Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, March 19th, 2026. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have 30 seconds remaining, you'll hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, There is a second chime, and I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the Commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. I'd like to take roll, Commission President Campbell.

Here.

Commission Vice President Moore. Here. Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner Imperial. Here. Commissioner So.

Here.

And Commissioner Williams. Here. Thank you, Commissioners. We expect Commissioner McGarry to be out today. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item 1, case number 2023-009469, DRP at 77 Broad Street, discretionary review. is proposed for continuance to April 16th, 2026. I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on their continuance calendar, only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

Move to continue item one as proposed.

Second.

Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue item one as proposed. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell?

Aye.

So moved, commissioners. The motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commission matters item two, the land acknowledgment.

I'm reading the land acknowledgement today. The Commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatushaloni, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as they take caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramatushaloni community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Thank you. Item three, commission comments and questions. Okay. Seeing none, we can move on to department matters. Item four, director's announcements.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Good to see you on this warm day. A couple of updates today. One, earlier this week, we sent commissioners a memo on our regional housing needs assessment progress to date. That memo is on our website under commission correspondence, if the public wishes to view it. And it precedes an item that we'll bring before you on April 19. So we have a scheduled hearing to discuss it. One of the things the memo found, and we're looking at a kind of prorated progress because we're only partway through our RHNA cycle, is that we are doing not so well on our market rate goals. We're doing not as well as we would like, but slightly better than market rate on our very low income and low income goals. And overall, that we have a whole lot of progress to make up, because we're not off to a strong start. So we look forward to discussing that with you more on the 19th. And happy to answer any questions between now and then, particularly over correspondence. Another thing we wanted to let you know, and I'm sharing this on behalf of Ms. Wadi, is we launched a development impact fee calculator on our website this week. As with so many things in planning, we've been operating a little prehistorically using Excel spreadsheets, et cetera, project by project. We finally created an actual development impact fee calculator that both staff uses in calculating projects, cash responsibilities when they move forward, And so that project sponsors can go look and do their own review and put those into the calculator. So we're excited about that. Not a huge thing, but the kind of thing we're going to keep rolling out. And if anyone notices ways where we're doing other things maybe in the analog method that could use improvement. Please keep bringing them to our attention so we can upgrade those. And then last, just to let you know, on our Permit SF effort and our OpenGov launch that started on February 13th, a couple really exciting metrics have come out that I just wanted to let you guys know. As you know, we launched door permits, window permits, fire sprinkler permits, the kind of things that we frequently see homeowners and small businesses come for. We're getting those out within a day. The permits are being issued regularly. But what's really interesting is that we've seen almost 35% of those permits come in off hours. So that means that 35% of those permit submitters are saving trips to our permit center because they're doing it at 11 p.m. after they put their kids to bed and don't have to take time off of work to come into our permit center or to file those permits. So I think that's really interesting. The other one, and we're not sure how to apply this, is we've seen a 100% increase in volume over what we've previously seen in those types of permits. One could surmise that when you make it easier, more people want to do it. I think we'll be looking at that metric to see how that goes as well. That's all I have. Thank you.

I have a question, Director. My question is for the April 16 or April 19 presentation. Will that also include the house, or is that a separate hearing for housing element annual or progress report?

So part of the reason we did schedule that hearing in mid-April is that we will have completed our APR, the Annual Progress Report, that we submit to HCD. So the data that we put in the memo is kind of the, not preview of that, but it's comes from that data source. And so part of what we'll do is update it in case, I don't know, anything changes from the data as we actually finalize the APR, which is due on April 1. And certainly that is usually, we send that to HCD. We can provide it to you all as well. It's a lot of information. So we might not go over it line by line, but certainly it's part of the input into the hearing.

Can I answer your question? Yeah, it sounds like it's a different topic that perhaps may need.

I think we were planning to focus on kind of the production part of the APR. But as you know, our housing element has lots of different types of actions. And we could certainly summarize them, I think, partly the volume of actions is just really large. So one thing we could also do if there are items that you're particularly interested in, we could focus on those because it's like literally hundreds of things otherwise, and that's probably not the volume you're interested in. There are probably some topic areas or certain actions that we could highlight.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to item five, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. There is no report from the Board of Appeals, but the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Veronica Flores from Legislative Affairs. This week, the Land Use and Transportation Committee considered the Mission and 9th Street Special Use District, or SUD. Commissioners, you heard this item on February 26th and voted unanimously to approve it. As a reminder, this is the ordinance that would facilitate the development of a 100% affordable housing project at 1270 Mission Street. There was no public comment, and Supervisor Chen did lend her support and asked to be added as a co-sponsor for this item. At the end of the discussion, the item was unanimously approved as a committee report. At the full board this week, the 2245 Post Street SUD passed its first read, as well as the mission at 9th Street SUD. And this concludes the board report for this week. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no questions, the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday. They adopted recommendations for approval for several legacy business registry applications, including Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center, American Cyclery, Financial District Foot and Ankle Center, as well as Miseki Jewelry. They also adopted survey findings for the West of Twin Peaks, Lakeshore, and Sunnyside neighborhood commercial districts as part of phase one of the San Francisco Citywide Cultural Resources Survey. And then they adopted a citywide historic context statement for gardens in the city, San Francisco Residence Parks, 1906 through 1940 historic context statement. Finally, their Architecture Review Committee held their first meeting of the year and considered the clay theater renovations. With that, Commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Members of the public, you need to come forward if you'd like to submit testimony under general public comment. Last call. Seeing none in the chambers, we'll go to our reasonable accommodation requester.

This is Sue Hester. I want to thank Ms. Flores for introducing herself by name at the beginning of her comments. One of my is that people identify themselves from the staff whenever they speak the first time just to make it easier on the public to understand who is talking if we have questions. The other thing I want to ask is I want to ask whether you're intending to cancel the April 2nd as well as the April 9th Planning Commission meeting. April 9th is already listed as canceled, but there's the total, the sole item that was on the calendar for April 2nd has been removed. So that will be a two-week break after the next recurring, which will be last year. So please inform us whether there's an extra cancellation coming up. Thank you.

OK. Final last call for general public comment. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. Sort of in response to that request, commissioners, indeed, your future hearings are looking lighter and lighter. And as of today, there are currently no items on your advance calendar for April 2nd. And as Ms. Hester noted, the April 9th hearing is already canceled. Unless something comes up in the form of information that doesn't require notification, it is likely that the April 2nd hearing will be canceled. Unless you have something hot that you want to meet for, just let me know. We can put it on, and we can all gather in City Hall on the 2nd. But yeah, I mean just looking forward it is and I and I note this at staff meetings Your hearings are just looking lighter and lighter, unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, but Okay with that commissioners that will place this under your regular calendar for item six case number 2026 hyphen zero zero one four one two PCA for the transit oriented residential development SB 79 implementation planning code amendment Can we go to the computer?

Is this view okay? Good afternoon, President Campbell, Vice President Moore, and planning commissioners. I'm Sarah Richardson, planning staff. Thank you for having us today to consider the adoption of the proposed transit-oriented residential development ordinance, San Francisco's plan for implementing California State Senate Bill 79. This legislation was introduced by Mayor Daniel Lurie on February 10th. It is board file number 260132. As a reminder, the planning department provided an informational presentation on SB 79 on December 4th, 2025. Today, I will begin the presentation by providing some of that background again, and then I will walk through the key components of the ordinance in more detail. SB 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, was passed last year by the state legislature and takes effect on July 1. To create more capacity for housing near transit, it sets minimum height and density limits within 200 feet, 1 quarter mile, and 1 half mile of both existing and planned transit stops, creating concentric circles around each qualifying stop. There are two tiers of stops. Tier one, which allows for slightly taller and denser housing, includes BART and Caltrain stops. And tier two includes Muni Metro and major bus stops, such as Bus Rapid Transit. More than 3 quarters of properties in San Francisco, about 120,000 parcels, fall within areas subject to SB 79. SB 79 allows for cities to exempt parcels that meet certain criteria from these requirements. Some of these exemptions are temporary and others are permanent. And finally, SB 79 allows for jurisdictions to adopt an alternative plan in place of implementing the default heights and densities required under SB 79. Here are the default densities and heights under SB 79 overlaid on the city, irrespective of our zoning. On the left, you can see that the densities range from 160 units per acre within 200 feet of Tier 1 stops to 80 units per acre for parcels that are between one quarter mile and one half mile from Tier 2 stops. On the right, you can see the heights, which range from nine stories adjacent to the stops to five stories further from the stops. Now, this map compares the SB 79 heights with our existing height limits and denotes the differences with color. San Francisco has higher height limits downtown and along commercial corridors, which you can see in the greens and blues, while SB 79 height limits are higher off corridors in residential districts, which you can see in the orange and yellow. This map also shows the outline of the recently rezoned family zoning plan area. You can see how along neighborhood commercial corridors, our existing heights are one to four stories taller than what would be allowed under SB 79, such as along Irving Street and the Sunset, whereas in the residential area surrounding it, our existing heights are one to two stories lower. This means that under the default SB 79 heights, the areas in orange and yellow would increase in height. Now to the proposed ordinance before you. It has four primary parts. It permanently excludes three industrial employment hubs from being subject to SB 79. It temporarily exempts some low resource census tracts. It amends the planning code to add a new density and height exception to Article 2. And finally, it adopts an alternative plan under SB 79, including demonstrating housing capacity to qualify. Now I'll discuss each of these components in more detail. SB 79 allows for the permanent exclusion of parcels that meet certain conditions. The first is if the parcel is in an industrial employment hub. These hubs must be identified in our general plan, be contiguous, and over 250 acres. There are three of these in San Francisco, which you can see in shaded pink on this map, in the south of Market and Mission, Bayshore and Central Waterfront, and Bayview neighborhoods. Collectively, they consist of just below 2,000 parcels. These parcels will not be subject to the provisions of SB 79, which helps to preserve the types of businesses and the core city functions that operate there and the jobs that they support. The second condition that qualifies for a permanent exclusion is if the parcels are more than a mile walk from a transit stop, but that does not apply in San Francisco. SB 79 also allows for a few temporary exemptions, as listed here. The legislation before you includes a temporary exemption for parcels in census tracts that the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, or TCAC, identified as low resource, but just those that are in Mission Bay and south of 16th Street. The low resource areas are in purple on this map and include approximately 32,000 parcels. They will be temporarily exempted from the provisions of SB 79 until one year after our next housing element is due in 2032. This gives the city additional time to plan for increased housing capacity in these areas and to clarify the relationship of SB 79 to redevelopment areas and potential transit stops. The other temporary exemptions for parcels allowed in the law aren't necessary for us to invoke because the ordinance pursues an alternative plan. There are three main requirements for pursuing an alternative plan in place of the default SB 79 heights and densities. The first is that the total net capacity of existing heights and densities in aggregate across the entire alternative plan area, which in our case is the entire city, is greater than what would be allowed under SB 79. This requirement is met primarily due to the recently passed family zoning plan, which added a whole lot of additional capacity for housing in the north, central, and western sides of the city. The other two requirements say that to qualify, each parcel within the SB 79 geography and each aggregate station area must allow at least 50% of the density allowed under SB 79. Our existing zoning doesn't quite meet those requirements. There are approximately 2,000 parcels in color on this map in the east and south sides of the city that would need to allow additional density. Most of the colored parcels in this map are orange, indicating that they would just need to allow one additional unit from what is allowed today. As the parcel gets larger, the increase in units is higher. This map already has the permanently excluded industrial sites removed and also shows the temporarily exempted low-income census tracts in purple. The parcel shown in the low resource areas, approximately half of those 2,000 parcels would not need to meet this density requirement until 2032. To meet those last two requirements of the citywide alternative plan, the proposed ordinance includes a planning code amendment. It adds a new density and height exception to Article 2, Section 20711 that permits additional density and height for residential projects on parcels within one half mile of a qualifying transit stop, up to 50% of the density permitted under SB 79. and on the few parcels in these areas with a height limit that is less than 40 feet, it would allow 40 feet. The parcels must meet several criteria, including, but not limited to, they must be in a zoning district that principally permits housing, they not be within the family zoning plan area, not seeking a density bonus, and not on a parcel with a listed historic building, whether it's individually landmarked or contributory. With this planning code amendment, the entire city would qualify for an alternative plan. Taking this into account, with the permanent and temporary exemptions, the total housing capacity and density in San Francisco is greater than what would be allowed by SB 79 by over 100,000 units and almost 200 million square feet of floor area. So this means that no parcel in the city will be subject to the default SB 79 heights and densities. A small number of parcels will be eligible for a new density exception for up to 50% of the density allowed under SB 79, all outside of the family zoning plan area. This will create another way for properties to build four to six units in REH districts outside of the family zoning plan area. And this does not change what the underlying zoning requires, such as unit mixes. And finally, in 2032, the temporary exemptions for low resource tracts will expire and additional parcels will be subject to the 50% density requirement. Without this ordinance, all of the parcels that you see here in blue would increase in height limit under the default SB 79 height limit. Though I should note that while SB 79 allows taller buildings in these areas, it doesn't necessarily allow more units than our zoning in these blue areas. Still, with this ordinance in the near term, the only parcels that may increase in density and generally not in height will be those in orange on this map. So as a recap, the ordinance before you permanently excludes the three industrial employment hubs, temporarily exempts the low-resource census tracts south of 16th Street and in Mission Bay, amends the planning code to allow for additional density up to 50% of the density allowed under SB 79, and adopts an alternative plan demonstrating residential capacity to qualify for that alternative plan. The department recommends approval with modifications. The modification is to fix the typographical error in the ordinance that states that one of the zoning districts in the industrial employment hub is West Soma Mixed Use General when it should be West Soma Mixed Use Office. On this page, you can see a link to the planning department web page about this legislation. I should also note that the department has conducted public webinars, met with community and neighborhood groups, sent newsletters, and briefed supervisors to explain the implementation of SB 79 and this proposed ordinance. That concludes our presentation, and we're happy to answer questions.

Okay, thank you. If there are no immediate questions, we can open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward.

Really?

Okay, if no one in the chambers wants to speak, we'll go to our reasonable accommodation requester. Ms. Hester?

No comment.

OK, last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

Vice President Moore.

I have one quick question, and that is on image 12, I think. No, map 5, permanent exclusions. There is a comment that part of that, no, I'm sorry, I quoted the wrongs. Give me one second here. I'm on the wrong page. It's actually the following page, temporary exemptions as the issue. Listed on a local historic register as of January 1, 2025, were moved in this map. Why are those sites removed in this map?

So Joshua Switzky with planning staff. There's a little bit of a mix up on the text on these two slides. The local historic register sites, there's no parcels indicated on map 6, as you can see. On map 7, that shows all of the parcels that would be potentially subject to this additional density exception. If you look in the planning code amendment itself, as Sarah laid out, parcels that are locally listed in Articles 10 and 11 are not eligible for that exception. So they are not shown on this map because they don't have, per SB 79, locally listed resources don't have to meet the density requirements. So they're not subject to the exception.

That comment is a little bit confusing.

Yeah, I apologize for the confusion on the slide.

It implies that there is another reason for that. But thank you for explaining. Those are my questions.

Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you, Mr. Swisky and Ms. Richardson, for your presentation. And also, in general, I'm supportive of this legislation. I do have a question in terms of the temporary exemptions, as they will be expired by 2032. So what will be next steps in terms of when it's expired? So what will be the next steps have to do by the planning in order to... meet that deadline, the temporary exception.

So SB 79 states that for an alternative plan, so the temporary exceptions expire one year after your next housing element is due. If we didn't do anything else and all we did was the temporary exemptions, those would expire and SB 79 would apply at that point. We're doing the alternative plan. The alternative plan also has the same shelf life. It also has to be renewed upon every housing element. So in 2031, when our next housing element is due, we will have to, assuming the city continues to want to have the alternative plan in place, we will have to send it to HCD again and have them recertify it. And at that point, when these temporary exemptions expire, we'll have to rerun the numbers and continue to show that the alternative plan with the addition of these areas that are now otherwise subject to it because the temporary exemption is not applicable anymore, we'll have to show that the math still adds up and all of the parcels meet the requirements at that point.

So that means, what's now, 2026, in about five years, that's when the planning would re-examine these temporary exceptions and recalculate to meet the housing element requirement. Yes, that's right. OK. Yeah, and that's good to know and also good for public to know as well. I look in some of the parcels of the temporary exemptions. There are ones that are over 20 feet. That means about four to six units that will be added. It looks like it. I know there's still time, but again, encourage early on to have some civic engagement before 2031. Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I just want to say, in general, this has my full support. And I wanted to take a moment to say kudos to staff and thank you for navigating a very complicated process of figuring out the local implementation of this. I know that there was a lot of pressure to sort of analyze the impacts of SB 79, which felt like kind of putting the cart before the horse because we had the room. to take our time to figure out the plan, the alternative plan and our exemptions that make sense locally. And so we have done the local planning process. So thank you for navigating this. In general, I fully support the basic premise of SB 79 to ensure that our major transit investments are effective, that they're worthwhile. by concentrating housing near them and to create transportation choices for people, transportation choices with lower greenhouse gas emissions, transportation choices that are lower cost. And at the same time, I think everyone's right that we shouldn't have to blindly follow a structured mandate from the state and instead we have followed through on the requirements with our own local take on it and so i think this is a really reasonable and measured approach we have some time after this as mr swisky just said to then kind of figure out our next steps on some of these areas as we approach our next housing element and arena cycle And so I do support this, and I'm going to make a motion to recommend approval with the staff recommended modifications.

I second it. Commissioner Sok. Well, I think, first of all, I have to say, just correct me if I'm wrong, that isn't it San Francisco is like the only city and county that are subject to SB 79, where we actually have done our work ahead of this? So then now we actually are robustly kind of having these guardrail to help our San Franciscans?

Well, Commissioner, I don't know that we can say for certain that we're the only city who's pursuing an alternative plan. We were in contact with our sister big cities around the state, and everyone is doing some work to look at implementation. I think we may be the biggest city pursuing an alternative plan at this moment. I think there's some smaller cities.

You're being really modest, because we're the only city with this kind of level of metropolitan density, right?

Yes, I mean, I do know that Los Angeles and San Diego and San Jose, they're not quite positioned to do a full city alternative plan. They may be pursuing alternative plans for individual station areas and doing some various exemptions. But I do think we're, yeah, we're probably in that. Yes, just say yes.

Well, thank you for all the smart words.

To our knowledge. To our knowledge.

To our knowledge. Yeah, to our knowledge. We don't quite keep tabs on what everybody is doing.

Well, thank you for all the hard work. Well, thank you, everybody. All of us here, too. Thank you. I'm just having basic questions of when I am looking at the permanent exclusion map and the temporary exemption map, are some of the areas overlap? Just for curiosity, I'm looking at- Yes, they do overlap.

Yes.

And is it because they're not mutually exclusive from each other?

Well, the permanent exemptions, they don't expire. They're permanent, and they just come out. But the parcels, I believe, only appear once on each There are actually all lists of parcels in the ordinance. There's a list of the permanently exempted parcels, and then separately, there's a list of the temporary exempted parcels. I don't believe any parcel appears on both lists.

Oh, OK.

But the area that you're seeing for the low resource tract areas, those are just the entire census tract. We're not identifying the individual parcels on this map.

Got it.

So that's just showing you where the area is that the parcels fall within.

Okay, so there will be no one particular parcel that will fall into both these categories?

I mean, parcels could have been exempted under either, but the permanent ones are being permanently exempted and the temporary ones are the remainder that are in the SB 79 area that aren't otherwise being permanently exempted. All right.

Thank you. Thank you for clarifying.

And just so people know, once this ordinance passes, then this information will be put on our planning information map. Because one of the criteria for that density exception in the planning code is that the parcels aren't exempted by ordinance. So these temporary and permanently exempted parcels will appear on PIM so that a property owner knows whether they are or are not eligible for this density exception because they are or are not exempted under these exemption conditions.

This is really good because it's all about, like, getting everybody to be informed and understanding just, like, in line with that development fee calculator that we have. So everyone just go on to our website and look at any particular property that they are interested in, and they can find these information.

Yeah, and we're going to try to also make it easy, and actually SB 79 requires us to... tell people what applies to them. And we will not just tell them whether they're exempt or not, but what SP-79 category applies to them, tier one, tier two, what distance they are from the station, and all of that. So that will all be pre-calculated and loaded into PIM so that property owners know what applies to them.

That's amazing. Thank you for all these hard work. That's a lot of work, sounds like.

I also just wanted to give a shout out to our GIS expert, Diana Law, who doesn't get enough recognition. This whole effort is very complicated. It involves massive amounts of mapping and GIS work. More than any city in the state, we have over hundreds of stations. There are literally hundreds of maps and hundreds of thousands of rows of things that she's calculating. But was her name again?

Say that one more time.

Diana Law, who's our GIS person who's been doing all this hard work for us. Thank you, Diana.

Thank you, Diana. Thank you. Vice President Moore?

I'd like to thank Diana, but I'd actually like to acknowledge the entire department. This is an extremely skillful job done in an extremely short time and under very difficult circumstances. And I think that the alternative plan is absolutely necessary to properly give reasonable guidance of how to move ahead. I like to restate personally, other than acknowledging the great work of the department, that since I am not supporting the family zoning plan, that I will not support this. I cannot do that. I have very clearly outlined on December 11th of 2025 of where I believe the family zoning plan is falling short. My stand by that particular professional judgment, but I do want to make sure that the public knows that this department has done an exceptional job in staying with their tasks and achieving what I believe is extremely necessary to move forward. On another note, I'd like to add, I hope that as you're moving forward, that you will continue to carefully monitor that San Francisco's transportation network and services are not only staying at status quo, which is questionable given significant budget shortages, but that, indeed, you will monitor that performance increases in order to keep step with increased densities and with increased performance goals. I think that is an extremely important thing to say here because it is not just driving the housing and building of housing, but necessary services to justify the plan. And last and not least, and it's a little bit more difficult to frame, is that even as we revise and look at new RENA goals in 2020, 32 that we carefully examine as to whether or not we have California in migration or out migration and as to whether or not the goals that many of us perceive to be excessive when they were first given to us for this effort will be accurate and accountable. And again, thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

I, too, would like to thank the Planning Department and your guys' work on this. Given the constraints of Senate Bill 79, you guys did an excellent job figuring out how to deal with the impacts. I Don't believe. I'm against, honestly, Senate Bill 79. And I don't think it's a surprise to anybody. I think the state. played overplayed its hand, forcing jurisdictions like San Francisco to do things that we're capable of doing on our own. I think the mandate is something that is going to be looked back on and not so favorably looked at. But having said all that, I don't want to diminish the work that you guys and the department has done, given the circumstances you're in. Kind of like Commissioner Moore, it feels to me I'm caught. I don't believe in the bill itself. And so although I appreciate the work and I respect the work, that the planning department has done around this, I don't think I can support this as well. So just wanted to make that statement. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll just do a quick shout out as well. I commend the department for being so well prepared for this. And obviously, there's so much overlap in the spirit of SB 79 and the logic behind the family zoning plan. So I was also curious how other cities were adapting to this. And it seems like San Francisco is just so well positioned. So hats off to the department. And Diana Law. I did not know her before today, but it sounds like she has been really critical to this. So thank you, Diana. And I also just want to commend your presentation. I attended one of the community presentations, and even today, I just thought your ability to break it down into very digestible parts that are very easy to understand is very well received. So thanks for that. Those are all our comments, and I don't think we have anyone else.

Ms. Tanner. Hi. Sorry. I just wanted to thank you, commissioners, for just being part of this deliberation and for the compliments you've given to our staff. Certainly want to shout out Ms. Richardson, who's done a fantastic job in really working with Ms. Law and Mr. Switzky on this effort. I certainly can understand there are a lot of thoughts about SB 79. They remain to this day. But I think the key point of this alternative plan is that it helps to mitigate If you think that there are negative impacts of SB 79, it helps to mitigate those impacts. So if this plan is not supported, then SB 79 does come into full effect. So certainly understand the principled positions folks are taking. But if you do dislike the bill, you would want to support an alternative to it and not to support it coming into full effect. So just to offer that for clarity and consideration, because otherwise the state law is the state law, will still be part of the state of California, and it will still apply to San Francisco. Thanks for that.

Commissioner Williams?

Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Tanner. It kind of puts us between a rock and a hard place. But thank you for that, reminding us of exactly what we're voting on.

I think we're ready for a vote.

Very good, commissioners.

There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff recommendations on that motion.

Commissioner So?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Nay.

Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore?

No.

And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners.

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

Commissioners, that will now place us on items 7A through 9A. E for case numbers 2024-005509MAP, ENV, DNX, SHD, and VAR for the property at 1500 through 1540 Market Street, also known as 1 Oak. You will be considering the zoning map amendment, findings and statement of overriding considerations, the downtown project authorization, shadow findings, and the zoning administrator will be considering the request for variance.

Great good afternoon, commissioners, Joseph Sackey, planning department staff. Before you today are the entitlements for a modified residential development project at 1500-1540 Market Street, much more commonly known as One Oak. The project site is comprised of five contiguous lots located at the northwest corner of Market Street and Van Ness Avenue, bounded by Oak Street to the north and Market Street to the south. If the project sounds familiar, it's because prior iterations of the project were approved in 2017 and 2022. As modified, the project proposes to construct a new approximately 508,000 square foot residential building with a tower over podium design containing 541 dwelling units. This represents an increase of 81 dwelling units over the 460 approved in 2022. While the height of the tower has remained consistent across project versions at 400 feet, the current version of the project does propose a higher podium height of approximately 139 feet, which exceeds the property's 120-foot podium height limit and therefore necessitates a zoning map amendment. District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey has introduced an ordinance that would reclassify the heightened bulk districts at the project site in order to increase the base podium height. So prior to staff's presentation, Madison Tam from Supervisor Dorsey's office is here, I believe.

THANK YOU, JOSEPH. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. THE LEGISLATIVE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY SPONSORED BY SUPERVISOR DORSEY WILL MAKE A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP TO ACCOMMODATE MORE UNITS AT THE ONE OAK SITE. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT SITES IN THE MARKET IN OCTAVIA AREA PLAN AND REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT SHARE OF MANY UNITS THAT HAVE LONG BEEN PROMISED TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS AMENDMENT IS A SMALL BUT MEANINGFUL CHANGE THAT WILL BRING EVEN MORE UNITS AND ACTIVATE THIS VITAL CORNER. You'll hear, after I speak, about the other actions that you're being asked to take today as part of this project. Supervisor Dorsey would like to thank the members of the community who have voiced their support, including the Hays Valley Neighborhood Association, in hopes to have your support for this amendment and for this project.

Thank you, Madison. Good afternoon again, commissioners. To build on my brief introductory remarks, the project before you today would demolish two existing non-residential buildings and a surface parking lot and construct a new approximately 508,000 square foot residential building with a tower over podium design containing 541 dwelling units. As mentioned, the podium portion of the building is 14 stories high, with a roof height of approximately 139 feet, while the tower extends to 41 stories, reaching a roof height of 400 feet. Inclusive of screening and an elevator overrun, the total height of the building would be 437 feet. In total, the project includes 135 off-street accessory parking spaces within the principally permitted limit, three car share spaces, one off-street freight loading space, two off-street service loading vehicle spaces, as well as 210 class 1 and 27 class 2 bicycle parking spaces. To further activate the ground floor experience, the project would make streetscape improvements to create a public plaza within a portion of the Oak Street frontage. As mentioned, prior versions of the project were previously approved in 2017 and 2022. The current proposal differs from the modified project approved in 2022, primarily through the increase in the dwelling unit count with an increase of 81 dwelling units, the removal of ground floor retail space, a reduction of the total proportion of two bedroom dwelling units, the taller building podium height, and a reduction of total common usable open space, which is primarily attributable to the incorporation of an accessible loading zone on Oak Street that was instituted at the request of SFMTA. So the other significant difference between this project and the 2022 project is that this does rely on a zoning map amendment to increase the height and the bulk district classifications. And the way that our height and bulk districts are written and structured makes verbal narration a little hard to follow. So I have created a few maps. I think everyone has copies. I do have extra if you need. OK, so to start with the first map, this represents the conditions as they existed as of January 1 of this year and are consistent with the height and bulk districts that were in effect when the previous projects were approved and when the current project was applied for. So as you see, the majority of the site is within this 120 slash 400 R2 height and bulk district. The single slash separates the permitted podium height from the tower height. So within this kind of darker colored portion, the structure is allowed to be up to 120 feet for the podium, 400 feet for the tower. And the project was designed to comply in terms of the tower height and location, but the 139 foot podium does exceed that. And then you'll also see here Parcel 5 is essentially bisected with the western half located entirely within the 120R2 district, which just does not define a tower height. So it only allows for the 120-foot podium. So moving on to map 2. So moving on to map two, these are the heightened bulk districts as they exist today and reflect changes that were made as part of the family zoning plan rezoning. And so you'll see now there are these kind of additional numbers that follow the double slash. And those are what would be permitted under the newly created Housing Choice San Francisco program. So for projects that are utilizing that program, they're allowed up to either both 140-foot podium and a 450-foot tower. Since the project is seeking authorization pursuant to 309, it is subject to the lower base height limits, which are the first preceding numbers. And the rezoning did not change the base heights, with the exception of it removed the geographic split on parcel 5. So whereas previously the tower could encroach on the eastern half of parcel 5, as a result of the rezoning, there's now a discrepancy in the location of the tower, which is also something that the zoning map amendment would resolve by looking at map 3. And that would just supply a uniform height and bulk district to the entire project site that allows 140 feet for the base podium height and 400 feet for the base tower height. And I will just note that even though the geographic range of the tower height limit would expand, the bulk controls of 270 further limit where the tower can go. So ultimately, this doesn't say that a tower could be built right on there. the side property line without either some sort of exception or redesign. In terms of public comments, since publication of the staff report, staff have received six letters in support of the project that generally affirm the need for additional residential capacity, especially at a site that is so well served by public transit. We did receive one letter in opposition to the project citing a request for further environmental review specific to wind and traffic impacts. The department has also received four letters specifically related to the zoning map amendment expressing concerns about effects on the neighboring Oak property's light that's accessible through the light well and kind of general concerns about strain on neighborhood infrastructure and traffic patterns. So the items before you today are the adoption of findings under CEQA and a statement of overriding considerations, adoption of a recommendation of approval of the zoning map amendment to the Board of Supervisors, approval of the downtown project authorization with six exceptions pursuant to 309, and then the adoption of shadow findings pursuant to Section 295. The zoning administrator is also here today to consider a variance request from the above-grade parking setback requirements of the code. There's a parking stacker that's located within 25 feet of the Market Street facade triggering that variance. And the zoning administrator will also consider a request for a height exemption to accommodate the elevator elevator penthouse, thus allowing the elevator overrun to meet state or federal regulations. As one small housekeeping item, conditions one and three in attachment A of the downtown authorization states that the validity period is tied to the motion authorizing the project. It should instead read that the validity period begins when the zoning map amendment becomes effective. And I have a red line version of those slight changes if you would like to review. So in summary, the planning department recommends approval of the project for the reasons outlined within the draft motions before you. The department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the city's general plan, the downtown area plan, and the Market and Octavia area plan. The project would redevelop a keystone parcel at the intersection of two of the city's most important thoroughfares, building on numerous policies that support a vision for vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods. One of the principal goals of the Market in Octavia area plan is to concentrate additional growth where it is most responsible and productive to do so, maximizing residential density near public transit service. This project would add significant amount of housing to a site that is currently underdeveloped, well served by existing transit, and is within walking distance of substantial goods and services. That concludes my presentation. And I'm available for any questions. And I will now turn it over to the project sponsor.

Thank you. Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Good afternoon, commissioners, President Campbell, Vice President Moore, Director Dennis Phillips, and Administrator Teague. My name is Brynn McKiernan, and I'm representing Emerald Fund as project sponsor. Emerald has been at work in San Francisco building homes in nearly every district in the city for over 46 years, including 1,000 homes in the Market Octavia neighborhood. We're very committed to activation and more housing in this neighborhood.

Could you kindly talk into the mic a little bit more? Yeah, sorry. Thank you so much. Sorry to interrupt.

Is it good?

That's perfect. This is better? OK. Thank you so much. Great. It's a persnickety mic. It's a tall people problem. I get it.

I'd also like to thank planning staff Joseph Saki, Rachel Schutt, Chelsea Fordham, and Nick Foster for all their work on this project. As Joseph mentioned, the project was originally entitled in 2017 for 304 condos. It was subsequently re-entitled in 2022 for 460 rental units to respond to the then market conditions. However, little housing has commenced since then. In response, the city passed pipeline project legislation to spur entitled projects and assist in financial feasibility. This modified 1-0 project utilizes that legislation and adds more residential units to further financial feasibility as the market returns. By and large, the proposed modifications maintain the same building envelope as the 2017 and 2022 proposals, with the goal of adding 81 more units within the same overall tower height. The project has received several letters of support from the community, including the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association, which we're very honored to receive. To go over the physical modifications, I'd like to turn over the podium to project architect Strachan Forgan, principal at SCB. I also have three printouts of the presentation if you want. Otherwise, it's all going to be virtual. If anybody needs them, let me know. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Strachan Forgan, principal with SCB architects. It's my honor to present the design changes for One Oak. And the design revisions are really driven by two primary goals, to deliver more housing and to improve the project's viability through greater efficiency. The tower continues to anchor the goal point at the intersection of Oak Street, Van Ness, and Market. It still rises 400 feet, and it still has a decorative crown to screen the mechanical equipment. We worked closely with the planning staff to establish a vision for the hub, including an urban design principle that the street wall should rise at the city's major intersections. While the broader hub plan was not formally realized, the taller podiums were codified in the family zoning plan for both One Oak and for Hayes Point. At One Oak, this allows two additional floors of podium residential units. With the increased height, the podium height, we re-evaluated the architectural expression. We allowed the tower element to extend all the way to the ground, elongating its form and giving the podium a distinct identity, separated by a facade reveal. We also included a three-story rhythm to further emphasize the tower's verticality. The tower floor plates were increased to 12,000 gross square feet, consistent with updates to the zoning. This change allows for more units and significantly improved floor plate efficiency, as the core remains a similar size to before. Here you can see a side-by-side comparison of the podium floors above and the tower floor plates below. With the enlarged tower plates shown on the right, all the units are now compliant with the dwelling unit exposure requirement. The ground floor remains very similar to before, with the lobby and the parking accessed off Oak Street. And a new community room and leasing office now anchors the intersection, ensuring that activation will be there from day one. The curb alignments on Oak Street have been refined with input from SFMTA and with ESTAT. Just wrapping up, the elevations illustrate the tower expression, the three-story facade rhythm, and the taller podium. And then on the west side of the tower, you can see these recessed loggias, which are part of the wind mitigation strategy, which have now been more fully integrated into the tower's facade expression. Overall, we believe these design changes successfully accommodate the increased unit count and the added bulk in an elegant architectural expression that celebrates the Gore Point and relates also to the character the other projects plan for this important intersection. We look forward to your questions and can address any comments that you have. Thank you.

Thank you. If that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item, or these items, I should say. If you want to come forward, and if there's any more, then you can line up on the screen side of the room.

Good afternoon, conditioners. My name is Ryan Hong, and I am the owner of the Oak, a 109-unit residential apartment building here in San Francisco, located directly adjacent to the proposed development. I'm speaking on item 7A, specifically the zoning map amendment related to the increase in podium height from 120 feet to 140 feet. First, I want to say that we are generally supportive of this project and the additional housing it brings. However, we do have a specific concern with the proposed increase in podium heights. This change would directly impact our residents through loss of natural light, reduce privacy, and overall livability in the units facing the development. We believe maintaining the current podium height is consistent with good planning principles that balance new development with existing neighborhood conditions and helps avoid setting a precedent for similar increases in the future. We're not opposing the project, just asking for a targeted adjustment to maintain the originally proposed 120 foot podium height. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Commissioners, thank you. I'm Tup Fisher. I'm an executive vice president and senior portfolio manager with Washington Capital Management, and we own the site. We are a union pension fund advisor. The vast majority of our investors are Taft-Hartley Union pension funds, so carpenters, plumbers, electricians, ironworkers. Let me give you some statistics for our involvement in San Francisco going back to 2003. We've been involved in 14 projects in Northern California, six in the city of San Francisco including, but not limited to, 333 First Street, which is the Metropolitan, 1634 Pine, which is the Rockwell, 160 Folsom, which is Mira, 101 Polk, AKA the Civic, and 531 Bryant, as well as office building over on Bluxom. That's over a billion dollars in total projects in Northern California, and that's well over half a billion dollars of projects here in San Francisco. And whereas it's totally an art and we have our particular optimistic way, we've provided somewhere between three and four million labor hours for the union construction trades here in San Francisco. As to the One Oak project, our involvement goes back to a loan we closed on the property in 2019. After we foreclosed in first quarter of 2023, we have taken ownership. We are committed to the project and to the recovery of the Market Octavia neighborhood as the city continues to rebound. My ask today is that you support the expansion of this project as proposed. Excuse me. Supporting One Oak is not only adding more needed housing on an underutilized site, it's also supporting union workers here in the Bay Area and investments in union pension funds. A vote for this project will have ripple effects through both the city of San Francisco as well as the union community. Thank you for your time, and thank you, staff, for all of your diligent and tireless work on this project.

Good afternoon, President Amy Campbell, Vice President Catherine Moore, and member of the San Francisco Planning Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jay Anthony Menjivar, and I'm an organizer with the North Coast States Carpenters Union, Local Union 22 here in the beautiful city of San Francisco. I'm speaking today on behalf of my brothers and sisters who live and work in this city in strong support of 1500 Market Street, housing development One Oak. I was born and raised in San Francisco and continue to reside here. It is only since I became an organizer that I realized a successful career as a union carpenter in San Francisco or anywhere for that matter relies on a lot of good stewards. We're all stewards of elements here and recognize the quality and standards we want to achieve and can be only delivered with union general contractor. Emerald Fund's commitment to using union labor on this project is critical. That commitment directly translates into creating good union jobs for San Francisco, including opportunities for women and minorities to begin or continue their careers in the construction industry for our members. This means strong wages, family supporting benefits, and career pathways that sustains households and builds the next generation of skilled carpenters, all while delivering the highest standards of safety and craftsmanship. This housing development represents a meaningful step towards economic recovery and revitalization. Emerald Fund has demonstrated from the outset a commitment to doing the right thing by working collaboratively with organized labor and a history of good stewardship in San Francisco. The owner of the site, Washington Capital, assembles and invests construction and union pensions fund dollars to build important structures and generate needed returns on pensions holders, as well as create good union jobs and construction jobs. On behalf of the Norco State Carpenters Union Local 22, I respectfully urge the Commission to support and approve the proposed housing development at 1500 Market Street. Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, chair and commissioners. My name is Jeff Koo. I'm the property manager of the old guest house apartment, which is directly adjacent to the proposed project. I'm very excited about this project, as it will bring a lot more housing and help improve our neighborhood safety. However, the height and the massing of the project present challenges. The 41-story tower already blocks most of the view of our east-facing units, and the 14-story, 139-foot podium portion of the tower will potentially block most of the building, which is about 13 stories tall, including our rooftop, making it more imposing for nearby residents. By comparison, the existing co-working space adjacent to our building is only about six stories tall. From an operational standpoint, residents have raised concerns about reduced natural sunlight, increased exposure, and privacy for units facing this development. This impact could affect overall livability and comfort for residents. I hope the final design better aligns with the height of the previous structures, ideally, and includes setbacks or other adjustments to reduce this impact, for example, keeping it at 120 feet height the most. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Ethan. I currently live at the Oak, and it's right next to the proposed development. I'm concerned about the increase in height from 120 to 140 feet. Naturally, I live at home. I work from home, so I don't get a lot of time to go outside. And the sunlight that comes into my home is very good for my mental health, and it helps me be more productive in my day-to-day life. And my unit faces the project, so it would have a direct impact on my unit, which would be pretty bad for me. An additional 20 feet would make a noticeable difference in how much light reaches my home. I respectfully ask that you keep the height at 120 feet. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Eddie Reyes. I am the president of Ironworkers Local 377 here in San Francisco Bay Area. I urge you to approve this project as proposed. Besides helping keep union members working, it also provides many opportunities for San Francisco and Bay Area apprentices to enter the trades. With this slowdown that's been going on since COVID hit, All work hours are down across the trades. We need to help the younger generation come in. I myself came in under the same proposals that are in front of you. We worked very closely with CityBuild and helped all city residents and Bay Area residents enter the trades. This is a great opportunity to continue that for young minorities, women, anybody that's interested in the trades and building a career and pension and all the opportunities provided. I urge you to approve this as proposed. Thank you very much for your time.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. Appreciate staff's hard work on this. This is another 400-page packet that we have to kind of thumb through and look for the key recommendations on. I think to the shadow study point, I think we cleared the hurdle at Reckon Park adequately. I think that when we look at the massing of this overall project, it's consistent. We had a lot of these conversations, not just with the downtown area plan, but with the hub, and the original project on Oak. I know we certainly have been through this process before. I think that the project as proposed is consistent. I think staff recommendation should be followed. There's a question, I think, about the podium itself. I can't get past the idea that we have a developer with this track record who's going to give us more, not less, and who's going to approach this not in an extractive way, but in a way that actually helps us accomplish our stated goals and objectives. And I think importantly, your approval would be consistent with other approvals that this body has made, both with respect to adopting the shadow findings and the EIR and all the consistencies with the downtown area plan. So I respectfully would urge your support. I think it's also important to think about the economic impacts. We oftentimes cite an EPI study that says for every dollar of construction wages and activity you put in, you get an economic output of $3.77. This is a specific area of our mid-market area which has been depressed. It's been deprived of foot traffic. We have local businesses that are now boarded up that weren't even so A few months back, we've got tons of vacancies on the ground floor. I know our Plumbers Union Hall, the Brady, we did so much hard work to maintain the aesthetics and the historic elements of that. And it's just been empty retail. We had this debate, even within Supervisor Dorsey's office recently, about what investments the city can support as it related to the SFERS conversation, right? And whether or not we were going to be OK with decreasing foot traffic. This is that space. This is a really important moment in time for the city to not only keep its own investments in the mid-market area, but also spur responsible development. So we appreciate the developers' commitment to being bullish on San Francisco, to using our union pension capital to try to create that economic activity. But we also recognize that as you thoroughly look at the four motions before you, you would be supporting a consistent position of this body by approving staff's recommendations. So I appreciate all your time and public service. Thank you.

Hey there. I'm Jamie Mercurio, just a local startup founder here in SF. I've lived here for a few years. Just wanted to say thank you for approving more housing generally. A lot of my friends struggle to find apartments here, and building definitely helps. On that note, my girlfriend actually just moved here from New York, and she was doing the housing search in the Civic Center area. And it was tough. I mean, she was looking at some of these other tall buildings that are there, and they're almost all completely full. So there is definitely demand for a project like this from the renter side. Um, and approving this would definitely help other folks going through the search like she was. So I appreciate you doing that. And, uh, there's already, you know, a lot of, a few skyscrapers already in the area. So there certainly are other neighborhoods folks can go if they're not looking for, uh, to live in a tall building or near one. But, um, I, I appreciate what you guys do to just increase housing in the area. So thank you.

Last call for public comment.

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

OK, I'll go first. Thanks for the presentations. I actually cross Van Essen Market every day on my bike, twice a day, and can't help but look at all four corners of that intersection. I know there's a giant hole in one of them. But the All Star Cafe always catches my eye, because I think, I can't wait to see what this is. one day. So incredibly exciting project. It's wonderful to see it moving forward in this way. I agree with the sentiment around lovely to see that we're actually adding more units at a time when it's incredibly the margins are so thin. on these projects financially. And I love that the city has created a way that we have these alternative pathways available to project sponsors to achieve that kind of feasibility. So hats off to the city for creating that. I loved seeing the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association letter. One thing that stuck out to me, which I wondered about as well, kind of the public realm and the ground floor. And there was a note in the letter just saying, we look forward to continued dialogue to ensure that this is going to be an asset to the community. And I would love it if the project sponsor could just take a minute to walk us through the ground floor and the public realm. so we can just understand where that's at and if where continued dialogue might go.

KATHLEEN SULLIVAN- Sure. I'll defer to the architect on the design matters. But yes, when I spoke to the Hays Valley Neighborhood Association, that was a large concern. And these plans are very conceptual. And so that continued dialogue should and would happen after entitlements to figure out during DDs and permitting of what the materiality is all going to be about. When I was discussing it with Hays Valley, the incentives are aligned, right? That's the front of this building. It's where you want 500-plus residents to feel comfortable with day and night. And so I think there's definitely some overlap and design alignment, if you will. But I think that asking for that continued coordination is very feasible. Strachan can talk to the design. Thank you.

Sure. So as I mentioned before, the design is very consistent with the prior design. It's a challenging site because we essentially have three front... If we bring up the... SFGov, can we go to the computer, please? Yeah. So on the left is the prior entitled design. On the right is the modification. Essentially, it's more or less exactly the same. As I mentioned, we're challenged because we've got three front doors, essentially. The lobby is still activating Oak Street. The parking entrance is on Oak. Previously we did have a retail at the Van Ness intersection. There was some concern that that would remain vacant for a long time and also with the added units that we needed some more community space and also a leasing office. That switch has been made so that there will be activation in that space from day one. And then, inevitably, there are some kind of back-of-house functions that we also have to accommodate, like the PG&E vaults and so on. So some of those are on Market Street. But we try to reduce those to the minimum feasible, and then also have elements like the mailroom that will also act as a visual activation.

Thank you. Commissioner Imperial?

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Looking into the, you know, comparing to the 2022-2026, I do agree there is a minor variations in it. And we're talking about the podium height increasing. Again, I guess, you know, in terms of the shadow findings in Patricia Green, I'd like to emphasize the importance of Patricia Green in Hayes Valley. I mean, I live nearby, and that is like the living room of the Hays Valley. And so as, you know, I understand there is a little, there is a minor shadow impact as well, but I'd like to know how long will shadow impact. It looks like the most part of it is around in the morning, 8, 15. And usually around that time, people are walking by with their dogs. And so I'd like to know how long will be the shadow impact for that.

Hi, Commissioner. Thank you for the question. I would need to spend a little extra time looking for precise numbers for you. But as outlined in the shadow study itself, there are additional impacts beyond the 2022 version. Part of that is attributable to just kind of updated modeling estimates. I think we may have better data now than we did four years ago. But if you want kind of precise information from the shadow study, I would need to take a moment and look for that. And I could come back up after that.

Yeah, I'm looking into the, but I don't see how long is it. My other question is around the All Star Cafe. What will happen to that? Or what are the conversations with the property owner of the All Star Cafe or the business owner?

I can speak to that. The All Star Cafe would be demolished. And I believe that the site owner wants to talk about it. But it would be demolished. And I don't think it would happen for some time while it still goes to building permits. So we would work with them on notifications of vacancy and demolition. But they are aware. Yeah, they're aware. we put the notification signs so they're aware that the project is happening and has been in discussion for years.

And has there been conversations on how they can be helped, assistance, whether in relocation or perhaps, I understand this new modification doesn't have a retail space anymore. So what would be the assistance or what would be the plan for that small business?

There is no retail space right now. I think retail is, as you know, really hard to fill. Emerald manages 100 and 150 Venice, and there's still some empty retail, and it's really challenging. I can't imagine there wouldn't be conversations about what to do next. Emerald is just the site sponsor. We're not the owner, so I don't think we have direct communication with them. But we can certainly look into it, get back to you if this answer is not satisfactory.

Yes. Yeah, it will be. Again, I mean, I think these are conversations that have happened before. But even from the last 2022 project, there wasn't really a plan, I believe, for the all-star cafe or for that property owner. I think whether it's the property developer or the city, the city should definitely step up to help the All Star Cafe, whether in assistance or finding a place where they can be relocated. It will be ideal if it's in the Hays Valley still, especially in that area, even though the food traffic is low. But actually, in the morning, you see a lot of people coming in and out of that all-star cafe. Because again, you see a lot of institutional buildings are in that area as well. So you see a lot of office workers working on that. So that's something that perhaps the city and the developer can work on in terms of the all-star cafe and the business in that area. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for bringing it up, and we can certainly take it under advisement.

Thank you. Thank you. Another thing is the... And thank you for the people who just walked in. I think it looks like they're the owners or renters from the nearby property building. Have there been conversations with them as well, how it may affect, or studies even, on how it will affect... It may not be required, as far as I know, in terms of how it may impact the next building. But has there been conversations with neighbors

Another good question. The individuals that spoke today I have not talked to directly, so there has not been direct conversation. We did reach out to over 30 organizations who are on the public notification list. It was not required, but we did reach out to them. And I did not receive any feedback, or I haven't received any communication from the neighbors My email address was on the notifications since the notices were posted so And we can continue those conversations, but no there has not been any direct communication.

Yeah I think it will even though it's not required and I think it's still be a good neighborly diligence to reach out to the to the phones and Again, it doesn't look like they're anti your, but they would like to know the impact of that podium, particularly in the podium to their privacy, especially on the privacy part. Again, for the people who came in, the view is not usually protected by the planning code, but privacy and sunlight are. So that's something to look into. So yeah, so just something for the residents to think about and also to... something to work on.

Can I add a note, too, about the 140 podium? So I think, and Strachan can correct me if I'm wrong, but the 140 height is to bring alignment up to match the surrounding buildings. I think the Oak is also 140 feet. 10 Venice and 30 South Venice is also at 140 feet podium. So the goal is to also provide some urban design alignment also. In order to add housing units, three things were achieved. There was a unit mix change. And then it was, do you raise the podium or do you raise the tower? And so in order to not have additional sunlight on Patricia Green, which is mostly coming from the tower, right? The podium seemed like very much the logical place to add that additional needed density.

No, I think in terms of the design, I'm not architect, but in terms of design, it does align in terms of the, but I'm just concerned as to what a conversation has been like with the residents and perhaps some mitigating measures in terms of that, especially if we're talking about privacy, if there's going to be, I'm not, again, this is not part of the discussion. usually of the work, but again, as part of the outreach, perhaps. And it looks like the people just notice it because of the notice. So I just want to highlight that. Thank you. Thank you. And one thing, again, as much, I mean, this is a great location really for residential, the food traffic. I agree with, in terms of the location of it. But one thing that still hesitates to me, for a big project as this, it's a great opportunity for on-site housing. And that is something that I am really struggling with. And I know you're working on your numbers, but this is a great opportunity for having on-site affordable housing. So this is where the correct... TAKES ME, I MEAN, THE SAME THING THAT I VOTED LAST 2022 IS THE SAME REASON STILL, THE REASON FOR ME WHY, I MEAN, I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE STILL THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY TO STILL CONTINUE. SO THANK YOU.

I have to say, when I first look at this building, I have to say that I like the new design. It does look a lot better looking. And then it's not just the look. It's also you addressed the much important need for the wind tunnel effect. So I really appreciate that. And I'm looking forward to see this for real, like getting it built. much needed that this area is so important to the corridor for people coming into San Francisco and experience the rest of San Francisco. And right now I would like to, I would hopefully like to see your project moving forward in really high speed, because I believe that your project will improve streetscape safety. And you activated that area that is much needed to be activated. And I do hope that I think you will be putting a lot more lighting and streetscape to make sure it is a safer street and to keep the continuation of Van Ness corridor that we have. In light of what you're asking today, adjusting, massaging your building mass to fit a better need for what the market currently can bear. And also, I really appreciate your full team has spoken, designer, manager, and the equity partners. This is also bringing in a long-lasting impact to not only the people who can actually live there, but also people who rely on the investment to retire with our workforce community. And also, I see that you also are committed to give about, was it $22 million to the Affordable Housing Fund? 20.7 million. So that's something that we really, really need. I hope you can give it to us sooner. So with that, I think that your request is actually quite reasonable in light of what we have the market right now and what we wanted to see happen to encourage people continue to keep on investing in San Francisco for our professionals and also for our union workers. And you will bring in not only market rate housing, but also contribute to our much needed affordable housing funding. And your design in general is much more good looking and also performance based. So in that regard, I understand a lot of concerns about privacy views. shadows and whatnot. But this is really asking for a pretty modest increase. And also the streets are kind of really big. And I do think that such a large-scale skyscraper, your glazing performance needs certain kinds of fritting and coating. So visibility is a lot kind of a, what is that word, a lot less transparent. So I think everything is pretty realistic, and I would like to motion to approve item 7A through E. Wait, no, E is for Corey, so A through D. A through D, approved with conditions and also approved to adopt findings. Second.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you. I just wanted to thank all the folks that came out to give testimony, the residents around the neighborhood, and also organized labor. This project, to me, when I look at it, it's not much different than what was approved previously in 2023 by this commission. And so having said that, there are a few differences that some of the commissioners have mentioned. One, to me, that I always look at is affordable housing. only because I understand the need. Unfortunately, you know, the project sponsor has chosen not to provide any on-site affordable housing. I guess that's a financial decision. And so, you know, I understand that. And so that's just something I wanted to mention, that it's a missed opportunity. I'm sure lower income people would love to live here, too, as well. And so I'll just leave it there. Also, I had a question on the retail space. Because when you're walking in this area, it feels like there's not enough retail. And one of the things I thought about when reading through the project was, How is the building going to interact with the community? The original project or the one that came before us before had the retail. And there was an opportunity to activate the community with that retail. Now that's gone. And so folks are going to come out of the BART station and there's going to be nothing to really interact with, just a big building. And so I understand occupancy has been tough, getting people to rent. But I'm wondering, is that because of people not being interested? Or is it just too expensive to rent those spaces? And that's just a general comment. I think we want to activate Market Street, and I think everybody in this city would like to see Market Street more activated. I remember growing up here, being a kid, and seeing all the wonderful small businesses along Market Street. Unfortunately, that's gone. I just wanted to throw that out there, that is it that we can't find people, or are these spaces too expensive for them, for regular businesses to operate? I think it's a missed opportunity to not have retail here. I don't want to stop the project, because I think there's a lot of positive things going for it. I verbalize my concerns. But is there any chance that there could be a change as far as the retail?

Yeah, Commissioner Williams, that's a really good point. The whole premise of this re-entitlement is feasibility, right? I think we all want to see this project happen. And right now, what makes the most feasible sense is not having retail. There's two other considerations, too, in thinking about the ground floor retail space. One, I don't believe it's required anymore. And so that was sort of a zoning change that has happened in response to the many vacant retail shops, I believe. We have a hard reality across the street that it's been vacant for so long, and it really dampens the experience for the residents coming in and out. And so that's a lesson learned that we have that we don't want to replicate on this. Whether it's expensive to them versus what rent we would be charging, To us, I would say that the retail rent is not the profit driver on this. It's mostly activation. And I'm not a retail operator. But my understanding, too, is that it's expensive to have staff in the city. And it's expensive business venture to operate, hence all the retail vacancy that's happening. So while that's happening, the non-requirement and the really bad market conditions, The fact that there's no retail means that we can actually control the ground floor activation a lot more with a lobby. And the lobby can take over a lot more space. And so you have 541 plus residents activating that lobby, waiting for their Lyft or Uber, or waiting to meet friends and go to the other retail spaces that hopefully are active. at some point. So it's both in response to the market and then a way for that ground floor activation to be more in control of us rather than us waiting for a tenant to come and hopefully want to occupy and pay whatever rents. I think hopefully that.

I appreciate that. I understand what you're conveying. I appreciate the response. Again, I don't want to put you on the spot. And so I'll just say that. Again, I don't want to hold the project up. I'm in support of the project overall. I just wanted to throw out some things I think that were important to highlight. But thank you.

Thank you for bringing it up. I'm also happy to talk to the BMR thing if you would like as well.

Commissioner Braun.

I'm really excited that this development team has remained committed to making this project work. As we've seen, it's gone through a lot of iterations. This has been in the works for a long time, and conditions have just been really challenging. The market conditions have been very challenging, and I see the changes to try to keep this moving along, so I appreciate the commitment. I wanted to touch for a moment on the issues raised by residents and owners of the Oak at 55 Oak Street. You know, to me, when I look at the plans for the building we're considering with that podium that would now be additional two stories in height, It does clearly have the sort of complementary and even larger light well area that I would expect. It's not that this project forms a sheer wall against the oak. I've been in those units at the oak that face interior to that sort of light well and where the glass connector between the two sides of the building sits. And so I definitely see the concern. But at the same time, I mean, the whole reason the building is designed that way is that another building can be built next to it of similar height. with a complimentary light well and I see that this project does include that light well. And I think the increase in height is pretty reasonable. It looks from the plans to be about a single story taller than the oak and pretty close to what the oak's height is. So I think that this meets expectations of the city and sort of our planning code. The other thing I want to point out is that what I'm noticing is that the increased podium at 140 feet, that's also allowed through the alternative pathway created through our family zoning. So there is actually another pathway anyway that would still sort of by right, if certain requirements are met, allow 140 foot podium. So I think that the ask is pretty reasonable there. And then otherwise, I think commissioners have said most of what needs to be said. I'll just say on the retail space, I think it was a pretty modest space originally. There is a lot of vacant retail space already to the west of this building within a block or so. So I'm not concerned about losing one small storefront on a block that already has a lot of space to be filled. And then I see this complies with our current applicable requirements and asks of affordable housing resource contributions. Getting those units built on site immediately would be nice, but also we can leverage some of the outside funding sources for 100% deeper affordability types of projects with the in lieu fees that would be paid. And so, yeah, that's just what I wanted to say, and I support the project and the changes to it. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Teague.

Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Just speaking specifically to the variance, I mean, there's already been conversation about the ground floor issues and the retail space and the design. I think everyone in the room wants to make sure that the ground floor is kind of activated as much as possible. I think especially along Market Street. I mean, obviously, that's a large frontage, and Market Street is our primary main street. downtown and we have the Muni access right there. So I think what we're hearing is a lot of dedication long term to go with the flow over time and do everything possible to get the ground floor activated as much as possible. Having said that, for a building of this size and height, on a lot of the small size and kind of gumdrop shape creates a lot of constraints for just back of house and a lot of the building requirements that you have. And the parking that is provided is not taking up a huge amount of space on the ground floor. It is relatively, because it's a constrained small area, but it's still relatively modest at that level. So I'm supportive of granting the variance again on the ground floor, but with the continued hope that everything can be done in the future to activate that market street frontage as much as possible.

Thank you. I think if there's no other comments, we're ready for a vote. Jonas?

Indeed, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval for the MAP amendment, adopting findings and statement of overriding considerations, approving the downtown project authorization, and adopting shadow findings on that motion. Commissioner So?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. No. Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Campbell. Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes 5-1 with Commissioner Imperial voting against. Zoning Administrator would say.

I will close the public hearing for the variance and attend to grant with standard conditions.

Thank you. Commissioners, that'll place us under your discretionary review calendar for item 8, case number 2025-006120DRP for the property at 2620 20th Street. This is a discretionary review.

Oh, he's here. Amazing timing. Beautiful.

Apparently I'm here. Yes. Thank you, sir. It's DR. Should we wait for Commissioner Moore? No. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, President Campbell and commissioners, David Winslow, staff architect. The item before you today, the first one, is a public initiated request for discretionary review of permit application 2026.0106.3267 to construct a new one hour rated firewall at, I'm sorry, start off with the wrong case. Let me start over. The item before you is planning application 2025-006120 to construct a rear horizontal addition and deck to a three-story single-family building. The existing building is a category C, no historic resource present. And the DR requester, Kevin Chin, on behalf of Catherine and Carrie Chin and Karen Wong of 2618 20th Street, the neighbors to the immediate east, are concerned that this project does not take into account the geology and poses a structural risk, creates privacy intrusion into private open space and windows, and the massing and scale does not comply with the residential design guidelines related to scale and preservation of light. Their proposed alternatives are to, one, require a geotech report and pre-construction survey. Two, to mandate on-site construction monitoring and submission of foundation plans. Three, provide a five-foot setback from the shared property line. Four, to evaluate modifications that would prevent visual and physical access. And then five, reduce the height or step the massing. To date, their department has not received any letters in opposition nor in support of the project. The staff's review of this modest one-story addition with a deck noted that the building, the subject building, is shallower than its adjacent uphill neighbor, the DR requester, and that the proposed first floor extends no further than the rear wall of the adjacent neighbor. A portion of the deck and exterior stair landing extends six feet beyond the neighbor's rear wall. And this degree of extension is typically acceptable due to the modest dimension and function as a stair landing, as well as its limited height, especially in relation to the neighbor's property line window. That property line window is an existing non-complying condition that does not typically require special consideration or response from reasonable and modest development. And therefore, staff does not typically mandate privacy measures in such circumstances. Geotech reports are structural review of foundation design or not in the purview of the planning department to review or regulate. This occurs after planning review and approval and when the building design is finalized so that technical drawings can be made with the certainty of scope based on the approved planning set. The Department of Building Inspection typically reviews the structural plans for adequacy and when the project applies for a building permit. This project does comply with the planning code and the residential design guidelines related to building to be compatible with scale at the rear, mid-block open space, and articulating of the building to minimize impacts to light and air. The proposed addition will have a reasonably insignificant impact and on this condition and staff sees no reason to request any modification. Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we should hear from the discretionary review requester. You have five minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioner Sowell, Commissioner LeBron, Commissioner Imperial, Commissioner Williams, President Campbell, and Vice President Moore.

My name is Kevin Chin. Excuse me.

And thank you for the opportunity to speak. The supplemental addendum provides new information that became necessary after my original DER packet was submitted. The new evidence clarifies contradiction in this applicant's statements, documents, and applicant's refusal to consider a feasible modification and highlights a code-related issue that cannot be resolved at DBI. The trellis versus roof contradiction. A major new issue arose after my revised DR packet was submitted. The applicant's plan labeled the structure above the deck as a trellis, which must remain at least 65% open and does not require a firewall. However, a recent correspondence with the applicant's council stated the trellis is really a structural roof used to weatherproof the area and requires a firewall. If a roof then, the plans are incomplete, no waterproof or drainage details are provided, no access or maintenance is shown, no code analysis changes, the project cannot approve as submitted. If it is a trellis, no firewall is required. There is no justification for covering my legal non-conforming window. The contradiction is significant and directly affects code compliance. Feasible alternatives exist. To resolve the window issue without affecting the applicant's program, my architect prepared a five feet by five feet open trellis corner that keeps the trellis compliant with plan code 136, eliminates the need for a firewall, preserves my legal non-conforming window, requires no change to the applicant's mask or footprint. This is a simple feasible solution. The applicant declined to consider modification. After receiving the architect's design, my counsel formally asked the applicant to consider a minimal adjustment. The applicant declined. The refusal is documented in the supplemental addendum exhibits Provided this leaves the Commission as the only body body to able to resolve the conflict between the proposed zero setback design and the code required and the code required access and safety conditions and Access feasibility code compliance. Well, this hits the core issue of my revised DR. The project is designed directly against my foundation and structural elements. The applicant's design places new constructions directly against a five-inch thick slab, 15-foot wide, that is physically bonded to my foundation. Two load bearings, two-story wooden pillars, structures located within the project impact zone. A five-inch gap that terminates above my wall and foundation would create a concealed unventilated void. No access for waterproofing, drainage, or termite treatment. These are existing structures conditions that the applicant's plans do not address under CBC code 3307. The applicant must protect the adjacent property and provide access for inspection, waterproofing, and termite treatment. The current zero setback design does not allow any of that. For this reason, a modest 24 to 36 inch project size setback remains necessary to ensure safe construction, long term access for both properties, compliance with CBC code 3307, avoidance of concealed voids, feasible waterproofing and termite treatment, preservation of structural stability. A trellis modification is a supplemental solution, not a replacement for the setback request. My request to the commission, I respectfully ask the commission to acknowledge the inconsistency between the applicant's plan set and his council's claim that a trellis is really a roof. Required applicant to clarify whether the structure is a trellis or a roof. Adopt my architect's trellis modification as shown in supplement exhibit I as a feasible alternative that preserves my legal non-conforming window. imposed a 24 to 36 inch project size setback to resolve the structural access and conceal issues documented in my original revised ER packet that accurately reflects existing conditions and provide a complete foundation and access strategy. Thank you for your time and consideration. I support the applicants to build, and I'm simply asking for clarity, compliance, and minimum conditions needed to ensure the project can be built and maintained safely.

Okay. We should hear from the project sponsor. We also have five minutes.

I'm going to use this. I'm not sure how to. Do I just put it?

Just put it down face up, yeah. SFGov.

Orientation changes. Can I switch it as I go?

I'm sorry?

Orientation changes on these pages. Can I switch them? Yes.

Yeah.

You can zoom out on top.

Hello. Thanks, everyone. I'll do my best here. Public speaking is not my favorite thing. I've been a Mission resident since the early 90s. My family moved into our home on 20th Street in 2013. I'm a small business owner and have operated two businesses in the Mission for the past 33 years. My wife is a San Francisco public school teacher, and our daughter goes to public school here as well. I share this simply to say we're just a regular family. This has been part of the neighborhood for decades, and we care about it deeply. For several years, we've been planning a small addition with a roof deck just outside our dining room. We refinanced our home to afford this project and even help with the design to save on the costs. Our goals are pretty straightforward. We want to create an indoor-outdoor space that connects directly to our dining room, extending that space outside. Below it, we've added a room and a bathroom. Our daughter is heading off to college soon, and if she returns, she could stay there and have a little bit of separation from us. Our proposal is straightforward. We want to create an indoor-outdoor space that indoor-outdoor space that connects directly to our dining room, extending that space outside. I did this already. The addition is modest at about 25% of what code allows. Our design is well below the maximum to control costs, minimize impact, and preserve as much open space as possible. The trellis does include a weatherproof roof, and this is described in many places on the plans. The back and forth that he's referring to is not true. The framing is decorative, but the roof itself is functional. It makes the deck usable year-round. This is not a luxury amenity. It's what makes this space practical for my family. That's just another one showing the massing comparative. The code requires a one-hour firewall. That's why the wall exists. It's not something we're adding by choice. The wall does step down at the back of our roof, allowing more light and air into the Chin's garden. It also provides protection, fire protection, and privacy for both parties. Throughout the design process, we made choices to minimize things. We designed our foundation to avoid excavating near the Chin's foundation, even though it increases our costs. We aligned our rear wall with theirs, even though extending it slightly would add notable space at little cost to us. The deck is sized minimally to accommodate a table, a few seats, a barbecue, and a couple planters. Legally, it could be much larger. Unfortunately, we could not develop a design that satisfies both parties. Relations with the Chinns have been challenging over the years, which has been difficult for me and my family. Knowing they are sensitive to everything we do, we carefully considered every alternative, including moving to a new home. We negotiated with the Chins. Several alternatives were discussed with the Chins' attorney, and one was later discussed in a meeting with David Winslow, but was not workable. this one. What they call a minimal opening in the roof is, in fact, quite large and defeats the purpose of the structure. Also during those negotiations, we offered to close our two non-complying property line windows in exchange for them closing theirs and withdrawing the DR request. That offer has not been accepted. I'd also like to take a moment to point out a few important false claims in the submittals by the Chins. Their application states that our proposal omits foundation plans, which is incorrect. They reference a five-inch slab being bonded to their foundation. There's no such slab. Nothing will be attached to their foundation. They reference two low-bearing pillars, and there are no such pillars on the plans. They say that our proposal reaches to the full 40-foot height of the existing structure, but our house, the existing structure, is only about 32 feet high, and the addition will be about 20 feet high. Finally, they mentioned the concealed gap between the buildings, which is not a new or concealed condition. It was discussed with Kevin Chin in the pre-application meeting and has existed between the structures before we even moved in. So we respectfully ask that the proposal be evaluated for what it is, a small code-compliant improvement to a longstanding family home. We're simply hoping to move forward with a modest project that allows us to use our home in a practical way while preserving open space and respecting our neighbors. Thank you for your time.

OK, thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this discretionary review matter. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Discussionary review requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

OK. Well, the question of the trellis, if it is a trellis, then it does not require a firewall in accordance to Planning Code 136. If the trellis is a roof, then it does not comply with with the planning that it should show drainage and maintenanceability. And if a firewall is required, the required firewall is to be maintained between three to five feet from the property line itself. So I am just asking I'm just asking commissioners, thank you again for your time today. The plan shows a trellis, but the applicant now claims that it's a roof. And that contradicts the effects of feasibility, access, and code compliance. exhibits J-1, J-2, K-1, and K-2 documents that the applicant declined to revise the project despite these unresolved issues. In my original and revised DER materials, I've asked the commissioner to consider the setback, while a setback alone does not resolve every structural or access concern. It is necessary to step forward It is a necessary step towards a consistent and maintainable design. I support this applicant's ability to build. I'm simply asking for clarity, compliance, and minimal conditions needed to ensure the project can be built and maintained safely. Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

There seems to be a lot of focus on the trellis versus roof. So I'll point out that on page A1.1, A1.2 of the plans that we submitted, it says new trellis cover dash acrylic waterproof roof comma three form or similar by contractor tip. It also has the same note on page A3.0. Also, both drawings show glass hatching, indicating the trellis is covered by see-through material. It's a standard drawing technique used in architectural plans. I would lean on perhaps Mr. Winslow to talk about the legality code wise of trellis versus roof. The trellis is essentially the decorative portion that's to make it look nice. It's a greenhouse type roof. I also point out that we didn't decline to consider the five by five foot opening. We did considered it. We looked into it. It's about a third the width of the cover and defeats the purpose of the cover Letting water and moisture and weather into the area. We're trying to cover There's lots more but I think that's I covered the rest in my opening statement happy to answer questions if you have them Okay, thank you with that the public hearing portion is closed and this matters now before you commissioners I

Vice President Moore.

Architect Winslow, could you please explain the trellis with its translucent acrylic cover as being a structure that requires a firewall?

Sure. Thank you. But before I do that, I also want to, well, while that's still the topic, I think there was a mention of Section 136 of the Planning Code prohibiting a trellis. Section 136 of the Planning Code is about allowable projections into required rear yards, front yards, and side setbacks. That has nothing to do with this project. It is entirely within the buildable envelope. Building codes might have a different perspective. However, I did do a little investigation on the on behalf of the project in trying to try and find a solution that might work for all parties. And that entailed inquiries with the building department official regarding what the fire protective standards are. The idea basically is that when you build any new structure, to protect it from both fires from the other side of the property and to protect the other side of the property from a fire that could occur on the subject property, for example. So whether it's a trellis or a roof or a dog, it has to be fire protected. And that fire protection needs to go up 30 inches above the plane of the horizontal structure, typically. That's why you have 30 inch parapets, typically. It does not need to be where something is further than, in this case, I believe it would be three feet away from the property line. Because this is an R3 occupancy, I think three feet of separation avoids the need for a fire resistive assembly to protect new construction.

Thank you. I think having clarified that puts the project more in perspective, and I personally would observe it as a modest addition with a modest request for an outdoor space, including a roof that is appropriately covered for inclement weather and the ability to eat outside. So I personally don't see anything exceptional or extraordinary about this DR. I find it a normal request, and while to every solution there is another solution, given that there are constraints, I originally thought that the five-foot cutout may be an idea, but when I realize, look at the rendered plan in terms of dimensions, I see it would really actually limit the usability of this outer space. Having said that, I would like to just simply make a motion not to take DR and approve the project as it is proposed.

Second. Second.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you. I just wanted to thank Mr. Chin for coming out here and understanding you're losing your window according to these plans. And I sympathize with that. Having said that, I think the way Mr. Winslow explained the situation, no matter if it was a trellis or it wasn't a trellis, that firewall would still need to be there, right? And so thank you for clearing that up, Mr. Winslow. Unfortunately, Mr. Chinn, you know, this is code compliant. It's really hard for us to make a determination. Otherwise, that window of yours, unfortunately, is on the property line. So, you know, it's no longer code compliant. And so here we are. But having said that, I do, you know, just want to put that out. I mean, Things are, existing conditions for your neighbors' homes are always something to look out for. It seems like you guys tried to work something out as neighbors. And just saying it out loud that goodwill goes a long way, especially with your neighbors. Hopefully that goodwill was extended. And we are where we are. So, thank you.

Indeed. Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. On that motion, Commissioner So.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. The motion passes unanimously 6-0 and places us on item 9 for case number 2026-000801DRP for the property at 2460 Francisco Street, discretionary review.

Good afternoon again, President Campbell and members of the commission, David Winslow, staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request of building permit application 2026-0106-3267 to construct a new one hour rated firewall at the east side property line deck that was constructed in the light well of a three story single family building. The DR requester, Steve Grossman of 2454 Francisco Street, the neighbor to the immediate east, is concerned that the project allows a deck in a space that should be maintained for light and air, and that a deck diminishes privacy and safety. His proposed alternatives are to construct a six foot high firewall, a six foot high above the level of the deck, that is, replace the combustible materials surrounding the space with non-combustible materials, the walls and the floor, as well as adding a sprinkler system in the added living space. To date, the department has received neither letters in support nor in opposition. Our staff recommendation review of this is the location of this deck is at the second level of a 3 foot 8 inch wide by 10 foot 10 inch deep light well that reciprocates with a similar light well of the adjacent neighbor NDR requester. Although this is not the ideal location for a deck and would not comply with the design guidelines today, the deck has existed, as best we could tell, for about 40 years. The current permit application is to improve the fire resistance per building code with a solid wall that better protects both properties and was required by the Department of Building Inspections investigation of the deck based on a complaint. The existing deck has a six-foot, three-inch wood screen that acts to some degree as a screen. And it is allowable to provide a one-hour fire rated wall and have a similar screening fence, but one more designed to block direct views into the light well windows. The use of the deck for outdoor cooking is beyond our control other than outright denying the permit, and in so doing, eliminating the possibility of the deck to be compliant with the building code. Therefore, staff deems that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and recommends taking discretionary review and approving with the condition to provide a privacy screen to six feet above the deck. Thank you, and that concludes my presentation.

Do you have a DR request, or do you have five minutes?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Steve Grossman. I'm the owner of the adjacent building, 2454-56 Francisco Street. And I raised this DR because I had a number of concerns about safety, the modified usage of the air and light well, my privacy, and truly building code enforcement equity. When it comes to the safety for me and my family, the space, which is a rather small space, was filled in. Each of the spaces are less than four feet. And when the cooking is occurring in this space, I'm concerned. And there is no firewall. I have a number of windows in that same light well. And I'm concerned for the usage of that air and light well. I'll show you on my building. There are nine usable windows in that space. I've read the code, and the definition of a light well or air well states that air and light wells provide required natural ventilation and light for habitable rooms and spaces. Since I said that I have nine operable windows in the light well, I understand it to be for air and light and not for venting of smoke or cooking space. So I'm very concerned. The existing conditions, when my windows are open, which is most of the time, they have screens on them, especially in weather like we have right now, the cooking smell permeates through my entire home. And that means that if I'm home, I have to run around and close nine windows, or I have to leave nine windows closed constantly. In addition, I'm concerned about privacy. The deck was filled in, and it may have been 40 years ago, but it was filled in where I look out part of my kitchen window and I just look at 2460's wall. So for privacy at this point, when the neighbors are cooking, it's literally 3 feet 8 inches from my window. So you can see I've put opaque glass in. I have glasses for protection. So it's not very clear, because I don't want to be taking pictures of people. But I stood at my window when the people were cooking. And you can see the man standing right there. I mean, I can reach out and almost touch him from my window. So I'm just concerned about my privacy. I've tried to do as much as I can with opaque glass, but I don't know. I mean, in lieu of just painting the windows, but that's not the purpose of a window. I recently remodeled my building. And I followed all current codes, which included multiple setbacks from 2460, privacy glass placement on the top so that we didn't look down on the property. I have sprinkler system throughout the house. And I did it because of the codes. But I also did it because I respect people's privacy. So as I stated, I want to make sure that I'm looking at the safety, privacy, proper use of this space, which to me doesn't appear to be a real deck. It's filled into the property line. I continue to argue that the space is for light and air. I tried to resolve the issue with my neighbors. I even suggested, I don't know why they don't barbecue in the back deck. They have a deck that's 20 feet wide by probably eight feet deep. And the other was to put a wall in, which is the same as that screening. But the neighbors did not agree with that, because they said I would be taking away their light. But I think we have equitable treatment here. We have to see light and air for both of us. So I'm asking that you look at this case and just be equitable in how we're looking at their usage of this space, their home, and the uses of my space in my home. And I thank you for this time.

And I think this is a

Little bitty case compared to what I sat here and listened to earlier in big structures, but I just hope I get your support.

Thank you. Thank you. Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Thank you, commissioners. My name is Darren McMurtry. I'm the architect assisting Judy and Chuck on this project. In the 1980s, the prior owners, before the Kimbells, owned the property, renovated 2460 Francisco Street. A building permit was submitted, approved, and issued in 1984, which included substantial interior and exterior renovations. This approved building permit included a new second floor exterior deck adjacent to the kitchen and within the area of the existing light well. The approved building permit documents did not include provisions for a one-hour rated firewall. The work under this building permit was subsequently inspected, approved, and finaled for occupancy. The building was then sold in 1985 to the present owners, Judy and Chuck Kimball. To be clear, this approved, inspected, and finaled exterior deck predated the Kimball's ownership as in place and in use for over 40 years. The DR requester filed a complaint with DBI in 2023 against 2460 Francisco Street due to the lack of a firewall at the exterior deck. A notice of violation was issued requiring corrective action. Given that the 1984 building permit included the exterior deck without a one-hour firewall, I submitted a building permit in 2023 that was approved, issued, inspected, and finaled, which legalized once again the existing deck configuration without any changes or any construction. A few days after finalizing the 2023 permit that resolved the DBI notice of violation, the DR requester contacted DBI and was able to have them rescind the final building permit, instead requiring a new one-hour rated firewall. Although I disagree with this, as do others at DBI, I was able to convince the Kimbells to comply and construct the new one-hour rated firewall. A new building permit was submitted, including provisions for the one-hour wall, which would extend to 42 inches above the exterior deck surface. Although the submittal would satisfy DBI and the issue regarding the prior DR's complaint, the DR requester filed the DR with additional complaints. The DR requester is concerned about fire protection. The present submittal fully complies with current building and fire codes. We have already agreed to extend the new firewall to 42 inches above the deck. We offer to install a new hose bib at the deck. We offer to install a fire extinguisher at the deck. We offer to use additional fire treated and fire resistive building materials where applicable. The DR requester is concerned about impact to natural light. Given that the exterior deck is existing, including a six foot three tall guardrail that has an open screen design, the impact of the new 42 inch firewall on natural light should be considered negligible. A taller, more opaque wall would certainly have more impact to natural light for both properties and as such was not proposed nor is desired by the property owners. The DR requestor is concerned about the privacy impact that the proposed project creates. The proposal is for a new firewall. The exterior deck is already approved, inspected, and finaled twice. And it has been in place and in use for over 40 years. This exterior deck is not nor has ever been a high traffic or high use area. Light wells are very common in San Francisco. They serve a very specific purpose. I think it's important to highlight the overall context of these type of light well configurations. We live in a dense, fairly urban environment. Light wells are constructed in order to bring light into these environments. Unfortunately, the windows that occur at light wells are often less private due to this context. The characteristics of privacy can be subjective. The Kimbells have voluntarily installed shutters, blinds, other type of systems on most of the windows of their property in order to control and mitigate privacy both internally and externally.

OK, if that concludes sponsor's presentation, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Last call. Seeing none.

No?

OK. With that, public comment is closed. Discretionary review requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

I kind of dispute the fact that this was a 1984 building permit that was signed off. I had gone down to the city and looked. The only drawings that are on record are drawings that the Kimbells submitted in 2023 after I filed the DR. I think the only thing on file is a CRC that says they can occupy the building. I'm not arguing to take out the deck. I'm not arguing what happened 40, 50 years ago. I'm looking at safety and privacy and ultimately using the space for what was intended to be used for. It's a light well and an air well. I'm only asking, if we put a wall that's up six feet that allows privacy into my home, I don't understand why there's a big deal. I'm not saying they can't use the space. I prefer they didn't. I have to run around my home and close windows when they barbecue. And I don't know that. There's not a schedule. I just want to be able to use my space as intended, and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal.

Good afternoon. I've asked my husband to come with me just for moral support. He's very hard of hearing and couldn't participate.

So my name is Judy Kimball.

I'm speaking for myself and my husband, who's 88 years old with a severe hearing loss. I'm 85. We've lived in our wonderful home in the marina for 40 years. And our neighbors purchased his home 20 years ago. We're here today to represent our concerns on the light wall and address his concerns about our neighbors, his privacy, and his needs. We did propose solutions. reluctantly, and that wasn't enough. His current proposal, as he stated, is a six-foot firewall with a sprinkler system and other details, which leads to very expensive upgrades to our home. It's important to know that in complying to our neighbors' requests, which results in significant adverse effects to us in our day-to-day living, in our kitchen area, in our wonderful deck, which we've enjoyed for 40 years, It could block, if we have a six foot or even a three foot, it would partially block our outdoor space, sunlight, and air circulation, which we have today. A wall will create a cage-like tunnel effect, which will affect our plants, my husband's wonderful barbecue techniques, and our kitchen view of the kitchen. We acknowledge our neighbor's concerns for his fire safety. We really do, and we take it seriously. And in fact, I'd like to point out that my husband and I are both, our careers were in California public utility, where we focused all of our management decisions were on fire safety with both employees and public, top priority. For these reasons, we request the commission to deny the request for a six-foot wall or any Thank you, ma'am. Privacy wall to allow our home.

Thank you, ma'am. That is your time. Okay. I think the commissioner's got it, though.

To remain like it is today as our 1985 purchase so we are able to live the rest of our lives in this home for as long as we can. Thank you. Guaranteed safety environment. Thank you.

Okay, commissioners, with that, the public hearing portion is closed, and this matter is now before you.

No questions. I appreciate both parties presenting the situation. For me, it's very difficult to sort out as to whether or not there were 1985 permits or not. And I'm not questioning that the architect representing the owners are correct. However, the only tools this commission has is to deal with the fact and what is allowed under the code and is code compliant given the fact that this deck has existed since 1940 or whatever the reference to an older drawing was. I myself cannot really properly sees a drawing to say there was a deck, but that is not the point here. The point is that what we are supposed to resolve in this DR request is the functionality of the deck given consistently changing code requirements and And when something comes forward, it has to be at that moment to be considered to be code compliant. I myself, and I can ask my fellow commissioners here, I am not able to discern about the existence of the 1985 permits. or other details that were mentioned relative to what has evolved over, I think, a significant period of time. Unless architect Winslow can give us some clarity, I would ask that we continue this, because we do not have the tools to judge on this. I will not be judging on the merits or lack of merits of 42 inches or six-foot walls. personally having particular issues about the use of light bulbs for that purpose. However, that is not what I am asked to consider. The functionality under current fire code and DBI code considerations is what matters here. Mr. Winslow, is there anything you could help to enlighten my questions?

Yeah, I think in your packet there was some documentation, and it doesn't necessarily give you the 100% certainty and certitude that the deck, in fact, was permitted in that 1985 drawing. It's a hard to read microfiche reproduction Xeroxed into your packet. And then there was permits, unless you have other smoking guns that you want to demonstrate. It does indicate that, yes, it looks like a permit. The deck was there at that time in those drawings, and it was either modified or acknowledged. It was either modified, but it was at least acknowledged that there was a deck-like structure there. The stairs were removed. There was a hatch from that deck that went down to the ground level into the breezeway. But that's the documentation we have from the building department. That's typically enough for us to assess, yeah, it's there. It was there since that period of time. Going forward, the code requires a firewall 30 inches above the surface of the horizontal, the deck material. That doesn't preclude other things being built on top of that or that being higher. And that's why my recommendation that Again, my close collaboration this last week with DBI on issues of firewalls. Enable one to actually put a non-combustible, in some cases, a combustible screening device on top of firewalls based on the building inspector's discretion. And so there we are. I mean, there is a deck there. It probably shouldn't be. If it were proposed today, we would not allow it. But what do we do moving forward? improve it with this building permit from a fire resistance perspective, and try and ameliorate some of the issues that were brought forth by the DR requester that have obviously been bubbling to the top of his mind for some time.

Your elaboration, unfortunately, doesn't really give me the clarity I need in order to really look at this objectively. I'm curious what my fellow commissioners have to say.

Just so I'm clear, the recommendation of a six-foot screen, is that six-foot screen on top of the fire-rated wall? Are you trying to achieve a six-foot data line so they would add?

Six foot above the deck level for purposes of most prying eyes.

So it's the fire rated partition plus screening that just helps?

I mean, your fire rated wall only has to go to 30 inches. That's a solid wall. You can put something on top of that, a privacy screen that allows a louvered system or some kind of typical neighbor. Fences are built that way all the time. They allow light through, but not direct visual access.

And for the project sponsor, that's Your preference is to only have the 3 foot 6 inch fire rated wall with no additional screening?

That's the preference, but they had also agreed that no more, less transparency than what they had today. So putting a screen on top of that existing wall that basically mimicked the exact conditions would be acceptable, but I believe the DR requester wants density.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Williams?

You pretty much answered one of the questions. So 30 inches, even if it's a deck, it's 30 inches. I thought it had to be 42.

Yeah. So 30 inches is for the fire rated above a combustible. Right. A guardrail, though, when you're occupying a space, has to have a 42 inch means of preventing your fall. You could make that fire rated fall 42 inches solid, or you could do 30 inches and then a foot tall metal guardrail to make up that difference.

To get to that height of 42 inches. OK, that's clear. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS DIFFERENT, THAT IT WAS 42, AND MAYBE THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'VE SEEN AND WHAT WE'VE BUILT, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS REASONS FOR THAT THAT WERE PROBABLY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS AS OPPOSED TO THE CODE REQUIREMENT.

If I may, it just might be useful. If the deck itself is one hour rated, you don't even need the 30 inches. You could just have a regular guardrail, the floor of the deck.

I'm not proposing it.

I just wanted you to be aware of that.

I'll add to that. That part of the code requires a five foot, one hour rating from the property line in. The deck is only three and eight, so you'd have to figure out how to make up that one inch, four inch, one foot, four inch extension.

Yeah, be careful there. You might be asking for a little too much. Anyway, it seems to me that the code is clear as far as the firewall. One of the things that the DR requester mentioned was the barbecue. I mean, is that absolutely necessary to have your barbecue there? I'm just wondering out loud. It's not really part of what my decision is today. But I was just wondering, because it seems like that's a big issue to your neighbor.

It is. They have a grill on their back deck. And it's directly next to the primary bedroom. So really, the same thing exists on our property.

Yeah. So this one connects to the kitchen. And so I get it. I get it. Now I get a clear picture. Yeah. OK. Those are my questions.

Commissioner Brown.

OK. Most of my questions have been answered with the conversation that happened. I think the one thing I want to probe a little bit more is staff's recommended modification if we take discretionary review. So now I understand you would have a 30-inch firewall. Regardless, that's proposed as part of the project. And then the recommendation is to add on top of that a privacy screen that goes up to six feet that's compliant with building code requirements in this setting, which I assume I certainly hope includes some non-combustible kind of requirements as part of this. And so my question is just I want to understand a little bit better what is meant by privacy screen. Is that defined somewhere? Or could you describe, Mr. Winslow, what that kind of looks like?

Yeah. No, it's not defined. And I was leaving it open-ended somewhat intentionally. But the intent behind that intention was, that it be that, a privacy screen, not an open screen, not something that you can look through with waving to your neighbors. This is an issue that's been demonstrated to have privacy impacts. And the only way out of it, in my mind, is to put something that blocks that direct view from users of the deck into the DR requester's multiple windows. And that privacy screen design would be, I think, the not spoken part in the recommendation was work with staff to develop one. But the criteria would be that it not enable direct lines of sight.

But is the concept that, is it a solid? It doesn't have to be.

Okay, so it could be a little permeable in terms of light, but not... And that's why we're leaving it open-ended in that if it performs, you know, there are multiple ways of making fences and we've seen a handful in our experiences that can be quite lovely and graceful and yet provide that kind of non-direct visual access. So it could still allow filtered light to come through depending on how high it is and how it's configured in terms of blocking the direct line of sight.

OK. Thank you for the explanation. So here are my thoughts. I mean, first of all, this part of this is not at all under our purview. I understand why the grill is being used in that light well and that small interior deck, given that's right outside the kitchen. But my goodness, I can't imagine having a grill and those odors coming up in a light well. And I think a really a good solution to maintain sort of friendliness among neighbors is for everyone to maybe grill in their backyards instead, instead of in the light. Well, I understand why it's happening there, but that seems like a really challenging situation to live next to, to have a grill and all those odors and smoke coming up in such a confined space. But that's out of my purview here. So the... I... I agree with staff's analysis of this. I think the presence of the deck in this area is, it does constitute an exceptional, extraordinary circumstance to me because it is unusual. It is not something that we would really support today. And it has been there for a long time. And I think that, you know, Building the firewall is a reasonable approach and compromise to bring this up to code for today. And I think there's also exceptional extraordinary circumstances because I take to heart the point made that Well, it's not just unusual to have a deck in the space like this, but really these light wells, when there are stairs in them or some other kind of space in them that's actually used, it's usually a transient space. And instead, this space has a place where somebody could spend longer periods of time. And so there are some unusual things going on here and this isn't really typical. And so I support staff's recommended sort of compromise solution on this in which, you know, there needs to be a privacy screen up to six feet in height. And so that, you know, you have the firewall and then that privacy screen up to a total of six feet of height above the deck surface. It sounds like the screen is a good compromise in terms of not being a solid, completely solid wall, like a firewall would be. Also less expensive to build. So it should still allow some light and airflow in the area. But that's where I'm at. And I don't see any other commissioners.

I'll second on that. Okay.

Okay, so I do move to take discussion and review and to approve with the staff recommended modifications.

Yes. Second.

Okay, Commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to not to take discretionary review and approve with staff modifications on that motion. Commissioner So?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 6-0 and concludes your hearing today.

Thank you.