Good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission first hearing of the new

calendar year for Thursday, January 15, 2026.

When we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on

the screen side of the room or to your right.

Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 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.

I'd like to take roll at this time, Commission President So.

Present.

Commission Vice President Moore.

Here.

Commissioner Braun.

Here.

Commissioner Campbell.

Here.

Commissioner Imperial.

Here.

Commissioner McGarry.

Present.

And Commissioner Williams.

Here.

Thank you, Commissioners.

First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

Item 1, case number 2025-009847, CUA at 760 Bryant Street.

Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to January 22, 2026.

Item 2, case number 2025-010671, PCA, expansion of limited commercial uses.

Planning code amendments is proposed for continuance to January 22, 2026.

Item 3, case number 2024-005242, CUA 2089, Engle Street.

Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to January 22, 2026,

as is item 8 under commission matters, election of officers.

Proposed for continuance to January 22nd 2026. I have no other items proposed for continuance

So we should take public comment members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the Commission on

Their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance you need to come forward

Seeing none public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you commissioners

Commissioner Braun?

Move to continue items 1, 2, 3, and 8 as proposed.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to continue items as proposed, Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

7 to 0, placing us under your consent calendar.

And I understand for item 4, case number 2025-002411CUA at 303424th Street, conditional use authorization.

Commissioner Williams, you're requesting that this be pulled off of consent and heard under the regular calendar?

Yes.

Okay.

In that case, commissioners, we'll take that up at the beginning of the regular calendar.

Very good.

That will place us under Commission Matters,

Item 5, the land acknowledgement.

The Commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland

of the Ramatush Ohlone,

who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous stewards of this land,

and in accordance with their traditions,

the Ramatush Ohlone have never ceded, lost,

nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place,

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

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

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

and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

Thank you.

Item 6, consideration of adoption draft minutes for December 11th and December 18th, 2025.

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

Again, you need to come forward seeing none.

Public comment is closed.

Your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Imperial.

Move to adopt the minutes.

Second.

Thank you, commissioners.

On that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commission President So?

Aye.

So move, Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0.

Item 7, Commission, comments and questions.

Commissioner Moore?

Happy New Year to everybody.

I hope it will be a good year for all of us.

I'd like to acknowledge the receipt of a memo from Matt Snyder informing us about the completion of the IPIC report

That stands for Interagency Plan Implementation Committee Report.

I would suggest that the commission ask for a presentation.

It is always a really exciting document to see what has happened over the year,

and we are asked to ask, and that is what I am here with doing.

So please support that we are getting an IPIC report from Matt.

Last year, everybody was really enthusiastic here in progress

on major projects and major initiatives,

and I think this would be a second great opportunity

for hearing something positive at the beginning of the new year.

Do we need to make, just acknowledge that we would like to hear it?

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Williams?

Thank you.

Yes, I have a couple of questions for planning.

Regarding our housing element action,

8.1.10, the so-called breaker switch or trigger, and I'd like to read it into the record.

8.1.10.

January 2026, the Interagency Housing Element Implementation Committee,

C-Action 4.1.4 will assess if the city has approved the appropriate housing units by income level to meet RHNA goals.

If the city is behind the pro-rata affordable housing production goals, the Interagency Housing Element Implementation Committee should trigger, one, increase of additional city funding for affordable housing and pursuit of additional state funding.

to increase the land banking strategy to accommodate 50% more affordable housing units

than the capacity of the sites acquired from 2022 through 2025.

The city will implement these actions in consultation with HCD.

So I have a couple of questions.

And one is, do we have an update from the interagency housing element implementation committee?

Commissioner Williams, so the circuit breaker, just to be clear, is defined on how we reach our housing goals by January 2027, not 2026.

so we're about a year out from that circuit breaker target so no we don't

have an update we will as we get closer to that point in time January 2027 so

okay because my understanding is it's it's 2026 I guess we'll have to I'll

have to research it a little bit more we'd be happy to provide the full

Commission with materials from our former housing this is regarding the

housing element, the recent, our current housing element. Okay. All right. But I think it's worth

mentioning that has there been any conversation, even though it's not 2027, around housing,

affordable housing funding with the state or additional city funding? Has any of those

conversations been had and have has the interagency housing element

implementation committee have they met recently do you have an update on that

I don't I don't I'll have to get back to you on that committee and then you know

are the mayor's office of housing is our primary conduit to the state and to the

city regarding the local regarding funding for affordable housing so we'll

be happy to update you I'm sure they're constantly in communication okay do you

do you know who's on the committee I just just just curious because I don't

know much about the committee but it's interesting nor do I Commissioner we'll

we'll get back to you on that okay so that would that would be that would be

helpful to understand who's on the committee and exactly what they're

doing in regards to affordable housing funding given the fact you know the

information coming out of the the federal government on cutting affordable

fund housing funding across across the country and and the lack of affordable

housing funding in general whether it's coming from the state or from the city

So I think it's a conversation I think we should keep front and center, and I'll keep asking,

and hopefully we could work on that as a city to make sure that we have an abundance of funding for affordable housing,

because it's in great need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams?

so as we open our first planning commission hearing of 2026 i want to begin by expressing

my sincere appreciation to my fellow commissioners our exceptional planning department staff our

partners across city departments and agency i also want to acknowledge our board of supervisors

and thank mayor lorry for his leadership and for the today's state of the city message

So above all, we are here on behalf of everyday people who lived and work and build their futures in San Francisco.

The mayor reminded us that this is a city on the rise.

Public safety is the foundation of our recovery, and economic confidence is returning.

Last year alone, one million square feet of office space was leased to AI companies.

Our shared responsibility to approach our work with common sense, to strengthen coordination

among departments, to remain committed to open dialogue, and to keep our attention to

improving systems so they better serve our city.

It is a collaborative work, and it's about progress.

It's about delivering results for San Francisco.

I'd like to open our first hearing of this year with a tone of collaborative and positive

of spirit. Thank you, Commissioners. If there's nothing further, Commissioners, we can move

on to Department Matters, Item 9, Director's Announcements. Welcome back, Commissioners.

Glad to embark on another year with you, and I share President Tso's spirit of collaboration.

Really, really grateful to have you committing to another year of work with our Department

and our city, so thank you very much.

A couple of things.

So this morning was Mayor Lurie's State of the City address.

Two key points I just wanted to call out from that,

and I encourage you, if you haven't already reviewed

his remarks, to do so.

One, he focused very much on next steps towards affordability

writ large, per Commissioner Williams' comments,

both setting forth targets for affordable housing starts

and adjacent complementary works at increasing affordability for our families

through the family zoning plan, which we are just now starting to embark upon implementation of,

through reductions in costs for child care and for education and a number of other measures.

So that's very exciting.

Secondarily, and much closer to home here in the planning department,

And Mayor Leary announced the launch of a process to begin unifying the planning department,

the Department of Building Inspection, and the Permit Center.

That move is intended to support housing, small businesses, and economic development

by creating a more coordinated, accountable, and transparent system as you move forward

from kind of the vision that we create through our general plan and our processes here at

Planning all the way to through when buildings are constructed or businesses are opened in

our city.

We're excited about that. It's going to be a long process. It's about 18 months, we think,

with many measures along the way for public input, including some votes on the charter coming up.

So we'll be, you know, we're excited about helping to guide that process and really making

sure the outcome is something that benefits San Franciscans and our city as well. Thank you.

No questions?

Oh, Commissioner Imperio has a follow-up coming.

Thank you.

Thank you for the update.

I have just a follow-up question on the planning process for the unification of, I guess, unification or merging of the planning and DBI.

and whether in terms of the input process for it,

will that be something that will be happening here as well in the planning commission

or how will that take place?

We're building all the ships as we fly them.

So, I mean, there's no plan.

We'll take public input at any points that make sense.

Yeah, and I'm also thinking about, I believe next week we're going to talk about the budget as well

by next week. That is correct. And so that's something for me that I'm also thinking in terms

of merging this and also in the process of the will to do this and also I'm pretty sure there's

also charter changes that may need to happen that will go through the voters. But perhaps by next

week I will probably have more better comments to put out. But in terms of the departments we're

having for me. Again, I always reiterate the equity, the community equity, and how it's all

going to, the future of it within the planning. So I also want to put that in the heart as well

when we are talking about this merging of departments. But yeah, but that's something

for me that I would like to, perhaps we can have more conversation when it comes to the budget as

well for next year. Commissioner Imperial, maybe two responses to that just while you raised it.

One, I think part of the rationale for exploring this change is simply to make a simple, clear,

and unified system that actually works better for our partners who are out there as homeowners or

small businesses who can't afford lobbyists, who can't afford land use attorneys, so that we have

a clear and simple system. So I think equity is at the heart of the rationale for this move in the

first place, which we're excited about. Secondarily, yes, we welcome more questions next week as part

of budget. You will see our budget memo in your packets as of tomorrow. It does not reflect this

change. And I will not have better answers for your questions as of next week. So I welcome the

questions and we'll work on answering them together. But just know that this was an announcement today

and so we'll be working on responses to the questions over the medium term and I won't have

better answers in a week. Yeah, no, I totally understand that part. And yeah, I guess I'm just

gonna, as we go by it, we're gonna tackle it as it goes by. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, item 10, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors.

There is no report from the Board of Appeals, but the Historic Preservation Commission did meet last

week. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Audrey Maloney, Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs.

The Land Use and Transportation Committee did meet this week, but they did not consider any planning-related items.

On the other hand, the full board had several planning-related items.

The most significant of them was the appeal of the Planning Department's issuance of an emergency CEQA statutory exemption

for the disassembly and removal of the Embarcadero Fountain at Embarcadero Plaza.

The appeal, Reckon Park proposed the project to address an immediate public safety risk

by removing and storing the fountain off-site,

while further investigating the structural deterioration and hazardous materials.

The appeal was filed by Documomo USA,

whose representative argued that the project did not qualify for an emergency exemption

and required a full environmental impact report.

The department responded that the exemption was warranted due to a safety emergency identified in an engineering report.

The report cited severe structural deficiencies, failure of a 10-ton arm, hazardous materials, and repeated security breaches.

The department also asserted that there was no pre-commitment or piecemealing related to the Embarcadero Plaza renovation.

Supervisor Chan asked about project funding to better understand how the removal and storage would be paid for.

Supervisor Fielder raised concerns about Rec and Park's funding priorities,

given that there are Rec and Park facilities in her district that she feels are also in great need of repair.

Supervisor Melgar spoke to remind the board of the matter before them,

which was whether or not the CEQA review was adequate or whether further review was required.

And then Supervisor Sauter, who presides over the district where the fountain is located,

stated that after reviewing the materials, he is convinced that the fountain poses a significant public safety hazard

and therefore qualifies for the emergency statutory exemption.

Approximately 16 members of the public spoke in support of the appeal, and 10 spoke in opposition to the appeal.

The board unanimously, I'm sorry, ultimately upheld the emergency statutory exemption.

They denied the appeal by a 10-to-1 vote with Supervisor Fielder in the dissent.

Also at the full board this week, the ordinance that makes the zoning map changes to allow the construction of a fire department training facility at 1236 Carroll passed its second read.

And the ordinance that makes changes to the definition of family also passed its second read.

This concludes my report, but I'm always available for questions.

Thanks.

If there are no questions, the Historic Preservation Commission met last Wednesday.

and re-nominated commissioners Matsuda and Foley as president and vice president, respectively.

And among other action items, they adopted recommendations for approval for a number of legacy business registry applications,

Digital Revolution on 9th Street, Roccapulco on Mission Street, Tsingtao Restaurant on Clement Street,

Family Billiards on Gary Boulevard, the Book Club of America on Kearney Street,

Bulo Shoes on Hayes Street, and the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus on Valencia Street.

Commissioners, I'll place this under general public comment. At this time, members of the

public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within

the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items,

your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached

in the meeting.

When the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved

to the end of the agenda.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Durantler. Align Real Estate is the developer of the

proposed Marina Safeway and developed 2177 Third Street. The condo units on Third Street

should not have been sold. The building permit issued over eight years ago expired and was

null and void. The expired permit should not have been finaled by DBI on November 14, 2025.

This is a copy of the permit. You can see Inspector Teneda finaled it. It shouldn't have been finaled.

Additional building permits issued to Third Street expired and are null and void,

and a temporary occupancy certificate should not have been issued.

The first TCO was issued in July of 2020.

It's been out there for five years.

Under the building code, TCOs should not exceed 12 months.

I'm going to skip the next point.

This is the most serious thing.

DBI altered the Third Street building permit records in the PTS system, and altering public records is illegal.

This is the $200,000 expired demolition permit that was also finaled on November 14, 2025.

Note there are no DBI inspections.

This is an admin permit that was issued in July of 2025, finaled on the same day by the same inspector,

to final three expired permits.

Note that one of them is a $500,000 crane permit.

This is an illustration showing two snapshots of the $43 million permit, one on May 8 and the other on September 2 of 2025.

This is the special inspection block at the bottom of the permit, and I've highlighted the things that were changed.

So basically, all the special inspections were approved over five years ago, but DVI inserted a new one.

And you can see how the two inspections don't align.

The same thing is...

I'm sorry.

So the question really is, why is this going on?

And are you folks going to do something about it?

Because I made this presentation at the July BIC meeting,

and DBI's response was to improperly approve three

permits.

Now, there's another aligned project

across the street from DBI on Otis Street that's four times

larger.

And if the commission president will give me three minutes,

I can go through that project as well.

Thank you.

Any other additional general public comment?

Last call for general public comment.

So respectfully appreciate all your effort,

but I am so sorry that I like to stay with the rules of the meeting,

that everyone has three minutes.

I'm so sorry, but really appreciate you, though.

I would assume you will come back again.

Thank you.

Happy New Year to you all.

I'm Georgia Schutte.

Hope everyone has a good year.

I'm just going to say something really quickly,

otherwise I'd give Jerry my extra time.

But I don't know if you come in through the basement.

There's a, I just saw it really quickly on the way up here,

and I didn't really get to look at it closely.

It's wonderful, wonderful, wonderful historic photographs of San Francisco.

I don't know what, there's no sign saying the theme is

and who did, what the story is.

But it's, I really recommend everyone go down there

and spend time and look at them and sort of revel in the glory,

past glory of San Francisco.

and think about it in terms of the rezoning maybe too.

I just thought that was interesting timing

that the rezoning is going to affect

and there's all these wonderful historic photos down there.

So I recommend it to everybody.

Thanks.

Good afternoon.

Someone lost their sunglasses.

I'm Tom Radulovich with Livable City.

Happy New Year to you all.

What I wanted to talk about was Permit SF and kind of just generally the philosophy behind it and what I would like you to do as regards Permit SF.

There's a few things going on with Permit SF.

A lot of it is getting rid of and debugging, you know, like a whole bunch of rules that get in the way of private individuals doing things that they want to do for themselves, which turn out to be good for the rest of us.

And getting rid of all that stuff is great.

And I have advocated for and brought this department hundreds of pages of legislation that I believe does that thing.

And there's a lot more of that left to do.

It's a worthwhile approach, and we'd like you to be diligent about that.

A lot of stuff people want to do is kind of neutral.

We don't know if it's good for the public or not.

Maybe it's like, yeah, well, you get to do it.

We don't know.

Like, we don't need the planning department going through everyone's panty drawer all the time.

the one that does concern me is when people are being given permission to do something which

actually does diminishes or degrades the public realm right this is the the commons the part of

the city that we all share and I've seen a few pieces of legislation go by that do that and I

think those are destructive and I'm asking you to be more discerning about those pieces when they

come forward to you a lot of the focus and I can think about the pull down grates and shutters

is, well, we have a lot of enforcement actions, and just getting rid of the rule entirely gets

rid of all these enforcement actions. You could get rid of 100% of enforcement actions by getting

rid of 100% of the rules, but that would create other problems. And I would say enforcement actions

shouldn't necessarily be the only criterion, nor necessarily should be the cost to the permit or

things. Some of the things we ask people to do for the public realm to enhance us all are expensive.

but a lot of the people that come before you have the means to do this right like the people who

pull permits are often wealthy and powerful people and those standards these public realm standards

those are the guardrails right they protect the civic life for all of us and i think we are all

better off when those are strong and when those are robust and those guardrails should especially

apply to the wealthy and powerful because like we hoi polloi we need the public realm right we need

streets that work. We need street safety when we walk down it. Rich people, they have other options,

right? So I would say as you kind of analyze things coming forward, there's a really terrible

tree ordinance coming your way. Think about how do we protect the public realm? Like what's the

baseline? You know, what are the guardrails that we absolutely need so that we all thrive,

so that somebody doesn't gain at the expense of all of us? Because we need you to do that,

Right. Like that's why we have planning. That's why we have rules.

You're here to protect the public interest, the broad public interest.

I'd urge you to look at evidence based design.

It's an emerging discipline. Lots of great information.

Can't explain what it is because I've run out of time.

But have folks bring that to you, help you discern what's good and what isn't.

Thank you.

Hello, commissioners.

My name is Timothy Omi, president of the San Francisco Council of District Merchants.

I just wanted to, I'm here to speak on something else, but I was contacted last night by the mayor's office about joining all three departments and being a small business owner and having gone through conditional use authorization process.

I think that it is such a good move to help our merchant corridors and our small business owners,

because having to get an expediter and go through the three departments is a very arduous, time-consuming, and expensive process.

And so I'm really excited that we're streamlining this process for the small entrepreneurs to come up.

And it's not just all rich people.

It's small business owners just trying to get our foot in the door, and then we've got to go through the three departments.

thank you to the mayor thank you to Sarah and I look forward to helping

along that process so okay last call for general public comment seeing none

general public comment is closed we can move on to your regular calendar

commissioners item 4 was pulled off consent and we will be considered now

for case number 2025 hyphen zero zero two four one one CUA 3034 24th Street

conditional use authorization. I'll take this opportunity to remind members of

the public to please silence your mobile devices.

Hello President Soh and Commissioners, Charles Enchel, Planning Department staff.

Item number four before you is a conditional use authorization for lapsed

permit approvals under motion number 17928 to establish a restaurant use that would serve no

alcohol, no beer and wine, and be located at the ground floor of a three-story mixed-use building.

The project proposes no exterior alterations. The subject tenant space has been vacant since

approximately 2009, and the subject eating and drinking establishment would be within

the concentration limits for eating and drinking uses.

There is a history of DBI complaints associated with the property.

I'd like to note that the current owners took ownership of the property in summer of 2023.

A lot of these complaints and violations predated that time.

And as of last week, overwhelming majority of those complaints, which cover a wide range of things from unpermitted work, having a vacant storefront,

tiling the rear roof deck, illegal washing machine connection, new roof work, electrical work,

work at the ground floor generally. Those complaints have been overwhelmingly abated,

and as you guys are aware, these are life and safety issues, and any approval that you guys

might consider today, they would be subject to abate those during the building permit review

to establish a restaurant. I believe the owner is here, and if you guys have any questions,

I'll defer to Daniel. Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

good afternoon commissioners my name is Daniel Shabazz I'm actually well the son of the owner

but I'm overseeing the project and I've I've understood that there's some questions in regards

to that's why it was taken off of consent and I'm here to address any of those questions I do have

some paperwork that I prepared.

I didn't go modern.

I have old school.

I apologize.

But I only have enough copies for six people.

I apologize.

So in front of you is the first page is a list of all the complaints that were filed against

this building, predated as well as after when we purchased the building. And we've closed

over approximately about 15 to 20 complaints during this time. There was a lot of violation

in terms of just penalties that needed to be paid for abatement for vacant buildings and stuff like that,

as well as just other old violations that we were able to take care of.

The highlighted ones are the ones that are currently active, which we are currently working on,

and I've prepared the packet in the form just to go over these really quickly for you,

just so you understand that we are working towards eliminating these last ones.

So the next page is going to be complaint number that ends in 757.

So that is a housing complaint.

If you see on the back page, you can see that the work has been completed,

but it falls underneath a building section as well.

So we're just waiting to finalize the permit.

We're working towards pulling a permit to eliminate this,

but the work has been completed up to code by the housing department.

You can see it on the second page.

The following sheet, it's complaint number 201-030-885.

This is a violation that was, and then this was a violation from 2010.

The previous owner had done some work in the ground floor commercial space, which was out of the scope of his project.

This violation and the one preceding it is 2010-35213.

This is also in relation to that ground floor.

We plan to address this with this planning.

once hopefully we get this planning approval we plan on addressing it

because it's a ground floor commercial space which we want to eliminate at the

same time as you can see of the following page this is our current

application to address the remaining three items it's going to be addresses

violations that end in 561 and then 4587-6451. This is a current application

we have with the building department. We've received comments which is the

preceding page and it should I mean this is just to show you guys that we are

currently actively working to eliminate all of these violations. They were a ton

of violations unfortunately. It's cost us about twenty to twenty five thousand

just to remove them.

And I just want to be able to show that we're putting our good faith effort

to go up there and eliminate all of this.

I can answer any questions if you have any.

If that concludes your presentation, we should open up public comment.

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

You need to come forward.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Happy New Year.

My name is Eric Arguello.

I'm with Cayo 24 Latino Cultural District.

I'm as Council President.

One thing I think is very important to emphasize, the Planning Department did not emphasize

that it's a CU in a special use district, so it requires four conditions to be met out

of six.

I just want to say that we're here in support of the business opening up.

We have met with the owner and went through the four conditions that he picked.

Now the reason this is very important for us for this process to happen is that it really

helps the business integrate into the Cayo Vente Guate Latino Cultural District to learn

its history, our goals.

It also helps to integrate that business so that we can provide supporting guidance to

help the business to be sustainable long term.

Something that wasn't really highlighted I think is very important for us to discuss

this and have a hearing when there is a CU in Cayo 24 special use district but we

are in support of the business coming in I know they've done a lot of work to the

space it has a long history of someone dying there and there was a fire so there

was a lot of difficult things that they had to clean up so we're just here in

support but just want to emphasize that all CU's with the special use district

should be heard in in this Commission so we appreciate it thank you

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Happy New Year. My name is Jorge Arguello, Business Lead for Calle 24 Latino Cultural District.

I'm here in support of the conditional use approval for the full-service restaurant.

Preserving conditional use with the cultural district is essential to maintain both economic vitality and cultural identity.

In Calle 24, small community-oriented businesses are key to sustain the Latino character at the corridor while supporting local jobs and neighborhood sustainability.

We support Daniel and his family, who share an immigrant background common in our district and have demonstrated, genuinely committed to begin community-oriented businesses.

Their restaurant will contribute positively to the local economy and align with the values of Calle 24 Cultural District.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Susana Rojas, and I am the executive director of Calle 24 Latino Cultural District.

And I am here in support of the application for Samir and his new business.

We are happy to welcome them into the corridor, one of the most stable, economic stable corridors that are out there right now.

And we have met with them, and they have agreed to meet four of the special conditions.

We are confident that this restaurant will add to the diversity and will help solidify the already strong economy in our corridor

while continuing to respect and elevate the Latino culture.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

This matter is now before you commissioners.

Commissioner Moore.

I'm delighted to see the community support.

I understand why it was pulled off consent and I am in support of the project.

If it requires a motion, that is what I would ask that we approve this project.

Second.

Commissioner Williams.

Williams. I just want to uplift Calle 24, the cultural district, especially during this time

when our Latin community is basically under attack all over this country.

Calle 24 just didn't happen. Calle 24 and other cultural districts are there because the people

advocated for them. And the people of those communities fought for a place here in San Francisco.

And so in that spirit, I do want to thank the project sponsor for meeting with Calle 24

and honoring, as we all should, our diversity of this city, our different cultural districts,

and so I just wanted to uplift that

thank you

okay commissioners if there's nothing further there is a motion that has been

seconded to approve with conditions on that motion commissioner Campbell

aye commissioner McGarry commissioner Williams

aye commissioner Braun aye commissioner Imperial

aye commissioner Moore aye and commission president so

Aye. So move, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. 7 to 0. And we'll place us on item 11 for case number 2025, hyphen 010672 PCA, Alcohol Sales in Movie Theaters, Planning Code Amendments.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Veronica Flores Planning Department staff. This next item is the Alcohol and Movie Theatres Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Cheryl, and we have Mr. Rosas from his office to speak on the item today.

Thank you, Veronica. Good afternoon, Director Dennis Phillips and Commissioners. As stated, I'm Lorenzo Rosas. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Supervisor Cheryl regarding this ordinance.

Specifically, this ordinance encompasses three code changes.

First, it amends the definition of movie theaters in Planning Code Section 102

to allow theaters to provide on-site beer, wine, and or liquor sales only as a minor and incidental use.

Second, it amends the Planning Code's definition of bona fide eating places,

adding a subsection that specifically exempts movie theaters from the gross receipts threshold applied to other eating places.

Lastly, this ordinance amends the Upper Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial District to add a provision

that specifically exempts the Clay Theater from needing a conditional use authorization.

The Clay Theater would need a conditional use authorization for the following reason,

the increasing size frontage use size limits during the restoration size, and the general

entertainment use where they would have to get an entertainment permit. As we all know,

movie theaters are an essential piece of our cultural fabric. They are community cornerstones,

gathering spaces, and cultural touch points for the arts. Yet over the past decades,

movie theaters have been threatened by shifting streaming habits, the pandemic, and more. And the

theaters who have been hit hardest by these tough economic conditions are the small, single-screen

historic theaters, many of which are small businesses and have been forced to close in

recent years. In District 2, we have a landmark theater, the Clay Theater, that I personally am

excited to say will be thoughtfully restored and will reopen as a theater next year. You will hear

about those plans from their project sponsors who are here in attendance. However, when meeting with

the project sponsors at the Clay Theater, they let us know that our planning code treats movie

theaters who would like to serve beer and wine and who would like to be open to minors the same as

restaurants, and our city levels the same punishments for non-compliance. Here's how it breaks down.

State liquor laws mandate that if movie theaters who, A, want to serve beer and wine, and B, be open to minors, operate a restaurant as well.

Then, in order to be defined as a restaurant, our planning code implements the same revenue tests on these movie theaters that we place on all restaurants,

meaning that these theaters have to make a minimum of 51% of their gross receipts from food sales prepared and sold to guests.

In practice, we are therefore mandating that the newly renovated Clay Theater or any theater serving beer and wine make at least 51% of their revenue from food that they prepare on site.

And I know that the AMC popcorn is $16 nowadays, but that's not 51% of their revenue.

Supervisor Cheryl recognizes that this is a time where we need to make it easier to invest in and operate these community spaces.

a time where we need to be encouraging residents to go to their neighborhood theater to walk their local merchant corridor and to support the arts in our city.

This legislation will make it clear that movie theaters are not the same as restaurants and that our planning code won't treat them the same.

It will make sure that we are doing what we can in City Hall to be a partner and supporter of our movie theaters and of the arts.

and while I'm particularly thrilled to stop by for a movie at the reopened Clay Theater,

it's important that we fix this illogical requirement for all our theaters citywide to

benefit. By enacting this ordinance, we will make it easier for all theaters, but particularly our

small businesses, to continue to operate as our cherished cultural cornerstones. And as it pertains

to the planning department's recommendations, Supervisor Cheryl is amenable to all three of

the recommendations. Originally, we drafted the ordinance to include fixed seatings so that the

city had an ability to better differentiate between actual movie theaters and restaurants

who wanted to set up a projector and a couple seats. However, this concern is addressed by the

definition that necessitates one or more auditoriums. And furthermore, we're also open

to the third recommendation that will allow for flexible programming at movie theaters and for

movie theaters to be exempt from non-residential use size limits. We will continue to further

conversations with neighborhood theater stakeholders and other community stakeholders

to ensure that this recommendation is done thoughtfully should the amendment be made in

the board committee process and should this committee commission decide to adopt that

recommendation. Lastly, I want to include one additional policy matter for the commission here.

Supervisor Cheryl is considering adding an amendment to the section pertaining specifically

to the Upper Fillmore Street NCD. Specifically, Supervisor Cheryl is engaging in conversations

with the Clay Theater's project sponsor and the nearby community to expand their beer and wine

sales to all patrons, not just ticketed customers. In code, this practice would be a simple amendment

on page 7, line 14, changing the language from on-site consumption by ticketed customers to

consumption regardless of ticketing. As the project sponsors will detail in their public comment,

they see this change as vital to the sustainability and survivability of the Clay Theater

as a community art space.

We're grateful for their ambitious vision

to restore the Clay Theater as a gathering space for all,

a community cornerstone where you can run into your neighbors

while catching an independent film.

And they want to ensure that all neighbors can gather

in this renewed Clay Theater.

Even if one friend in the friend group

doesn't want to see the movie that everybody is there to see,

they can join the others at the Clay Theater

to come join for a drink before they move on with their day

and perhaps go to Palmer's for dinner.

So as you will hear partially in public comment, the Clay Theater sponsors have been able to gain a lot of community buy-in and nearby merchant support for this specific amendment, including but not limited to the Fillmore Merchants Association and the Pacific Heights Residents Association.

Supervisor Cheryl wants to express his gratitude to the sponsors for inviting everyone to stop by and tour the theater and allowing all stakeholders to hear directly from them about the future of the Clay Theater.

We're excited to have the Clay Theater back as a neighborhood focal point, and we're excited for this ordinance to help alleviate onerous, illogical requirements for movie theaters in our city.

Thank you again, commissioners. I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Rosas.

Again, the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to permit on-site wine and beer, liquor sales, and movie theaters that also operate as a bona fide eating place.

The proposed ordinance would permit certain movie theaters within the Upper Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial District, or NCD, to sell wine and beer, and additionally offer entertainment, cultural, artistic, dramatic performances, or other exhibitions, as well as being exempt from the non-residential use size limits otherwise applicable within the district.

The department supports the overall goals of this proposed ordinance.

It promotes the continued operation and financial stability of movie theaters,

which we know we all want to make sure that they are around, that we support them.

This is done by expanding their potential revenue and operations.

The department does have three recommended modifications in front of you today.

We understand the supervisor is amenable to all of them,

but just wanted to go over them briefly again.

The first recommended modification is within the definition of movie theater,

and that is to remove the specific note of fixed seating requirements.

Just of note, during the review for the Castro Theater,

the department determined that fixed seating was not necessary to qualify as a movie theater,

so this recommended modification is really to be consistent with that.

The second recommended modification is to remove some of the more specific restrictions within the upper Fillmore NCD, including the minimum 150 fixed seating requirement and the specific note of the Type 41 ABC license restriction.

we really want to take the approach of having more global changes and so we want to remove some of

these what we feel is unnecessarily restrictive requirements within upper Fillmore NCD

and in that same vein the last recommended modification wants to take some of those

proposed amendments that are currently only listed for the upper Fillmore NCD but actually

place them within the movie theater definition, thereby applying them globally to movie theaters

throughout the city. Of note, this would allow all movie theaters to equally be able to offer

additional programming within the movie theaters, not just the movie theaters within Upper Fillmore.

And this, again, just adds more of that added flexibility that we want to provide to these

businesses. Further, to support the viability of movie theaters, this recommendation also includes

exempting movie theaters from the non-residential use size limits. This, again, further supports

greater flexibility in how they use their space, or if there's additional square footage adjacent,

then they would be able to at least consider the process for that. Again, the goal of this is to

make these proposed amendments globally rather than just to a specific neighborhood commercial

district. However, any existing alcohol restricted use districts or SUDs would still prevail.

So those protections are still in place. Again, the recommendation is that you adopt a

recommendation of approval with these modifications and I am available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity

to address the commission on this matter. Thank you, President Soh, Director, members of the

commission. My name is Cody Allen. I am the Executive Director of the Upper Fillmore

Revitalization Project, which is the project sponsor of the Clay Theater. Let's see if we

can get this closer. Thank you for considering this. The clay is really the cornerstone of our

neighborhood. We're deeply invested in this neighborhood, not only through the UFRP, but also

all members of the team of the UFRP live in and around this area and are raising our families

there. The clay is historically the cultural cornerstone of this neighborhood, and since it

closed in 2020, there has been a void felt on the commercial corridor and in the community.

I'm very pleased with the supervisor's efforts to help to make this a more viable project,

both for us and for the eventual tenant operator there who could not be here today.

This space will remain an independent theater.

It will show 500-plus film screenings a year,

as well as hopefully other types of entertainment programming,

such as author readings, community events, stand-up comedy,

the occasional acoustic performance,

and whatever else we can fit in this very exciting box.

So this is a major rehabilitation and reactivation project

for the Upper Fillmore and CD area,

and I appreciate your attention to this.

In terms of what the Supervisor's Office,

Representative Jess mentioned about extending this legislation potentially to non-ticketed patrons and ticketed patrons.

We appreciate their efforts in putting that forward.

The Clay is a very unique neighborhood theater with quite a large lobby space that's open with full glass, landmarked glass glazing out to the street.

We intend to have this lobby space open to the general public, not only ticketed patrons, many more hours of the day than a regular theater would.

So that could be 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the weekdays, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on the weekends.

And we want the space to be a vibrant community space where someone can come and enjoy the Clay Theater

when they don't have two and a half hours to spend watching a film.

So allowing us to serve an equal type of menu of food and drink to both ticketed and non-ticketed patrons

will help the viability and financial sustainability of the theater significantly.

We have done a tremendous amount of neighborhood outreach around this.

I hope you'll hear from some of these organizations now.

We've garnered support from many neighborhood tenants, including Palmer's, the Snug, La

Mediterranean, Little Shuckers down the street, the Pacific Heights Residents Association,

the Fillmore Merchants Association, and we keep an open dialogue with all of these tenants,

residents, and neighborhood organizations, both on this project and others that we're

undertaking in Upper Fillmore.

Thank you for your time.

Again, my name is Tim Omey, but this time I'm the president of the Fillmore Merchant Association.

And I just wanted to just say we are in support of the proposed amendments, and I think that

would really like to highlight just the amazing community outreach that they are committing

to the Fillmore neighborhood and upper Fillmore neighborhood.

the project is going to be the heartbeat of the neighborhood.

Bring in different shows or movies and have the ability to have a glass of wine and beer at the same time

just adds to the dynamic nature of our commercial corridor.

To the larger proposed amendment that Supervisor Schell is putting forth as the president of the SFCDMA,

I think it's very beneficial to not have these restrictions on movie theaters because what we need to do is inspire people to come to the commercial corridors.

And once they come there and they watch a movie, maybe have a cocktail, they're going to go buy a scarf or they're going to go out to dinner.

I think that we need to have a very fluid environment on our commercial corridors.

And potentially changing this could add to that and help small businesses grow.

So I look forward to hearing how you guys vote on this.

And I just want to say it's only added value

to allow this amendment.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Griffin Lee, representing Connected SF staff.

First off, I wish I came dressed like Tim.

I'm a millennial, though.

Very supportive of this project and the revitalization and growth of Upper Fillmore.

There was a lot of concern and fear-mongering over a lot of this project and a lot of the corridor over the last year or two.

but I will highlight and tout the community outreach from Cody and staff

for really bringing in the community and showcasing what the Clay Theater could be all about.

It's been an eyesore and vacant for way too long.

And what's really beautiful about this as well is that, yes, it will increase foot traffic.

It will also welcome families.

the flexibility of the space

even makes it more community feel

and oriented.

And they're also

making a conscious effort to preserve

pieces

and parts of

the old clay theater. So please

approve this legislation

and thanks to

Supervisor Shell and staff as well.

Let's go Upper Fillmore.

PAUL WORMER, Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Paul Wormer, and in this case, I'm speaking as the President of the Pacific

Ice Residents Association.

Very much appreciate the outreach from Cody Allen with respect to this project.

We absolutely support moving this forward.

We have some minor language concerns that I think are not substantive but add some clarity.

We have full confidence in CODI and the projects that they are proposing.

But codes, of course, as I've learned with Formula Retail, affect what comes after.

And so we're being a little bit persnickety about some of the specific conditions, but

We're working with Cody and the supervisor's office on it

and have full confidence we will come to a very agreeable

solution.

I've had good discussions with Cody,

and I'm confident it's moving forward.

So yeah, full endorsement of this project.

Thank you.

So good afternoon, supervisors.

My name's Carol Brownson, and I've lived in the vicinity of the clay in Upper Fillmore for about 30 years.

And the clay has been quite a good part of my life.

I remember some wonderful Shakespeare series and the popcorn machine.

It was so good.

But I've moved on beyond popcorn, and I'm looking for community spaces because I keep reading that you old people

had better not stay alone in the house.

It's really bad for you.

Get out and socialize.

Where?

Think about what the old upper Fillmore looks like.

Now, what they're talking about, about the clay,

sounds really excellent to me.

And I'll just summarize by saying,

think about going in and having a discussion

about an Irish-themed film

with a glass of Guinness.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah, I'm approving the project.

Last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

And this is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Moore?

I have a quick question, either for Ms. Flores

or Zoning Administrator Teague.

The question is that the supervisor wants a specific added condition for the Fillmore,

which in principle I'm excited about thinking.

However, this legislation is proposed to be more generic

and addressing similar situations in other neighborhoods.

Could you explain of how that can possibly be done?

Thank you, Commissioner Moore.

And just to clarify, were you specifically thinking about the proposed amendment that was just so with respect to the non ticketed patrons?

Yes.

To that, I will say, again, we generally prefer to take the more global approach.

So this would be, you know, a step away from that.

but we do understand that this is the desire of the supervisor for this specific district.

And as we've heard during some of the public comments and the letters that you've received,

there is support for this here, again, specifically for the Upper Fillmore NCD.

So it's not typically how we do this, but we understand that that is the desire at this time.

I'd just like to let the rest of the Commission know, over the years, the Upper Fillmore has extremely well curated its own district

and has been extremely attentive to the subtle details that come up in a situation like this.

I'm not saying that there has been a similar incident like this before,

but when it came to other projects that were really addressing the rest of the corridor and the rest of the community,

this particular neighborhood has always been extremely responsible in asking for things,

but also implementing and following through of how you ultimately take such a concession

and make it work rather than let it go out of control.

So I'm interested to see an ability for the Upper Fillmore to get this particular added recommendation,

but I do not know how it can be done relative to a legislative piece which is more generic.

I do not know how to do that.

So I'm expressing support, but I'm not sure as to whether or not the department can even add a particular comment relative to this particular theater location.

Thank you again.

So I forget the page number, but page 7, thank you.

the current draft as introduced had that initial proposed footnote specifically for movie theaters.

And again, that is the mechanism.

If you were looking to apply a specific requirement, additional restriction to a specific NCD,

that is the purpose of a named NCD.

So that is, if I'm understanding the question correctly of how we would do this,

that is how we would approach it in the code.

through the footnote specifically for Upper Fillmore NCD.

All of the other global changes that would live in

or be executed through Section 102 for the definition of movie theaters.

And then that applies to all movie theaters.

So does that clarify for you, Commissioner Moore?

Yes, it does.

And I'm in support of your modifications.

And if this is possible, that is the way I would support this project.

but I'm curious what other commissions have to say.

And again, my full support is there.

Thank you. Commissioner Brown.

I really like the basic ideas and intent behind this legislation.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to have a really narrow definition

of what a neighborhood theater or movie theater needs to be today.

It's such a great assembly space,

and so having a variety of programming that's possible and makes use of the space just as well makes a lot of sense to me.

Providing the liquor license options for serving drinks at the theaters, that makes a lot of sense to me.

We already have examples in the city of where this has worked really well,

except they had to, I'm now learning from this, have to have the on-site restaurant use under the planning code,

so kind of streamlining that process I can get on board with.

I think I have a few questions just to make sure I have some comfort with addressing any unintended consequences.

You know, I'm coming into this thinking about, well, why did we have a movie theater definition in the first place?

What are the issues where if somebody thinks they're getting a movie theater in a neighborhood and it turns out to be something different,

how do we make sure that we are addressing those kinds of possibilities?

I don't think we need to always try to foresee the worst outcomes and things,

but at the same time, I just want to make sure I'm comfortable with these changes.

And so I guess my one question to start is actually about this,

even after this legislation, because the ABC license requirements are statewide,

so this would still need to be classified as a bona fide eating place under state regulations.

Is that correct?

And so then, so I'm just, I'm trying to understand, I mean, in reality, what is sort of the distinction between our definition of sales from food service versus the state definition of that?

I mean, how does this assist beyond just not needing a local approval as a restaurant use?

Thank you, Commissioner Braun.

Good question.

We had to do a little digging on this specific topic as well.

And I will say that at the local level, so under our planning code, we have additional, a really high threshold for the restaurants and bona fide eating places.

And we need to have, as explained earlier, the 51% of the gross receipts need to be food and non-alcohol sales.

That is through our local controls, our planning code.

The state, and so ABC, they have their bona fide eating requirements.

In researching, it is a more general and kind of vague description of what it is to qualify,

but they do specifically say a sandwich does not count, or only sandwiches does not count for a bona fide eating place.

So we have a very specific metric, whereas the state, they're looking more holistically.

And to be fair, we at Planning Department do not know what those specific requirements are or what threshold they would be looking at it as.

However, the proposed sponsor would be able to qualify as a bona fide eating place under the state's threshold and however they determine what it would be.

Again, the 51%, the higher bar, that is our local definition, local requirement.

Okay, thank you for helping clarify that.

It's really in the weeds.

And so, again, I think just generally streamlining

and making it easier to comply with the state rules

while not dealing with ours is helpful.

I had some questions and concerns about making sure

that our changes to the definitions don't inadvertently result

and movie theaters becoming potentially live concert venues

that people don't expect to know.

Again, trying to think about sort of the extreme versions of this.

I think I would just say there's two issues

I'd like to get a little more clarity and comfort on.

So one is just verifying how the definition is ensuring

that there's little likelihood that a movie theater

is going to wind up being a big nightlife destination

that people don't expect to have in their neighborhood

or right next to them.

And then my other question is, you know, if we do remove the use size limit, what safeguards will ensure that large sort of fake movie theater slash concert venues don't end up opening up or anything like that?

Thank you, Commissioner.

I'll start with some general responses, and then may I tap in the zoning administrator as needed.

But to your first question regarding just movie theaters, how to ensure that these are still primarily used for film screening for movies and it's not just being used for all these other additional programming.

that question did come up and we just conferred here as well.

So the definition adds or rephrases that the use must be primarily designed and used for the presentation of films or motion pictures.

So to your question, we could explicitly note the minimum percentage of programming dedicated to film to have a really clear marker of what that would be.

For the Castro Theater, just for example, I believe that when we had, is it in the conditions?

In the conditions specifically, we require the Castro Theater have 51% of all programming be dedicated to films.

And so that could be up for consideration if you wanted to include that as a potential recommendation.

And I don't want to speak on behalf of the supervisor, but I believe they would be amenable.

But we can continue discussions for that.

So that could be one approach in the concern or the question here of how to ensure that these still operate as movie theaters for film, motion pictures.

And then for the second question, with respect to the use size limits, this one, again, the recommended modification is to try to provide more support, more flexibility for all movie theaters.

For the larger theaters, or if there's existing theaters with large footprints that are looking to expand or merge, in some cases, if they were previously authorized through a conditional use, we would have to revisit said conditions for that entitlement to see what could or could not be allowed in terms of expanding the use size.

So from a general standpoint, there is still that case-by-case review, even if this were to apply globally.

And I will just turn to see if zoning and Mr. Teague has anything further to add, but that is just something that we need to keep in mind as well.

Okay, thank you.

And actually, I would say I was wondering, Mr. Teague, about whether this would make your life harder or easier, depending on the definition.

Okay. Good afternoon, President Tso, Commissioners.

Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator, thank you for the questions.

So just to elaborate a little bit on what you already heard,

again, I think the definition is clear as it's proposed that, you know,

it's called a movie theater use.

It must be primarily for essentially a movie theater use.

So I don't think there's, but there are no kind of specific numerical metrics

within the definition or the code to how to balance those other kinds of activities.

So I think an example where it went to some extreme,

where they're showing films one night a week and the other six nights a week,

that would clearly not be meeting the definition,

but there would have to be a case-by-case determination

unless there was something codified to provide a clearer metric for that.

So I just wanted to be clear on that.

I think that if there was something close,

There would have to be, under the current language, it would have to be a case-by-case interpretation.

If it's something that's way past being close, it would be an easier interpretation to make.

But I'm not sure if you asked another question while we were handing off.

No, no, that was basically it.

I just wanted, because I had the same thought.

I didn't see objective metrics for what this new expanded definition of a movie theater is while still being a movie theater.

And I was thinking about the interpretation challenges of this definition.

Correct.

So yeah, I appreciate that.

Okay, so that's helpful.

I mean, I definitely would support legislation, and I support the staff recommendations.

I do support the recommendations that sort of apply some of these changes more broadly

to assist other theaters in the city, except I would also just, I don't think it has to

go into a motion necessarily, but I would just advise that the supervisor's office work

a little bit on making sure that there's some objective metrics for what is still a movie

theater in this new definition, new expanded definition of a movie theater. I don't want to

get into what percentage that is for film programming or how that works exactly, but we

just want to make sure this is implementable. And then lastly, on the newly raised idea about

allowing on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages,

regardless of whether a customer is ticketed or not.

I support that.

In contrast to the fact that I usually prefer to have these changes apply citywide,

I actually take Commissioner Moore's statements to heart,

and I think that maybe this one we could apply.

I would be comfortable just applying the Fillmore NCD right now,

seeing how it goes and maybe in the future it would be appropriate to expand it

citywide but since this is in a way introducing a little bit more of a bar use

into a theater I don't want to just say let's do that citywide

because of possible consequences of that

but those yeah those are my thoughts thank you

Commissioner Imperial

Thank you Commissioner Moore and Commissioner Braun you

actually ask of the questions I was also going to ask about, especially on the non-residential

use size limit. And it's good to hear as well that this will be seen in a case by case. And

you know, this is something experimental, but at the same time, I'm very enthusiastically excited

about this ordinance as well as we're trying to encourage for the movie theater to thrive

and for people to pretty much socialize and hang out, a place to hang out at the same time.

I would, you know, I think in terms of measuring the metrics for programming,

I'd like to, I mean, I don't want to create any kind of definition for that.

unless there is more of a community outreach.

And, of course, the supervisor's office.

But I'm more supportive in a way that for non-residential use size limit

and how that's the more independent type kind of movie theaters would support that.

And also in terms of, like, the programming, again,

the way I would see it is more how the independent movie theaters are going to navigate that.

And how do you put that in a legislation is something where it can be more global as we try to define things.

But I think that it seems like the supervisor's office have done a lot of community outreach and continue to do that,

but something just to think about.

But overall, I'm in general support of even the planning recommendation as well.

I guess it's just going to have more conversation in terms of the nuances of how we're going to implement this forward.

But, yeah, I am excited to see this, and I'd like to make a motion for approval with recommendations.

Second.

and then

there's a few more commissioners like to say a few words

including myself

so Clay Theater has been in San Francisco

for so many decades and years

and I knew those have been around

I'm fully aware of all the challenges

and struggles that you went through

I'm not sure you were the

recent owners or the previous owners

but I remember it was

quite a challenge to try to figure out how to sustain itself

and going through the pandemic and also economic resilience.

And also, I'm really happy to see that everyone come out

in full support of what you're about to do.

Supervisor Cheryl and Lorenzo have spent a lot of work and time

figuring out what it works, and I really appreciate

that our planning department staff look into what will work

for the clay theater and also make it more of a transparent understanding of how similar theater

of this age and this constraints, how could this legislation be helpful to citywide approach.

And I really appreciate that to make it no more carved out on a particular one case at a time.

In a legislation manner, I think it is a really good practice to enable our city to thrive and

especially small local businesses.

And I would like to also be able to go in there

and see more people of different age group and types

have a place of sense of belonging and to get together.

And that is really good for personal wellness and mental health.

In light of what Lorenzo brought up at the last edition,

specifically for this, one, to have the ability to serve beverages and food

for non-ticketed patrons.

I think that this is kind of a little bit contrary of making it into a citywide approach,

but more like this might have been a good place to test

if this is going to work for this particular one,

because like the project sponsor had articulated

that the configuration of the theater lends itself the opportunity.

And I'm all full support for economic progress

for our small local businesses.

So for that particular extra addition at the last minute,

that one perhaps might not immediately be a city-wide approach.

Maybe we'll just continue to monitor how this will go and consider it as the future expansion.

But overall, I'm in support of the staff recommendations, all three items,

and I think that's consistent with Commissioner Imperial's motion.

Like a second.

So that's kind of my comment.

Commissioner McGeary?

I'd just like to say I'm also in full support.

The community is together on this one.

The community is going to make this work.

I have no doubt that it's not going to work.

It's definitely going to be a total success,

and it will be a rollout to the entire city.

I can just see that happening.

I believe Carl should have, if we had done this eight years ago,

we'd have a lot more independent movie theaters still in the city.

We lost way too many, and they're more than legacy businesses

because they actually touch the hearts of people

people when they're, you know, six with the popcorn machine, or 60 when they want to, you know,

they've grown out of it a little bit, and maybe a glass of wine is the way to go, or a couple of

Guinnesses. Whether you go to that movie or not, it'd be nice to be able to sit down and have as

many places as possible to actually meet up and sit down. So I have no doubt that this is going

to be a total success, just based on everybody here who has actually spoken in favour of it,

who are the community and basically have built the community.

So I would actually go on further and say this should be citywide

because it will come up later on as citywide

because it's going to be a massive success.

Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

Thank you.

I also will echo that sentiment from Commissioner McGarry

in appreciating how we are always making these attempts

to make these changes more global.

So I'm not scared of taking the latest edition of allowing consumption, regardless of ticketing, to be a more global application.

But if that's not an option, that's fine.

But generally, I want this to succeed.

I do think movie theaters are a tough business model.

So I would also hesitate to apply a percentage.

I think if there's some years where there's less screening and more community events, I see no harm in that to the community.

We, of course, don't want it to turn into a thumping and bumping until 3 o'clock in the morning nightclub.

But what I appreciate about these kind of amendments is the flexibility.

It's allowing small businesses and the arts to thrive and survive in the city.

So I'm pro-flexibility and not applying metrics to that in general and then in full support of a more global application of these changes.

And I appreciate the supervisor's willingness to continue to work with the community.

Those are all my comments.

Okay, commissioners.

If there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications on that motion.

Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Commissioner Braun?

Pardon me.

I just want to clarify if the motion on the floor is considering the additional amendment for the non-ticketed patrons.

I just want to make sure that we have it correct in the record.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Very good.

with the proposed amendment.

So again, Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President So?

Aye.

So move, commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0

and will place us on item 12.

Case number 2025-002980CUA at 331 Shield Street,

conditional use authorization.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Maggie Dong, planning department staff.

The project that is before you is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant

to planning codes sections 209.1, 303, and 317

to legalize the demolition and reconstruction

of a one-story single-family home

located at 331 Shield Street within Supervisor District 11.

The building is currently vacant

and has no history of tenants or evictions from the rent board.

This property has previously received building permits

for interior remodel work, window replacement,

roof membrane replacement, rear wall, and roof in-kind replacement, and repair of front wall.

The subject property exceeded the previously approved scopes of work and has replaced the

entire building, which triggers Planning Code Section 317 for residential demolition.

This project abates Planning Enforcement Case Number 2025-000386ENF for the demolition of the

property. A one-time penalty of $50,000 has been assessed for the violation. The proposed building

will remain as a single-family home occupying one story with a reduction in size from 1,514 square

feet to 1,453 square feet. The number of bedrooms and bathrooms will remain unchanged,

staying at three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The size of the unit will be reduced to comply

with the legislative front setback of 10 feet by moving the front wall back.

There will be one Class I bicycle parking space added

and no off-street parking space proposed.

The project is consistent with the controls of the RH1 zoning district,

Ocean View large residents special use district,

and Priority Equity Geography's special use district.

To date, there has been one phone call received from the department

inquiring about the project.

There has not been any letters of support or opposition received.

The department has found the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods

and consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan.

The department recommends approval with conditions as provided in the staff report.

This concludes my staff presentation and I will be available for questions.

The property owner will now follow with a presentation.

project sponsor you have five minutes good afternoon happy new year

commissioners my name is Lawrence and I'll be going over 31 shield street for

the CUA application.

I'll wait until everyone has a copy of this.

Well, you should just keep going because your time is ticking.

It'll be a little bit easier if everyone has one.

And it's OK.

Presentations shouldn't be too long.

Yeah, how we got the house.

So as you can see on page two, the picture to the right,

The property has multiple damages,

with the biggest one being the decay of wood.

The property has been vacant for an extended amount of time

and had multiple code enforcement violations on the house.

The property also was exposed to environmental elements,

has a giant hole in the middle of the building, which

allows air and rain into the house.

Other external factors are faulty irrigation.

There wasn't proper irrigation between this house

and the neighboring houses.

So water damage caused damage to both houses.

On the next pages, you can kind of see

how it was exposed to the air.

This is how we bought the house, with the middle section

of the house not even being present.

Next couple pages kind of showcases

the decay of the house.

This is the living room, the entryway.

You can see a lot of decay of the wood

and how the living room is kind of falling apart overall.

What we plan to do with the house, we plan to demo the building and kind of remodel the

whole house, making it stylish fitting of the modern times and keeping to the original

blueprints.

Like Maggie said, we're keeping the same blueprints, three bedrooms, two baths.

We're not doing anything crazy.

We kind of just want to build a new livable home on Shield Street.

In conclusion, we plan to demo this building

and build a new livable home on Shield Street,

bringing in another home to the thriving community

in Ingleside.

The plan will update the front of the house

to a stylish design fitting of the times

and keep the original layout of the house

as intended of the previous movements.

Thank you.

OK, with that, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity

to address the commission on this item.

You need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

This matter is now before you commissioners.

Commissioner O'Brien?

It's interesting to see the history of this house

and to read about what's happened here.

I sometimes go to Brooks Park on foot and run by this house,

and it has stood out for a while.

I guess my, I'm not, I don't have any particular concerns about the project itself.

You know, it's a pretty modest project.

It's actually building a single story, pretty comparable house that's smaller than the existing one.

I am curious.

I mean, I would just like to ask the project sponsor, you know,

why not just go for the, go for this project in the first place

instead of this history of what happened with the violations

and kind of exceeding the building permits and all of this?

What's sort of the backstory there?

Yeah, great question.

I'm a first-time homebuyer.

I didn't really know about any of this,

like SF planning codes, building inspections, any of that.

I kind of just came in and saw a house that I could maybe fix up

and then hired a contractor and started doing work.

I didn't realize until kind of after the fact of like what we did wrong and then we right now we are trying to fix what we did wrong

Okay, thank you

You know, I did see that there was the the fee assessed to the $50,000 and so, you know

some of these penalties that we now have in place are

They are being implemented and so I hope it's

that I want to pay attention really but but I hope that

folks are realizing that this is actually pretty serious enforcement now but you

know that the proposed project now you know it's being modified to conform with

the front setback and and the changes all look fine to me so I I move to approve

second I just want to I just want to say one more thing though like I'm kind of

to help you hopefully don't get into more trouble is that you should really

hire a licensed architect to actually get your set of drawings because the

packet that you submitted to us looks more like diagrams you know so those are

just a little awkward for us to look at I hope you really do retain a California

licensed engineer and architect that know how to do drawings.

Yeah, we'll definitely do that moving forward.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further,

there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion.

Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President So?

Aye.

So move, commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0,

and will place us on item 13 for case number 2025-011323PPS

for the property at 555 Beale Street.

This is an informational presentation associated with SB 423.

Through the chair, project sponsor team, you'll have 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, President So, commissioners, Director Dennis Phillips.

Congratulations.

My name is Jesse Blout.

I am a founding partner of Strada Investment Group.

We're a local developer here in San Francisco.

We're, frankly, one of the more active housing developers in San Francisco.

We've built about 1,000 units in San Francisco in the last four years, and we've got another

1,400 or so in the pipeline, of which this project, which is before you today, is probably

our next project to start building, we hope.

What's before you today is technically a SB330 application, but given the limited nature

of the materials in that application, I thought it would be nice to take the opportunity to

give you the benefit of the five-year history of our work on this project and give you an

overview of how the design has evolved as we've engaged with our public partners,

the port and others other public partners as well as the community.

As you probably know this site was the issue the subject of an RFP that the

port issued back in COVID days 2020. We responded and were successful the

successful bidder. We entered into an ENA with the port back in the beginning of

2021 and we've been hard at work ever since. We started with an

engagement with the community and actually we have had over 75 meetings in

various forms over the last four years. Many public meetings to the ports,

Northern Advisory Committee, Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee, many HOA

meetings, many public presentations at the Board of Supervisors, BCDC, etc. We

went to the Board of Supervisors back in 2024 for we got to receive a unanimous

approval of the basic terms. The term sheet for the project was endorsed

unanimously at that time and the public meetings that we've had are all available

on the port's website to the extent the public would like to go back and look at

some of those. Part of the reason for our success so far has been our

willingness to kind of authentically engage with the community and

stakeholders through this evolution of the design process and perhaps there's

no better example of that when we look at the evolution of the project from

what we call version 1.0 which was our original submittal during the RFP

process to version 2.0 which is where we are today. This is version 1.0 as you

can see it's basically a two tower scheme, very large project, 850 units. We

designed it in literally in our offices and basements during COVID virtually.

Didn't have the benefit of any community input of course because it was a

public it was a competitive process and then when we launched it we engaged in a

lot of stakeholder input and community meetings and what transpired from there

was significant change to the project so we went from this massing to this

massing and essentially what that looked like was a reduction in the scale of the

project from 850 units to 715 units and a change in the massing from a two tower

scheme to a single tower scheme with a real attention to how we align or create

massing that maximizes public engagement and also minimizes view impacts in the

neighborhood and we also took special effort to make sure that we reduce the

scale as we traveled from north to south on the site because that's where the

lower density portions of the neighborhood are on the southern portion

site. So I'm going to now turn it over to Andrew Byrne, who's our fabulous

architect from Grimshaw, to talk a little bit more about the design. But I

just want to underscore that we launched this project in 2020. The large project,

we reduced it in scope and notwithstanding the fact there have been

several changes to state law that would actually allow us to go the other

direction. In fact, if you look at the density bonus law today, we could do a

1,000 units and three towers, we are philosophically of the mind that we do what we say.

So when we started this process with the community, we felt it was important to really respect

and engage and come up with something that addresses concerns but is also feasible from

a development standpoint.

And we feel like we have the right blend right now.

So notwithstanding, we could do more.

We're sticking to our word, and we're excited about this project.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Andrew to talk a little bit more about the design,

and I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Jesse. It's my pleasure to talk very briefly about some of the design inspiration

for the identity and language of the building. It's a very prominent and high profile site,

and we're inspired by the opportunity to perhaps represent some of the extremes of the conditions

that exist there on the waterfront, and to think about how we could capture the preciousness

of the beautiful golden dawn light as it's rising over the Bay Bridge, and how we could

how we could equally capture some of the other end of the spectrum,

the kind of cool, frosty elegance of some of the waterfront experience through there

and how that might translate through the language.

With the industrial rail heritage of the site as well,

we struck upon the idea of creating these through lines or threads

that were tying the project together.

Because of its significant scale and variable massing,

We wanted to think about an opportunity to be responsive to context, yet still have a unified, holistic design identity for the project.

And we struck upon the idea of using the thread, the through line, the kind of richness of material reveal,

as to be something that is a leading edge to create these vertical and horizontal seams tying the building together

in the places that can be occupied by the inhabitants.

So you'll see that kind of manifest in an initial sketch here where we've oriented a lot of the outdoor terrace spaces, the inset terraces, to the key view alignments and key approach and axial corridors for the project to create that seam and that moment of reveal.

And then we've developed the skin or husk element to be responsive to those cool frosty tones that can give a permanence, elegance and timelessness to some of the architectural identity.

You also see here from this view, which is a key aspect at the corner of Bryant and the Embarcadero looking to the south, an identity for the building that is on the northern most tip being something that is responsive to the conditions of the downtown language, being a little bit more clear in terms of its glass form.

And then as we move further towards the south, we end up with a more modelled, more nuanced interplay of shadow and reveal within the building that is a little more responsive to the surrounding context.

We're really excited about the contribution and improvement this will make to the existing conditions of the public realm in and around the site.

Not only is the change of use, I think, a significant step change in an area of the Embark Thero that has been under-activated for a while.

But the prospect of bringing in some retail units and active programming on the ground plane, as well as an improved public realm, we think will really make a positive contribution to the community and revitalize this stretch of the Embarcadero.

Hello, Commissioners. Wyatt Donnelly-Landall. I'm the Assistant Deputy Director of Development at the Port.

STRATA has been a great partner with the port over the last six years now.

We're very excited about this project and bringing it forward quickly at a time

when the city needs housing and has a mandate to build housing.

We want to support that at the port.

It will also be a big economic driver for the port.

At Build Out, it will generate $1.8 million annually for the port,

very critical to support the Harbor Fund and the waterfront.

will also create a public financing mechanism

to generate about $60 to $70 million, hopefully,

for waterfront infrastructure improvements in the area.

So we're very excited at the port, supportive of the project,

and hope to keep this moving forward.

Thank you.

OK, if that concludes sponsor's presentation,

we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity

to address the commission on this matter.

need to come forward. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Cameron Robbins. I'm

with the operating engineers and we support this project. This project will

deliver more than minimum required affordable housing. We'll also generate

much-needed revenue to the port that includes an annual ground lease payment

of $1.5 million a year and growing.

It also includes a $60 to $70 million infrastructure bond

generated by the residential development

that could go to support the rehabilitation of the piers across the strait

and also provide much-needed sea-level rising funding.

This project will also bring retail and much-needed vibrancy to this location,

which is currently a parking lot and temporary navigation center.

The site has been an underutilized parking lot for over 50 years, and it is time to put it into productive use and help address the housing crisis.

Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Brandon Brockamonte.

I'm a business agent with Sprinkler Fitters Local 43, representing about 1,000 members here in the Bay Area.

And I'm here in support of the 555 Beale Street project on Seawall Lot 330.

This project activates a long vacant site and delivers 619 new homes with 25% affordable,

exceeding the city's inclusionary requirements, and ensuring public land delivers real public benefit.

Strada has a proven record of building housing in San Francisco and is advancing this project

through a state-mandated, non-discretionary process that provides certainty and speed.

It's a $600-plus million investment, creating over 1,000 union construction jobs,

while generating millions annually for the Port of San Francisco,

and $60 to $70 million for infrastructure at sea level rise adaptation.

This is a smart housing, great jobs, and a responsible use of public land.

Thank you guys for your time, and Happy New Year's.

Hello, commissioners. My name is Aureliano Cho.

I'm here representing the Heat and Frost Insulators Local 16.

We're standing strong with the strata developer as the San Francisco Building Trades.

My brothers before me, they stole my thunder.

So I'm just going to keep it real.

This project will be bringing revenue, big revenue, to the city of San Francisco.

It will try to fix the housing problem that we have.

And most important for myself and my local, we'll bring a lot of union jobs to the city, over 1,000.

We will be able to spend local, stay here with our families, get back on time, home.

and we are fully supportive of this.

So thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Joe Sanders

and I represent painters, paper hangers

and drywall finishers here in San Francisco.

And I am here to urge you in joining us

in supporting the 555 bill project

along with housing that the city desperately needs.

It's part of the bigger seawall project

and working with a responsible developer in Strada,

it ensures that the work is done by highly skilled local union construction workers

with opportunities for new apprentices to come in,

learning their craft while making a livable wage with health and retirement benefits.

Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Trevor Long, and I represent the Glazers Local 718 here in San Francisco.

I'm here to speak in support of this thoughtful development

and how it will deliver hundreds of much-needed homes,

including a significant share of affordable units for working families

on a long underutilized public site that has awaited decades for productive use.

As a true public-private partnership, it will also create hundreds of well-paying jobs,

generate substantial ongoing revenue for the port, and fund critical infrastructure improvements.

I believe this project balances density, affordability, and neighborhood fit,

delivering real benefits for residents, workers, and the city as a whole.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Bales.

I'm a resident of District 6 in the East Cut neighborhood.

I'm supportive of the development of CWAL Lot 330 and do appreciate the outreach and have attended community meetings with Strada.

And look forward to the departure of the navigation center from our neighborhood.

Also, the continued development of port properties.

Two items to consider.

The building height restrictions were carefully thought out to bring the building height up from the bay.

We're now seeing a trend here.

That lot is currently permitted 105 feet, and they were going to go into 230 feet due to the density bond.

We're starting to see more and more vision blocking by new development, so that's a concern.

More importantly, the second one is the traffic in that area.

Beale and Main is a traffic issue at rush hour.

It takes multiple light cycles to make a turn.

for people from New York, people block the box there frequently.

It even backs up the left-turn line and the Embarcadero back on the Embarcadero.

So we need to carefully consider the traffic discharge from that property,

careful not to come out there at Bryant and Main,

perhaps make Beale the primary entry exit to allow them to merge into the traffic better.

We'll be talking to the traffic enforcement people on those areas anyway.

It's a significant detriment to the local residents to get home.

It takes you as long to do the last two blocks as it does to come up from the South Bay at times.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Emmanuel Sanchez.

I represent the ironworkers here in San Francisco.

I respectfully urge you guys to support this beautiful structure that would put many craftsmen to work.

Thank you very much for your time.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

It's kind of a role reversal because typically we have to listen to the comments and remarks and questions from the commission and then wait with bated breath to see how you'll vote.

In this case, you get to sit and listen to us and you don't get to vote.

And we can take that up in a separate conversation over coffee if you want to talk politics and land use.

But it's an interesting opportunity.

I had 23 women of color who are pre-apprentices and part of a program called Sisters with Tools who were here for a civics lesson today here at City Hall.

Unfortunately, they had to go back to class, and they didn't get to see this part of it.

But we'll brief them later and roll the tape for them.

It's interesting because the use is really important.

The user has an amazing track record.

But I want to tell you a story.

Around 2021, we were thinking about how do we get more women of color leading in the construction industry, leading in the union space,

and actually speaking with their own voices about their needs in an industry that's completely male-dominated

and oftentimes as an industry hostile to women, particularly when they have to choose career versus family.

And we thought the way to fundamentally change that is to find those women,

particularly women of color from disadvantaged neighborhoods in the city,

and set a table so that they could speak with their voice about their needs.

And of course, we heard things about child care, about the culture of the industry,

about what it's like to work close to home so you can manage a family life at the same time.

And when I went out, we thought about how do we create a program that syncs up with legitimate registered apprenticeship.

I thought we're going to have people just chomping at the bit to dive into this program.

It's innovative. It's the first in the nation that runs concurrent into languages.

It's like it's all the rage.

The first people to step up wasn't the city at the time.

It wasn't a nonprofit.

it was Strata and one other developer. And they seeded the funding to actually launch this

innovative program to get more women of color into leadership in the construction sector.

It's something I'm very proud of. Jesse and Michael never take credit for it. They typically

will take credit for like 96 units of permanent supportive housing in Jazzy Collins,

which they did at the height of the pandemic for $533,000 a door, right? The sisters with tools

that were here earlier are on the side of the Potrera Power Station right now, learning the

tools of the trade, where we delivered 100% union build and workforce housing in the Sophie Maxwell

for $650,000 a door. So I think it begs some questions about what role does the Planning

Commission play in the approval process, but also what role does the city government play

in actually moving projects forward and actually coming up with innovative strategies to help

good local developers who care about the community, who care about the lasting impact of jobs,

and care about actually effectuating a change in this industry.

And for the benefit of our city, Strata checks all the boxes.

We really love this project.

We're glad you got to learn more about it,

and I think we'll learn more as it breaks ground.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

And this matters now before you, commissioners.

Again, this is just an informational presentation.

Commissioner McGarry?

I'd just like to thank everybody for coming out.

Strata for being an excellent developer.

Rudy and the trades coming out.

In support of this, the sisters here that basically will be the future construction workers going forward.

Females in construction is really, really hard.

We've been struggling for years.

we celebrate 3%

but the 3% if we

actually peel it back and look at it

is more like 1%

and the other 2% is basically

an effort's there for a certain amount of hours

on a job site

and those hours become a requirement

not a

not a mainstay

not a norm

I worked for the Carpenters Union

we had an internal audit

a few years ago, and we saw the nasty truth to that.

We made an effort.

We have all-female cohorts.

So basically, females get in there at our training centres,

and they learn the hands-on tools that will actually put them on the job.

We were outsourcing it to government organisations.

I won't mention them for years.

And that was just a failure.

So in order for it to actually work internally,

we took it internally.

But without partnerships with like Strata and basically support from city organizations, but buy in from the developer, the general contractor, every sub on down, it's just not going to work.

So I want to applaud Strata for what you're doing and your commitment on that.

I would suggest that you put pressure on your general contractor

because your general contractor has overall control

and every sub going down.

And if you have buy-in with your general contractor,

all subs will fall in line.

If you don't have buy-in with your general contractor,

you're trying to hit up every sub individually the whole way down

and you will have zero results.

How do I know this?

Because I live the dream on a daily basis.

and there is no results if you're hitting individual subs as you hit them along the way

because they all have their proprietary way of doing things

and they've got two to four people on the job and it's just not feasible.

And it totally makes sense when you're dealing with them individually.

Their argument totally makes sense.

But if you can get them top down, and that's a requirement before they even step foot on the job site,

and pre-construction with the general contractor,

and it's just a basic understanding,

there is no excuses down the way because everybody knew from day one.

Everybody knew, in this case, probably a year before day one.

The GC arrived on site.

So I wish you well on it. I'm full support of this.

Thank you for what you did.

Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

I want to linger a few more minutes on asking some questions about the design.

I had the opportunity to hear a presentation just on Monday, I think, Tuesday, about this project.

And I think there was one question that struck me,

given that the drawings in the packet are not really fully explanatory of what has been thought about.

So I'll be asking architect Boone, including Mr. Bloud himself,

to speak a little bit more, explaining the land dedication,

its size, its capability to deliver housing,

because the size is unusual,

together with the idea of speaking of affordable housing,

how you thought about it, the numbers, the percentages,

and how it weaves through the project.

I think those are important thoughts

which the drawings themselves don't speak to.

Thank you.

You know, in the rush to get through in five minutes,

I sort of glossed over that issue, so I appreciate the question.

And before you is the SB330 package for just the mixed income component of the project.

There will be a second 330 application for the 100% affordable project.

My brother Rudy mentioned our project as part of the Brady-Jazzy Collins

where we did a standalone roughly 100-unit project there, similar concept.

So we'll have within the project 15% inclusionary affordable within the 619-unit project,

but we'll also be doing a separate 100% affordable project that is positioned on Beale just behind the corner.

It's a good-sized site.

We think we can accommodate about 100 units in type 3 construction, which is what the city prefers.

So we'll be partnering with the port and MOHCD over the next few months and beyond to identify the right nonprofit partner and move that project forward.

But all that's before you today is the 619 unit project with the inclusionary housing.

Did that answer your question?

Yeah.

If Mr. Burns wants to add a thing.

I was saying was at least a little sketch done for us to understand.

The site is basically 67 feet wide and about 145 or 43 feet long.

What can you do when you're wedged between the watermark

and the tall element of your own building on the thousand?

And I think it would be great for the commission to hear your thoughts on that.

At this point, I'd love to have a plan diagram to be able to share with you,

which would say a thousand words.

instead I'll do my best to describe the approach what I can communicate although it's not subject

to this application and the designation of this project the land dedication is an area that we've

undertaken a detailed study and we've produced a massing and unit layout that is compliant with

all of the design guidelines and requirements in terms of unit frontage and square footage

to validate the assumption around the unit yield within that site.

The manner in which we've been able to do that formally

is we are up against one of the blank podium walls of the watermark,

and we've created a courtyard building,

which is effectively a C-shape plugging onto that party wall,

that blind party wall,

to ensure that there's enough light for all of the units

and increase the amount of frontage,

and there's a setback from the adjacent development

that we've shared with you today

that provides 30-foot-wide access to daylight, air, and sky

to be able to ensure that this is a viable unit

to hit the count that Jesse's referred to.

So it'll be subject to a forthcoming submission

where you'll see in a bit more detail how that layout works.

Thank you.

And just a reminder for people listening to us,

This commission is not approving this project.

We are commenting on the project.

For me, it was important that there was thoughtfulness.

It was not just basic, here's a site, forget it,

and you thought this through in a context that is extremely important to this commission.

We want to create as much affordable housing, but with the caveat that it's livable.

And I think in the way you sketched it out or described it in words,

I feel very comfortable that it can be done, and I think it will do this project a great favor.

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and curious what other commissioners have to say.

Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

Thank you. I am so excited about this project, and I hope everyone in the city is getting excited about this project,

and I love learning more about it, so thank you for the presentations.

subjectively I like version 1.0

better than 2.0 but

I understand the situation

we're in and it's successful

nonetheless

and it was interesting to hear you say

we could have gone bigger

I'd love to see it bigger, get more housing in

but appreciate how you're respecting

the commitments you've already made

we just need like a hundred more of these projects

in San Francisco

I really don't have any questions although I thought the public

comment with some community concerns

around traffic were interesting.

I'm sure you have a lot of studies ahead.

Are you comfortable speaking to that

and just to comfort the community

in terms of what they can expect?

Yes.

We have been engaging in that discussion.

There's definitely a lot of focus on current conditions,

just as much as how our project may or may not contribute to that.

But we have engaged a consultant

to help us with the current conditions,

because we feel like there is a bit of a traffic issue

at rush hour in particular.

And so we're sort of evaluating whether there's

some network changes that could potentially

be proposed to the city and MTA to see if there's even ways

to alleviate the situation now.

The speaker did talk about the fact

that we have entrances, or he referred to the fact

we have entrances to the project both on Beale Street

and Bryant Street.

The primary entrance for vehicles

is going to be on Beale Street, which is what he suggested.

So it may not be clear in the drawings.

And I've never met that gentleman,

so I tracked him down and got his cell phone.

We're going to talk after this because it

may not be clear in the drawings where the primary access

points are for cars.

But that is our intent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commission Imperial. Thank you for the presentation and thank you for really going through us in terms of the inspiration for your architectural design.

My question is, one is kind of like going off with Commissioner Gamble in terms of like, I guess I would say, it looks like you've also done a lot of community engagement,

but in the topics of the traffic study and also in terms of the topic of with the environmental,

knowing that this is close to the sea, close to the water.

And of course, there are times that just recently we have King's Tide.

And so how are those, since this SB423 project,

how are those going to be addressed in this process?

I'm not sure if that's a planning staff question or a question of me,

but I can try my best to answer.

I mean, we are definitely addressing sea level rise considerations as part of the project.

We are actually, and part of that is going to be to seek to bring as much of the project out of the ground

and not have a large basement as possible.

And you'll see that reflective in the SB 330 application.

One of the things that's really great about this project

is that as part of the public-private partnership

with the port, we got special legislation

to look at allowing the project to use IFD bonds

to help with resiliency along that stretch of the Embarcadero.

So I think a couple of the speakers mentioned $60 to $70

million of bond money that this will generate up front.

That's because the port will be issuing infrastructure

financing bonds once the project is constructed

or during its construction to leverage that tool

and that the port has committed to dedicating those funds

to sea level rise adaptation along that stretch

of the Embarcadero.

So the project itself will be contributing

to the sea level rise considerations.

OK, thank you for that.

And I guess what would be the role of the planning department in that kind of situation as well in terms of the plans?

Will there be a plan, or that would be totally through the port commission at that point or through the port?

I mean, we have a strong partnership with the port, particularly in the urban design front, on all of their waterfront and seawall efforts.

So we will be engaged, but yes, it is under the jurisdiction of the port ultimately.

Okay. And one last question I have, another question I have, is around the dwelling unit mix.

In your base project, it was compliant, and then it looks like in this proposed project, you change it in a way that you're not reaching the dwelling unit mix.

Can someone explain why is that the case?

I know it's your right to do that, but just wondering what...

By dwelling unit mix, you're talking about the composition, the percentage of one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, studios, etc.?

More on the, there is a requirement for 40% two-bedroom.

40% twos, yeah.

I might ask Will Goodman from my team to come up and answer that question because he's deeper into the details of why the market is not there for that percentage of two bedrooms.

I will say that we're not intending to do that with the affordable project, but for this project I'll have Will answer that.

Good afternoon.

Will Goodman with Strada.

So we are using a density bonus waiver on the unit mix, and it's something that we have done on other projects as well.

We just find that the market actually is not supporting 40% two-bedrooms, and I will say that unit mix will probably evolve a little bit over time.

in units that are two bedrooms and other projects.

We find overwhelmingly those are roommate units, which is great.

They are not likely family units.

So we like to have some amount of two bedrooms, but we just find 40% is too many.

And so that's why we reduce the count.

And just to reiterate, in the affordable project, that will be in compliance?

The affordable project is designed for family units, a family affordable project.

So as Andrew sort of talked through, we're still in the process of designing that layout and that unit mix,

but we anticipate meeting that 40% unit, two-bedroom mix.

And will this be rental or rental units?

Yes, these are all rental buildings.

Okay.

Those are my questions, and I'm looking forward for the third project or the third tower.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brown?

You know, I think a lot of questions have already been asked,

and a lot of what's been discussed just makes this keep sounding better for the most part.

So thank you for bringing forward this project, and it's really impressive.

You know, I'm really picking up on meeting the inclusionary requirements for this project.

Also having the third site for the 100% affordable project, that's great.

I think the design is pretty thoughtful in terms of the location of the tower versus more of the mid-rise elements of this project,

and how that relates to maintaining views and access to the waterfront as well.

And then to some of the questions that were asked about the design of the 100% affordable project,

You know, it's probably, I assume you're looking at six to eight stories in that, and so that seems like a really good fit, given kind of the layout of the existing building and then the tower for this project.

So I like the sensitivity that I'm seeing there.

I have just some minor questions.

So one is, one of the concessions for the density bonuses is active use concession to, it sounds like something along the lines of the parking is going to be above grade in a podium.

and so there's less active use on the frontages.

I'm just curious, could you walk through,

maybe the architect could walk through a little bit more

on the transparency of the frontages,

what uses are envisioned on them,

and also where the parking access is

and what those, especially those,

ground floor frontages look like.

Sure, no problem.

We've had our challenges with the unique geometry of this site.

It's not particularly common to have such an extensive frontage proportionality when it comes to a site.

That long stretch of the Embarker area, in particular, is quite a significant length.

but we've still managed through the detailed planning of the project to subsume the majority

of the parking stalls into the heart of the plan and we do have with the watermark cut out

in that particular corner of the triangle we do have a couple of internal elevations effectively

sort of internal lot lines there that enable us to place some of those dark functions within the

heart of the plan, and we've been fairly successful in ensuring really good distribution of active

frontage, particularly prioritising the Embarcadero and Bryant Street. A lot of these functions are

not always entirely public-facing. Some of them, like the retail tenancies, will be. Others will be

for amenities, specifically for the unit inhabitants, but they'll still have good visibility and

transparency and therefore street presence and activation. But there are some amenities along

the Embarcadero that we're looking at, for example, co-working space that, again, would satisfy those

requirements. So I think the majority of... We have looked at that waiver for a dispensation,

but I think that the majority of the perimeter is fairly active and fairly visually transparent,

and we're avoiding long stretches of dark inactive facade.

Thank you for that.

And I'm curious on Beale Street.

I do see the retail's position on the corners.

It makes a lot of sense.

And then you have the amenity space on the embarcadero in between.

For the Beale Street side,

which sounds like it's going to be the primary parking access,

I guess just the one comment I would have is making sure that,

since that's also the block that the affordable housing project is on,

and it's already some...

I'm sorry.

Then the Bryan Street.

I'm sorry, Bryan Street.

Actually, that's what I meant to say, Bryan Street.

But maybe you could clarify for me then,

is Bryan Street the primary parking access as well?

It is Beale Street.

Sorry, I'll jump back in.

I didn't quite cover that aspect of your question.

Yes, the primary access is off Beale,

approximately in the middle of our frontage on Beale,

so not all the way down at the end of the cul-de-sac there.

and the affordable is sitting on Bryant

between the watermark and our development on the corner.

Okay, thank you.

And sorry, I misunderstood the primary parking entrance

and so I just want to make sure that that block of Bryant Street

is appealing and given that the primary entrance

to the affordable housing building will likely be on that block

and currently there's not a lot going on on that block.

other than that

yeah thanks for

answering those questions I would just note

that we did receive a letter

from Alliance for a Better District 6

sounds like you're probably engaged

with them but either way that letter is in the

pre-hearing correspondence

on the department's website there's some

you know good direction and ideas

in there and so I would just draw your attention

to it but not necessarily

fully endorse every detail of that

thank you

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

I would like to say this is actually one of a really good project

under this ministerial informational hearing to start 2026.

Not to say whoever is going to come up to the next agenda,

like yours should look like theirs, you know,

but it would be nice if yours looked like, you know, 30% like this one, right?

Whoever is listening, the one online, I'm 14.

But I really, really appreciate the effort and the level of respect to the community and also to governance, right?

So I really, there's not much I can say.

I'm not really asking any question.

I just want to, like, this is great, you know?

And learning that developer isn't always bad.

Developer could be, has a very powerful position to be in.

If you get the right designer, the right community, the right, well, not the right one,

all the union traits, all together, we can make great things for the city.

And I'm really aware of that you can actually go really tall and really high and really big,

bigger than the one in your version one design, but you're not.

And it is something very much like wish everyone who hear us, urban planners, architects, developers,

and really think about you have the ability to shape San Francisco and also shape the future of the city.

How can you be responsible to be conscientiously looking for something that money is not the end of everything,

but money is very important, so you've got to get your numbers right.

But by doing so, uplifting everybody,

uplifting everyone that needs to work hard

and feed their families of our workforce

and also create different types of housing

for our future San Franciscan to be able to thrive

and enjoy the waterfront.

And so I really appreciate that.

And I'm not sure about the sketches about the husk,

but I guess I get it.

I can get some cultural understanding of what the husk in use in architecture,

but that's very, well, you got my attention.

I would like to say one thing, though, Rudy.

I think that one big thing that you can train the sister to actually encourage more women in the building tray.

I remember when I walked the construction site, my biggest barrier is finding a bathroom.

Temporary one that is just for women.

So I just wanted to say it that way.

But this is actually, thank you for coming here.

and I know that every one of you had taken a considerable amount of effort to,

in your personal life and your professional life,

that your obligation is to meet us here today.

I acknowledge that we had canceled the meeting from last week,

so appreciate all of you being here.

Thank you for setting our bar high for San Francisco for what is a good thing to do.

not like we're requiring you to do,

but what is a good informative presentation,

informational presentation shall look like.

Thank you, and I really hope that my,

I guess my one question is,

when is the groundbreaking will happen?

Let's go.

Thank you, Commissioner, for those comments.

Well, our hope is, I'm looking at Wyatt from the port,

that we'll be done with the ground lease

the transaction documents by Q2 this year.

And then we'd move right into completing the design,

permit sets, et cetera, with the goal of breaking ground next year.

Nice. Let's go, San Francisco. Yes, let's go.

Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

Thank you for the presentation.

It's obvious that Strata cares

about things that I care about, you know, a community and collaboration

and coming to, you know, some kind of a consensus.

And so I really appreciate that.

There's a lot of things that I could say.

I think some of the things were already mentioned.

One of the things that I have to comment on is the unit sizes.

I don't particularly have a problem with most of what I see.

But it's interesting to understand that you mentioned that the unit sizes are like a cost consideration, right?

That this is how it pencils out.

And so that's interesting because the city really needs family housing, right?

And thank you for putting that affordable housing site to the side, and you're going to make sure that there's maybe three bedrooms and bigger units to accommodate families, right?

Because we all understand that two-bedroom units are very limited.

and so I just wanted to kind of

you know

it's interesting to understand that

because you know

you are probably

you know

one of the better

developers in San Francisco

from what I understand

and you're having an issue

creating real family housing

and so I think that's something to pay attention to.

I'm someone who's been very focused on affordable housing

and building family housing

so that we can have families also be a part of San Francisco.

We need everyone here.

And so I just wanted to highlight that.

Also, I got a question for the city attorney.

And this is regarding Proposition B.

That was from 2014.

And it was a voter approval of the height limits on the waterfront.

And, you know, I know that this is, I don't know if it exceeds it or if it doesn't.

But can you explain, like, how is that something that the voters passed in his law?

How is that conflicting or not conflicting with this particular project?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner.

Deputy City Attorney Kristen Jensen, you're correct.

This project is on Prop B land.

However, they're also seeking to use the state density bonus.

So there are those who argue that state density bonus trumps Prop B in this case because it's a state law.

There are those who argue that the city cannot approve a project that does not conform with Prop B.

That's a legal issue that will have to be sorted out as the project goes forward.

But you're correct that there is a question mark around that issue.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, I think the state density bonus and SB 423 and 330 have brought with it a lot of controversy.

This has nothing to do with you guys.

Obviously, you're working within the legal perimeters.

and so but as you know as we move forward I think it's going to be

interesting to see how this all works out obviously I you know pretty much I'm

pretty much in favor of the project moving forward I think it's also

important to respect the voters the people of the city and so that's where I

I have a little conflict, but I think you guys have done a lot of good work in ensuring that this project is something that is agreeable with the community that it surrounds

and taking in consideration all the other things that you have to take in consider when you're building in a certain area and respecting precedent and stuff like that.

So anyway, those are my comments.

Thank you.

Commissioner Amor?

There's one thing that I've been thinking about for a long time.

I've been in the waterfront environment for many, many years,

and that has something to do with the west side of the Embarcadero.

The west side of the Embarcadero is a movement corridor

that moves at slightly too high a speed to connect the east side and the west side.

Anybody who has heard me speak about that, there is nothing new here.

I think that particularly with a large residential project and with these significantly long frontages that you have on this unusually scape lot, as Mr. Burns just explained,

is over 700 feet, that I think since you do not have a mid-block crossing for people from the

building to go across, but you basically have to go to either side, that is a long way to get to a

crossing, that there is some way of starting to slow down the traffic on the Embarcadero and make

it more people-friendly. The west side works fine because everything is linearly on the

water side, and you can walk back and forth. However, just people coming down Market Street

and going to the ferries at the ferry building, it is an act of many lights you may miss because

there are two cycles, and you may miss your ferry. And I'm saying we need to find a way

to make that part in front of your project,

but also particularly on the west side,

more pedestrian-friendly and less auto- and speed-oriented.

I'm not sure how many, how often the people who I'm talking to are there.

I go through everything from going to the farmer's market,

coming from the west side, going across the Embarcadero

to go to the ferry building and other crossing points, it is a big obstacle.

And I think it would be positive for a residential project not to look at cars just zipping by,

but there would be a cadence to the traffic that is more kind of friendly for pedestrians living,

for people living there and pedestrians being able to cross.

I just want to throw that out.

It's definitely probably not an easy discussion to have, but I would say it would help your project significantly.

Thank you for listening.

Okay, Commissioners.

If there's nothing further, we can move on to item 14, case number 2025-011543, PPS, 241 Dolores Street.

Also an informational presentation related to SB 423.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Thank you.

I'm just going to use the projector.

Okay.

I am Ryan Nock.

I am the architect and project sponsor for this property.

It's at 241 Dolores Street.

The proposal is for a new four-story over basement,

eight-unit building, and also a new detached state law

ADU in the rear yard.

Here's a photo right now of the existing structure.

There's an existing four-story, six-unit building

at the parcel.

The original house was built in 1909, Edwardian style.

It has features nice bay windows, double hung windows.

The entries are all off Dolores Street.

There's also a central courtyard in the middle that right now serves as emergency exiting

for the project and also a supplemental form of light and air into the units.

Right now it's set up where the living spaces all face Dolores Street and the bedroom spaces

face the backyard.

If you go to the second page, that's the existing backyard with the bedroom rear-facing windows.

If you go to the next page, this just shows the condition of the existing first floor,

which is undeveloped space.

There's no plans to currently develop much of this space.

We might use it for some bike parking and some storage, but one of the purposes is to

actually get access to the new four-story building at the rear yard.

was a preliminary meeting held with the fire department. They confirmed their interpretation

that they would need a five-foot access way and ladder access to the rear building. So the primary

thing happening on that floor is new access to, you know, serve as the entry and egress for the

units. This just shows the existing parcel you can see on Dolores Street along the left

edge of the page and that central courtyard. It's a very deep lot. The lot right now is,

well, I think the rear yards, I think it's about 180 feet. The actual back, not legislative

rear yard, but the open space at the back of the building is about 100 feet deep right now.

So it makes it a good candidate for some new housing.

Here's an aerial that shows the parcel in red. It shows there's already lots of development

happening in this sort of middle space. There's parking, there's lots of other buildings and

housing extending pretty far back on adjacent parcels.

And this just gives you a little bit more zoomed out picture of the whole block.

You can see there's already a lot of housing that's eating right into the middle of the

block right now.

So we're proposing something similar and a more modest scale than some of the other projects

there. So this is the proposed plan. It is to have a new, as I mentioned before, four stories over a

basement. And I can go through the unit allocation a little bit, but the idea here is to have all the

bedrooms of the new units face the other bedrooms with the windows offset, and then the new living

spaces to face the rear yard.

And then you can also see the one-story ADU in the backyard.

The plan for this ADU is to have it with its private patio, but also have the roof developed

as some of the open space required for the units.

This just shows a section a little bit about the grading.

of the central court between the buildings is going to be sunken and excavated in order

to get the access to the lower floor.

The first floor is going to have a lobby and some storage and also an accessible unit on

it.

That unit will also have its private patio in the back and it's kind of offset with the

spaces at the rear adu the kind of sliders that access the private space are offset to provide

privacy between the units lots of landscaping and patios and the other floors are a mix of

two bedrooms with a one bed one three bedroom at the top of the building

That is your time.

So very good.

With that, we'll open up public comment.

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

Good afternoon, Georgia Schutish.

I'm glad Mr. Nock gave you those pictures because there was no context.

in the packet, which is why I sent you pictures.

And I've been going by this site for over a year when it was for sale,

and I always wondered what would happen to it.

And so now we know, I guess.

But I think it raises issues that are no longer dealt with up front

or maybe even at all due to SB 423 and no commission or real public oversight.

So as you know, the project involves six tenant-occupied A-rated flats.

It's the A-rated building, the one on the front.

And they're going to do major work to create the legal egress they're required to do by the fire department

with the passageway under the crawl space.

And if you look at the plans, the window, excuse me, the door to this passageway is right under that bay.

And I think that's a problem.

And these are flats, as I said, 16 occupied flats.

And the rezoning acknowledges that flats are housing for middle-class families.

So my concern with this project and all this work that's going to go on to make that legal egress in the back for those new market rate units is what guarantees can be given by the project sponsor so the tenants will not be displaced even temporarily.

Is there a plan protecting the tenants during this major construction and excavation for the egress?

And will the tenants be able to live there while it's going on?

And if they can't, will they be able to return if they have to leave temporarily?

Who's going to protect them?

Is it going to be the fire department?

Because that's who seems like it's going to have the most role in approving this project.

and the project is only viable by creating that big passageway

underneath that one part and it's pretty major

500 cubic yards of dirt is going to be taken out

and as I said the entrance is right under that first bay

the door is right there and it's right under that first flat

another question and sometimes this happens is what happens if the work

stops midway and the tenants are there or not

and I just think these are important questions that need to be answered at this informational hearing if possible.

That's the whole point of it.

And I'll just say parenthetically, here's SB 423 neighborhoods.

I mean, it's the PEG.

That's why you're having this hearing, because this is in the PEG, SB 423.

And I just think that these SB 423 neighborhoods really should be eliminated from SB 423,

and that's something that I think the city should work on.

If you really want to preserve these neighborhoods, then why are they covered by SB 423, which has no oversight?

So that's it.

Thanks a lot.

Okay, last call for public comment.

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

Again, this is just an informational presentation.

Commissioner Campbell?

Thank you.

Thanks for the presentation and the comments.

I admit when I first got this packet I wasn't entirely sure how it worked on the ground floor in terms of exiting and from a life safety perspective.

I think I understand it a little bit better now.

And honestly, that's all something that is not our purview, but DBI, and I know this is SB423, so it doesn't really matter what we say.

But I will just say I really appreciated this project.

I think it's – I appreciate its efficiency.

I think it's an amazing infill solution, assuming it all works from like a life safety perspective.

I think it's a great example of how we can really max out sites.

And yet this facade is all going to, we're like, you know, retaining the historic fabric of this existing building.

So I just think, to think, and this is not too far from my house, that while that will all be retained,

that there are quietly like eight more units plus an ADU popping up behind it and housing that many

more people is pretty magical. So I don't know about the tenant displacement part and if somebody

wants to speak to that, but I think it's a great project and I wish you a lot of luck.

Yeah, thanks. I can't currently speak to the tenant displacement portion of it. The intent is to

retain all the tenants. The owner, I only found out about this meeting happening on Monday this

week, so the owner was not able to actually make it, but I was able to get the presentation together

over the last couple days and make it to this meeting because I know it's important.

What I will say is, as you can see, all the units' access to the front are through these arched

stairways. Those will be maintained. The new access will be underneath the bay window, and also

the middle corridor with access to all the meters, that will be maintained. It's also where the

garbage is. It's kind of in that middle area, so that will be maintained too. So part of the

advantage of getting this five-foot corridor excavated underneath it is that we'll be able

to kind of work around those sorts of existing features. That was how I was reading it as well.

It seems very surgical in that it's not even really touching those floors above. Yeah, that's

the whole intent. Yeah. Okay, thank you. That's all my comments. Commissioner Imperial. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. And I mean, one thing that I appreciate that you're building

two-bedroom units in this.

But as I was also, I think,

concerned that Ms. Schutte brought up,

and I understand, I believe, like,

the plans have, you know, the plans are already

submitted, but it has to go through the

fire department to assess the fire safety

on this. But I am,

again, that's also, like, my concern

is, like, where's the entrance and the fire safety

on this. It's not in our purview, but I cannot help but think about that, you know, and that's

something that I'm just going to point out an issue for me. Another thing is, I don't know if

you can speak about, I don't know if the, whether it's the owner or you can speak about the existing

tenants on the other building and, you know, how would they try to mitigate that during the

construction? Yeah, I mean, I think the mitigation would just be, you know, making sure that

construction sticks only to the legal permitted hours during construction. Having someone to

handle, you know, directly handle any sorts of issues that tenants run into, standard notification

procedures for if any of the services do need to get shut off. I don't necessarily anticipate that

in this case because, again, we're going to excavate down and try to avoid things.

So that's the main concern.

I could see the main issue is just kind of getting equipment in and out

and closing off certain areas.

But I would like to see about even, you know,

the backyard space does not look currently used at a high level to me

by the existing tenants.

But I could see about maintaining the use of some outdoor space

even while this is happening.

I guess my question will be for the planning department on the recent tenant ordinance was passed.

Will that be applied to this?

Right now, what that tenant ordinance applies to is residents who are subject to construction within their property.

So I'll have to get back to you.

I think what we're looking at here is just minor construction, i.e. excavation of an existing property, not construction where the actual tenants are.

So I'm not sure.

Yeah, I'll just would recommend to look into that as we are going through this.

Yeah, I guess what I would note, Commissioner Imperial, too, is that as part of the rent board and other things,

there are a number of protections and resources that tenants have for disruptions per their

landlord that would probably be more appropriate than the tenant construction ordinance that was

just adopted to deal with construction. So probably more of the city's existing

resources on that front, which are numerous. Yeah, I totally understand. It's just my concern

during the construction and, you know, sometimes it can lead to where the tenant may end it up.

living because of the, and I know there will be mitigation measures, but like what are

the protections for tenants and how are they going to be guided by this during the construction

phase?

So, you know, what's the role of, you know, I, we've had these conversations before in

terms of the notices, you know, that it's put out and it's of course based on the language

on, you know, depending on what the language of the tenants are.

But knowing their rights, you know, those are the things that I believe our department can probably facilitate for the tenants.

But, yeah, that's something that I would hope the owner of this would be really also consulting with the rent board on this process as well.

And so, yeah, so that's I would like just to emphasize that for us in the department as well, too.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I'll be sure to pass that on.

Okay.

Commissioner Moore.

Thank you for the presentation.

This submittal package itself was completely inconclusive to understand the project,

but that is probably not your fault.

I'm not sure who put it together.

I would appreciate if the department makes sure that we can understand the project,

which is really, given what's in this package, not the case.

So anyway, I like the idea.

I think it's a great idea of densification,

and I wish that we would carefully examine deeper backyards

to really do something which is a light touch, a soft touch,

without really disrupting neighborhoods and the feeling of neighborhoods.

What I would like to ask you as you move forward,

it would be very helpful if you would have like an adjacency plan

so that people can see where existing property lines

and walls of adjoining buildings are, where are windows, what are people looking at when

the garden identifies, et cetera, because in the end, this thing has to also function

three-dimensionally.

Question for you.

An ADU, is that a correct understanding on my part, needs to be independently accessible

and addressed from the street, or how are you handling that here?

Yeah, so the ADU will be accessible independently from the street.

So it'll share the entrance that the rest of the units in the main building are having,

and there will also be an exit, there'll be a breezeway essentially through the bottom of that building to the back unit.

So there will be its own address on the facade of the building?

Yeah, there won't be a separate one.

The facade will just have a five-foot door where the window is in the facade right now.

That will be made into a door with a couple of steps down.

Fortunately, we have a little space there.

The sidewalk doesn't start right at the front of the building.

It's back a little bit.

And so that pathway underneath the building, which will make very nice for everyone, that will lead to the eight units and then also the ADU at the backyard.

And the ADU will go underneath the new building, basically.

The other question I have is using the roof of the ADU as common open space.

Is that the idea?

That's one of the ideas being explored right now.

I think it would be nice to make it, you know, when you're looking back there into the backyard,

not to just see kind of a sort of ugly roof and have that be kind of landscaped.

So I don't know if it's a living roof.

I don't know if we need to use it yet as part of the open space.

I'm still kind of studying the open space requirements.

I think we might need to use part of it to meet the open space requirement for all the units.

The reason why I'm asking is the green roof is one thing,

and that would be definitely fantastic given the densification of the site

and really the loss of permeable green on the side.

However, and again, this is a question about adjacencies,

when a roof deck occurs that far in the rear yard,

what is happening all the way to the east,

and the adjoining properties to the east,

and how do properties to the north and south as well are being looked into

because in most of these buildings the bedrooms are to the back of the building.

So that is not explained,

And I think as you move forward and make a decision how much of that roof you need or only have a green roof,

it would be interesting that you consider the adjacency in all compass points.

Okay. I'll be sure to take that into consideration. Thank you.

And that's all. I think this would be a really great prototype for identification in this type of neighborhood.

And I really think we should be looking at this very, very carefully and exploring that this indeed is the most harmonious way of densifying.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Williams.

Just wanted to, first of all, thank you for your proposal here.

I am concerned about the tenants as well.

As I'm looking at this and kind of wondering, as far as the fire department, like what kind of things are they going to require from you?

Possibly fire sprinklers, for example.

Yeah, we did cover that.

I could try to follow up with a bulletin.

I didn't know they actually had this.

I had a pre-op with fire and the building department.

And they will not require the entire sprinkler of the whole building.

They will require the exit passageway to be sprinklered, but they won't actually require the whole building.

So the front building won't require sprinklers?

Correct. Yeah, not the whole building. At the most, it will be the exit passageway just on the ground floor.

And we'll need sprinklers to go to the new building at the back anyway, so there'll be some infrastructural work for that.

But I think we can combine that all into the excavation and trenching and the kind of, you know, as I'm calling it, localized area,

five-foot plus or minus pathway to the back to get all those utilities back there.

Okay, good, because I know sometimes there are unintended consequences when you want to develop something that has an existing structure on it that they make you upgrade the existing structure, which our tenant occupied it.

So that's why I asked that question.

Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting project.

I don't think I've seen one like this so far.

I've only been here for about a year and a half.

But it's definitely a new concept.

You know, it's a big, large lot, and there's a lot of space.

But I was wondering, like, as far as the garbage is, you know, the garbage area.

I know we have a single-family dwelling, and we have an issue with garbage.

You know, unfortunately, we got the recycle.

You got three cans.

Now you're, you know.

And so it's the little things like that sometimes that really turn out to be interesting problems to have to solve.

Are you guys addressing that?

Or is that something that, I mean, I know it's not a big deal, but I was just curious off the top of my head.

No, no, that's fair enough.

So, yeah, the existing units will keep their garbage through that central courtyard.

They have, I don't know if the chutes are active anymore, I don't know if it's allowed, but the garbage is at the bottom of those common stairs.

So the front building will keep its existing garbage.

The new building at the back, I don't think it's shown clearly in these plans, but there will be a refuse area that will be screened off from the building occupants.

So that the, I do believe that the, they'll pick up the garbage from the middle space.

So there'll just be an area, they won't have to carry it all the way out to the front.

We'll have an area that's screened off in the middle courtyard for those purposes.

I'm sure the garbage folks are going to appreciate you making that as easy and accessible as possible.

Yeah, I mean, again, I think it's very ambitious.

I mean, just an observation.

You know, this property hasn't had a structure like this on it for its whole existence.

and I'm just curious to see how the neighbors are going to react when all of a sudden, if this gets approved.

I know as far as the height is concerned, it is two stories?

The new one is four stories.

It's four stories, right.

So, yeah, that's kind of tall.

and so it's going to be interesting to see how that all works out.

I think we're in a new era with SB 423,

and I think there's a lot of questions

and there's going to be a lot of issues that come up

because you don't have to go through the scrutiny

that most projects have to go through anymore because of this new state law.

And so I'm not saying I'm for it or I'm against it.

I'm just stating the obvious that people understand.

People understand what's happening now.

And so I would just say, you know, good luck.

and hopefully everything works itself out

and you're able to build something

that will be affordable to families.

Yeah, that's the goal.

I mean, to make these somewhat affordable.

Like the unit sizes aren't huge,

but we're trying to get two bedrooms in all of them.

The top floor one is a three-bedroom,

so we try to fit that in.

There's an accessible unit.

You know, to the context, fortunately, I mean, you know, any change is a little different,

but, you know, if you look to one side, there's someone who's using the parcel as a parking lot.

I think that's to the south side.

And to the north side, the adjacent parcel has some sort of structure on the ground floor.

I'm not sure how much they're using that.

They would probably be, you know, the most impacted.

But then if you go one more up, there's a building in the backyard.

And if you go two down, there's a building in the backyard.

So there's definitely some context here of buildings going deeper than this one even, and tall too.

So you're not required to make any of the units affordable, or are you?

Not at nine units.

Not at nine.

Yeah, or it's eight.

I think it's eight in the main building, and then one at the 80U.

Okay.

So I think nine is the threshold.

Am I correct, or is it ten?

It's ten, yeah.

So you got right underneath the wire there?

We did, yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, it's the math that's working out for the owner, so this is what they wanted, and the code allows it.

Well, hopefully you'll keep the working families in consideration when you go to rent out these properties.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner LeBron.

Okay.

On the whole, I think this is a really interesting and creative infill project.

It's really exciting to see.

I appreciate the comments commissioners have made about concerns about the existing tenants,

even if they're not displaced.

It's certainly no picnic living in a construction zone directly underneath you and behind you

for as long as it would take to build this.

And so hopefully there's opportunities either, well, hopefully opportunities for some sort of reductions,

whether legally mandated for diminishment services or just offered by the property.

We'll see.

But either way, it's beyond the purview of this discussion.

I had maybe two questions.

The first one is you didn't really get to the back of the packet that you shared.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

We're out of time.

Sure, sure.

No problem.

But on the basement level plan, it's a little, the layout of the patio deck between the ADU and the new sort of middle building, it's a little different from the site proposed parcel plan.

And I'm just curious if you wouldn't mind clarifying.

I know that this is a preliminary application.

Plans might still be changing.

But would you mind just kind of?

Yeah, sorry about that.

So basically, if I'm looking at the proposed parcel plan, there's built up to 25% lot line over two levels.

So that's kind of that little bump out you see.

I can point it out here.

But there's a, yeah.

So this is kind of the bump out here, and this is a private path.

Not shown in the site plan.

If it's possible, would you mind speaking to the microphone?

just folks watching. So there's a private patio that's accessed by the ground floor unit. I think

I'm calling that unit number eight. And then there's another patio that's for the ADU that's

in the far backyard. Okay. Yeah. So sorry if the site plan wasn't fully updated. Again, I was on a

three-day crunch to get the presentation together. Okay. And actually, in some ways,

it seems like a better option than having an elevated deck.

Yeah, so the idea is that the one off of the unit number eight is slightly, it'll be slightly lower,

and then the one off of the other patio will just be a little bit higher by probably a couple feet.

So there'll be a little bit of separation there, and there might be some more fencing or planting

kind of put between them, but the whole goal is to make those two areas sort of private for those units.

Thank you for that. Yeah, and I would just say, you know, with a project like this, I'm always looking at the distance between the buildings.

Actually, folks have heard this, we've come here a lot, but I live in a rear yard structure with a much taller building in the front,

but either way, like one building's probably three to four stories and the other building is roughly two stories in height.

And I saw there's 15 feet between the front and rear buildings in this design, and that seems reasonable.

It's a little tight.

I literally took a tape measure out to see what the distance was between the buildings and my lot.

It's a little tight with four stories on either side, but it seems reasonable.

But I would just be kind of my one thought is it's a little concerning to have any further projections, especially taller ones like a deck or something in that space.

I don't even know if that would be allowed, but I wouldn't want to, you know, further diminish the light that does get into that space between the buildings.

Yeah, just to clarify, the ones between the ADU and the main building, those are basically patios on grade, so they'll be low to grade.

And then, yeah, the front buildings, we were very conscientious about that distance.

It came down to, unfortunately, at some point, like the unit size and the math behind it.

So, yeah.

Sure, sure.

Okay.

And then I have a question that's almost just more out of curiosity.

I mean, this seems, okay, you excavate underneath the front building to gain access to the rear yard.

I'm just curious.

I mean, what are some of the challenges in actually getting construction equipment back there and building the project?

I mean, it seems like a big challenge.

Yeah, I mean, it's going to be expensive.

Like, there's going to be hand digging, all sorts of other things.

They are exploring sorts of agreements with adjacent properties for easements for moving equipment back.

The building to the north of it does have a large driveway through it.

And it's like, I guess, the parking in the backyard.

And so they actually have like a drive through it.

So there's discussions about possibly trying to get an easement to get to that.

That would have to be discussed.

But if that doesn't work out with the adjacent building and the property owners and tenants,

then this will just be a sort of, you know, they're going to do it as quickly as possible,

but it'll just be much smaller pieces of equipment, maybe a very small Bobcat going back there,

not huge things, you know, bringing in lumber and batches through it.

But the goal is, like, the first thing is we're going to excavate and get this pathway so that that is where all the materials go through so that it doesn't interrupt the, you know, the courtyard in the middle of the existing building.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

That's the plan.

I was curious.

And there's other plans to maybe make it a little bit more efficient if possible.

So with adjacent neighbor access if that can be worked out.

All right.

That's just helpful and interesting to hear.

So thank you.

Those are all my questions.

I would you know I just to editorialize for a second I I think that a project

like this shows part of why I've often not been a big fan of trying to

regulate projects through density limits because there are a lot of creative

solutions to add units on to a lot this one's a I recognize a larger lot than

usual but still you know I think a form-based approach to design is makes a

lot more sense the density units when we have such an imperative to add more

housing in the city, and this is a great example of that. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner

McEary. I like the project. It's very nice. It's an abnormally large lot for San Francisco.

When I arrived here in 1990, I lived up on Clinton Park around the corner there, so

I know the area well. But I do like the project. I do want to say I'm not a big fan of 423 being

used for nine units, anything under 10 units. I don't believe that was its original intent.

I guess it does maximize the feasibility, to use your term, in order to make it work.

but I'm not a fan of it

it being used right up to the max

so it's

just under the wire to qualify for

affordable housing

but I wish you well with it, thank you

I have to say you show up

with more quality drawings

instead of what you were

submitting so I

wish you luck in the whole

process, we understand

that this is, you haven't even

started the application

review process, so you will be changing a lot of your drawings.

So thank you for showing up today and appreciate the material and the ability to answer all

of my peers' questions.

Yeah, thanks for your insight.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to your discretionary review

calendar for item 15, case number 2025-005517 DRP for the property at 3725 Jackson Street.

this is a discretionary review good afternoon commissioners if we could just

hold on one second we're just waiting for staff to make an initial presentation

and then you'll get five minutes

Good afternoon, President and Commissioners.

David Winslow, Staff Architect.

The item before you is a publicly initiated request for discretionary review of planning application 2025-00551-17 PRJ

to construct a rear horizontal addition with deck at the basement and first level

and a horizontal addition at the side of the third level of a three-story over-basement single-family building.

The site is approximately 54.5 feet wide by 85.9 inches deep, a lateral and up-sloping lot.

The existing building, located in the eligible Presidio Heights Historic District and built in 1971, lacks historic significance.

The DR requester, June Coleman, on behalf of Kuljeet Singh of 3800 Washington Street, the neighbor to the immediate south,

is concerned that the proposed project would block views and sunlight, as well as intrude into the privacy of 3800 Washington.

Additionally, the DR requester is concerned about geologic and drainage issues related to the excavation of the project.

Her proposed alternatives are to eliminate the third floor addition and revise the project to eliminate necessary excavation for the proposed subsurface alterations.

To date, the department has received no letters in support nor letters in opposition of the project.

This project is compliant with the planning code.

specifically with respect to height and rear yard setback.

The proposed excavation and addition would extend the lower levels,

basement and level one, to the 30% rear yard line.

These levels would be substantially at or below existing grade.

The proposed terrace, retaining walls, and railings do extend beyond the rear yard line,

however below existing grade.

These features are allowed to extend beyond the rear yard setback when below grade per planning code section 136C13 and 15.

At level 3, the project proposes to add 507 square feet to the west over the existing footprint of the building.

As the lower levels are mostly below grade and the third level is over the existing footprint of the subject property,

both immediate adjacent buildings to the east and west extend further into the rear yard than the massing of this proposed project.

Geotechnical reports and structural review of foundation design are not in the purview, as you know, of the planning department, or to review or regulate.

That review occurs after planning approval, and the building design is finalized so that technical drawings can be prepared with the certainty of scope.

The Department of Building Inspection will review the structural plans for adequacy when the project does apply for a building permit.

The project applies with the planning code and the residential design guidelines,

which articulate the building to minimize impacts to light and air.

And the proposed addition located at least 60 feet to the north and downhill of the DR requester

will have little to no impact on light or privacy to the DR requester's property.

Views are not protected, nor is it reasonable to assume that they would be significantly affected, even if this were a legitimate issue.

Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review.

Thank you.

Okay, DR. Equestria, you have five minutes.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is June Coleman, and I represent, I believe the property owner is Doe Capital.

but that's owned by Koljit Singh.

We submitted a lot of materials,

so we have issues with the height limitations,

and we're not clear that the application

actually identifies the height of the building

in comparison with the ground.

When we met with the Planning Commission and the architect,

they indicated they would provide that information.

there's a general representation in the planning documents that it complies with the height

requirements or you know it doesn't exceed the height limitations but we were concerned that

some of the property may exceed the height limitations at various aspects of the project

i don't want to spend my time on that you've got that issue in front of you

there's a diminution of value of about 3%, $400,000

if the project goes forward.

Again, you've got our appraisers report in there

that talks about that on, I believe those figures

are on page two of that report.

And we do have privacy concerns.

If you look at the picture of the property,

The adjoining property line is in this area here, and you'll see that there's this large tree right here.

The large tree they plan to take out, and that obstructs the view between the two houses.

So once the large tree is removed, we believe that at least on the third story, they'll be able to not only overlook and look into the backyard, but also look into some of the windows of the house.

And those are really the privacy concerns.

Again, we understand that those are not significant issues for you, but they're issues for my client.

But I do want to focus a little bit on the stability and seismic issues that we find in this project.

There is a regulation that said prior to November that if the slope was greater than 25%,

then there would need to be a stability and seismic report.

The project was submitted before November.

The DRP was submitted before November.

so we're really asking that that be considered by the planning commission

there there is a significant grade where the uphill property and when they remove that large

tree that i mentioned and they're planning i think i'm removing some other trees there's an

issue regarding the roots that extend to my client's property and how they will support

and stabilize the property and the slope,

given that they'll essentially die off without the tree.

You know, the other thing that we have an issue with

is that there's supposed to be a retaining wall

on the back end of the property.

That's part of the plan.

and the retaining wall will need to have an easement to be built on my client, an easement

from my client, which my client will not provide. Now, the architect has indicated that they can

come in with a large crane and put the retaining wall in. You have to retain the dirt in order to

put the retaining wall in, that temporary retention would be on my client's property.

And if you look at exhibit F of the engineer's report, you'll see various types of retaining

walls.

All of those indicate that on the right-hand side, which is the upside of the picture,

demonstrative picture, that that extends into the upside property.

And so we think that's a viable concern that the Planning Commission should consider.

Additionally, if they were to bring in a large crane, we don't believe that there's a pathway

for the crane to get to drop the retaining wall in.

Thank you. That is your time, but you will have a two-minute rebuttal.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

May we use the computer, please, with USB?

Of course.

Hello, my name is Steven Sutra. I'm the architect and sponsor for this project.

The project indeed includes excavation for a rear addition at the basement and lower levels,

and an addition at the top floor that is minimally visible from Jackson Street.

The proposed changes, as David mentioned, fully comply with all applicable planning code requirements,

including the residential design guidelines.

The project sponsor team and property owner have met with the DR requesters team to discuss their concerns.

Many of the issues raised by the DR requesters, such as drainage, retaining walls, shoring methods, vibration monitoring, construction techniques,

are more appropriately addressed during the building permit documentation phase, not at this DR hearing, as we all know.

These items will be designed by licensed professionals and reviewed by the appropriate city agencies at that later phase.

This slide shows the existing proposed site plans with the property highlighted in blue and the DR requester's home in green.

The DR requester claims the project will block sunlight to their property, but this is physically impossible due to the site orientation.

The project site is located north of the DR requester's property.

No portion of the proposed addition can cast a shadow on the DR requester's property.

Therefore, the property creates no sunlight or shadow impacts at all.

The DR requester states that the addition will block views and loom over their property.

This claim does not align with the existing site conditions.

As shown in the site section diagram, the DR requester's property is located approximately 20 feet higher than 3725 Jackson.

This gray difference ensures that the proposed work at 3725 cannot overshadow or loom over the DR requester's home.

In addition, there is an existing separation of over 55 feet between the rear facade of 3725 and the DR requester's rear property line, with a distance between the two buildings themselves at approximately 100 feet.

This exceeds rear yard setbacks and remains unchanged by the project.

These generous separations ensure continued access to light, air, and openness.

Given the substantial distance between the buildings and property lines, the proposed windows and views from the new addition do not create privacy concerns.

The project also includes rear yard landscaping designed to soften views and minimize potential sight lines.

Together, these elements maintain appropriate privacy and do not impact the DR requesters' enjoyment of their property.

This next slide shows the existing proposed front elevations to Jackson Street.

The highlighted portion shows the extent of the addition visible from Jackson.

The proposed addition is modest and remains largely within the existing roofline.

Only a small portion of the addition rises approximately three feet above the current roofline.

Given the elevation distance and modest height increase, the project cannot obstruct or dominate views from the uphill property.

On the next slide, the DR requester asserts the project violates Code Section 260 related to height limits.

This also is incorrect.

The project is compliant with Section 260 and 261 and remains within the allowable height envelope for the RH1 zoning.

As shown, the building envelope diagram, the design follows the sloping height plane permitted under 261A.

No portion of the project exceeds the allowable height at any point on the lot.

So to summarize, we're confident that the project meets all applicable planning code,

does not create impacts related to sunlight, views, privacy, or height.

The DR requesters related to construction methodology will be addressed during the building permit phase.

For these reasons, we believe the proposed project should be approved as designed.

Thank you very much.

I also want to say that there is indeed a retaining wall that's designed on the rear property line,

and there's no way that any easement or any access to the neighbor's property

would be required to put that retaining wall in place.

We would use a shoring method as we have on zero lot lines in many instances

that doesn't require any physical access or any temporary

or any permanent structure be placed on their site.

That has not been fully engineered because we're going through a site permit application process,

but we work with wonderful geotechnical engineers, wonderful soil shoring engineers,

and wonderful general contractors that sequence this all the time so that gives

me no pause so that that should not be a cause for delay here I think thank you

thank you with that we should take public comment members of the public

this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter last call okay

public comment is closed PR requester you have a two-minute rebuttal

Thank you.

In total, I really believe that when you have a project like this, which has these questions, which has these slope concerns, it also has drainage concerns.

And drainage would run downhill and be an issue for the Jackson Street address.

But when that becomes an issue for the Jackson Street address, then that creates structural and seismic issues for the uphill property.

So we really are concerned about the issues that I pointed out.

I know that initially we raised some issues about light and view, but I don't believe that the Jackson Street architect addressed our concerns about visibility into the house and the lack of the trees and their roots supporting the slope and the issues regarding whether there's shade or sunlight blockage.

are not really our concerns at this point.

We attempted to obtain information about the height issues,

and they were not provided.

We attempted to obtain information about line of sight

from the architect, and that was not provided either.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

Thank you.

I don't think I need the time, but I'm

here to answer any questions that anyone has.

Thank you.

With that, that concludes the public hearing portion.

And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Moore?

I believe that the ..

Like in any DR, I felt that the questions asked by the DR

applicant were reasonable.

but I do believe that many of the considerations that are part of the DR are not really issues that are addressed by this commission.

That includes views, which really are not part of any kind of planning code,

except for specific city corridors, of which are about 8 or 10,

and this particular property is not protected by those view corridors.

geotechnical issues including drainage are part of standard practice of architects who have

experience in building in situations like this and Mr. Sutro's work has been in front of this

commission many times before so we have similar questions but it is within the practice of a

licensed architect to not only address some but he is legally required to have all i's and t's

cost to answer them properly and within the latest requirements of practice.

So I do not have any concerns about that.

Further to this, I believe that the addition itself is respectful of the adjacent historic

property, particularly because the property is on a higher elevation on Washington Street

or not on Jackson Street.

It would probably be more difficult if these two buildings would be next to each other,

which they aren't.

So I'm personally comfortable with not seeing anything exceptional and extraordinary in this particular application, and I am prepared to follow staff's recommendation not to take DR and approve.

And I can make a motion, but I can also wait until my fellow commissioners have additional questions, but I'm going to make some motion because the case is pretty clear to me.

I'll second.

Second.

Okay, so we had a motion, we have second, and then we have a couple commissioners would like to make some comments.

I'll start with Commissioner Campbell.

I'll keep it brief.

I completely agree with Commissioner.

You can take your time.

More.

And I actually can't think of a more modest and less invasive addition that this project sponsor could have done.

and I think one very telling drawing for me was A4.4,

which outlines the buildable envelope that this project sponsor could have exercised in terms of the addition.

So I think if I lived next door, I'd be quite grateful that so much of the addition is actually submerged.

And just echoing concerns around earthwork and water infiltration,

I think that is very human and fair and will all hopefully

be addressed by DBI, which is just not our purview.

So yeah, I seconded your motion.

Kimmichina Williams?

I mean, given the historical nature of the building

that is in question, I can see why they're concerned.

And so I would just say that there's some concerns there.

I think that it seems to me that it doesn't really

rise to the level, unfortunately, of an extraordinary circumstance. But having said that, I think

as far as the architect and whoever becomes the builder or the engineer or whoever does

the actual work and the shoring and et cetera,

that they, as much as possible, work with your neighbor

or the neighbors up there.

And consider the fact that this is an historical building

and the artist is very unique unto itself.

And so that's just a comment that I wanted to just make

in the record.

But again, I think people have kind of,

my fellow commissioners have kind of outlined some

of the things that I think that I was thinking about myself.

So anyway, yeah.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry?

The light problem I failed to see because basically the rotation of the sun kind of takes that out of the equation,

but that seems to be a problem.

Drainage seems a little weird to me because, you know, it's the person downstream that has to worry about drainage.

In this case, they're going to improve the situation.

So the retaining wall, I can only imagine, is going to take into account any kind of gathering of water.

It's actually going to improve the situation and basically flow it out in a way that basically it'll be engineered, that it won't be a problem.

Then it comes down to the height.

The height, the windows here, are no higher than the windows of the existing house, from what I see.

So really it seems to be down to the trees.

and the lack of the trees.

But if the individual, the trees are not on the DR's property.

They're on the property of the individual.

And it would appear the DR's property has at one time chosen never to have a tree

or got rid of every tree that was on their property.

So it's the neighbor.

They have to get what they want done, and it does seem modest.

And the neighbor seems to have done everything they want to do,

and it's pretty clinical, but they've got the view of the trees and their neighbor,

but they don't have the right to those trees that belong to their neighbor.

And I've gone through this, and it seems to come back to that for me.

So I find it hard, because everything is upside down on this one.

So I think it's a perfectly good project, and I wish you well.

Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed on that motion.

Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Soh?

Aye.

So move, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 and concludes your hearing today.

Okay, meeting's adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.