that the design was kind of contextual and appropriate here in this case. Obviously there's the details of the design, also it is set back from the front 15 feet. It is a fairly modest 3rd Floor overall regardless of the roof shape, etcetera. So in this case, it sounds like that there may not be any concerns from the Planning Commission from a design perspective as the project has been amended. And that will, you know, definitely be a big factor in my decision.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. Six to zero. Zoning administrator, what say you?

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. Commissioners, that'll place us on the final item on your agenda today, number 12, case number 2022Hyphen011377DRP for the property at 727 Madrid Street, discretionary review.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, Planning Dept.)]: Good afternoon, President Campbell and members of the commission, David Winslow, staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application twenty twenty two, eleven thousand three hundred and seventy seven PRJ, to comply with an NOV number 2020Two-ninetyThree-three86 to obtain a permit to construct two rear decks at the 1st And 2nd Floors of a two story over basement two family building. The site is approximately 25 feet wide by 100 foot deep lateral and down sloping lot. The existing building is a category B unknown age eligible resource built in 1910. The Doctor requester Ida Eng of 735 Madrid Street, the neighbor to the southwest is concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to scale at the mid block open space and preservation of light and privacy. Her proposed alternative alternatives are to replace in kind previous at grade deck and rear stairs. And failing that to reduce the footprint of both decks to an eight foot depth and increase the side setbacks. To date, the department has received no letters in support nor letters in opposition of the project. The proposed lower deck is approximately 10 feet above grade and extends 13 and a half feet from the rear wall of the 1st Floor. The upper deck extends eight feet from the rear wall. Both decks are set back five foot four inches from the south lot line and four feet from the north the northern side lot line. The size of the decks are not excessive. Both decks are adjacent to kitchens of two flats. And they are both well within the buildable area of the rear yard and articulated with their side setbacks to respect the scale of the mid block open space as well as privacy of adjacent neighbors. Therefore, the project does comply with the planning code and the residential design guidelines to articulate the building to minimize impacts to light and air. Furthermore, the distance between the Doctor requester's property and the potential view angles into interior spaces does not rise to the level of exceptional extraordinary, but rather demonstrates an extremely commonplace and expected circumstance of property rights within the city. Therefore, the proposed decondition will have an insignificant impact on this condition and staff sees no reason to request modifications. Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional nor extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Discretionary review requester, you have five minutes.

[Ida Ng (DR Requester, 727 Madrid Street)]: First and foremost, thank you for your time today, commissioners and Mr. Winslow. My name is Ida Ng. I am the Doctor applicant and I reside at 735 Madrid Street with my partner and two young children. We've lived there since 2014. I kindly request the Commission to take a further review for the following reasons. First, the Doctor analysis is missing the documentation I provided in the application I submitted on 11/13/2025. Mr. Winslow advised that he does not click on linked documentation from Doctor applications, so I sent three separate emails with the relevant files in PDF format on 01/06/2026 after a video meeting. These documents are applicable to the Doctor. Second, the plans that were shared do not reflect what is currently built. I raised the issue with Mr. Winslow and Mr. Albert Urotia during our January 6 meeting. A response was not given as to why there is a discrepancy. Third, the Sanborn map from 1998 referenced in the Doctor analysis is inaccurate as our property does not extend beyond the protruding section of 731 Madrid. An accurate map of the properties are visible on Google Maps satellite view, but the aerial views included in the Doctor analysis does not capture one close-up. Fourth, at the pre planning meeting held in February 2025, I was unable to attend, but Mr. Albert Urotia made a note to send me site and masking plans, neither of which I received. The pre planning application meeting notes is one of the documents provided in my application. At the same meeting, the owners of seven thirty one flagged concerns, but no follow-up was communicated nor any plans altered to consider their feedback, given that the plans from 07/11/2024 have not changed since. Fifth, the Doctor process was followed in good faith by requesting a community boards meeting where the project sponsor did not respond to the proposal, messaging the planner for additional information as recommended for increased clarity on the project and providing alternatives which were not considered by the project sponsor. The plans were drawn based on what was already erected prior to its submission to the planning department without any adjustments after the pre planning application meeting. And last but not least, on 09/30/2025, DBI inspector, Mr. Paul Matthews, was on my property to approve the concrete pour for new retaining wall as our previous one collapsed. At that inspection, he noted that the deck at 727 Madrid could not be legal or should be approved given how it's erected. This was a red flag for me and one of the reasons why I submitted the Doctor. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

[John Tom (Property owner, 1732 Taraval Street)]: Good afternoon.

[Albert Arrutia (Engineer/Designer, 727 Madrid Street)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Albert Arrutia.

[Deborah Holly (Representative for the Cobo family)]: Give me a second here.

[Albert Arrutia (Engineer/Designer, 727 Madrid Street)]: Can you put it on the overhead? Can you put on the overhead? There we go. I'm the engineer for the and the designer of 727 Madrid Street. My clients, Armando and Mary, are building the decks for their children. They will speak about this later. The new deck is five foot four away from the property line and on the west side and four feet on the east. Ida Eng, the appellant, lives on the West side. The upper deck is eight feet deep and the lower is 13 foot seven deep. The additional depth to accommodate the spiral stairs, leaving in effect an eight foot deck on the West side. The size of the decks excuse me. The additional depth is to accommodate the spiral stairs, leaving an affected deck on the West side. The size of the decks are not abnormal compared to others in the city of San Francisco. Ms. Ng is concerned about my client will be able to look into hers and the other neighbor's windows. In San Francisco, historically, light wells are three foot deep, backing up to adjacent light wells, putting windows six feet apart. The distances from our deck to the neighbors will exceed that distance, as shown in this slide. I grew up in the flat in the Richmond, and in this in our case, this that's what we had between us and the neighbors. We just added window coverings and didn't pay attention to the neighbors. Here's a picture of Ms. Eng's windows from the rear deck. As you can see, the angle is very sharp and the distance from that distance, you can't see anything. A concern of Ms. Engs is the property value of the block for people not wanting to buy because of their rear decks near their backyard. I don't see this as an issue because rear decks are in every neighborhood and block in San Francisco. People who are buying in San Francisco know of this issue, and it does not detract from the property values. In fact, Eng herself has a rear deck. Ms. Eng is concerned about having loud parties on the deck and disturbing the neighborhood. My client and her family are here in building this for their children. In conclusion, the decks are designed within the planning code requirements and have a comfortable distance to their neighbor's windows. I ask that the commission deny the appeal.

[Armando Martinez (Property Owner, 727 Madrid Street)]: Armando? Hi, my name is Armando Martinez. My wife and I, Mary Angel, you know, I've known her since we were in high school. And we've been together fifty two years. So, are native San Franciscans, we were born here. And the thing is we always had a dream that we were going to raise our family in San Francisco because of the sharpest and the brightest people live here are in the Bay Area. I want my children and my grandchildren who are also going to be living in this building. This building is not to sell to make for profit. This is for my family to have stable housing for this generation and the other generations coming forward. So, that's all I want to say. So, I appreciate if you consider and deny whatever is being requested here.

[Albert Arrutia (Engineer/Designer, 727 Madrid Street)]: Thank you. Thank you commissioners.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. That concludes project sponsor's presentation. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Seeing none, Doctor request you have a two minute rebuttal.

[Ida Ng (DR Requester, 727 Madrid Street)]: So earlier when I stated about the Sanborn map that our property does not protrude past 07:31. So their property at that angle in the past, photo that Mr. Ortia has shared would not ever have been possible. And also, one thing to note is that they are at a much, much higher elevation than we are. So their first level deck, you know, is already in line with our second story. So having that in addition to another one above, you get a greater viewpoint. You know, now you before you could see sorry, I'm recovering from a cold. You wouldn't be able to see even the neighbors south of me, but now that is all visible. And because they're on such a high elevation, much higher than even our eastern neighbors, their point of visibility is vast. Thank you.

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

[Luis Carlos Cobo (DR Requester, 10–12 Abbey Street)]: We don't have anything to say.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I don't see that there's an issue here and I would actually make a motion to deny the Doctor's request. Second.

[Fanny Hui (Neighbor, 26 Royal Lane)]: Second.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Is that all your comments? Yep. Okay. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I agree that there's no exceptional extraordinary circumstances here. This is a pretty common situation. It's not something that we, you know, our design guidelines haven't anticipated. The privacy issues are not extreme. And so I agree with the motion. I think my one question to Mr. Winslow is I saw that there was an assertion that Santos worked on this project in the past or had some relationship to project. I don't know whether it's true or not. My question would be, there's some concern that the plans, we are basically approving something that's already been built. If the plans don't match what has already been built, that could be a problem. But this as part of DBI's final sign off on this, am I correct in understanding that they will be also looking at this to ensure that the plans match the project?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, Planning Dept.)]: Let me state what I know which may or may not be in conflict with what you assert. I believe that the I don't know what Santos' original involvement was. Maybe Mr. Rirutia who unfortunately had been tethered by partnership in the past to Mr. Santos could illuminate us on that. But the NOV that Ms. Ng spoke of, believe, there was an inspector in her yard that looked over and said, there's a deck over there. And he probably looked it up and saw that it did not have a building permit. And hence an NOV, a notice of violation was issued which we always, you know, we give people the opportunity to rectify the permit. And that was when this project became a project for planning, a permit was applied for. To my knowledge, the plans that are in front of you, as well as the photographs of the half complete deck, do match. And that's to the extent of my knowledge. And if Mr. Yarouti, you want to confirm or deny or add, then please do.

[Albert Arrutia (Engineer/Designer, 727 Madrid Street)]: The project originally started with Santos and Arrutia, and upon the dismantling of the company, Rodrigo took on the project for a while, and he subsequently dropped the ball on the project and has lost his license and everything else. I took over the project because Armando and Mary knew me as well as Rodrigo. And I ended up I went out and measured the existing deck that we're trying to get approved now, and it conforms exactly to what's on our drawings. Thank you. Thank you.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: No further questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. On that motion, commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? I commissioner Moore I think commission president Campbell

[Fanny Hui (Neighbor, 26 Royal Lane)]: I

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: so move commissioners a motion passes unanimously six to zero and concludes your hearing today.

[SFGovTV (Broadcast Operator)]: SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television.