San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon. Oops. Hold on. Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 02/12/2026. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly. And if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. Like to take roll. Commission President Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commission Vice President Moore. Here. Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Present. Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2023Hyphen009469DRP at 77 Broad Street discretionary review is proposed for continuance to 03/19/2026. Item two, case number 2020Four-five242CUA at 2089 Ingalls Street. Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 03/26/2026. I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to continue items as proposed.

[Speaker 6.0]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner So? Yes. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So move, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero, placing us under commission matters for item three, the land acknowledgment.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatushaloni Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatu Shaloni have never ceded, lost, or forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: to pay our respects by acknowledging their ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramitusha Loni community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First People.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Item four, consideration of adoption draft minutes for January 22 and 01/29/2026. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams. Thank

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: you, chair. I'd like make a motion to the minutes to give the commission secretary a chance to capture the full public comment of Zachary Friel, Theresa Dublis, Kristen Evans, and also the response from director Phillips.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: This is for which

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: set of This is for the twenty ninth.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: For which item, commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: It's a general public comment towards the bottom there. Zachary.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Zachary, Theresa's, Christians?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yes, and also the response, because there was a response from Director Phillips.

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

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: We can continue that one week out to February 19. But what about the January 22 minutes?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: January 22 is fine.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Or fine?

[Speaker 11.0]: Okay.

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So maybe a motion to continue and adopt.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yes. I'd like to make a motion to continue and adopt the January 20 yeah, January 22.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Do you mind telling us why?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just wanted the record to reflect the statements that were made, public statements. That's all. So it's in the minutes. Yeah. There was just one line, I didn't really think it captured everything, the importance of what was stated. Yeah.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: That's it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. I have a motion to continue the minutes for the twenty ninth to February 19 and adopt the minutes for the twenty second on that motion. Commissioner McGarry?

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

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

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell. Aye. So move, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero. Item five, commission comments and questions.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: I'll get us started. I have two things I want to talk about. One is acknowledgment of a letter the commission received from Supervisor Chen on February 5. She was really highlighting concerns around how the city is not meeting our BMR housing unit obligations under Rina, looking for more clarity, asking us to really follow-up on that to make sure we're complying specifically around city funding, state funding, that we're increasing our land banking strategies. Director Phillips and I and the staff have talked a bit about that. But I'd love for you maybe to share with everyone what we've discussed and bring everyone up to speed on what we're doing next, if you don't mind.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Not at all. Thank you, President Campbell. Sure. Yes. In response to both the conversation that we had at the dais last week, as well as Supervisor Chen's correspondence to you kind of urging the same that we've talked about, wanted to let you all know how we're proceeding. So we'll be drafting a memo response to you all to show the city's current production data on housing, focusing on affordable housing, but housing overall as well in detail. That'll take us about two weeks. So I just want to make sure you guys understand the timeline of that. So hopefully, before the end of the month, you will have that memo in front of you. The other thing we'd like to do, and I apologize for the time this is going to take, is schedule a full hearing in late March or so to discuss the overall production scene as well as funding and other tools that we can use to move forward and advance affordable housing production. We need that extra time for a couple of reasons. One, interagency coordination across MOCD, OEWD, and OCII, who also produces significant affordable housing. They're all on slightly different time lines in terms of their reporting structures. Also, we work regularly with MOCD. But getting full data on production, particularly on preservation, acquisition and rehabs, takes a little bit of a deeper dive. So we want to make sure we get that picture as well. So we'll be looking at that. And then OCD and OCII's annual reports both come out in March so that we want make sure what we're showing to you aligns with that public information so there aren't any discrepancies or confusions. The other thing to note, and we've talked about this a little bit, here together, there's a whole lot of work going on underway on funding tools. We do have our committee that's meeting regularly as as as requested by commissioner Williams, and as, required under the housing element. OEWD is also currently midstream on examining an EIFD and other funding tools for affordable housing. So we're hopeful that their work will be complete when we come back to you in March so we can present on that as well. And so we just want to make sure we have all the things there. So that's our plan moving forward. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions on that.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I have a quick question. In reporting, there is a theory, and then there is a practice. The theory is we are looking positive into units being approved, but I think where the rubber hits the road is when we have first occupancy or permits taken out which verify that the buildings are under construction. Can we get to that subtlety in reporting? Absolutely.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: That would be our intent.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Imperial? Thank you. I just also want to thank Director Phillips for the follow-up. And in terms of the hearing that will be or informational hearing that will be on March, will that also include I understand that the financing tool will be presented, and that would also include the land banking strategy, I would?

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: We can share as much as we know and have information from all our partner agencies. In terms of land banking, that was something that was addressed significantly in the memo that we submitted to you all in the fall, the affordable housing sites and acquisition strategy. So I think a lot of what we'll be covering is already covered in that memo. I don't think much has changed, but happy to add that to this discussion.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah, Totally, understand. And I think the financing tools will really be helpful in all of those aspects of rehabbing and also land banking. So I'm looking forward to it. And again, thank you for bringing this up. Thanks.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah, I just wanted to thank you to Director Phillips for highlighting this issue around affordable housing. It's an important issue, so it's comforting to see that the planning department is understanding the need. And so I really just want to appreciate that. Thank you.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I'd like to do a shout out to Supervisor Chen. It is really good to hear that we're all resonating around the same issues. It's not just us talking here, approving or looking at projects, but getting the full support from the Board of Supervisors to really help us make this happen. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you for that. And we will look forward to seeing that. I know everybody would like this speedier, but I think a quality report out that's comprehensive and accurate is really appreciated. So thank you for that. The other thing I wanted to just shine a light on and it's something I distributed amongst the fellow commissioners. But really for the public's awareness and maybe there's some action we want to take as a commission is around a competition that actually was focused on single stair architectural design. And they just announced the winners. And I think it's really exciting and interesting. I know it's something that's come up here at the commission before, and I know there's been talk about that. But this competition really showcased innovative single stair residential building design. And it looked at three cities, San Francisco being one of them. It also looked at Austin and Portland. And it was a neat competition because, obviously, all three cities have very different building codes and different or different jurisdictions. But as you know, in San Francisco, anything above three stories requires two exits. And when we're trying to infill projects, it really starts to take up a lot of real estate, and it really becomes much more challenging. It also just puts a lot of constraints on those mid rise, missing middle housing projects. I know this is more of a building department code life safety thing, but it actually does impact, I think, city from a planning perspective as we think about the family zoning rolling out and imagining these infill projects coming to life. These buildings that have single stair solutions have you can fit more units in them. There's better ventilation, better daylighting, quicker and more economical construction techniques. So wanted to if we're allowed to do this, I'd love to include a link to the outcome of the competition. And a shout out to David Baker Architects, who won first prize in that. There were some really innovative and beautiful design solutions. I also just think I know there's activity in Sacramento on this topic. And we've talked about it here for San Francisco. I don't know if there's something we can do as a commission to discuss and get our support behind it to help in any way. I just think this would be such a game changer for really realizing more development of this scale projects in San Francisco. So just putting that out there as a topic that I'm passionate about. I think there are some other commissioners that are as well. Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Talking about passionate, when we reviewed the objective design guidelines in June 2024, I actually brought that subject up and pointed to practitioners in California, Mr. Palazoides in Pasadena, Mr. Salomon in San Francisco, including David Baker, who are really the people who have, for many, many years, postulated that as a challenge to what ultimately is the jurisdiction of the fire department. Portland has challenged their fire departments who actually thought the same way we usually do. And they have broken through and realized quite a few single access stair buildings. And I think perhaps we can learn with them, but I would definitely support President

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: sorry,

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: President Campbell's because I only called you by first name President Campbell's idea for this commission to actually create an objective statement. We did the same thing when we talked about equity, and that became a very strong leading principle. As we are looking at housing, large and small, all the way up to six stories, I think we should take the lead and postulate it as an objective. For us to identify buildings and sites where that particular technique would definitely help designing in context because it creates more suitable buildings fitting into a neighborhood context in San Francisco, including the savings and everything else that comes with it. We'll be looking for the building trades to support us on that. And I think we should take the bull by

[Speaker 13.0]: the horn

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: to make that step.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to department matters. Item six, director's announcements.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Thank you, commissioners. Maybe I'll just, just to to add on to your encouragement and excitement about single stair, I think the commission's support on that is already understood, but more would be welcome. And it's a little bit of a thorny issue. AB 130 at the state level has put it's a state bill that basically froze building codes at the end of last year. And so it prevents a little bit of a regulatory hurdle that we're examining how we could further some building code changes like that with that in place. So just note that's a work in progress that we'll be thinking about. And it involves a lot of partnership with our partners at DBI and certainly in the fire department. So we're looking forward to having that conversation. But your support is welcome. One of the there's a number of post family zoning plan housing efforts that our community planning team and our current planning team will be undertaking over the next year to try to facilitate construction under the family zoning plan. I think, Commissioner Moore, what you just talked about is exactly an example that we are hoping to pursue there, including some pre approved design under the neighborhood design standards that would help show people how they can build the kind of housing we want to see there. And if we can get past the regulatory hurdle of single stair and include that in those designs, I think that would be a really exciting way to move forward. Another thing I'll note, and just because we've talked about this regularly, we are continuing on our path of the first phase of integration with DBI and the Permit Center. We've had some really great conversations with our pending new colleagues over the next couple of weeks. And one area of real excitement for me is kind of a consolidated IT and data team. So that rather than working with three separate data teams one at the Permit Center, one at DBI, and one within the Planning Department we are all working together. This has significant alignment with the OpenGov launch, which Liz is going to go into in a minute. We're really excited about that. And it also has real alignment, I think, towards addressing our budget crisis. One of the pieces of advice that we're getting from the mayor's office as we try to tackle this $400,000,000 deficit is technology investment guidance. How do we ensure that our technology contracts and our technology work across departments are not duplicated. We're not spending more money across them. And I think what we found in working together just over the last couple weeks with staff from those various departments that will be staff under one department as of early March is that there's a whole lot of alignment there that in working together rather than in silos will help not only work better, but work more cost effectively with regard to technology contracts. So just wanted to note that. And then Liz, talk to us about Permit SF.

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: Yes, really excited to do so. As you probably saw on the mayor's Instagram and press release this morning, tomorrow is our official launch of our new Permit SF online portal. This online portal, this is the first phase of contemporary online permitting in San Francisco. It's crazy to say that this is the first, but better late than never. We started small, because we wanted to make sure we did it right, and we executed well, and could actually deliver. So what's being delivered starting tomorrow is three primary buckets. The first on construction permitting are window, doors, and siding replacement permits. We chose those in large part because, A, they're relatively simple workflows. It's not like building a new skyscraper. But they're also really impactful and have a high volume for homeowners in San Francisco. So this is something especially where the customer type, who may only come to the city once or twice in their life, will likely come in to replace windows or repair siding on their home. So we felt like this was a really good one to impact folks who don't do this kind of thing for a living, but might only need to come down to the city once. So those are going live tomorrow. Fire department alarms and sprinklers, which are helpful for our economic recovery, especially as we're hoping to lease up buildings downtown, and people are doing renovations of those buildings. And then the third category is the first phase of a front door for special event permitting. So historically, folks have no idea where to start if they want to host a special event in the city, and they often have to talk disparately to a bunch of different agencies. And this front door is a way for folks to give us just an idea of what they want to do and on what date. And then we really guide them of, Okay, you're going to need to talk to MTA, Rec Park, Public Works, etcetera, and tell them, is this event going to be feasible on that date? Is it already booked? And then walk them through with all of the different permits they'll need to file. Our goal is that the phase two will then be a consolidated portal to actually submit those permits. But this first phase was at least to give sort of the advice piece that right now is really disparate and disjointed. So those two are going live tomorrow. This week has been our soft launch. As part of our soft launch, we are actually soft launching real permits. We have some beta testers that we've been working with on the customer side. And exciting news I actually just got a Teams chat about a half hour ago that we issued our first real permit in the system today from one of those beta testers. So it works is the punch line. We're really excited about that. As soon as we know that there's stability in the system, we've got a lot what we call sort of hypercare going on right now. And through the next few weeks, we're going to turn to what's next. And we're going to continue moving forward until all of the permits and land use entitlements across the city are all integrated into one system, inclusive of planning. We will likely go towards the end, because we already have a contemporary ish system, whereas some of our sister agencies are on really, really old legacy systems that are at the end of their life. But we're going to be focused, again, small business and small homeowners first, really making sure that those project types, cradle to grave, are in area in one online system, and then expand from there. So we're really excited. If anyone wants a walkthrough, I'm happy to do some demos and walk folks through. But tomorrow live, anyone can start filing permits from the pleasure of their own home rather than coming down to the permit center for those scopes.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Congratulations. To close the loop on that, I think Liz really captured at the end with the focus on residential homeowners and small businesses. I think you can really see the equity work that you all have pushed us infusing this effort and how we're rolling that out and really addressing the folks that have been most disadvantaged by our permit system from the get go.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: This is exciting, exciting time. More alignment with streamlining everything and consolidate everything. I just have a few questions in terms of remember back then you mentioned that now we are starting to charge applicants in the beginning of the applications. So would this be the same with these building permits? When they apply, they would get charged with the fees right off the bat before it's approved?

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: So what you're talking about is for planning applications. So this for we instituted a new fee in January for folks who are just filing a planning application, not a building permit. The fees for building permits are unchanged as part of this rollout.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: That's great. And also, with this amazing kind of streamlining everything and some things are more efficient and more transparent, How many days are you thinking about we can save in terms of like, it's a regular mom and pop shop or regular single family home. How many days they are looking into getting their permit approved?

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: So I'd say for this first phase, there's probably less time savings for the customer because these were traditionally over the counter permits. And so we're going to commit to that same turnaround time. Technically, are sort of a two day performance metric for the city for over the counter permits. And we're maintaining that. I think the real savings for this first tranche of permits is these are often applicants who have to take time off work to come down, or find child care, or pay 30 some bucks to park across the street if they're not near transit, and spending their whole day there, let alone if they have to come back. If they weren't coming to the office with the adequate information to maybe they didn't know enough information about their window replacements because they're just a homeowner, and they don't know that they need to know all these different things. In our new online system, it's really going to be a series of guided dynamic questions. So if somebody says windows, it'll link up with our GIS system that'll automatically know is it historic or not. The applicant's not going to need to know that. And based on those questions, they'll be asked the appropriate questions based on our policies and regulations. So I think the real time savings is being able to do it from the comfort of your home when it's convenient for you. Maybe that's a Sunday night when your kids are asleep and not having to take time out of your life to get down to the city. Because we know it's not convenient for everyone in the city to get down to the permit center location. Ultimately, when we get to larger scopes of work, I think we will see some real time savings. I will say one of the improvements that I'm really excited about with this, because we're able to be really nuanced in the way we ask questions and the connections with all of our different GIS and robust information that the city already has, we're able to route to different agencies precisely. So meaning, the way it was before, there would often be broad categories of this is a window. It has to go to the building department. In reality, there's only a small subset that requires a building department the need for a building department review. There are some cases where there is no need for it's a single family home. It's a replacement in kind. It's not near a property line. Building department doesn't actually technically need to review those. So we've been able to use that logic for the most efficient use of staff time and for the customer's time. But so I think that's a time savings yet to see and realize. But we know, for example, building department engineer time is often the place where people experience backlogs on other projects. And so if we can save some time by not routing them things that they unnecessarily that they don't need to see, hopefully that means that other projects can move more quickly because there'll be more staff capacity to work on those. So those are sort of the upstream or downstream, I should say impacts that we're excited to see.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Fantastic. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Really, I just want to say thank you for the enormous effort that you, Ms. Vadi, and all the staff have put into this across different agencies. It's a really exciting step forward and kind of high time that we get to this point. I'm hoping the rollout is very smooth. I'm looking forward to it expanding to more permitting activity. And I'm also excited by the prospect that this probably will encourage more people to actually do this check when they're doing work and actually pull a permit instead of seeing how opaque the process looks to them and just saying, I'm just going to replace that window and move on with my day. So it's great that this is sort of meeting people where they're at in a much better way. And I thank you.

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: Absolutely. And that actually prompted one thought that I just want to share. The other really exciting thing about this is the transparency component and the audit trail. Every click is tracked in this system. And I think that's really great for bringing renewed trust into the permitting process for our customers and citizens, knowing that everything that we do and every action that we take and every communication there's basically a Slack channel built in. So when you communicate with an applicant, hey, it's faster. You can have real time communication. But it's also memorialized in perpetuity on that record. And so it's really great to know this was the why. This was why it was approved. This was the communication. This was the information. This was what was modified on what date at what time. And so anyhow, really excited to have that be sort of a pillar of this new system moving forward.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I have a technical question, if I may. We have a lot of multifamily homes in San Francisco, many of them renter occupied, others owner occupied. And for those two particular building types, there are different rules. The renter occupied building, even if some would want to have their windows replaced, they cannot just show up and get a permit because it is a landlord's decision to do so. And on the flip side of that is the condominium where the windows as a whole are owned by the ownership, the board, but not by the owners themselves, which means if somebody is a condominium owner and he really wants new windows, can he show up and get a permit? In reality, he can't because he has to have application approved so that that window fits into the totality of the building they're living in. Is the system capable of discerning that level of detail? In the past, it wasn't.

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: So the system certainly has the checks built in and asks the prompting questions of what role are you playing on the application. Are you a homeowner? Are you a contractor architect? And based on those questions, it's either going to ask for different information, different attestations, or validation of it, like a contractor license number. So those things are automated. I think to your question of the nuance of, if it's a condo and you are a listed owner, will we prevent you from filing a permit because you don't have the condo association? I don't believe that's logic that we built into that. I think we're looking at it from a strict property ownership versus CCNRs. But it's certainly something I can bring back to the team. Again, we want to make sure we're staying in the space of our regulatory space rather than civil kind of rules. I don't know if I don't personally know enough about CCNRs to know whether that's a carte blanche across every single condo association or whether it varies from condo to condo. But it's something that we can certainly ask the vendor in terms of best practices for condo buildings.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I think it would be a good question looking forward because there are architects who have dutifully gotten their permits without realizing that the particular window was not owned by the owner but by the building at large. So they did everything, got the permit, and only when they came to the board and saying, I'm going to start construction, saying, you didn't go through the proper process. So there is a very big, dark gray area where owners, not knowing better, do the right things, but they're doing it wrong. So it's a complicated question.

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: Nice thing with this system, we can certainly ask a prompting question under property ownership of, is this a condo? If yes, do you have approval from the condo association? And, you know, maybe we don't require proof, but we're asking that leading question, and it's on them to swear yes.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: That would be a great question. Take it.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Is that it? Is that it? Okay. Thank you. I love this and echoing everybody's thanks. I think the more frictionless we can make this, the better. I'm excited to track the data and see if we see an uptick in permit applications as a result. Right? If you build it, they will come, right? So it would be interesting to kind of see how that impacts permitting. Okay. I think that's it for directors' comments. Okay. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. Item seven, review of past week's events at the Board of Supervisors. There is no report from the Board of Appeals and the Historic Preservation Commission.

[Audrey Morlone (Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Dept.)]: Afternoon, commissioners. Audrey Morlone, acting manager of legislative affairs. We have a couple of weeks to cover of happenings at the board and the Land Use Committee. Going back two meetings ago to the land use committee hearing of February 2, the committee considered the land swap ordinance. That ordinance would convert two portions of unbuilt streets along Noriega and Moraga into RH2 zoned parcels and rezone a set of parcels along Kensington Way from RH1 to open space. You heard this item on October 9 and voted unanimously to approve it. There were a number of public commenters at the land use committee hearing. The majority were residents of the area proposed for the rezoning around Kensington who were in favor of the ordinance because it would protect the vulnerable hillside. Several residents also spoke in opposition to the ordinance as they believed the agreement was a bad deal for the city. The committee did ultimately vote unanimously to approve the ordinance, and it has since also had its first read at the full board. And then over the course of the last two sessions at the full board, the permitted parking and driveways ordinance and the code corrections ordinance both passed their first and second reads. And the alcohol sales and movie theaters ordinance passed its first read. Moving on to appeals. The board was very busy with appeals the last two weeks. At their February 3 hearing, they had three appeals. First was the appeal of a subdivision map for a 100% affordable housing project for seniors at 3333 Mission Street. The project is utilizing SB 35 to build 70 units of housing, along with some tenant amenities. The project itself is approved. Therefore, the only avenue for the appellants was to appeal the proposed new parcels. The appellants opposed the subdivision because it would result in the reduction of a private park. Ultimately, though, the board denied the appeal and upheld the subdivision. Next up was an appeal of the CEQA certification for the airport. The proposed project would implement the RADP, which involves a long range plan to guide SFO's development. Commissioners, you heard this item on November 20 and voted to certify the final EIR. That appeal was also denied and the final EIR was upheld and lastly at the board's February 3 meeting there was an appeal of a conditional use authorization for a change of use from a public parking garage to fleet charging and private parking garage uses at 825 Sansom Street. You heard this item on November 13 and voted unanimously to approve the conditional use authorization. Prior to the hearing, the project sponsor informed the city they were no longer pursuing the project. And so as such, the supervisors voted with the appellant to disapprove the conditional use authorization. Moving on to the appeals at the board this week, there were two appeals, both for the project at 350 Amber Drive. The appeals were a CEQA and conditional use authorization appeal of a project that would install a new 104 foot tall wireless pole and the accompanying equipment. The appellants opposed the project, citing impacts to views and wildlife and argued the project sponsor did not sufficiently prove a true need for better wireless coverage. Commissioners, you heard this item on September 25. You voted four to three to approve the conditional use authorization. The board voted to uphold the CEQA determination. When it came to the conditional use appeal, President Mandelman worked with planning and the city attorney to craft a set of conditions of approval that would control for noise, tree replacement, and fire safety. These conditions are mostly already standard, or they are not currently applicable to the proposed project. For instance, the project does not currently propose tree removal. However, the amendments were adopted to try to assure the appellants that all proper procedures would be followed when it comes to the installation and operation of the wireless pole. The conditional use was ultimately approved with these additional conditions, and the appeal was denied. And that concludes my report. But as always, I'm available for questions. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If there are no immediate questions, the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday, but they did meet a week ago where they considered the proposed department budget and work program that will be before you shortly. And they also reviewed and commented on the Freedom West two point zero project at 710 McAllister Street, which you will also have the opportunity to review and comment later this afternoon. Commissioners, that'll place us under general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Patricia Vaughey (Marina–Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants Association)]: Jonas, can you raise it a little bit because of my voice?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Raise what? I'm sorry.

[Patricia Vaughey (Marina–Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants Association)]: The sound.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'm not sure I have that capability, but let me see if I can. But go ahead.

[Patricia Vaughey (Marina–Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants Association)]: Patricia Boy, Marina Cowhala Neighbors and Merchants and Planning Associations for the Pizzadero, representing more than 22 neighborhood and merchants associations. I want to introduce myself. I'm back. And by background, the Transamerica Building was my project. BART was my project. The panel boards for your lighting was my project. Excuse me. Can you listen to me, please? And I've been in restaurant, retail. I've had security clearance, I had major hospitality in the city. And I have transportation background as well. And I want to tell you that I am back. And I'm back almost full time after a bad reaction to a COVID shot. I can give you some historical input into some things that are happening. I like some of the ideas that are happening, but I want to caution you on some of your plans. One of the things, as I'm seeing, is I told everybody about 555 Folsom and to watch this thing about metal windows, where they're doing it again on other buildings. And when we're doing this integration of departments, I think we better take a look at that. My organizations have two policies. We're not an organization of eight. Something's controversial, we literally go out and take votes. And I would like to tell you more of my background. Very I have fought for integrative housing because I believe that the affordable housing issue is written incorrectly. Our children that are coming out of college don't have a place to live. And 3333 California is a perfect example. And I just want to tell you that if you want to have anything, know anything, you can call me the background. I've got the history. I've been in this building for forty years. And I would like to be able to participate. One of my big things I did was I got the Department of Public Works not to dig up by streets every fifteen minutes. And it's supposed to be once every five years unless it's an emergency. I'm not an NIMBY. I'm not a YMBY. I don't believe in people utilizing those words because I think they are politically inspired instead of economically. Thank you, Ms. Thank

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: you. Welcome back.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Next speaker. Last call for general public comment. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners. Item eight, case number 2020Five-twelve172 CRV for fiscal years 2026 through 2028 proposed department budget and work program. This is for your consideration to adopt.

[Deborah Landis (Deputy Director of Administration, Planning Dept.)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Deborah Landis, deputy director of administration with the Planning Department. As Jonas just mentioned, today we are here with a resolution for you to hopefully support the submission of our budget to the mayor's office. We were here on January 22 with an informational session for you. And so what we have proposed today is to review what we went over on the twenty second and then to take a look at the changes that have happened since then. So the two big changes are that we finally got a general fund reduction target from the mayor's office, and that was $880,000 And we've also incorporated the transfer of function as to the discussion earlier about integrating various departments. The budgetary term for that is transfer of function with other departments coming into ours. So I'm going to change it up a little bit. I know that many of you have seen me here for the last ten years, always giving this presentation. So today, I am, for the first time in ten years, giving the opportunity to someone else to have the pleasure of getting the hopefully unanimous yes, which I believe we can get to. And I am here with any questions, as Bianca and the director are as well, I'm sure. I don't want to speak for you, but I am speaking for you. So with that, I'm going to hand it over to Bianca Chew. And please be kind. This is her first ever presentation.

[Bianca Chew (Planning Department Staff)]: Thank you, Deborah. Good afternoon, commissioners. Bianca Chew, planning department staff. Today, I'll be presenting the department's proposed fiscal year twenty twenty six to fiscal year twenty twenty eight budget and the updates reflected in the memo you received. I will start with the revenue and expenditure projections as they were presented at the last hearing on January 22, followed by the updated projections that incorporate additional information that the department has received. This slide shows the revenue budget based on the assumptions we had when the proposed budget was first developed. Fee revenue is generally stable over the two years. Grant revenue drops compared to last year, mainly because we had an unusually strong grant year. That said, we are continuing work under the HUD Pro Housing grant and pursuing funding for the coastal adaptation plan. Expenditure recovery remains relatively stable. The increase in general fund support reflects rising salary and benefit costs tied to labor agreements and scheduled wage increases. This slide shows expenditures based on those original assumptions. Salary and fringe continue to make up the majority of the budget, about three quarters of total spending over the two years. Overhead is centrally loaded by the controller's office and will likely change as budget development continues. Non personnel services and materials and supplies remain generally stable. Project spending declines as certain grant funded efforts wind down since those costs are tied to available grant funding. We're also requesting funding to replace our COSAN storage system. It supports critical IT infrastructure and has been out of support since 2018. We requested it last year, but it wasn't funded. Interdepartmental services reflect expected service levels with partner agencies and assume approximately $1,000,000 in rent savings from vacating space on the 14th Floor of 49th South Van Ness. This slide shows the updated revenue based on the new information received after the original proposal. Since the last hearing, the mayor announced the permitting consolidation effort. As part of the initial phase, about 40 staff from DBI and the permit center will transfer into planning, and those transfers are reflected in the updated numbers here. The increased interdepartmental expenditure recovery is tied to those transferred staff. Those costs are offset through work orders, which is why revenue increases on this slide. The general fund support now reflects the department's reduction target of $880,000. This slide shows the updated expenditure budget. Salary infringe increased due to the transfer of the 40 staff from DBI and the Permit Center. That adds roughly $10,000,000 in the budget year and slightly more in the out year. Those costs are fully offset through work orders, so there's no net general fund impact from the transfer. To meet general fund reduction target, we're eliminating vacant positions and assuming rent savings from reducing space at 49 South Minas. Overall, the department's core services remain intact. Today, we're asking the commission to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the proposed budget. And with that, that concludes our presentation.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. Again, you need to come forward. Last call. Public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you for the budget update. It's nice to have some clarity since the last time we heard the preliminary budget numbers on the twenty second. A lot has changed in just a few weeks. So this is pretty significant. The updated numbers in the budget are really just the budget numbers. It's not like we've received or I imagine there would have been time anyway to pull together more information about where positions might be getting cut that are vacant. And I'm curious if there's anything more to say about the nature of the vacant positions that are being cut, or if that's too in the weeds today to get an answer, I'd love to see that once the budget is finalized, which I know comes through a much more lengthy process once this gets submitted.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: I can address that briefly, Commissioner Braun. Just noting that we've been incredibly cautious in filling positions that I've noted to you before as vacancies come to us. There have not been many of the filled positions that have become vacant that we're needing to cut. The vacant position cuts are actually pretty minor, in part because as a revenue department, our general fund, dollars 8,000,000 last year, 10,000,000 this year, doesn't require a whole ton of cuts. So we're relatively stable on staff. The one thing I would caution and the positions that are cut here, we can come back to you with more detail. But they are positions that have not been filled in several years. They are not recent vacancies. It is worth noting that we're still holding many vacancies that are not being cut from our budget, but that are

[Bianca Chew (Planning Department Staff)]: not being

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: filled. And that is us being cautious so that we don't have to do cuts or firings later on. It does impact our work. Ms. Wadi and I were just discussing some of the recent resignations in current planning that we're not able to fill at this time, and we're trying to cover more with less just so we preserve that safety. But the counterpoint of not having very many actual vacancies cut also means that we're not filling many vacancies, too. We're hopeful to hold those so that we can fill them when we're at a better budget time.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I see. Thank you for the explanation. I appreciate it. And I'll actually make a motion to approve the budget.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Second. Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: I think that this is a really clean presentation. Thank you. Congratulations, Bianca, for your first one. And I would second this budget. I just kind of want to summarize what my understanding of such a challenging times, right? I'm seeing our revenue gain by reducing our well, we gain a little bit more by not what your expenditure recovery means, like we scale back from our office space. So then we can pay the salary fringes increase because we got more people coming in from a different department.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Maybe Commissioner So to address that, and Deborah, sorry, I didn't mean to jump from a deal. I'll just address this part quickly. The revenue growth that you sorry, the cost growth that you see in salaries in that line is actually fewer people. But because of the mandated and labor negotiated and agreed to increases in salaries, that cost goes up. So it actually costs us more for the same amount of people. That's one of the functions that you see there. But you also are correct that one of our key strategies and I think we've just about completed it this week has been vacating one of our three floors so that we can sublease that space and gain revenue.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Okay. All right. Thank you. Because all right. That's good. It's good that our department had that level of flexibility, knowing seeing that we're getting lesser support from general fund. So from what you're proposed.

[Corey Covington (Design Director, Houseworks Design Build)]: So

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: thank you for doing all the hard work. I'm I'm complete with my comments.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry?

[Speaker 19.0]: Aye.

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

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And Commissioner President Campbell.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So move, commissioners. The motion passes unanimously seven to zero, placing us on item nine for case number 20Twenty-six887ENV for the Freedom West two point zero project at 710 McAllister Street. This is the draft environmental impact report. Please note that comments will be accepted verbally at the hearing or in writing at the planning department until 5PM 02/27/2026.

[Lisa Gibson (Environmental Review Officer, Planning Dept.)]: Me. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. And before we get started with the presentation, I just wanted to briefly note that this is a presentation and an item that is for receiving comments on the draft environmental impact report. And you may recall that staff and the project sponsor presented on the proposed development agreement to you in July 2024. So that presentation previously occurred, and they will be coming before you again in April to give an update on the project overall.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you.

[Megan Kalpin (Environmental Coordinator, Planning Dept.)]: Great. Good afternoon, President Campbell and Planning Commissioners. I'm Megan Kalpin, Planning Department staff and environmental coordinator for the Freedom West two point zero project or the proposed project. Joining me today are my colleagues from the Environmental Planning and Community Planning divisions, and members of the project sponsor team are also present. Thank you so much. The item before you today is a public hearing on the Freedom West two point zero project draft environmental impact report or draft EIR. The purpose of today's hearing is to take public comments on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the draft EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA and San Francisco's local procedures for implementing CEQA. No approval action on this document is requested at this time. The draft EIR was published on 01/13/2026. The forty five day public review period began on that day and will continue until 5PM on 02/27/2026. I will now provide a brief overview of the existing project site. The project site includes the existing Freedom West Homes Corporation covering approximately 10 acres across two city blocks in the western edition. The site borders the Hayes Valley neighborhood to the South and is within the Market And Octavia area plan boundaries. The project site is bounded by Golden Gate Avenue to the North, Goff Street to the East, Fulton Street to the South, and Laguna Street to the West, and is bisected by McAllister Street. The project site encompasses the majority of of these two blocks. The project site is currently developed with twenty two and three story residential buildings and two multipurpose buildings. The buildings range in height from 10 to 35 feet tall. The site also contains seven surface parking lots and landscaped common open spaces. There are 382 existing co op housing units at the Freedom West Complex. The project site is located within an RTO, residential transit oriented zoning district, and a forty and fifty x height and bulk district. Across the street to the north are two city blocks of public open space, and the surrounding land uses include recreational, residential, commercial, and institutional uses, including the Bethel AME AME Church, which is near the northwest corner of the site. The project site was included in the 1964 San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's Western Edition Redevelopment Area A2, a two seventy seven acre area that encompassed 62 blocks that was home to approximately 13,000 residents, 63% of whom were people of color. In '25 in 1966, the neighboring Bethel AME Church and its pastor, Reverend Jay Austell Hall, sponsored the construction of the Freedom West Homes, a moderate cost co op housing development that would where each resident owned a share of the corporation that entitled them to occupy a residential unit. Construction occurred in two phases between 1973 and 1975, and some of the original residents are still shareholders today. Next, I will provide an overview of the proposed project as analyzed in the draft EIR. The Freedom West Homes Corporation and its shareholders, the occupants of the co op housing, have engaged McFarlane Partners, the project sponsor, to undertake the proposed project, which would demolish all of the existing buildings on the project site and construct 15 new buildings ranging in height from 85 feet to three thirty five feet tall. The proposed development includes replacement co op housing for existing shareholders, additional residential units, a hotel, commercial, and community serving cultural, institutional, and educational uses, as well as associated car and bicycle parking and freight loading. The project also proposes connecting Octavia Street to the public realm as a privately owned public open space and shared street. Additionally, the project would include a mix of common usable open space for residents and open space for childcare. As part of the project's approvals, the project site would be rezoned from residential transit oriented to a new special use district to establish specific land use controls for the project and to incorporate the design standards and guidelines to govern future development. This would include amendments to the zoning map and the height and bulk map. This slide shows different bird's eye renderings of the project as proposed looking east towards downtown and looking Northwest. The draft EIR also analyzed a land use variant to allow flexibility in the development program. The land use variant would include the same building massing and land uses as a proposed project but it would allow flexibility for up to 150 hotel rooms to be located on either parcel SEA or parcel SEC but not on both parcels rather than only on parcel SEC as assumed under the proposed project The proposed project would be constructed in three overlapping development phases, each with sub phases. Full build out of the proposed project is expected to occur approximately seven years after project entitlement, assuming overlapping development phases. The preliminary construction schedule assumes late twenty twenty six as a start of construction and early two thousand and thirty four as the end of construction the project includes a proposed relocation plan that would allow any of the existing co op residents who are required to move during construction of phase one to be temporarily relocated either to vacant existing co op units on the Southern Block or to comparable housing within San Francisco at no additional cost to the shareholders. The project sponsor would provide any required rent subsidies and moving expense costs. Temporarily relocated shareholders would maintain their co op shareholder status and would have guaranteed right to return to the newly constructed building Northwest coop replacement coop units upon completion. So based on that project description, we analyzed what the environmental effects would be. And the department's analysis found that the proposed project and the land use variant would have significant unavoidable environmental effects mitigation measures have been identified to lessen these impacts However, the draft EIR did conclude that these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, which is why we prepared an EIR. And those are for historic architectural resources, noise and vibration, air quality, and wind. The draft EIR also concluded that four topic areas had less than significant with mitigation impacts for cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, paleontological resources, and construction vibration. Those mitigation measures identified to mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level are shown on the screen. To address the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project pursuant to CEQA, the draft EIR analyzed four feasible alternatives to the proposed project. The no project alternative, a full preservation alternative, a partial preservation alternative one, and a partial preservation alternative two. The alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives for the EIR analysis and would avoid or reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified by the proposed project. In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative B would avoid significant and unavoidable project and cumulative level impacts related to historic architectural resources and criteria air pollutants. So while still partially or fully meeting all of the project objectives, therefore, it was identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Okay. We are currently in the forty five day comment period of the draft EIR. As part of that process, we're conducting this public hearing today on the adequacy and accuracy of the draft EIR for members of the public and commissioners to share their comments. We anticipate publication of the response to comments document in summer twenty twenty six, followed by an EIR certification shortly after, and the project approvals after that. For members of the public that wish to speak, please state your name clearly for the record. We have a court reporter joining remotely today to record your comments. When it's your term, please state your name and spelling, And we ask that you speak slowly and clearly so the court reporter can make accurate transcription of today's proceedings for the response to comments document. If you are a speaker today, a member of the public, and you would like to receive a response to comments document, please provide your either email or mailing address to me at the contact information on the slide, or I could take it later today. Staff is not here to answer questions. We are transcribing all of the comments and questions today to be responded to in writing in the response to comments document. And that document will respond to all relevant verbal comments received today and any written comments received during the public comment period, as well as any revisions to the draft DIR as appropriate. Those who are interested in commenting may speak today or contact me at the contact information on the slide at the planning department or cpc. Freedomwesteirsfgov dot org by 5PM on 02/27/2026. Unless the commissioners have comments, I respectfully suggest that the public hearing on this item be open. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Indeed. With that, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this draft environmental impact report only on the accuracy and adequacy of the impact report, not the project itself, please. Come on up.

[Rudy Gonzales (Secretary-Treasurer, SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Good afternoon, Madam President and Commissioners. My name is Rudy Gonzales, the secretary treasurer of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. And while I would love to tell you about all the amazing discussions we've had with McFarlane partners and some of the community leadership that I see in the room. I'm going to focus on your draft EIR for this particular meeting. We convened our in house team at the Building Trades Council and reviewed all 200 plus pages of this. It was a quite lengthy process internally for us. But we believe from an environmental standpoint, this is a thorough CEQA document. Know, it identifies the significant impacts. We recognize that there are multiple options and alternatives and proposals for feasible mitigation. We think that the document and the studies included in it were transparent about those impacts that do remain significant and otherwise unavoidable, particularly around the historic resources that were identified. We think that the level of disclosure that was rendered here is important. It's thorough. And we think you can make an informed decision once the period closes. I want to emphasize something critical about implementation of the EIR, or of this project. The contractors that our council works with are not new to these requirements. They are industry leaders with long track records of delivering complex urban projects here in the city under relatively strict environmental standards. And our contractor community routinely implement construction noise control plans found in this document, vibration monitoring programs, air quality compliance measures, and site specific safety and wind mitigation requirements. For our members and our contractor base, those are not theoretical commitments. Those are daily operational realities on projects across the city. So when the EIR calls for quiet equipment, noise monitoring, vibration thresholds, etcetera, Those are things our contractors know how to execute and they understand this regulatory environment. Overall, I would just want to say that I think, you know, CEQA is about disclosure. CEQA is about mitigation. We think this draft EIR accomplishes those important steps. The next step, obviously, for you as a regulatory body is disciplined evaluation and implementation. We're confident that the teams involved in this project have the expertise and experience to carry out the mitigation measures highlighted in the report in a responsible and professional manners. We support certification of the draft EIR at the appropriate time and moving the project forward with strong enforcement of those mitigation efforts identified. I know you're also going to hear some concerns, and I see my sister Cynthia Gomez is here from Unite Here Local two, and I hope you take her comments seriously. I know that the overall project team is going to need to sit down and discuss concerns there, and we'll be watching those talks closely. But for now, we think the EIR is adequate and identifies the appropriate mitigations that can be taken. Thank you for your time.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. I want to take this opportunity to remind members of the public to please silence your mobile devices. If you don't know how to silence them, please turn them off.

[Cynthia Gomez (Research Analyst, UNITE HERE Local 2)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Cynthia CYNTHIA Gomez, research analyst, UNITEHEAR Local2. That's spelled G O N E Z, court reporters. So a few points on environmental questions related to who's going to work in this hotel. Fewer than 50% of our members who work in SF can afford to live here. That member was at sixty percent ten years ago. At this rate, by 2035, when the hotel would be projected to open, we might be looking at 40%. Local two members tend to earn higher wages than their nonunion counterparts. And if they can't afford this city, how could the workers of this proposed hotel hope to do so if they were also nonunion? Add to that, San Francisco's far behind its needs for housing that's affordable at this bracket. And so by the sponsors' numbers, you're talking 138 new employees competing for this tiny slice. Connected, zero parking spaces are proposed for those 138 employees or apparently for hotel guests. So I've just said how most of these people will not live in San Francisco. They may live in excerpts, such as Stockton or Sacramento, where BART is also not an option. Or they'll have shift times that don't allow them to take BART. They will have to drive. And they will be clogging up neighborhood streets looking for parking. Or they will pay what right now is $375 a month at the closest twenty four hour monthly parking lot. That's 10% of their gross wage at $23.75 an hour, which is your typical nonunion hospitality wage. 10% so either clogging up streets or 10% of their pay. It's also worth noting that currently, unless I'm misreading the document, there are exactly five bicycle spaces proposed for the hotel, which again does not support commuting, even for those workers who can afford somehow to live in the city. So these remarks are about future matters that will be before you, which have to do with the conditional use authorization that all hotels will secure. And that's what I'm confining my remarks to. There's also going to be a question that you'll face when it's time for this hotel to get its approvals about the market demand for this kind of hotel. Since the application was submitted, the hotel market, as you all know, has changed significantly. This proposed location is not near demand drivers such as Moscone, places marketed to tourists such as Fisherman's Wharf or the Downtown Office Corp, and the question of the demand for this kind of hotel, the impact on the ability to hire local employees, and all kinds of other conditional use matters will be before you. And they'll be matters that we're priming you now to be listening for and thinking about when this project is up for its final approvals. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Good afternoon.

[Michelle Brown (Freedom West resident/board development subcommittee)]: My name is Michelle Brown.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Do you need

[Michelle Brown (Freedom West resident/board development subcommittee)]: me to spell it?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: No. Okay. I

[Michelle Brown (Freedom West resident/board development subcommittee)]: was born and raised at Freedom West, and I now serve on our board's development subcommittee. This project means everything to me and my neighbors. We've participated in dozens of community meetings, shaped guiding principles with the Institute for the Future, and voted overwhelmingly to move forward together. The EIR you're reviewing is accurate and complete. The environmental analysis was thorough and thoughtful. The range of alternatives is reasonable, and the mitigation measures will protect our neighborhood and our environment. Freedom West raised me, and now I'm fighting to ensure that it can raise the next generation and generations to come. Please certify the EIR and keep us moving toward approval so we can start building our future. Thank you very much for your time today.

[Maggie Scott (Board President, Freedom West)]: Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Maggie Scott and I'm the board president and longtime resident of Freedom West. I've lived there over fifty years, I raised my children there. And they went to school in this neighborhood, so this means a lot to me. I've watched my community survive urban renewal, which was urban removal, economic pressures and deferred maintenance crisis, etcetera. Freedom West 2 represents our path forward, developed through 40 plus community meetings and approved by a super majority of our shareholders. The ERR before you is accurate and complete, and a tremendous amount of time and thought went into this environmental analysis. It includes a thorough examination of projects' impacts and a reasonable range of alternatives. Most importantly, all impacts will be mitigated with strong measures to protect the environment and our neighbors. We've done our part leading an an inclusive community process. FreedomWorks two point zero was developed through a community led process. We conducted 40 plus community meetings with residents and individuals, roundtables which culminated in a co op member vote. A supermajority of shareholders approved the project, including a comprehensive relocation plan. Working with the Institute for the Future, co op members developed guiding principles that shaped our RFP to development partners. Legacy First and McFarland Partners, our chosen development partners, are committed to these guiding principles, the main one being that every shareholder in good standing can move back to Freedom West 2. Now, we need the city to keep this moving. We need to get this project approved, start construction on our new co op building, and write the in our the next chapter in our community's history. A thousand low income families are counting on us, and we can't afford any more delays. This is reparations. This is justice for a community that have been heavily destroyed, 800 businesses lost, and a majority of my folks pushed out of this city. So, I hope that you would definitely approve this plan so that we can move forward, be in the beautiful, diverse city that we are here in San Francisco, in the city of San Francis. We thank you for your support.

[Richard O’Neil (Freedom West resident/board member)]: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Richard O'Neil. I live at 724 McAllister Street, Freedom West, Holmes, as you may know it. I'm born and raised in San Francisco, I've been here in Freedom West since 1976, still to this day. I'm a member of the board of directors for over seven years. Everything you heard today is part of the integrity and high value that Freedom West holds core to its essence, and that's honesty and transparency. So if we gave you a EIR report, it is true. It is accurate, and there's no falsehood or misleading statements in it. That is our essence. That is our core. 300 plus families agreed together to reshape their community. The first time in my history in San Francisco have I seen a coop do such a thing. Yes. It's been a true learning experience. We're not developers. We're not in the agency of building, but that core value of honesty and integrity is what we're specialized in. So anyone that we partner with, we put through a fine sift to make sure they are the best, that they are accurately in alignment with our core values. And I say that to say today, you heard my neighbors speak, you heard people of the community speak, but when this is over, we wanna hear you speak and hopefully you align yourself with us, with integrity and honesty and true value to see a community lead itself, not be pushed, not be overshadowed or cast into a dark area where our voices haven't been heard for so many years when Octavia Freeway went over our community. And no help or no thought of development or growth was possible, well, look at us today. We stand before you in a position of many years of work. This was not last week. This is many years of finding the right group of people so we could be successful in the city of San Francisco. Thank you for your time.

[Patricia Vaughey (Marina–Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants Association)]: Patricia Voin, I'm in favor of this. But I'm hearing something that I heard twenty, thirty years ago. We're going to displace them and bring them back. And it didn't happen. We need to have in this legislation a clause that says how you are going to mitigate the protection of the people who are misplaced and make sure that they get placed back. The Fillmore Center, there are 60 families that were made a promise similar to this, and they didn't get it. So be sure to protect this group. Thank you.

[Alex Landsberg (Research & Advocacy Director, IBEW/NECA Electrical Industry)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Alex Landsberg, research and advocacy director with the electrical industry. I want to associate myself with Mr. Gonzalez's remarks, but I want to add something that I didn't see in the environmental impact report.

[David Freeman (Neighbor, 2303 Filbert vicinity)]: Was like one of things that

[Alex Landsberg (Research & Advocacy Director, IBEW/NECA Electrical Industry)]: I don't think has really been considered is the fact that redeveloping or at least replacing, upgrading these 300 units into modern construction,

[Cynthia Gomez (Research Analyst, UNITE HERE Local 2)]: it's actually going

[Alex Landsberg (Research & Advocacy Director, IBEW/NECA Electrical Industry)]: to improve the indoor air quality of the people who are going be living in these things. We're going to be pulling gas out of these buildings. We're going to

[Richard O’Neil (Freedom West resident/board member)]: be

[Alex Landsberg (Research & Advocacy Director, IBEW/NECA Electrical Industry)]: improving the windows, improving insulation. All of these things are going to have actually positive impacts on on folks. So I realized that wasn't it didn't look like unless I missed it. It wasn't discussed in the EIR, but I did wanna put that out there and just keep have have you keep that in mind. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: K. Last call for public comment. Final last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and the draft environmental impact report is now before you for your review and comment, commissioners.

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

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: I

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: just want to express my strong support for this DEIR. I think it's a remarkable document, not only in its length but in the thoroughness by which literally no stone remains unturned. What was a thrill to me is seeing actually a phasing diagram, something which is extremely important when it comes to any type of larger construction. I'll leave it with that comment. It probably stands in the room because I question that and other large projects not having undertaken a thoughtful phasing strategy. The support from the community, I think, is ultimately the gold standard. It is proof that this project was properly reviewed and attended to with the community giving it its highest approval I have heard in a long time. Mostly, there are lingering forms of unanswered questions, perhaps resentment about the massiveness of the project. This has been thought through all the way to the dot on the I. I am in full support, and I consider the draft AIR adequate, accurate, and complete. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Is that a motion?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: That is a motion, yes. Motion to approve.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There's no motion. There's no action. It's just Thank for review your and

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: you for that reminder. Commissioner Imperial. If

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: there is a motion today, I would also second it. I also find this EIR or the draft of the EIR as accurate and complete. It actually also talks about also recognize the areas of concerns that are and that is usually common in the draft of the EIR. I also, as reading through this, what I really enjoyed reading the DIR is the historical resource part, which talks about the history and acknowledging the urban renewal displacement. And I also appreciate the mitigation measures. I actually would second the HPC comments, especially I'll give a shout out to Commissioner Matsuda on her comments on the interpretive programs in terms of really identifying the history of what happened there. And it looks like in terms of the oral history, that would be a really big task to make. But it's something that is being identified as something for in terms of the mitigation measure for the historical resource. And I just also want to thank the co op owners that came here. And really, the history of it is something that we should not really undermine. The mayor office of housing is making its efforts former redevelopment that were displaced back in the 1960s and '70s. And it's not easy. And to hear those stories actually will be very, very helpful to remember the history and to never do it ever again. So that's my comment. And I'm supportive of this EAR. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Also in full support, I think everybody hears a rush from the mic because they want to actually vote on this, but unfortunately, there is no vote. I believe this it's it's a fantastic example of the community taking back their neighborhood and reshaping its future, correcting addressing, number one, addressing the ills of the past, correcting them going forward with a phenomenal example because this isn't the only community of color who's been impacted by redevelopment throughout the country. So I can see a phenomenal opportunity here and an example, a beacon on the hill, so to speak, for other communities, other cities around this country to possibly do the same, hopefully do the same, because this is a phenomenal project. And I wish you all, but and I wish you could vote on it.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Commissioner So. Last time when I hear this project about over a year ago, I used this term. This is like an eye candy project. Any land use development planning would like to use. You literally have everything everybody wants. And I really wish you continue to be successful for other obstacles that you have to get secure. Mainly, it's probably the funding source. This is overdue. And everybody show up today. I really appreciate your taking the time to voice your histories, your legacy, and your culture. And I really hope that with this project, we really speak as in San Francisco, we want them back. I want you to bring back your family, your community, and attract more people, come back here to build your next generation of legacies. I wish you ever success.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I'm going to restrict my comments to the draft EIR for today. And I, too, am satisfied with the adequacy, accuracy, and thoroughness of the analysis. I think the alternatives presented are reasonable. And I appreciate that the draft EIR transparently identified and recognized the significant and unavoidable impacts. So I look forward to reviewing comments on the draft EIR and the responses to the comments. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah, I, too, was very impressed with the draft EIR. I read through most of it, not all of it. It was pretty lengthy. But I learned a lot about the project, and you covered everything. Growing up here, the whole history of redevelopment and urban renewal is something that, unfortunately, I had to learn later in life and the injustices to not only the African American community, but also the Japanese community that I wasn't even aware of. And so it was great to see that the mitigation that you guys covered under that, as far as the interpretive program, the oral histories, the documentation of the history of that neighborhood. And so one questions, of though, that I did have was and I know there's a lot here that's going to be done. But what I was trying to kind of figure out in the end what exactly is going to be done with all the oral history and the photos and all this stuff, what's going to become of all of that history as far and how is it going to get implemented into a space or a permanent fixture within this development. I know it's there. I know it's there. But I'd kind of like to have someone walk the public through that. And I say that just because I think it's going to be important if this project gets done. And I hope it is successful and gets done, that there's a history, a visual history that youth and anybody that visits this site can understand. Because it's an important history. We don't want to repeat what happened with redevelopment and urban renewal. It's very important that those that be a part of the project. But it also has to be a physical place where people can visit. And so that I don't know if it's in here, but I would like to kind of understand that more. Yeah. Can anyone comment on that?

[Lisa Gibson (Environmental Review Officer, Planning Dept.)]: Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. Thank you very much commissioner Williams for your comments and questions and and respectfully as a as a reminder, today's hearing is for the purpose of receiving comments on the draft EIR, and we will have a transcript of those comments and responses to them in our responses to comments document where we will address those points. And then if you have any remaining questions at the time of our certification hearing, where we'll bring the project back to you, we will then answer them.

[Unidentified Public Speaker (Cow Hollow neighbor)]: Thank you.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. Good. Because thank you for that. I just looking through all of this and trying to understand the past and all the unfortunate things that have happened to communities through displacement and land use, It feels important that we get this right. We make sure that this project is something that's going to be a plus to the community. And I also really would like to congratulate the community that has put so much effort into this over the years. I'm someone that believes that community should have a say in what gets built. And and, obviously, this community has been hands on and and has taken a lot of pride in making sure that they take care of each other. And so I just wanna highlight that. And and and I think other communities can learn from this this particular project. You know, there's been there's there's been other communities in San Francisco that have not faced urban renewal per se, but displacement and gentrification, for example. And so I think let this be a lesson for all of us, right, to understand the importance of land use, how it can be constructive, how it can be destructive, and make sure that we don't make those same mistakes over and over. So that's all I'd like to say. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. I'll also just echo the similar sentiment up here, very satisfied with the thoroughness of this draft DIR. I think the mitigation measures are very appropriate. I also would echo Commissioner Imperial's acknowledgment of the February 5 memo we got with our colleagues at HPC and really wanting to be thoughtful about how those oral histories are captured and where they live, both for residents and the small businesses. So I would love to just shine a light on that as well. So thank you, Commissioner, for bringing that up. And I think that's all of our comments, unless Commissioner Williams, you're good. Yep. Okay. Perfect. I think that's it, Jonas.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good then. We can move on now to item 10, case number 1997.058CHyphen02 at 949 Post Street. This is a conditional use authorization.

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department Staff)]: Good afternoon commissioners dakota speecher department staff the item before you today is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section three zero three to modify the conditions of approval granted by the planning commission on 06/12/1997 under planning commission motion number fourteen thousand three and ninety one specifically the project proposes to one eliminate the restriction that units must be occupied by seniors those age 55 and older Two, increase the gross annual income of qualifying households from 60% to up to 80% area median income, or AMI. Three, increase the pricing AMI from 60% to up to 70% AMI and four, allow the use of subsidized vouchers from veteran affairs supportive housing or VASH and section eight housing choice vouchers or HCV or other qualifying subsidies for all of these units. I'll speak a little bit louder. No interior exterior improvements are proposed with this project application. The subject lie is located at 949 Post Street and is within the RC4 zoning district. In 1997, the subject property received conditional use authorization to construct a new affordable senior housing apartment building. As it relates to the project today, the conditions of approval required the dwelling units be rented to seniors and the gross annual income not exceed 60% AMI. In 2018, the previous property owner entered into a settlement agreement with the city related to a planning enforcement case. Enforcement staff is here today should you have any questions. As it relates to this project, the settlement agreement defined a senior as a person who is 55 years or older, allowed the property owner to reserve and lease 16 of the 24 units to tenants holding VASH vouchers. And three, allowed the property to be governed by the twenty thirteen procedures manual instead of the nineteen ninety two manual as previously approved. There have been two planning enforcement cases as outlined in your packet, both of which have been abated. As I mentioned, enforcement staff is here should you have any questions. Since your packet was published, the department has received one letter in opposition to the project citing concerns about housing voucher recipients. The department is supportive of the request to, one, eliminate the senior age restriction, which would not preclude units from being rented to those 55 years or older, but would instead activate vacant units with a broader demographic. Two, increase the gross annual income of qualifying households from 60% to up to 80% AMI. This adjustment expands the eligible applicant pool without increasing rent effectively removing barriers to occupancy and ensuring a broader range of qualified tenants that can access these available units three expand the use of fashion HCV HCV for all units on the subject property as this will expand housing opportunities for veterans and those utilizing federal housing vouchers. The department is not supportive of the request to increase the pricing AMI from 60% to 70 due to resulting increase in rent obligations. While existing tenants would be protected via stabilized rent subject only to the standard inflation adjustment, the department maintains that such an increase would erode the availability of deeply affordable housing and further limit options for vulnerable populations. Two, allow the use of other subsidies because the project sponsor has not specified what those subsidies are. The department finds that the project with modifications is on balance consistent with the planning code and the objectives and policies of the general plan. Although the project will eliminate senior age restrictions, seniors themselves would not be precluded from renting these units. Further, an increase to the qualifying AMI from 60% to 80% and the use of VASH and HCV would not increase rent but would increase the number of qualified applicants seeking very low income units. Lastly, the project will facilitate the continuation of a 100% affordable housing project at a deeply affordable rate. The department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions, and I'll hand it off to the project sponsor.

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Serena Calhoun. I'm a local architect, and I'm here today representing the owners of the property, both of whom are here today, John and Peter, in case you have any questions for them. As Dakota outlined, this property is located at 949 Post Street. It was built as an affordable housing project in 2003 with 25 residential units, one of which is the owners the manager's unit. It was built as a senior housing facility. And the BMR agreement was later modified in 2018, as Dakota outlined in his presentation. It is located between Hyde and Larkin, in the heart of the Tenderloin. Our clients purchased this property in 2020, which was poor timing. It was just before COVID. As a senior housing facility, it was more impacted by loss of life as people contracted the disease. And so, they ended up with a lot of vacancies, as well as having people in an ongoing way not able to pay rent. So, they purchased the building, had an economic hit right away out the door, and then have had a lot of difficulty since COVID renting out the vacant units. I came onto this project in August just to start the process. And there were seven vacant units then, and there are still seven vacant units now. And I'm going to get into that a little bit because I think the context helps explain what's happening here. After they purchased the property, they had some units able to use vouchers for the studio apartments. But the Section eight Housing Authority stopped issuing those vouchers to studio apartments. And so unfortunately, they lost the opportunity to recoup the additional increases that the subsidy would provide on top of the base rents. And I'll get into that a little bit more as well. The owners were not notified of that policy change. It was something their leasing agent discovered as she kind of dug in. And they had a previous contract with Swords to Plowshares that helped bring them qualified tenants for the property. And suddenly, Swords to Plow shares became unresponsive to any of their requests and their emails. So they lost a source also of rental tenants. Our leasing agent shifted to working with the Bayview Hunters Point Social Services, Onlock, Senior Services, Catholic Charities, Bishop, Curry Senior Center, and several other subsidies. And she really hustles to try to work with various agencies to place tenants and find tenants that are qualified for this property. The maximum rent that's set by MOHCD because some of the utilities in this property are covered by tenants is $15.45 dollars a month with a 60% AMI. Only the San Francisco Housing Authority, the Section eight providers, have a payment standard that pays more than what the tenants can pay. So the $15.45 dollars is the maximum amount that a tenant can pay for rent. And then the subsidy may pay more on top of that to bring the monthly rent for the owners up closer to a market rate rent. So because Section eight is the only agency that has a standard requirement that allows them to pay this, they basically have to negotiate with any other subsidy that they're working with in order to get more than the $15.45. And I'll show you why that's important. And as I've said, Section eight, the San Francisco Housing Authority, is no longer issuing specifically the VASH vouchers for studio apartments. So there's been again, they've taken another little hit financially on that side. MOHCD also posts this maximum number rent number when they're advertising, which, again, when we're negotiating with the subsidies, makes it a little bit more challenging to get above that $15.45 dollars number. These are the real numbers. On a recent application process, two fifty six applicants were submitted applications were submitted, 12 withdrew, two fourteen were disqualified or were non responsive. That's a massive number of the people that are applying for these units that simply don't qualify. Many of them many of the people who apply are not seniors. So that's one of the reasons that they're seeing that they're not being qualified. People will submit an application sort of being like, well, maybe they can make an exception for me, which under the BMR rules, obviously, cannot. 30 were qualified, but only two decided to move forward with a formal application once they had toured the units. That's another thing that our leasing agent has suggested is seniors don't want to rent these units. They're on Post Street between Hyde and Larkin. Seniors are looking for the feedback she's had is that they're looking for safer units in nicer neighborhoods. And they're looking for buildings with more amenities and more of a lifestyle. There are basically no amenities in this building. And the units are quite small. We've consistently had a failure to succeed in the lottery system. And what happens in the BMR units is it goes to a lottery first. If you don't get tenants out of the lottery, it goes on a first come, first serve basis. And so repeatedly, this property has rolled over out of the lottery into first come, first serve, which is another indication that it's very difficult to get tenants into these units. The MOHCD offered a one time waiver of the senior limitation, as they were able to do once it rolled over into the first come, first served process, and found a lot more tenants because they didn't have to have senior qualifications. So we know that that's a source of some of the difficulty here is the senior limitation. Yeah. Our leasing agent noted these two things, which I already mentioned. Removing the requirement for the 55 plus tenant requirement will significantly increase our tenant pool and allow us to fill these units much more quickly. This is kind of a detailed breakdown. I know it's quite small. I can get a copy of this for you. But basically, is a copy of all of the monthly rents for each of the tenants. So a tenant will pay, for example, dollars $9.40. And then the subsidy will pay the $6.00 $5 making it $15.45 dollars Some of the tenants do pay the $15.45 dollars But in most cases, the subsidy is only bringing us up to that 60% AMI limitation, the $15.45 dollars So at the very bottom of this, dollars 28,428 is the actual rental income currently each month. This does factor that we have seven vacancies. But you can see their operating expenses are $21,000 a month. Property taxes are $6,600 a month. Monthly loan interest is $19,000 a month. And so, with the vacancies, they're losing over $18,000 a month. They're not paying their mortgage. They are at risk of they are in default. The bank has threatened to take the property back, which is why they started this process and why we're asking for a modification to the BMR agreement. The largest operating expenses are the on-site manager's fees each month, professional fees for certification. These BMR units have to have a qualified consultant to recertify the tenants every year and also go through the extensive number of applicants. She charges basically the equivalent of two months worth of rent for each unit that she leases. So, the owners don't even make money on the first two months that that tenant's renting. And at the end of the year, if they become disqualified for some reason, income or otherwise, they start the process over. Repairs and maintenance, a little over $4,000 a month. And then property taxes property insurance is something that I know we're all struggling with. But their property insurance increased $20,000 a year last year. So there are significant increases also in the expenses just because of the environment that's happening with insurance. Now, if we look at the same spreadsheet and we assume all of the units are rented at the current 60% AMI with that $15.45 dollars a month, they're still going to lose almost $8,000 a month. They're still looking at a loss every month, which is why we have asked for also the increase in the income to 70% AMI from 60. Basically, we understand and we want to be really clear to the community. We are not changing agreements to any of the tenants that currently live in this building. All of their payments, all of their agreements, all of their rights and responsibilities everything stays the same for current tenants. It's only for the vacant units and for the units that become vacant that would then reap the benefits of this program, that's the change that we're asking you for. So if we're only renting seven vacant units, that's $2,600 a month. We're never going to get that. So the overall goal here is to increase over time the rental rates for all of the units to $1,800 a month so that they can break even. And thank you for your time.

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

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: I'm here

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: for questions,

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: and so are the owners.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: With that, we should open a public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Last call. Public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you for the presentation and thank you, staff. I have a question on the architect or the presenter. In terms of subsidy identification, so it looks like in this rent roll that you've provided us, there are other subsidy providers, Catholic Charities, Eviction Defense, Brilliant Corners, Lutheran Social, are they can you talk are you aware of like the length of these subsidies? Are they for the are these permanent subsidies or do they have due dates on these subsidies?

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: Do you guys know?

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: To my knowledge, there's not

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: a specific

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Can you come up? My

[John Warner (Property co-owner, 949 Post Street)]: name is John Warner. I'm part of the ownership group. There is not a specific sunset that ever gets communicated to us on the ownership side. And in the probably three years that we've been working with the consultant that Serena referenced, there have been times that subsidies have actually switched to different agencies. Occasionally, we will receive a letter from the subsidy provider. Sometimes they'll put up a security deposit. But they're not actually obligated to continue it for any specific period of time. Mean, we are entering into a lease with the actual occupant of the unit.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So there are subsidies that may have time frame. That's what your the reason I'm asking this because Section eight voucher is a permanent subsidy and that creates permanent livability for that tenant. In terms of the subsidies and I'm aware that other subsidies like I believe some parts of eviction defense may have some time frame. Also, the reason I'm asking this question is because you're presenting about your losses and what is actually also feasible to your building. So that's the kind of nuance that I'd like to see. And also in terms of the maximum amount of these subsidies, of other subsidies that could pay, they may not be as high as the Section eight, because I'm aware that Section eight, I think, provides more subsidy than the other subsidies. Yeah, I just kind of want to know those details if yeah, if you

[John Warner (Property co-owner, 949 Post Street)]: I handle the money, so I'm as well versed in it as anybody. And so I can tell you that it has been extremely infrequent where any subsidy stream has been discontinued, where people are more likely to pass away than to lose the subsidy from any of these third parties. The few rents that you see there that exceed the mayor's office handbook limits, those were all in place prior to our ownership. We have not rented a single apartment to anybody where we've collected more than the legally allowed 60% AMI, depending on the year that it happened. So the one thing that I can tell you is that the vast majority of the tenants were receiving money from the San Francisco Housing Authority when we purchased the property. And now, in like the last month, we're down to four of those people.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: Yeah. And as I mentioned in my presentation, the other subsidies have no obligation to pay above that $15.45 dollars a month. So if you look at the rent rules, the ones that have the SFHA or the Section eight, some of those are paying $18.70 dollars a month, which really puts us close to break even. But it really hinges on the subsidy paying over that $15.45 dollars a month. And as I've said, the other subsidies are not obligated and do not have programs in place to do that.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I understand. Thank you. Thank you. That's my comment. Oh, that's my question to I'm more leaning to the recommendation by the department itself of this Because I'm aware of the kind of residents that live in this that they are even if you try to increase the AMI, the increasing price to 60, that would increase the rent, the portion of the rent for the tenants as well. That would also increase the subsidy in itself. But it's always calculated in a way that the tenant can also pay. But when there is an increase of rent, there would also be an increase of the share of the tenant as well. And so many of these so that's what I'm concerned as well. And I understand the loss of the feasibility, especially in this kind of affordable housing. And again, the only thing that I could really suggest is this really increase whether MOCD can provide this kind of subsidy. That's the kind of to keep this more affordable is to have more city funding or state funding to keep this type of building. But I'm always centered around the tenants and the people that are going to live here. So that's my comment. And for me, I would like to take the planning department's recommendation.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you for the presentation. At first glance, changing the age for seniors is something that I'm very reluctant to do only because I understand how little senior housing there is. But then understanding the location and other considerations that were explained, it really points out the dilemma that a lot of lower income seniors are having as far as getting housing, getting placed, getting a program or a process that works, that works for the owner and then works for the tenants. And so I'm kind of not confused, but I don't know really which way to go because, again, I understand how changing the circumstances around this particular property. I really am very cautious to make sure that whatever we do, it doesn't limit someone's a senior's access to housing. And so although I understand the numbers, it really just shines a light on a system that is not working and how much more work we need to do with figuring out ways to fund housing for our seniors that don't rely on so many other areas of subsidy that can change. And it just really doesn't promote any kind of real longevity and permanence and secure housing for our seniors, which is a huge problem. This points it out. And so I'm not exactly I know we're not going to have the solutions to this unfortunate dilemma. But it highlights the work that we need to do, not only as a city but everywhere, as a state, to figure this out. Because I happen to know that our senior population, according to the census, is the only population that grew like 8.7%. So this is a problem that's not going away. More folks are becoming older. And they're going to need a place to live. Anyway, those are my comments. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have one quick question for, think, probably the project sponsor. Is there an expiration date in the affordability restrictions for this building?

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: I believe the original agreement was fifty years.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. So it's still a ways out.

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: Yeah, we're about halfway through.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And then I have a question for staff.

[John Warner (Property co-owner, 949 Post Street)]: I'm sorry. Can I correct that? So in the settlement agreement in 2018, the clock got reset on that fifty years.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. So fifty again from 2018. Thank you for clarification. I have a question for staff about one of the recommendations or modification recommendations. So there's a comment in there about not allowing use of sort of all unspecified subsidies, not including that in our action. Could you expand a little bit on that, Dakota?

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department Staff)]: Yeah, definitely. I think the request just was a little bit broad. So it didn't go into the specific subsidies that were requested. So for those reasons, just because they were unknown to us, we couldn't recommend that they were part of this motion.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. And maybe I'll circle back to the public sponsor on that then. I'm curious, what is the request as far as allowing other subsidies? And what's your kind of thought on not just opening this up to all unspecified subsidies?

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: Yeah, the 2018 agreement was very clearly that it outlined that seven of the units would benefit from the VASH program specifically. And so this is really not my wheelhouse, quite frankly, as an architect when I jumped into this. I've learned a lot about the BMR program in the last few months. And so I wrote it broadly because I wasn't really clear that we would need to provide a list. We can happily provide a list of the subsidies that they work with and that they have tenants in the building with. I don't know that it will help in the sense that, like I've said, those subsidies don't have an obligation to pay more. But the opportunity to have those, like all 25 or 24 of the units, to have that ability to go above the fifteen forty five if we have a subsidy that's willing to pay the extra is really crucial, I think, to them not losing the building.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. And you have Just something

[John Warner (Property co-owner, 949 Post Street)]: to clarify, so the 2018 settlement agreement specifically allocated 16 of the 24 units to be earmarked for Vash voucher holders. I appreciate Commissioner Williams' comments about the systemic issues that this is highlighting. So our in house property manager, in the wake of the vacancy that followed COVID, basically could not navigate the qualifying process that Serena presented in terms of the over 200 applicants resulting in two actual move ins. So we hired a specialist that is very familiar with this terrain. And as I understand it, all these additional subsidy sources that you see on this is that that has been the only way that she can actually get people into these units, meaning that the combination of the certification requirements, the administrative rigor for people that are low income, many borderline on the street, that for them to navigate the process of providing the income documentation, navigating just getting through the process of actually renting an apartment through a bureaucracy, that this is her way to get a leg up for some of these people by arranging for these subsidies. That was not even her assignment necessarily. It's the only way that she can bring them to the table. So in addition to relaxation of the regulation that we're requesting, the real systemic issue is that it is very difficult just to rent these apartments. I mean, this is a 20 year old building. It's not substandard housing. It is a nice, very clean, and new building. Not fancy workforce housing. And so it was really just the creativity of our certification consultant, who is also handling the leasing to bring these other subsidy providers forward. I think there was some confusion initially as to whether or not we could get additional Section eight voucher holders into the property, whether or not we were allowed to do that. So I think we've been reaffirmed that that's possible, although none have been delivered.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, please.

[Carly Grove (Planning Department Staff)]: Just to add one more final period on this sentence. Carly Grove, department staff. The VASH vouchers avoided the Dahlia process and that leasing process because VASH vouchers are such a specific veteran population that they were able to occupy the units by referral. And so when the VASH vouchers came out of the property, it also created, I think, what the project sponsor was just describing as a new challenge in leasing units without that direct referral process. The VASH vouchers work very similarly to Section VIII vouchers, where the payment standard brings the income back up to around a market rent. And so those two factors really, I think, hit the project pretty hard.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I see. And I'm also curious if department staff have any other thoughts on the sources of subsidy that it seems like the current subsidy sources have been really cobbled together, has been sort of described. And so that's why I'm kind of wondering if it's really necessary to say that we can't open up subsidy sources more widely on this project.

[Carly Grove (Planning Department Staff)]: I think that the recommendation around subsidies was really around the structure of how referrals were made to the department. So I think with the Vash, kind of what I was describing, swords to plowshares can make a direct referral to the owner who can occupy the unit with a veteran. So I think the twenty thirteen procedures manual is permissive of rental subsidies. So anything from any of these agencies can be provided to a tenant by that agency, and they can use that towards their rent. I think what we were intending with that recommendation is really if there's a similar structure to that referral, like a VASH voucher, we'd like to be able to review that before the project sponsor took advantage of it.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I see. Okay. Thank you. So my thoughts on this is I'm willing to support the changes that expand opportunities to fill the affordable housing units in this building. I will say, though, I'm not I think similar to Commissioner Imperial, I'm not in favor of increasing the rent AMI, the pricing AMI, to 70% because that's the one thing that will reduce the depth of affordability of our affordable housing stock. And I'm sympathetic to the situation of the building owner in this situation. But ultimately, that change lasts. It sticks with the building. It sticks with our affordable housing stock for a very, very long time. Whereas even if the building changes hands, if we keep this at the 60% AMI pricing limit, then it will stay at 60% AMI for the next property owner as well. And so I think that I'm all for trying to get the units filled and to do what we can to expand opportunities to find sources of subsidy. But I'm not in favor of increasing the AMI limit for the pricing from 60% to 70%. And so basically, I'm essentially taking the department's recommendations here for approval with modifications that the department put forward. And I I will make a motion, to that effect.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: And I second it.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Vice president Moore. I think, commissioner Brown summarized, it very well. It took a while to really understand the subtleties of what is implied here, but I think the department has done a great job to really laying it out, particularly today answering questions which sometimes just cannot all be kept in the report. I'd also like to give a shout out to Ms. Grove. I had a question regarding continued preferential rental for seniors, she explained that in this particular circumstance, it does not apply. There's a whole sub chassis to this particular subject matter, but I take that as a recommendation. What we are really doing is we have a vast population with differing needs to find affordable units. And all this does is expand the possibility for others to find housing with not taking away from seniors who will be just any other person applying be capable of living here. Great explanation. I do support the increase of income, but I do not support, as Commissioner Braun very sensitively laid out, to increase the qualifying rental rates for AMI from 60% to 70%. I think that is kind of taking too much away of what others in the community need as well. So I'm in support of the department's recommendation and have actually seconded the motion. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I just a thought on the AMI. The AMI increases, like, how frequently? Because I know that ten years ago, or let's say even twenty years ago. The building was built. I'm not exactly sure when the building was built. It's twenty years old. And so I'm just trying to understand what the AMI was then, what it is now. Because I'm sure it's considerably more now than it was then. And so just to kinda understand how how the AMI works.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Commissioner Williams, well, I think our team is trying to look up specific numbers, which we can get back to. But conceptually, AMI increases. The city publishes every year a list of area median income by percentages. And so the number that is represented by 60% of area median income changes annually. That generally changes it is based on income in the area. It is not directly attached to cost of living inflation revenue from rent, but it generally parallels that. So I think what the rent was at 60% of AMI when the building was built versus the costs that the building owner had to cover are in parallel with what the rent is today with the costs they have to cover.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I understand that part. I'm just trying to understand you know, how the AMI, how it how it impacts the cost of it, how it changes. And because when it comes to low income people, it it it that's a big difference between 6070%, let's say. And what was sixty percent twenty years ago is a lot different than what it is now as far as people having to come out of pocket for their rent. So that's just yes?

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department Staff)]: Yeah. So the rent is it does increase. It's capped at 4% annually, adjusted for inflation. Our wonderful colleagues from OCD are here as well, should you have questions to elaborate on that. But it is capped at 4% annually. OCD does publish those numbers. But gradually, you're correct, it does increase. It's not the same rent that was being collected in 2000 as it is now.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. I'll just echo the sentiment of a lot of my fellow commissioners, although I really appreciate bringing some metrics to the dialogue because it's sobering to see how it's not working just from a pure math perspective and to see the vacancies continue. Something's got to change. So I really like this idea of casting a wider net, get you more prospective tenants. Broadening that demographic, increasing the gross annual income from 60%, I'm worried it's not going to be enough, but maybe this is a good test to see what happens. If the graph still looks like this in six months, just seeing what the loss is monthly, I'm just a little bit worried about the idea of these folks defaulting on their loans. So I don't know if there's a way to if it continues to be a problem, if we can get this project sponsor back here for a reevaluation in a time efficient way. I think that might be something we might want to commit to. Otherwise, I echo the sentiment of my fellow commissioners in supporting staff's recommendations. And maybe a better list of the vouchers so we can expand what that could be beyond what's written here. That's it for me.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with staff modifications on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. The motion passes unanimously, seven to zero, placing us on items 11A and B for case numbers twenty twenty five-three thousand eight hundred and fifty six CUA and VAR for the property at 430 Green Street. Commissioners, you will be considering the request for conditional use authorization, and the zoning administrator will be considering the request for variance.

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department Staff)]: Alright hello again commissioners Dakota speaker again for the planning department this item before you request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning planning code sections two zero nine point two, two four nine point four nine, three zero three, and three seventeen to allow for the demolition of an existing residential building containing one dwelling unit to construct a new approximately 5,000 square foot, four story tall, 40 foot tall residential building containing two dwelling units. The commission must also consider the installation of a garage with one off street parking space located within the Telegraph Hill North Beach Special Use District. The project is also seeking a rear yard variance, which will be considered separately by the zoning administrator today. Subject property is located within four located at 430 Green Street and is within the RM1 zoning district, Telegraph Hill North Beach Special Use District, Priority Equity Geography special use district, and a 40x height and bulk district. In 2019, the previous owner entered into a buyout agreement with the tenant at the time who vacated the same year. The subject building is currently owner occupied, and there have not been any evictions within the past ten years. In 2025, the sponsor hosted the required pre application meeting. According to the sponsor's notes, there was neither support for nor opposition to the project. Since your packet was published, the department has received three letters in opposition to the project, the first from the Telegraph Hill dwellers citing concerns about potential a potential second off street parking space and overall safety concerns with off street parking, a need for an additional unit, height, and lack of on-site affordable units. The second letter is from an adjacent property owner to the Northwest, citing concerns over the building's massing, access to light and air, lack of usable open space within the project, and concerns over construction impacts. The final letter received is from an individual across the street from the subject property emphasizing similar concerns found in Telegraph Hill Dweller's letter and further citing incompatibility with the district impacts private views and construction concerns again. The department finds that this project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. The project will demolish an existing age sound one unit building to construct a two unit residential building, thus maximizing the allowable density of the subject property. The project will provide a multiunit residential building that provides rental and ownership opportunities for middle income households and promotes multigenerational living for families. The project will provide two family sized dwelling units that contain access to family amenities, including laundry, off street parking, usable open space within a high density area of the city. The proposed one car garage will not increase the levels of automobile traffic or impair pedestrian use on Green Street. The department also finds the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to adjacent properties or persons within the vicinity. This concludes my presentation. I am available for questions. And once again, I will pass it off to the project sponsor.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You have five minutes.

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Thank you. If I could get the computer please. Good afternoon commissioners, John Kevlin here on behalf of the project's sponsor, the Schuh family. The Schuh's purchased the existing single family home at 430 Green in 2019 and have been living there ever since. They are pursuing this project to create a duplex that will accommodate their multi generational family while also adding a new rental unit to the city's housing market. The matriarch, Joanna, is here with us today. They specifically chose this location due to its proximity to Chinatown. The three grandparents that are living at the house do not speak English and so this was a perfect location for their family compound. The project proposes demolition of the existing single story over basement 1,100 square foot home. It's actually south of 1,100 square feet. If you can imagine it, are four bedrooms squeezed into this tiny space today. In its place, three story over basement duplex is proposed including a four bedroom apartment occupying the upper two floors. This is a family sized unit and will house the Schuh's family. Note there is an elevator proposed to exclusively serve the unit to accommodate the grandparents. There's a two bedroom apartment occupying the 2nd Floor and then finally a basement level that will include a single parking space and a workshop designed for the family. And in particular, you'll see here the elevator comes out on this floor in order to access that parking space. Obviously in North Beach parking is a little bit more sensitive than other areas of the city. In this case it's very important to the project because again we have three seniors in this building and there's a lot of appointments and other things to get to and so this is particularly important here. It's only a single space serving two units so not even one to one. No roof deck is proposed and open space is provided at the rear via a setback 4th Floor and a deck on the 2nd Floor. The project creates new housing in a desirable area of the city that sees little new housing development. The project does require a variance from the rear yard requirement which is justified here. The rear yard requirement is set by the depth of the two adjacent buildings. Such depths actually average less than 15 feet here, but despite this the code still requires at least 15 feet. You can see the difference illustrated on this slide. The project proposes a rear building wall that provides a greater setback than what exists today. The basement pop out with the 2nd Floor deck on top essentially replaces the current deck in that location although smaller and further setback from the rear. The 2nd And 3rd Floors are roughly two feet a two foot larger setback on the on half of the rear wall and a single foot of additional depth on the other half of the wall. And then at the 4th Floor provides that generous 30% setback deeper than what is required by code. As such the project generally increases the rear setback compared to its current condition and the rear wall is only increasing by five feet in height. Note also that this is an undersized site on a block of undersized sites. The modest sized apartment buildings on this block ultimately provide particularly small rear yards. And as you can see from this exhibit, even with the variance, the project provides similar amounts of open space in the rear yard as its immediate neighbors, including the east neighbor which provides no setback whatsoever. So this is not inconsistent with the existing built character on this neighborhood. In closing, the project provides a home for a multigenerational family, adds a new net new dwelling unit in an area of the city where there is little new housing development, and does so while staying consistent with the existing built environment of its neighbors. Thank you and for your consideration. We're here to respectfully request your support for the project.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward.

[Lisa Gibson (Environmental Review Officer, Planning Dept.)]: Can you hear me?

[Connie Ng (Adjacent neighbor, 14–16 Verona Street)]: CONSUELO We can. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Connie Ng. I am here speaking on behalf of family who owned and lived at 14 To 16 Verona Street next to 430 Green Street. I'm here to oppose this project. We are the neighbors that I believe Section 134 was written to protect. We have three residential units across four stories. Nearly all of our windows face east directly toward 430 Green Street. Right now, with the single story building that's there, we get eastern sunlight throughout the day on all four floors. This project requests a massive rear yard variance to extend the building deep into the lot. That puts a four story, like 39 foot wall with a minimal setback right up against the property. I have rudimentary pictures of this for this is the proposed area of construction. And ours is right here on the back. And you'll see the windows all on that property. And then I did a very rough sketch of what the building would look like. I don't have beautiful computer software to do that properly for me. But it shows that the sunlight units get now they will be virtually eliminated by the building, being constructed four stories high as well. And I believe that Section 134 has two requirements that can't be met here. First, the variance can't adversely affect neighboring properties. We are that neighbor that adversely affects that. This will eliminate most, if not all, natural light that comes through to our three units. It's not adverse. It's not just adverse. It's severe for the neighbors and the low income seniors that live in the building. Second, the project has to improve access to light and air for neighbors. It won't improve that. It will eliminate it. We raised this exact same concern back in 2021 when we were notified of the pre application process. Developers knew about this concern from us in the Chinatown Community District, and they seemingly didn't do anything to improve or enhance the program or the plans. We've also spoken to other neighbors on Green Street, specifically 434, 436 Green, the right neighbor to the left of the property. And they oppose this as well. So this isn't really just us being difficult. This is a real neighborhood concern about a project that requires massive code variants that causes significant harm to the existing residents that live on the property. We're not against development or redevelopment in any way. But this variance, like I said, eliminates sunlight to existing homes, all to build what seemingly is two luxury units that don't meet the representation of the community that they currently are in. So we're asking you to not approve the variants, if possible. Thank you.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Couple of questions. I given the the the the close proximity to the the buildings behind it, And this is a question to is this a common detail? Do we see this a lot in this neighborhood zoning administrator?

[Speaker 11.0]: Thank you, commissioner. Corey Teague, zoning administrator. If I could just ask which detail, what aspect of the project Like

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: the the the know, the closeness. Right?

[Unidentified speaker (brief interjection)]: I mean, it you know,

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: the buildings are very close to each other in the rear, and and, you know, it's it's tall as well. And so I'm just wondering how common this is in this area.

[Speaker 11.0]: Yeah, I would say that there are different parts of the city, and this is one of them, where you have a combination of small lots that are historically developed where they are very tight. And there's not a traditional mid block open space like we may see in some of more of our Western neighborhoods. This is definitely a neighborhood, and this block in the vicinity is definitely an area where you see a higher level of building density than you would in maybe some other neighborhoods. So I think this is a common context in this area in terms of having buildings this close to

[Speaker 37.0]: each other,

[Speaker 11.0]: if that's what you're asking

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah, yeah. For a general question there, I I look at this, and this isn't a obviously, it's not a normal circumstance. It's a small lot. I mean, I understand that the owners want to build something for themselves. But I also understand that because of the lot size and because of the close proximity to the neighbors, I think that I feel that that's a legitimate concern as far as the height. I noticed that there's a deck on the roof and another structure to get to that deck. And I'm just wondering, you know, if that's needed. It it's kinda it feels like it's am I right by is there a deck there? John? Yeah.

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Thank you commissioner the open space provided for the the Top Floor unit is at the rear of the 4th Floor where it's set back so it's on the roof of the 3rd Floor there's no roof deck on the the absolute top

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: of

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: this There is an elevator penthouse up there, not to use it as a roof deck but to access it for utilities and mechanical purposes. But to the degree that the commission was looking for some relief from that, there are less impactful ways of getting access to that very top rooftop without having the elevator go the whole way up.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Think thank you for that, I think what I'm getting at is, to me, it just feels like an unusual circumstance. And as much as I understand the property owners wanting to build and they have every right to, it feels to me like the project could reduce in a way that would accommodate the neighbor some of the light issues that they're having. I know it steps back in the rear a little bit, but it just doesn't it feels to me like it could do more. That's where I'm at right now. I just wanted to verbalize that. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Mr. Teague?

[Speaker 11.0]: I thought I was further down the queue.

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

[Speaker 11.0]: Yeah, I think it's just helpful to break out kind of what we're looking at. Obviously, again, the Planning Commission is looking at the demolition and the addition of the garage in the Telegraph Hill, SUD, and then specifically the variance is for the rear yard issue. I would say that on the rear yard variance issue, to take a position somewhat similar to the commissioner, You know, this is a small lot. This is a very dense area. I completely understand the adjacent neighbors concern about, impacts on light and air. Having said that, I think those impacts are primarily due to height and not to depth, which is what the variance is for. There there are there's some impact from that. But primarily, even if you do a completely co compliant four story building here, you're gonna have those light impacts just by the nature of the location of these buildings and the direction of the sun, etcetera. So I just want to point that out. So it seems to me when we have these types of scenarios where substantially something is reasonable, but you have a really tight context, it's just making sure that the design is as contextual as possible to try to reduce those impacts as much as possible while still allowing a reasonable development of the site. So I would also be interested to hear from the commissioners and their positions on any other ideas you may have about just the design context, you know, the height of the building, if you see there are any ways that you feel like the design could be tweaked to be more contextual, I would definitely lean on the commission in that regard to see what your perspective is.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I can't help but think this is it's already a a strange situation. It's basically it's it's a small lot. It's a single story building beside another single story building, each of which are are both of which are basically flanked by three to four story buildings. So I can't see how a three to four story buildings around can protect their light and these one story buildings should stay one story buildings forever. I have a problem with that. We're living in a city. A city grows. Basically, the people who bought this have grown out of this, and they want to expand it. I would make a motion to recommend modifications.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: I second it.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun. Right?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Yes.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: First of all, the item is conditional use authorization with the demolition of the existing unit, enables the project to move forward. Generally speaking, I'm supportive. The new project adds a housing unit. There have been times I've pushed to get additional units added to projects. But in this case, this project's already maximizing the site density under our local rules. So any further push would end up trying to push somebody to build a state ADU, which feels a little kind of beyond us. So I'm not going there. It's in conformance of the height limits in the area. I would love to see this project not have a parking space. But really, I don't see exceptional or extraordinary circumstances on the mandatory discretion review for having the single parking space at this site. So I can live with it. I think the big question then is this discussion we're having about the circumstance of the height of the building and the fact that it's pushing in the rear yard so much. And it's tricky because, as has been noted, the adjacent buildings already push quite a ways into their rear yards as well. And in many ways, this building would be in conformity with the context of other buildings in the area. I respect or I understand that nobody wants to lose direct light coming in through a window from a new project. But I also do generally agree with Commissioner McGarry that it wouldn't be an unusual circumstance in this area. It's something most projects that we ultimately approve or see at the Planning Commission have some impacts on light for other properties in the area. And we can't just freeze a single story building in place for that reason, far as I'm concerned. My one thought, though, is the variance falls to the zoning administrator. And not to just put this on your shoulders, it may be reasonable to pull the building back a little bit, not let it go quite so deep in the property line. I'm not firmly I don't have a firm position on that or thought on that. But it is the one consideration that it is requesting In order to essentially conform with the existing conditions of nearby buildings, it's asking for a pretty significant variance, as has been noted. So I'm willing to support the project. I wonder if there's a minor compromise that could be made just with the depth in the yard. But I'm not going to kind of force the issue.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I'd like to take a slightly different tack. We're having a substandard lot, 20 feet by 57.5 feet, which is not it's very atypical given its widths and its depth. Often, have shorter lots, but we have the 25 foot widths in the front. That creates a very unusual circumstance to design in context because what we are putting on the slot is a significant amount of square footage spread over four floors. And the problem I have with it that the assignment of users, particular to the Ground Floor, are so squishy and undefined that I believe that the building may have to reorganize itself in terms of accountability of what's on the Ground Floor. I do not mind the parking space, particularly for a multigenerational family. I think that is acceptable and should be supported. However, when it comes to a woodworking shop of six twenty one square feet, I'm kind of saying that gives me two ADUs at a minimum. And then when it comes to storage space, which I just kind of like think is about in the 190 square foot range, I'm saying, gee, that almost an ADU. We are approving ADUs at square footage of two thirty square feet and up, and I think there is a squishiness in overbuilding this lot, but not properly kind of finding a way to fit the circumstance. If you have a suburban lot and there's lots of space around it, with buildings not being near, you can do what's proposed to be done here. And I think it's well done on its own. When you try to shoehorn this into the context where it is, and adjoining neighbors are telling me that rent controlled units a stone's throw away are being impacted because light in our living space is indeed part of livability and healthy living, I'm having a little hard time. So there is a possibility of more usefully assigning of how the units work together and a different look at the Ground Floor that is almost 800 square feet and more, or to shave the building back to the extent that it indeed creates more than just the required rearguard open space. Because the impact of the adjoining building by the owner who very, very succinctly described what the issues are, that is why I think we need to that's why we need to distinguish.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Mr. Kieg?

[Speaker 11.0]: Thank you. And just to touch on Commissioner Brahma was saying, and also was raised by the person here posing is that, you know, one of the findings for the variance is that you you don't have, like, detrimental impacts on properties in the vicinities. And that's kind of where I was saying, I think there's a case for a variance here. I think the key is just getting the design to a point where it's as least impactful as possible. And to me, impacts appear to be two major impacts. One is just height. And so where are there places to just even at the edges and the margins to address that issue? But the other one, even though it wasn't stated in person, I think it was something in writing and also just from viewing it is the project is subject to design guidelines and that close proximity in the decks are any potential privacy issues. And so on that, I was going to ask the project sponsor, I don't know if you've had any feedback on potential privacy issues or thought about that, or if you've thought about or would be have any thoughts on adding an additional privacy screening at the rear decks to address that? Because the proximity is quite tight there. And that is one issue. And this comes up a good bit at the Board of Appeals as well in terms of privacy for decks within close proximity. So I just want to ask the project sponsor if you can come and speak to that a bit and see if you've thought about that, would be open to adding I mean, the decks have their the railing, so they're gonna be 42 inches tall. But maybe some level of additional privacy screening with some frosted or translucent glass material, something like that, to allow light in but still provide privacy.

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Yeah. Thank you, mister Teague. I think this is not an uncommon context of having an upper story open space at the rear of the building and I think it's pretty common in these cases to incorporate screening measure like that. So that would we would be more than happy to introduce that to the project and continue working with the zoning administrator on that. Can I also just offer maybe to go a little bit further because I appreciate the general positivity towards the project with the concern around the rear and that's been kind of the heart of this case since we've been working on it? If I could get the projector

[Speaker 38.0]: all right, let's see if I can do this.

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Okay. I think you guys this is a little low tech here.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Can you zoom it out, Mr.

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Metz? I'll zoom it out.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Yes, I will see the whole drawing. Not just There

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: More, more, more.

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Okay. So this is the proposed side elevation. And so you can see that fourth story. It stops at the 30% line, and then the lower three floors bump out. If moving the very rear wall of the building in may not even have any impact on the shadow coming sorry, the light coming into that that that rear building just because that 4th Story is is in it certainly is blocking most, if not all, of whatever shadow the the far the the deep rear wall has on this lot. So in order to what what may be more effective here is that we've got some room to play with in the floor to floor heights. We've got the 2nd Floor at 10 feet. We've got the 3rd Floor at 10 feet, and we've got the 4th Floor at 11 and a half feet. We could we could get another four to five feet out of the height of the building, which by the way starts the the the rear yaw the rear wall, which is actually for the most part farther away from the building than it is today, It's only five feet taller than what's there today. So if we can take two feet out of that, now we're just talking about three additional feet at that depth of the property. So let me just throw that out there because I do think that kind of gets more personally, think it gets more at what the concerns are and does it in a way that certainly for the project sponsor is something we can easily accommodate. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I appreciate that, John. Another thing that was mentioned earlier is the structure that, I guess, encompasses the elevator, that projects outside or above the roofline. Is there any way that that could be relocated in a way that would remove it from the rear of the building, which would further enhance light to come in? And I appreciate you've one of the considerations that you've brought forward. Appreciate that. Thank you. But I also, given the circumstance, I would see if we can go if we can get as far away from the back of that building to let the light into that adjacent building. I mean, I think that would greatly help the situation with your neighbors.

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, let me respond to that. If I could get the projector again. Okay, so now we're on the roof. So the elevator doesn't have a stop on the roof. But what you'll see is that there's an override. The mechanical closet does need to get to that 4th Floor for Joanna's folks and in laws. But it also has a staircase that goes to the roof. So I'm not exactly sure how much we can bring that down. But what we can commit to is taking away the stair penthouse and installing a hatch right so so that bolt comes down and then continuing to to work with the zoning administrator and staff to minimize that mechanical penthouse as much as we possibly can there. I don't know Elevators all have different mechanical systems to them. I'm not sure if there's an elevator where we don't even need to have a person sized door on it, but what I guess I'm trying to commit to, commissioner, eliminating that stair penthouse and then working to minimize that mechanical penthouse as much as we can to accommodate the elevator. We can do that.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I appreciate that. I think that that's a reasonable solution.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Mr. Teague?

[Speaker 11.0]: Thank you. And thank you, project sponsor, for walking through that. Because I think the kind of step by step you took there was a good example of how we can operate on the margins and make it more contextual. Because what I heard there was some of the potential changes are removal of the stair penthouse, you know, reduction of the mechanical penthouse to the extent permitted kind of under under code, like, to meet the requirements that you need, but also within the building code. Reduce the 4th Floor height from eleven four to 10 feet. And add privacy screens to the rear decks. I think you also mentioned even taking off other floors. I mean, I don't know if bringing floor heights below 10 feet is really, you know, necessary for something like this. But I do see, like, a floor height above 10 feet, you know, given the give and take with the variance, that being a reasonable, again, kind of response at the margins just to bring the height all of that collectively working to bring the height down, which I do think is the main issue for light issues. Like the depth is less of an issue. That's more of a privacy issue, I think. And so I think with those changes, those four carve outs, I think I would be comfortable with the variance from there. But I'm curious to hear from the commission your position on those proposals.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I think the proposals actually do make a great improvement to the project and to the impacts that we've been concerned about and is a certainly less extreme solution than when I was sort of tinkering with the idea of just bringing back it, bringing back reducing how far it encroaches in the rear yard. And so, yeah, I would definitely be able to support those changes. I know that we have a motion that was made by Commissioner McGarry. I don't know if you'd be willing to amend that motion or not. But those are my thoughts.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Sorry. I'd be willing to amend the motion to incorporate the changes as

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: And I will second it again.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Yes. Moore. I

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: would like Mr. Kevlin to speak a little bit about the large spaces on the Ground Floor. There are hardly any residential buildings which have a six twenty one square foot woodworking shop could you explain that a little bit so we have a better understanding?

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Absolutely thank you Commissioner I think one of the this this is as we've talked about this is a small site to fit what we're trying to fit on it. Not uncommon but it is a small site. What happens when we add another dwelling unit to go from two to three is that we end up in an R2 occupancy rather than an R3 occupancy which is one to two units and it requires the introduction of another staircase in the house. So we very quickly start eliminating floor area in this very tight footprint that we otherwise had and also eliminating the elevator which for this particular occupant the first occupant of this building would be challenging for us. ADUs are a challenge. Also would defer to the zoning administrator on this. These are subgrade units essentially and they're facing what we know is a smaller rear yard than most and whether or not those would even be ADUs exceptions that would be considerable from your perspective. It's a pretty small area at that ground level at the rear to be facing onto. So those are my thoughts. The workshop Commissioner Moore is kind of we've got space on the Ground Floor. There's not a desire to do two parking spaces and I think there would have been a lot of greater opposition should we have done two parking spaces. So to your point is the workshop itself critical to the project? No, it's more about programming that basement especially in a way that creates a wall there and doesn't for future owners leave the potential open for maybe space for other vehicles down there.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: So, you're saying that potential lease I could be adapted under different rules currently I think in this particular part of town you can only park one car given the zoning. Is that correct?

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: That's right. Yeah. So, and there's no intent on the product sponsors part but I know there's sensitivity here not to have I mean even one space is a little touchy, two spaces much more so. So we we needed to program that space and and this is what we came up with, you know, in terms of serving the family and not being able to add that that third unit or fourth.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: The the only thing I have to say speaking for myself is that people people living in reasonable units is more important to me than providing a car space with a potential addition of reserving space that could in the future be another car. So I would have appreciated if this project would have come forward without that additional car space but created a reasonably sized unit probably definitely in the 1,000 square foot range on the Ground Floor and bringing that building down by a space. That would be, for me, of like fitting the circumstance in which these small lots originally were created where people did not have cars. Many of the people living in this area don't have cars. And that is just a signature of this particular part of town. So that is my own position, but that has never been considered, correct?

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: I'm sorry, was that a question?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Yeah, that's

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: a The issue is with that third unit, adding that second needs of egress requirement under the building code and adding an entire another stair shaft.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: My question to you was not having a parking space but putting a large sized unit on the Ground Floor and having then the rest be one unit on top of it.

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department Staff)]: Oh, oh, I That was my idea.

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Understood. The Schuhs have been living in this building since 2019. It does not have a parking space today. They do have the older members of their family. And so particularly in this case, that one space really was important to the family.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Okay.

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: We do have a motion that's been seconded. I see Commissioner Williams, you have some quick comments.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah, I just wanted to clear up. So exactly how many feet in total is the building going to be reduced in height?

[Speaker 11.0]: Sure. Just to repeat, maybe it'd be helpful for the motion too, if that was the intent. The changes that would be conditioned is, one, replacing the stair penthouse with a hatch. That reduces that completely. And also working with the department and Department of Building Inspection to minimize to the extent possible the mechanical hatch on the roof, k. Reducing the height of the 4th Floor down to 10 feet from, I believe, 11 feet four inches now. So that's all the verticality that would be removed. Okay. And then the fourth condition would be adding privacy screens to the rear deck and more details decks, plural. And the more detail there is for a total of six feet in height. And for that extra screening above the solid railing, for that to be a frosted or translucent glass. So it allows light but provides privacy. So those would be the four conditions.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. So basically, the height would be reduced by about a foot. I mean, the whole entire building envelope.

[Speaker 11.0]: It's hard to explain because the stair penthouse is actually like eight feet. So that's you know, even from a massing perspective, it's not as massive as an entire floor. From a height and a light impact, it's more substantial than its actual massing because of the height. But then the actual building, the total building itself would be reduced one foot four inches, such that no floor has a ceiling height greater than total floor height of more than 10 feet.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Mean, much as I appreciate all the considerations that have been made, I still feel like I mean, it's it's it's good. I'm just not sure if it's gonna really satisfy or at least partly satisfy the neighbors and their concerns with with the light coming in. I I think for me, it's it's because of the proximity, the close proximity of the rear of the buildings. I think that that's a that's a real issue. And and I know that we're we're just we're talking about the demolition and adding the garage. At the same time, we're saying, Okay. So I know we heard can from I just and I hate to drag this out, but I just wanna the woman that that lived in the building behind, could you just come up here for a minute? I I just wanna Yeah. I apologize for calling you back up here. But you've heard what's transpired. What do you feel about what's happened so far?

[Connie Ng (Adjacent neighbor, 14–16 Verona Street)]: I think it's hard for me to contextualize how high it is because it's never it's been like those two little guys on the Green Street. And so it's hard for me to understand when I see and look out. All I've seen is a deck before. And I don't understand if the elevator hatchy thing is reducing eight foot, but then realistically, the heights of the apartment units are just one foot, one inch, four inches. How substantially would that allow for light or air or anything to mitigate the problems? I appreciate the privacy of the addition of the privacy screens on the decks and stuff. But the windows, there's no going around it. The windows literally will look at the decks and look at a frosted deck of someone. And if they so choose to open that deck to look out, they're just looking directly into the units, which is, I think, a problem that's hard for San Francisco to resolve because of the buildings being so close together. But in this case, I think I just would love to preserve the sun. I remember growing up in the units. My whole family lived in all three units, like multi generationally, and my grandparents as well before they passed. And I remember just being able to feel sunshine coming through the window, so it was nice. But those are just some things like so I don't know if I'm answering your question appropriately.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah, appreciate those comments. Thank you so much. Is there anything else you want to add?

[Connie Ng (Adjacent neighbor, 14–16 Verona Street)]: No. But I appreciate the discussion.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah, me too. I respect everything that my fellow commissioners have said so far. There's a lot of important issues. For me, as much as I appreciate, again, the project sponsors, legal team being willing to make some movement, I still am having a problem, really with the light issue and the properties being so close together.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. I think that's all of our comments in conversation. Maybe we can move to vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Indeed. There is a motion that has been seconded, commissioners. And correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner McGarry, but I believe that the motion was to approve with conditions as amended to have the project sponsor continue working with the zoning administrator and staff on the reduction of the building height, specifically replacing the stair penthouse with a hatch, reducing where able to the mechanical equipment above the elevator shaft, reducing the 4th Floor to a 10 foot height, and incorporating privacy screening. Is that all?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Yes. We'll pretty much be the same. The lateral will be considered modifications.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Great. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So?

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? No. And Commissioner President Campbell?

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So move. Commissioners, that motion passes five to two with Commissioners Williams and Moore voting against. Zoning administrator, what say you?

[Speaker 11.0]: I will close the public hearing on the variance and intend to grant the variance with the same conditions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Commissioners, that will place us on item 12 for case number 2020Five-five983CUA at 799 Van S. Avenue. This is a conditional use authorization.

[Christie Alexander (Planning Department Staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I am Christie Alexander with Planning Department staff. The project before you proposes to convert the existing vacant two story over basement, former Mini Cooper USA commercial building, to self storage use, doing business as Storage Star. The project includes interior renovations of the approximately 44,595 gross square feet space and exterior repairs and rehabilitation of all street facing elevations, consistent with the secretary of interior standards for a historic resource such repairs and rehabilitation would activate the building which has been vacant for eight years in the residential commercial high density zoning district along the Van Ness Corridor and historic auto Row the historic preservation commission heard this item at its twenty January twenty first hearing and adopted a resolution advising the planning director to waive the active use requirement Planning Code Section 145.1 C3 as outlined in the resolution in the packet for the first and second stories of

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: the subject

[Christie Alexander (Planning Department Staff)]: building. Specific street frontage requirements may be waived for historic buildings when the HBC advises that complying with specific street frontage requirements would adversely affect the meritorious character of the structure or that modification or waiver would enhance the economic feasibility of preservation of the historic structure. Prior to the planning commission taking action on the conditional use authorization, staff recommends that the planning director take action on the active use waiver after the public hearing is closed. The department has received one letter of opposition from the public since packet publishing. Previous support was received from SF heritage, the Tenderloin Merchants Association, several real estate developer groups and nearby residents, and small business owners expressing support for additional storage space. Two opposition letters in total have been received from nearby residents expressing concerns that the about the appropriateness of the proposed use. Overall, the department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and meets all applicable requirements of the planning code. The department also finds the product to be desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. This concludes my presentation, and I'll be available for any questions.

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

[Melinda Sarjapur (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP; counsel for Storage Star)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Melinda Sarjapur, Ruben, Judy, and Rose. I'm joined today by Matt Garibaldi, CEO of Storage Dahr, our project architect, Wallace Design Group, and our preservation consultants, ARG. We welcome any questions. This project is seeking conditional use authorization to occupy a long, building with a desirable new self storage use. It's also requesting waiver from active use controls from the planning director. And as Christy mentioned, in January, the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously recommended that exception. The project is an adaptive reuse of an existing historic building that has been vacant since 2018 and has been subject to vandalism and disrepair since that time. Storage Star would occupy the full building with self storage, which requires minimal interior modifications and no physical expansion. There will be no impact to character defining features, and the interior changes are easily reversible. An active lobby and office area would be provided at the main building entrance at the corner of Van Ness and Eddy and staffed during all operating hours. The project will also provide many community benefits. Self storage is a low impact commercial use that supports the practical needs of neighborhood residents. Storage Star would invest in restoring and maintaining the building's historic exterior. The project will provide new exterior lighting and partner with the Tenderloin Merchants Association to enhance security and safety. Some of the security features will include interior cameras, on-site employee presence, and routine site walks of all three frontages between twelve and 4PM every day. A new mural is proposed to be installed at the basement level along Van Ness Ave. And based on feedback the team has received from SF Heritage and an HPC, Storage Start plans to select a design for that art to evokes the building's historical role in Van Ness' auto row. The project would also infill unused curb cuts from the former auto use at this site and proposes two on-site street loading zones, which would result in a net increase of street parking. Existing street trees would be retained. Storage Star is a desirable use for this particular site and the surrounding area. This building has been vacant, as I mentioned, for nearly eight years, And the surrounding Van Ness corridor has struggled with both commercial vacancy and crime in the post pandemic environment. A December 2024 planning department survey found a 53% ground floor commercial vacancy rate in this area as compared to 7% citywide. Research conducted by the sponsor mid last year found 500,000 square feet of vacant retail space along the corridor, 30% of which have been empty for more than three years. This is an area of the city that needs a viable commercial operator. Here are some images of the site showing existing oh, actually, sorry. This is an image of the historic structure. This is a building that's deserving of preservation. It's one of the only few remaining auto oriented buildings designed by famed architect Willis Pope, and it's identified as significant within the Van Ness area plan. And here are some images of the site showing current conditions. While this property is zoned for a flexible range of uses, several factors have led to its long vacancy and make Storage Star an ideal operator. These include the high costs required for restoring and main maintaining the historic structure for new occupant, lack of site parking, a relatively small lot size, a building layout intended for auto uses, and a sloped transitioning elevation along both Van Ness And Eddy Street that limits the ability to have direct walk up access. These images provide a quick overview of the scope of the exterior work. In general, the project will restore the historic building features along all three frontages. All concrete cracks and deterioration would be patched, all broken windows replaced in kind, original entrances and windows restored, and the facade repainted and refreshed. This project will breathe new life into this building and reactivate the area, creating a more secure and welcoming environment for neighbors. I'm now going to welcome up Matt Garibaldi, the CEO of Storage Star, for a few comments.

[Matt Garibaldi (Founder & CEO, Storage Star)]: Thank you, commissioners. My name is Matt Garibaldi, founder and CEO of Storage Star. We are a small business founded in San Francisco and operated right here in the Bay Area, and we are deeply familiar with the city space constraints. We are proud of our track record of successful adaptive reuse projects like this one that help to reactivate and contribute to the surrounding community. We offer well established discount programs for senior citizens, veterans, and first responders. Our company has a proven commitment to well maintained, secure, and aesthetically integrated facilities. While self storage can be misunderstood, it serves a practical need of community to community residents in dense urban environments like this, particularly during life transitions. It is also a use capable of bearing the significant costs required to restore long vacant buildings like seven ninety nine Van Ness and preserve historic character. We are particularly excited about the opportunity to restore and provide long term stewardship to 799 Van Ness and to invest in revitalization of the city's Van Ness corridor. We spent months speaking with nearby residents, building owners, and community stakeholders, and we're pleased to have earned significant community support. Thank you for your consideration, and the team is available for any questions.

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

[Speaker 6.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Irene Cohen, and I live at Opera Plaza. I've lived there for fifteen years, and I distribute weekly something called What's Up on Van Ness, which tells people all about the cultural activities going on and around Van Ness Avenue. Commissioners, this project is an insult to the neighborhood, and it's an insult to the city. If you remember historically, in the '70s, the redevelopment agency cleared the site for Opera Plaza as a way of redeveloping Van Ness Avenue as a retail, residential, and commercial community. And until COVID came, we were pretty successful. After Opera Plaza, there's Symphony Towers. There are other condominiums. And right now, they're building housing for teachers and police just on Franklin Street. So we have activities, all sorts of cultural activities, up and down the avenue. We have people who come into the city for these activities. The building in question has been allowed to deteriorate by its landlord, and that's why it's in the condition it is. And now they're asking to do an industrial use in what is a retail and residential neighborhood. This does not add anything to the quality of our life on Van Ness. The building itself, although historic, looms over the avenue. It's dark and it's gray and it's turning it into storage. And whether or not they propose a mural is irrelevant. This is in the Mission District. This neighborhood has a different character. And it should be a use that serves the people of the community. And yes, we could put our clothes there. But that would not add to the safety on the street, the feeling comfortable walking by a building that has an active use. And I know already the the historic commission, approved a conditional non active use. But I think that was a mistake. It's rewarding somebody for letting a building deteriorate. And it's not adding anything to the cultural and residential strength of the neighborhood. We have a school. We have another piece of property next to the school that, at one point, was permitted for residential. I don't know what's happened to that particular property now. They're using it for soccer for the kids at the school. But for the quality of the neighborhood, for our ability to feel comfortable as we walk down the streets, I request that you turn down this application. Thank you very much.

[Jay Anthony Manjivar (Organizer, Carpenters Local 22)]: Good afternoon, president Campbell, vice president Moore, members of the San Francisco Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jay Anthony Manjivar, and I'm an organizer with the North Coast Stage Carpenters Union, Local twenty two here in the beautiful city of San Francisco. I'm speaking today on behalf of my brothers and sisters who live and work in the city in strong support of storage site proposed redevelopment project at 799 Van Ness Avenue. I was born and raised in San Francisco and continue to reside here. It is only since I became an organizer that I realized a successful career as a union carpenter in San Francisco or anywhere for that matter. Relies a lot on good stewards of development. We're all stewards of development here and recognize quality and standard we want to achieve and can only be delivered with a union general contractor. Storage Charge commitment to using the union labor on this project is critical. That commitment directly translate into creating good union jobs for San Francisco, including opportunities for women and minorities or to begin or continue with their careers in the construction industry. For our members, this means strong wages, family support, supporting benefits, and career pathways that sustain households and builds the next generation of skilled carpenters all while delivering the highest standards of safety and craftsmanship. The building of 799 Van Ness is a historic structure that dating back to the early nineteen hundreds. Unfortunately, it has set dormant and underutilized for many years in a corridor that has experienced divestment and prolonged vacancy. This redevelopment represents a meaningful step towards economic recovery and revitalization along the Van Ness corridors near City Hall. This is the applicant's first project in San Francisco, and they have demonstrated from the outset a commitment to doing the right thing by working collaboratively with an organized labor. Historic buildings demand true craftsmanship, preserving structural integrity, restoring the facade, and thoughtfully adapting the interior while maintaining the building's character requires a skill, precision, and expertise of union carpenters. On behalf of the North Coast State Carpenters Union Local twenty two, I respectfully urge the commission to support and approve the proposed development at 799 Van S. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Darwin McCready (Nearby resident, 601 Van Ness Ave.)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Darwin McCready. I live at 601 Van Ness Avenue, a block from my subject property. I'm here to speak in opposition to the project. What we're looking for in Lower Van Ness, what I would describe as from Geary on down to market, is active uses that provide encouragement for street life, pedestrian life. This is the opposite of that. This would probably have one employee, no eyes on the street, doesn't do anything for street safety or activity in the neighborhood. And my last point is that uses like this, self storage, once they go in, they never leave. You know that. I urge you to deny. Thank you.

[Unidentified speaker (brief interjection)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Rene Colorado. I'm the executive director for the tenderloin merchants and property owners association. I'm here to speak in support of the July project. Our organization has worked for over half a decade to improve conditions for families, businesses, and the general well-being of the street. This project will support all that. What the new administration is doing in terms of trying to revive San Francisco has been great. Van Ness has long been the main artery for San Francisco, maybe ten years ago. And I think this is a step in the right direction. This building, if this project weren't to go through, I mean, this building could reasonably be vacant for another ten years. And I think right now we should be doing everything possible to bring in new companies onto the Van Ness corridor, responsible companies. I've been dealing with the CEO and the president of Storage Star. They've been great. They've been great in their community outreach, and they've been very straightforward. And I'm very much looking forward to welcome them into the community and, you know, create jobs, uplift the community. And that section of of Van Ness has been been poor from street conditions. We've been working there for about five years on the street and this will directly help everyone residents and businesses. Thank you folks.

[Rudy Gonzales (Secretary-Treasurer, SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: I like hearing the last speaker because I see his team and their vests and all that. And it's what allows my staff, my office manager, my partners to feel safe. Rudy Gonzales, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. There are clear economic benefits and workforce development benefits to the all union labor commitments that have been made, by the project sponsor, and we're grateful for that. I rise before you to speak in support of the project actually as a property owner at 825 Van Ness, where the Building Trades Council has its headquarters. I walk by this block every single day, sometimes multiple times a day, sometimes even on my way here to visit all of Yukine public servants. We have seen the ups and downs and the ebbs and flows. I remember my great grandfather's Ellis Brooks Chevrolet placard on the back of the 'seventy two Nova and the jingle that went along with it. Times have changed. We probably should have done more during the Van SBRT process to actually plan for and appreciate what we are now suffering from, which is an absolute devastation of ground floor retail in this corridor. It is unsafe. It is unsightly. It is hard to walk through, the human despair that plays out on our streets. Now rather than give you a lecture about public health and where we should be prioritizing our resources, I do wanna note that the increased foot traffic with the project sponsor actually putting a tenant in here and bringing activation via the foot traffic that will come is really important to us as neighbors. As neighbors, we know that self storage is oftentimes thought about as the consumer. Right? We look through the prism of how we interact with self storage. But I understand in the development space, there actually is a growing demand for this, not so much from the residential consumer, but from the small businesses. They have immense constraints on their space. And I think about the cafe across the street from us, the Van S Cafe. I think about some of the other smaller mom and pops. They barely have enough room for patrons to come in when the patrons feel safe enough to do so, And they hardly ever have enough space for expansion. Storage actually provides a really important opportunity for small business support and growth because they can have flexible space that doesn't require long term financial commitments or build outs or construction that I obviously like. They can have small businesses adapt and flex space and do pop ups and activations in retail spaces. And they can have a unit today for six months and then never use it again if they want. There's a really important piece here for the small business community, inclusive of my office. We fully support the the project activation. You know, it's sad that we have planters out there right now and cops walking around. We should have real activation, and I would welcome art. And I take a little bit of offense to the idea that those those murals are just for us in the mission. They belong everywhere in our community, not just in, the heart of the mission, but but we like them there too.

[Matt Garibaldi (Founder & CEO, Storage Star)]: Thanks for your time.

[Bob Bestes (Neighbor, 601 Van Ness Ave.)]: Hello, my name is Bob Bestes. I'm at 601 Van Ness Avenue. I'd like to mention that the previous owner of the property was a car dealership, a Mini Cooper dealership. And they had an open sales room, So you could walk in and look at the cars, whatever. They also occasionally sponsored community events. It was an open building. It had a public space. This proposal is going to close off that building. It is going to do nothing for the community. I really think what's needed there is some space that is open to the community, not closed off from it. So because of that, I think that this is a poor use of that building. I certainly want to see that building revitalized, but it should be done in a proper manner. So thank you very much.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you. I'll get us started here. Thanks, everyone, for coming out and participating in this conversation. I agree self storage is not my top choice for this building either. But I do think the realities are pretty sobering. It has been vacant for eight years. And it does deserve to get some new life breathed into it. And I do think it's important that we respond to the market demands. And if we think a storage unit self storage can be successful here, then I think that's something I'm open to supporting. I like the points that were made in public comment around increasing footfall to the neighborhood. I think the small business user is an interesting reminder. The investments made in restoring a historic building like this are really significant, and I appreciate the project sponsor making those investments. This is a building of merit. And there's a reason this had unanimous support at the HPC. And it's possible the markets will shift again. And the winds do tend to shift. And I do appreciate how the build out is light touch and reversible one day. And maybe this building can one day be another showroom or a community space that is a little bit more desirable. I had a few questions. I love the mural. Hopefully, that doesn't get vandalized. I was curious about the exterior lighting. My read of the and this is maybe for the project sponsor. It looks like there's some linear lights being proposed on the facade that seem more ambient in nature. I wondered if there's more specific lighting that will be on the building that will just provide a little bit more illumination at night from a safety perspective.

[Connie Ng (Adjacent neighbor, 14–16 Verona Street)]: Hi. I'm Lisa Yrgovich, preservation architect with ARG. So address the lighting concerns. The exterior lighting that's being proposed is gonna be up and down lights at every concrete pilaster along the major walkway. So then when you're passing by the building, you'll see up lighting and down lighting along the pilasters to highlight

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: the Thank

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: you. I was reading it as more lighting up the architecture, but it sounds like we'll get foot candles on the sidewalk.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Yeah, go up and

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: down.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Perfect. Thank you. Maybe while I've got you don't go away. I also was curious, just in looking at the plan, specifically the Ground Floor plan, I wondered if you all had explored or considered moving the storage off the window line and putting the corridor along the window. I don't know if that works from a business perspective, but it just seems like such a shame to not actually see any sense of motion or movement inside of the building and have them blanked off into those storage units. And I wondered if you all had looked at that as a way of just creating a little bit of activation in at least that first five or six feet of the building?

[Melinda Sarjapur (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP; counsel for Storage Star)]: The answer is yes.

[Megan Kalpin (Environmental Coordinator, Planning Dept.)]: We did

[Melinda Sarjapur (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP; counsel for Storage Star)]: look at the layout. Unfortunately, this for a building for self storage is already quite small. It's about 30,000 net rentable square feet. So the reduction in area they get from shifting things around, it wasn't feasible for them.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you. Those are all my comments, but this project has my support.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: If there's

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: We'll

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: call on you if a commissioner asks. Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Thank you. If there's one thing being up here has taught me, there is no magic wand that's basically going to make anybody happy. Could you

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: speak a little louder, please?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'm sorry, Commissioner.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Can you hear me now?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Probably. There's one thing being up here for the brief amount of time I'm up here, it's that basically there is no magic wand that's going to make everybody happy. This is a beautiful building. It's a quaint building. It's been let go into terrible disrepair. I'm not too sure another eight years this building is gonna survive. It will be a teardown if it's just left the way it is. Secure security walks daily, hopefully outside security cameras, exterior lights, fill in of the street curb cuts, activation, basically tenderloin merchants here across the road. So not just the 53% of ground floor spaces on Van S that are vacant right now, that are gonna remain vacant. But when they do wanna bounce back and they we will bounce back and across the road with the the Tenderloin and the other side, basically, that need this storage space right now. And if I was to tie two of these together, our previous case that we we heard here with I can only dream of a 600 plus square foot woodwork woodworking shop for me and my three boys to actually learn. But the reality is the first fourteen years of my time here in San Francisco, I lived in an apartment and I couldn't even store my tools. You know, I was a working carpenter for years. So I used I used storage for my tools. It's not just a business person. It's not just basically people basically trying to look after the business, grow the rest, but San Francisco is a very tightly packed city. And the people who are here move out for various amount of reasons. And those who stay, half they stay with confined with with serious conditions. And you stay here because you wanna stay here. And I have used storage even though I hate the idea of storage, but I know it's a necessary part of life because I utilize myself as a single person just to store my tools that basically provided the wages to actually pay my rent in San Francisco and stay here and basically find a wife and start off and build together and, you know, move on. So I'm totally in favor of this. This building as it is right now and this part of Van Ness is a blight on San Francisco, and it has been for quite some time. We desperately have to do something. And if it starts here, it starts with this little corner here. And if that provides the storage to start up a little business next door, across the road or behind, great. But we have to start somewhere. So I'm very in favor of this project. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. If I'm in a different world, I would love to land bank this site. And if you have the money to do this, I would love to land bank this site. Because if you look into this, this is in a very attractive corridor. And yes, everyone wants activation. Everyone wants also in this times housing too. But in reality, and where we're in, nobody really likes storage for some odd reason. And I remember we had actually an item maybe last year or so that is on 5th and mission. Believe it's between 5th and fourth and mission. And there was a big turnout against of that self storage as well. But given that this is in the main corridor, and I understand that you're asking for a waiver for active use, that the previous developer actually worked with the community to talk about the active in the Ground Floor at least, some portion of it. And because again, the way I'm thinking this is this is the corridor that really needs more activation. And I appreciate the comments in a way that would invite people along the street. But I'm wondering if there has been that kind of talks with the neighbors on how to if there can be a space for active use or think about maybe some portion of it or less than 5% of it, if anything. Yes?

[Melinda Sarjapur (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP; counsel for Storage Star)]: Yeah. There has been consideration of whether there's an ability to carve out areas in the building. As part of the feedback we got from planning, we did reserve about 15 foot deep in each direction lobby area at the Ground Floor of this. But because of the size of the building, it's just it's not economic feasible to carve out more area. You would lose the storage space that we need in order to invest in the resource. Okay.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I appreciate yeah, I see that it was 15 feet. I was thinking about like at least more of a portion on where the would be. But as I'm looking into imbalance as well as the needs of the merchants and for personal uses as well, storage is also greatly demanded. So in hindsight, I would approve of this. I would be in favor of this as of now. But I wish there was more leeway as well with the neighbors in terms of making them feel like they're also part of the neighborhood or the

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: corridor. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have a question for the project sponsor. Have a question for the project sponsor. So I'm just curious to learn more. There's been a lot of talk about street conditions and concerns about safety in this area. What is the sponsor's approach to security as far as outside the building? I know that we have our standard conditions requiring sidewalk maintenance and that kind of thing, maintaining the sidewalks in a clean condition. But there's an idea here, if you have a more active use, there would be more eyes on the street, which is beneficial for public safety. And so I'm just wondering, what is the plan? Is there 20 fourseven on-site security? Will there be sidewalk walks? Are there cameras in the exterior to monitor conditions? How does this play out?

[Melinda Sarjapur (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP; counsel for Storage Star)]: Yeah. The sponsor, Storage Jar, has been partnering with the Tenurevoiing Merchants Association for security on the site. And they've come up with a plan that's going to include cameras for eyes on the street, having employees on-site during all operational hours. When the building is not in operation, it'll be locked down, so there'll be no access to it. So routine walks, training for employees in managing security situations that might arise at the exterior, and commitment to being a real steward of the property, keeping the sidewalk clean, keeping the mural clear of graffiti. There's a maintenance plan that has been developed for that. And just kind of increasing the presence, understanding that this is sort of an odd site, right? We've got to transition along Van Ness. So you don't have direct site access. And there hasn't historically been from that frontage. And a lot of the facade area, even at the basement level, with the automotive use, has not been traditionally active and has larger doors, opaque doors there that are traditional, historically, that would be retained.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: AUDIENCE: Okay. Thank you. And so at least when the use is open, there would be people on-site and there would be security monitoring. And then it sounds like after hours, I think the hours are listed in the packet here until 7PM. So after hours, would not be people on-site, but I assume there would be at least burglar alarms and ability

[Melinda Sarjapur (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP; counsel for Storage Star)]: to There would have respond to the cameras. There are stalling exterior lighting to make it more visible in that area in the evening on the streets.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. And actually, said something that was a good segue to one of my thoughts about this. I take to heart the points about storage uses not really activating the street in quite the way that we might like. It's why there is this conditional use authorization that's part of a project like this. What I'm seeing here is that this is a very hard type of building to reuse. There are plenty of other uses that could go into it. But it is a large sort of showroom type of building, semi industrial that's challenging to reuse. Previously, was the auto dealership. When I look back at what the mini dealership really how that addressed the street, I feel like from a street activation perspective, it's not that different. There were additional transparency and accessibility on Eddy Street, it looked like. But otherwise, because of the slope of the streets around the building, you mostly were, again, just looking at windows or blank facades or roll up doors as part of that building. So I'm just not entirely convinced that this is a huge change besides the fact that it's not publicly accessible to anyone who can just walk in the door, which I do appreciate that that's maybe less desirable in some ways. And I also appreciate concerns about deadening of some of the street environment that comes with self storage. But I've seen in many other places in the city self storage be fairly well integrated with communities. It's there for a long time. Again, not the most active, most preferred use, but the overall impact has been, to me, not especially significant. And I do appreciate that there would be the corner lobby area, which does have think it was 15 feet of depth minimum of active use there. The security upgrades seem great. The reinvestment in a historic building is really good to see. There would be some activity from users of the storage facility in the street. So on balance, looking at the pros and cons of this, I do support the proposal. And I also make a motion to approve.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Commissioner So. You beat me to that, Commissioner McGarry. I'm sympathetic about the situation. I hear a lot of you all come in here. Some of them mention about opposing this project. But I'm also, just like many of you here who are also supportive of this project, the Geary bus is my I mean, not the mission. And Venice bus is my favorite bus. And I always walk up and down to catch the bus, number 49. Through the course of these years, activation along these major corridor in our city is much really what we needed. So on that regard, I'm supportive of this project. But then also wanted to bring up another fact that I'm really aware of a lot of equity issues about how much people are paying even just to store things. People should not need to drive to Oakland just to find a storage unit that they can afford. And the people who are lucky enough to build storage previous years shall not be allowed to continue to charge this kind of absorbent amount of rate. I'm just looking at in the lens of what is really fair for our city now and why we also have to maintain, improve the continuation of safety along our streets. This is all the way up and down Van Ness, not just one little segment. This is much needed right now and I knew that different times in the history, we might have decided in different ways based on different constraints. But right now, I really strongly encourage the project sponsor and the project sponsor's representative really uphold to activating the streets and making safety camera and lights, make sure that people like, not just like me, but anyone feel safe walking by and wait for the bus or just just wanted to walk along, vanness, and grab a cup of coffee with friends. So I'm supportive of that, and I heard this being second. So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Thank you for the robust discussion. Pro and con, it's very interesting when I sit here going through the different, considerations, and I can understand both, positions. However, putting it into the reality where we are, Venice is pockmarked by neglected buildings, which makes the street even worse than it is. And that is, I think, where the problem lies. And this particular building, like many of the other larger vacant buildings, have problem finding a user because this is a very unusual building type as a historic building to occupy with a different kind of use. And I think Minnie the Cooper ownership was interesting, but it was never the most active part of Venice Avenue in that particular location anyway. I consider this bill I think our charge is to support historic preservation of this building. Wills Folk is a architect. It's a beautiful building. And even if it looks very, very worn and in bad shape, I think it has the ability, through this particular step, to be restored and create a stable anchor, a restored building, a commitment to an active use at this part of Venice. And while we define active uses all kinds of ways, Venice was never the active kind of Union Square type street anyway. It was always a very staid, very elegant boulevard, but it was mostly characterized by displaying cars and perhaps one or two people in very large spaces. It was not kind of like people congregating like you do see around Union Square. With that in mind, I look at this as a very healthy I want to use the word carefully placeholder. Because if the owner of this building sees changes, I would assume that they would find a way to take the next step that this building deserves. But I think as an interim, I'm very comfortable not only with the attention that planning and historic preservation is giving this discussion, but I heard that the owner is a local owner. We do support local businesses who I do believe understand the needs of local businesses better than anybody else. It is not a national kind of chain storage, but it is a local business. I walk up Venice once or twice a week coming from where I live on Clay Street all the way down here. And I've seen the many, many iterations and stresses that Venice had gone through. But I do appreciate the state nature of these historic buildings, of which this is one. And for that reason, with the careful attention to lighting and restoration, I fully support what this project is trying to do. There is somebody in the audience, and I want to give respect to this person who's been trying to make a comment. Ma'am, do you have any additional comments relative to that? I would like to give you the opportunity to speak to us. I realize that I'm fighting a battle. You would have to come to the microphone that we can hear you, don't mind.

[Speaker 6.0]: I realize that I'm fighting a losing battle on this. There was another issue raised at the meeting two weeks ago, and that had to do with the windows above ground. They proposed to frost them so that there would be no visibility in or light coming out. And I think that makes the building even look more like a fortress than it does already. The commissioners at that meeting raised the question and said that they recommended that they not be frosted. And there were also the blocking of the windows on the 1st Floor. They thought that was unfriendly to the neighborhood, too. So I recognize that. I will say, in favor of MS Avenue, that we did manage to rescue the CVS, which is alone in a desert where there is no other drugstore for 0.9 miles in one direction and 1.8 miles in the other direction. So we did manage to get CVS to retract its decision to close that store.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Ma'am, I do not want to interrupt you, but I need to stick with a description of the

[Melinda Sarjapur (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP; counsel for Storage Star)]: I mean, spilling. That's my

[Speaker 6.0]: request was that we I understand I'm fighting a losing battle here. But I request that the frosted windows be disallowed, that you consider, again, the lower level, on the street level, blocking those windows.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I got your point, but I want to redirect my question to our historic preservation team. I read the concerns expressed by HPC regarding the frost nature, but I understand that that is still a discussion that is not resolved. Am I correct about that, or could staff just clarify what the position is?

[Christie Alexander (Planning Department Staff)]: Yes, certainly. I can speak to that. So the commission did ask that they just take it into consideration and look at alternates. And the sponsor has come back and provided an alternative proposal for the window film. So it's not complete frosting as previously proposed. But what is showing in the packet is a new alternate type of window film, similar to warehouse windows. So it's not completely transparent. But right now, with the proposal of the layout of the storage units, the back of the walls will be right up against the windows. So they didn't want to have just transparent windows showing back of walls. So preservation staff has reviewed this, and we support what they're proposing in the packet.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I think that is the most important comment that historic preservation has already looked at the solution so that we are not approving something that is just hanging there, but the discussions already have been successfully completed. Regarding the Ground Floor, would you be able to reiterate of what was discussed and how it was resolved?

[Christie Alexander (Planning Department Staff)]: So at the Historic Preservation Commission, a commissioner encouraged them looking at activating the basement level. But in the planning code, we don't even require active uses in the basement level. And since it's only for one little corner area, and this would not play well with what they're proposing for their use. And we had recommended a staff to activate it through the mural. So looking at that again, we still recommend that they do the mural on that basement level.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: And it's difficult to comment on because the Willis Pope architecture is not really expressive of murals. It doesn't need molds. It speaks for itself. But that is an architectural discussion I leave to somebody else. The one thing I would like to see a commitment to, this building, as other buildings up and down Venice, are greatly suffering from extreme graffiti and destruction of any kind of smooth surface. And I would like to see that there is a constant commitment to make sure that this will not be occurring on this building again. Because as we're committing to this type of use, I think with it comes an extra obligation for vigilant eyes on maintenance and graffiti and abatement. I'd just like to hang that out, say I'm not even sure what materials you were using on the Ground Floor other than opaquing what were windows before. But vandalism to store windows can be extremely expensive and extremely damaging to the building. So if anybody would consider that, we could get a commitment for that to be part of how you're operating the building.

[Melinda Sarjapur (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP; counsel for Storage Star)]: Yes, absolutely. That's gone into the thinking for the use, his ongoing commitment and stewardship of the building and making sure that it doesn't deteriorate again.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: We do have a motion that's been seconded. Commissioner Williams, you have some additional thoughts?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just real fast. Thank you. There's been a lot of great commentary and feedback. I just want to highlight the process of the CUA. You know, and the community coming out, people that really care about their community coming out and being able to to voice their have a voice here. And, you know, whether whether you agree with the project or not, I think it's really important to highlight how important the CUA process is. And you know, there there's there's been movement, in kinda not having that anymore around certain certain projects. And and and I you know? So I I wanted to just, you know, highlight the importance of of this this hearing and and and giving community a voice. But it also highlights, as far as the corridor, you know, to me, that things have changed. And what we known about the quarter, growing up here, someone who's been here a long time, and the remembrances of what was there has changed. And now we're we're having to understand those changes. And and this this discussion is important. I think, ultimately, every everything has been said that needs to be said. But I am gonna support the project. Thank you.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: That's it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[David Freeman (Neighbor, 2303 Filbert vicinity)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell. Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero.

[Director Phillips (Planning Director, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Secretary and commissioners, I just want to weigh in now with regard to the active use waiver to note that I, as planning director, have reviewed the HPC's advice and have determined to grant the waiver as drafted by staff.

[Melinda Sarjapur (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP; counsel for Storage Star)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Members of the public, I would like to remind you to please silence your mobile devices. If you don't know how to silence them, please turn them off. Commissioners, we are now on item 13 for case number 2020Five-twelveEleven-six PPS for the property at 641 Through 645 48th Avenue. This is an informational presentation. Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Yeah. So it's all taken a

[Bob Bestes (Neighbor, 601 Van Ness Ave.)]: little longer than I thought.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Not that I see. Not really. Project sponsor, are you ready? There is no staff presentation. There's no staff assigned. There's no application. This is just your opportunity to provide, to satisfy the SB four twenty three. Okay. You have five minutes.

[Stanley Saitowitz (Principal, Natoma Architects)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Stanley Sodovitz from Natoma Architects. I'm Yes. We have four. I'm really only gonna speak about the design of the project. Can can we have the okay. Here we go. So this is the end of the city, the edge of the city at the west, and this is our site. This is the view from the site. Currently, it's five lots which are larger than typical 25 foot San Francisco lots, and our proposal is to divide the land into 10 lots, nine of which have individual buildings built on them. The context of the area is very much this kind of fabric of simple buildings with typical sort of square projected bays and repeated windows, and so this is sort of the fabric of these Western neighborhoods, and the kind of architecture that we've reinterpreted in a more kind of contemporary way using a similar language in a more sheer and sort of expressive form. The other context is these amazing views of the ocean, and this very sort of slightly developed part of the city, mostly waterfronts in most cities are really sort of elaborate. This one's much less so, but there is a kind of tradition of buildings that address the water through these bay windows which look up and down streets at the bay, And so this has sort of inspired the other context and the elevations which face the west, which look like this. So this is a sort of woven set of bays and balconies which alternates so that everyone there's always a sort of recess to create privacy between neighbors. It's it's essentially six houses that you're looking at, the the second bar of our our building. But this idea of the sort of this sort of wavy architecture which looks at the breakers. So these are the elevations. This looking to the west, this to the south, this to the north, and this to the east, which is basically 48th Avenue, and the entry to our project with through this gateway, which is the tenth of the lots of this new subdivision. In terms of our waivers, there are only two waivers that we're looking for. The one is height exception, and it's only those small shaded areas on the left hand image that exceed the height. Essentially, because of the topography, which slopes in two directions, and the sort of complexity of the terrain, we need this waiver for these minor sort of areas, 11% essentially of our surface area. And then the other exception has to do with rear yards, but we exceed the amount of space required for open area. It's just that the way the front yards and rear yards work, it doesn't quite conform, but essentially, we have more open space than required. This is the arrival on 48th Avenue through this gateway, which is essentially one lot that's not built on of these 10 new lots. This is the meuse that you arrive at as you come down the hill on the right, and a sort of semi private street that is the access to the parking for the buildings on the left. This is another view looking south of that muse, with,

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

[Stanley Saitowitz (Principal, Natoma Architects)]: the left hand side, the bay windows that look at the ocean, and on the right hand side, the more urban architecture that reflects the kind of context of buildings in the neighborhood, and another view of the West, and a sort of arrival at sunset and the way that the project would look, and a view at night of this new object overlooking the water. In terms of the plans, I'm starting at the bottom and stacking up on the hill. They're basically studio, two bedroom, three bedroom, and four bedroom units in these single family house elements. And so it's quite a array of variety of sizes which matches the kind of context of the neighborhood. And one of the sort of things that you can see on this image is that the main living spaces are typically surrounded surrounding a courtyard. So you see the sort of entry area and then an open courtyard, so that there's outdoor space captured within the house itself, which is protected from, you know, what's often a windy climate.

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

[Stanley Saitowitz (Principal, Natoma Architects)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioners may have some questions to follow-up with you. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. This is simply informational. You need to come forward. Last call, seeing none, public comment is closed, this matter is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I wish we had more sites in San Francisco to densify in the form that we're doing it. It is sensitive to topography. It's sensitive to setting and view. And I do like the yield of 20 units together with the ability in this particular location to deliver also two affordable units. What I do regret is that SB four twenty three does not allow us to see slightly more plans in the package that's being prepared because a project without architect Zedevis' presentation would be a little bit hard to understand. But thank you for giving us the opportunity to hear you speak directly, which for me made the project even more exciting. I think it is about good architecture, but that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the ability to sensitively design at higher density. I do appreciate the wide range of unit mixes from studio to four bedroom. We do not see many projects with four bedrooms anymore. We mostly see studio and one bedroom. This, in this particular location, I think, will be a very valuable addition to providing the unit mix, including affordable on-site. I mean, for support of this project, and we are only making comments. If I could, I would approve it, but that is not what I that was not what we're allowed to do here. So we are positively supporting what you are trying to do. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Since this is an SB four twenty three project that hasn't been reviewed by department staff yet, I don't have any particular comments on the project. I appreciate you bringing it forward. I appreciate the added density at the site. I do have a question for department staff, maybe Ms. Modi. So a project like this, would our objective design standards apply to this project?

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: Yes, they would apply. And remind me, this density bonus? Density bonus

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: is

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: Yeah. Just double I would need to confer with staff on whether we are allowing waivers to objective design standards through density bonus, which might be the only constraint. I believe we are. I'm not sure. Again, I'm still learning on all of these new rules myself.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Sure. But I believe so. That's Okay. I just wanted to ask the question because

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: They're certainly not exempt. So they apply at sort of at the base level. It's just a question of through the waiver and concession process whether they could get out of any.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Because I can immediately think that it's possible some of the objective design standards might not play well with this project. I think there are percent of area that has transparency on the rear of it. And in some ways, it can be a shame for the ability of people to take risks or do something unique and different. But that review process will happen. I don't know where that will land. But it's something I'm thinking about as I see a unique design coming forward. And I'm wondering how it will interact with those standards.

[Liz Vadi (Permit SF program lead)]: And the one thing I'll just add, just looking at the front facade that's along was it 48th Avenue here? We did really think about contemporary buildings like this when we were developing our design standards. I'm sure mostly what you're thinking around is sort of the glazing ratio as the primary ones. And just looking at it, there is still a fair amount of solid. And we were really thoughtful to make sure that different architectural typologies would still work within the range of transparency that we're requiring. So although we haven't calculated this, this doesn't seem way off from what we were anticipating. So I don't think this is inherently the type of thing that would not be allowed under the design standards, maybe with a tweak or one more panel here or there type thing. But in this general vein is something that we wanted. We didn't want fully glassy buildings, but we wanted sort of an acknowledgment that you could shift your glazing and sort of stack it in different zones, not have to just do punched openings.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Great. Thank you. And I know that as part of the process of adopting the objective design standards, there was going to be a report back after a period of time to see how well they're working. So we shall see. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, thank you very much for the presentation. And that will place us under your discretionary review calendar, commissioners, for the final item you're in Thank you very much. Your agenda today, number 14, for case number 2020Five-nine257DRP at 2303 Filbert Street. This is a discretionary review.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Jonas, we have a disclosure.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: We have a disclosure. Please.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I wish to disclose that I have a professional relationship with the husband of the Doctor requester's representative, Deborah Holly of Holly Consulting. I do not believe that that relationship has any impact on my ability to be impartial on this matter, and I ask that the minutes reflect this disclosure.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Very good. Good afternoon, commissioners, president So, vice president Moore, commissioners David Winslow, staff architect. It's okay. It's It's okay. I'm oh, boy.

[John Warner (Property co-owner, 949 Post Street)]: Oh, my gosh. Let me just come Break your alarm. No.

[Serena Calhoun (Architect; representative for 949 Post Street owner)]: I'm just kidding.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: It's the drugs. President Campbell.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Can only come to the MES.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Am I right as president? So the item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application 2025009257PRJ. The project proposes a vertical addition with the installation of an Airstream trailer with a spiral stair staircase and deck on top of the Airstream on an existing roof of a two story single family building. This project, well, the project originally came into the department in 2021 as a 221 square foot glass greenhouse with elevator, which went through neighborhood notification. The department received no comments, and the project was approved. And the permit has yet to be issued in DBI. Subsequently, the planning department received this application and sent it out as a similar proposal, which would revise the previous permit. Neighborhood notification was required, as substantial elements of the project had been changed. The site is an approximately 20 foot wide by 67 and a half foot deep corner lot with full lot coverage. The existing two story building is a category b unknown but age eligible historic resource built in 1900. The Doctor requester Deborah Holly, on behalf of Ed Chow of 3603 Steiner Street, the immediate neighbor to the south, is concerned that the proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines to articulate the building to minimize impacts on light and privacy to adjacent properties. And the type, finish, and quality of building materials must be compatible with those used in the surrounding area. The design of the proposed project is not compatible I continue with their argument. The design of the proposed project is not compatible with the existing building nor the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood that define the cohesive neighborhood character. And the project may result in adverse historic resource impacts. The project would also create unreasonable impacts on Mr. Chao's light well. Their proposed alternative is to redesign the project to be consistent with the previous project, which was lower in elevation, involved materials that are compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings, and did not include features that would compromise the privacy or create noise impacts associated with the currently proposed project. To date, the department has received, I've lost count, but over 90 letters in opposition, 77 of which, I believe, or 78 are in your packet, And correction on my report, there were no letters in support of the project. Staff review determined that this project does comply with the planning code, but not with the residential design guidelines, specifically sensitively locates and screen rooftop features so they do not dominate the appearance of a building. And the type, finish, and quality of building materials must be compatible with those used in the surrounding area, as well as articulate the building to minimize impacts on light and privacy to adjacent properties. As I mentioned, a previous proposal for a glass greenhouse structure was approved in 2022 by the previous building owner. An Airstream, for those maybe unfamiliar, is a trailer of a shiny aluminum travel trailer. The low height and corner location of this building enabled the proposed addition to be highly visible from the public right of way. The actual height of the trailer in relation to the roof has yet to be determined by the project sponsor, as the structural plans have yet to be devised. And while a fair argument may be made that an all glass roof structure, as previously proposed and approved, is not that different from an all aluminum trailer. Staff believes there is a difference. Glass is a common material found in residential buildings. The residential design guidelines guide the amount and proportion of glass that are complementary to a particular context. The primary material of this edition is one that is not found in this context, as is consistent with our review and application of the RDGs in such context where metal is proposed as a primary building material, we recommend against it. Additionally, the stairs and viewing platform on top of such a structure are also not supported in their original proposed location as they create unnecessary privacy impacts. Therefore, deems there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and recommends taking discretionary review and modifying the project in the following ways. First, remove the viewing platform and spiral stairs. And second, screen the trailer on all sides with a full height material compatible with materials of surrounding buildings to render it, the airstream's exterior material that is, invisible. Thank you.

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

[Deborah Holly (Holly Consulting; DR Requesters’ Representative)]: Okay. There we go. Sorry.

[Speaker 11.0]: Okay.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Deborah Holly (Holly Consulting; DR Requesters’ Representative)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Deborah Holly for the d r requesters, Ed Chow and Melissa Kleinbart, who live adjacent to the proposed project. Oh, it doesn't seem to be connecting.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Deborah, can you talk a little bit louder? There we go.

[Deborah Holly (Holly Consulting; DR Requesters’ Representative)]: Okay.

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

[Deborah Holly (Holly Consulting; DR Requesters’ Representative)]: Alright. The subject property at the corner of Philbert And Steiner Streets contains a two story wood clad Victorian home dating to 1900. Due to the low height of the building and prominent corner location, the rooftop is highly visible, as David just mentioned. Here are some photos of the surrounding historic buildings that provide context for evaluating the appropriateness of the project design. As these images show, the aluminum trailer, metal spiral staircase, and catwalk are highly visible and completely out of context with the prevailing historic architectural character of the neighborhood. The proposed use is incompatible as well. The project proposes a party deck in a quiet residential neighborhood. The proposed additions conflict with dozens of residential design guidelines, such as the type, finish, and quality of a building's materials, but building's materials must be compatible with those used in the surrounding area. The residential design guidelines direct architects to articulate the building to minimize impacts on light and privacy to adjacent properties. The project does not comply because it would create unreasonable privacy, light, and noise impacts. My client's bedroom and bathroom are located adjacent to the proposed trailer, staircase, and catwalk. These slides demonstrate that the project would significantly impact them. While we certainly appreciate mister Winslow's effort to reduce the visibility of the project by screening it from view. This does nothing to preserve light and quality of life for the adjacent neighbors. The project overloads the roof deck with the with the proposed additions and covers virtually the whole roof. The project sponsors said they like to entertain on the roof and have already installed a big screen television and speakers. Approval of this project would further intensify noise and activities on the roof deck. Your approval of this project would set an undesirable precedent. There are no legally permitted projects in the city with permanent rooftop trailers. The planning department said that because the space in the Airstream trailer does not meet standards for occupiable space under the building code, that the square footage was not considered to be occupiable space even as it was acknowledged that the Airstream would indeed be occupied. How does this make sense? They get to create a non code compliant space that they and their guests can occupy, but the city won't regulate it because it's not code compliant. The project sponsor claimed that the trailer is a way to save on construction costs. By approving this project, you could open the door to other property owners wanting to avoid paying workers for conventional code compliant construction in order to add bedrooms, bathrooms, and kitchens without requiring that the additional square footage be counted as occupiable space or meet planning and building codes. Please listen to your community. If you share the concerns of my clients, the Golden Gate Valley Association, the Cal Hollow Association, and more than 90 other neighbors, including just about every neighbor near the project site, please deny it. Thank you for your time.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, we should hear from the project sponsor. You also have five minutes. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were you have another minute left.

[Speaker 37.0]: Hi, I'm Mitchel. Thank you. Thank you, committee, for listening to us on this very important matter.

[Deborah Holly (Holly Consulting; DR Requesters’ Representative)]: And could we have the show the

[Speaker 37.0]: Oh, yes. Yes. So as the site map shows, our the master bedroom and my daughter's bedroom and our light well and our master bathroom are in direct line of sight of of the proposed construction. This really is going to impair our light and air from our only light well. And I'll say that we've been living at our unit for four years now. When they walk up the stairs, you can hear everything as though they're walking into the bedroom. This is construction from 1900, both buildings. The insulation is very poor. I can't move our bedrooms. But they could change what they're doing to create something more covered, like a traditional one bedroom or something on top in addition. But this leaves us very vulnerable. Please give us your most serious consideration because the disturbance of noise, light, and air will be overwhelming for us thank you very much

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: okay with that we should hear from the project sponsor you have five minutes Yeah, SF gov. Can we go to the overhead?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Sorry, is this raised up?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: No, it does not. You can zoom with this little scrolling bar on the very top.

[Corey Covington (Design Director, Houseworks Design Build)]: Okay, thank you. Sorry for that. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Corey Covington. I am a design director at Houseworks Design Build. We are the project sponsor for our clients who own the single family home at 2303 Filbert Street. We're here regarding improvements to an existing permitted roof deck designed to improve functionality and enjoyment for our homeowners while respecting our neighbors and the neighborhood. I'll reiterate a little bit of what mister Winslow said earlier. The house was built in 1900 on a 20 by 67 and a half square foot lot. It was constructed as a mixed use building, commercial Ground Floor, residential 2nd Floor. It was constructed with property lines leaving zero yard space. In 2012, the Ground Floor commercial space was abandoned and renovated into residential living space and incorporated into the unit upstairs. Excuse me. That work was completed in 2013. In 2021, for the, following the 03:11 hearing that was supported by some of the same neighbors who are protesting this one, the city approved a rooftop project that included a 221 square foot prefabricated glass walled and glass roofed metal framed greenhouse, An expanded pedestal system roof deck, a mezzanine, pneumatic elevator, and penthouse extending from the Ground Floor to the existing roof deck. Additionally, the approval covered raised parapet walls on the South property line and a bulkhead within the South property line light well, which is mister Charles, our side of mister Charles proper light well. These approvals established the allowance for rooftop enclosure and circulation on this building. However, permitted work was not completed before the home was put up for sale. In 2024, our clients purchased 2303 Fulbright Street, which included the existing roof deck with an aluminum glass guardrail, spa, and prep for an outdoor kitchen, but not the improvements that were approved in the previous permit application. Come to 2025, because of zero yard space and the probability of expanding the usage and functionality of the roof deck based on the previous three eleven, our clients engaged us to renovate the roof deck in order to utilize the open space for their family, which includes their five year old daughter who has no other outdoor space at this home. What is proposed is generally utilizing the same framework that was approved in 2021. We are proposing a rooftop feature to be used as an accessory amenity space similar to the previously approved prefabricated greenhouse, but with a prefabricated airstream instead. This proposal also includes a sauna, outdoor shower, trellis, and spiral staircase leading to a catwalk. We're proposing a glass shroud around the southern light wall to mitigate noise between the deck and the adjacent neighbors. This is not a new dwelling. It has no independent access and is not intended for separate occupancy. It functions strictly as an accessory space serving the main home. The airstream is significantly smaller and less permanent than a typical penthouse addition. Unlike a permanent structure, it would be easily removable should a current or future owner decide to remove it. The process would simply involve disconnection and craning it off the roof. Additionally, the footprint of the approved greenhouse was 221 square feet. The footprint of the proposed Airstream is a 128 square feet. This marks a significantly smaller area and in turn provides much more setbacks than the greenhouse provided. Furthermore, to the point that was just mentioned about the activity on the roof, the airstream, the placement of the airstream on this roof deck makes it smaller in terms of the capacity of people that can sit up there. It occupies a 168 square feet, which could theoretically be used by a bunch of people standing there. Just quickly, I'd like to respond to the guidelines or the the Doctor complaints, privacy and light well impacts. The structures are offset away from the light well expect except for the spiral stair, which does not affect light and air and is not a congregation area. It would only be used for the time that it takes to use the stairs. Height of massing, our design keeps all elements subordinate to the main building. Sit back from edges and within established rooftop envelopes. The noise concerns This is the light well. We are proposing a glass shroud around the light well to somewhat mitigate these noises. Additionally, this is, you know, only going be used for normal residential activity, and nothing in the proposed plans would create or allow more noise than could occur in its current configuration. There are no amplified systems, no commercial uses, no enclosed entertainment spaces, and this is consistent with typical roof deck use throughout the neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed plans includes this glass surround to mitigate noise to mister Charles' unit, which whose windows are shown there. The application does raise concern about materials and appearance. The guidelines call for compatibility and visual restraint. The proposed new materials are steel, aluminum, glass, stone, and wood. Are consistent with architectural materials commonly used in residential projects all around San Francisco. We have worked closely with staff and neighbors who the neighbors who involved themselves. We replied thoroughly to the Doctor request responding to a group email with many questions from the neighbors and had a meeting with David Winslow, the Doctor applicant, and his agent, Ms. Holly. We've also had multiple emails and phone calls with David Winslow directly. Following on all those conversations, we propose the following steps to reduce reflectivity.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That is your time. You will have a two minute rebuttal.

[Corey Covington (Design Director, Houseworks Design Build)]: Thank you.

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

[David Freeman (Neighbor, 2303 Filbert vicinity)]: Thank you, commissioners. I've been looking forward to this since November when this was first brought to my attention. One thing that in Deborah's presentation, that light well, that looks into Mr. Chow's bathroom. Okay? So that was left out. So that's a close neighbor. I'm David Freeman. I live across the street from the proposed trailer on 2303 Filbert. I believe a picture's worth 1,000 words. So the neighbors, we went to this expense to show you what this would look like. I took the drawings sent to me and the modification to vertical addition and took them to Martin Kovic Milford Architects and said, please paint me a picture of what this is gonna look like to scale. This is what you're looking at. I have 12 other 11 by seventeens I submitted to David Winslow. And you I have a set here if anybody would like to look at them. The architect created a Rivet three d B1M model based on three eleven drawings. The three d images we've taken from a Rivet model. That's from the architect, so I believe they're accurate to what is going to be built. I also point out that I have these here. I won't hold them up. On the drawings on these drawings that were in red, according to my architect, the, trailer is, shown as eight feet four inches tall. It's actually ten feet four inches tall nine inches tall, ten feet nine inches. And on the other drawing, the trailer occupies space quite a bit larger than what's on the drawing. This is not a NIMBY issue. This isn't a housing issue. This is one person that chooses to add this for his own pleasure in the mediation, which I was told. He said he wanted the cat work so he could watch the Blue Angels. This is a selfish he did not contact any of the neighbors with this project. I

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

[David Freeman (Neighbor, 2303 Filbert vicinity)]: That is my time. Yeah. Thank you very much. Please reject this project.

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

[Carolyn Krusker (Adjacent neighbor, 3065 Steiner Street)]: Hi. My name is Carolyn Krusker, and we own the property next door at 3065 Steiner Street, which is the lower unit. And I would really like you to consider strongly opposing this project because the air streamer the glass encoses the area, but the air streamer will go over that section of the glass, which will significantly impact both our light and air. In addition, they're hoping to extend the surface of the wall an additional at least five feet along the whole length of the housing, which will further impact light going into our yard, into our bedroom, and also into our bathroom downstairs. As far as them doing this for utilization of a yard, their deck already has 100% square footage coverage, and that provides a lot of outdoor space. They're essentially moving outdoor space indoors with this unit that will have the ability to be livable. We're obstructing living units on the streets in San Francisco that are RVs. Why are we moving them onto the rooftops? And what kind of codes and safety is that going to have for us? In addition, I'm very concerned about the noise of the unit, which is metal, and the clanging of the doors and that reverberating within the light well down and causing an echo effect for our households. Glass in itself is not an insulation. And if you provide an insulation, then it'll further obstruct light and air. I'd also like to say, as far as property setbacks, while I understand that we encourage roof decks and obstacles on the roof decks to be set back at least five feet on all sides, there is zero setback currently. And right now, if you see some of the images, the hot tub is away from the wall. But instead, they want to put the hot tub and the sauna directly abutting the wall of the property. There's plenty of other room on the deck to move that away from their neighbors. So I'd really like you could consider the truth of this project. Thank you.

[Jennifer Warner (Neighbor, 2310 Filbert Street)]: Good afternoon. My name is Jennifer Warner. I live at 2310 Filbert Street, right across the street from the proposed rooftop Airstream project at 2303 Filbert. San Francisco is currently enforcing a ban on long term parking of trailers on city streets. So why is it Okay now to put them on the roof? Is Cow Hollow going to turn its buildings into trailer parks? Are you going to let this happen? My husband bought our property in 1986. We have lived here over thirty years, and we look out our bedroom and living room windows at the lovely Victorian and Edwardian homes in the neighborhood. There are no current trailers on the roofs. If you okay this project, it'll turn our view of the city on its head and become a spectacle attracting people much like missus Doubtfire's house on Steiner And Broadway. In addition, an Airstream trailer will create a glare that will be intolerable to us and others and dangerous to those drivers suddenly encountering it. The noise from the Airstream, which we know will be a party vehicle, will also be a neighborhood nuisance. And what if there's an earthquake? The trailer and proposed catwalk are clearly not consistent with the existing architecture. One trailer ok'd will set a precedent and will lead to others. So please stop the project and save our beautiful neighborhood and the reputation of San Francisco being a beautiful city. Thank you.

[Speaker 13.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Anne Bertrand. I'm a native San Franciscan, a Cal Hollow resident, and the co chair of Cal Hollow Association Zoning Committee. The Cal Hollow Neighborhood Design Guidelines, adopted by the Planning Department in 2001, start with the words, a longstanding citywide goal has been the preservation and enhancement of the quality of San Francisco neighborhoods. The premium on residential property in San Francisco has encouraged development that has often been unsympathetic to the character of built environment, end quote. That's the case here. This proposal does not preserve or enhance the neighborhood. Letters of objection from both the Cal Hollow and Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Associations are among the 90 letters submitted against this proposal. I was able to discuss the project with planner Horn. Likewise, I reached out to the project sponsor but never received a reply, the first time in my eight plus years that I have not received a reply. A large, highly reflective object onto a full length property roof will create additional light, reflection, and heat onto and into neighboring homes. It will likely do the street the same from the street and higher elevations. In addition, the increase in noise and perhaps odors as the deck is elevated but not buffered by plants will create adverse impacts. We also have safety concerns about the airstream in the case of an earthquake. I ask the commission to seriously consider the many adverse visual and safety impacts the precedent this project is bringing. What will be next? Will others point to this project when they hoist Home Depot storage sheds and Winnebagoes onto roofs? The project is opening a can of worms. And I will again mention the lack of good faith with the neighbors. Is that my time, or do I have?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: It is.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Mary Russell (Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association)]: Well, commissioners, I'm Mary Russell. I'm a member of Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association. And you have a copy of our letter that was written 11/25/2025. I'm going to read it from this little screen. Bear with me. We are writing concerning a proposed modification to a building at 2303 Filbert Street, Planning Department Reference 20259257 PRJ. Owners propose to put an Airstream trailer on the roof deck and to install a catwalk above said Airstream. We do not support such a proposal. We believe it's strange to place a vehicle, in this case the Airstream, on top of a roof. This will look weird in the district and probably will attract undue attention and onlookers. The Cal Hollow neighborhood, of which 2303 Filbert is a part, is attractive and features many architecturally interesting homes, we do not want to start to see the installation of airstreams, trailers, Winnebago's, cars, pickup trucks, or motorcycles on top of buildings. As an alternative, owners could instead simply build a small room on the roof deck, which would be consistent with the architectural style of the home. We urge you not to proceed with this strange proposal at 2303 Filbert Street. Many thanks for your attention.

[Speaker 48.0]: VIRGINIA Hi. My name is Virginia. I live at 2308 Filbert, directly across the street from the proposed trailer. Allowing a trailer and party location on the roof directly across from my building is shortsighted and unfair. It will do nothing positive for the community. It will only be detrimental and have a negative impact on the property values of those nearby. Growing up, I lived in eight states and attended 10 schools by the time I graduated from college. When I could finally choose where I wanted to live, I moved to San Francisco in 1976, rented an apartment at Steiner And Green. After twelve years there, working hard, I was able to save enough money to purchase the condo at 2308 Filbert At Steiner in 1988. Built in 1906, I was honored to be the loving steward of this property. I have been in this home and this community for thirty eight years, and I intend to live here the rest of my life. My grandmother lived to 95, my mother to 01/2001, so genetics project that I have another thirty years ahead of me. And I intend to live in this home until then. I met and married later my husband at Saint Mary of the Virgin Episcopal Church right around the corner. We have purchased a niche in the Columbarium where we will spend our eternal lives. I am dedicated to this neighborhood. I've also worked every year of my life since age 15. I'm still working full time fifty seven years later. The majority of my lifetime's earnings has gone towards saving for a down payment, making mortgage payments, property taxes, fire, liability, and earthquake insurance. This home is my life. This project will negatively impact the value of my home, And I urge you to reject it.

[Vita Migala Rodriguez (on behalf of Josephine, 2300 Filbert Street)]: Good afternoon. I am reading on behalf of Vita Migala Rodriguez and her mother, Josephine. Good afternoon, commissioners. I am 69 years old and the primary caretaker for my 92 year old mother, Josephine, a native San Franciscan who has lived at 2300 Filbert for over sixty years. We are directly across the street from the proposed project at 2303 Filbert Street, and we are here to voice our strong opposition. This proposal is fundamentally insensitive to our neighborhood's historic character. The installation of a two ton silver airstream and a metal catwalk will create a physical hazard. The intense glare and reflection from that polished metal is a blinding distraction for drivers and pedestrians alike at our busy intersection. This is a safety risk that cannot be ignored. Beyond the physical hazards, I am deeply concerned about the long term economic impact. If this project is approved, it will negatively impact the value of our homes and the surrounding residential integrity. Allowing such an industrial misplaced structure sets a damaging precedent that devalues the appeal of Cal Hollow. As my mother's primary caretaker, I am also distressed by the noise. These recreational facilities are planned right across from our bedroom windows. The clanging of a metal spiral staircase and late night social gatherings will destroy my mother's ability to rest and my own ability to provide the care she needs. The project sponsor has failed to engage with neighbors as required by the San Francisco Planning Code. I urge you to protect our home, our safety, and our neighborhood's integrity. Please reject this project. Thank you. And from her mother, Josephine, who's 92, she adds, the glare and the activity from an airstream on the deck would be right in my bedroom, living room, and office, and it would send an unwanted precedent. Thank you for your consideration.

[Bob Zayner (Neighbor, 2281 Filbert Street)]: Hi. My name is Bob BOB Zayner. I currently live at 2281 Filbert Street. That's one building over from the corner of Filbert And Steiner. And I have owned my place for thirty two years, lived here in San Francisco for thirty eight years. I want to convey my opposition to the proposed project at 2303 Filbert Street. Placing a habitable trailer on the roof of this historical building is outrageous and, frankly, preposterous. Not a good fit for a significant number of reasons, which have been outlined by the group before you. One additional concern I have is that the owner of 2303 Filbert may choose to use this second unit as a short term Airbnb type residence rental through the Office of Short Term Housing or an intermediate term rental through the Intermediate Term Occupancy Act. The possibility of having unvetted short term tenants in a habitable unit on the roof would be very disruptive to the adjacent neighbors. I used to own an Airstream but wouldn't have even considered it parking it in my driveway. Please don't allow a trailer on a clearly visible roof. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: SF Kav, can we go to the overhead, please? It's on. No, it's you're good. Working?

[Rico Delasso (Commercial tenant, 3100 Steiner Street)]: Cool. I'm Rico Delasso. I've been a commercial tenant, 3100 Steiner

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Street Speak in the microphone, please.

[Rico Delasso (Commercial tenant, 3100 Steiner Street)]: 3100 Steiner Street for thirty three years. This is an established RH2 neighborhood that, as early as 1924, allowed Ground Floor commercial and corner units, and not much later, doubled the dwelling capacity of the three unit overfloor buildings. As such, it has reflected the visions and met the requirements of at least three generations of city planners. Some examples 2289, 02/1993 Filbert, late Queen Anne, built in 1900, three units over ground floor commercial. 2294 to 02/1998 Filbert, Edwardian, built in 1903, three units over ground floor commercial divided into six upper floor units in 1942. Subject property, you already know. Over the last one hundred years, the commercial spaces that have created homes for shortlist a coffee shop, two grocery stores, a doctor's office, an antique restoration shop, a window shade shop, and two dry cleaners. The upper floor units have provided below market rents for hundreds of tenants. Well, what does an Airstream trailer offer for this mix? More housing, historical significance, architectural consistency. In thousand three hundred and three and its buildings, you have a precious asset, an historic, visually cohesive neighborhood that has been providing commercial and housing needs for the city and the planners for over one hundred years. With this commission soon to preside over the biggest housing expansion in fifty years, it is vital to proceed thoughtfully. When so much stands to be lost citywide, can we afford to compromise a proven neighborhood like this one for a frivolous vanity project?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Hello.

[Unidentified Public Speaker (Cow Hollow neighbor)]: Thirty two years ago, I bought my house. And I can remember being very irritated when the neighbors knocked on the door about issues. Looking back now, I see that for a lot of those neighbors, it was their home. And at the very beginning, for me, it was just a neighborhood. I was just probably passing through. But now, thirty four years later, I seem to be the little old lady knocking on my neighbor's door. I love our neighborhood. I love that it's progressive. I love my kids like to come back from Manhattan and hang out. It's hip and it's cool. But we are deeply rooted in the history of San Francisco. I hear my kids talk about being in New York and about San Francisco in our neighborhood. It feels like there's a past. You can see it in the buildings. You can see that people actually respect the past. I love Airstreams. I own one. But out of respect for my neighbors, I didn't even think of parking it on the street. My best friend wanted to park it at her house in Marin, but her home associations would not even let her do it there. So please consider the integrity of the history of the architecture in Cow Hollow. Thank you.

[Speaker 19.0]: Hello. My name is Mason Wenger. I live at 2842 Pierce Street right around the corner. I was actually the previous unit owner of 3063 Steiner Street where Ed and Melissa now reside. You've heard everyone's arguments. You've actually heard of the previous project that is sitting with a current permit. There's a solarium or a greenhouse. You're probably wondering how that has also been able to go through the notification process and been approved by the neighborhood. I actually sat down with the owner during the design of that that project. It initially included an encroachment over the light well. It included an elevator through the light well. Yes. I know. Very interesting. But when we when we first saw the plans, we sat down. He was willing to collaborate with us. He's like, yeah, I get it. It's gonna make noise. We went into his house. We made design changes to the plan, got to a point where his elevator was interior. The solarium was away from the light well. It was an acceptable design. And the neighborhood, obviously allowed to go through. So now it's an approved project. This has been a significant change. And I think our experience with this current project is very different. Unfortunately, we've not seen any community outreach. There's been very little willingness to work with the neighborhood to hear the concerns of light obstruction, noise, devaluation of the properties, etcetera. Not only was there not an additional pre application meeting to review the plans, he's not demonstrated any willingness to collaborate toward any acceptable designs or alternatives or adjustments or even follow-up on the proposal options offered by the planning department. So he's clearly not interested in following the neighborhood notification requirements in the spirit of the review process, and we are concerned that any concessions that this design, accommodates, even those proposed by, mister Winslow's department, that he will simply reverse them once the project is completed and inspections are completed. So because of this, we'd like to respectfully request the commission that this entire project be canceled and denied. I mean, I get it. An Airstream trailer

[Speaker 38.0]: sounds cool on the roof of

[Speaker 19.0]: your house, but that really belongs in a beach community in Southern California

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank not

[Speaker 19.0]: in San Francisco. Thank you.

[Patricia Vaughey (Marina–Cow Hollow Neighbors and Merchants Association)]: Patricia Vaughey and Marina Calhollo, Neighbors and Her Merchants, this is our territory as well. And years ago, Marina Calhillo was designated as a public vista. And a public vista is a designated area where to protect the visual view of the neighborhood from as far as the Golden Gate Bridge in order to keep terrorism economic vitality to the city, as well as architectural continuity. The last case concerning this, I'll come back to that was the planner. And it was designated a second time. Precedence of this case bothers me very badly. Next thing, Winnebago. Next thing, something else. The integrity of this whole city to keep the Paris of The United States has got to be considered. This should not be done. It also doesn't include mitigations for noise and other stuff. There is no necessity for this. We believe that this is a flimsy way of getting around seismic structuring of a historical building. During the morning hours, the neighbors are going to get a lot of light and shiny stuff. The application doesn't follow the general and the master plan. Don't understand why it even got this far.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Do you have requester? You have a two minute rebuttal.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I don't know. I believe I'm finished.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: We're finished. Okay. Thank you. Hello

[Deborah Holly (Holly Consulting; DR Requesters’ Representative)]: again. I have so many things to say. Okay. I'll try to do it fast. First of all, the project sponsor's representative alluded to neighbors opposing the previous project. That's not true. As Mason said, previous owner worked with the neighbors and came up with an acceptable project. No DRs were filed. There was no Doctor hearing. The project sponsor did reach out to Ed Chao, my client, but no other neighbors were contacted. No pre application meeting was held. There's just there's been no outreach at all. This project is not the same framework as the previous project. The materials in this proposed airstream and other metal fixtures are not found in the neighborhood. Glass does not mitigate noise. The project may also result in adverse historic resource impacts under CEQA. That was not evaluated properly. Do you want to set a precedent by approving this project? Your approval would essentially be permitting an unauthorized dwelling unit that could easily be rented. Imagine the Airbnb listing. Rooftop Airstream was sauna hot tub and viewing platform in the heart of Cal Hollow, San Francisco. Perfect for bachelorette or a bachelor party weekends. The project sponsor told us that, there was another Airstream pro oh, could I have the overhead? Sorry. Another Airstream project in San Francisco. This is an unpermitted Airstream on top of the notorious Mosser Building SRO and the Tenpin Lane.

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

[Corey Covington (Design Director, Houseworks Design Build)]: I will just quickly focus on the concessions that we are willing to make through discussions with Mr. Winslow and the Doctor requester, including some additional things. One is we agreed to omit the sauna and the shower. We agreed to apply a satin finish to the airstream to reduce reflectivity. This is usually done with a random orbit sanding of the metal, which is not reversible, not without an incredible expense and time, to polish it again. We are proposing shrouds, some sort of planting or metal shroud system around it. Mr. Winslow had proposed raising the guardrail at the front the parapet at the front. We exist we currently have a glass and metal guardrail that's set about four feet back from the front parapet. We would like to eliminate that guardrail and raise the existing parapet up on the Filbert Street side, make that guardrail height at 42 inches, which will further cut down on the view of the Airstream. The other thing and I can't speak to the renderings that they provided. I don't know the basis for those or the quality of those. The Airstream hasn't been purchased. It hasn't been selected. The engineering hasn't been done. I can tell you that the roof deck is a stone, two roughly two inch thick stone, pavers on a pedestal system, which means the actual roof system is well below that. Our plan is to remove the wheels, remove the tires, and work with our structural engineer to have the support system that is holding the chassis sit directly on the roof structure below the paving, below the decking, get that as low as possible. We haven't engaged the engineer yet because the project is not approved. Have more minute.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You have twenty seconds.

[Corey Covington (Design Director, Houseworks Design Build)]: Twenty seconds. Okay. We so we don't know exactly the height, but we again, the satin finish. This is a temporary structure. There's no access from outside the house. You can only get to this roof deck from inside the house. Airbnb, there won't be any more noise. A trailer doesn't make noise. A staircase doesn't make noise. The reduction of square footage of a roof deck will reduce noise, and a glass windscreen and privacy scheme around a light well will reduce noise.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, commissioners, that concludes the public hearing portion of this discretionary review. And now it's to you.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I personally do not have any metrics to guide me on this project. This project stands out side of anything we have ever considered. I am surprised that it does not fall under DBI's jurisdiction, particularly because San Francisco, just a few weeks ago, eliminated all RV parking for residents who had lived in their RVs for years and years and years, and all of a sudden, we are not to consider of what is an RV as an occupiable unit. So just this is a point illustrating that I personally do not have any metrics, and what's left for me is common sense. I have to use common sense judgment to look at this project. And while I think it would be fun, perhaps in Venice, California or in Portola, it could be really fun, I do not believe that in an established historic neighborhood, that is the right choice. I think materiality as a highly reflective material, Given its unusual form, will create more issues than we can even currently examine. The reflection of highly reflective material can be very disturbing to people's eyes and can create hot spots under extreme sunlight that can have other effects that we are not even aware of at the moment. Since it is not a dwelling unit by DBI definition, I believe that the fire department would have to take a very careful look of occupancy, how the trailer is used as an occupiable thing to sit in, have a sink and a bathroom, etcetera, or whatever else is in it. And I am concerned it is potentially an issue that cannot be evaluated by this department. I think it's strictly a building department issue. I think there are structural issues aside from fire exiting and fire prevention, etcetera. And I personally, given the extreme conditions as a corner lot, I personally will not be able to support this particular application at the moment. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I think the residents made valid points. And there are things that I actually, there are many concerns I have as well in terms of how the rooftop is being utilized. First, a question of Airstream trailer. I have a question as what's that use? And I have an impression it will be used for some livable situation, which also becomes questionable in terms of, again, why not construct a unit instead and putting on the rooftop. And then you have an Airstream that has a roof deck at the same time. So that was I just find this very odd. And it's almost very odd, very strange proposal. I actually, since they have permit already on the glass greenhouse, why not pursue that instead? I think the roof deck should be looks like it should be open roofed for open use. I also have concern about the open showers. And I think the hot tub will be fine. But even that, I agree with one of the public comment that there needs to be a setback on the hot tub use of it. So again, I would like to hear what other commissioners would say. But for me, I would put it as a denial, take the RN deny. And for the project sponsor to use the preliminary or your primary permit that you have for a glass greenhouse instead. And those are my comments. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have a question for Mr. Winslow. I'm just trying to wrap my mind. Commissioner Imperial sort of alluded to this early in her comments, too. I'm trying to wrap my mind around what this use is under our planning code to put a it's not exactly a vehicle, because it's a trailer. But to just place that on top of a roof, How do we even look at this?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Well, I think we are charting new territory. But I think it's just a rooftop appurtenance that happens to be a trailer that has facilities that enable you to shower, cook, sleep, as a trailer does. That doesn't make it a unit. A unit is defined by our planning code in a by definition of a full kitchen. And that kitchen has certain capacities that an Airstream fitted out normally doesn't have. Four burner stove, an oven, a 12 cubic foot refrigerator, and a sink of a certain dimension, 17 inches wide, I believe. Additionally, the building code has a definition, minimum size definition for a dwelling unit, which is a let me check my notes. I think it's 190 square feet in which one room needs to be no less than 120 square feet of clear floor area. So I don't believe that and that's probably there's two reasons why I think DBI is agnostic on this as a structure that they regulate from unit, as a unit. And that is, A, it doesn't follow the typical codes of building. In fact, trailers and so forth. Mobile homes are governed by another code. I think it's an interstate commerce code or something like that, but it's not the state building code because these can be transported across state lines. So they there's another code. So the this is just a thing that is put upon a roof, a rooftop of pertinence that happens to have the capacity to do certain things.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: If this was

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Hang out in

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: and so forth.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: So if this was not an Airstream, something less cool, let's say, and just a travel trailer, it would be basically the same thing from the department's perspective?

[John Kevlin (Land Use Counsel, Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP)]: Mean, Okay.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Not a unit. It's weird territory, as people have

[Speaker 37.0]: been talking And

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: you could also say, look, there's, you know, a greenhouse is not a unit. It's just a space. A space that is an adjunct to the roof. I think the previous permit, you know, it was just a space that is enclosed and could be walked into. It could have, may have well had other facilities in it, but it wouldn't be considered dwelling unit. It would have been considered habitable space, however, just because it was constructed on-site in a certain way that could be compatible with building codes.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for the explanation on this. Actually, have another question. So one of the issues at Play that I just want to explore is the material used on this appurtenance. And it certainly doesn't conform to the residential design guidelines because it would be a shiny metal material. And the department's suggestion is as a fix to instead of eliminating the trailer, but to screen it. I'm curious if there are any other circumstances in which the department typically takes a position of screening something on a roof that is sort of still independent of that screening in a way that and not just like deck screening, but in this case, an actual something on the roof that isn't just mechanical or deck?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Nothing comes to my mind. This is a first. If it does, I'll chime in.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay, thank you. Right. I think that the first of all, I'll give points for creativity. It's certainly an interesting and imaginative sort of thing that the product sponsor is trying to do on the roof. I think I sort of understand that. And it sounds like a lot of fun in a way, but it's just not at all the right context. It's way too visible. It doesn't conform to the residential design guidelines and material. And I think that this really does rise to the level of an exceptional extraordinary circumstance. I will say the basic idea of building something up against a neighboring building is not itself exceptional or extraordinary. That's common all the time. Building near a light well is not exceptional or extraordinary to me as long as privacy is considered, which is one of the issues being raised. So that's fair. But ultimately, I can't support this project as is, certainly. I would certainly not support the catwalk on top of the trailer. I'm leaning towards not supporting the idea of the trailer itself at all without but I'm a little on the fence about supporting it with screening. So I'll leave it there for now.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: This one's got everybody chuckling, but I totally agree with the creativity. We have permits for a greenhouse. Basically, greenhouse is made out of glass. It's probably gonna be the permits are there for something almost close to twice the size of the Airstream that's here. Glass versus metal, there's really no difference when it comes to, the glare. So what are we looking at? We're looking at we're looking at basically a vehicle on top of a top of a roof, and all your neighbors are looking at that vehicle on top of the roof. And it's that's the problem right here. It doesn't fit in with San Francisco, but it is so San Francisco. We can only we can only have this in city hall, this discussion in city hall in San Francisco. It's it's a pickle. The catwalk is is is just over the top in the picture that the Doctor brought in with us on top of it. Basically, puts literally puts the tin hat on it. The ironic thing is here, could frame it with four walls all around, and you're the exact same as your next door neighbor. And there's there's there's no there's no problems there. But you put one little thing on top of it, and it's out of character. And people are everybody is basically up in arms. And it's all of your neighbors here. So I think we have to revisit and look and try and figure out something other than where we are. I want to hear what Lydia has to say, commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Absolutely. You add some wisdom. Wow.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: First, I'd like to say I really appreciate the spirit of creativity and innovation here for you to think out of the box. What can you do in light of maybe what all these things constraints, and what it's fun for you and your family. And I also appreciate the rest of the community being together and share also concerns, right? So this is like a classic San Francisco moment we have right now. I always try to be consistent when we deliberate over Doctor projects. There's one thing I always emphasize is that you have to be respectful to the neighbors and the community. There's always controversies over who is more beneficial than the others. And by doing one thing, it's taking other people's joy of some other things, right? But your case is going to be a magazine worthy, interesting innovation of how could imagine how fun it could be on a rooftop. But in this moment where we are right now, I do think that it really warrants you to really think about how can you make your family be part of the community with your neighbors. Your professionals that you hire to try to make this work, a few of things I'm a little bit questioning about how you would advise a client to put sauna and hot tub all the way up to the party line, the property line, it's a little bit unusual. And also, without any respect to perhaps certain level of distance that you kind of hold back, I don't want to completely denying you, but then I don't think I can actually support you right now. David had done his best job to maybe have you to screen everything of what you have. I'm not sure if this is what you want to. The other things that I really don't believe that the two pieces of glass that try to baffle over a three sided light well were actually going to buffer the enough acoustic that is needed with the neighbors. So it does look like a party rooftop with all this stuff that you put up there. It's really hard for me to presume that there's going to be more than just party of three to be up there. So I think that the option will be work with your neighbors, work with your professionals, and come up with something that is actually more reasonable that you can afford and live with, and also maintain the respect that we always like to see our neighbors do to each other. Yeah. So I think some of the I don't know if anyone want to anyway, so I don't have any wisdom. I just think that the only thing I wanted to say is everyone needs to be a good neighbor. We live in this way. We don't live in the middle of the farm, even though I think there's rules there. So I'll leave it like that.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you. Well, this project is quirky and creative, I think, is a theme we're hearing here. I actually love it. Think it's a fantastic way and creative way of activating a roof and making occupiable space. But that is completely subjective, right? And it's clear that we all can have different opinions on whether it's great, it's horrible, or it's creative, or whatever. And that's where we lean on code and policy and guidelines to guide us. And I think this is code compliant. But where we're coming into a problem is with the design guidelines. We are also responding to renderings that I don't think that the project sponsor has created. So I don't think we're we're responding to visuals of a design solution that I don't think is indicative of necessarily what the project sponsor is putting forward. I'm also hearing some last minute compromises from the project sponsor of some changes you're willing to make that maybe will get us to a design that is aligned with our residential guidelines. I think, to me, I would be open to a continuance on this so that you all can go back to the drawing board and come back with something that meets the guidelines and that we know exactly what we're even talking about at this point.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: So I'll motion to put this on continuance.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Is there a date we're looking at?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: There is no second.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Well, I think he was asking for details of motions first. And so two weeks?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Two weeks.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Or two weeks continuance? Is it acceptable, two weeks?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That would be like

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Two weeks or three weeks?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: March 5. How about March 12, three weeks?

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: We have a few other commissioners. We got a second? Yes. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I don't love continuing DRs, to be honest, because I feel like the interaction process should have already happened long before they get to us. What I struggle with a little bit is that I'm just sort of caught between what direction I want to go with the project itself, though, if I were to make a motion here today. So I think I'm just thinking aloud right now. Sorry, everyone. But that doesn't give me great confidence that I can make an alternative motion today. I guess I would ask Mr. Winslow, what's sort of the range of changes that could potentially be made to the project at this stage if it comes back to us? I mean, if the project sponsor switches from the Airstream to a more traditional, pertinence on the roof of some kind, would that still be Okay within this process, this entitlement process?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: I think there's an interaction between both the guidelines and your judgment collectively. So the range is kind of hard for me to Good.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Lose Well, not us so much. But I want to make sure that there's a lot of latitude for the product sponsor to work on this and to modify quite a bit, if that's what they need to do with the community.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: Right. When I wrote my I'll just be kind of thinking out loud, too. When I wrote my recommendation, it was kind of at a last minute conclusion. And it was, you know, you're thinking outside of the box, but that is a little too far beyond our standards and our guidelines. Put it back in the box. That's literally put it in or shroud it by something that is visually acceptable per those guidelines. With that, I understood I didn't know what the I mean, that there would be a range of possible solutions. So for example, you have an outdoor shower. An outdoor shower usually is screened by wood slats, you don't see the body inside the shower. Similarly, that could be one of the solutions for the airstream. Otherwise, it could also be a solid wall. It could be any number of things. So with that in mind, I was envisioning, obviously, if it came to this point where we're continuing it or not, work with staff, that I would still be the arbiter of what was and was not acceptable ultimately before bringing it back to the commission for approval.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I have one question for the project sponsor. From your perspective, would it be preferable to have this approved today but the trailer denied? Or would it be preferable to continue moving forward with the neighbors to work on a mutually agreeable solution? This

[Mr. Huber (Homeowner, 2303 Filbert Street project)]: is the first time I've ever done this. This is the first house I bought. We came into this. We came into the permit that was existing. I just want the neighbors to know, doing the best I can, doing the best we can. Apologize if we didn't talk before. We want to be good neighbors. It's hard

[David Freeman (Neighbor, 2303 Filbert vicinity)]: for me to buy that, my friend.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Want to Okay. Okay, sir.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: One at a time.

[Mr. Huber (Homeowner, 2303 Filbert Street project)]: Okay. I lost my turn of thought with the powerful man.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Do you want to repeat your question, Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: My question was, would it be preferable to you to have this approved today except the trailer component of it denied, not included, or to continue to work with the neighbors on some other solution, which I don't know. Maybe if you have the plans that actually show how high it is and screened it is, maybe people would come around, maybe not. I don't know. But that's what I'm asking.

[Mr. Huber (Homeowner, 2303 Filbert Street project)]: I fully respect the opinions of everybody. Some people aren't going to like it. I knew that. Thank you for the compliments of saying it's whimsical and cool subjectively. But if the Airstream is just that bad and people are that mad about it, yeah, if it can be approved today and we can build a room within David's guidelines, that's fine.

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

[Mr. Huber (Homeowner, 2303 Filbert Street project)]: I came here. I took my medicine. But I knew this could be a possibility.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun, can you ask the same question of the Doctor requester?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Sure. To the Doctor requester, same question. I mean, would you prefer that this project moves is it better from your perspective this project moves forward but without the trailer? Or is it better to continue to work on some other solution?

[Deborah Holly (Holly Consulting; DR Requesters’ Representative)]: Well, I'll answer from my perspective. There have been months and months to do outreach with the neighbors, even after the mediation session where David Winslow suggested work with the neighbors. There's some issues here. No changes with the plans at all. I'll let Ed and Melissa, my clients, speak. But I think the idea that there's going to be a mutually agreeable solution here with the trailer as a component and other portions of the party deck, metal spiral staircase and catwalk. We're dealing with noise and privacy issues.

[Speaker 37.0]: Go ahead.

[Vita Migala Rodriguez (on behalf of Josephine, 2300 Filbert Street)]: I feel like there's been a trust issue here that's difficult for us. Because when they moved in, we hadn't lived there that long. But we befriended them. They have a very sweet little girl. We have a teenage girl. And there was this Ed had more direct contact with them because of my work schedule. But I think they went out for a few drinks sometimes. And there was just never any mention of this. So then And we felt sideswiped. Then after the mediation, as they've mentioned, there was still no like, after mediation, you would think that Hebert would have come back and said, I understand where you're coming from. Can we talk about this? Can we work on it? But there was none of that. So from my perspective, and just watching him go through this more, because I felt like it was he was just so disappointed by the trust that we thought we had with the neighbors that I'm so now concerned about what would be approved and what would actually go forward. Because that sense of trust and honesty coming forward just hasn't happened. And we've been getting together with all of our neighbors for several months, as Deborah said. And we do have all these concerns. I mean, I'm from the East Coast. I lived in New York. I don't know who's talking about their kids coming back from New York. Oh, one of our neighbors. And you know, it's a it's a different culture. It's a different it's totally different thing here. And, I can understand how you can look at it and see, oh, it's a creative thing and whatever. But it seems like that the neighborhood has years of history and specialness to it. And so it's not like we're trying to squash on anybody's joy. But it's

[Deborah Landis (Deputy Director of Administration, Planning Dept.)]: just hard for

[Vita Migala Rodriguez (on behalf of Josephine, 2300 Filbert Street)]: us to then proceed forward in good faith with the neighbors that we thought we were becoming friendly with. And they had so many opportunities to talk about it.

[Speaker 37.0]: Can I say one thing?

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

[Speaker 37.0]: Thank you very much. I was made aware of this in November. I was actually overseas. And when I came back, I called Mr. Huber, and I asked him to walk me through the plans. And I is my first rodeo too. Right? He said this is the first time I me too. Very impressive room, by the way. Right here. He walked me through the plans and one of the first things he said is, by the way, this is this has already been approved. He said, we're just doing this to be safe with the neighbors, but this is this is really done. And I was shocked. So I said, oh, you you have a permit for this? Those were my words. And he said, no. That's why we're going through the process. And I said, well, what what do you mean it's already done then? I was really confused. Then fast forward months later,

[Jay Anthony Manjivar (Organizer, Carpenters Local 22)]: we reached out to all of us.

[Speaker 37.0]: We reached out to the community to let our neighbors know. People are busy, right? They get something in the mail. What is this? They toss it aside. We needed to let people really understand what the impact is, how this impacts us, our family. He's following me around. I I turn around and there he is. One time in Enrico's store, this is after hours, we brought someone in to to talk to her about it. They they live right on Steiner Street. Comes walking in with a beer. Hey, what are you doing? I'm Excuse me. This is a private conversation. What I'm getting at is you're asking for a continuance possibly. You're asking us to work with it. We feel blindsided as she said.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: I'm sorry to I think we are trying to figure out a path one: forward here. I don't

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I appreciate the additional context. What I

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: think I understand is

[Speaker 37.0]: Thank you very much.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: SPEAKER you.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: So what I'm thinking is I'm leaning in favor of actually supporting the continuance because now I think you can see you are on the verge of a full rejection of this entire project. And I don't want to just cut it off there and make everything start right from scratch again. There might still be room to change the project and salvage it and work with your neighbors on this. And so I'm leaning towards just the continuance and continuing to really take to heart what you're hearing and to modify this. Thank you.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I would support a continuance, particularly because the applicant has clearly heard that the commission is having second thoughts about denying the project. That is basically on the table. However, I believe that there is always a step forward. We can all be different from the way we were yesterday. And if the engagement with your neighbors has not been important to you before, as of this afternoon, hearing everybody, including hearing the commission's complete rootedness in community engagement, that will be your challenge. It may require hiring a different architect. It may require somebody who is more embedded in the community and knows what would go and what not go. And the margins are not very large on this project, but particularly, you're dealing with a very small rooftop on a very small parcel, 25 by 67, as small as in a normal parcel. So the challenges are high. I think there path forward, is but I think it will take a real step back on just a very creative, lonely idea of yourself wanting something but doing something that also is indeed in harmony and perhaps even a visual enjoyment for your neighbors to look at. So that would be what I'm saying in support of the continuance. It will not be easy. That is a thorny pass because that project will come back to this commission. This will not be approved somewhere in some back room. So the community will basically The community will be commenting on it, perhaps in a shorter form, but we will be looking at it again in order to approve or deny it.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Mister Winslow, if they went back to their original design, would that still come before us?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: No. It's done.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: That permit, I understand, is sitting in building permit ready to be paid for and picked up. Now what I don't know is, since it was applied for by the previous owner, whether the current owner is eligible to you know, to that permit can be conveyed to them.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thanks for verifying that. Is that all vice president Thank Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: We're sitting and planning. We're quoting DBI. I'm thinking DNV and, you know, s and SFMTA. You know, it's and that we're talking about basically a shiny caravan on top of a roof. So it's a tough one. It's it's fun. It's quirky. Best of both worlds. Is it possible to build the glass house, greenhouse around the Winnebago? And we go back and we go back because every case is related. We go back to Van S and we frost it. I'm Well, yeah.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: No. He's a statement.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: But seriously, I'm like, and this ironically, I am serious on that. That's the really weird part. There are two sides to trust. And this is a little thing here. I'm a union rep for part cop, part priest, part social worker on a daily basis. But neighbors are neighbors. Neighbors need each other. Neighbors don't go away. There's trust you said that was broken. Trust is broken on both sides. As soon as one neighbor talks to another neighbor, talks to another neighbor, that's three neighbors against one neighbor. So but at the same when the dust settles well, there's no dust in this. There's no materials to create dust. But whatever happens on this project, basically, the neighbors are still there. You're gonna go to that that store. You're gonna basically bump into each other. Try and clear the air on this because you're not going away. And that's what makes San Francisco San Francisco on top of all the quirky stuff. So please try and try and work this out amongst you. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you, commissioner McGarry. Commissioner Williams. Mhmm.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Well, I appreciate all the commentary. All the neighbors have come out. I have a slightly different take on on on this. And, I mean, I think it's it's this project is raised to the level of of of to take the Doctor and completely deny the the project. And so, mister Winslow, sorry to put you on the spot like that. So if if we were to if I was to put a motion out to to take the Doctor and and deny the project. What would happen to the proposed alternative? Because I I see there's a proposed alternative that the the the Doctor requester kinda put out there. Is that proposed alternative that is that the original project or the previous project? And I think there was a question that that related to that. Is it is that still an option if this goes through?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Me just jump in there, Dave. What's before you is the building permit application, right? So if you're to take TR and deny, you're denying the building permit application. They don't have to submit a new building permit application.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. So they'll have to submit a new building permit. So basically, start from the beginning? Yes. Okay.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: No. Hold on.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If he's taking Doctor and denying the project?

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: This project has a planning application number only, no building permit. So the current let me clarify a couple of things. One is there is another permit that is ready to be picked up theoretically, subject to them being able to do that for a greenhouse.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: For the greenhouse.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, San Francisco Planning Department)]: This came in as a new planning application because it's significantly different than that. Mhmm. So it could if you approved it today, if you approved the the Airstream today, it would be a don't don't ask me why, but this is how it works. It would be a revision to that permit that's sitting in building. Now if you deny this, you'd just be denying this planning application. That permit would still be vested and ready to be picked up as a greenhouse. Okay.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Well, thank you for clearing that up. I think I can see what's happening here more clearly. I just want to put mean, yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: I'm sorry to interrupt, Commissioner. Commissioner So actually to leave in two minutes. So I would love for her to be able to vote on this. If do we think we can make our comments faster or should we excuse her?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Well, I did want to make a motion. I don't know if

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I'll second it. You take the R and deny?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yes, I'll second it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Procedurally, the continuance will still hold precedence. And it was the first motion So on the if that fails, we would take up the motion to take discretionary review and deny. So on that motion to

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I just want to add hold on. Sorry. So I know there is a motion for continuance. But I'm also seconding the denial. But in terms of if it comes back, the one thing that I would like to see is that there is a setback on the hot tubs. And there is some privacy when it comes to the open showers. I really don't want to see a trailer with a catwalk. That's something that I would not want to see when it comes back here. So that's something that I would be just information for Mr. Winslow.

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Thank you. Thank you for

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: that. So

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: on the motion commissioners to continue to March 12, Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner So?

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Nay. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commissioner President Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So move commissioners, that motion passes five to two with commissioners Williams and Imperial voting against.