This webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

Okay.

As you can tell, the WebEx has made some modifications.

don't normally hear that but okay good afternoon and welcome to the San

Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday November 13th 2025 when we

reach the item you're interested in speaking to we ask that you line up on

the screen side of the room or to your right each speaker will be allowed up to

three minutes and when you have 30 seconds remaining you will hear a chime

indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that

your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the

podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak

clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any

mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members

of the public that the Commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind.

At this time I'd like to take roll. Commission President Soe. Present. Commission Vice President Moore. Here. Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner Campbell. Here. Commissioner Imperial. Here. And Commissioner McGarry. Present.

We expect Commissioner Williams to be absent today. First commissioners is on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

at the time of issuance and as of now there are still no items proposed for

continuance we can move on to your consent calendar all matters listed here

under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning

Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote there will be no

separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission the

public or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from

the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

Item 1, case number 2025-006742, CUA at 960 Market Street, Unit 421.

Conditional use authorization.

Item 2, case number 2025-007422, CUA at 555 Fulton Street, Suite B.

Conditional use authorization.

Item 3, case number 2025-007975.

CUA 2238 Market Street, conditional use authorization.

And item 4, case number 2025-008202 CUA at 825 Sansom Street, conditional use authorization.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these items be pulled

off of consent and heard under the regular calendar today or a future date.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jerry Drantler.

I'm recommending the CUA letter for 555 Fulton Street be pulled off the calendar and amended

to include a specific condition.

Mr. Drantler, that's plenty.

We will take that off consent and have it heard under the regular calendar.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Mark Gleason speaking on behalf of Teamsters Joint Council 7.

We're asking that item 4825 Sampson be removed from the calendar.

Thank you.

Very good.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Alex Landsberg, Electrical Industry.

Same thing as he said.

Thanks.

Okay, Commissioners. Last call for public comment on the consent calendar. Seeing none, public comment is closed.

Commissioner O'Brien.

And your consent calendar is now before you, Commissioners. However, as you just heard, items 2 and 4 have been pulled off of consent.

Commissioner O'Brien.

Move to approve items 1 and 3.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to approve items 1 and 3 on consent, Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Soh?

Aye.

So move, Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0.

And Commissioner President Soh, we shall take up those consent calendar items at the beginning of the regular calendar?

Yes, please.

Very good.

Commissioners, that will place us under Commission matters for item 5, the land acknowledgement.

The Commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatushaloni,

who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions,

the Ramatushaloni have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place,

as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland.

We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramatuzhani community

and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

Thank you. Item 6, Commission comments and questions.

Okay, seeing none, we can move right to Department Matters for Item 7, Director's Announcements.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Sarah Dennis Phillips, Planning Director.

Not a whole lot of announcements today, but I did want to make sure both that you as commissioners

and the public were aware that we are having the second community workshop in the Fillmore Community Action Plan series this evening.

It'll be held at the African American Arts and Culture Complex between 6 and 8 p.m.

And for those who cannot join in person tonight, there will be a parallel Zoom event next Tuesday,

and those details are on our website.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there are no questions, we can move on to item 8, which will also be short,

as there is no report from the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals,

or the Historic Preservation Commission.

So, general public comment.

At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public

that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items.

With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded

when the item is reached in the meeting.

Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes.

When the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit,

general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

I have some materials and I need to put my PowerPoint in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If you could, okay. Jonas, I'm ready to go. Jonas, I'm ready to go.

Go ahead.

Code compliance problems at 147 Marietta Drive require investigation. Do they reflect a training

problem or systemic corruption? Why is the city attorney Chu characterizing the illegal activities

as a complicated scheme in his November 5 press release

when it appears city employees enabled the illegal activities.

We need answers from Deputy City Attorney Kesley Stewart,

the head of Public Integrity Unit,

and DBI Compliance Manager Christopher Vergara.

There's two pictures of that building.

One is from June of 2021, and the other one is a picture I took.

The Planning Department Notice of Enforcement has been on hold since 2019, and it's on hold today.

Why?

DBI complaint for exceeding the scope of the building permit has never been closed.

The last entry is June 2021, the same day as the Google picture.

The NOV that was issued required a corrective order to stop work.

As you can see from the picture, work did not stop.

How was a $650,000 building permit issued to comply with the NOV when a complaint in an NOE were open?

The last inspection is December of 2024.

The permit's never been finaled, and the special inspections have never been approved.

As you can see from the permit, the names of the city employees who approved the permit.

In the planning department, it was Moses Coret and Jeff Horn, and I list the DBI employees.

A temporary shoring permit is open, and a $1 administrative permit should not have been issued to final expired retaining wall permit.

The permit to legalize the unpermitted temporary shoring expired in November of 2023.

DBI's last inspection was April of 2025.

Last week, Inspector William Walsh approved 10 special inspections on November 5.

The permit to legalize the retaining wall expired in May of 2018.

The $1 admin permit to final an expired permit, which is null and void, should never have been issued.

That permit was approved by Inspectors Gonzalez and Lamb and finaled by Inspector Calderon.

This nonsense, and it is nonsense, needs to stop, and you folks need to do something about it.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, and I also have handouts.

which I will let people read. Hi. I'll wait.

Good afternoon, Commissioner's Director. My name is Paul Wormer, and I'm here speaking on my own behalf, not representing any organization.

I was chatting with someone. I have some concerns about the upzoning plan.

And I was chatting with someone about how, in fact, I can get the height bonus by adding one unit to a single family home, enabling me to do two 4,000 luxury units in a nice location.

And I was like, oh, they can't possibly be true.

So I went back in and went through the current draft on the website.

And indeed, there is nothing that I can find that prevents that.

This is a wonderful opportunity for smart developers and smart real estate agents to

game the system.

You can buy a property, one or two units for rental, and get the permits to go ahead.

You don't even have to buy them until you've got two customers lined up for the designs

that are appropriate for that site.

It's almost like a no-lose proposition if you know how much money you can get.

Worse, there are a lot of lots that are extremely favorable for nice units.

All along Fulton, all along Lincoln, some have views out over the ocean or the bay.

Very appealing for luxury flats.

There can be a host of less than 10-unit buildings with 4,000-foot units.

very attractive under the current zoning rules. Most are not going to be that large because

you're not going to get that many in with the upzoning at 85 feet, but the opportunity

is there. I'm talking about the Lincoln and Fulton stretch. And of course, when you are

doing hundreds of lots with two or three units, you can be into thousands of high-end units

Quickly, no inclusionary housing requirements, zero.

And yet every three units requires 0.9 to 1.2 below market rate units based on planning's residential nexus studies.

And I would urge you, I asked if this was correct of planning staff, and unfortunately they haven't been able to get back to me.

I sent the mail on Monday, and they haven't been able to get back to me.

But as I say, I've gone through this carefully.

I've tracked the links from the zoning code proposals into the existing planning poll,

back to the references within the legislation.

And I'm pretty sure I'm right.

This legislation does not only does it nothing to address the affordability and availability crisis,

it actually aggravates it by incentivizing exactly the types of units the city has never needed

because the wealthy can always afford to find what they want.

Thank you.

Last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda.

Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

We can move on, commissioners, to your regular calendar.

Items 2 and 4 were pulled off of consent,

So we'll take up item two for case number 2025-007422 CUA at 555 Fulton Street, Suite B, conditional use authorization.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Matthew Chandler, planning department staff.

I did want to note that the published version of the staff report did omit some information,

so I have provided some red line copies that I would like to provide.

The item before you today is a request for conditional use authorization,

pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.2, 249.35A, 303, and 761 to exceed the principally permitted use size.

The project site is 555 Fulton Street, Suite B within the RTO Zoning District, the Hayes-Gough NCT Zoning District,

and the Fulton Street Grocery Store Special Use District.

While the site is primarily within the RTO zoning district, the special use district specifies that the entire site is subject to the Hayes-Gough-NCT district controls.

Under these controls, non-residential uses exceeding 3,000 square feet require conditional use authorization.

The project proposes to establish a 7,055 square foot arts activity use within a currently vacant ground floor commercial space that has remained vacant since the building's completion in 2020.

The business, which is doing business as the clay room, will operate as a combined pottery studio and woodworking studio.

The project qualifies for priority processing under the planning code section 303.2.

The project is categorically exempt from CEQA as a Class 1 exemption, and prior to this hearing, the department did not receive any public comment regarding the project.

The department finds that the project is necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity, and recommends approval with conditions.

The proposed arts activity use will occupy a vacant storefront,

introducing a new use not currently available within the area,

and therefore should not displace existing neighborhood-serving uses.

The 7,055-square-foot space is reasonable to accommodate instructional areas,

equipment, and storage for materials and projects,

allowing the use to operate safely and efficiently.

The business will occupy the existing tenant space without making any modifications to its size or the exterior,

maintaining the building's design and scale consistent with the surrounding district.

This concludes my presentation. I'll be available for questions, and the project sponsor is in attendance as well.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, presidents, and commissioners.

My name is Jeremy Shaw of Shaw Valley Architects.

Don't have a full presentation for you today.

As Matthew said, this is a change of use

to exceed 3,000 square feet.

We're going to be about 7,000.

It's an arts, crafts studio workspace.

And one other thing that hasn't made it into our drawings

or brief is that we have contracted with Charles Salter

to work on the acoustic separation

between the residential units above.

be around for any questions you or Jerry may have. Thanks.

Okay, with that we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your

opportunity to address the Commission on this matter.

All right, some handouts for the commissioners.

Go ahead and get started.

The proposed CUA letter should include a specific condition to address the expired $49 million building permit for 55 Fulton Street.

The current occupancy of 55 Fulton Street is likely illegal.

The building permit is null and void.

It expired over five years ago.

The last DBI inspection was in November of 2020.

The temporary occupancy certificate issued over five years ago is invalid because the San Francisco Building Code only allows DVI to issue a TCO for a period not to exceed 12 months.

That TCO has been out for over five years.

The CUA letter should include the requirement to obtain a certificate of final completion and occupancy for the building permit.

Next page.

I'll just show you why the permits expired.

The next page is quite interesting.

DBI Inspector William Waltz attempted to final that permit 15 times in 2019.

And when he couldn't, DBI Inspector Kevin McHugh issued a TCO.

The real issue, I think, here is you've got 140 condo owners illegally occupying a building.

I'm an accountant by training, but you have a land use attorney there who can tell you if that's true or not.

The other issues are, if you were a condo owner there, is your insurance valid?

If you're letting out your unit, it's illegal to rent a unit without a certificate of final completion and occupancy.

I think as the land use people, you have a responsibility to help those 140 condo owners.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner O'Brien?

Yes, I appreciate this issue being raised, and I think I would just say, you know, I don't want to put this condition specifically onto the conditional use authorization that relates to a large use being authorized at the ground floor of the building.

But if there is actually an issue here with the permits and the TCO, then that is something that I encourage department staff to look into, especially with the closer collaboration that's happening now with DBI in particular, just to make sure that all the T's are crossed and all the I's are dotted on this.

but you know when it comes to the the arts activity use and its size you know I don't

have any concerns about it and this seems like a much bigger picture issue is a it's a building

that had a lot of challenges as we know it was in the press quite a bit I had friends who would

actually put down a deposit on a condo in that building eventually gave up on it because it was

stretching out for so long and it's so many challenges but nevertheless you know I don't

concerns about the administration before us with the conditional use authorization.

And I move to approve.

Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

I just wanted to add that I would in principle agree with what Commissioner Brown summarized.

I do not have any concerns about the use itself.

I actually welcome the use after so many years.

I think it is community supporting and has a broader draw than just immediately serving the building.

However, I would suggest that we reference what was brought to our attention contingent that this can be clarified.

I think that would help anybody, and I see the applicant even nodding his head,

because we cannot prove something having been presented that there may be something not in order and ignore that.

City Attorney Yang, do you have any advice for us on that matter?

Deputy City Attorney Austin Yang. My advice would be that the department follow up with the agency that's responsible for issuing the TCO and ensuring that the units or spaces are habitable.

but I think that trying to control that through the land use process is a little bit of an awkward fit

and I would encourage the commission to follow its usual process in terms of expiration and validity of any approval.

Thank you for that advice and if we could make that as a footnote to what we are proving,

I think we all would at least extend the helping hand to the process that needs to be completed.

Secretary Iona, is it possible to make a footnote to that extent?

And Director Phillips?

I'm not sure a footnote is appropriate, but if it's necessary to be included, I suppose

some sort of a finding recognizing as such.

I think Director Phillips will have some comment.

So I can just offer that we will follow up with DBI as the issuer, and I don't think

we need to attach that to the motion today.

We will just execute and report back.

Okay, thank you.

I think that helps all of us, and it's to record that we discussed it.

Thank you.

Yeah, we will put it on our agenda item in the future to address this,

or if it's appropriate, Ms. Walty will give us some briefings from the commissioners.

Thank you.

Very good, commissioners.

If there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions.

On that motion, Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Soh? Aye. So move, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0, placing us on item 4 for case number 2025-008202CU8825 Sansom Street, conditional use authorization.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Michelle Langley, department staff.

The project before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to permit a change of use from an existing two-story multi-level public parking garage with a basement containing 96 parking spaces to the establishment of a private fleet charging use at the upper level with 31 private EV chargers,

a public electric vehicle charging location used at the ground level with 18 public EV chargers,

and a private parking garage with 31 parking spaces at the basement level, resulting in a net reduction of 16 parking spaces.

Both fleet charging and private parking garage uses require a conditional use authorization in the C2 zoning district.

Built in 1922, the property is a Category A historic resource and a contributor to the California and National Register-eligible Jackson Square Historic District Extension.

The private parking garage is to be used as a temporary overnight parking to support a private fleet charging use.

These two uses are operationally necessary to support an in-house zero-emission fleet.

These vehicles are dispatched and returned daily from the same site, requiring secure, dedicated charging spaces during off-peak hours for fleet turnover.

It is expected that most fleet vehicle departures will be in the morning, leaving with a full charge.

Fleet vehicles are expected to return to the site in late evening when there is low expected fleet utilization.

Locating fleet charging and parking within the same site, unlike other smaller fleet charging facilities, eliminates the need for vehicles to travel off-site to parking depots while not in use, reducing congestion.

The private parking garage use and the private fleet charging uses will be separated from the publicly accessible EV charging location use, with the upper and basement levels having gates in a normally closed position.

The department's transportation staff reviewed the project and determined that additional transportation review is not required.

They noted that the proposed project is expected to generate only a modest increase in short-term vehicular turnover, similar to the current use as a public parking garage.

The proposed project is equipped to accommodate its related EV vehicle trips,

giving its existing vehicular access, egress, and internal circulation design.

According to the project sponsor team, the private fleet chargers will be used by control number of known vehicles

with predictable schedules, minimizing traffic variability.

No changes are needed to adjacent loading zones.

The project frontage is not along a bicycle or transit route, and all levels will have audible exit warnings for pedestrians and other vehicles.

Department staff received one letter of opposition from Teamsters Joint Council 7 regarding the project.

The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area, which includes a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses, and is on balance with the general plan and use district.

Conditional use approval to establish private fleet charging and private parking garage uses would promote sustainability by supporting cleaner transportation options, reducing vehicle emissions, and enhancing public health.

By locating the charging infrastructure within an existing parking garage, all work will be completed within the existing building envelope, with no major exterior alterations to the historic structure.

Department staff believes the project would be desirable for and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and recommends approval with conditions

This concludes my presentation and I am available for questions

The project sponsor is also in attendance and will follow with additional details

Okay project sponsor you have five minutes

Yeah, I figured out.

That's fine.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Eric Lentz here as a project sponsor representing Tesla here and taking a bit of a break from

my typical cell tower permits that I come in here for.

So if I look familiar, that's why.

I just want to thank Michelle for her presentation,

but I wanted to just briefly show you just on picture what's proposed here.

The existing parking garages, it's three floors.

There's a basement and then two levels above.

It's important to note that these uses are distinctly separated from each other

by floor and also by egress.

into the building. As you see, the fleet charging would be at the upper level. The publicly used

EV charging would be in the ground floor. And then the private parking would be in the basement.

And then this is sort of the front of the building. You see there's three distinct

entrances to the building. So these, not only in the building are these uses separated,

but they're also separated as far as how the cars enter and exit the building.

So the big doors in the front, that's the public EV access.

The door on the right actually takes you upstairs,

and the door on the left takes you downstairs to the basement.

And so unlike some fleet charging where you have a public and private component,

the fleet charging and the parking is on-site versus fleet charging,

and then the cars don't have to go drive across town to, like, a depot to park overnight.

everything happens in one building.

So just as far as reducing congestion on the street,

they're charging and they're going in the garage

and going out for the day.

I do have Michael Hugh with Tesla.

He wants to address some of the issues

that come up as far as congestion.

Hi, commissioners.

Yeah, we do expect congestion

to be a main topic of interest by the public.

And one item I wanted to speak on actually was

Just the first slide.

The Sansom site was chosen specifically because of that lower level private fleet parking component.

And so when vehicles are being charged on the upper level, that lower level acts as like a queuing buffer zone for vehicles,

up to 30 vehicles to kind of wait there before they have to get charged on the upper level.

So we have the exact number of stalls for queuing as we do as charging.

And then my second point is we did do a traffic simulation study of the area around Sansom using real-world publicly available traffic data.

And what this graph basically shows is we simulated the amount of vehicle flow that you can get into the Sansom site kind of throughout the day.

So areas higher on the line there shows that's when you can have more vehicles coming into the Sansom site or out.

and that's when areas of low congestion occur.

And then you can see kind of that lower point of the trough.

That's roughly between 3 to 5 p.m.

We know there will be quite a bit of congestion

just from the existing road network in the San Samaria.

And as Tesla, we don't want our fleet vehicles

to be part of this congestion either.

We don't want low fleet utilization.

So we know that we should dispatch our vehicles in the morning,

again to pick a customer base up

and then they'll be leaving Samsung on quite a full charge

and then return to site later in the afternoon

closer to 11 p.m.

when we know that we can actually get vehicles to site to charge.

So those are the two points I did want to note.

And then a third point was

the max charging throughput for this site.

again, at roughly 48

charger posts, assuming

Tesla can utilize all of these chargers

for our fleet vehicles, that's

roughly, again,

at roughly 30 chargers,

30 minutes to charge a car,

that's roughly

two vehicles that you can charge per

parking stall,

and that's roughly about 96

vehicles that can kind of come in

and out of this site

to be charged.

And so, again, if you extrapolate that or you turn that into vehicles per minute, that's roughly one or two vehicles per minute coming in and out, which, if you think about, really isn't too many vehicles coming in and out of a site.

So, thank you.

Okay, if that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

Good afternoon again.

Commissioner Mark Gleason with Teamsters.

We did forward a letter.

I think everyone has access to it and has a more detailed analysis of why we are opposed to this use.

I just want to add that it's our position that the use is not necessary or desirable because, first of all,

Tesla has not demonstrated why this specific site is necessary when industrial areas better suited for fleet operations exist throughout the city.

Fleet charging use serves corporate fleet needs, not neighborhood needs.

It provides no benefit or service to local residents or businesses.

This use is incompatible with the adjacent Jackson Square Historic District

because Jackson Square is one of San Francisco's most significant historic districts.

preserved for its unique architectural character and scale, and fleet charging operations for autonomous vehicles with consistent vehicle queuing going on 24-7 are fundamentally incompatible with the district's historic residential and small-scale commercial character.

The use is detrimental to neighborhood convenience and general welfare because the site, along with the Waymo operations, some 200 feet away, will create continuous robo-taxi fleet vehicles circulating, including congestion, that impacts the neighborhood.

Round-the-clock operations will disrupt the neighborhood's peace and livability at all hours.

The proposed fleet charging use relies on an inadequate CEQA analysis because the CEQA analysis fails to examine the cumulative impacts of concentrated AV fleet charging in the area.

CEQA requires assessment of the combined effects of multiple similar projects.

This has not been done, and there is no mention of Waymo or Tesla in the CEQA analysis.

Proper environmental review must analyze concentration of fleet operations before approval, including Tesla robo-taxi charging 200 feet away from Waymo's existing AV facility.

Thank you very much.

Last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

This matter is now before you, commissioners.

That was a slight, modest shaker.

No, no, no.

I'm sorry.

That was old.

Commissioner Campbell.

Thanks. Thank you for the presentations.

I think as long as we are using cars, we need a place to put them,

and there's a growing demand now to charge them as well as we see a rise in electric vehicles.

And I personally can't think of a better place to put cars than in an existing parking garage and structure.

So from a land use perspective, not focusing on the Tesla factor, right?

Like we've got cars coming in and out.

We need a place to put them.

And for me, this feels like a very common sense, logical use to accommodate.

I really agree with the assessment of staff's analysis.

And I'll just add that I appreciate how accommodating and providing more infrastructure

for electric vehicles, I think aligns really well with the city's desire to reduce our emissions.

And I appreciate the cosmetic, not related to planning,

but appreciate the cosmetic improvements that the sponsor is making.

So I would make a motion to approve with conditions.

Thank you. Commissioner McGarry?

I'll second the motion for one reason and one reason only.

We're here for land use today, not building use.

so unfortunately our hands land use is why we're here today not what actually business is like and

it is a parking lot so it's a parking lot the scheduling of the hours the vehicles coming in

are actually going to be more more reliable for the neighborhood because they'll come the vast

majority will come in in the morning and on a set and they'll they'll leave in the morning and

and come back in the evening so for that reason i'll second thank you commissioner imperial yeah

Thank you, commissioners.

The way I see it, there's part of it I'm hesitant, but at the same time,

I'm also looking at it in the land use perspective.

I don't think we can all put the EV all in the industrial areas as well.

That means many of it will be in the southeast portion of the city.

And I think there has been, you know, and I think there has been discussions here that appropriate EV is actually more in the downtown areas because of the, again, the parking spaces that are already available.

However, I still do have concern about traffic congestion in general, especially with the EV, since the technology is, I think, still not up there yet.

We still see it in how it's driven.

I see many Waymos around my area, and even though there are no passengers, they're just ongoing driving.

so in terms of this kind of like

robo taxis

the technology has yet

still to be improved or innovate

that I do

think still contribute to the

traffic congestion but again

what we're deciding here

is around the land use and so

that's where I'm kind of like

if looking into the

area this is a good

area but

I am concerned

about the traffic congestion, even though it says that they will be leaving very early in the morning,

avoiding the traffic, and coming back late at night.

I guess my only question is what time in the morning, specifically, it will leave.

Will it leave at 6 a.m. or 12 a.m. as what you presented?

Yeah, our modeling team has shown that we expect vehicles to leave quite early in the

morning, around 6, to pick, to kind of go access, to be there for customers roughly around

6 to 8 o'clock.

So by the time they leave in the morning, we expect them to be out there before a lot

of people driving their normal vehicles actually go out to work.

Same with when they come back.

They'll be leaving Sansom on a full charge.

So the intention is that they don't have to come back at all during the day,

and they can come back at night when they're, again, out of battery,

and there's not many vehicles on the road.

So we don't expect there to be much congestion, at least at night.

Okay, thank you.

And I guess this is my question to the staff.

In terms of how do we make traffic analysis when it comes to robo-taxis,

Has there been changes in how we analyze traffic?

I would have to confer with our environmental planners.

All I know at this point is that they did not require an additional transportation study,

and they were satisfied with what they had reviewed.

Okay.

Yeah, I think it would be good to hear in the future some informational hearing on the traffic analysis of robo-taxis.

Again, I mean, this is inevitable.

I think it's going to be part of the future whether we like it or not.

And I think we also need to make sure that our traffic analysis are well equipped with

the impact of robo-taxes.

Because you see them everywhere at this point and they're not really, many of them that

I see don't hold passengers and what's the impact of that in the circulation.

But I will vote yes on this as of today.

I think Commissioner Imperia had a really good point about bringing more options for

electric charging vehicle in downtown area to equalize some of the inequity issues about

usually now our fleet is actually ended up in all the way over in the south side of the

city.

So, but yes, really is a chasing goose topic on traffic analysis on these emerging technology.

But definitely it's really well pointed.

I think, Commissioner, we don't have any further comments.

We're ready to vote.

Indeed, Commissioners.

There is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion.

Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Soh?

Aye.

That motion passes unanimously, Commissioner 6 to 0.

And if anybody's interested, it was a 3.6 just south of Vallejo.

That will place us on item 9 for case

number 2025-006246 PCA, definitions, family, dwelling unit,

planning code amendments.

Good afternoon, Commissioner Zarin Starr,

manager of legislative affairs this ordinance is sponsored by supervisor

Mahmood so right now Cooper from that office is here to speak on the ordinance

after he presents all finish his staff's presentation thanks

great thank you all hello president so and commissioners my name is Raynell

Cooper i'm a legislative aide for district 5

supervisor Bilal Mahmood here to talk with you about item 250719

the Shared Housing Reform Act. In San Francisco, living in large homes with several roommates is

basically a rite of passage. It's a first home away from home for students, recent graduates,

and locals just trying to get away from their parents. It's also an important housing choice

for residents of all ages, offering affordability and a sense of community. However, unless all of

the residents are related or are cooking meals together, this could mean they are illegally

living in a space that doesn't meet the definition of dwelling unit. That's because a, quote,

dwelling unit needs a, quote, family, and the current definition of family in the planning code

is based around a narrow set of potential living situations. For those who live with more than

five roommates that they don't prepare meals with, they're living in a precarious home that could be

subject to investigation by the planning department. The legislation creates a new definition of

household that requires members to share expenses and have nine or fewer leases. This helps ensure

that this new rule doesn't lead to developers avoiding inclusionary housing requirements that

trigger at 10 units in a building. This new definition is also inclusive of

definitions of family found at the state level. Nothing in this legislation

undermines the health and safety codes that govern overcrowding issues and

there are tools to enforce against dangerous living situations. Moving away

from a relationship-based definition of dwelling unit helps bring our

definition better in line with those at the state level and as an explicit goal

of the city's housing element. Plus, as the staff report so eloquently puts it,

Planning's role has evolved to focus on regulating the form, location, and general design of residential buildings, not how many households they contain.

This change aligns well with the density decontrol that it's proposed for much of the city under the Family Zoning Plan.

Supervisor Mahmood intends to introduce a substituted version of this legislation upon a hopeful passage here at the Planning Commission.

The primary change in this version creates an even more open definition of household for existing buildings,

removing that nine lease requirement. This change allows for an even larger

universe of existing units to be legalized without opening up a potential

loophole for new construction that could allow builders to use this

definition to shirk inclusionary zoning responsibilities.

The substituted version also modifies the requirements for households to just

need one living expense shared and requires that residents have 24-hour

access to a kitchen and bathroom to qualify as a dwelling unit.

Our office is looking forward to more collaboration with the planning

department and advocates on taking a more holistic look at how the city regulates group housing.

At the end of the day, this is all about fairness. This legislation recognizes that today's families

and chosen families come in many forms, and if it's good enough for our inclusive alleys,

then it should be good enough for our zoning code. I want to thank Josh Massimore, Mark Hogan,

and Lisa Zahner for bringing this issue to the supervisor's attention. I also want to thank

Jay Cumberland and Hope Williams from the Sustainable Economies Law Center and Annie

Freiman from SPUR for their consultation on the legislation. I'd also like to thank Heather Goodman

and Julia Gualco Nelson from the City Attorney's Office for their help with drafting this, and

Audrey Merloni, Liz Waddy, Dan Sider, and Aaron Starr from the Planning Department for their work

as well. And I'd also like to thank our co-sponsors on the legislation, Supervisors Sauter, Cheryl,

Dorsey, Melgar, and Chen. Thank you so much. I'll turn it back over to Mr. Starr, who will go into

more detail about the legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Raynell. So as he mentioned, this proposed ordinance is to update the San Francisco

Planning Code to redefine the term family as household to better reflect the diversity of

living arrangements in the city. The current definition imposes restrictive criteria on

unrelated individuals living together, such as requiring shared meals, preparation, and

limiting group size to five, which disproportionately affects household or housemate households.

So some of the key changes, first, the definition update. It replaces family with household,

removing the requirements for a blood or legal relationship or shared meals. Second is the

lease cap. It limits a household to nine leases to distinguish from group housing and preserve

inclusionary housing requirements. It expands the residential use definition, so it reclassifies

small residential care facilities with six or fewer residents as a residential use. This aligns

with state law. And then last with dwelling occupancy, it allows a group meeting the new

household definition to occupy dwelling unit. As the supervisors, as Rayna mentioned, there are

some proposed amendments. The first applies to the nine lease rule. This rule would only apply

to buildings constructed after this ordinance takes effect, and it would clarify that lease

includes rental agreements, licenses, or other contractual agreements for exclusive use of all

or a portion of the premises. The second is the access requirements. Households must have 24 access

to a full kitchen, bathroom, and private sleeping rooms. There's one on shared expenses, so it

clarifies that sharing at least one living expense qualifies as a group as a household.

It expands the zoning administrator's ability to issue subpoenas for enforcement.

And then there's some clerical simplifications.

It just streamlines how residential care facilities are included in the new definitions in the code.

So this supports the Housing Element Policy 34,

which encourages co-housing and shared living to improve affordability and community support.

And it also advances implementation program 7.2.6, which seeks to update zoning to accommodate unrelated adults and comply with fair housing laws.

The department is recommending approval with modifications.

Those modifications include first to make all residential care facilities a residential use instead of an institutional use.

The second is to amend the definition of household to include single or multi-provider households with dependents.

The third is to include the sponsor's proposed amendments outlined in the executive summary.

And then fourth is to direct staff to monitor the implementation of the legislation for potential unintended consequences

and report back to the commission three years after the effective date.

The department recommends approval of the proposed ordinance because it modernizes outdated zoning definitions

to better reflect the diversity of San Francisco's households, aligns local regulations with state law,

and supports the city's broader housing goals.

The current definition of family imposes restrictive and outdated criteria that limit who can legally share a dwelling unit.

By replacing family with a more inclusive definition of household, the ordinance removes unnecessary barriers to shared housing,

particularly for communities that rely on chosen family structures or nontraditional living arrangements.

The ordinance also clarifies the distinction between dwelling units and group housing in a way that supports the city's shift to more form-based density regulation.

It does this while preserving the integrity of the inclusionary housing program

through the nine leasehold threshold.

That concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thanks.

Okay.

With that, we should take public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

You need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Avi, and I'm a planner with the Chinatown CDC.

We're asking that you continue this item to allow more time for public outreach and a more complete analysis.

This proposal to remove the planning code's definition of family housing

and replace it with a broad, generic category of households is concerning.

At a time when we all recognize the urgent need for housing that works for families with children and dependents,

this change moves us in the wrong direction.

By eliminating the category of family housing, the city would lose one of its main tools to prioritize and incentivize those needs.

Instead, this proposal could open the door for a very different type of development, shared and corporate-run housing,

where individual bedrooms are rented out under separate licenses,

often without the rights or protections that come with being a tenant in such housing.

What is missing in the analysis presented is whether the existing definition of family housing

should be retained with amendments.

There should be consideration for creating another category of housing

that allows for co-housing or shared housing that has its own standards

and own protections associated with that market.

Before we eliminate an important housing category, we should have accurate information, a full analysis of the impacts,

and real input from families and communities who will be affected by this.

Please continue this item and require a deeper analysis and review before moving forward. Thank you.

good afternoon commissioners my name is Brianna Morales with the housing action coalition

as their community organizer though a bit technical this ordinance does catch up our

planning code in a way to reflect how people actually live and for a long time it really

hasn't kept pace with how we are as a city or even as a state in San Francisco especially

Family has never been one thing. It's roommates sharing rent, friends supporting each other,

and chosen families who make this city their home. That's been a part of what makes San Francisco

special for years and decades. Right now, our zoning code still limits how many unrelated people

can share a home, an outdated idea that simply doesn't reflect how people live, especially in

a city where our housing costs force people to find creative ways to stay. Updating this language

to household is common sense. It modernizes our code, removes unnecessary restrictions, and help

people stay housed in neighborhoods they love. It also aligns with our broader equity goals,

fair housing, and inclusion, value San Francisco has prided itself upon. This has been a city that

has had folks looking for safe spaces to call home, artists, undocumented folks, queer communities,

and dreamers of every kind, and this change honors that legacy. It clearly says that everyone deserves

a home here however they define family we thank HACC members and other partners for raising this

issue for many years reminding us that equity starts with recognizing how people

really live together so thank you for supervisor Mahmood's advocacy city staff and for all those

who worked on this thank you okay final last call for public comment you need to come forward

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

This matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

So while a household can be considered a family,

I do recommend or in full support of Department's recommendation number four,

basically staff to monitor and report back on unintended consequences,

possibly not 36 months, but a little bit more than that.

I don't know if 12 is too much, but certainly 16 months perhaps.

My main point of concern here is actual families losing out to commercial entities

or newly emerging businesses or business models.

So I would suggest we really monitor this for any unforeseen consequences.

Thank you.

A very good point.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes, you know, on the face of it, I agree with the idea that this is kind of a common sense change that better reflects the reality of the right of living situations that we have in the city.

But as Commissioner McGarry is pointing out, the devil's in the details, and there could be some unintended consequences of this legislation.

I want to ask a few questions related to a few of those potential unintended consequences,

just to make sure they are being thought through or addressed.

My first question maybe to Aaron Starr is, in department's recommendation, recommended

modification number three about the sponsor's proposed amendments, there was a note in there

something to the effect of the department's a little concerned about the nine lease limit as far

as the possibility of creating a loophole for group housing to avoid having to pay into the

inclusionary program. Could you maybe expand a little bit more on what the thinking was about

that? Sure. So it would allow a building that exists today to basically be converted to

be considered still a dwelling unit, even though you would have more than nine people living there

on a separate lease. Our trigger for inclusionary for group housing is 10 or more. So you could

essentially quasi-convert like a large home in Pacific Heights, just as an example, with multiple

rooms into a group housing facility and they don't need to pay into the inclusionary program.

So that is a policy choice that is confronted with you all.

And the reason that this is being put forward is because, as has been said, this is the

way San Franciscans already live.

There are already homes with probably more than nine people with separate leases.

I know that that was true.

When I moved to San Francisco, I rented a room, had a separate lease.

There were at least seven people in that building.

We shared a bathroom and a kitchen.

So it's a very common living situation in San Francisco.

So the idea was to provide, to not disrupt those households,

to not disrupt those people's living situation

by having to impose a fee or a change of use requirement for them.

Okay.

So I see.

So it seemed like a fairly limited subset of buildings

that could be subject to the loophole you identified

or possible loophole you identified.

The example you gave was an existing building that essentially becomes nine sort of de facto group housing units.

Or more than nine.

Ten or more.

Ten or more group housing units when really it should maybe be considered actually separate group housing and inclusion I should apply.

I might not be saying this very well.

But that would be, am I right in thinking that that's less of a concern with the amendment for a new building?

So the amendment is, the household definition, so the nine lease limit only applies to buildings constructed after the proposed ordinance becomes effective.

of...

Yeah, we were concerned that people would take advantage of this and say, well, it's a single

unit.

And in an exaggerated case, it's a single unit with 50 bedrooms.

So that's why we came up with the nine lease limit to sort of prevent something like that

from happening.

So it's sort of an after construction thing, because we don't like to regulate bedrooms

and homes, but we would be able to enforce on it should there be more than nine leases

in that and say this is no longer a dwelling unit.

You are now group housing.

You have to convert and pay the inclusionary fee.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

That satisfies my questions and concern about that one.

What I'm seeing is that with that amendment, with that nine lease limit, it does seem to

address the inclusionary concern going forward for new projects.

But I do see the department's concern about the subset of possible changes where, for an existing building, we want to recognize through that amendment that there's a variety of existing arrangements, like you said, but it's more about if they kind of convert to essentially group housing.

So I think that that's a small, narrow case, hopefully, and something that needs to be part of the monitoring that Commissioner McGarry was talking about and the report back on that.

So thank you for kind of exploring that one with me.

I have two other questions.

One of them is I appreciate you answering a couple of questions I had this week about the recommendation about making all residential care facilities a residential use.

instead of an institutional use.

I see that that's department recommendation number one.

I see how that avoids the arbitrary drawing of the line

at six units.

I see how that makes it much easier for the department

to sort of distinguish and implement going forward.

And I also appreciate your response

that we don't currently charge.

So my concern about this is really around

the application of inclusionary requirements

or affordable housing impact fees and what some of the implications might be for this.

And so I appreciate you letting me know we don't currently charge the jobs housing linkage fee to residential care facilities.

And so then I was asking whether or not we would then be charging inclusionary fees for residential care facilities if they become a residential use.

and I'm wondering if you could just kind of talk through a little bit of the, you know,

the position that it might not make sense to include that.

You know, I didn't hear today much discussion about this issue.

Yeah, I think one of the things, there were a lot of moving parts on this,

and so a very obvious thing we overlooked is that if you start,

if you recategorize residential care facilities as a residential use,

once you get more than nine rooms in that residential care facility,

you are then subject to the inclusionary rate.

I don't think anyone wants to charge residential care facilities an inclusionary fee.

So staff, I believe, would be supportive of, like, you know,

exempting them from the inclusionary rate.

So stating that here now and the supervisor is aware of that issue as well.

Okay.

I am in favor of exempting the residential care facilities from inclusionary requirements

because we don't currently put those requirements on those units.

We don't have the jobs housing linkage fee on those units.

It does kind of speak to, again, one of those things that we need to monitor for

because this is a big unintended consequence potentially

that we hadn't really thought about.

Now suddenly we would have been applying inclusionary requirements

to residential care facilities, which are kind of a different thing.

I do still have a concern about residential care facilities

in that this has been on my mind

because two of the cities I'm currently working for, as per my day job,

on setting affordable housing policy and analysis,

are encountering situations with residential care facilities

where, in one instance, a developer is arguing that

because they have the license for residential care facilities,

this very large project that has a subset of units that are RCF units,

that license covers the whole building,

and they are trying to kind of sidestep

some of the inclusionary requirements

based on it being a residential care facility,

based on the subs of the units

being residential care facility units.

The other units are 55 and older units or senior units,

but their market rate, they're basically housing.

And so I think I would also recommend

that we just take another look at that issue

as part of this legislation.

I don't know if the supervisor could maybe just

kind of explore whether any of the language needs to be tightened up to address a potential

loophole in which something's called residential care facility and then somehow manages to

have a lot of basically de facto residential units that don't have inclusionary applied anymore.

So that would be my second suggestion.

And then third, let's see.

Actually, no. That's actually it for me. Thanks for bearing with me in a lot of detail on this.

So I could definitely support this, but with the recommended...

And I can support this also with staff modifications.

I would also support Commissioner McGarry's idea of maybe a shorter term for report back on implementation.

I think we chose three years because it takes a long time for things to sort of work their way through.

Maybe three years is too long.

Two years might be more appropriate.

But I think a year would be too quick.

A year?

It was too soon, I think.

A year was too soon.

I'm sorry.

How long did you say it would work?

If three is too long, I would say two.

Two years?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So two-year report back on staff recognition number four.

I would also say exempt if I can support staff recommendation number one about residential care facilities, but make it clear that they're being exempted from inclusionary as part of that recommendation.

and then also just guidance to the supervisor's office

to maybe take another look at the language

to ensure that the residential care facility exemption

couldn't somehow enable other housing units

to escape our inclusionary requirements.

Yeah, I can, well, let's see what other supervisors

have to say before I make a motion.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. That was really thorough. I agree with you. Commissioner Imperial?

Thank you, Commissioners. When I read this legislation, there's part of it that, yes, it does speak in terms of how people are living in San Francisco.

and perhaps this ordinance can actually help address those.

I think the way I see it as well, and I'm glad this ordinance has,

or with the planning staff amendments to address the difference between group housing and dwelling units.

However, I also want to address whether the nine limitation, the nine least limitation or nine users limitation,

Is that also incompatible with DBI code in terms of the minimum occupancy and also in terms of the square footage facilities where it will not encourage overcrowding?

I think they're kind of two separate issues.

They would be compliant with the planning code for having nine or fewer leases or subleases or contracts,

but if they didn't meet the occupancy requirements under the building code,

they'd be out of compliance with that, and DBI would deal with that issue.

So they're kind of two regulatory issues separate.

Well, I don't know. It feels to me it would still create confusion. So how would that apply?

So that means that that would have to amend the DBI code as well?

No, you don't need to amend DBI code. DBI already has occupancy requirements to make it safe for people to live safe and healthy.

So say we were called in to enforce, they would say, well, we only have eight leases.

And we're like, okay, but this seems like overcrowding.

And so we might refer that to DBI, and then DBI would look into it and says, yeah, this is overcrowded.

You don't have the right exposure.

There's too many people packed in a room, that type of thing.

And then they could enforce based on that.

But planning wouldn't be saying no.

And in terms of the shared facilities, is there any kind of guidance on that, on this ordinance?

No, I mean, remember, these are dwelling units, so we kind of look at a dwelling unit as having one kitchen.

And then we also have different requirements for group housing.

But as I said in the staff report, that's prospective, like, I want to build group housing.

We say, okay, if you're going to build group housing, you need to meet these things.

so it's more of this is a legal dwelling unit

and you have multiple people living in there

who are not related

I think it probably just needs for me more clarification

on my end in terms of that

how we are

making sure, I appreciate what the legislature is trying to do

But I also feel like perhaps there needs to be more look as well in terms of, like, what kind of developments or, you know, if we're truly trying to target.

Because I see this ordinance in two things.

One, there's this residential care facilities and then, you know, substance abuse type kind of co-living situation as well.

And there are different kinds of co-living or shared living situations in terms of, you know, that probably can evolve from this ordinance as well that perhaps needs more public outreach.

the one thing that I'm thinking of is around immigration as well and how would that, you know,

so that's something that I'm hoping that the supervisor can also, you know,

gather in terms of with community stakeholders.

But, yeah, there's still, you know, there's still kind of, like, hesitation for me as to what kind of developments

or what kind of, that will sprung out from this.

But although I see the potential of this ordinance as well

to expand to different kinds of co-sharing,

shared housing options.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is it?

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, there's a lot of thought process here,

and I would like to summarize some of these comments,

but I would want to hear more.

Commissioner Moore?

Do you have time, or would you like to go first?

I know you're running a little bit into your time constraint.

Okay, well, I can go first.

Thank you.

So I really appreciate Supervisor Mahmood's take initiative to address our evolution of how people live

and actually what San Franciscans really had to make ends meet to be living in these conditions.

It seems like right now we had heard a lot of some of the concerns, and I also think that it is a great step to address our dire needs for residential care facilities,

to make it consistent with our state code and our local code.

I really support Commissioner Brown's comment about exempting the residential care facilities for inclusionary fees

to avoid any unintended consequences.

And I also support Commissioner McGarry's point of having the report back sooner

and Mr. Starr suggesting changing it from 36 months to 24 months, three to two years.

That was great.

Some of the concern that Commissioner Imperial brought up was very on point.

Occupancy safety, something that would probably as an enlightenment to Supervisor Mahmood to work closely with our DBI

to make sure that we are doing something that is intentionally making sure people are safe

in terms of exiting and occupancy density situations.

I heard that some comments in our public, there are some concerns about continuing to protect our tenants,

the tenancy situation.

I think that is something that I would like to see Supervisor Mahmood to further investigate it with our Ramp Board.

So, well, in general, I am really supportive of having this to further clarify

and allow San Franciscans have a lot more transparency and clarity of how they can live legally.

And that kind of summarized my comment, and I'll pass it on to Commissioner Namor.

Thank you.

I'd like to start just with thank you to the supervisor.

I appreciate asking us to consider expanding our definitions.

And perhaps the question I would like to ask is,

why did we not expand our definitions rather than limiting them?

And the reason why I'm saying that is,

it is just this morning that we received a rather thoughtful letter by CCDC.

and former Commissioner Gabriella Rose is actually the author of this letter,

and it raised a number of questions that resonated very strongly with myself.

That, together with a letter that I also received this morning from Deputy City Attorney Yang,

made me wonder why we are rushing this,

because I believe expanding our definitions would be far more helpful

in order not to fall into certain traps that are very clearly outlined in what CCDC are saying,

particularly tenant protection.

Commissioner Imperial touched on the issue of what the code regulates

versus what any kind of amendments we are discussing here today would do,

how many people can live in a unit.

together with a number of clarifications of legal background that at least CCDC questions the accuracy of what staff is asserting in this report,

i.e. dwelling unit as defined in the planning code can only be occupied by family.

As they are getting into detail, they are basically saying it can be family, relatives, and unrelated people.

So there is indeed a broader room for interpretation by which we could capture one of what is implied in staff's report and correct that, but we could also potentially capture that particular element of what supervisors are asking for in an expanded definition of adding the word household or adding a broader definition of unrelated people living under licenses or under

other type form of agreement in a single-family home.

So we are making many, many changes,

and I would personally prefer a simpler way

by expanding of what we have rather than overturning it.

Would we also, in light of this suggestion,

amend the family zoning plan?

Would we now call it the household zoning plan?

I just said crossed my mind because this is really indeed a very strong message that we are sending.

And I personally do not believe that the way that San Francisco for decades has fostered new forms of living together,

together with co-housing, requires that we be rewriting all of our regulations to sound different.

I still think we can be sticking with comparable words except expanding on definitions.

That would be my preference.

Commissioner Brown?

I will make a motion to approve with modifications, recommended modifications.

I'm going to modify the modifications a little bit as part of my motion.

So on staff recommended modification number one regarding residential care facilities, I would modify that to clarify that residential care facilities would remain exempt from inclusionary requirements if that recommendation was taken.

And I would also add guidance to the supervisor's office to ensure residential care facilities being exempt from inclusionary requirements does not inadvertently enable housing units to escape inclusionary requirements.

Also, for staff recommended modification number four, for the department report back on implementation of potential unintended consequences, I would change that report back period to 24 months instead of 36 months.

oh and I also would just say I think

this doesn't have to be part of the motion but

I think Chinatown Community

Development Center they raise

some interesting points

I think it's worth continuing outreach

just to see if there are other potential

issues or definitions that need

to be tightened up

I agree with that second

Commissioner Moore you have further comments

yes I would like to just add my thoughts

about residential care facilities

since residential care facilities are mostly regulated by design and operation by the state

rather than by the city, I would prefer that that entire subject matter would be taken out of the legislation

and treated separately, including considerations about whatever we can consider.

I believe that it's putting too much into this legislation,

and care facilities themselves are not living facilities.

that do not really cater to the type of people we are trying to capture

with expanding our definition of family housing.

So I would suggest that my own preference would be, I should say,

to leave that entire subject matter under separate legislation.

And I do think that we can make a valuable contribution

by thinking about that in more detail.

We're seeing a rapid disappearance of care facilities in the city,

and perhaps we can approach that with a slightly broader, more focused way of addressing it.

We have, are we ready to vote?

Indeed, there is a motion that has been seconded.

So if there's no further deliberation, commissioners,

there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval

with staff modifications as modified to exclude residential care facilities from the inclusionary

housing requirement and to encourage the supervisor to consider language that would prevent any

other projects taking advantage of that exclusion and modifying the report back to the commission

from three to two years and to provide consideration to CCDC's comments.

Yes, did you get that?

The issue with the residential care facility,

we were trying to make sure there's no loophole around escaping inclusionary requirements.

Right.

Just want to make sure that was clear.

I thought I added that as well, just to encourage that no inadvertent provisions to exclude other projects.

Yes.

On that motion, Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Excuse me.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

No.

Commissioner Moore?

No.

And Commissioner President Soe?

Aye.

So move, Commissioners.

That motion passes 4-2 with Commissioners Imperial and Moore voting against.

Commissioners, that will place us under your discretionary review calendar for item 10,

Case number 2024-011548DRP-02 for the property at 2867 Green Street, discretionary review.

Good afternoon, President Soenk, members of the commission.

David Winslow, planning staff architect.

The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of permit,

sorry, planning application number 2024-011548PRJ.

for work that exceeded the scope of a building permit to raise the roof of the building of the third floor by 10 inches.

A notice of violation was issued instructing the applicant to legalize by obtaining a permit.

The current drawings and other proposed work all meet the planning code and residential design guidelines.

And it is my understanding, I'm going to abbreviate this report because my understanding is that the parties involved

have reached an agreement, and with that I would invite them to share the details of

that agreement for the record.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Deborah Hawley for Pete Solvik and Becky Christian, two of the DR requesters who live

adjacent to 550 Lion.

And so both DR requesters have reached an agreement with the project sponsors.

And I just wanted to give Jonas these plans to include in the record.

They're the same plans that I believe you have in your packet.

just two changes, and that is a notation that on the roof plan that it's an unoccupied roof

and no roof deck is proposed, and another notation on the elevations that all heights shown

are inclusive of any curbs or lips.

So that's it.

And I just want to call out David Winslow

for the extraordinary effort he made to help settle this.

It's been several months that this has been going on,

so we're really pleased that with his help

we could reach an agreement.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Marco Quazzo on behalf of 2873-2875 Green Street Condominium Association, also known

as DR Requester No. 2.

I just want to confirm what Ms. Holley just reported to the Commission and confirm that

DR Requester No. 2 has indeed finalized a written agreement with the project sponsors

and DR requester number one.

We've also reviewed the revised plans

that are dated yesterday, November 12,

including the notations that Ms. Holley mentioned,

and we are in agreement with them.

And so pursuant to our written agreement

with the project sponsor, we ask that the commission take DR

and approve the plans as modified.

And we also want to express our gratitude to David Winslow

and his staff for their remarkable efforts in bringing this to a conclusion.

So thank you, David.

If that concludes presentations, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

Seeing there's an agreement and no public comment, public comment is closed.

this matter is now before you commissioners so oftentimes even though

DR requesters and project sponsors reach an agreement they like it to be

memorialized with the DR action memo so that they're not withdrawing their

discretionary review but the Commission is is taking action to take DR and

approve with said agreement modifications and that will be

memorialized then in an action memo

Well, public comment is closed.

Through the chair, do you want to give her an opportunity to speak?

Is this a DR request number two?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Yeah, just.

Because there was.

Do you mind to speak to the microphone?

Sorry.

There was a question about the recommendation.

Because the recommendation, I wasn't sure if it was take DR or not take DR.

withdraw. And so we're open to whatever it is.

That's what I was trying to explain, is that the request as it stands, or the way I understand

it anyway, is to take discretionary review, memorialize the modifications that were made

as part of the agreement.

I'm sorry, I'm just unfamiliar with the procedures here.

And so I just wanted to make sure that you knew we were open to whatever it was.

If I could speak to further confuse the matter.

The recommendation was agnostic.

we could either take DR and

record the situation

or basically not take DR and accept these drawings

and approve them at the staff level,

honoring the conditions of the agreement

as represented in the documents of record

for these drawings that we just received.

So it doesn't really matter to me.

I just think everybody,

and I also want to thank everybody

and the work that David and his staff did and the parties to this, because it has been a long process.

And so it just seemed to me that if it said, not take Diara, it's like, why were you doing all this work?

It's a practical matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So thank you.

Okay, so we're ready for our commissioner's comment.

And Commissioner Moore?

I'm delighted to hear that there is a settlement.

and I make a motion to not take DR and approve based on the drawings that issued with the most recent data,

which I think is today.

Commissioner LeBron?

I agree with the way the motion is structured.

So, Jonas, I heard what you said about, you know, memorializing this through taking DR.

I would recommend we take discretionary review because these plans were just submitted to us so that you're taking DR and you're modifying the project as was submitted to you so that it will memorialize it in a DR action memo.

Which is a note regarding the unoccupied roof and that there will be no roof deck.

That is not really a modification.

That's an addition of a comment.

But either way, I can have the motion expressed either way.

I took it the way that I believe architecturally is the correct way of doing it.

And that is a verbal modification, not a substantive building modification.

It's an addition of a comment.

I'll second that.

Yes, I agree with this approach because I don't, my concern is I don't want to find that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.

And so I think that this is something that, subject to the private agreement, we're essentially memorializing that we are supportive of this change and staff can improve this at the staff level.

Just to further confuse.

Exceptional and extraordinary circumstances can easily be found.

An existing non-complying structure with respect to height.

The commission is not finding any extraordinary circumstances in this particular case.

So there is a motion, commissioners, that has been seconded to not take discretionary review

and approve the project with the modifications as submitted on that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

Hi.

Hold on, we have a comment.

I verbalize this, please do not take the R.

And approve as modified based on the most recent set of drawings dated 13 November 2025.

And it just kind of just show up here today as a physical copy?

None of us got any electronic copy?

I don't believe so.

Okay.

But I think we would be accepting what's in the record as presented about the private agreement,

which were the two changes regarding the, you know,

just showing that the roof is unoccupied and no roof deck is proposed

and the notation on elevations that all heights shown are inclusive of any curbs or ellipse.

And so just to be clear, even though the action is not taking discretionary review,

we are including those.

Those will be included as part of this.

Yeah.

Very good, commissioners.

There's a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review

and approve the project with the modifications as submitted on that motion.

Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

I'm sorry.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

And Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Soh?

Aye.

So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0.

I do, however, wanted to make a comment for future projects in situations like that

when project sponsors are submitting plan in such a really last minute,

we should table this item to the next hearing, next available hearing,

because this is just a little bit out of what we try to make and retain a consistency

to get our commissioners feel confident and well-informed to the latest and current information.

Just consistent with some of our previous commission hearings,

some of my commissioners had voiced that with any flood,

we flooded with like over 50 or hundreds of letters

in the wee hours before we walked into this room.

It just, I would highly encourage

and recommend our staff to monitor this

and maybe perhaps make it very transparent

and clear to parties involved.

I think this is an exception,

but I don't want this become the new normal.

I think in these cases, Commission President,

so these are discretionary review cases

where there's a discrepancy between the two parties.

They are principally permitted projects

that wouldn't normally come to you otherwise.

Understand.

I think it's just on the premise of any most latest

breaking news moment information

that we never get to see until, you know,

not even the 11 hours, the 11 seconds, you know, I think we should, it's deserved to have,

take a little pause because, yes, I would like to recommend that just for future.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Item 11, case number 2024-005749 DRP at 45 Montclair Terrace, discretionary review.

Okay, good afternoon again, President Sohn, Commissioners, David Winslow, Planning Staff Architect.

The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application 2024-005749PRJ

to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct two new dwelling units within the RH1 zoning district.

The site is an approximately 61-foot wide by 85-foot deep lateral and upsloping lot.

The existing building is a Category C, no historic resource.

The DR requester, Stephen Sattler, resident of 2390 Hyde Street, neighbor to the northwest,

is concerned that the proposed project ignores several residential design guidelines,

making it inharmonious with its setting,

and also concerns that the project ignores geological and archaeological issues.

His proposed alternatives are to remove the ADU

and bring the project back to the city for planning revisions,

revise the roof so that it slopes as previously,

and add nuance and setbacks to the overall design.

To date, the department has received no letters in opposition,

no letters of support.

The proposed project is code complying.

As a housing accountability project, staff cannot require non-objective criteria such as residential design guidelines,

nor in this case is the project subject to the small project objective design standards, which passed, I think, last month.

This project came in some time ago in an SB 330 application locked in the rules of the day at that time.

The existing building is proposed to be demolished.

It is a legal, non-complying building with respect to the required rear yard.

The original plans did show a demolition that was only in excess of our 317 demolition, but preservation of the existing non-complying portion of the building at the rear.

The current proposal is for a full demolition.

The Department's CEQA review confirmed that the site is subject to 25-degree slope requirements,

which also included review of preliminary geotech reports that will require further geotechnical reports

and structural drawing review by the Department of Building Inspection.

The Department's staff archaeologist also conducted preliminary archaeological review

and determined that no CEQA significant archaeological resources are expected within the project-affected soils.

Therefore, staff can find no exceptional nor extraordinary circumstance that merit taking discretionary review.

Thank you.

Okay, we should hear from the discretionary review requester.

We have five minutes.

In what sense?

We put up, we put up.

We saw some slides.

You just put in your thumb drive and upload them.

Yeah.

You have a thumb drive.

Yeah.

So it's up.

It's up.

There you are.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Karen DiGiorgio.

I'm here with my husband, Stephen Sattler.

We live at 2390 Hyde Street, and we're here on behalf of the 2390 Hyde Street HOA

and the neighbors surrounding 45 Montclair Terrace, that is Block 0068, to request a review of this project.

We're looking at the letters that were sent through on February 25th and June 11th of 2025,

and our intent was to try to bring this building into full adherence with planning code requirements

and design guidelines before approval, not to block a new construction,

but to ensure that the revisions address the repeated deficiencies.

Okay.

The Planning Commission identified six categories, at least, of the current proposal

that have to be addressed by the architect.

The scope, the documentation, the design compliance, the site standards,

the unit balance, and the status.

And we are respectfully requesting that the Planning Commission conduct a discretionary review

and direct the project sponsor to adopt the staff-requested design revisions listed

and condition any approval upon demonstrated compliance with Sections 144, 207, 260B, and 317

and resolution of the plan check letters 1 and 2.

This is just a summary here, and I think you have all of this.

You've reviewed this, of the project that evolved here,

starting with the geotechnical excavation and the project in 2022, was noted as a remodeling

and did not require any other kind of soils analysis. It has evolved over the past few years

to 2024 when there were three applications made in June, and the final application was the

addition of a second unit to a single-family residence and horizontal addition, and then

in May of 2025, demolition of the existing single-family residence to be replaced with a new single-family residence.

When we received the 311 notification, we looked online, and we found all of these documents to be confusing.

And what we're looking for is some clarification as to the scope of this project.

We do not understand, and we're confused, if this is a full demolition, does that include the back wall?

and if it does include the back wall, that there are other contingencies that must be met,

and I can discuss those in just a minute.

If it's a retained back wall and it's going to be less than 50%, how does that impact this study?

So we're under the understanding that if it is a full demolition, that DBI has to determine that,

and they permit this.

And if it's a tantamount to a demolition, which is essentially a demolition,

That would be determined by lineal feet and foundational level and square footage demolition.

This, where do we go to?

Okay, never mind.

There is a slide in here that says tantamount to a demolition calculation,

and this is just a sample of how tantamount to demolition is calculated.

So planning identified some submission deficiencies in their plan check letters.

They were dimension setback requirements, street trees, and then separate existing elevations and sections and demolition calculations.

CUA noticed in plan check, I'm sorry, the Planning Commission noticed in plan check letter one that there were a number of issues identified.

One being the planning code checklist, the planning code design, the plan set revisions, the demolition CUA,

whether or not the rail wall was compliant, the proposed budget, and the additional dwelling unit.

I would just like to expand on the dwelling unit here.

They have put in a budget of $1.4 million.

According to Home Light and Home Builder Digest, the average is $500 to $800 a square foot.

You're looking at an 8,000-square-foot building,

which means that this new home would be anywhere between $4 million and $6.4 million for a new build.

And that doesn't include the demo, the new foundation, any other engineering costs that would be incurred.

According to this, we would also...

I'm going to just jump here because you can read the rest of Plan Check Letter 2.

and in summary we would like to ask planning to clarify

the scope of this project to articulate

the setbacks in negative spaces to conform with the planning

code and guidelines to follow the natural topography of the neighborhood

and to look at clarification

of whether or not that back wall is part of a full or partial demo.

Can I just finish my last sentence here?

You have a two-minute rebuttal, so you can finish your thoughts then.

Okay, great.

You have a two-minute rebuttal after this.

Oh, after this.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Yaku Askew, project architect with YA Studio.

Thank you very much.

And the project before you is a demolition of a single-family residence to be replaced with a two-family residence.

The project is fully in compliant with the planning code as well as with the Housing Accountability Act.

I can be here available for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, we should take public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission.

on this project?

Ma'am, public comment.

So people who are not party to the discretionary review

or the project sponsor.

Good afternoon.

So I'm a neighbor of this proposed project.

I live across the street.

I have a home on Montclair Terrace

that my family and I have lived in for over 10 years.

I've raised my kids on this street.

And for all these challenges of this street, which I'll explain, we love it.

We love the character, and we support this DR request.

We understand all the neighbors support the DR request, including ones that couldn't be here today.

I'm not aware of one neighbor that supports this project.

The person, the owner of this project, has not lived in this street yet.

If they did, they'd know why we are asking for this.

Send this project back.

And the main reason I'm asking for you to send it back is for the front setback.

This Montclair Terrace is a small alley that leads into a cul-de-sac off the Crooked Street.

It's just wide enough for two vehicles.

And on that narrow alleyway, one side is for parking.

So if a car is coming or going, that's it.

If two cars come, one has to make way.

And we as neighbors, we accommodate that.

Now, how is that relevant here?

It's because the way the street has been built in terms of the homes, they're all set back.

They're all set back at 15 feet or further back as the floors build.

And so you have these homes, especially on the west side, that are set back.

And their setback, like me, somebody my size, sitting back, welcoming you.

Sir, you need to speak in the microphone, please.

The difference of this project, it's like me getting in your face on the street.

And it's just not appropriate.

If you guys come to the crooked street, walk down this street, you'll see what I'm talking about.

I'm not asking to eliminate the ADU.

I'm not asking to eliminate the elevator they're putting in.

I'm asking for them to conform to the setbacks that characterize this small highway.

Thank you, sir. That is your time.

Thank you.

Hello. Thank you, commissioners.

My name is Karen Bruhl, and I represent myself and my husband, Anton Bruhl.

We live at 935 Chestnut Street, so we're not really adjacent to this house.

but I'm just very empathetic about the neighborhood.

These are our concerns.

Number one, it is our understanding that the geological report was done some time ago

and was not applied to the current plans of demolition, digging, and size and weight of the now proposed building.

Neighboring homes could be adversely affected from ground instability and experience wall cracking at the least.

Number two, the doubling of square footage by bringing the house out to the curb of the street,

out to other property lines, and then up to the height limit with no pitched roof,

eliminates views, light, and air from adjacent homes,

and will significantly decrease resale value of these homes.

Number three, there's been no consideration for the project to fit in with

and be an architectural good neighbor to the existing homes on the street.

Number four, the architect and owner seem to be gaming the system

by including a 600-square-foot extra unit

and leaving one existing wall to get around some rules.

Number five, the city is under great pressure to build housing,

but this demolition and rebuild will do nothing to ease the housing shortage.

It seems like a very selfish and opportunistic endeavor, not renovation with respect.

Number six, due to the size of this demolition and rebuild, the size of the equipment needed

and the length of construction time will be a nightmare for tourists and homeowners

accessing the curvy part of Lombard Street and the narrow road of Montclair.

Thank you.

Hi. I appreciate your patience. This is a long day. My name is John Kelly. I live at 33 Montclair, right next door to this proposed project.

And I just want to read a little bit of a description of Montclair Terrace from ChatGPT.

Montclair Terrace steps are tucked in the Russian Hill neighborhood. They climb from Chestnut up to the Montclair Terrace.

Because Russian Hill is one of the most steep, picturesque neighborhoods filled with stairways, narrow lanes, and great viewpoints, the walk feels more like a hidden city.

The steps themselves are modest in height as you climb the residential houses,

you pose a steep slope, lush hillside gardens, and likely fewer crowds.

Montclair Terrace offers a vantage point, et cetera, et cetera.

Our house has those gardens.

And the two women who owned 45 Montclair for over 50 years had the lush gardens

that made this a tourist stop.

I'm imploring you, there is a preservation element to your jobs.

you're preserving one of the most significant tourist stops in the city.

I mean, I don't know why people come to the Montclair Stairs or Lombard Curvy Street,

but they do nonstop seven days a week.

The second piece of this is it's clearly taking advantage of SBU 330.

You know, at the Up Growth Conference, there are apparently 70,000 vacant units right now.

So this proposal is to add 70,001 vacant units.

And this proposal, why 1.4 million?

I can't even put a new bathroom in my house for that much.

This is going to easily exceed $10 million

when you take in all the foundation work

and the construction of this new home.

But oddly, that didn't make it into the proposal.

So these people have $10 million to build this house.

The Sun is a senior executive at a billion-dollar startup.

This is all about taking advantage of SBU 330 to build their dream house on a location that should not exist.

And where is Diane?

If I was building my dream home for $10 million plus, I'd be here.

Thank you, sir. That is your time.

I'm advocating for that project.

Hi, I'm Lori Collier. I live at 44 Montclair Terrace, directly across the street from the house we're discussing.

And I want to second briefly the comments of my neighbors.

Montclair Terrace is a very charming street in a very unique neighborhood.

It is a one-lane road. Cars are parked on one side, they drive on the other.

two cars cannot fit side by side passing on the street. So it is, in effect, a one-lane road.

There are currently 10 houses on Montclair Terrace. That's it, just 10. Three of them are

currently undergoing construction. And with the three houses that are currently undergoing

construction, there is always a truck parked in the road. Five minutes, just five minutes.

I just need to unload this wood five minutes.

But that five minutes, 20 times a day,

means you can't get in or out of your home.

There is, on 45, there's a red zone right in front of the property.

And every day, six days a week, there's a truck,

a construction worker or a yard person truck,

parked in the red zone.

And I can't actually get out of my driveway if a truck is parked in.

So I have to go find the guy and ask him to move his truck.

And it becomes problematic.

And I am saying this because I want to say it's an impossibility to live on the street

and have them build this monstrosity slash office building.

Also, the ADU really is a scam.

I mean, they're not going to rent that out.

And I wonder if we have any checks to see, OK, so they built an ADU.

Are they actually renting it, or was it just a scam?

I don't know.

I would be curious to see if we can do that.

Thank you.

Commissioners, thank you.

My name is George Carey.

I live at 2310 Hyde, which is right above Montclair Terrace

on the corner of Hyde and Lombard.

I don't want to take up your time in repeating what has been said before.

I think it's been well presented.

Just add one element for your consideration.

I heard that there were no archaeological issues with respect to the project.

There are heritage trees that are right on the border of this lot.

There are huge cypress trees that, from my understanding,

have been there since this was the Phoebe Hearst property 100 years ago.

Those trees, it would seem to me, are very vulnerable to excavation on this site

to the extent that is being described here.

I don't know if that's within your purview, but if it is, I'd ask you to take that into account as well.

George Wolff

My name is George Wolff.

I live on 2350 Hyde, which is directly behind this building and also behind 33 Montclair Terrace.

This project is not compatible with the design guidelines as to the scale of the building,

the patterns of the building, the architectural features of the building,

it's not compatible at all with the design guidelines.

I don't see how the planning department can say it is.

Montclair Terrace was a private street.

It's a very small street, very narrow.

The street was developed in the 30s, 40s, and 50s.

They're all smaller-scale homes, about 3,000 feet or less.

This existing one is 4,000-something already,

and also is already the biggest house in this block as far as a single-family home goes.

At one end is a nice standalone Rousseau house.

At the other end is a Gardner-Daily house.

Now, this property is built to the maximum dimensions of this lot.

This building is going to be as big as the Willis-Polk building on the corner of Lombard and Hyde.

It's even bigger than that.

And that's a corner home, and it has a big rear yard to it.

This home is going to involve deep excavation into the hills.

There's going to be shoring necessary to hold this up.

There's going to be cranes and excavators here.

This is going to be a major project for a little tiny street.

It's completely out of the character of the neighborhood.

The existing home is sufficient.

There was a beginning of a remodel to that home.

And then it stopped for some reason.

We don't actually know why.

But this home is big enough for 10 to 12 people.

Why do you need a home for 10 to 12 if it's a single family

home?

That's a pretty big family.

It could be a speculative home, I suppose,

for other purposes other than being a single family home.

Thank you, sir.

That is your time.

Thank you.

Last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

In the DR requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

Thank you.

Given the comments here about the ADU, it's specious at best, and it's disingenuous.

This is not an ADU.

It's a facility.

It's a room, essentially, or two rooms that are built for a nanny, an in-law, a guest who's coming to the house.

This is not to be rented out for a family.

And I think that the architect actually knew that because in the first drawings, they put a two-burner unit in there.

This architect has built plenty of ADUs, plenty of facilities.

He knows that to build an ADU, you need four burners.

Why would he propose and try to slip in?

two burners in a two-room, maybe, facility that's 650 square feet in an 8,000-square-foot building.

This is not going to be rented out.

This is going to be used for a nanny, an in-law, something like that, a visiting guest.

Secondly, and to Mr. Braun's comment, the devil's in the details.

We don't have any details for this proposal at all.

The architect has refused any of the changes.

They say understood and refused to any recommendations that were made.

Not one recommendation was accepted.

We respectfully request that SF Planning send these drawings and applications back to the sponsor, back to the architect,

and asked them for revisions and clarifications based on the planning recommendations

and the true intent of what an ADU is for.

They did this so that they could bypass this process.

That's not fair.

It's not fair to the people who have made an investment into this community

nor to the design of what this was intended for.

This is not going to be an extra family moving in.

okay project sponsor you have a two-minute rebuttal I just wanted to

clarify a couple things one is that in in addition to a code-compliant rear yard

the project has a 10-foot front setback and to five yard five foot side yard

setbacks thank you okay commissioners with that this

matters now before you Commissioner Brown I have two questions that are

ultimately related so the first one is the accessory dwelling unit that's being

included as part of the project what program is that coming in under is that

a state ADU?

Yes.

I believe it is a state ADU.

It's a state ADU.

OK, so that's enabled by state law.

So then that leads to a second set of questions,

which I think goes to the city attorney, which is,

as I understand it, correct me on this if I'm wrong,

because this is now a two-unit project

and because the ADU itself is legally permitted

under the state law. I believe this falls under the Housing Accountability Act. And would you mind

just kind of walking through, if that's the case, what our level of latitude is under state law to

make changes to the project? What threshold needs to be met?

Sure. So Deputy City Attorney Austin Yang. So Commissioner Braun, the Housing Accountability

Act applies to residential projects that have two or more units when those projects are code

complying. And to be code complying, it means that it complies with objective standards that

were in place and knowable to the public at the time the application was filed.

If a project is code complying and consistent with the Housing Accountability Act,

then the commission has, and the city has,

limited discretion to reduce the density or otherwise deny the project.

It can only do that if it makes certain findings related to public health and safety

by the preponderance of the evidence.

And those findings also have to be based on standards that are knowable at the time that the application was filed.

And also quantified.

The reason we've made the transition from the residential design guidelines to more recently objective design standards is because our residential design guidelines, as I understand it, are not quantitative, quantifiable.

They don't fall under the objective requirements under HAA?

Well, I would defer to staff ultimately, but there are some standards in the design guidelines that are objective.

The transition to the objective design standards that the commission made earlier this year or last year

was intended to ensure that there were more objective standards that could be applied to projects

that submitted applications after the date that those design standards were adopted.

Okay, thank you.

My question then for David Winslow is, you know, one of the biggest concerns raised by the neighbors and that I also see with this project is the setback of the project and how, you know, I think it's both the bulk and mass of the project basically kind of maxing out what's allowed in that envelope or I don't know actually where I'm going with this with you is whether it's allowed.

And then also the setback at the front of the property, you know, we often try to use, via the RDGs, the articulation between the facades of the neighboring buildings, or rather averaging between facades of front facades of the neighboring buildings and their setbacks.

Does this project meet whatever quantifiable objective criteria we have when it comes to bulk massing setbacks?

Yes, as I stated in my case report.

So it meets the planning code, and I can elaborate on some of the setbacks specifically.

But if we were to, and we can't apply the newly approved objective design standards

because they weren't knowable at the time that this project applied for its SB 330.

Could you speak a little louder?

Yeah.

Thank you.

So, yeah, the current objective design standards are not applicable to this project.

The code compliance with respect to the setbacks in this lot are 30% rear guard requirement,

which then allows a two-story pop-out such that it's to the 25% rear lot depth,

25% from the rear lot line, subject to five-foot side setbacks from each property line.

This has that.

Additionally, as I think was mentioned and brought up in the DR requester's testimony,

there was a standard about narrow streets.

This is a 25-foot wide lane.

We have requirements for that which stipulate that the building must be stepped back from the front 10 feet from the property line

at a height of 1.25 times the width of that street.

This does that by virtue of the 10-foot front setback that's proposed.

Okay, thank you for that.

You know, I agree with the DR requester.

You know, I think that with the points being made, I'll say,

I don't think that this project as designed would comply with our objective design standards that we have today

if they were applicable to the project, which is more an issue of when those were adopted relative to the Housing Accountability Act that applies to this project.

I also, yeah, I don't think the residential design guidelines that this project complies with them,

but they can't legally be applied to the project because, at least from my perspective and all my understanding in all staff's analysis,

because, again, you know, this being subject to the Housing Accountability Act, which is by virtue of the second unit, which is included under state law.

So two different state laws have basically tied our hands on this one from my perspective.

And I guess I would just say to the project sponsor, I mean, maybe my question just to you is,

why not consider a little bit of modifications to the project?

Why is the bulk being so sort of maxed out?

Why is the front setback being kind of maxed out within the building envelope?

I'd say that we have potential to continue to modify the project to reduce it from this

volume.

I think that's something we can continue to look at.

I don't know that that's on the table right now.

We're at the very beginning of this process.

We're going to get structural engineers involved and we have to go through the geotech reports

and whatnot.

So the practicalities of building a big house on this lot are going to definitely come into

play.

but right now this is you know to the program that my client was hoping for and so that's the project

that we have proposed uh before you okay thank you i would say it it feels like a little it feels

like a little bit of a cynical um approach of sort of really taking everything possible because of

the moment in time when the project was proposed and the requirements were locked under sb 330

and this home is going to exist on a street with neighbors and i you know i don't believe i have the

ability to mandate changes, but I would certainly forcefully advocate that some of the neighbors'

considerations be taken into consideration, the project be modified to be a little bit more

sensitive to the neighbors and their concerns. There's no harm in just trying to be a better

neighbor, but that's about as much power as I believe I have on this one. And then I also

appreciate the concerns about the

geology of the site. That part is

part of the DBI's

purview, and there will be

additional scrutiny applied to

that part of it. So it's

kind of part of the next steps and not really

part of my purview here.

Thank you. Let me pick

up where Commissioner Brown

left off. He

reflects my sentiment to the extent

that I am not really quite sure

why this is a DR

because we do not have anything

to add. Basically, as you described, our hands are

tight, and just a little bit ironic

that we're doing something which

doesn't serve any purpose at all.

From a Housing Accountability

Act, I would like to ask Sacramento, why is

a commission being required to look at a project like that

when there is not even any kind of housing or unit parity implied here,

because that would be a mission that we would definitely joyfully embrace

and discuss a project of making a contribution that is indeed in line

with supporting unit demolition and advocating for an enlarged unit

to help the housing crisis.

This particular project, based on the express desires that Mr. Eskew described, seems to be just asking all for itself.

Me, me, me, me.

And I regret to see that in any of our neighborhoods.

And I regret that the standards that we are allowed to use are not a little bit more sensitive to the totality of how it comes together for everybody.

I happen to know that street quite well.

I do not have any friends or acquaintances on the street.

However, given the incredible load of traffic on Lombard,

on the curvy part of Lombard itself,

the street is already really squeezed in as maximally as any street could be.

And when one of the residents described her needing to ask some car,

which is parked on the street, to move because she wants to get out,

I think that best describes a necessity that this type of living arrangement requires everybody to work with each other.

That doesn't mean that you have to be friends, but you at least need to get along in some form or another.

I don't have any objections to a contemporary house.

And in principle, I think Mr. Eskew's work contributes to contemporary architecture in a way that could create a house on that particular street,

which would be very pleasant and a good neighbor.

but I would agree with that this particular rendition is far too large

and not really dealing with the subtleties of the total setting as it is,

not to talk about the endangered trees, et cetera, et cetera, which are not addressed.

What surprised me in your own verbal presentation, Mr. Heske,

is the fact that you talked about demolition.

This project is not a CU, which it would be if it is a total demolition.

You used the word demolition.

So if you could, perhaps you could clarify for the commission that what in front of us is a DR,

but you mentioned it being a demolition,

which would require a different way of how this project is processed and being looked at.

Correct. So the project is a full demolition and new construction of two units.

Have we seen a west elevation of this building?

I only saw a west elevation which showed the existing building.

I don't recall seeing a west elevation that is the new building.

A west elevation of the new building?

But why then is it not a CU?

Yep.

Do you have it by any chance?

Thank you.

Sure, no problem.

Good to see you all, Commissioners.

Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator.

Commissioner Moore, just to answer your question.

So when we had the, what was called the Constraints

Reduction Ordinance passed, and we now kind of have two parts

of the city that kind of operate under different rules

in certain ways.

We have the priority equities geography, special use district,

and then the areas that fall outside of that.

The areas that fall outside of that,

If you are doing a full demolition, full demolition or de facto demolition, but the project is going to result in a net increase in units,

then it no longer requires the conditional use authorization for that demolition.

That's why this project, because it's going from one to two, does not, it is a demolition.

As proposed, it's a 100% full demolition.

but under the code now because of its location outside of that SUD,

it does not require a conditional use authorization under the code.

So I hope that helps clear that up.

Yeah, it makes it more confusing.

That is all I could say.

But while I have you, Mr. T, could you please answer a question for me?

The project is within the Family Senior Housing SUD.

Does that have any effect on any of what we're talking about here?

Not necessarily.

That SUD created more of an opt-in program for projects to use as opposed to mandatory

restrictions on projects within that SUD.

So to my knowledge, that SUD would not have any impact on this project.

And unit parity does not play a role or asking for unit parity does not play a role

here at all?

Correct.

Under today's code, there's no provision of the code that would require any kind of

parity here.

As you may recall, one of the elements that is included in the family zoning plan that's

going forward would address some of these issues about minimum densities and unit parity

if that were to pass as proposed, but under the current code that is not included in a

way that would impact this project.

And the only thing that's left from, thank you, Mr. Tick, for explaining that, the only

thing that's left for me is to really ask the architect, that is Mr. Eskew, to look

back at some of the issues raised in plan check letters one and two relative to the massing

and potential modifications of the shape of the building because that is, I think, one

of the biggest issues here because we're having a big, bulky, pretty singularly formed building

sitting in the context that creates all the subtleties of sensitive urban living.

And I think while the project has architectural features which I fully support, it is ultimately

in the totality of the massing and the lack of response

to some of the subtleties that are being asked

whether project lacks.

And I've worked with you on many, many difficult projects.

Not to talk about, you know which one they are.

I would ask that this project needs a little bit more tweaking.

And for a single person to have a 7,985 square foot building

square foot building in addition to the ADU, which comes in addition to that, which he

doesn't, he or she does not have to rent, can't stay empty, but because there are no

walls which require it to be rented.

I think that person wouldn't even notice that there are some tweaks and tucks on the building.

Nobody would notice that.

Noted.

Thank you.

Commission of Campbell.

I think all of my questions have been answered except for one, and I think maybe, Mr. Teague,

maybe you can help me understand this, is why the rear yard setbacks don't have to be met.

I mean, this project does fully comply with the required rear yard, which is a 30% requirement.

And then, as Mr. Winslow detailed, we allow what we've always kind of called as a pop-out, which would allow you to go to the 25% line.

I see. That makes sense.

Okay. Thank you.

Are there any other commissioner comments? I do not see any.

Commissioner Brown.

Given the lack of our ability to mandate any changes to the project, I'm going to move to not take discretionary review and to approve.

But I do hope the project sponsor, the client, will take our comments and the neighbor's comments to heart and explore some adjustments to the project.

Second.

Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing.

I have another question, if I may.

I would like to ask the architect,

is there anything, and I'm not trying to throw you

into some unanswerable conflict here,

is there anything in the conversations

that you have witnessed that inspired you

to potentially rethink this building in a particular way?

Can you rephrase that question for me?

Sorry.

We cannot, there are two ways with the DR.

There's this question to comment and make suggestions,

which I think we have done in a subtle way

without really limiting architectural creativity, etc.

Is there anything which struck you that anybody said

that could potentially be a spark to rethink the building?

Yeah, I mean, I think as an architect who takes pride in our ability

to work with our context that we're working within

and born and raised in San Francisco,

I take pride in ensuring that our neighborhoods

are vibrant and architecturally pleasing.

I don't want to do a project that is not fitting into the context.

So we will continue to look at the design of this project

and refine it as we can.

We need to work with our clients, of course,

but take into heart the comments that we've heard here today

and we did hear all the comments from our neighbors as well.

I think everyone would like to have positive relationships

with their neighbors in the future

and so we are going to continue to work with our neighbors

and communicate with our neighbors.

We have a construction project ahead of us if all goes well

and we're going to want to work with them as best as we can

to ensure that everyone's lives are minimally impacted.

So that's in, I think, everyone's best interest

and we would hope to be a part of that process

to make it as smooth as possible.

Would architect Winslow remain a conversation partner with you on that?

What was that?

Well, only on a voluntary as-needed basis.

I always provide my available time to bounce ideas off of people,

but once a project is approved, it's approved,

and I have no power to insist on something that we don't have the power to do.

So, Commissioner Brown, you made a motion.

You hear me what I'm trying to drive at.

I'm not trying to ask for particular modifications.

I'm asking for an ongoing reasonable discussion between everybody who is involved.

Absolutely.

Yes.

Mr. McGarry, please.

Commissioner McGarry.

I'd like to stress to the architect on record that basically one must always get on one's

neighbors.

My mother's, one of her famous lines, you'll be gone to the next project, but you will

leave that one person, your client right now, in close proximity with his neighbors.

So if you could do that, take everything into account that you've heard today.

and basically I would add it to your, how would you put it,

your community outreach that basically when you leave

you've left this project on the best possible footing,

not just the architectural footing,

but with the relationships that will be ongoing

for a long, long time between the neighbours.

So I suggest you take that into account.

terrible moral obligation to put on you, but technically we can't put an obligation upon you,

and that's why we're stressing the way we're stressing here today. But I do hear all the

neighbours, and they've got serious concerns, so please try to adhere to them, and they're not

necessarily straight lines on an architectural page. But, you know, take some inspiration from

that curvature of Lombard around the corner there and see if we can come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Thank you.

Thanks, everybody, for weighing in.

Okay, Commissioners.

There is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed.

On that motion, Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

No.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

So move commissioners that motion passes 4 to 1 with commissioner Imperial voting against.

And that concludes your hearing today commissioners.

Thank you.