Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission regular hearing

for Thursday, January 29th, 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

you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up.

When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the

next person queued to speak.

There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left

and watch your time tick down.

Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record.

I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings.

And finally, I will remind members of the public that the Commission does not tolerate

any disruption or outbursts of any kind.

At this time, I'd like to take roll.

Commission President Soh?

Present.

Commission Vice President Moore?

Present.

Sorry.

Commissioner Braun?

Here.

Commissioner Campbell?

Here.

Commissioner Imperial?

Here.

And Commissioner McGarry?

Commissioner Williams out today. First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration

of items proposed for continuance. Item 1, case number 2025, hyphen 004243 CUA 655 Brotherhood

Way, conditional use authorization has been withdrawn. So we should take public comment

on the continuance calendar, only on the matter of continuance.

Okay, seeing none, public comment is closed.

And commissioners, the matter has been withdrawn,

so there's no action required on your behalf.

Commission matters, item two, the land acknowledgement.

I'll be reading the land acknowledgement.

The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatisholoni,

who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

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

the Ramatisholoni 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 Ramatish

Sholoni community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Thank you.

Item three, consideration of adoption draft minutes for January 15, 2026.

Commissioners, I will simply note that we will be exchanging what was what is

before you and submitted to you in the minutes under Georgia Schutich's

comments and replacing it with her 150 word submittal which we received late

but nonetheless we'll be amending the minutes in that fashion only.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on

their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is

closed and your minutes are now before you commissioners.

Commissioner Brown.

Move to approve the minutes.

Second.

Thank you commissioners.

On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner Brown.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Soh.

Aye.

So move commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously 6-0.

Item four, Commission comments and questions.

Okay, if there are no comments and questions from members of the Commission.

Item five, election of officers in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Planning

Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected at the

first regular meeting of the Commission held on or after the 15th day of January each year

or at a subsequent meeting.

The date shall be fixed by the commission.

With that, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity

to adjust the commission on the election of officers.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

Well, good afternoon, everybody.

And it has been a very, very amazing journey

that I have been having the opportunity to serve

as the president on this very important commission.

We went through a lot of important milestones

in the last 18, 19 months.

And I really appreciate the work I had collaboratively

with all of you.

And then I would also like to take that opportunity,

in addition to thank you everybody and our staff

and our other department agency and the public and the community really truly thank all my commissioners.

Commissioner Ron, Commissioner Campbell, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Imperial, Commissioner McGarry.

Today I would like to share some thought that I have is that I always felt that the progress and change is much needed for our city,

and our city is coming back.

And I would like to also continue to advocate for progress.

And also, it's very important how we conduct our commission to have that culture that we should be fair and appreciative of everybody with respect.

With that note, I would like to continue to be the beacon of cultural shift.

The thing that we typically do, the thing that what you think things should be, whether

it's written or not, the tenure legacy is something that would perhaps deserve a better

look at how we can shift the norm that you have seen in this past.

So with that, I would like to hear some motion or nomination to nominate some of my fellow

peer commissioners to step in to try this.

And perhaps Commissioner Campbell and also Commissioner Moore to be the vice president.

I would like to hear if anyone would have to motion for Commissioner Campbell to be

the president and commissioner more to be the vice president commissioner mcgary

commissioner so thank you for your service excuse me the last uh your stewardship the last year

and i would agree with you and i would like to officially make that motion

for Commissioner Campbell as president and Commissioner Moore as vice president.

Second.

Any additional nominations?

Commissioner Moore.

I'd just like to take the opportunity to thank outgoing president.

So for an element of daring optimism, that sometimes eludes me,

But I think you have done that in a masterful way,

and I think that tone, I think, is appropriate

and hopefully will inspire as how we move forward.

And thank you for your sense of humor,

and thank you for a job well done.

Thank you. Appreciate you.

If there are no further nominations,

there is a nomination to elect Commissioner Campbell

as president and Commissioner Moore as vice president on that motion Commissioner

Campbell hi mission McGarry Commissioner Braun I

Commission Imperial I Commissioner Moore I and Commissioner so I so move

commissioners that motion passes unanimously six to zero congratulations

to our officers if you want to do a quick seat change we can make that I'm

I'm the lucky one who doesn't have to move.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners, that will now place us on department matters.

Item six, directors announcements.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Welcome President Campbell.

Thank you for continuing to serve commissioner Moore.

or so, so much to say.

But maybe I'll just leave it here in addition to the gratitude you heard from your colleagues.

Just a real expression of shared optimism.

I really loved your remarks about part of our progress is also trying to move forward

in dynamism as a commission.

So thank you for seating us with that as a body and a group working together.

It's really amazing.

So grateful you're still here.

Okay.

A couple things just to update folks on.

This week, the planning department had the pleasure of hosting John King, our retired urban design critic for the Chronicle, to come in and speak to all of us about his perspective, having looked at our skyline, our buildings, our public realm over the last, oh God, how many years?

There was a joke that it was since the 1920s, but that was not correct.

So that was a real great opportunity.

We look to do more of those.

And I think one of, in addition to it being a great opportunity, it was a packed room.

Everybody four went their lunch.

It wasn't even one where you could brown bag it.

And that's the kind of planning team we have, right, where they're always learning and listening.

And I'm really grateful to be a part of that team.

Additionally, I wanted to let you know that next week on February 4th, just so we're updating the public as well,

there will be a community conversation on the recommendation of district three landmarks under

our historic preservation group it'll be an online forum that is parallel to the physical in-person

forum that was held on january 28th on the same topic so just we have multiple ways of people

learning about the recommendations and giving their feedback and then lastly just to alert you

all we had a conversation on budget last week we'll be coming back to you on february 12th

to give you an update on that budget.

And at that time, we will be able to include the changes

about the unification of the permit center and DBI

and how those new positions will be represented in our budget,

as well as any mayoral requested cuts to our budget,

which we're still learning about them

and working through that in the budget.

But again, I am very confident that the headlines

that we gave you last week in terms of no layoffs,

continuing the work program will all remain true.

So we'll be able to give you those details on February 12th.

Thank you.

Okay, if there are no questions for the director, we can move on to item 7,

review of past events at the Board of Supervisors.

There is no Board of Appeals report, and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Audrey Merloni, Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs.

And congratulations to President Campbell and Vice President Moore.

This week, the Land Use and Transportation Committee had several planning related items.

First was the Code Corrections Ordinance.

You initiated this ordinance on September of last year and then voted unanimously to

approve the ordinance on October 23rd.

Since that time, the department and the city attorney did notice several unintentional

changes in the proposed ordinance, and therefore amendments were presented to the committee

to reflect those corrections, but none of those proposed amendments were substantive.

There was no public comment, nor were there any comments from the committee members before

the committee voted unanimously to adopt the amendments and send the ordinance to the full

board with a positive recommendation.

Next up was the ordinance that would make it easier for movie theaters to sell alcohol

for on-site consumption.

You heard this ordinance just a couple of weeks ago on January 15th.

You voted to approve the legislation with a host of recommended modifications

Those are our recommended modifications were to first remove the fixed seating requirement from the definition of movie theater

Second remove the arbitrary restrictions within the upper Fillmore NCD

Which includes the 150 fixed seating requirement and the type 41 ABC license restriction

Third was to apply the proposed changes consistently across districts, which includes allowing all movie theaters to offer a broader range of programming without needing to establish a separate entertainment use and exempting movie theaters from the non-residential use size limit.

And lastly, you recommended that within the upper Fillmore NCD to allow movie theaters to serve alcohol for on-site consumption by non-ticketed patrons in addition to ticketed patrons.

Supervisor Cheryl's office presented on the item and asked the committee to

include all of the Commission's recommended modifications. Supervisor

Chen spoke of the fond memories we all have of our neighborhood commercial

districts when they were destinations for entertainment and community

gathering. She believes this legislation will help support small neighborhood

theaters citywide to thrive while also ensuring appropriate controls are in

place for properly regulating alcohol sales. Supervisor Belgar also spoke to

emphasize the cultural significance of theaters to our neighborhoods and the importance of

ensuring that they can adapt their business model to stay competitive with the streaming service

culture she questioned why allowing alcohol sales to non-ticketed patrons was being limited to just

the upper fillmore ncd which i believe there was a similar conversation had here supervisor sheryl's

office responded they said that the clay theater is unique in that their lobby is a gathering space

more so than other theaters where a ticket booth or counter is front and center to the theater's

entrance. That being said, their office is looking at the Clay Theater as a testing ground for

allowing alcohol sales to non-ticketed patrons more broadly in movie theaters. And if it's found

to be successful, they would be open to expanding the allowance to theaters more broadly.

There was no public comment before the committee voted unanimously to approve the amendments

and continue the ordinance to the committee's February 9th meeting. The continuance is

strictly because the amendments are substantive. Lastly, at Land Use Committee this week was the

ordinance that would allow the parking of up to two vehicles in driveways. You heard this item on

October 23rd of last year. You also unanimously approved the ordinance with a host of modifications.

Those modifications were first to specify that parking for up to two vehicles is allowed in

driveways that formerly parked, formerly provided access rather to enclosed parking. Second, to

restrict parking in driveways to those that provide or previously provided access to screened parking.

And third, to state that parking in the front setback is not considered an addition of parking

that would trigger compliance with front setback, landscaping, or permeability requirements.

Based on those recommended modifications, the department's been working with the sponsor and

city attorney to reorganize the legislation to better define allowed driveway parking.

For example, the ordinance has been amended to specify that parking is allowed between

an existing curb cut and a parking area already authorized by the code.

It was also amended to explicitly allow this type of parking where a garage has been converted

to an ADU.

Staff presented those amendments to the committee and asked for their support in moving them

forward.

There was a robust discussion among the committee members.

Supervisor Melgar spoke to state that in her district,

many of the sidewalks are much narrower

than the actual right of way.

She wanted to understand if people who do not block

their sidewalk with their car, but technically park

in what is officially the public right of way

will be ticketed.

This brought up an interesting enforcement question

for our department that we are sure that we can tackle.

We are also going to be relying on using common sense

determine whether a public way of passage is being obstructed versus being too prescriptive

about what is the public right of way.

Supervisor Chen spoke on the level of danger that curb cuts and driveways pose to pedestrians

and cyclists.

She worried that allowing garages that have converted to ADUs to keep their curb cuts

will make pedestrian paths more dangerous.

The department responded that we, of course, want to ensure we don't create more dangerous

pedestrian ways, but we also don't want to create a disincentive to increase our housing

supply by forcing the removal of curb cuts for these garages that are converted to ADUs.

We did point out that if a garage is converted to usable, habitable space for an existing

dwelling unit, the curb cut would still be required to be removed.

So this is only if it's going to create new housing.

one member of the public spoke in opposition to preserving curb cuts in favor of making

pedestrian pathways safer and greener supervisor melgar responded to the comments on pedestrian

safety especially in relation to curb cuts by agreeing that the city does need to improve our

bike and pedestrian infrastructure however that we do need to acknowledge many people in the city

still rely on their cars having these cars parked within someone's private property rather than on

the street where a vehicle can also be a hazard to cyclists is a good trade-off, especially

given that it incentivizes housing production.

Finally, Supervisor Chen acknowledged that although she has concerns with pedestrian

safety, she believes the legislation is a common-sense ordinance that reduces frustrations

by residents who rely on their vehicles while keeping the public right-of-way clear.

With that, the committee unanimously voted to accept the proposed amendments and send

the ordinance on to the full board with a positive recommendation.

And finally, at the full board this week, Supervisor Mandelman initiated 27 separate landmark designations.

All of the proposed landmarks were identified through the family zoning plan.

This is considered phase two for District 8.

This list includes private homes, churches, a firehouse, and a former brewery.

And that concludes my presentation, but of course I'm available for questions.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners, if there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment.

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

public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda

items.

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

when the item is reached in the meeting.

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

to the end of the agenda.

Good afternoon, congratulations, and thank you for the minutes.

I'm going to show those photos that I sent again, if I can have the computer there.

Okay, so that is the rear of 45 Bronte as it was.

Actually the neighbor brought that, and I made a screenshot of it.

So that's as it was at, you had your hearing, last June of 2024.

Okay.

Okay. Oh, make this go fast. There it is today, or it was a week ago when I took the picture.

That's the same rear. And here's the whole house. Maybe it was dilapidated, but as it was said,

it was lived in until, did this start at two minutes? No, sorry. Did you start my time right?

I did start your time, yeah. You didn't start my time yet?

I did start. Oh, okay. So there's the house as it was and dilapidated, but it had been lived in until 2021.

So there's the whole lot, the same basic place. You can see that rear wall and here's the rear wall close up.

And that's that. So tantamount to demolition. Anyone looking at that would say that's a demolition.

I don't see how you can say that's not a demolition. That's all that's left is that.

and they're not going to use that in the new building.

And so I don't know if you remember that project,

but it was said that it could be approved in Bernal Heights

even though there's no demolition.

This morning, if you saw it, I sent another email

with the Bernal Heights SUD language.

I don't know if this house would have qualified

for the subsection three I's,

but I think the point I want to make is

this isn't an abstraction.

This is, I want you to see it.

It was an abstraction when you viewed it and approved it, but I don't think this is an

abstraction.

I think this is a demolition.

And I think I just want to make the point again that tantamount to demolition is the

same as demolition.

If you look up the word tantamount in the dictionary, it's the same thing.

It means having equal force, value, effect, et cetera, equal or equivalent.

So when you look at the definitions in Section 317, it doesn't say anything about tantamount

to demolition.

It says it's a major alteration that exceeds certain values.

At the hearing, it was said that this Bernal Heights SUD prohibits outright demolition,

but not TTD.

There's no TTD in the code that's in the code implementation document.

I just think that it's all the same.

This is gone now.

That's the way it is.

Looking forward, I hope this will remind everybody that the definitions are the same.

Thank you very much.

How do I get rid of this?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you so much.

Couldn't do it without you.

Thank you, Mr. Ionan.

I'm ready.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jerry Dratler.

30 Otis Street, the chorus, is across the street from DBI's office.

It like the Marina Safeway is an aligned real estate project.

It appears that over 400 residential units are illegally occupied and the tenants should

not have been charged rent.

The $134 million building permit is null and void.

It's expired.

And also it's illegal to charge rent without a certificate of final completion.

And this permit has never been finaled with a CFC.

The last DBI inspection recorded on the permit was almost four years ago.

It looks like this project has been abandoned.

Here's a copy of the permit as of January 16.

You can see the last inspection was in 2022.

You can see numerous special inspections have never been finaled.

The first 30 Otis Street Temporary Occupancy Certificate TCO should not have been issued

IN FEBRUARY OF 2021 BECAUSE THERE ARE SAFETY ISSUES AND MOST IMPORTANTLY FIVE BUILDING PERMITS

WERE OPEN AND NEVER BEEN FINALED SO YOU CAN'T ISSUE A TCO. THE THREE TOWER CRANE PERMITS WERE OPENED

WERE OPENED AND IMPOPERLY FINALED IN AUGUST OF 2024 BY DBI INSPECTOR CHU. I'M NOT GOING TO

GO THROUGH THESE. BUT BASICALLY, CODE ENFORCEMENT AT 30 OTA STREET IS UNACCEPTABLE AND NEEDS TO BE

FIXED. NOW, THE TENANTS HAVE REMEDIES BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL AND YOUR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CAN TELL

YOU WHAT THOSE REMEDIES ARE. THE LAST SLIDE DEALS WITH, AND I APOLOGIZE, BECAUSE I ADDED A PAGE,

I request that one of the planning commissioners make a motion to request the planning department

and the department of building inspection make a joint presentation to the planning

commission in the next 90 days explaining the lack of code compliance at 30 Oda Street.

THIS ISN'T SOME WINDOW OR FENCE.

THIS IS BIG TIME SERIOUS CODE COMPLIANCE FAILURE BY BOTH DBI AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

THANK YOU.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Zachary Friel, and I work with SOMCAN, a member organization of the Race and Equity and All Planning Coalition.

We would like to thank Commissioner Williams for bringing up two weeks ago on January 15th,

the Housing Element Action 8.1.0, which is located on the single sheet being passed out,

also known as the Affordable Housing Circuit Breaker. This is located on page 136 of the

Housing Element 2002 update, and I printed it out for your convenience on the single sheet of paper.

It states, if the city is behind the pro rata affordable housing production goals, which it is,

The Interagency Housing Element Implementation Committee should trigger, one, increase of additional city funding for affordable housing in pursuit of additional state funding,

increase the land banking strategy to accommodate 50% more affordable housing units than the capacity of the sites acquired from 2022 through 2025.

The deadline for this is now, January 2026, and the Planning Department is listed as one of the agencies responsible for this.

I would like to reiterate Commissioner Williams' questions from two weeks ago.

What is the Planning Department doing around this, and what is the Interagency Housing Element Implementation Committee doing around this?

The Affordable Housing Circuit Breaker is one among over 100 equity actions in our housing elements, and I've included those on the packet that was passed around.

These are directly pulled from the housing elements, and some of these actions are overdue.

We do not want to see the affordable housing circuit breaker be another action that the planning department and other responsible city departments conveniently continue to ignore.

Just as we did with the tenant protections ordinance, Rep will continue to watch and ensure that the planning department and the city implements all of these actions.

We could start with the first one, 1.1.2.

quote, include affordable housing investment needs in the annual city budget process since

departments are putting together their budgets now. We look forward to working with planning

and appropriate city departments to ensure that the affordable housing circuit breaker and all

of these equity items, especially those that are overdue, are carried out as listed in the housing

element. Thank you so much.

hello commissioners my name is Teresa Dulalas and I'm with Somcan and I live in the Soma

Filipinas district 6 we're here today because San Francisco is not meeting its affordable housing

goals and frankly the city is running out of excuses we're we continue to fall behind on

deeply affordable housing production.

And while the city falls behind,

working families, seniors, and immigrant communities

are being pushed out of the neighborhoods they built.

This is not theoretical.

This is happening right now.

And under the housing element,

there is one circuit breaker that matters most.

Affordable housing must be real, measurable, and delivered.

That affordability circuit breaker

is being triggered now, this week.

It is written in our own housing element

that the city needs to actively look

for affordable housing funding

and land back sites for affordable housing.

We refuse to let the city continue to drag its feet.

If you do not act, affordable housing gets delayed again

while displacement accelerates.

So we want a real answer.

Who will be accountable when the city misses this requirement?

Because the community is watching, and we also need to talk about trust,

communities feel pressured and suspicious, especially with upzoning moving forward.

We have sat across from developers who promised affordability and community benefits,

and then the final projects didn't even match what was promised.

So let's be direct.

If you increase the density without guaranteed affordability,

you increase displacement.

We are demanding transparency, enforceable commitments,

and real affordability, not slogans.

Commissioners, we are respectfully urging you,

but also challenging you to press the planning department for clear timelines,

real accountability, and real results.

We do not want to keep coming back here to remind the city of its failure.

Marami salamat po.

May I have the overhand?

Thank you.

Kristin Evans with Small Business Forward, also a member of the Race and Equity Planning

Coalition.

I just wanted to direct your attention to the fact that I sent an email yesterday.

I was not here on January 15th, but I watched the recording on SFGov TV.

And I have to say, I was really, really concerned about the exchange that I witnessed.

Commissioner Gilbert Williams brought up this action item that is clearly laid out in the

planning, in the housing element, which as I understand is a legally binding document

that we've all agreed is how we're going to conduct approaching housing in our city, that

we have the director of the department essentially tell him that he was mistaken and incorrect

about the date of the circuit breaker.

Now, I understand there's another paragraph that you often reference as a circuit breaker,

but this particular paragraph is very clear and explicitly laid out as being a January

2026 deadline.

Small business workers make between $30,000 and $80,000 a year.

Most of our neighborhood commercial corridor employees can only afford units which are

$2,000 or less.

Affordable housing is in an abstract, nice to have.

It is essential for our small business workers to be able to work and live in the city that we all say that we value diversity, that we value having economic equality, that we value we have to put our words to action.

So I want to make sure that it's very clear that Commissioner Williams was correct, that there was a deadline for January 2026 that the director incorrectly corrected him as to when that deadline was to take place.

I want to be very clear that I'm also a member of the community and looking for action and accountability through this commission of our approach to housing in the city.

And then I will also be returning to this commission in this body to remind you of the commitments that we have in the legally binding housing element.

Thank you.

Okay.

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

Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners.

Commissioner Imperial?

Yeah, I just want to say something, and I guess thank you for the public coming in your public comments.

And it seems like the exchange that happened two weeks ago, it looks like we need to pay close attention to this

in terms of the interagency housing element implementation committee, and it looks like

the responsible agencies are DBI, OEWD, planning and controller.

Are these, I mean, I don't want this because this is, you know, just a public comment,

but I guess Director Phillips, do you have any response in terms of like updates on this

implementation committee?

Yes, happy to speak to that.

Thank you, Commissioner.

So the interagency housing element implementation committee, as you mentioned, includes staff

from the planning department.

Mostly team members that worked on our housing element and our family zoning because they're

the ones most closely in touch with the detail, as well as members from our new and broadened

community planning entity, which includes community equity and our former citywide planners,

along with representatives from OEWD and MOSID.

One thing to note, we work together all the time,

as you well know, but per the housing element

and per January 2026, we've started formal meetings

under that rubric so that they have that name on the title

and we'll continue to have that formal meeting.

We're in the very early stages of convening,

so we've had one meeting there.

At that meeting, we just discussed the significant work

already underway across the city on affordable housing and cost reduction strategies.

The primary resources that we're drawing on from the past are the Affordable Housing Leadership

Council and the recommendations in that report from the Affordable Housing Leadership Report.

OEWD and most cities current analysis of EIFDs, which is a tax increment structure to allow

funding to flow into construct affordable housing.

That work was initiated at Supervisor Malgar's direction, and OEWD and Mosed are currently

working on a report, which I understand should be available soon, and we discussed the progress

of that report.

And then there's been new input.

The San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund, SFHAP, which you all may be aware of, sent

a great letter after the adoption of the family zoning plan in late December, highlighting

key leadership council recommendations from that Affordable Housing Leadership Council

report that I referenced that they think are key to move forward on and

recommended a few additional strategies that we're looking at and considering.

So that work is underway. I think the other thing, just so you all can note,

because it was referenced by the commenter today, within that section,

there is a note that saying the committee will assess if the city has approved

appropriate housing units by income level to meet the RHNA goals, and if the city

behind the pro rata affordable housing production we should speak.

So the committee did look at those numbers.

I'm not going to recite them well because I don't have them in front of me,

but I'm happy to follow up with email to you all.

Because our market rate production has been very low,

we actually are meeting our affordable housing pro rata goals

as a vis-a-vis how much market rate production we had.

So we have not missed that trigger.

If market rate housing speeds up, obviously the ratio changes

and we might be in a different situation.

But for now, because we've had so little market reproduction,

we have not met that trigger.

Just wondering, can we have an informational hearing on this

in terms of the assessment that happened by the committee?

Is that something I'd like to call on the commissioners?

Because, again, I mean, I'm glad that you have an update,

Director Phillips, but I think it will be good also for the public

to understand the assessment that happened.

And we're happy to do so.

Commissioner, as noted, it's a simple math problem.

So it'll be pretty quick, but we're happy to do that.

Yeah, but thank you.

And also, again, I think just kind of like from last week,

like it will be good for us to having like an update,

informational hearings about the housing element implementation

about this committee as well with these different agencies.

and I'm also wondering about the timeline of this committee as well in terms of producing all of these objectives.

I mean, there are these objectives that the committee triggered to.

So that's one thing that I hope the committee could give us some updates on that

and also for me to understand the timeline that we're trying to look into.

yeah and again I mean I understand that many of it will be around funding but

what is the city doing in terms of advocating for state funding and this is

more like for the public to understand where we at on affordable housing so so

yeah so those are my comments director Commissioner Braun thanks for the update

director Dennis Phillips now that you've had a little time to digest the question

and kind of explore this it's good to hear that there has been progress made with the housing

element implementation committee process um you know i think clearly uh the other week it was a

confusion over terms it's a little wacky that we've been using this casual term in two different

ways in circuit breaker and so um i guess i'll at least for myself i'll try to be more specific and

precise um but you know i i want to echo some of what commissioner imperial said um i would be

curious to see the data if you email it the updates on the production numbers by income level

that would be great to see um you know i am i would also support the the presentation of

that information to the commission you said it was a pretty quick update probably and pretty

straightforward so i i would like to see that because i sort of understand this more as

um the production sort of being annualized within income level and whether or not we're keeping up

with that in terms of housing unit production within the income categories and so the the

ratio question of market rate to affordable housing production has me a little confused

and so i'd be you know i'd like to learn more about where things stand um and

And I just look forward to seeing the results of these conversations that are going on.

I know that the funding question is a big question that extends well beyond even just the planning commission.

But, you know, we do have oversight of the general plan.

And so this is part of it.

And I look forward to hearing more.

Thank you.

Vice President Moore.

I would like to echo the need for wanting to hear more.

but I'd like to stack it up a little higher.

We are not the only ones in California struggling with the issue.

I'm sure you are talking to like cities of equal size of what they are doing.

It would be interesting, and this is not an Olympic race,

this is basically what can we learn,

to briefly take comparable cities who have similar issues as we do

and see what they are doing in comparison to the question of the circuit breaker.

They're all under the same type of requirements, and learning from Las Vegas would perhaps be the best way of doing it.

Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to your regular calendar for items 8A and B,

for case numbers 2024-011443 PCA, MAP, and CUA at 2245-2255 Post Street.

PLANNING CODE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS AND THE CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION.

GOOD AFTERNOON, PRESIDENT CAMPBELL AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

JOHN DAISY, DEPARTMENT STAFF, THERE ARE TWO ITEMS BEFORE YOU RELATED TO THIS PROJECT AT 2245, 2255 POSE STREET,

ACCESSORS BLOCK NUMBER 1078, LOTS 20 AND 21.

THE FIRST ITEM IS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PLANNING CODE AND ZONING MAP TO CREATE THE 2245 SPECIAL USE DISTRICT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NC3 ZONING DISTRICT AND 95-240-R-4 HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICT.

THE SPECIAL USE DISTRICT IS TO FACILITATE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE HOLOCAUST CENTER WHICH IS CURRENTLY LOCATED AT 2245 POST STREET.

THE SUD WOULD ALLOW EXCEPTIONS FROM NON-RESIDENTIAL USE SIZE LIMITS, FLOOR AREA RATIO, BULK LIMITS, ACTIVE USE, STREET FRONTISH CONTROLS, STREETS CAPE IMPROVEMENTS,

ON ANIMA MARQUEE CONTROLS, SIGNIFIC CONTROLS AND IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL THROUGH CONDITIONAL

USE AUTHORIZATION. IT WOULD ALSO POTENTIALLY ALLOW FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE

AS A CONDITIONAL USE OF PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPORT THE

LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF THE CENTER WHILE PROVIDING ADEQUATE SECURITY MEASURES ALONG

THE STREET FRONT EDGE. THE SECOND ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL

USE AUTHORIZATION PURSUANT TO PENDING SPECIAL USE DISTRICT PLANNING CODE SECTION 249.26

AND SECTION 303 AND BOARD FILE NUMBER 251-144 TO GRANT THE EXCEPTIONS FROM PLANNING CODE

ALLOWED UNDER THE PROPOSED SUD.

THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPORT THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE EXPANDED

CULTURAL, EDUCATIONAL AND ARCHIVAL PROGRAMMING WHILE ALSO PROVIDING ADEQUATE SECURITY.

THE PROJECT INCLUDES A DEMOLITION OF TWO ADJACENT BUILDINGS AND A CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR-STORY

approximately 60 foot tall building operated by Jewish family and children's services that

includes rooms for public exhibitions, a lecture hall, library offices, conference spaces and

an archive center.

The proposed project would include no vehicular parking, 14 class one, four class two bicycle

parking spaces.

The project also includes the construction of a bulb out with security bollards, the removal

of four street trees, the addition of two street trees, the lengthening of the existing 40

FOOT LONG PASSETER LOADING ZONE AND THE MERGERS OF LOT 20 AND 21.

SINCE THE PUBLISHING OF THE CASE REPORT, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY LETTERS

IN OPPOSITION.

PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATIONS, THE PROJECT SPONSOR CONDUCTED A PRE-APPLICATION

MEETING AND HAS MET WITH OPERATORS FROM THE ADJACENT MEDICAL CONDO BUILDING.

THE DEPARTMENT DOES FIND THAT THE PROJECT IS ON BALANCE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES

AND POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN.

THE PROJECT WILL MAINTAIN A LONG-STANDING COMMUNITY INSTITUTION WITHIN THE WESTERN

DISHER NEIGHBORHOOD AND HELP PRESERVE AN IMPORTANT PART OF SAN FRANCISCO'S HISTORY.

THE CENTER WAS ESTABLISHED BY SURVIVORS OF THE HOLOCAUST WITH THE GOAL OF INCREASING

AWARENESS ABOUT JEWISH HISTORY AND THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF ANTI-SEMITISM, RACISM,

AND DISCRIMINATION.

THE PRO'S SUD WILL PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANDED SPACE THAT BETTER FITS THE NEEDS

OF THE CENTER, ALLOWING THEM TO HOST MORE VISITORS AND STRENGTHEN THEIR ABILITY TO

TO DELIVER ROBUST PROGRAMMING, PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EXHIBITIONS AND VITAL COMMUNITY

RESOURCES. I DO HAVE TWO THINGS TO READ INTO THE RECORD.

ONE, A SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED TO THE BOARD ON TUESDAY TO MAKE NONSUBSTANTIAL

CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, ONLY CLARIFYING THE EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY BE GRANTED IN THE PROPOSED

SUD. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE SOME CHANGES WITH THE FAMILY ZONING PLAN THAT WENT INTO

EFFECT. ON JANUARY 12TH, THE PROJECT'S HEIGHT AND BULK DISTRICT WAS CHANGED FROM 65A TO 95

TO 40 R4. AND THERE WAS ALSO AN ADMISSION IN THE SEQUEL FINDINGS IN THE RESOLUTION WHICH I WANT TO READ INTO RECORD.

ADDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE MND AND THE RECORD AS A WHOLE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT

EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED ARE CONTAINED IN THE MMRP TO AVOID POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT.

THE PLAN OF COMMISSION HEREBY ADOPTS THE FMND AND THE MMRP ATTACHED HERE TO AS EXHIBIT

D AND INCORPORATED HERE IN AS PART OF THIS RESOLUTION BY THIS REFERENCE THERE TO ALL

MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE FMND AND CONTAINED IN THE MMRP ARE INCLUDED AS

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IN CONCLUSION THE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION APPROVE

PROPOSED ORDINANCE, ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO THAT EFFECT, APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION AS WELL.

AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

AND THE PROJECT SPONSOR HAS PREPARED A PRESENTATION FOR YOU AS WELL. THANK YOU.

PROJECT SPONSOR, YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Karen Payson, Director of the New Building for the Holocaust Center

The JFCS Holocaust Center founded in 1979 is now one of California's leading resources in Holocaust education

Currently occupies a two-story building of almost 6,400 square feet at 2245 post

400 square feet at 2245 post. In 2024, the project sponsor acquired 2255 post to merge it with 2245,

create a larger site for its new home. And that is the subject of this planning application.

The site is across the street from Mount Zion Hospital and is flanked on both sides,

east and west, by medical office buildings. Although it's zone NC3, there are no residential

or retail uses on this block.

Due to the non-residential size limit, use size limit, this project requires a conditional

use authorization.

An earlier proposal designed for the 2245 post site only did receive a CU from this

commission almost two years ago, actually 11, one year and 11 months to the day.

Shortly afterwards, JFCS acquired 2255 post.

With the expanded site and approval of both the CU and the SUD, the Holocaust Center will

be able to host its current programming on site and expand its offerings to the public.

Key elements of the SUD will allow the Center to stay on site in the event of future growth

to implement necessary safety and security features while maximizing transparency from

the street.

The Holocaust Center's current home hosts a portion of its archives, its administrative

offices and the Tauber Holocaust Library, but its educational program is mostly conducted

off-site.

As the state of California has recognized the importance of promoting Holocaust education,

The center's reach has grown and its programming has expanded to include multiple forms of

education and community outreach, including the California Teachers Collaborative.

The proposed building is designed to welcome the public.

It will be a state-of-the-art facility that will accommodate on-site educational programs,

public exhibitions of both its own collection and traveling shows, lectures, film series,

and events, and a larger professional staff.

The first floor will have a two-story street-facing lobby with two galleries and a lecture hall.

The second floor will host three galleries and a small cafe for snacks and coffee.

The Tauber Library meeting rooms and administrative offices will be located on the third and fourth

floors.

The lower level will host the Holocaust Center's Archives and Visitors Room, in addition to

utilities, maintenance, and storage and employee spaces.

The sidewalk is very narrow at this site.

It's only 10 feet wide.

We propose a bulb out which would allow for groups of visitors to gather as they enter

or exit the building and also provide enough space for security bollards, bike racks, and

trees.

An application for a street improvement permit has already been submitted to DPW.

Finally, the Holocaust Center will serve the public with a great variety of programs, events,

and resources relating to the Holocaust and the Jewish experience.

The entry level will be a welcoming space with transparency to the street and finished

with warm natural materials.

The interior light atrium, which will also be visible from the street and acts as the

heart of the building will be clad with the same stone as the Post Street facade.

The proposed new building for the Holocaust Center will be an asset for all of San Francisco

and beyond, offering educational programs for students from all over Northern California,

as well as for teachers from all over the state.

And its archive and library will continue to be an important home for Holocaust research.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

You need to come forward.

Yes, please.

Hi, my name is Celia and I live a block from the project.

And I just wanted to find out about like construction vehicle coverage of this area and the noise

impact that this is going to have on residents here.

Okay.

Last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

matters now before you commissioners

commissioner braun

uh i essentially don't really have any concerns about uh anything that's before us today this

this has my support the um you know the scd was necessary because of the zoning district partly

because of my understanding is the heightened bulk district that this was in and now with the revised

zoning that components of uh what you know kind of needed some additional attention special treatment

through the sod is now actually not even really in play anymore um but even before that before

those changes were brought to my attention by staff um you know the physical form of this building

really does fit in well with the area um that has a large variety of kind of larger scale institutional

and commercial buildings um the you know use itself seems like a good project i hope to be

able to visit this when it's when it's all done it's an important important facility and so um

this this does have my support on the question that was raised by a member of the public who

lives nearby as far as construction impacts you know we there are obviously going to be standard

requirements as part of the construction of this this project those sit a little bit more in you

know department building inspection and kind of oversight of that but even so i am curious i don't

know if any members of staff or the project sponsor team have any comments about construction plans at

this time equipment staging vehicles that kind of thing

Commissioner Braun, you stated it very well.

There are protocols that are regulated in the city of San Francisco as well by the Green

Building Code as well by LEED.

And we are required to design this building and build this building to qualify for LEED

Gold certification plus six points as we're demolishing buildings.

And part of that whole program includes protocols around construction, around noise and dust

and debris.

And we are expecting to work with Cahill Construction, and they are an extremely responsible and

deeply experienced firm who worked a lot in San Francisco.

So we expect to be good neighbors.

Construction is always annoying.

I deal with it.

We all deal with it.

We live in the city and work here.

we expect to be good neighbors in implementing this building thank you and you know along with

that also comes you know specific hours of operation as well uh and i agree you know nobody

loves being close to a construction site but it is a temporary impact and i um i have confidence

that this is going to be over no i'm sorry no more time for public comment is over thank you

Thank you.

Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you.

I also strongly support this project and legislation as well as putting it as an SUD.

You know, the Jewish community has, does history in this area, in the Fillmore area, and so

this is a good opportunity and it's actually, I think it's timely.

In terms of the concessions, I also support all of this.

And so thank you for the architect as well for presenting and giving us the context of

the design.

It's really beautiful.

So thank you.

Vice President Moore.

I'm in full support of what is in front of us.

I also am really interested that using the SUD mechanism to create the extra security that is necessary for this building.

I would echo Commissioner Brown's comment.

This is actually a building perfectly sited because it sits in an area of like buildings.

It's actually a quiet area, yet it is not inactive.

The only question I would like to ask the architect is, you're not providing parking, which obviously we all welcome because it so much increases building costs, including security.

How are you anticipating that people who attend events would be parking?

Because I do not know exactly what buses are running other than the ones going down California Street, but we are on post, which is a few blocks off.

how are you anticipating that people will be able to come to the building and park sequoys?

It's a very fair question.

So it is well served by transit.

There's the Gary Street, rapid, bus rapid transit a block away.

There are buses on De Viz.

The, but in terms of events, there are a couple of issues.

When there are school buses, for example, because that's a really,

that'll be a lot of people coming at once, but they're coming in a large machine.

So there are neighboring parking lots whom we have good relationships with the owners.

And so the ownership is negotiating for parking for off hours, for special things like the bus,

but particularly for off hours events. Also, the parent agency, which is Jewish Family and

Children's Services has its own parking garage a block away.

And that will also be involved in helping to reduce the number of cars that are looking

for parking on the street.

Thank you.

I love the answer.

I do like joint parking strategies.

And even if it's a block away, some people do not want to hear that, but I'm glad that

you have foresightfully taken that into consideration.

I think the building is very respectful.

I think it's a very grounded building that is not screaming for attention.

I love the balance between transparency and openness, but it is a solidly built building

and I look forward to seeing it completed.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve with conditions.

Second.

Commissioner So.

I really like the design of the building.

It's perfectly fitting the purpose of its use.

I wish it was built sooner rather than later.

The drawings are really clean and succinct.

It really shows that you got the right architect to do the right job.

Really appreciate it.

And I really look forward to learn more once the building is open because I think we can

all have a better, peaceful life if we have better understanding of everybody.

So you have my blessing, and I hope all the funding is secure and go out there and get it built.

I mean, full support, I was actually wishing to motion this.

So I'll second it and second it.

Commissioner McGarry.

Everyone wants to make the motion.

It is a soft-looking building with hard materials.

It's a nice design.

It will be very welcoming to address the parking. Cahill Construction, in their collective

bargaining agreements, they provide parking. So every construction worker on that will be parking

in those lots within a mile away, walking. They'll get there at 5, 5.30 in the morning,

and they'll be leaving it, you know, at 2, 2.30 in the afternoon. So that's the construction.

then basically you're down to deliveries and takeaway.

There's probably no better company in town

that can get that done as expeditiously as possible,

as quietly as possible, as in a biddle.

They will not disrupt the neighbors.

They'll do everything they can.

So I wish you well with this.

I look forward to people going to work.

I look forward to the local hire on this,

apprentices starting their careers on this.

It's a phenomenal project, and I wish you well with it.

Thank you.

MS. Sounds like unanimous support.

There's no other comments.

I think we're ready for a vote.

MR. Indeed.

There is a motion that has been seconded to approve

with conditions on that motion, well, adopt recommendations

for approval for the code amendments, map amendments,

and approve with conditions of conditional use authorization.

On that motion, Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner So.

Commissioner Brown?

Aye.

Commissioner Brown?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell?

Aye.

So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0.

And we'll place us on item 9 for case number 2024-010739, CUA for the property at 1732

Terravel Street conditional use authorization.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Kurt Bowden, Planning Department staff.

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

to Planning Code Section 317 to remove an approximately 956-square-foot dwelling unit

located on the first and second floor of an existing two-story mixed-use building containing

one residential unit and a ground floor commercial space.

The proposed project would merge the existing residential unit with the ground floor commercial

space currently operating as Parkside Day Spa and convert the former dwelling unit into

accessory office and break room space to serve the existing commercial massage use at 1732

Terrebell Street.

For context, the subject property was originally developed in 1925 with ground floor commercial

space and a dwelling unit located at the rear of the ground floor on the second story.

Permit history confirms that the site contains a legal dwelling unit and ground floor commercial

space.

Historically, the dwelling unit was accessed through a hallway extending from the ground

four street entrance to the rear of the unit as shown in exhibit B of the packet.

Permits filed and approved in 2011 misrepresented existing conditions and failed to disclose

the presence of a residential unit in order to establish a ground four spot use.

Since that time, the property has operated as a massage establishment with the dwelling

unit being utilized as a break room and accessory office space.

The Planning Department opened an enforcement case in January 2017 in response to a publicly

initiated complaint regarding an illegal massage establishment.

The investigation revealed the unauthorized removal of a dwelling unit.

A permit application was filed and approved by the Planning Department in March 2019 to

correct the violation and restore the dwelling unit at the site.

The permit remains on file and is pending the submittal of additional information prior

to issuance.

Furthermore, the Department of Building Inspection through our report states that the authorized

use of the property as a one-family dwelling and a commercial use at the site.

The Department's recommendation that the Commission deny the project is grounded in the objectives

and the policies of the housing element of the general plan, which call for the creation

of new housing and discourage the loss of existing units to address the city's long-standing

housing shortage and affordability crisis.

Approval of the project would result in a net loss of housing in an amenity-rich area

of the city, further burdening the city's overall housing supply.

Accordingly, the Department cannot support the project and finds it neither necessary

nor desirable, is incompatible with the surrounding community,

and conflicts with the intent of the general plan.

That concludes my presentation, and I'm also available

for questions after.

Thank you.

With that, we should, excuse me,

take project sponsor's presentation.

You have five minutes.

Hi, my name's Peter Petruzzi.

I'm the architect for representing the owner.

My name's John Tom.

I'm the owner.

So the history of the building is very clouded.

I've been dealing with the city on this for over five years now.

And actually, building came back and said to me,

we would have a good, substantive argument about it not being a dwelling unit.

Somewhere along the line, the unit, whether or not it was there, disappeared.

There's multiple conflicts in the drawings over the years.

To separate it now, the unit is in the rear, which has some issues with exiting for fire.

The separation requirements would mean to actually dissect the building.

Any separation between living and commercial space now requires two-hour separation from the ground up through the roof.

It doesn't really create a great livable unit.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO DOWN THIS LONG HALLWAY TO A PLACE THAT'S IN THE BACK.

AND IT WOULD BASICALLY CREATE THE COMMERCIAL SPACE WOULD BECOME INEFFECTIVE.

YOU'D LOSE AT LEAST 12% OF SQUARE FOOTAGE.

50% OF THE EXISTING ROOMS THAT THEY USE FOR THE SPA WOULD BE CUT IN HALF.

AND IT GOT HUNG UP BETWEEN THE PANDEMIC, THE CITY MOVED, DREWINES GOT LOST.

all kinds of things happen but we've been diligently trying to solve this

problem with planning any questions does that conclude your presentation thanks

if so we should open up public comment members of the public this is your

opportunity to address the Commission on this matter you need to come forward

David Villalobos, Director of the Commercial Space Tenant.

David Villalobos, Director of the Commercial Space Tenant.

I'll be speaking on her behalf because there's a language barrier.

We keep talking about removing an existing dwelling unit.

A dwelling unit does not exist there.

According to our research, it may have existed at a time where business owners resided in

their place of business.

And the last time it was used was, we believe, in 1968.

These current property owners removed nothing.

And so the fire department actually mentioned that in order to create or build a dwelling

unit at the rear, it would mean taking a substantial amount of square footage away from the commercial

space and create an easement, a fire-rated easement, so that the tenant could access

their unit in the rear.

So this is not removing an existing unit.

If removal was approved here today, it would be on paper only, because there's nothing

there physically to remove.

And she would lose her little small storage area, her little bathroom for her employees,

and a little break area.

I've actually seen it.

It's so tiny.

And they use it for their business.

So it would be a hardship for this lady and her workers, for the property owner to be

TO CREATE AND BUILD A LITTLE DWEALING IN THE REAR WHICH WOULD BE SO SO TINY AND DESTROYING

THE COMMERCIAL SPACE. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR CITY AND FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

OKAY LAST CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AGAIN YOU NEED TO COME FORWARD.

SEEING NONE. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. THIS MATTER IS NOT BEFORE YOU COMMISSIONERS.

Commissioner Imperial. I just want to comment on the the dwelling unit it says

that there was in residential eviction happened as of breach for lease as of

2001. So anytime we deal with residential removals we request records from the

rent board and essentially that's just justification that there was a tenant

there at the site.

So it's kind of standard procedures

that the planning department requests

all types of records, whether we rent boards or voter,

we go through voter rolls to basically verify

if tenants ever existed.

So I guess my question is, as of 2001,

there was a residential unit, it looks like it,

and then the front is an office or a commercial use?

Is that also the setting?

That is correct.

So I think based on going back to the permit history

and query of the site, there was a dwelling unit located

at the rear and on the second story,

and then there was a commercial site located at the front.

Between 2011, a permit was approved over the counter

but misrepresented the site, not showing a dwelling unit

and showing it as accessory office to the commercial space.

So I think that's kind of how this project

has been carrying forward, essentially.

Yeah, okay.

It sounds like, okay, I just want to clear that fact out,

that there was a residential as of 2001.

As far as planning department staff, there has been a unit there,

and there is legal documentation,

permit history from the Department of Building Inspection

showing a legal dwelling unit at the site.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Braun.

I have a question for department staff as well so the um there's there was the permit that was

approved in 2019 to abate the 2017 violation which sound like may have also been discovered as part

of the illegal massage establishment at the time um so can you speak a little bit more about that

that 2019 permit was that to restore the residential unit am I getting that right

Yes, so in 2017, there was a public initiated complaint.

There was, at one point, an illegal massage establishment, which has been evaded.

A permit was filed in 2019 to correct the violation and essentially restore the unit at the rear of the site to basically abate the violation.

Since then, the permit's kind of been in the filed pending process and pending additional information to basically push the permit forward for issuance.

Okay, so at this time, there are plans that have been approved by the planning department.

Correct.

to restore the unit including building the fire rated walkway to the rear uh i can't speak to

building and fire with the planning department has approved the permit for the restoration

department correct okay yes yes thank you um i do have one question for the property owner

um you know so commissioner imperial noted that there was a eviction of a residential tenant in

2001. we've also heard from your team that somebody that this has not been lived in since

THE 60s so i'm curious how long have you owned the property since 2001 since 2001 yes that's

the eviction that we had to the tenant refused to move after we bought the property that's where

that eviction came about and where was the tenant living if there was no residential unit in 2001

he basically used utilized the whole building and that's the only method i knew how to evict

and we did it ourselves that's where that eviction came about okay all right thank you for that yes

um i i come down on the side of this of you know of wanting to deny the application you know

there are already plans ready to go for the residential unit to be restored all legal

records show that there has never been you know an authorized removal of a residential unit in this

PLACE UM WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOMEBODY LIVING ON SITE SO EVEN THOUGH THE PHYSICAL FORM OF THE

BUILDING POSSIBLY IS IS IN QUESTION UM YOU KNOW WHO KNOWS IT'S NOT CLEAR EXACTLY WHEN OR IF THE THE

THE WALKWAY THE HALLWAY TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT THE REAR MAY HAVE BEEN REMOVED OR WHO DID THAT

BUT EITHER WAY WE KNOW IT'S ALSO YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN A IN RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE

the recent past 25 years ago now but it has been a residential unit and so I I also just have a hard

time justifying from the general plan perspective and the housing element perspective the removal

of a housing unit from this property and so I see the commissioner Moore has some questions but

I'm ready to make a motion. Yes, I may ready make a motion to deny the conditional use authorization

Vice president more I just like to add that it's extremely difficult to get into

Histories which are as long-winded and as complicated particularly when building plans do not clearly

documents the history of how this very old building was used over time.

I mean, what I do regret is that it takes us that long to rectify something which would

have been addressed and resolved even prior to the new owner buying the building.

That's kind of like a stop and let's do it right at the time when he bought the building.

but I am just saying this because in the end I think the necessity for

maintaining and reinstating housing is what drives us. Commercial spaces can be

reconfigured and I think even in this particular layout things can be done to

still maintain a viable business. So those are my closing comments. I think I'll jump in here.

I completely understand the logic for denying this request.

We are working so hard to create more housing and to preserve housing.

And we certainly do not want to set any sort of precedent for the community that it's okay to remove housing.

But I think reinstating this unit is not going to be easy.

I'm looking at the plans, and I concur with the project sponsor.

We're talking new storefront.

We have to build a rated corridor.

It's going to impact a small business.

So, I mean, it's really a huge undertaking for a small business and a property owner.

So, you know, denial means we gain back a housing unit, but I do worry it also possibly we lose a small business in the community.

So we're, because that's also important.

I think small businesses are vital to our neighborhoods.

So I would support a more reasonable compromise.

You know, when I look at the map, the family zoning map, this is a very strong development

opportunity in the future.

Could the addition of a minimum of one unit at this property be reinstated upon the sale

of the property so that this business can continue to use this, not have the burden

of doing all of this construction, and know that when the time is right, and it is inevitable

that this property will be redeveloped, that at least one unit is put back at that time.

So I would be in support of a compromise like that, putting it out there for consideration.

Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to deny

the requested application. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner so I Commissioner Braun I Commissioner Imperial I Commissioner Moore

and Commission President Campbell hey so move commissioners that motion passes five to one with

Commissioner Campbell voting against commissioners that will place us on item 10 for case number

2025-001987 CUA at 61 Royal Lane, conditional use authorization.

MAGGIE DONG, C.U.A.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Maggie Dong, planning department staff.

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

pursuant to planning codes sections 209.1, 303 and 317

to demolish a 534 square foot unauthorized dwelling unit

that was constructed in an accessory building and to construct a new

three story building with one dwelling unit and one accessory dwelling unit

using the state ADU program, bringing the total to two new residential units.

The subject property is located at 61 Royal Lane within Supervisor District 11, the RH1 Zoning District, and Priority Equity Geography Special Use District.

The subject property occupies two parcels and shares one lot number.

There is an existing detached single-family home on the south end of the lot that will remain unchanged.

A separate lot line adjustment application has been filed to document the two lots and to adjust the lot line to meet current code requirements.

The unauthorized well unit in the accessory building is currently vacant.

There was a bio agreement filed in 2020, and the unit has been vacant since 2021.

This unit previously received planning department approval to legalize the unauthorized unit under the unit legalization program per planning code section 207.3.

but the building permit was not issued.

The project proposes to construct a new three-story building with two units,

two bicycle parking spaces, and one off-street parking space.

The main unit will be 2,172 square feet and occupy the second and third floors

with four bedrooms and private decks.

The ADU will be 826 square feet with two bedrooms and occupy the first floor.

The project is consistent with the controls of the RH1 zoning district and priority equity

geographies special use district.

To date, there has been one phone call received inquiring about the project.

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

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

the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of

the general plan.

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

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

The project sponsor will now speak on the project.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Alex Nier.

I'm the project architect for the project.

Could you lift the microphone just a little bit?

Thank you.

I think the planner covers most of the information.

I only want to mention that we provide 10 feet front setback on the ground floor and

second floor and the extra 10 feet setback on the third floor, which is much more than

typical on that street.

Other than that, I think she has covered everything.

here for your question. 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.

Need to come forward. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is

Morna Estandian and I live at 69 Morse. I do work for the city and county of San Francisco

as well, and I oppose the approval of 61 Royal Lane.

This project involves a demolition of existing structure that already includes an authorized

unit.

Given the issues with sanitation, rats, and failure to maintain the right of way given

by the current property owner, we are deeply concerned about approving a much larger and

and more intense development for conditional use.

The owner of the property has demonstrated the following.

One, negligence in repairs and maintaining the vegetation.

The vegetation got so out of hand while taking care of my property, I met face to face with

a coyote hiding in the brush.

Rats, mice started to roam the property coming into my property.

I fear while during the building he will run out of the means and knowing construction is a stop and go process.

Because he has kept the upkeep of the property, I have currently called law enforcement to remove squatters.

Now for the owners of 20 Royal Lane who could not be with us today.

The owners consist of one person working for state funds, the Department of State Funds.

One is a contractor of DOE and the other is self-employed.

The construction of a three-story home with such close proximity to their properties will

significantly impact their right to privacy looking into their living room directly.

The construction will process likely to generate significant noise that will have an impact

and the ability to work from home,

potentially disrupting their productivity and livelihood.

I also share this comment since I work from home

one to two days a week.

It would interfere with phone calls and video conferences.

It will make it difficult to concentrate and meet deadlines.

I also share this comment.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Fanny Hui.

I live in right across 61 Royal Lane.

I'm at 26 Royal Lane.

My husband and I live in the house for over 30 years.

If the project is approved, it will be right in front of a house, very, very close.

it will take away our privacy from our living room.

And then I want to show you the picture.

This is the trees and the plants are really,

really nice in front of our window.

If the project approved that all the trees

and the plants around the area will be all gone,

So this will make our life not that peaceful because we retire at home,

and we want to keep this environment green and nice and fresh air.

And the privacy is really important for the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Department Commission.

My name is Joey.

I'm the laborer, one of the laborer there, and I represent the one of the laborer.

First to start, I want to share a little tiny map.

Just to save the idea.

You can see a little triangle.

They try to build like a microphone, please.

We can't hear you.

Okay.

So it's a little triangle.

There's one lot.

They will try to build, you know, divide the two lot and build the two building.

But anyway, so I want to start it.

I'm concerned about it.

So this, I'm very concerned about it is a stray.

This is very, very narrow and stray.

Only have 11 feet.

So this is my, okay.

So they have electrical port there.

I use a measurement tape side by side.

So 11 feet, what does that mean?

So for the public vehicle, the normally for van, you need 11 feet.

for one van, accelerate parking space.

Standard-wise parking space is nine feet.

So we have a lovely, we have a garbage can here.

So the garbage can is three feet.

So it's no way have anything happen.

So fire truck, emergency equipment,

cannot go inside a little tiny place.

no access so for the safety and for the I'm very concerned about the project I

think it is a beautiful architect design I love the house but location location

we put put on the safety in the first place that is I want to mention about it

So you can see some port, you can see the electrical port just there, so there's no way

you can drive the, go through the...

And also the road is a very broken road, and uneven, digging a lot, so you just dump in

there.

And no public service, and over labor by myself, we clean the street by myself.

So I just want to let the Commission know that is our concern, and safety, privacy,

and all of that.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Julie.

1158 Naples Street, the back of my property, where I've been since 1983, is directly in

front of the proposed construction.

And to summarize, regarding public safety, privacy, and neighborhood character, the safety

impacts are significant.

Royal Lane is extremely narrow, dead-ended, creating limited access for emergency vehicles.

Density and additional residential units would further strain fire ambulance and evacuation

access posing unacceptable risks to residents and first responders.

Second the project would substantially harm the privacy of adjacent neighbors.

The proposed height massing window placement would directly overlook neighborhood homes

and outdoor spaces resulting in loss of privacy and inconsistent with the established residential

pattern of this alley lane.

Third, the proposal is incompatible with the existing community character and the culture

of Royal Lane.

The street has historically consisted of low-density, single-family homes.

Introducing a multi-unit structure of this scale would fundamentally alter the neighborhood

fabric and set a precedence for overdevelopment on a street that is definitely not designed

to accommodate it.

For these reasons, we urge the Planning Commission to deny approval of the 61 Royal Lane project.

In my view, this three-story building does not address affordable housing in San Francisco,

and at the very least, I urge the developer to change the physical form so it is not vastly

OVERSIZED FOR THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

WEN NGUYEN WONG.

I AM LIVE IN 57 WALLS. I AM IN THE SAME PAGE AS EVERYONE ELSE.

THE STREET IS TOO SMALL FOR SUCH BIG BUILDING OVER THERE.

IS THREE STORY HIGH AND OVERLOOKING TO EVERYBODY.

SO I'M TOTALLY DISAGREE ON THAT.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

LAST CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

AGAIN, YOU NEED TO COME FORWARD.

SEEING NONE.

PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

THIS MATTERS NOW BEFORE YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

Commissioner Braun yes I have a couple of questions for department staff about the project

so the first one is so we're talking about the demolition of an existing unauthorized

dwelling unit but for you know our purposes it's also rent stabilized housing unit and

so and it is vacant but this is uh I believe subject to the Housing Accountability Act

so there's replacement and relocation provisions involved relocation is not an issue since it's

vacant but under the replacement provisions does this mean that the one of the two housing units

if rented would be subject to rent control.

Now, I also want to acknowledge,

I do want to acknowledge, you know,

we can't definitively say that the prior unit

was rent stabilized.

It looks like since the rent board

we have to weigh in on that, but.

As a second unit, an ADU,

we require them to file a Costa-Hawkins agreement.

It's just part of our conditions

when we have an ADU.

So it would be a rent stabilized housing unit

as part of the replacement.

Okay.

sorry thank you for that um so you know it again and this is proposed as a rental project is that

correct um the uh main dwelling unit will be on it will be owner occupied the adu will be um a

rental property or rental unit okay well it's one of those situations where the property owner might

choose not to rent the unit but at the very least um you know if it is rented it will be subject to

rent control so you know I'm comfortable with that the other consideration here is about the

project itself there have been a lot of concerns raised about the sort of built form of the project

at scale relative to the streets and the width and the existing development pattern again as a

housing accountability act project you know I believe what matters for us most is whether it

our objective existing criteria um and per staff's analysis am i am i correct in understanding that

this does meet all the applicable um existing zoning requirements and planning code requirements

yes um this project does meet all the objective design standards um because it is adding two units

yes okay and then on the um on the life safety kind of requirements um so it is a narrow street

um there will be subsequent review by the fire department is that correct yeah so this project

right now has only gone through planning review um there may be additional comments from other

agencies as they do their review down the line okay thank you um you know i i i hear the the

concerns that have been raised um by by neighbors um and so you know as far as the actual scale and

composition the project goes uh the project itself is subject to a state law that you know

kind of limits the ability to adjust the project as long as it meets the existing

regulations that we have under the planning code so the one question before us is whether to remove

the unauthorized dwelling unit in the former garage you know for me I think that this it's

a I understand the concerns about the street width it looks like it's probably an unaccepted

street by the city but you know I think the project by being three stories by having a set

back 10 feet from the street itself as well as further kind of step backs at the top it's a

reasonable fit for the site from my perspective this triangular site in a sort of mid-block areas

is pretty unique but there is the new parcel for this project seems like a pretty reasonably sized

parcel and and condition to me and then also as far as making sure that this project is safe that

is going to be you know reviewed by the experts uh at the fire department that is a next step in the

process and if it's found that just that it's not possible to to build this safely and have people

live in it safely then then that is going to be addressed by the experts in those those areas

and so this project has my support and i i make a motion to approve with conditions second

Vice President Moore.

We had a project comparable to this one, not quite the same, on a small lane that comes

off the curvy part of Lombard Street a few months ago.

We had similar discussions.

What for me personally is missing in this particular submittal is understanding the building

better in context.

And that is either a plan which puts a proposal into the surrounding blocks because understanding

the neighbors' comments kind of like I hear what they're saying, but I would like to kind

of see how that plays itself out three-dimensionally in a sketch that simulates the setting.

In addition to that, and that is probably something that will be looked at by somebody

else if this project moves forward, the nature of the lane shows something that is an unimproved

street with no curb, gutter or sidewalks, which makes it more difficult to really understand

accessibility because you don't have the normal barriers which define the proper widths of

driving area.

It's a lane which was not from the pictures we saw in particularly good context based

on the photos.

So those are additional questions that next time around when we have something, one, I would always suggest that owners who have questions send their letter to the commission secretary so that we can understand your concerns ahead of time.

Number two, when the department takes in a project like that, to always ask that the three-dimensional context in which this occurred is more properly documented.

In principle, everything being equal together with the fact that this is a project coming under today's rules and as a Housing Accountability Act project, I am interested to see reasonable densification in situations like that.

And I will support this project other than asking the department to better help us and yourself to establish a solid basis by which we make these supports.

That's all. Thank you.

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

Commissioner Campbell. I'm sorry. Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner So.

I mission of Braun I commission imperial I mission or more I and

Commission President Campbell I so move commissioners that motion passes

unanimously six to zero commissioners that'll place us under your discretionary

review calendar for items 11 a and b case numbers 2024 hyphen zero zero zero

nine two six drp and var for the property at 49 chula lane you will be

BE CONSIDERING THE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR WILL BE CONSIDERING

THE VARIANCE. JONAS, WE HAVE A DISCLOSURE FROM

VICE PRESIDENT MOORE. ASK THE LAST COMMISSIONER TO ASK ME THAT

I'd like to make a disclosure.

I wish to disclose that I have a professional relationship with the attorney for the project, Mr. Skard-Emblich.

I do not believe that that relationship has any impact on my ability to be impartial in this matter,

and I ask that the minutes reflect this disclosure.

Thank you.

Good afternoon President Campbell and Vice President Warren, fellow commissioners.

If you tried in vain to read my case report and were confused, I'm here to explain it.

I apologize.

There were some typos in there that didn't make sense to me upon rereading it after I

published it.

So here we go.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A PUBLIC INITIATED REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF PLANNING

APPLICATION 2024-000926 PRJ TO CONSTRUCT A VERTICAL ADDITION AND A DECK TO A TWO STORY SINGLE

FAMILY BUILDING. THE SITE IS AN APPROXIMATELY 26 FOOT WIDE BY 85 FOOT DEEP KEY LOT WITH THE

EXISTING BUILDING BEING A CATEGORY A HISTORIC RESOURCE BUILT IN 1880 DUE TO ITS LOCATION

within the California Register eligible Chula Abbey Early

Residential Historic District.

The building itself is considered a non-contributor,

but nonetheless, being in that district, it is considered an A.

The DR requester, Deborah Holly, on behalf of Louis Kobo

of 10 to 12 Abbey Street, the immediate neighbor to the east,

is concerned that the proposed project does not comply

with the residential design guidelines related to light,

air, scale at the street, and would cause unreasonable impacts by further shadowing the

rear yard of Mr. Kobo's building and backyard.

Furthermore, the project would cause adverse impacts to the eligible Chula Abbey Early

Historic District.

Their proposed alternatives is to reduce the height of the building to the height of the

addition, I apologize, to no more than 10 feet, and increase the side setback on the

EAST SIDE TO REDUCE SHADOW IMPACTS AND VISIBILITY OF THE ADDITION.

TO DATE THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED NO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION AND TWO LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF

THE PROJECT.

THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE PLANNING CODE AND AS MODIFIED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

GUIDELINES.

SPECIFICALLY DESIGN THE BUILDING TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCALE AT THE MID-BLOCK OPEN SPACE AND

THE STREET AND ARTICULATE THE BUILDING TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO LIGHT AND AIR.

TO COMPLY WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES RELATED TO SCALE AT THE STREET AND MIDBLOCK

OPEN SPACE LIGHT AND AIR AND PRIVACY, THE DEPARTMENT'S DESIGN REVIEW STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED

FOUR THINGS, THREE THINGS REALLY.

ONE, SETTING THE ADDITION BACK 15 FEET FROM THE FRONT BUILDING FACADE.

TWO, REDUCING THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF THE ADDITION WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO THE

EAST SIDE AND THIRD SETTING THE DECK BACK FROM THE EAST SIDE BY FIVE FEET AND ELIMINATING

THE PROPERTY LINE WINDOW ON THAT EAST FACING WALL AS WELL.

THE PREDOMINANT SCALE OF BUILDINGS ON THIS NARROW ALLIE IS TWO STORIES.

THIS COMBINED WITH THE KEY LOT CONDITION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES FRONTING ABBY STREET

AND THEIR SMALL REAR YARDS LED STAFF TO RECOMMEND THOSE MEANS AS MITIGATING THE MASSING IMPACT

ON THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

THE PROJECT SPONSOR RESPONDED WITH AN ASYMETRICAL GABLED ROOF, REASONABLE MEANS OF ACCOMMODATING

THE REDUCTION OF HEIGHT, PROVIDED IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY LOW TO BEGIN WITH.

STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED THAT THAT PLATE HEIGHT, THE WALL HEIGHT BASICALLY, WOULD BE NO HIGHER

THAN 7'6".

THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, WHICH IS THE LAST SET OF DRAWINGS IN YOUR PACKET, REFLECTS THE

REVISED DRAWINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO THAT HEIGHT OF 7'6 ALONG WITH THE CORRESPONDING

ROOF HEIGHT ABOVE THAT IN LINE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCE THE MASSING ADJACENT TO THE REAR

YARDS AT ABBEY. THEREFORE STAFF DEEMS THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

AND RECOMMENDS NOT TAKING DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND APPROVING. AND I THANK YOU.

I'LL BE HERE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. WITH THAT WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE DISCRETIONARY

review requester. You have five minutes.

Luis Carlos Cobo There was a letter in opposition, I believe.

At least, yeah. That was.

No, no problem. Yeah.

Good afternoon, members of the commission.

My name is Luis Carlos Cobo.

I'm the owner of 10 Abbey Street.

I have lived in the Mission for over a decade.

And in 2023, my wife Catalina and I moved to Abbey Street

to raise our two children and two dogs.

I'm here to oppose the vertical addition at 49 Chula Lane,

The proposal to lift their east wall, which is right

on my property line from 16 to 27 feet,

will severely obstruct light and air.

Specifically, it threatens the habitability of 12 Abbey,

a legally permitted studio unit at ground level,

whose only windows face this wall just 20 feet away,

as well as the visibility of my backyard,

which spans those 20 feet between their wall and 12 Abbey wall.

Because of the slope, the floor on that unit sits lower

than 49 chula. Standing in that studio, you can only see a sliver of sky, and by 3 p.m.,

as of last weekend, the sun is already hiding behind 49 chula. With an 11-foot wall increase,

that sliver of sky vanishes, and the unit will be cast into permanent shadow. The recent

six-inch height reduction of herbide sponsor does nothing to mitigate this impact. Most

importantly, there is a matter of consistency. My neighbors previously requested the variants

to expand into their backyard explicitly arguing

in the variance that this was the only way for them

to expand without impacting their neighbors.

That variance was granted with the condition

that further expansion would require a new variance

and therefore proving a new hardship.

Increasing a home square footage for luxury does not constitute

legal hardship, especially when it directly contradicts

the reasoning they used to gain their previous permit.

I support my neighbors wish to have their dream home,

but not as the expense of my family's light and air

and the viability of a neighboring home.

I ask you to require a 10-foot setback from my property line.

This would align with the standards for narrow streets

and preserve the basic access to air and sand that 12th Abbey

and our small yard requires.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Deborah Hawley for the Kobo family who live at, oh,

if we could have the slide shown, yeah, who live adjacent and to the east of 49 Chula.

As you can see in the aerial, the subject site is a key lot abutting the Abbey Street rear yards.

As Mr. Kobo just explained, the project would significantly impact his family's backyard and the studio unit.

The added vertical massing extends the full width of the Cobo slot.

The project would add a third story to a 2,222 square foot, three bedroom, three bath, single

family home to create a 3,000 square foot home without adding any additional bedrooms

or dwelling units.

This is the maximum size permitted without requiring CUA approval.

The proposed project does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to scale

since it's inconsistent with the predominant two-story massing of the buildings on Tula

Lane in the Tula Lane Abbey Historic District.

Slide three.

does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to the protection of neighbors'

light, air, and open space.

We're here today because unfortunately the project sponsors were unwilling to set back

the third story from the Kobo's rear yard, resulting in the 27-foot blank wall without

any relief.

This slide shows the existing east wall of the two-story 49 Tula Lane building from the

COBO's backyard and studio unit. The addition of the proposed third story would block out light

and open sky and would greatly reduce the total amount of sunlight reaching the rear yard and

studio, particularly in the late afternoon. The project sponsors complied with the planning

department's request to set back the deck from the side, but were unwilling to set back the

vertical addition at the east property line.

And there are many opportunities to shift the massing to other portions of the property.

As you can see in this slide, we requested that the massing of the new third floor be

set back ten feet to the west, as you can see in red.

The blue areas are opportunity areas where that mass could be shifted.

Also the fourth bathroom, the powder room, could be removed from the plans.

Mr. Ms. Holley, that is your time, but you will have a two-minute rebuttal.

Okay.

I'll finish in the rebuttal.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Lei Vu.

We are the project architects for the vertical addition at 49 Chula Lane.

We've worked with Laura and her family for the past three years.

Could you please speak more into the microphone so we can hear you?

I'm going to start with some of our site constraints for context.

49 Chula Lane is north facing on a narrow 14-foot street.

To the west, 51 Chula Lane spans their entire lot depth

with 13 property line windows.

They and my client's existing bedrooms

rely on the current open space for light and air.

Here.

To the south and east, my client borders three and four story properties on Abbey Street.

Between my client and the DR requester here at 1012 Abbey, there is over close between 15 and 20 feet

between his lower build out and more than 25 feet to his upper two floors.

So I'm trying, how do I move this down?

Can you help me figure out how to scroll down?

Oh, there we go.

Thank you.

This is 51 Chula, and you can see from my neighbor's open space, those are his property

line windows.

This is looking south from their open space towards 30C Abbey Street, which is three stories.

And this is the DR requester three-story unit, three-story structure to the east.

This massing model shows that our site constraints.

By building up rather than out, we preserve essential open space while remaining compatible

with the surrounding scale.

We worked with the planners and as David said, we lowered the east property line height down

to seven foot six and overall we decreased the ridge height two foot two

inches we shifted the ridge west away from the east neighbor's yards in order

to mitigate afternoon shadow impact with the lowered seven foot six plate height

our new average midpoint at the slope is 29 nine feet nine and three quarters in

In this east elevation, that is more than 10 feet below the building property, the building

permitted height.

We stayed within our second floor footprint, so we are not within the 30% encroached rear

yard requirement.

And with the 15 foot setback at the front, we are not obstructing the sun access plane.

We worked with the family to increase their livable space.

The project increases, they have two young children who currently share a bedroom, a

daughter age eight and a son age five.

The children need their separate bedrooms, parents need dedicated home offices, and the

family needs more functional common space.

We added a new communicating stare at the ground floor at the end of the garage to keep

the existing bedrooms intact. By relocating the common space to the top

floor we were able to add a second bedroom so the children are on the same

floor just a floor above their parents. The existing kitchen cannot support a

family of four. It's tight, it has limited storage and only 30 inches

between the range and the sink. When you go up to the third floor we've combined

all of the spaces and it's a modest 742 square feet with a we relocated the

dining and the living and we were able to improve the functionality of their

kitchen to confirm the minimal impact on light and air to eastern neighbors we

conducted a full seasonal Sun study the data confirms at the winter solstice at

at any time and from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. year-round,

there is no impact.

Any solar change is confined the late afternoon after 3 p.m.

and is minor as shown here.

The full sun studies are included

in our January 15th letter brief.

While the spring-fall equinox and summer solstice

show some minimal late afternoon shadow,

the DR requester retains unobstructed light

from the north and the south.

The condition is not being modified

the proposed project which sits to the west of the DR requester.

Let me conclude by saying that our proposal is accompanied with five support letters from

our immediate neighbors at 51 Chula Lane and other neighbors on Abbey Street and around

the block.

And some are here to speak on our behalf.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

With that, we should take public comment.

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

review request.

YOU WILL EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS BRAD DAVIS.

I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE 1981.

I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 9 ABBY, ABOUT 150 YARDS FROM THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.

I WILL TELL YOU THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY HISTORIC DISTRICT.

CHULA, I BELIEVE, IS THE NARROWEST STREET IN THE CITY.

IT IS ONE BLOCK.

ABBY RUNS PERPENDICULAR ONE BLOCK INTO CHULA, ESSENTIALLY IN THE ADMISSION DOLORES.

I am not aware ever of approval being made to add an addition to any of the properties on either Abbey or Chula Lane.

I want to be clear at the outset, the proposed project does not materially impact my own property,

but our neighbors just a year ago had a proposal done to add a story to their building.

It would have blocked our light. It would have blocked our view all the way up to Buena Vista Park.

This area is defined by consistent scale and pattern.

MOST HOMES ARE TWO STORIES WITH A LIMITED NUMBER OF LONG-STANDING THREE-STORY BUILDINGS.

THAT CONSISTENCY MATTERS. IT CREATES PREDICTABLE LIGHT ACCESS, USABLE REAR YARDS,

AND A SHARED EXPECTATION FOR HOW DENSITY IS HANDLED ON THIS BLOCK. THE CONCERN HERE IS NOT

CHANGE OR DEVELOPMENT, IT'S PRECEDENT. APPROVING AN ADDITIONAL STORY THAT SIGNIFICANTLY

INCREASES REAR YARD SHATTERING WOULD ESTABLISH A NEW BASELINE FOR WHAT BECOMES PERMISSIBLE

ACROSS THIS ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ONCE THAT PRECEDENT IS SET, IT WILL BE SITED REPEATEDLY.

WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SINGLE PROJECT BECOMES A PATTERN,

AND THAT PATTERN HAS PERMANENT CONSEQUENCES FOR THIS HISTORICAL

NEIGHBORHOOD.

LOSS OF REAR LIGHT IS NOT A SUBJECTIVE CONCERN.

IT IS MEASURABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE.

IN DENSE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE THIS ONE, LIGHT ACCESS IS ONE OF THE

FEW REMAINING PROTECTIONS FOR LIVEABILITY, AND ONCE IT'S

IT'S REDUCED.

IT CAN NEVER BE RESTORED.

THERE'S ALSO A BROADER MARKET CONSIDERATION.

BUYERS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, LIKE MYSELF, ARE PAYING A PREMIUM BASED ON REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS

AROUND SCALE AND LIGHT AND CONSISTENCY.

AND WHEN THOSE EXPECTATIONS BECOME UNCERTAIN, IT INTRODUCES RISK AND RISK AFFECTS CONFIDENCE

AND LONG-TERM PROPERTY VALUES.

THANK YOU, THAT IS YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

Hello, my name is Kristin Colombano.

I live at 31 Abbey since the year 2000.

And I've reviewed the project and the plans, and I think it's a small impact that it's

really sensitive to the neighbors and that it will improve our neighborhood and the properties.

So I'm in support.

Patricia Porte Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I am Patricia Porte.

I am also a neighbor who lives on Abbey Street, and I own my property.

I have lived there since, oh dear, 86, 1986.

We have had quite a number of very good neighbors.

Laura Piron and her family have been excellent neighbors.

As you have heard, they have made a number of changes to their plans.

They have reached out to the neighbors.

They are sensitive to what it is we are looking for and what we want.

From my perspective, this family needs more space to raise their children.

I believe it is the policy of the city of San Francisco to encourage families to stay here, to live here, to raise their families here.

I think this project would be a step in that direction.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment.

You need to come forward.

Seeing none.

Public comment is closed.

And the discretionary review requester,

you have a two-minute rebuttal.

I have the overhead, please.

SFGov, thank you.

Just a quick point about this RH2 district.

You can see on this map, most of the units around the property, subject property, are

multi-family.

They're adding quite a bit of space without adding an additional unit.

And they are, they need, they're saying they need room because their kids share a bedroom,

but they're not adding a bedroom.

They're making a bigger kitchen and living area and some additional storage and adding

one bathroom to the, so for a total of four bathrooms.

We are asking for some pretty reasonable changes that could make everybody happy.

There's quite a bit of opportunity if you see in the blue area, those are areas where

they could shift some of the massing.

They could get rid of the powder room and stick with three bathrooms, or they could relocate

the powder room either in the lower box to the left, which currently contains a deck

over the first story, or shift, and they could shift part of the kitchen or powder room to

the upper block, which is there's plenty of space.

And sure, it would be closer to 51 Chula, but they would still enjoy a significant setback.

So we're asking for some creativity here to make my clients happy, just as other neighbors

have testified they're happy with the plans because they're not impacted by it.

That is your time.

Project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

Hello, I'm Laura Peary.

I am the owner of 49 Chula Lane.

I've taken a look.

Well, first of all, let me just say that we have spent a long time trying to find the right.

Would you mind speaking a little bit more?

Yes.

We've taken a long time to try to find the right design to accommodate neighbors.

We live in a very tight neighborhood, very close to our neighbors, and we want, we very much appreciate getting along with our neighbors and wanting to make adjustments to try to make it comfortable for all of us living in these small spaces.

And our intent with the design was to come up with a very creative solution that balanced the interests of our neighbors along 51 Chula, who fills the entire block and has 13 windows facing our yard, as well as the Abbey Street neighbors whose rear yards all bound our property line.

THE PROPOSAL THAT THE DR REQUESTER HAS SHOWN WOULD HAVE TWO CHALLENGES.

ONE, THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD OUT OVER OUR EXISTING DECK WOULD BUILD INTO THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENT,

SO IT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE. AND THEN THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD ALONG CLOSER TO THE WESTERN

PROPERTY LINE, CLOSER TO 51 SHULA LANE WOULD IMPACT THE LIGHT AND AIR OF 51 SHULA.

AND THAT WAS IN FACT THE BASIS OF THE VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTS IN 2009.

I WAS THE OWNER AT THAT POINT WHEN WE ASKED FOR THAT VARIANCE.

IT WAS TO BUILD OUT THE GROUND FLOOR AT THAT POINT.

THE ONLY PROPOSAL THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED WAS A GROUND FLOOR

EXPANSION AND THE ALTERNATIVE WAS A HORIZONTAL EXPANSION ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE THAT

WOULD HAVE IMPACTED 51 CHULA. AND SO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADOPTED OUR

RATIONALE THAT WAS IN THE APPLICATION FINDING THAT 51 SHULA'S INTERESTS WERE TO BE PROTECTED

AND SO THEREFORE THE VARIANCE WAS TO BE GRANTED.

SO AGAIN, IN THIS PROJECT WE CONSIDERED 51 SHULA'S INTERESTS AS WELL AS ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS'

INTERESTS IN OUR DESIGN.

SO THANK YOU.

THAT IS YOUR TIME.

WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER, THIS MATTER IS NOW BEFORE YOU AND THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.

GET IT STARTED.

I KNOW THIS STREET WELL.

It's close to my home, not too close to be a conflict, but close.

In fact, I would go down this street with my kids on the way, taking them to their preschool

every morning.

We called it the Skinny Street.

It's an incredibly charming and beautiful spot in the city.

I find this addition to be incredibly thoughtful and very modest in nature.

If anything, it's kind of putting it at a similar height to actually some of the buildings

on an adjacent street, which I think the architect demonstrated pretty clearly.

And when I look at the drawings and I hear Mr. Winslow's description,

it sounds like there's already been a lot of compromises that have been made in this project

and a lot of cooperation with the planning staff to get us to the solution that we're seeing here today.

It's a completely code-compliant project.

And our job here right today is to find exceptional and extraordinary circumstances,

which I'm struggling to see.

So I'm inclined to deny the discretionary review.

Open to hearing other commissioners' thoughts on this.

And I see Vice President Moore.

Oh, sorry.

No, Mr. Teague.

Mr. Teague.

Hello.

Thank you.

Congratulations, President Campbell.

Good to see you all.

Yeah, I just wanted to touch base on kind of the variance role here, because this is a little bit of an unusual situation in the sense that the scope of work that's proposed itself doesn't trigger a variance.

It's in the permitted buildable area.

But a standard condition for variances similar to a standard condition for planning commission decisions is that the zoning administrator can authorize kind of minor changes after a variance is granted, but more substantial changes, even if they're in the buildable area.

If they may not be consistent with the original variants or they could have impact on the

surrounding neighbors, the zoning administrator is authorized to either require additional

notice or require a new variance.

So in this case, there were two reasons why it was determined that the variance was actually

triggered in this case.

One is because the original variance was kind of granted on a partial rationale of going

HORIZONTAL WAS THE APPROPRIATE OPTION AT THAT TIME.

AND OBVIOUSLY NOW THE PROPOSAL IS TO GO VERTICAL, WHICH IS KIND OF A DIFFERENT RATIONALE.

AND AS MR. WINSLOW MENTIONED, WHEN THE PROJECT WAS FIRST SUBMITTED, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT

IT WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES.

SO WE WERE LOOKING AT A PROPOSAL THAT WAS GOING A LITTLE BIT AGAINST THE GRAIN OF THE

ORIGINAL VARIANCE AND THEN ALSO WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL

DESIGN GUIDELINES.

why that determination was made, that the variance was also needed.

That's why I'm here.

That's what I'm considering kind of separate from your discretionary review, just to be

clear.

But as was mentioned, the project has changed in terms of it has been revised since that

time.

And obviously, you've heard all the issues so far that you'll continue to deliberate

on.

But I wanted to be really specific about that and be clear that for the Planning Commission,

it's a discretionary review, just like any discretionary review you would have.

But for me, I'm reviewing the variants kind of in context with the original variants,

but also looking at the context today to ensure that this proposal is still kind of in line with the spirit and context of the original variants.

I just wanted to provide that kind of clarification since it is not a typical trigger for a variants,

especially a variants to be also here combined with a discretionary review.

Great. Thanks for the clarifications.

Vice President Moore.

Thank you, President Campbell, for giving your personal expressions about this street.

Having you say that makes me really actually more appreciate what actually has been done here.

I consider the project in front of us actually very sensitively addressing circumstance.

We do all live in extremely tight situations.

This is a 26 by 85 foot deep lot, which makes it really very difficult.

It's almost like shoehorning something and trying to not make somebody notice it.

So one question I had is, and I made a call to Ms. Gordon yesterday.

I'm avoiding to pronounce a second name because I know I'll screw it up.

So, to speak about this is a Category A historic building,

and I asked her about the windows on the upper floor,

the ones, street-facing windows.

If you wouldn't mind going through that conversation with me,

I would appreciate it.

It's one, the materiality of the windows,

and it's to the window expression itself,

which I find very much not responding well to the circumstance it sits in.

My concern about, my question is,

do our window guidelines apply since this is street addressing, street facing windows?

And while I really appreciate the 15 foot setback, which makes it harder to see them,

that still does not eliminate the fact that this is a Category A-weighted building.

Could you speak to that?

Yes.

Thank you.

Certainly.

Elizabeth Gordon-Junk here of department staff.

I'm one of the preservation managers for District 8.

Yes, so you have a historic resource review in your packet.

As Mr. Winslow indicated, this is a project that's in the California Register eligible.

Chula Lane District, which means that the impact analysis was reviewed through CEQA,

the lens of CEQA. Overall, I should state up front, the determination was within that analysis that

the project would not constitute a significant unavoidable impact on the district, which is what

the seek required. But we did outline that overall the fenestration, both the patterns

and the materials used, would be inconsistent with the guidelines. But specifically, the

rhythm and the solid to void ratio pattern of the windows would be inconsistent with

the neighboring properties. And the framing, the wood clad framing, aluminum clad wood

framing would contrast with the traditional wood frame windows within the district.

So it is governed, the project is governed by the guidelines, but the CEQA analysis determined

that wouldn't be an impact to the district.

I found that particular analysis important to me, and I personally would like to encourage

us as a commission to look at that and potentially take this particular aspect of the project

forward.

Since this is really a larger issue, I think we would do well to consider that.

Commissioner So.

I live in the mission.

I know how tight things are and I know that everyone's trying to make it worked.

And it shows that it's evidence that the homeowners here is really trying to do her best job to

keep her family here and have her children here, hopefully her next generations and also

retire here with the dignity and also grace and also with the neighbors too.

I really echo President Campbell's message about this.

It's actually quite, you take a lot of steps to pretty much appease all the neighbors'

response and request, and I really appreciate Zone Administrator Corey T's explanation

of how you interpret these things into compliance.

I would like to motion to do not take the DR and approve this project.

Second.

I would like to ask that the comments that I made are being considered.

Mr. Winslow, can you guide us through that?

I believe it is important that we take that next step.

That is not basically impacting the realization of the modified building as it is,

but I think it will add something that is really important.

Yeah.

I think through the course of the review of this project,

both preservation staff and design review staff commented on the,

IN PARTICULAR FROM MY MEMORY, THE SHAPE OF THE WINDOWS UNDERNEATH THE GABLE AS KIND

OF SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT SUPPORTABLE FROM A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINE APROPOSE

OF THE PATTERN OF WINDOWS IN THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS.

TRAPEZOIDAL TRIANGULAR WINDOWS VERSUS JUST REGULAR RECTANGULAR WINDOWS.

IT CAME OUT IN THE HRR REPORT AS MORE RELEVANT TO THE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS THAN I THINK THE

THE DESIGN GUIDELINE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I THINK WE, FROM THE DESIGN GUIDELINE STANDPOINT, THOUGHT, I HOPE CORRECTLY, THAT THE SETBACK

OF THE ADDITION OF 15 FEET, EVEN THOUGH THE PEAK OF THAT ROOF AND THE WINDOWS ARE PRETTY

HIGH, BUT THE NARROWNESS OF THE STREET PLUS THE SETBACK MIGHT RENDER THOSE WINDOWS NOT

NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC WAY.

I HOPE THAT'S THE CASE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE CASE.

IN A DEGREE OF SAFETY, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, I WOULD PREFER THOSE

WINDOWS JUST BEING NORMALIZED, YOU KNOW, RECTANGULAR WINDOWS OF SOME SORT, RATHER THAN

KIND OF A STRANGE SHAPE THAT'S INTRODUCED INTO THIS DISTRICT.

AND I THINK OUT OF DUE CAUTION, CONSIDERING THAT IT IS AN ELIGIBLE HISTORIC DISTRICT,

That's probably the right recommendation to make at this point.

My motion stays.

Yeah.

Then I was just going to weigh in as well on the variance itself, not kind of why the

variance is here, but just on the matter of the variance.

I think the project sponsor kind of touched on some of the points that were germane to

to the original variants, which is the nature of the lot,

but also the adjacent property to the west,

which is essentially full lot depth

and has the property line windows.

There was a desire to kind of respect that,

even though property line windows are protected,

but there was a desire to respond to that in a way

where the horizontal addition at the ground floor on the rear

was on the east side of the lot away from that neighboring building to leave that gap.

And it created essentially an offset.

Like the building on the ground floor goes into the rear yard on the east side,

but it's actually not as deep as it could be on the west side.

So there's a little bit of an offset there.

And the amount that that addition back then went into the rear yard was not a significant amount.

And I think that's important here because you still want to kind of honor that offset for the same reasons.

And if it is going to increase, I think the DR requester mentioned there's not a bedroom increase.

I believe if I'm reading the plans correctly, it's going from three to four bedrooms, though.

So while I do agree that it would be a great thing if it was adding another unit here,

like a lot of the other buildings here, it is at least an addition that is going to expand

the habitable area in terms of number of bedrooms.

And ultimately, you know, the proposal is not really going to exacerbate the previous variants.

And this is definitely a case where I would be looking to the Planning Commission to help

ensure that there was consensus that the design was kind

of contextual and appropriate here in this case.

Obviously, there's the details of the design,

but also it is set back from the front 15 feet.

It is a fairly modest third floor overall,

regardless of the roof shape, et cetera.

So in this case, you know, it sounds like that there may not

be any concerns from the Planning Commission from a design perspective

has the project has been amended and that will you know definitely be a big

factor in my decision.

Commissioners if there's no further deliberation there is a motion that has

been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as

proposed on that motion Commissioner McGarry?

Commissioner So? Aye.

Commissioner Braun? Aye.

Commissioner Imperial? Aye.

Commissioner Moore and Commission President Campbell. So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously six

To zero zoning administrator. What say I will close the public hearing for the variants and intend to grant the standard conditions

Thank you

Commissioners that'll place us on the final item on your agenda today number 12 case number 2022 hyphen 011

377 DRP for the property at 727 Madrid Street

discretionary review

GOOD AFTERNOON, PRESIDENT CAMPBELL AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, DAVID WINSLOW, STAFF ARCHITECT.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A PUBLIC INITIATED REQUEST FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF PLANNING APPLICATION 2022, 011377PRJ,

TO COMPLY WITH AN NOV NUMBER 2022-93386 TO OBTAIN A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO REAR DECKS AT THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS,

OF A TWO STORY OVER BASEMENT TWO FAMILY BUILDING.

THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 25 FEET WIDE BY A HUNDRED FOOT DEEP

LATERAL AND DOWN SLOPING LOT.

THE EXISTING BUILDING IS A CATEGORY B UNKNOWN AGE ELIGIBLE

RESOURCE BUILT IN 1910.

THE DR REQUESTER IDA ENG OF 735 MADRID STREET, THE NEIGHBOR

TO THE SOUTHWEST, IS CONCERNED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES

NOT COMPLY WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES RELATED TO

SCALE AT THE MID-BLOCK OPEN SPACE AND PRESERVATION OF LIGHT AND PRIVACY.

HER PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES ARE TO REPLACE IN KIND PREVIOUS AT GRADE DECK AND REAR STAIRS.

AND FAILING THAT TO REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT OF BOTH DECKS TO AN 8-FOOT DEPTH AND INCREASE

THE SIDE SETBACKS.

TO DATE THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED NO LETTERS IN SUPPORT NOR LETTERS IN OPPOSITION OF THE

PROJECT.

The proposed lower deck is approximately 10 feet above grade and extends 13 and a half

feet from the rear wall of the first floor.

The upper deck extends eight feet from the rear wall.

Both decks are set back five foot four inches from the south lot line and four feet from

the north, the northern side lot line.

The size of the decks are not excessive.

Both decks are adjacent to kitchens of two flats.

AND THEY ARE BOTH WELL WITHIN THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THE REAR YARD AND ARTICULATED WITH

THEIR SIDE SETBACKS TO RESPECT THE SCALE OF THE MIDBLOCK OPEN SPACE AS WELL AS PRIVACY

OF ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

THEREFORE THE PROJECT DOES COMPLY WITH THE PLANNING CODE AND THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

GUIDELINES TO ARTICULATE THE BUILDING TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO LIGHT AND AIR.

FURTHERMORE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DR REQUESTERS PROPERTY AND THE POTENTIAL VIEW ANGLES INTO

INTERIOR SPACES DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF EXCEPTIONAL OR

EXTRAORDINARY BUT RATHER DEMONSTRATES AN EXTREMELY COMMON

PLACE AND EXPECTED CIRCUMSTANCE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHIN THE

CITY. THEREFORE THE PROPOSED DECADES

WILL HAVE AN INSIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THIS CONDITION AND

STAFF SEES NO REASON TO REQUEST MODIFICATIONS.

THEREFORE STAFF DEEMS THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONAL NOR

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND RECOMMENDS NOT TAKING

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. THANK YOU.

Okay, discretionary review requester, you have five minutes.

First and foremost, thank you for your time today, commissioners and Mr. Winslow.

My name is Ida Ng.

I am the DR applicant and I reside at 735 Madrid Street with my partner and two young

children.

We've lived there since 2014.

I kindly request the commission to take a further review for the following reasons.

First, the DR analysis is missing the documentation I provided in the application I submitted on November 13, 2025.

Mr. Winslow advised that he does not click on link documentation from DR applications,

so I sent three separate emails with the relevant files in PDF format on January 6, 2026, after a video meeting.

These documents are applicable to the DR.

Second, the plans that were shared do not reflect what is currently built.

I raised the issue with Mr. Winslow and Mr. Albert Uratia during our January 6th meeting.

A response was not given as to why there is a discrepancy.

Third, the Sanborn map from 1998 referenced in the DR analysis is inaccurate,

as our property does not extend beyond the protruding section of 731 Madrid.

An accurate map of the properties are visible on Google Maps satellite view, but the aerial

views included in the DR analysis does not capture one close up.

Fourth, at the pre-planning meeting held in February of 2025, I was unable to attend,

but Mr. Albert Urutia made a note to send me site and masking plans, neither of which

I received.

The pre-planning application meeting notes is one of the documents provided in my application.

At the same meeting, the owners of 731 flagged concerns, but no follow-up was communicated,

nor any plans altered to consider their feedback, given that the plans from July 11, 2024 have

not changed since.

Fifth, the DR process was followed in good faith by requesting a community board's meeting

where the project sponsor did not respond to the proposal, messaging the planner for

additional information as recommended for increased clarity on the project and providing

alternatives which were not considered by the project sponsor.

The plans were drawn based on what was already erected prior to its submission to the planning

department without any adjustments after the pre-planning application meeting.

And last but not least, on September 30, 2025, DBI Inspector Mr. Paul Matthews was on my

PROPERTY TO APPROVE THE CONCRETE POUR FOR NEW RETAINING WALL AS OUR PREVIOUS ONE COLLAPSED.

AT THAT INSPECTION HE NOTED THAT THE DECK AT 727 MADRID COULD NOT BE LEGAL OR SHOULD

BE APPROVED GIVEN HOW IT'S ERECTED.

THIS WAS A RED FLAG FOR ME AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I SUBMITTED THE DR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

I will sponsor you five minutes.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Albert Urrutia.

I'm the engineer and the designer of 727 Madrid Street.

My clients, Armando and Mary, are building the decks for their children.

They will speak about this later.

The new deck is 5'4 away from the property line on the west side and 4' on the east.

Ida Eng, the appellant, lives on the west side.

The upper deck is 8' deep and the lower is 13'7 deep.

The additional depth to accommodate the spiral stairs, leaving in effect an eight-foot deck on the west side.

The size of the decks, the additional depth to accommodate the spiral stairs, leaving in effect an eight-foot deck on the west side.

The size of the decks are not abnormal compared to others in the city of San Francisco.

Ms. Eng is concerned about my client will be able to look into hers and the other neighbors

windows.

In San Francisco, historically, light wells are three foot deep, backing up to adjacent

light wells, putting windows six feet apart.

The distances from our deck to the neighbors will exceed that distance, as shown in this

slide.

I grew up in the flat in the Richmond, and in our case, that's what we had between us

and the neighbors.

We just added window coverings and didn't pay attention to the neighbors.

Here's a picture of Ms. Eng's windows from the rear deck.

As you can see, the angle is very sharp and from that distance you can't see anything.

A concern of Ms. Eng's is the property value of the block for people not wanting to buy

because of their rear decks near their backyard.

I don't see this as an issue because rear decks are in every neighborhood and block in San Francisco.

People who are buying in San Francisco know of this issue, and it does not detract from the property values.

In fact, Ms. Eng herself has a rear deck.

Ms. Eng is concerned about having loud parties on the deck and disturbing the neighborhood.

but my client and our family are here in building this for their children.

In conclusion, the decks are designed within the planning code requirements

and have a comfortable distance to their neighbor's windows.

I ask that the commission deny the appeal.

Armando.

Hi, my name is Armando Martinez.

My wife and I, Mary Angel, you know, I've known her since we were in high school.

And we've been together 52 years.

and we are native San Franciscans.

We were born here.

And the thing is, we always had a dream

that we were going to raise our family in San Francisco

because of the sharpest and the brightest people

live here and are in the Bay Area.

I want my children and my grandchildren

who are also going to be living in this building.

This building is not to sell to make for profit.

This is for my family to have stable housing

for this generation and the other generations coming forward.

So that's all I want to say.

So I appreciate if you consider and deny whatever is being requested here.

Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners.

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

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

You need to come forward seeing none.

DR requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

So, earlier when I started, stated about the Sanborn map, that our property does not

protrude past 731.

So their property at that angle in the past, a photo that Mr. Urtia had shared would not

ever have been possible.

And also one thing to note is that they are at a much, much higher elevation than we are.

So their first level deck is already in line with our second story.

So having that in addition to another one above, you get a greater viewpoint.

You know, now you, before you could even see, sorry, I've been recovering from a cold.

You wouldn't be able to see even the neighbors south of me.

But now that is all visible.

And because they're on such a high elevation, much higher than even our eastern neighbors,

POINT OF VISIBILITY IS IS VAST THANK YOU PROJECT SPONTHER YOU HAVE A TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL IF YOU WANT IT

VERY GOOD WITH THAT COMMISSIONERS THIS MATTER IS NOW BEFORE YOU

COMMISSIONER MCGARY

I don't see that there's an issue here, and I would actually make a motion to deny the DR's request.

Second.

Is that all your comments?

Yep.

Okay.

Commissioner Braun?

I agree that there's no exceptional extraordinary circumstances here.

This is a pretty common situation.

It's not something that we, you know, our design guidelines haven't anticipated.

The privacy issues are not extreme.

And so I agree with the motion.

I think my one question to Mr. Winslow is, I saw that there was an assertion, at least

that Rodrigo Santos worked on this project in the past or had some relationship to the

project.

I don't know whether that's true or not, but my question would be, you know, there's some

concern that the plans we are basically but proving something that's already been built and if the

plans don't match what has already been built that could be a problem but this you know as part of dbi's

final sign off on this am i correct in understanding that they will be also looking at this um to

ensure that the plans match the project um let me state what i know which may or may not be in

in conflict with what you assert.

I believe that the, I don't know what Santos' original

involvement was, maybe Mr. Urrutia, who unfortunately

had been tethered by partnership in the past too,

Mr. Santos could illuminate us on that.

But the NOV that Ms. Eng spoke of, I believe,

there was an inspector in her yard that looked over

and said, hmm, there's a deck over there.

And he probably looked it up and saw that it did not have a building permit.

And hence an NOV, a notice of violation was issued,

which we give people the opportunity to rectify the permit.

And that was when this project became a project for planning,

a permit was applied for.

To my knowledge, the plans that are in front of you,

as well as the photographs of the half-complete deck,

do match.

And that's to the extent of my knowledge.

And if, Mr. Urrutia, you want to confirm or deny or add,

then please do.

The project originally started with Santos and Urrutia.

and upon the dismantling of the company,

Rodrigo took on the project for a while.

And he subsequently dropped the ball on the project

and has lost his license and everything else.

I took over the project because Armando and Mary knew me as well as Rodrigo.

And I ended up, I went out and measured the existing deck

THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET APPROVED NOW.

AND IT CONFORMS EXACTLY TO WHAT'S ON OUR DRAWINGS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANKS.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DELIBERATION,

THERE IS A MOTION THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED TO NOT TAKE DISCRETIONARY

REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED.

ON THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER MCGARY?

I. COMMISSIONER SOE.

I. COMMISSIONER BRAWN.

I. COMMISSIONER IMPERIAL.

Mayor Redekop, aye. Commissioner Moore, aye.

Commissioner Campbell, aye.

So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6-0 and concludes your hearing today.

Thank you.

Live Live Live

Thank you.