Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals  SFGTV  February 4, 2022 8:00pm-12:11am PST

8:00 pm
8:01 pm
>> thank you very much, everybody, and i will quickly state that i'm joining this just a touch late, but i live at 203 buchanan, which is just beneath where this antenna is going to be installed. what i'm trying to understand, and forgive me if i missed something, but it could be no closer than 27 feet to a public area. but what about a private area? i went out and measured this, and from my window to the pole is 21 feet, so this is something that i will be exposed to, the radiation from this, and this is one of my biggest concerns, that i will be exposed to this 24-7.
8:02 pm
so my concern is that there's the radiation from this pole, and i'd like to understand, are there any restrictions? how close can it be to any structure, namely the one in discussion right now? and then, i'd just like to state that i'm against the installation of this antenna. i am really, really happy that i am not alone in this, and i thank you all for your consideration. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment for this item? please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any further public comment, so we'll move onto rebuttal. mr. stein, you have three minutes.
8:03 pm
>> commissioner honda: you're on mute, sir. >> okay. sorry about that. i've got several people that were going to do public comment told me they couldn't wait any longer, and i know you've gotten some letters of support. but as far as notice under 27-13-3, it says, the company shall send a notice of intent to any neighborhood identified by the planning department within 300 feet, so it's not something that they are required to do, if i'm understanding this, it's something that they shall. also, upholding the forever, it's not been there forever. the poles were added later, and that's kind of the sad thing about historical resources is the later it goes and more things that are put up in front of us, that's used as a
8:04 pm
justification as adding more clutter. yeah, we can go through some of those, too. also, there are alternates that are in that very area that will still work. the only difference is they're in, from what i can tell, tier three, and they're not disfavored, so weighing that against the f.c.c. ruling and article 10, it seems that it's moving it to a slightly less favorable location. i understand the need for telecommunications, but there can be some accommodation here. let's's been featured in many books. it's an attraction, and people take photos of it. you can just keep going. see, there's no pole. keep going down, please.
8:05 pm
we've restored these balconies -- keep going down. we've restored these historic chimneys. keep going down. all of these are impacted by the pole and the antenna that will be sticking up. when you look up and you're in the open space, you're going to see this pole, from that perspective, that's going to be exceeding the height of the tower and blocking out these details. keep going, alec. and that was when it was a parking lot, and now, it's even more important to keep that space. and article ten, which i touched on in the brief. i don't want to touch on that now, but definitely, like, the
8:06 pm
enrichment of human life and it's educational and spiritual and cultural -- what it says at the bottom there, at the bottom, where the people of san francisco, it's important. and to put up this blocking a view for the public just doesn't seem the right thing to do, especially in light of the notice of issues -- >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we will now hear from tammy blackstone. thank you very much. >> thank you. i just wanted to address a couple of items. the notice was done appropriately. we did all of the required notification, and, you know, we -- we're sorry if, for some reason, you felt like you were noticed, but you were. we did make sure that there was taken care of. -- that that was taken care of. the actual antenna is 2 feet
8:07 pm
long and 9 inches around. we don't feel that it's going to block the view because it's on top of what's already there. a lot of us are in san francisco and want to preserve what we have. this is not in the public right of way. it's not in -- it's in the public right-of-way, so even after this appeal was filed, our vendors went back, and we looked again, and we went through all the poles to try and suitable alternate, and there just is nothing in that area, so that's why i ask you, after it's been approved by all of the required city departments that you uphold this permit. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.
8:08 pm
we have a question from president swig. you're on mute, president swig. >> president swig: thank you. i was going to -- i think you answered it, but i was going to ask planning about alternative alternate locations. is it because -- are you absolutely stating because the appellant is stating his view is saying there were alternatives, but they were less favorable as opposed to impossible. do you share his view that there were less favorable ones that were impossible or were all the alternatives in the neighborhood impossible? and i'm going to ask everyone the same question. >> are you asking me the question? >> president swig: yes. >> yeah. they were either going to
8:09 pm
require a much taller pole because of the way antennas work. you've heard this all before. it's all line of sight. and then, some were muni lines, and we have to be careful with the g.o. 95, and some of them already had too much equipment on top. we did look at 18 poles very carefully, and each one of them, unfortunately, had some issue that was going to make it. >> president swig: okay. we have a conflict in viewpoint. the appellant says, based on his study, there were less favorable ones. you're saying that at&t was zero for 18. >> we're one for 18, that one. >> president swig: okay. and so i'm going to ask plaintiff the same thing.
8:10 pm
of the 18 poles, was there a chance that any of the 18 had this mechanism? okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. mr. palacios, do you have anything further? >> yeah, just to -- i know the appellant mentioned neighborhood groups, so if you go to public works brief, and you go to exhibit e, you can see that the residents be mailed and all the businesses. and aside from that, the proper board of supervisor was also notified. >> commissioner honda: was that e? >> exhibit e. >> commissioner honda: exhibit e? okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the
8:11 pm
planning department, and president swig, did you want miss tam to answer your question? >> president swig: yes. >> clerk: before she starts her rebuttal? >> president swig: yes. >> okay. tina tam for the planning department. in the [indiscernible], this is the location that we got as the proposal. we're not the lead agency for the public works permit. it's a public right-of-way, and we were not involved in reviewing the other alternate sites. >> president swig: thank you very much for the answer, and we may have to go back to mr. palacios. this is called hide the walnut.
8:12 pm
i mean, who -- are you going to believe that a self-interest -- no disrespect, miss blackstone, to tell you, at&t, that they're zero for 18? who in the city is responsible for holding that claim that it's true? is it you, mr. palacios? going back to you, miss tam? i want to know that who in the city affirmed that out of the 18 poles, none of them were appropriate -- even if they were secondary, that none of them were appropriate mechanisms. >> i can answer this. >> president swig: yeah. >> under article 25, we don't do an analysis of which pole they want to use. they do an analysis of the pole that they want to use. if the pole happens to be that
8:13 pm
pole, we just make sure that it adheres to article 25. under state law, telecommunication companies have the right to put in large poles in the public right-of-way. >> president swig: we've heard many of these items, and i will site them, because i have a pretty good memory on clay street, there was a very, very divisive conversation about a pole, and we asked what other poles in the neighborhood were looked at. there were approximately five other poles that were looked at, and there was one that almost made the cut, right? and that was one of the pieces of the decision that -- that was one of the elements that
8:14 pm
let us to the decision. i'm sorry, mr. palacios, but the city didn't do a hands off. they did a hands off because it was a city asset. now i understand that the poles are now in jurisdiction of the p.u.c., and we're talking about -- in the future, we'll talk about pg&e. i think that law is a fix game, but at the same time, there has to be accountability, and there's no checks and balances from d.p.w., so at&t can come to you and said hey, we did this study man, and this is the one, and you don't check their work? and, you know, this is -- this is a change in the game. you're -- d.p.w. is now changing the rules or somebody
8:15 pm
in the city is now changing the rules because this is the way that it has not been, and the story that you're giving me today is a changing of the rules, a new interpretation of the article, and i find that very difficult to accept. i find it very difficult to accept that you can't come in here, 18 poles, you go zero for 18 or one for 18. yes, one is the best. two can possibly make it. three, four, and five are a little worse, and the remaining 13 just won't cut it, but not zero for 18. come on, man. >> commissioner honda: president swig, the planning department hasn't had their time yet. >> president swig: yeah, i understand, but this is the man with the answer, president honda. >> so a lot of work comes into
8:16 pm
choosing a pole, as you saw by at&t's analysis of poles. all they do is give us a location, and it's a very special location. that's why it's required to have a certificate of appropriateness. if it was a denial, then, it's done. the permit was denied, and hey, go look for another spot. but we have a permit from the city that they're able to build on a p.u.c. pole, not a city pole. my job is just to make sure that they adhere to article 25. >> president swig: that way, you say yes. all right. i'm really confused that a telephone company, telecommunications company now
8:17 pm
in the city of san francisco, whether it be at&t, verizon or others, they hand you a permit, and it's rubber stamped. that's my concern, but i'm not running the city, so my opinion doesn't matter, but this isn't the original world, and this isn't the way it was two or three years ago. so i'm confused and concerned, and i'll take it up after this hearing, maybe with the department head. i don't want to hold up this hearing any longer. it's too late. thank you. miss tam? >> clerk: okay. thank you, miss tam. you have three minutes for rebuttal. >> thank you. i actually don't have anything to add, but i am here to answer any questions.
8:18 pm
>> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner honda: would anyone like to start off first? me, president, or no? >> president swig: no, i don't choose to start the conversation. >> commissioner honda: well, after reading the brief, and my questions were that if the permit was issued properly. according to what the department's explained, i believe that they have been. and we can go round and round regarding design. we all know that the companies have been worked hard trying to get a design that everyone likes, and not everyone is going to like it. like my president said, we have to deal with article 25, and we
8:19 pm
have further constraints, and we have to deal with whether it's a city pole or p.u.c. pole. after all of the discussion with the city departments, i believe that this permit was permitted correctly and issued correctly. >> president swig: and i would differ in my opinion only because there wasn't appropriate item field, and maybe i can talk with a department head, and maybe they can enlighten me later, but i don't feel that there was appropriate oversight to at&t in scrutinizing their report to see that there wasn't an alternative -- an alternative pole. neither miss tam or mr. palacios -- >> commissioner honda: but president swig, it's the permit holder -- we can't determine if
8:20 pm
someone wants to do a stairway. it's not the department's responsibility to check all the locations for them. >> president swig: well, no, i didn't say check all the locations for them. if a location is in truth, and miss blackstone is telling the truth, and they had a report that said that they had 18 poles and none of them were any good, and only one of them was good, what i heard from the city is that, in two departments, that nobody read the report and nobody did due diligence whatsoever to go out and see if there was any alternatives, especially when there is a historical last mark involved, and that is where i'm kind of -- i don't think that
8:21 pm
the full job was done. that's all -- it -- that's all. >> commissioner honda: if there's no other commissioner comments, i will make a motion to deny the appeal on the fact that the permit was issued correctly. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-1. the appeal is denied, and i want to check in with commissioner chang. do you need to leave right now, commissioner chang?
8:22 pm
>> commissioner chang: i think i am okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. we are now moving onto item 8ing, appeal number 21-107, patricia martell versus san francisco public works, bureau of street use and mapping, at 270 lansdale avenue. >> vice president lazarus: i wanted to let everybody know that it's 20 to 10:00, and we had a rule that we wouldn't hear matters after 10:00 p.m., but i think we're going to run
8:23 pm
into this issue. >> clerk: so are you saying you want to continue item 9 and hear it at the next meeting as the first item? >> vice president lazarus: i'm saying that's a possibility because i don't think we're going to hear that in the next 20 minutes. in consideration of the parties and the appellant in the next case, i wanted to bring that up. >> do you want to ask the parties if they're available? >> vice president lazarus: sure, but only if my fellow colleagues want to keep going. >> president swig: i would think that we're going to be finished on this item after 10:00, which is after our self-imposed curfew, so i support your motion on the next
8:24 pm
item, and that we'll move it to a later date. >> commissioner honda: i don't mind moving this case, but hearing the next one -- >> president swig: that's what we're saying. we'll hear this one, but the next one is going to get bumped. >> commissioner honda: that's a bummer, but we adopted this, and the reason we adopted it is because at that point, everyone is kind of spent, and we do want to pay attention to every detail that is before us on the matter. >> clerk: do we want to pause on item 8 and take a vote on item 9? >> president swig: that would be advisable. >> clerk: okay. this is appeal 21-097, simran basi and mark duterte versus
8:25 pm
san francisco public works, bureau of street use and mapping, at 2 vista verde court, appealing the issuance on october 6, 2021, to modus,, inc. , of a wireless box permit, permit 21-wr-00067. so it looks like the board wants to continue this item to february 9. we wanted to check in with you. are you available that day, as and the and mr. basi and mr. dutko, and again, our apologies? >> president swig: how is the calendar -- for our information, what does the
8:26 pm
calendar look like on february 9? >> clerk: we have five appeals, so it's pretty busy. >> president swig: yeah. >> commissioner honda: just like the old days, oh, my god. >> president swig: you're popular again. >> commissioner honda: they know you're president again. that's why. >> president swig: yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. >> clerk: so, i mean, you know, february's busy. so we'll just wait to hear back. and i did see a thumbs up from miss blackstone, at&t, so thank you. thank you for your patience, everyone. it's been a long night.
8:27 pm
>> hi. we've been patiently waiting all night. >> clerk: our apologies. are you okay if you move your item to february 9? >> we don't appreciate moving it forward. the 9 is a little tough for me. are there any other days possibly? >> well, we could put it on the 16. >> february 16, that works for me. >> that works for me. >> that works for me. >> clerk: okay. miss blackstone, february 16, does that work for you? >> it doesn't, but i'll make it work. >> clerk: thank you very much. appreciate that. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: okay. and so do we have a motion, commissioners, on this item? >> vice president lazarus: i'll make a motion since i created the stir. move to continue, is it item 9? >> clerk: yes. >> vice president lazarus: to
8:28 pm
be heard on february 16. >> clerk: okay. given the late hour. >> vice president lazarus: yes, thank you. >> clerk: all right. so on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. thank you very much to the parties. my apologies on this, but we did have a lot of public comment on the first item. thank you very much. have a good evening. you can stay if you want to listen to this case. okay. so we are going back to item number 8, and miss martell, excuse the interruption. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> okay. thank you so much. i'm going to have to pivot from my stated remarks as i see what the focus is. good morning, everyone. i apologize for not having submitted a brief. i am unfamiliar with this
8:29 pm
process and was under the impression that my initial letter to the board was enough. i wish i could say this was a heritage house, but my home is notorious and was in a land slide six years ago from a break in a water main, but alas, it is not a heritage home. i'm very sad about that. i submit this appeal on behalf of at least a dozen neighbors because we are very concerned
8:30 pm
about the health and safety of this antenna. this 4-g antenna will become a 5-g antenna in the not-too-distant future. you know that it's hotly debated, as technology's rapidly evolving and the science around the impact of health is long and hard to measure. let me point out that the s.e.c.s guidelines for measuring human exposure to radio waves is woefully outdated, and the environmental working groups have set limits 200 to 400 times lower than what the government allows. there are dozens of studies that demonstrate that [indiscernible] on and on and on. children's bodies absorb more
8:31 pm
radiation than adults this is fact. recognizing that there are a number of lawsuits against the f.c.c. not setting biological standards, which is so much lower than other centralized nations. i could go on and on and on. it's clear that e.m.s. has impact. there are so many likely risks. everyone agrees that there's more research that's needed, and we can't ignore the studies that more research is needed. the w.h.o. are hedging their bets against our radiation because of potential harm, and
8:32 pm
what we can also say for sure is the [indiscernible] as possible carcinogenic to humans. what we do know is that it absolutely would be better and there would be zero risks from this without the cellular antenna elected 45 feet from my home. why are these not better situated on city properties or public businesses where people are not subjected to constant exposure to e.m.s.? as president swig noted, the battle is lopsided, that the telecom is able to spend huge
8:33 pm
sums of money for politicians to support their aspirations. where is the additional consideration i would take for sure, the hit on my property value? let me also point out that some of my neighbors, including the one at 270 lansdale, did not receive notification of this permit. additionally, the notices posted on poles in the neighborhood were posted in such a way as to be impossible to retrieve and read in full.
8:34 pm
they were strapped so tightly to the pole that they would rip if you tried to take them out and read them. i know that there are owls living nearby, impacted endangered northern spotted owls. i know you've heard many hearings on these antennas, for good reason. i do know that your hands are what tied here. you're surely aware that the telecome industry is leading the fight to limit municipalities' efforts to object to their placement. on behalf of my neighbors, on
8:35 pm
casitas and lansdale avenues, i want to thank you for your time and listening to this appeal. >> clerk: thank you very much. we will now hear from miss black stone. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. it's tammy blackstone, and i do have our modus representatives and our outside council should there be any question about radio frequency compliance and legal issues. as i said, at&t is committed to following the requirements that san francisco puts in place for wireless facilities, and as in this case, as with all of the others, we feel that the permit was lawfully permitted,
8:36 pm
diligently reviewed, and studied. so we did get the, you know, approval, and you can see, we kind of walked through all of the different reviews and approvals that we have to get. now here are our [indiscernible] the first picture you see is what is there now, and the second is what is our proposed antenna up on top. so with this one, we will have to put in a taller pole, and that is to comply with the general order 95. the existing policy is 29'10",
8:37 pm
and we'll have to put on the antenna, bringing it to 31'10" on the design, you'll see this area is the added height that we needed in order to accommodate the other infrastructure that's on that pole. we again worked closely with public works on this pole to make sure that it complies with all the city standards. so this is our alternative site analysis. again, the pink pins are where we looked and tried to find a different pole. the yellow one is where we ended up. and just, i did go through the alternative site analysis on the last case, but i'll do it again, just for president swing, with this one, we considered 11 poles. there were fewer poles in the
8:38 pm
area, so we considered 11. five of them are not available because they are decorative poles that the p.u.c. will not allow us to attach. one wouldn't work because it's on private property, and then, two of them that -- the poles just structurally could not house the at&t small cell antenna, so again, we were left with this pole. as we always do, we go back and kind of take a look around just to see if we missed something, and again, that's the only pole that's viable in that neighborhood. this is our radio frequency compliance and safety certificate from hammett and edison that shows that the site as designed will be well below all federal standards for radio frequency emissions. so in conclusion, i just want
8:39 pm
to say that at&t have identified all of the areas of the city and have worked to design the best design possible, and we ask the city to uphold this approval. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. if you could please stop sharing your screen. great. thanks. so we will now hear from the department of public works. mr. palacios. >> hello, hello. hello, vice president, president, and commissioners. article 25 requires public works refer wireless applications to the department of public health and in compliance with the objective standard.
8:40 pm
we determined that the application complies with the objective standards. the planning department is in attendance and can speak more regarding planning's review process, and the health department is available to answer any questions and respond to any e-mail. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. actually, the planning department is not here. there isn't appear to be any -- didn't appear to be any planning department issues, so we have a question. [please stand by]
8:41 pm
8:42 pm
8:43 pm
8:44 pm
8:45 pm
8:46 pm
8:47 pm
8:48 pm
8:49 pm
8:50 pm
8:51 pm
8:52 pm
8:53 pm
8:54 pm
8:55 pm
8:56 pm
8:57 pm
8:58 pm
8:59 pm
9:00 pm
9:01 pm
9:02 pm
9:03 pm
9:04 pm
9:05 pm
9:06 pm
9:07 pm
9:08 pm
9:09 pm
9:10 pm
dev mission's goal is aiming to train young adults, youth so we can be a wealth and disparity in underserved communities like where we are today. my name is leo sosa. i'm the founder and executive director for devmission. we're sitting inside a computer
9:11 pm
lab where residents come and get support when they give help about how to set up an e-mail account. how to order prescriptions online. create a résumé. we are also now paying attention to provide tech support. we have collaborated with the san francisco mayor's office and the department of technology to implement a broad band network for the residents here so they can have free internet access. we have partnered with community technology networks to provide computer classes to the seniors and the residents. so this computer lab becomes a hub for the community to learn how to use technology, but that's the parents and the adults. we have been able to identify what we call a stem date. the acronym is science technology engineering and math. kids should be exposed no matter what type of background or ethnicity or income status. that's where we actually create
9:12 pm
magic. >> something that the kids are really excited about is science and so the way that we execute that is through making slime. and as fun as it is, it's still a chemical reaction and you start to understand that with the materials that you need to make the slime. >> they love adding their little twists to everything. it's just a place for them to experiment and that's really what we want. >> i see. >> really what the excitement behind that is that you're making something. >> logs, legos, sumo box, art, drawing, computers, mine craft, and really it's just awaking opportunity. >> keeping their attention is like one of the biggest challenges that we do have because, you know, they're kids. they always want to be doing something, be helping with something. so we just let them be themselves. we have our set of rules in place that we have that we want
9:13 pm
them to follow and live up to. and we also have our set of expectations that we want them to achieve. this is like my first year officially working with kids. and definitely i've had moments where they're not getting something. they don't really understand it and you're trying to just talk to them in a way that they can make it work teaching them in different ways how they can get the light bulb to go off and i've seen it first-hand and it makes me so happy when it does go off because it's like, wow, i helped them understand this concept. >> i love playing games and i love having fun with my friends playing dodge ball and a lot of things that i like. it's really cool. >> they don't give you a lot of cheese to put on there, do they? you've got like a little bit
9:14 pm
left. >> we learn programming to make them work. we do computers and programming. at the bottom here, we talk to them and we press these buttons to make it go. and this is to turn it off. and this is to make it control on its own. if you press this twice, it can do any type of tricks. like you can move it like this and it moves. it actually can go like this. >> like, wow, they're just absorbing everything. so it definitely is a wholehearted moment that i love
9:15 pm
experiencing. >> the realities right now, 5.3 latinos working in tech and about 6.7 african americans working in tech. and, of course, those tech companies are funders. so i continue to work really hard with them to close that gap and work with the san francisco unified school district so juniors and seniors come to our program, so kids come to our stem hub and be exposed to all those things. it's a big challenge. >> we have a couple of other providers here on site, but we've all just been trying to work together and let the kids move around from each department. some kids are comfortable with their admission, but if they want to jump in with city of dreams or hunter's point, we just try to collaborate to provide the best opportunity in the community. >> devmission has provided
9:16 pm
services on westbrook. they teach you how to code. how to build their own mini robot to providing access for the youth to partnerships with adobe and sony and google and twitter. and so devmission has definitely brought access for our families to resources that our residents may or may not have been able to access in the past. >> the san francisco house and development corporation gave us the grant to implement this program. it hasn't been easy, but we have been able to see now some of the success stories of some of those kids that have been able to take the opportunity and continue to grow within their education and eventually become a very successful citizen. >> so the computer lab, they're doing the backpacks. i don't know if you're going to be able to do the class.
9:17 pm
you still want to try? . yeah. go for it. >> we have a young man by the name of ivan mello. he came here two and a half years ago to be part of our digital arts music lab. graduating with natural, fruity loops, rhymes. all of our music lyrics are clean. he came as an intern, and now he's running the program. that just tells you, we are only creating opportunities and there's a young man by the name of eduardo ramirez. he tells the barber, what's that flyer? and he says it's a program that teaches you computers and art. and i still remember the day he walked in there with a baseball cap, full of tattoos. nice clean hair cut. i want to learn how to use computers. graduated from the program and he wanted to work in i.t..
9:18 pm
well, eduardo is a dreamer. right. so trying to find him a job in the tech industry was very challenging, but that didn't stop him. through the effort of the office of economic work force and the grant i reached out to a few folks i know. post mates decided to bring him on board regardless of his legal status. he ended his internship at post mates and now is at hudacity. that is the power of what technology does for young people that want to become part of the tech industry. what we've been doing, it's very innovative. helping kids k-12, transitional age youth, families, parents, communities, understand and to be exposed to stem subjects. imagine if that mission one day
9:19 pm
can be in every affordable housing community. the opportunities that we would create and that's what i'm trying to do with this
9:20 pm
9:21 pm
>> roughly five years, i was working as a high school teacher, and i decided to take my students on a surfing field
9:22 pm
trip. the light bulb went off in my head, and i realized i could do much more for my students taking them surfing than i could as their classroom teacher, and that is when the idea for the city surf project was born. >> working with kids in the ocean that aren't familiar with this space is really special because you're dealing with a lot of fear and apprehension but at the same time, a lot of excitement. >> when i first did it, i was, like, really scared, but then, i did it again, and i liked it. >> we'll get a group of kids who have just never been to the beach, are terrified of the
9:23 pm
idea, who don't like the beach. it's too cold out, and it's those kid that are impossible to get back out of the water at the end of the day. >> over the last few years, i think we've had at least 40 of our students participate in the city surf project. >> surfing helped me with, like, how to swim. >> we've start off with about two to four sessions in the pool before actually going out and surfing. >> swimming at the pool just helps us with, like, being, like, comfortable in the water and being calm and not being all -- not being anxious. >> so when we started the city surf project, one of the things we did was to say hey, this is the way to earn your p.e. credits. just getting kids to go try it was one of our initial challenges for the first year
9:24 pm
or two. but now that we've been doing it three or four years, we have a group of kids that's consistent, and the word has spread, that it's super fun, that you learn about the ocean. >> starting in the morning, you know, i get the vehicles ready, and then, i get all the gear together, and then, i drive and go get the kids, and we take them to a local beach. >> we usually go to linda mar, and then occasionally ocean beach. we once did a special trip. we were in capitola last year, and it was really fun. >> we get in a circle and group stretch, and we talk about specific safety for the day, and then, we go down to the water. >> once we go to the beach, i don't want to go home. i can't change my circumstances at home, but i can change the way i approach them. >> our program has definitely
9:25 pm
been a way for our students to find community and build friends. >> i don't really talk to friends, so i guess when i started doing city surf, i started to, like, get to know people more than i did before, and people that i didn't think i'd like, like, ended up being my best friends. >> it's a group sport the way we do it, and with, like, close camaraderie, but everybody's doing it for themselves. >> it's great, surfing around, finding new people and making new friendships with people throughout surfing. >> it can be highly developmental for students to have this time where they can learn a lot about themselves while negotiating the waves. >> i feel significantly, like, calmer. it definitely helps if i'm, like, feeling really stressed or, like, feeling really anxious about surfing, and i go surfing, and then, i just feel,
9:26 pm
like, i'm going to be okay. >> it gives them resiliency skills and helps them build self-confidence. and with that, they can use that in other parts of their lives. >> i went to bring my family to the beach and tell them what i did. >> i saw kids open up in the ocean, and i got to see them connect with other students, and i got to see them fail, you know, and get up and get back on the board and experience success, and really enjoy themselves and make a connection to nature at the same time. >> for some kids that are, like, resistant to, like, being in a mentorship program like this, it's they want to surf, and then later, they'll find out that they've, like, made this community connection.
9:27 pm
>> i think they provided level playing fields for kids to be themselves in an open environment. >> for kids to feel like i can go for it and take a chance that i might not have been willing to do on my own is really special. >> we go on 150 surf outings a year. that's year-round programming. we've seen a tremendous amount of youth face their fears through surfing, and that has translated to growth in other facets of their lives. >> i just think the biggest thing is, like, that they feel like that they have something that is really cool, that they're engaged in, and that we, like, care about them and how they're doing, like, in general. >> what i like best is they really care about me, like, i'm not alone, and i have a group of people that i can go to, and, also, surfing is fun.
9:28 pm
>> we're creating surfers, and we're changing the face of surfing. >> the feeling is definitely akin to being on a roller coaster. it's definitely faster than i think you expect it to be, but it's definitely fun. >> it leaves you feeling really, really positive about what that kid's going to go out and do. >> i think it's really magical almost. at least it was for me. >> it was really exciting when i caught my first wave. >> i felt like i was, like -- it was, like, magical, really. >> when they catch that first wave, and their first lights up, you know -- their face lights up, you know you have them hooked. >> i was on top of the world. it's amazing. i felt like i was on top of the world even though i was probably going two miles an hour. it was, like, the scariest thing i'd ever done, and i
9:29 pm
think it was when i got hooked on surfing after
9:30 pm
>> clerk: -- planning commission remote hearing for february 3, 2022. happy new year, everyone. remote hearings require everyone's attention and most of all your patience. when you are not speaking, please mute your microphone. to encourage public participation, sfgov is streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment on each item on the agenda. opportunities to speak are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering
9:31 pm
access code 4290-875-6415. when we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, please press star, three to enter the queue, and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that is your prompt to begin speaking. you will hear an alarm when you have 30 seconds remaining, and when your time is up, i will indicate that your time is up. best practices are to speak slowly and clearly, call from a quiet location, and turn down your speakers on your television or computer. i'd like to call roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you,
9:32 pm
commissioners. first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, items 1-a and b, 2021-012237-pca and 2021-012246-pca for planning code amendments, singing, family, and two and three-family home bonus program and dwelling uns density exception in residential districts and rent control. item number 2, 2021-008505-cua at 838 grant avenue, a conditional use authorization, and 2019-017009-drp, a request for discretionary review at 616
9:33 pm
belvedere street. i have no requests to speak, so members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak on these items proposed for continuance by pressing star, three to enter the queue. >> this is sue hester. i ask that items 1-a and b be continued further than a week. these are really important additions to the planning code, dealing with additional housing in various districts in the western side of the city, predominantly that they're kind of citywide.
9:34 pm
additionally, the planning code should require a clear reference to the staff report that was just issued last week in reference to housing, and that should be provided on the staff report as well as the planning commission website, as well. thank you; i would ask that items 1 and 2 be continued at least two weeks, and the staff report issued now. thank you. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment on items to be proposed for continuance. seeing no additional requests to speak, commissioners, i was just reminding that i made a mistake at the time of issuance belvedere was proposed to be
9:35 pm
continued to february 17, item 3, but due to our d.r. guru, it has been withdrawn, and there is another member of the public requesting to speak. you have two minutes. go ahead, caller. caller, would you like to submit your comments on the matters proposed to be continued? okay. in that case, public comment on the items proposed to be continued is closed, and they are now before you. >> president tanner: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: i
9:36 pm
would, i guess, direct a question to director hillis. but in terms of the items 1-a and 1-b, i mean, these are the proposals that will have to be seen by the supervisors? >> director hillis: correct, yeah. i mean, ultimately, they will have to be -- they're changed to the planning code and would have to be approved by the board. >> commissioner imperial: yeah, and the notice -- yeah, and the notice will be sent out by tomorrow in terms of the legislation, what it looks like? >> director hillis: yeah. our report will be available tomorrow. you heard, made a recommendation on supervisor mandelman's legislation which are similar to issues that we'll discuss, but you have the option to -- i don't know if we're bumping up against a deadline where we have to take action, but you can certainly
9:37 pm
hear it next week if there's time. mr. starr would be able to comment on that, but we can hear that if there's time. >> commissioner imperial: yeah. for other commissioners, i would like to have better time to read on it, as well, and for commissioners to also understand what's going on on the ground, so i would suggest to move or to continue 1-a and 1-b to february 17, if i would get that second to other commissioners. >> clerk: i'm not hearing a second, commissioner imperial. >> vice president moore: jonas, could you just look at the calendar and see if that's even possible? i think that's the question to ask first. >> president tanner: i see mr. starr. do you know our time requirements for getting that
9:38 pm
back to the board? >> sure. one of the ordinances, we have to hear next week because of the 90-day continuance, we're bumping up against that. but they're both similar programs, and we wanted you to hear them both at the same time. >> president tanner: with that knowledge, commissioner imperial, i wonder if we can hear them together and kind of have our dialogue be in conversation with those pieces, and then, if we do want to holdover the other piece, we could bump that to the week after. >> commissioner imperial: i withdraw my motion and continue to approve as noted. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. then on that motion to continue all items as proposed and accepting the withdrawal of 616 belvedere street -- [roll call]
9:39 pm
>> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously 7-0, and will place us under your consent calendar. this matter listed hereunder constitutes a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing, at 453 o'farrell street,
9:40 pm
2021-009937-cua. members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to the consent calendar or remove the item and place it at the end of tonight's agenda. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you. >> president tanner: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: so moved. >> commissioner imperial: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and will place us under commission matters, item 5, consideration of adoption draft minutes for january 20, 2022, joint and regular meetings. members of the public, if you wish to address the minutes, please press star, three to enter the queue. seeing no requests to speak,
9:41 pm
public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you, commissioners. >> president tanner: commissioner chan? >> commissioner chan: move to adopt both sets of minutes? >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you. on the motion to adopt the minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. thank you for that. item 6, commission comments and questions. >> president tanner: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i ask that we close in memory of bob planter, today, a transit and disability rights activist who has been in front of this commission over the years many, many times, and giving us more
9:42 pm
than insightful thoughts on disability and what it means to be disabled and still be an activist. he was a wonderful person, challenging, and never spared being critical of what we were doing, but always a great learning experience and diplomate. i ask that we close in his memory tonight. >> president tanner: i think that is a wonderful suggestion, and we'll happily do that. thank you for recommending that to us. before i call on commissioner chan, i just want to risch every happen -- to wish everyone a happy new year, and because it's black history month, i want to connect that to the work of our department and our wonderful staff is doing. today, i want to recognize dr.
9:43 pm
samuel j. cullars, the first recognized architect in san francisco. did a lot of great work in our community and also internationally. i'll close with a quote from him that i thought was very appropriate for our commission to be thinking about. he said that the main purpose of planning is to see where we are going in terms of where we have been, and then to assist in changing directions of where we want to go, and i think that's what we're doing here each week. we look back to know where we've been, and we keep changing directions to know where we want to go, and i hope we can keep that in mind as convening the first meeting of the year, as well. i'll call on commissioner chan.
9:44 pm
>> commissioner chan: first of all, thank you for that lovely [indiscernible] i also wanted to wish everyone who celebrates a happy lunar new year. i wanted to share that this is my last meeting of the commission. i decided to prioritize my time with my child. with all that entails and covid, it just leaves a lot in its wake. but if you would indulge me, i would share some words of reflection. i thank you for the opportunity to serve. i joined the commission in may 2020, and looking back, i think maybe all of us were trying to navigate these uncharted waters with the information that we had, and i think particularly
9:45 pm
during those uncertain times, i was really proud to have done my commitment to the city that i call home and that i love the most. when i first joined the commission, one of the most difficult aspects was thinking about how each project fits within the broader vision of san francisco. i know that covid really threw a lot of those assumptions to the wind, but whenever i got stuck in thinking how to vote, i really tried to think what my future self would think, and tried to think beyond the immediacy of the project and think about the collective vision of what we want to become. whenever i thought about myself turning a project over in my head from all possible angles,
9:46 pm
as someone with both professional and economic training as a planner, i also have had the opportunity to grow up in a large city as a daughter of chinese immigrants and really benefit from all the things that a great city had to provide, you know, with cultural resources, affordable housing, and schools. just really thinking about, for this kid growing up, what i was able to grow up in and i hope my child will be able to grow up in. during my time on the commission, i am especially proud of the work that the commission was able to do to build out our racial social equity work, the housing elements, and many other aspects. there is, of course, always room to grow, and i think some of the unfinished business is figuring out how to institutionalize [indiscernible] and with the department's processes and really trying to make it as seamless and frictionless as
9:47 pm
possible to do the work of racial and social equity. i think that work comes at various scales, whether it's understanding the various work flow of the department, while trying to align that with the broader state regulations. but that comes with relationships, partnerships, and working across all sectors so that we can really achieve what the commission has set out to do. finally, thank you to my fellow commissioners, for spending thursday nights with us. i really learned a lot from you. thank you, director hillis, jonas. i know how hard you work. i also want to thank those of you who took the time to write into the commission. i did want to show you that i do read the letters, and i do consider your perspectives when we deliberate, so that is all for now.
9:48 pm
i will very much be continuing to think about land use and community planning in mind as i'm finishing my ph.d. project regarding san francisco chinatown, so i just wanted to say thank you, everyone, and look forward to crossing paths again. >> president tanner: thank you, commissioner chan. i just want to call on commissioner moore, and i hope you'll be ready -- i don't know if she'll be smiling or turning red, so you might get some accolades from your fellow commissioners. commissioner moore?
9:49 pm
>> vice president moore: i just wanted to say that we are almost neighbors, although we never had the opportunity to meet three-dimensionally. i know you only because i see you, and i do miss that three-dimensional familiarity with you, and perhaps our paths will cross going to the going going -- going to the store or pushing your stroller up the hill, and may the year of the tiger push you into the future. thank you. >> president tanner: commissioner koppel? >> commissioner koppel: yeah, let me echo the sentiments of not being able to meet you. let me just put on the record that it was an honor to serve with you while i was president, and i want to call out your very high level of involvement throughout those years. not only do we have jobs outside of this commission but we have lives, as well, and i just want to specifically thank you for staying involved in the
9:50 pm
internship and social and racial equity piece. thanks again. >> president tanner: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you, president tanner, and i wish you wish, commissioner chan. i wish we could have met in person, and i wish we could have worked longer. i hope you realize that you did contribute -- you did contribute a lot in the commission, especially with the racial and social equities resolution, and i was happy to be part of that with this commission. i think that was one of the biggest achievement that we have worked with you, so thank you. >> president tanner: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: good luck in your future endeavors. >> president tanner: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i, too, regret not having been able to meet in person, but i hope that happens in the
9:51 pm
future. i truly appreciate the thoughtfulness of your comments as we deliberated on these complex matters, and i want to wish you much luck going forward as you balance the joys of motherhood with the challenges of a professional career and find the right balance for you, so until we meet again. >> president tanner: and just want to thank you for your service, and hope that you feel so proud of the time that you dedicated to the city, and not just leaving your mark on buildings but the people through the mentorship program and future san franciscans possibly. so i'm super sad to see you leave, but i'm happy to see you
9:52 pm
spending more time with your family. we will definitely, definitely be missing you. like the others, i do hope that i'll meet you in person, and i hope that when we are back in person, that you stop by to say hi or call in to comment sometime. we would certainly echo that. >> clerk: i want to add my comments, commissioner chan, specifically on land use projects, and your ability to articulate those concerns, so good luck.
9:53 pm
commissioners that will place us on item 7, case 2021-009977-crv for remote hearings. again, commissioners, we need to adopt a resolution continuing remote hearings. i think i've mentioned in the past that it looks like we will be reoccupying city hall in march, but just to be safe, i think on the first hearing in march, we'll adopt hopefully the last resolution, allowing for remote hearings just in case, but hopefully we do reoccupy city hall in march, and i have relayed some of the concerns that i had to the mayor's office about room 204 specifically, so i'm waiting to hear back. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address
9:54 pm
this item by pressing star, three. >> oh, hi, this is georgia schiutish, and i just want to say thank you for your service and we'll miss you when you go back to spend time with your family and little baby. i hope when we resume in person, we go back to traditional time for public comment, particularly for things like d.r.s and public support. i hope that will happen, and i do hope -- i suggest that it happens next week, when you hear the -- the zoning changes, that you'll give the three minutes allowed for conversation when the public calls in. so to commissioner chan, good
9:55 pm
luck with your baby. there's nothing better in the world, and please give the allotted amount of time because there's nothing better than that, too. thanks a lot. bye. >> this is sue hester. i think you skipped over items 8 and 9. one of the things that the director said was reports for next friday will be available tomorrow when the agenda is out. you're not following your own rules. your rules are that the reports are available on thursday, not friday. one of the things that's very frustrating, the time being applied for individual projects, for public comment, and the availability of staff reports, please follow your own
9:56 pm
rules. please know your own rules, and if someone says the report will be available on a friday, i expect commissioners to pipe up and say no, reports will be available today. they're not posted right now. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment on remote hearings. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is now closed, and this item is now before you, commissioners. i will state that the packets are actually being posted, uploaded to our website, as we speak, per your rules and regulations. there are rare occasions when some packets are delayed, but
9:57 pm
essentially packets are posted on thursdays. the agenda with links to those packets are issued on friday, as usual. >> president tanner: thank you for that clarification, secretary. are there any comments from commissioners or a motion on the resolution? you ready to get back together in person? commissioner koppel? >> commissioner diamond: move to approve the motion. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to continue to allow remote hearings -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, and now will place us under
9:58 pm
department matters, item 8, director's announcements. >> director hillis: thank you, jonas. i just wanted to share my thanks, commissioner chan, for your work here. it's amazing, we've only worked together in this 2-d environment, but we've gotten to know your strong voice in this 2-d world. thank you for your leadership in establishing a community equity division on the housing element, and very much want to echo the thanks for your leadership in creating the young planners program. it's amazing, in the short time we've seen it implemented, we're starting to recruit for
9:59 pm
the second year, and we're seeing the faces of the young people it's impacted, so thank you very much for that in particular, and that's all i have. happy new year. >> clerk: thank you, director hillis. item 9, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs. first on land use agenda, the committee took up the final negative declaration for 1236 carroll avenue, which is the future site of the fire department training facility. the current site on treasure island is ending in a few years. our staff had not seen this type of hearing before. turns out this process was necessitated by the need of purchasing guarantees that the city had to make to the seller.
10:00 pm
after robust discussion on the reasons why this item was before the board and clarification that this did not tie the hands of the board in the future, the committee did vote unanimously to recommend the item to the full board. next, the committee sponsored an ordinary -- heard an ordinance sponsored by supervisor melgar intending to finance and support certain housing opportunities for moderate and low-income residents. these would include loans and technical assistance for certain moderate and low-income property owners to construct accessory dwelling units or other units on the property. the program would also provide loans for certain low and moderate income tenants who are at risk of displacement as well as licensed child care providers, creating grants for educational materials about wealth building and home ownership for residents who have been historically disadvantaged and create program prototypes for low-income residents.
10:01 pm
our recent departed colleague, sheela, did participate and then was continued to the call of the chair. also on the agenda was a hearing called by supervisor preston on residential vacancies in san francisco. at this hearing, the results of the report by the budget and legislative analyst's office on the number of vacant housing units in san francisco were presented. the report is more nuanced than the headlines might suggest. i'm happy to forward you the report if you have not reviewed it already, and the report reviews the need to build for housing, more affordable housing, to meet the needs of future residents. it also explores tax policies to encourage vacant units to come back to the market. at the full board this week, the landmark designation for
10:02 pm
2474 street passed its first reading. and commissioner chan, i'm sorry we never got to hangout in back of city hall like we did with all the commissioners, and best of luck. >> clerk: thank you, mr. starr. i have no report from the board of appeals, but the historic preservation commission met yesterday. they had a relatively short hearing where they heard the fisk of year 2022 -- fiscal year 2022 through 2024 budget program and adopted a resolution to you all and heard the housing element where they received zero public comment, but they did deliberate quite extensively, and you will be hearing the concerns that they
10:03 pm
presented at the hearing through staff. if there are no questions or comments, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes, and when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. you need to press star, three to be added to the queue. through the chair, you'll each receive two minutes, and when you hear that your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> vice president moore: i had a question that you didn't see, jonas. i wanted to ask the director, i wanted to ask mr. starr if you're entertaining the idea of giving the commission an insight into the vacancy report. i would very much like the department's thoughts, and i think it would help the commission to hear it presented
10:04 pm
by you. >> director hillis: commissioner, i leave that to you and the officers. we can certainly send you the link if you don't have it. i think it's an important document to read because it points us in certain policy directions, but happy to schedule a hearing if you and the president would like that. >> vice president moore: i would like it picked up perhaps next thursday in whatever role it shakes itself out. i'm curious to hear just general thoughts and a framework of how that could be accomplished. >> director hillis: i don't know that we could do that next week. we'd want to bring the authors of the report or supervisor or supervisor preston, who commissioned or authored the report so if you have questions about methodology, that we can
10:05 pm
get those answered, but happy to. >> vice president moore: we can pick that up next tuesday, and also by then hear from other commissions, perhaps. thank you. >> clerk: okay. general public comment. you have two minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon. this is edward mason, and i would like to bring to your attention the fact that the private corporate commuter buses are operating generally empty, and through noe valley, and these originate in the haight and lower pacific heights, and then, they go through noe and get on the freeway. with these operating empty, i just wonder if there's an
10:06 pm
element in your housing plan, if it's long-term or short-term or defined? i just wanted to bring this to you. they're running empty, and there really seems to be a complete waste of energy, and also, rather than there being a net solution of pollution, there really seems to be no pollution saved at all because they're operating mostly empty. i just wanted to bring this to your attention for resolution. thank you. >> oh, hi again. it's georgia schiutish. i sent you a commission e-mail on january 30 on
10:07 pm
[indiscernible] street and they're still not done three years later after the addenda in 2017, and mr. jensen tried to hide the fact that he still lived at the property. another point was that mr. jensen unfortunately died. also, at the same time, the speculatives in the fourplex right next door to the jensen flat was buying out the buying, so the building was gutted flat and turned into t.n.c.s that sold for more than $1 million. so what's my point?
10:08 pm
it's important to have staff to protect tenants like mr. jensen. the jensen flats are still not complete, and the entitlement was also sold, so i guess it's part of the recent studies presented at land use that you're talking about. the living room of mr. jensen is attached in the e-mail, which shows that it was still decent to live in. should the commission have a public update on the effectiveness of the flat policy four years later and is it being applied not only to flats but buildings next door like to the jensen flats? that's it for me. be well, be save, take care. bye-bye. >> hello [indiscernible].
10:09 pm
>> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> president tanner: i think you're very faint, sir. >> clerk: we can barely hear you. >> is this better? >> clerk: it's a little better, yes. >> okay. i'll try this. my name is ken [indiscernible] and i've been trying to -- i thank you for the meeting that's being raised here. i do have questions as far as in the city of san francisco and the planning department when it comes to the opportunity [indiscernible] are there places that can be identified or the investors can get into those potential collaborations with -- through the city? we actually have authorized and are building -- [indiscernible] and we're seeking to see where
10:10 pm
those opportunities might be for collaboration in san francisco? so where would the planning department identify or suggest that we focus onto help out the city? that's my -- that's it. >> clerk: okay. thank you, sir. this is not really a question-and-answer period, but if you reach out to the planning department, we may be able to point you in some direction. but in any case, last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, general public comment is closed, and we can move onto your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 10, case 2021-012566-pca for massage establishment zoning controls. this is a planning code
10:11 pm
amendment. veronica, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes. veronica flores, planning department staff. we do have mr. bentley florez from supervisor mandelman's office here, and then, i'll follow up with a brief staff presentation. thank you. >> all right. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, and congratulations, president tanner, and commissioner chan, let me also take a moment to thank you for your thoughtfulness and good luck in your future adventures. commissioners, we look forward to having you soon in city hall. i'm jacob bentliff, administrative assistant for supervisor mandelman. this is an addendum to trailing
10:12 pm
ordinance that you heard and was sent to the board of supervisors in december, generally consistent with the zoning for health services. changes recognize that concerns over human trafficking, which is a serious issue but one that has also largely stigmatized a legitimate service offered by licensed message therapists, is something that is within the purview of the department of public health. the items proposed in december relaxed legislation in the planning code that have made it nearly impossible for message establishment -- massage establishments to establish or change locations in san francisco commissioners, after
10:13 pm
you acted on that ordinance last summer, we heard from local business owners in district 8 who pointed out that the ordinance still would not allow for massage services to be offered by chiropractor, acupuncture, or physical therapist offices. this is true, and supervisor mandelman agrees that health services, including chiropractor and acupuncture offices should be able to staff massage therapists and officer the services to their clients. this change that's before you today would simply allow the addition of a massage establishment within any zoning district citywide. i will note that planning staff has also identified an additional piece of cleanup from the original ordinance
10:14 pm
that would require a further amendment. i will let veronica cover that but will let you know that the supervisor is supportive of including that in the change, as well. this is really about applying a balanced and appropriate set of land use controls to an important community serving industry that has been hampered by the pandemic. i want to thank veronica as well as the san francisco massage community council, and also those who led us in helping make the changes to the planning code, as well. with that, i'll turn it over to veronica, and i'm here to answer any questions, as well. >> thank you, mr. bentliff.
10:15 pm
i just want to acknowledge that this is trailing legislation for established ordinance, so this is only to allow massage therapist to established services. this is similar to supervisor ronen's ordinance which allowed massage establishments in established hotels and local services. a letter was from the small business condition, where they signed to allow massage establishments in compatible locations of business. the department recommends the
10:16 pm
commission approve the amendment because it would allow massage therapists to work in locations such as a chiropractic or salon offices. this amendment involves the zoning control table for the nc-2 zoning district. so the original board file still lists the massage establishments as conditionally permitted within nc-2 zoning districts. this should be principally permitted to match the ordinance, and it would match the zoning table for nc-1 and nc-3, which listed them as principally permitted. the supervisor is amenable to the change. because this was found after your packets were published, the draft resolution in your
10:17 pm
packets does not reflect this proposed modification but would be adjusted accordingly. so this concludes the staff presentation, and we are available for questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, veronica. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star, three. through the chair, you'll each receive two minutes, and when your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hello, everyone. happy new year, and congratulations, commissioner chan, to her -- on her next voyage and pathway to motherhood. my name is christine [indiscernible]. i represent the san francisco [indiscernible] council, and i'm incredibly grateful to the planning commission for addressing the issues for the
10:18 pm
massage therapy community. it has been tough for us, many of us are women and minorities. thank you for changing the zoning issue, and i hope you can consider changing this, as well, because we are division 2 [indiscernible] art professionals at the state level. if we are allowed to do this in personal services, we should be able to do this in health care and healing arts and support chiropractic and acupuncture businesses, and so this would just help us to rebuild the local community and support each other and the public as we recover from these really trying times. we are very much against human trafficking, and we hope that we can continue to be partners in this endeavor with the city. so thank you again so much, and
10:19 pm
i am really grateful. thanks. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> hi. i'm not sure if i'm in the right place. i'm a san francisco caller calling in support of the homes at 1900 diamond street. is it my turn to talk? >> clerk: you're at the right place, but not the right item. last call for public comment on the planning code amendment. you need to press star, three. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is -- i take it back. there is always one more.
10:20 pm
>> hi. is this for public comment on the proposed project at 1900 diamond? >> clerk: no, i just got done sharing with the previous caller that this is public comment for the proposed amendment to the massage ordinance. you'll need to wait just one more item before we get to that matter. commissioners, public comment is now closed, and the planning code amendment is now before you. >> president tanner: any commissioners have questions? i'll just say it seems like a pretty straightforward amendment to me that i'll be supporting today. commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: if there
10:21 pm
are no points to be raised by other commissioners, so moved. >> commissioner koppel: second. >> president tanner: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: just wanted to say, this has been discussed for many years and gone around and around and around, and i'm glad there's finally consensus to bring this forward. thank you to the supervisor, and i am in full support. >> clerk: okay, commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this amendment with modifications read into the record by staff. is that correct? >> commissioner fung: yes. >> clerk: thank you. then on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 7-0, and
10:22 pm
will place us on item 11, 2020-007481-cua at 5367 diamond heights boulevard. before we get started, i believe that commissioner diamond has an announcement to make? >> commissioner diamond: yes. i just wanted to say that developer erickson has an interest in this project, and i know mr. erickson as our daughters are in medical school together. i do not believe that that friendship will have any impact on my ability to judge the merits of this project. >> clerk: thank you. gabby, if you're ready to make
10:23 pm
your presentation, the floor is yours. >> i am. thanks, jonas, and start off by thanking commissioner chan for her service to the commission. all right. so good afternoon, president tanner and commissioners. gabriela pantoja, planning commission staff. the dwelling units will range in size from 1,498 square feet to 3,396 square feet and contain two to four bedrooms. it will contain approximately 8,973 square feet of private
10:24 pm
and 3,000 square feet of common square. street trees and signage are also proposed as part of the development. the project will seek modifications from the rear yard requirement, section 134, and a minor deviation from the height method, section 260. [indiscernible] for the p.u.d., and a conditional use authorization for in controls board file number 21370 for the construction of a residential development that does not maximize the principally permitted residential density [indiscernible] pursuant to ceqa and determined that the project is exempt as a project 32 exemption. in particular, the department reviewed particular impacts regarding but not limited to geology, traffic, air, noise,
10:25 pm
and water quality. the project has evolved over the course of the review with the design team and through conversations with the neighborhood. the project sponsors have met with the neighborhood and neighborhood organizations and held 31 meetings or working groups, both in person or virtually, and as a result of the meetings with the neighborhood, a number of modifications have been made to preserve ten existing mature monterey cypress trees, the construction of a publicly accessible staircase from diamond street to diamond heights boulevard, and street improvements beyond those
10:26 pm
required. to date, the department has received 33 correspondences in opposition to the project, 23 of which were provided after publication of the packet. members of the public expressing opposition to the project state an inability to develop a project in size and scale to the neighborhood and the environmental impact to the neighborhood. the department has received more than 500 letters in support of the project, including progress noe, urban environmentalists, and yimby action. members of the public in support of the project state an ability to in-fill an undeveloped lot and for the addition of dwelling units to the city's housing stack. in conconclusion, the department recommends approval with conditions and believes the project is necessary and desirable for the following reasons. the department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the policies and objectives of the [indiscernible] plan, [indiscernible] of the planning code, the project would develop a currently undeveloped lost and construct a new residential development within close proximity to public
10:27 pm
transportation, commercial corridors and jobs and will add additional family sized dwelling units to the city's housing stock and contribute affordable housing fees to the city. project will also provide a use compatible with the rm-1 zoning district and construct 14 [indiscernible] buildings that are compatible in size and zoning to the neighborhood. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. babson, are you with us? >> yes, i am. >> clerk: okay. you have five minutes, and your slides have just come up. >> okay. thank you, gabby. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm mark babson, on behalf of the project sponsor.
10:28 pm
we're excited about the development of this site. there are abundant open spaces, playgrounds, and parks within one minute, five-minute walk. next slide -- next page, please. noe valley, diamond heighs, and glen park, despite having great resources, have produced almost no homes in 20 years or more. meanwhile, san francisco is facing a housing crisis. we have the lowest percentage of houses with children in all u.s. cities. we're dead last. the planning department has done a study and linked this to the lack of new homes being
10:29 pm
produced. u.c. berkeley has identified urban in-fill housing as the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emission in this location, 94101. this is the reason that green line has endorsed the project. next slide. the project will also result in 11 affordable homes created through the fees we're paying to the mayor's office of housing. 35 homes are being created as a direct result of this project. also, the land seller is a nonprofit, the cesar chavez foundation. they will use the profits to continue to provide services to working families. this is the site as it stands today. next slide. this is an image of our proposal. 24 homes, 20 town houses, and
10:30 pm
11 single-family homes. 1900 diamond for all assembled a team of architects, engineers, lawyers, even biologists. our team met with them again and again and again. instead of these row of houses which would have saved none of the monterey cypress trees, we've come to a point where we're going to save ten of the trees by pushing the houses back into the hillside. next slide, please. this is an image of the 12 modifications we made at the request of 1900 diamond for all.
10:31 pm
next slide. a comparison of the site plans before and after. green circles are the preserved monterey cypress. these are rendering at 29 and diamond. these are what the projects will look like, very large cypress trees dominating the character. next slide, please. mid block on diamond. this is a beacon. again, you're going to see a lot of monterey cypress trees and the project pushed back behind. this little area is where you're going to see some housing up on the street, however, it's still book ended by cypress trees on the right and left, and on the site. up on diamond heights
10:32 pm
boulevard, this is how it would look. the public stairway coming down to diamond heights boulevard on the right. the panoramic views will be sensational from north to south. next slide. just wrapping up. the -- that project will contain 54 trees. that's a 60% increase from the 34 that are there today. the blue are the cypress trees. we'll also contain improvements to the public realm, bulb outs, and neighborhood planning. the character of the project has changed substantially. as a result, the three leaders of 1900 diamond for all have publicly come out in support of the project. you've received a letter from
10:33 pm
them. in addition, you've received 470 letters of support for the project, primarily [indiscernible] next slide and also upper noe neighbors -- this is the last slide, and upper noe neighbors has formally endorsed the project. thank you. last slide, i'm done, and thank you for your patience. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners may have questions at the end of public comment, but right now, we should open this up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star, three to enter the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. >> hi. my name is allen, and i live in noe value.
10:34 pm
i'm familiar with the work that emerald sun has done in the past. very high quality, and it'll be a quality project for the neighborhood. i feel like i live in one of the richest zip codes in the united states, and i really welcome a few, even a few affordable units and some smaller units into the neighborhood. i strongly support the project. >> my name is jim kappel. i live in d-8 and am an engineer by training. i'm familiar with the site and walk by it on a daily basis. all i have to say is congratulations. congratulations to the diamond heights community association, congratulations to the upper noe neighbors, and congratulations to the builder on diamond. together, they have created a
10:35 pm
win-win. the design is spectacularly beautiful, in character with the neighborhood. it takes a piece of very steep leftover land, preserves its best features and creates homes in our neighborhood for 24 families as well as graceful open space. very importantly, in the redesign, not a single home was lost. i think everyone understands that san francisco is in a serious crisis of lack of housing, and our neighborhood has not had such a project in over 20 years. it would be our honor and our privilege to welcome 24 families into this wonderful neighborhood. not only that, but construction of these homes will lead to the creation of 11 affordable homes in san francisco that would otherwise not be built. i ask the commission for your unanimous approval of the c.u.s and other approvals to fully
10:36 pm
approve this project of 24 badly needed affordable homes in our city. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is dan newmark. i live at 115 topaz way with my wife and daughter. i'm speaking in my personal capacity, not representing the h.o.a., though i know that many members feel as i do. i'm confident that this won't affect my views or anyone else's views. it's opposite the topaz green space, which does not have any structures on it and cannot have any structures on it. that green space already has an overlook, also does walter haas
10:37 pm
park, and i wanted to note personally over the past several years, many of my daughter's friends families have left the city. the main reason, they say, are the lack of schools and family housing, so i welcome the addition of family friendly housing in the neighborhood. as many people have also mentioned, the neighborhood is a bit aged and hasn't changed much in 40 years. the retail shopping center is a bit stale, so something that's new and beautiful and blends into the area would be a welcome to the area. it would be a great improvement over unused land, and i am in favor of it and encourage the commissioners to vote in favor of it, as well. thank you. >> hi.
10:38 pm
my name is greg gladstone. i'm a san franciscan, and i live in this district, and i've got to tell you, this developer, people should be lucky to have this developer in their neighborhood. this developer has an excellent track record. over 30, 35 years in the city, and the compromises have been extensive on design issues and landscaping issues, and these compromises have been made at great cost, and i think with great patience, and that patience should be rewarded today. of course, the land sale is to a nonprofit, and that money will go to their services to the population, and it goes to the units that will be built on-site and the eight units built off-site. i think this is a great idea, and i wanted to compliment the developer for all the efforts
10:39 pm
made with all the neighborhood groups. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is mike levine. i live with my wife and five month old daughter on cesar chavez street in noe valley, and i apologize if zoe chimes in during this call. i'm calling in support of this development. our neighborhood needs housing urgently. i look forward to welcoming these 24 families to our community, and i would urge you to do what you have to develop more housing in our city. thank you. >> hello. my name is milo traus. i'm a lead of progress noe valley, and this project in our
10:40 pm
neighborhood, i am really glad to see it come long and am impressed with all the compromises that the applicant has made. it's really a beautiful proposal. the housing is something that will help our community. you've heard it from other speakers, you know, people looking for homes, places to live. this one is so close to the shopping center. you know, i walk by the site, and, you know, jog by it, ride my bike by it, and i'm thrilled to see this proposal come to fruition. it's come so way -- so long, and i'm just, you know, hoping and encouraging and want it it to get over the finish line today. again, i just can't, you know, commend the applicant enough for all the work and the negotiating they've done, and
10:41 pm
you really put together something that's going to enhance the living condition for people that are here and want to stay here, and just checks all the boxes and scores all the points, so please approve it without any further delay. thank you. >> hello. this is david gasse, and i'm the founder of david gasse architecture, and i've lived in san francisco for years. i'm in strong support of this project. it creates 20 homes designed to
10:42 pm
house low-income families and creates units sized for and designed for families rather than studios and one-bedrooms to help keep families in the city. as stated before, san francisco has the smallest percentage of children of any major city. it has access to public transportation, parks, shopping, and schools. the project is compatible with the surrounding community. the design of the project is contemporary, but it's respectful of the neighborhood, and access to the units and parking is creatively sighted through creative design and
10:43 pm
thoughtful ideas. it's about time we as the city took action to gain housing respectful of existing neighborhood character. this project will hopefully have the enthusiastic endorsement of all of you that it deserves. thank you. >> hello. my name is christopher roach. i am an over 20-year resident of san francisco. i'm an architect, and i am also
10:44 pm
the chair of the housing action coalition's project review committee. i'm here speaking in strong support of this project. we've reviewed it at that committee and gave it incredibly high marks across all important aspects, including sustainability, urban design, land use. it's a very difficult site for anyone to develop, and public benefits, and the public process. and i want to speak a little bit about that public process. the community engagement part of this has resulted in a really incredible project, has been long highly engaged but very successful. from what i've heard, the project sponsor participated in over 30 stakeholder meetings, which for a project of only 24 homes is a really lot of meetings. it's also noteworthy for successfully reaching agreement with an organized opposition. this is a very organized and well funded group, and it's a testament to everyone that they have come to a compromise,
10:45 pm
which results in a better project. from the sound of it, it was a hard fought and somewhat grueling process, but in the end, everyone was satisfied, so we as a city and as a community and as a commission should support projects like this as examples of the successful -- of a successful project. please support this project that badly, badly needs hope that has not seen added housing in over 40 years. thank you very much. >> hello. my name is david salem. i live on the flank of mount
10:46 pm
davidson, not far from the site. [indiscernible] details that they've provided regarding the merits of this particular project. we must take advantage of these in-fill opportunities if the san francisco of the future is to be a liveable, prosperous, and diverse city. we need to talk about our housing requirements which can't be met if we don't approve housing projects as sound as this one. thank you very much, and i hope you'll give the project your full approval today. >> good afternoon. my name is debra schneider, and i'm a 20-year resident of noe valley. i'm calling in support of
10:47 pm
building homes at 1900 diamond specifically, and homes in district 8 specifically. the failure to build much needed new homes has exacerbated san francisco's housing problem. this project has been designed with an extraordinary amount of thought and a tremendous amount of community input. this marks the first time in more than 40 years that a housing project with more than 20 units will be build in the area, so let's get it done. i strongly urge you to approve these homes. thank you very much.
10:48 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is edgar lopez. i am a san francisco resident who lived in district 8 for 22 years. i'm calling in support of the 1900 diamond street project. san francisco is in a housing crisis. it's unaffordable, and for too many families to raise their families in san francisco. this is a shame. the reason for the home prices and high rents is the failure of san francisco to create enough housing to keep up with the demand. people naturally find san francisco to be an attract tiff place, and this is what's driving the housing. 1900 diamond is the precise type of housing that we need to address this housing crisis. it is an urban in-fill site close to public transit within walking distance of public parks, playgrounds, and also close to the safeway. i urge you to approve this project. it's much needed, and again, i
10:49 pm
am very much in support of the project. thank you. >> hello. my name is alfredo, and i'm the executive vice president of the cesar chavez foundation. i'm calling in support of this applicant, as well. you've heard all the merits that the other callers have brought up, so i'm not going to repeat that. i just do want to state that the applicant has done an excellent job of working with the community. as you heard, he's really extended himself and worked with folks that are not necessarily in support and was able to turn that around and get this consensus project that everyone seems to be very happy with. it does further support the mission of the cesar chavez foundation to allow us to continue our efforts in affordable housing as well as community services and underserved communities, and i highly support this applicant and the proposal.
10:50 pm
thank you. >> hi. my name is jonah martin. i grew up in glen park. i have since moved to potrero hill mostly because we lost our house and there were no affordable units in the neighborhood. i firmly support this project. i have monitored the project since it was initially proposed. i've watched with bated breath as the community and the developer have gone back and forth and have come to what i call an exceptional consensus around the project that fills both the community and developer needs. we didn't lose any units in the development, but definitely changed for the better, and i believe the commission should fully support this project.
10:51 pm
>> hi. i'm a glen park resident and sadly just moved out of the incredible neighborhood because there was not enough housing within the reach of my budget to purchase or sell down. up until recently, i was renting a condominium in the neighborhood near the b.a.r.t. glen park is truly a gem within the city. it should be shared with newcomers like me and new families looking to call san francisco home, which is why greenbelt alliance is honored to support the 1900 diamond street project. urban in-fill housing like this 1900 diamond street project is
10:52 pm
our most effective solution. it will generation 799 tons of carbon less per year as compared to a similar development built in the east bay, and we are so pleased that the developer was so responsive to resident concerns. they worked with environmental advocates and developed a solution to saving trees and providing additional units of housing. this is the kind of climate smart housing that we need in the bay area to reduce our emissions and make sure that local residents are able to grow and thrive in their own communities. in closing, 1900 diamond street development is another step in the right direction for the development of san francisco near jobs, retail, and transit, and we hope that this will inspire communities in the bay area to redouble their efforts to meet housing and climate goals. thank you. >> hello. my name is patrick carroll.
10:53 pm
i have been a resident of diamond heights for over 20 years. i'm on the board of the diamond heights community association and the gold mine hill homeowners association. however, i'm here today speaking on behalf of myself and not on behalf of any organization. as a member of a dhca, i had the opportunity to look at this project since its inception. at community meetings, criticisms were made, and the developer made at least two revisions to the criticisms. a staircase was added, the project was moved back from the street, and ten mature cypresses were saved. this is an outstanding example of in-fill development that merits your approval. thank you. >> hello.
10:54 pm
my name is david tejeda. i'm a long time resident of san francisco, and i'm gung ho, just like everyone. thank you for letting me speak. this is a great thing. no one gets dislodged, great transportation availability. there's only one challenge, and i hope that no space is wasted in making space for unnecessary cars. the space that they have for cars could have been made into more bedrooms for more people to live, but other than that, it's a good project. thank you. >> oh, hi. my name's john manning, and i'm a native of san francisco. my family actually goes back into this neighborhood, noe
10:55 pm
valley, about 115 years, actually. anyhow, i fully support the project. the prospect that i would land here, as someone who's fortunate to be here, i'm in my 50s myself. i've just seen so many people leave the city because of the lack of family housing. sometimes it's marin or as far out as danville, and they're clogging our roads as people are commuting back in here. it damages our environment, and here, you have a project with 24 units and three bedrooms, and that's 24 more families that are going to stay in san francisco and not be, you know -- like, and they'll stay here and be able to raise their children here like i raised mine, who are off in college these days. more housing is better for everyone. this site has been unused for all these years, and it's
10:56 pm
something really positive that's happening here. the design is fantastic, and i really encourage you, please, to approve this project, and thank you for your time. >> hi there. my name is eric moray, and i'm a san francisco resident, and i've lived here in noe valley for 22, 23 years. just to echo everything else that's been said, the city as a whole, and our neighborhood in particular need for housing, particularly larger housing for families. we -- we're a family of three that managed to do a renovation to squeeze the second bedroom out of our small space so we could stay here, but i know that many others have not been so fortunate, and they end up in the east bay or north bay. can't stay in the city, so i
10:57 pm
would recommend that this project be approved, and we make life better in san francisco for families. thank you. >> hi. my name is dina londoni, and i live in noe valley. i'm a resident and renter in noe valley, which is super rare. i think that mark has been an amazing job, and i'm super excited to see more homes in our neighborhood. i hope i'm able to live here when i'm looking for a home or a new place. i'm excited for these homes to be built, and i'm looking forward to many more. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is raphael brody. i live on 22nd in upper noe.
10:58 pm
just a few blocks away from the project site, and my family and i have been here for a few years. as has been said many times here, san francisco is in the midst of a housing crisis, and family housing in particular are undersupplied. i know that many families looking to stay have been forced out. noe valley is a great place. we have great public parks and transit and shopping, yet as has been stated, no new housing has been built in decades, and this allows us an opportunity to address the deficiency. i like the developer engaged and eventually arrived at a compromise which the opposition now supports. this is laudable, as many have said, and is one of the reasons why i urge the commission to approve the conditional use permits asap. thank you. >> hello. my name is [indiscernible]. i have lived and worked in san
10:59 pm
francisco since 2003. i live two blocks away from the project, and i'm calling in with my full support for the project. as many have stated, mark is just a remarkable human being, and we are lucky to be working with him. i am also a single parent of two children. we live very close to the project, and sometimes the shopping center can get a little sketchy, so it's my hope that this great project will elevate not only the environment overall for the community but also the safety in our community. thank you. [please stand by]
11:00 pm
>> this project takes an unusable piece of land and creates new housing. i urge you to support it. thank you. >> hi, this ised to david from housing action coalition. i am calling today himself as a resident of noe valley. i live very close to this site. my children grew up scooting at the playground and so my wife and i have had the privilege of
11:01 pm
raising our three children and being able to send them to the local public school. i am looking forward to welcoming 24 new families to the neighborhood and giving them the opportunity to have their children scoot at the play bound and go to the elementary school. it is a long time since we have had multifamily housing built in the neighborhood, and i want to let you know if you want to build more multifamily housing in the neighborhood that i promise to come back to the planning commission and speak to the need and in favor of multifamily housing in my neighborhood. thank you. good-bye. >> good afternoon. i am steve chapman, 1819 diamond
11:02 pm
street across from the proposed project. i haven't been involved in land use or politics in san francisco with this project across from my home i became very involved. along with the neighborhood advocate and copresident of the diamond heights and the long-standing resident, i formed 1900 diamond for all for the purpose of expressing the communities concerns about the proposed project. with the goal of changing the project to reflect these concerns. our leadership group has been working on a compromised proposal to address the neighborhood concerns at the urging of the supervisor mandelman who has indicated he needs to remain neutral. the city attorney has not taken a position. the planning department has taken a narrow position.
11:03 pm
our group invested time and money. after one and one-half years for a better outcome, addressing the environmental and legal concerns at cost of $100,000 plus to get the changes to the project to benefit the neighborhood. the changes include 10 of is most cherished trees will be preserved, publish viewing platform will be created. staircase connecting diamond heights and upper noe will be created. design blends better to the neighborhood. townhouses pulled off the street from the hillside. number of driveways reduced by almost half from 15 to 8. this increases street parking and reduces number of vehicles entering and egressing on diamond street. due to these changes the former
11:04 pm
1900 leadership supports this revised project. we feel this is a good outcome given the political environment in our city and state. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am a district 8 resident calling in strong support of this housing project. we need more housing whether it is for sale or rental. what i really appreciate about this project is that it is looking to build larger units for families, which is very different than the very small studio one bedroom units that have been proposed throughout the city. i support all housing. i am currently in the unfortunate position of thinking the of moving out of this super-awesome district because there is not enough housing. our housing short shortage is
11:05 pm
alarming. the only way to remedy it is to build more housing. i urge you to support this project. thank you for your time. >> hello. i am. [indiscernable] architectural designer in san francisco and mission resident. just speaking from what i see in my neighborhood we are really tired of our housing short age and the need for housing placed totally on neighborhoods that built it. i am thankful for the efforts being put into place through building in other neighborhoods. this is what i walk by sometimes. i really believe it is high time other neighborhoods take on the housing shortage and the great human disparities we see on our
11:06 pm
streets. build more, we need it. thank you so much for your time. >> i am alex. san francisco resident. just like to voice my support for this development. everybody knows we have a real housing crisis. this development checks every box we could ask for. thank you. >> hi, i am mike cramer. i live at 7 had 7 duncan -- 747 duncan street around the corner, block and a half from this development. i was bored member of the diamond heights community association and copresident. i am speaking on my own behalf, not on behalf of any
11:07 pm
organization. i strongly support this proposal. from a previous role working with the community association board, i can speak to the collaborative process that the applicant went through with a very wide range of community stakeholders and particularly those neighbors that were concerned about the project. as we have seen and many have spoken do, they made very substantial important changes to the project that address and reflect the feedback. i personally believe this is a terrific project bringing much needed housing to the neighborhood. this is a site that i drove or walked past on a daily basis to bring my kids to preschool to go to walter park to do anything in the city. i strong lesupport it. it will be very attractive, and
11:08 pm
a important building to have in our neighborhood for those who pass by or live in close proximity. i support the collaborative process the applicant went through with the community stakeholders. please approve this project today. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am johnson. i live on the other side of market on core bet east of twin peaks area. i am calling to support this project. since this has been a 40 minute love fest i will assume this approval is a foregone conclusion. it does bring up a couple interesting points i want to mention. one is there are at least three 1950s oriented safe way
11:09 pm
developments in the city desperately in need every development as multi-use properties. one is right across the street from this project in diamond heights. the other is the safe way on market street in district 8. in district 1 i wouldn't suggest pursuing that. this is a good opportunity to think about how to reenvision other outdated land uses around district 8. those two safe ways are the best place to start. one other point be. at 725 core bet where i live the building was constructed in 1957. it has a 20 unit development at the time. it would appear based on the other buildings that was relatively easy to do at that time. sometime there after in the 1970s it became impossible.
11:10 pm
the prices for one bedroom apartments in out dated dumps built in 1957 are insane. there is no new inventory to replace them. that is a problem we need to address city-wide. >> i am a san francisco resident in district 8. i live with my family nearby in site. weekend before last my kids were playing around the corner from 1900 diamond at the playground. i am calling in strong support of this project. given the amenities of the neighborhood including easy access to public transportation, grocery pharmacy, walking distance and a lot of playgrounds in the neighborhood. this project seems like it plays
11:11 pm
perfectly to build housing for families. it is a rare opportunity we have here to get more than 20 units and on land that is otherwise going underdeveloped. i think we should enthusiastically welcome development like this. i urge the commissioners to approve it. thanks. >> hello. this is allen. i am a resident in the neighborhood. we live on surry street. we have three girls at the nursery school. we are the family this housing development is intended for. we have been through a very difficult housing search process, and we would have loved to have these kinds of units available to us and to that search. in addition to that, the site supporting this project. it is a travesty we are on the phone trying to make sure we get
11:12 pm
20 more units in the neighborhood instead of being approved by right because it fits into the neighborhood character and zoning regulations. thank you. >> i am. [indiscernable] i live down the hill from the project. i give it my full support. we have a daughter in first grade. they will need a place to live. the neighbors will help local merchants. you know, if people want to live in the city, we have a climate crisis going on. the worst thing to do is stopping people from living in the city. my only gripe with the project. it is not by me. i live by the dart station. we have zoning here.
11:13 pm
this is completely backwards to me. i hope you please allow this project to proceed and update our zoning to reflect today's reality so this can be built anywhere in san francisco. >> hi, i am andrew kruger. i live about five blocks away on diamond street. in support of this project. someone who spoke before me talked about the need to approve housing like this or bigger projects sooner and faster. i want to reiterate i don't know what it takes but definitely there needs to be more housing. i think we looked at a few sites and called out the safe ways and agree with that.
11:14 pm
yeah, i don't have a prepared statement. thank you very much. in full support of the project. >> hello. i am a 20 year resident of district 8. i live at 448 diamond street. i am a principal. i am calling in strong support of 1900 diamond street. i have closely followed the development of this project and i applaud this applicant for his extraordinary community engagement. this proposal is a thoughtful and beautiful solution that provides much needed housing near jobs and transit. i believe that this commission should approve this project. thank you.
11:15 pm
>> hi, i am jeff harlow. neighbor of the proposed project 278 topaz way since 19 7. i am past president of homeowner association and work with the community association picking up trash across from the project and elections inspector at the local polling place. i am involved with the neighborhood and it is important to me what happens. i support this project as well as the prior speakers. i worked for 40 years the levis. this is a beautiful project. it suits the fabric of our neighborhood and has the benefit of an in fill project. i want to add my voice to say why do we have to do all of this to get something so good approved?
11:16 pm
thank you. >> i am dwight king student and renter living in the city in noe valley. i love the neighborhood and hope to have a family here one day. i need much more family oriented housing and this is a great first step. i want to say that i am excited by the opportunity to welcome new homes to the neighborhood but to contribute toward the fund for affordable housing in the rest of the city. i hope this project is approved. thank you.
11:17 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. i am. [indiscernable] after the project sponsor is securing 12 very significant locations. [indiscernable] having the preservation of 10 large. [indiscernable] along the stretch of diamond street the creation of a pan ofo the public it was important to connect the neighborhoods. the reduction of driveways by nearly half, the safety, creation of the stairway leading
11:18 pm
to diamond heights and many other safety features have garnered the support of our group. the project is so much better for our neighborhood. they also included the extensive use of wood on the exterior. it is incredibly beautiful and will really fit into our wonderful neighborhood. with the changes made during the negotiation process it is more consistent with the character of the neighborhood and we welcome the families to join us in our community. thank you for support of this project. we would like it to be approved. thank you.
11:19 pm
>> i am james. i am a 42 year resident of diamond heights. i strongly support this project at 1900 diamond street. thank you. >> last call for public comment on this item. press star 3 to be added the queue. >> hello, commissioners. i am an architect in san francisco for 30 years and 25-year resident of notice noe value. i support this project. it is a difficult site. the architect and sponsors designed a brilliant development
11:20 pm
which will take a lot of units into the hillside. they resisted pressure to maximize the envelope to create buildings compatible. this is the type of project planning should approve. the location is perfect for high density development for many reasons. it is part of diamond heights with similar multifamily housing that is old now. the location also supports families as does the plan for family sized units. there are two public parks in easy walking distance, christopher field and the playground across the street. safe way, walgreens, post office and community-based businesses close by and location is well served by two bus lines. i want to commend the emerald and mark for working so successfully with the community. i hope we won't have to go
11:21 pm
through so much work and time and money spent on the part of the project sponsor and community to build housing because it all ends up in the ultimate cost of the housing. thank you for listening. >> hi, i bought a house in glen park on church street a couple blocks from this project in 2000. i am raising two daughters in high school. i hope that they can afford to live here after they finish college. i am a strong supporter of this project. thank you. >> hi, this is hillary, i am president of glen park association calling on behalf of myself today.
11:22 pm
the glen park association took no position on this project. i support this project. i saw all of the effort they put into working with the developer and coming to agreement. i hope it gets approved as it stands now. i really look forward to welcoming more families to our neighborhood. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am calling in support of the project. i lived in the city for the last 30 years. last 10 resident of district 8. i raised my daughter here for access to diversity of people. growing up we watched one family after another left the city for the east bay or other regions. other callers had similar
11:23 pm
experience. that leaving was in pursuit of more space to raise a family. we are last in the number of children per capita. we have to do more to encourage families to stay here. for the past decade or two we are building one and two bedroom units in the city. this will provide 24 units, three bedroom units would be a great step in that direction. it is a great addition to the city and i am in favor of this project. >> good afternoon. i am ben galvin. thank you for hearing everybody's comments. i am in great agreement with many of the comments that have been made. i won't be restate them. i am a housing developer. i worked for the nonprofit
11:24 pm
sector for over 1,000 affordable homes for low and low income households in san francisco for sale and rental. i understand the great value, of course, of adding family size housing here in our wonderful neighborhood where we have lived with my family most of the last 37 years. my family is actively engaged in efforts to add new housing in noe valley including infill sites on 24th street. the money generated in local subsidy from the mayor's office of housing will use to build additional homes. we estimate 11 new homes as well as with the foundation in
11:25 pm
building affordable housing in other places. i am thrilled to see the ground swell of support from noe valley neighbors for really well designed new housing. i would like to congratulate the author and the neighbors who engaged in the kind of civil engagement we need to address the challenges of building higher density housing in established neighborhood. and modeling the two workings of democracy. i urge the commission to unanimously approve the proposed development. thank you for your time.
11:26 pm
>> i am a life-long resident of glen park and reside with my wife and two kids calling in support of this project. this development will provide much needed housing for families like myself. i would like to commend developers for their outreach and concessions would be made. i encourage everybody to get on board and support this project. it sounds like we all are. thank you for your time. >> i am tom hers a homeowner 25 years living two blocks from the site and one of the many hundreds of neighbors who signed the petition opposing this project and still oppose it. why are you looking at approving this project when we as society are facing a climate crisis
11:27 pm
being worse by desstruction of green space and as city we have affordable housing crisis. if any housing were to be built on this green space it should be affordable housing as the law has mandated and as the hundreds of neighbors indicated. there needs to be a full ceqa review. this is totally inappropriate. this does not address the affordable housing crisis in san francisco. the city has exceeded the goals for market rate housing district 8 falls significantly short of affordable housing goals. attorney indicated it is disheartening that the own
11:28 pm
project documents do not reflect the city's goals. at every level this fails environmental priorities set forth in the urban forest plan in keeping with the planning department's documents. if the planning or board of supervisors who refuses to oppose delay. this is turning backs on the issues climate and affordable housing crisis like a sea of failure to children, city and future generations when they have an opportunity to make a difference right here. thank you for your consideration. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am sarah lee pennington. i urge you to oppose this luxury housing project. it is a betrayal to the goal of meaningful addressing affordable housing crisis that afflicts the city and district 8.
11:29 pm
the foundation violated what the city election established in 2004 with taxpayer funds when it improperly had the city subdivide the property and city and state officials colluded instead of asserting their agreement. the regulatory reagreement in 2004 stipulates its use is designated until 2059 for affordable rental housing. this is a mockery of the law and should not divert us to the theft of affordable housing space nor swayed by the gloss see slides and hundreds of orchestrated e-mail letters or by a few individuals who are parties to a settlement depicted in the chronicle as representing the community while hundreds of neighbors oppose this project.
11:30 pm
attorney joshua said in his statement to the commission i quote awarding the conditional use authorization and permitting this project to go forward without a full environmental analysis sends the clear message regardless of law, policy and common sense in the age of climate change profitable luxury housing in this city prevails overall other concerns. as homeowner and neighbor for 26 years i can only conclude this current project will reflect violation of our dooley elected statutes and the public trust. thank you for your sincere consideration. >> thank you. that concludes public comment. commissioners this matter is now before you. >> i thank the members of the public who called in. it is great to see so many people engaged in the project and having so much to say.
11:31 pm
i thank everybody for that. before i may being comments i want to see if commissioners have any questions for the project. commissioner diamond abcommissioner koppel next. >> no questions. i want to thank everyone for commenting today. also, this is a great item to hear once. i really want to thank everyone involved that did put in the work beforehand. we do know how much meatings and face times these items do take and these are very personal and important to everyone. thanks to the developer, community groups and leaders that really did a lot of the work ahead of time to make this easier of an item for us to hear today. i am fully in support today. >> thank you. i will make a few comments an
11:32 pm
and align with commissioner koppel. i am excited to see so much collaboration. it took awhile to get here. if you want to go, go as a team. it exemplifies folks coming together and compromising. the project is much improved with the benefit and changes the community made, saving the trees, the walkway, viewing deck. really enhance the project. it is a great example what can happen when folks come together. we did lose one unit. given the benefit on balance they preserved most of the housing that is family-sized family housing. commissioner imperial followed by commissioner diamond.
11:33 pm
>> thank you. i have a question whether it is for project sponsor. in our packet, i guess, this is something i need to understand in terms of the land that was supposed to be built on the affordable housing. also, you did see right next to the development is another affordable housing. i am not sure if this project sponsor can answer that. why is this not an affordable housing? >> this was originally redevelopment land from 1970. it was 120 meters at that time. the caesar chavez foundation
11:34 pm
purchased this in 2000 or so. then they came up with the wise idea that it was a steep hillside and was nothing happening with the land. they came up with the idea a three quarter sized park, three quarter acre sized parcel and the hud and state bond authority and everyone to say, hey, we are going to carve this out. they said that is fine. they got approvals. it doesn't affect the residents of the open space. nobody used the block. this wasn't designated as affordable housing. it was excess land on a parcel that does have affordable housing that is still there. the nice benefit here is that it will take the proceeds from the landfill and create more affordable housing with it in addition to the affordable
11:35 pm
housing fee the project will be paying. >> are you aware whether hud approved of that? >> they did, yes. they couldn't have created this lot without approval. four or five different public agencies. i am not sure if caesar chavez is still on the phone. basically everyone involved with the refinance of that existing 120 unit building had to sign off on it. caesar chavez foundation was transparent for a number of years. this is a long plan for them to raise funds by using this excess parcel. >> thank you for answering those
11:36 pm
questions. i am clear on what happened why this is not built as affordable housing. i would like to hear what other commissioners think, too. in terms of the committee engagement, it looks like the developer did a comprehensive community engagement and incorporated other neighbors input in terms of design and also looking into the number of units. however, i am going to be honest that i am disappointed. i would like to see more in the in fill land. as one of the commenters there are some sites in the eighth that can be developed. i hope to see those parcels more affordable housings what we have been saying we have affordability crisis. those are my comments.
11:37 pm
i would like to hear what other commissioners think. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> yes, i am in support of this project. i want to make a few observations about this project in light of the very current conversation we had last week and will continue to have about our housing element and about the objective standards that we adopted necessitated by the adoption of sb9. this project, in my opinion is a case study about the dilemma that we face as a city. from one perspective, the narrow perspective of the neighborhood, the project that is in front of us is a huge success.
11:38 pm
the end results that we saw today, in my opinion, is much more desirable, better for the neighborhood, more beautiful than what was proposed last summer. the public benefits for the neighbors created by the stairway and the viewing deck are lovely, preservation of the cyprus trees is terrific. the new design both layout and materials is much better to the neighborhood. i love the fact that the vast majority of the units are still three bedrooms. we checked all of the boxes. one could argue from the perspective of the neighborhood our discretionary processes worked beautifully here. it did exactly what we intended to happen which the developer engage with the neighborhood. together they came up with a much better project than otherwise. that is just one perspective.
11:39 pm
from a city-wide perspective this process added over six months. a great deem of uncertainty and enormous cost which will no doubt be passed to the future homeowners making the housing even more expensive than it otherwise would have been. at that rate we will never get to the 80,000 units arena that the goals require us to get to. i believe we need to figure out a way to produce these kinds of projects that fit into the neighborhood without all of the uncertainty that comes through our current processes. the housing element calls for streamlining and i believe we need to get a lot more specific about what that entails. clearly we want be projects to fit into the neighborhood that make our neighborhoods continue to be the livable beautiful
11:40 pm
places we all take great joy and pride in. we need to do it in a way that doesn't involve the uncertainty and the delays that the processes we currently use get involved because we have no hope of getting to 80,000. if it took this much work to produce 24 units. i am hopeful that the start we made last week on developing objective standards reflects the massing that we would like to see and hopefully with the participation of the aia architects allow for design standards to encourage creativity and fit in the neighborhoods. i hope that when we see the next draft of housing element not only will it have more specific measures about streamlining but help us get to the 80,000 but also includes greater use of the
11:41 pm
lands on objective standards that provide more certainty so we don't end up with just a small number of developers well funded who can take the risk of developing housing projects in this very uncertainty environment the current processes result in. even though if you look at results it produces a much better project. i make a motion to approve the project. i would like to hear from other commissioners to see what their thoughts are. thank you. >> i second the motion. i will call on vice president moore. >> i would like to take a slightly different tact to what commissioner diamond said. i believe the project like this which is contrary to our single family discussion in densifying single family is slightly
11:42 pm
different. i think context setting to support our objective standards to shaping the project, particularly one this size. here comes my byline bigeometry and topography is challenged site. it would be almost impossible to do high density affordable housing on the site without really completely disrupting the setting where we are. densification is the most important thing that i consider. i took quite awhile looking for this package in the community comments i realized that this project has significantly been shaped and improved by the rigor which the community engaged in delivering 24 units. is it enough?
11:43 pm
no, never enough given the deficit we are in. is 24 units good on a challenging site like this, i would suggest it is. the project came from a sketch that i would under no circumstance have supported something which i feel quite differently about. again, i would say this site would be extremely difficult if not impossible to develop because its topography and particularly geometry cannot support much more than what is currently suggested. i am in support of this project and support the motion. >> thank you, commissioners. no further deliberation by members of the commission. >> i will respond to commissioner diamond's comments briefly. regarding the housing elements. sorry to say the one to say not
11:44 pm
just yet. it is an interesting point. the single standard family is different than objective standards for multi-family development or duplexes. that is a much different scale than we are talking about with this development. i think it is a question for us to consider. i know you are thinking about it. what would it look like to shift from our residential design guidelines to something that is more objective? is there some middle ground? is there a way to think about neighborhood by neighborhood or certain areas. it gets complex when we try to integrate into the guidelines. it is a conversation we need to have at the commission to understand if we are looking at the next 8 years or housing cycle. discretionary processes have benefits which we see in this project. this is very effective.
11:45 pm
i would say how could we get to a similar outcome with objectivity or only partway? i don't know the answer but i think there is investigation. if applications remain down this year, it is a good year to do the investigation. we don't have a bunch of projects tapping on the commission door. we can be thoughtful about moving forward with our design guidelines and our attention to detail and neighborhood character and attention to housing crisis. i don't know, director if you want to respond to that. >> it is a good point to raise. we were able to tackle it successfully. we have work to do on the rh-1 when we talked about the objective standards. we are going to face this as
11:46 pm
sb35 could kick in very well during the next cycle if we don't hit our targets. we will be faced with this question. we have got to start looking at this now because it will be a reality that we face with the state negotiations in the work with the housing element. >> thank you. put on the agenda. look at the calendar to see what to do in the staffing. i don't see any commissioners in the queue. >> on that motion to approve with conditions. commissioner chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> aye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commission president tanner. >> aye. >> so commissioners that passes unanimously 7-0.
11:47 pm
that places under your discretionary review calendar. 12. 2020-003208drp. 706 vermont street. this is a discretionary review. >> are you prepared to make the presentation, mr. parata. >> good afternoon. i am senior designer with staff and planning. before you is a request for discretionary review of building permit application 2020-0218.4616 to sex and third floor and add new roof deck on top of third floor and repair
11:48 pm
roof skylights as needed, expand third floor and add three feet of height to the third floor. also move from back to front in the house and remove walls in dining room. it would increase the size of the two family dwelling from approximately 2917 square feet to 3565 square feet. existing building is. [indiscernable] resource built in the 1900s. the requester on behalf of angela king residents of the adjacent property to the south is concerned that the project will unreasonably impact their life and privacy from building massing and placement of the roof deck at the top of the
11:49 pm
third floor. they are concerned the project is labeled the roof deck as gray roof. alternative to pro minimum set back for the roof deck and three foot set back on the southwest and southeast edge of the proposed third floor to reduce light privacy. the requester mailed two letters of support to the planning commission. the project offer had changed original plans to address some of the massing concerns provided. in addition project sponsor offered landscape screening for privacy no changes for the proposed building. to date the department has received no letters in support and in letters in opposition of the project. the planning department's review of the proposal confirms support
11:50 pm
for the project as it confirms to the design guidelines. the terms of the matching. department found proposed project does not present any exceptional or extraordinary expenses. however, the proposed green roof if or when used the effect of privacy of the requester's home we set back five feet from property line without any further reduction of the proposed building. therefore we recommend taking discretionary review and approving the project with the modifications. thank you. >> thank you. mr. patterson. you have a three minute presentation. >> good afternoon, commissioner.
11:51 pm
angela kim. my family lives next door the proposed project. thank now your time and efforts. i would like to recognize three for hard work. we have 19 years and seen many positive improvements and supported the neighbors projects that impacted our views. we support the project and desire to expand her home. we also improved our home 10 years ago. it had an existing roof deck we rarely used because access was via fire escape ladder. we worked with the neighbors. our concern with the green roof that functions as a roof deck. other neighbors also have concerns and their letters were provided yesterday with mine addressing the inaccurate statements made by the own. we believe in transparency.
11:52 pm
we ask for minor changes to the green roof removing the roof deck features. now to our attorney, ryan patterson. >> hello, commissioners, as you can see from the illinoistrations on the screen. the green roof has the elements of fully occupiable roof deck fair size staircase and skylights and 42-inch guardrails. it looks directly down into the kim's bedroom and baths room impacting privacy with visibility annoys. despite the elementses of roofer demthey avoided requirements by labeling green roof on the plans. this gives away the game. green roofs do not need staircases and guardrails. they are low maintenance and only accessed a few times a year. not occupied spaces.
11:53 pm
why does it matter? it seriously impacts the privacy and security annoys as the deck looks to their bedroom, bathroom and family room. if the commission includes the elements roof connect with no process it will set a terrible precedent. planning should not reward this. we support green roof not de facto roof connect. pulling the guardrail back does not solve the problem. solution is simple. we ask you to remove staircase and guardrail to provide green roof mitigating the adverse impacts. removing stairs and guardrails does not limit livable square foot age or use of seven bed five bath home. thank you for your consideration.
11:54 pm
>> thank you. mr. williams. you have a three minute presentation. >> thank you. good afternoon, president tanner and members of the commission. steve williams. i represent the project sponsor. this is the subject site at 706 vermont with partner and new baby. her parents live in the second unit. the application has no merit. i will show you why. the claims physical impacts are misrepresented to the commission. in slide one the building is large modern looking structure. larger than ms. olson's house. they reconstructed a few years back. you can see they lose the subject site that is uphill to the south. the claims of blocking light creating shadows are impossible
11:55 pm
given the dr building is larger and uphill to the south. slide two, please. as you can see they built their house so large it is larger than the little pink house uphill to the left. look at the photos and see the shadows from south to north. d.r. requester's building shades and shadows the home every day when sun is shines. this is about d.r. requesters preserving views. using the process to preserve views from property line decks they built when they reconstructed the building. here are the two large lot line windows they are trying to protect facing north over the home. we ask prove they were legal. they are unable to show they were.
11:56 pm
with regard to legal or illegal they are not requested. they built two large decks on the property line that they are trying to protect. you can see one in this slide above the lot line window. this view deck is on the front of the building. slide four, please. this slide shows the second be property line direct looking directly over the home. this is from the hoof looking south. you can see the d.r. requester's decks on the property line with no setbacks ought all. ms. olson is trying to satisfy the d.r. requester by listing the changes in the brief we made at the request of the d.r. requester of the one roadblock and delays. 648 square foot project. we urge you to deny the request. the claim that the green roof is
11:57 pm
on accupied roof deck is nonsense. it doesn't make any defense. it is part of the staff said they would support as roof deck or green roof. if they want an occupied roof that application will be made later and the neighbors can check in on it at that time. i am here to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. public comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this discretionary review matter. >> i am calling in support of the proposed green roof/roof deck. it doesn't matter what it is. roof decks are awesome. green roofs are awesome. either or both should be allowed. as the attorney just said, the planning department is okay with
11:58 pm
it that is great. neighbor -- maybe we can party on the roof deck. everyone be should support green roofs. go with it, man, uphill pretty awesome house. chill. let your neighbors have a cool house, too. don't make a big deal out of it. >> hi, i am calling to remind the planning commission we have the plan for 82,000 new units of housing this whole thing where two rich neighbors fight each other over a roof deck is a waste of time. i don't be care if you approve or not. i want to remind you this is the stuff we are wasting planning staff time on when we should be figuring out where to put affordable housing, where to get affordable housing we are
11:59 pm
fighting about a roof deck. this is totally embarrassing. thank you. >> last call for public comment. press star 3. >> hi, this is joyce book. neighbor on the street. there is a couple things i am not getting clarified. has the existing square footage of the home been identified? also, is it assumed that the green roof is acceptable as is in the reason i am asking is it was our understanding that there is a staircase that leads up and
12:00 am
that definitely would be an occupied space. we wanted to seek clarification on that. then also, to the prior caller in regards to affordable housing in san francisco. one of the things neighbors count on is neighbors having the opportunity to speak up as this neighbor is doing and ask questions in regards to the proposed plans. we are losing affordable housing. a lot of smart people are taking advantage of the existing ordinances and the planning commission. i disagree with the comments this is abusive. it is prudent the neighbors get more involved. i appreciate this neighborhood has done that. >> that is your time. >> hello. i wanted to go to the call
12:01 am
before last that it is a waste of time. i was reading the charter. the planning commission has the authority to delegate power of reviewing permits to the department. even though the board of supervisors pass an ordinance saying the planning commission must hear drs it it is under their authority to not handle the drs. if the planning commission were to choose, you could choose just not to handle the dr, not the heir the dr fortic projects. thank you. >> that concludes public comment. d.r. requester you have a one
12:02 am
minute rebuttal. >> thank you very much. ryan patterson. commissioners, i want to make clear we support their project. their home is larger than the kim's home. that is fine. this is not about views. the kim's are losing the views regardless of the roof deck. also, there are wildly inaccurate statements. property line windows are legal, permitted, fire rated. the problem with this project is that they are passing off the roof deck as green roof. it is not going through the proper process as roof deck and will have a severe preach see impact. remove the guardrails and stairs which are not needed or appropriate. angela. >> i would like to add our house is much smaller afters our
12:03 am
addition 2600 square feet. this is a seven bedroom five baths 3600 square feet home. we don't have problems. if you look at their backyard my victorian home neighbors homes extend way back beyond the house in the backyard and larger than our house. we are on a slope it looks higher. that is all i wanted to say. >> project sponsor one minute rebuttal. >> thank you. can i have slide 4-a again? this area that somehow the project sponsors are trying to do something underhanded in the future is pure nonsense. it can't be the basis for decision. it is proposed as green roof and built as green roof. the staircase and guardrail were put there at the request of the
12:04 am
people going to be maintaining the green roof for safety and access. clearly they want to pull-down anything that blocks these lot line windows and these decks that are directly on the property line. it clearly they are building rooms. they will we be low his deck once the addition is put into place. that is one of the compromises that was made. they made many, many changes. i spilled this out in a brief and i hope you looked at the brief which outlined it. the idea that the bolton house is larger is nonsense. this is a two unit building. it is not true. [indiscernable] >> thank you, mr. williams. that will conclude the
12:05 am
presentation and public comment period of this hearing. this descretionnary review is before you, commissioners. >> thank you. i agree with the staff recommendation to take dr and approve with the modifications. comments or questions or motions from commissioners? >> i support staff's recommendation. i would like to ask a question. mr. barata, are you there? >> yes, i am here. >> i saw in your text the description of your ask the stair is being replaced by a hatch which i would think to be appropriate. green roofs don't need maintenance. the stair is completely an over kill to get to that particular
12:06 am
roof. a hatch would suffice if i understood your recommendation correctly. >> no. our recommendation was just to pull back the railing from the property line five feet in. we haven't made any recommendations regarding the stairs or roof hatch. the reason is because we think that the stairs on the opposite side are basically going along the property line over the roof of the neighbors to the north. >> if that is the case i still support staff's recommendations to take the project. >> is that a motion commissioner moore. >> yes. >> i second that. >> very good. if there are further deliberations a motion to take dr and approve with staff modifications related to the green roof, vavdeck. on that motion commissioner
12:07 am
chan. >> aye. >> commissioner diamond. >> aye. >> commissioner fung. >> eye. >> commissioner imperial. >> aye. >> commissioner koppel. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president tan. >> that passes 7-0. i thank you today. we should adjourn in the eternal memory of mr. [indiscernable] >> thank you. >> enjoy the rest of your afternoon. >> good-bye.
12:08 am
12:09 am
12:10 am
>> good morning. this is is the transportation authority board. >> commissioner mandelman. >> present. commissioner mar. >> present. commissioner melgar. >> present. >> commissioner peskin. >> present. >> commissioner preston. >> present. commissioner ronen. >> present. commissioner